06-1-88 Agenda and PacketAGENDA
CHANEASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, JUNE I, 1988, 7:30 p.U.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 590 COULTER DRIVE
1
CALL TO ORDER
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Il?tl:a Unit Development Amendment for a 60 unit aparrnentbuilding on property located south of and adjacent to ChanView, Eeritage Park Apaltment partners.
Jay Kronick, property located north of and adjacent to lilest78th Street, 1000 feet east of Dakota Avenue/iH 5 intersec-t ion:
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Section 20-714permit retail garden centers as a conditional useBH, Business Ilighway District
toin the
3
b. Land Use Plan Amendment to amend the year 2000 to rede-signate I.7 acres of industrial to commercial
c. Rezone 1.7 acres from IOp, Industrial Office park
District to BH, Business Highway District
ZonLng Ordinance Amenalmenr to Amend Sections 20-695, 2O-7L5,20-771, 20-795, and 20-815 to provide for minimum buildingand parking setbacks for lots adjacent co railroads and resi-dential zoning districts, City of Chanhassen.
NEW BUSINESS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
OPEN DISCUSSION
ADJOURNMENT
+k
2.
CITY OF
STAFF REPORT
P.C. DATE: June 1, 1988
C.C. DATE: June 13, 1988
CASE NO: 87-1 PUD
Prepared by: Dacy/v
Fz
()
J(LL
ko
IJha
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
Locate a
Locat i on
60 Unit Apartment
than the Previously
opposite the
West 78th Street
Heritage Square InvestoLinited Partnership
7101 York Avenue So-Edina, MN 55435
Final PIan Amendment ToBuilding at a Different
Approved PUD Plan
South of and
Huron Avenue
adjacent to Chan View,intersection, north of
Mr. Thomas Zumwalde
500 Butler Square, Suite 200Minneapolis, MN 55403
CHADDA
P. O. Box 100
Chanhassen, MN 55317
S
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGEs
DENSITY:
ADiIACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
WATER AND SEWER:
PHYSICAL CHARAC.:
2000 LAND USE PLANs
is level with poor soils along
N-
S-
E-
w-
23 units per acre
RSF & R-12, single and multiple family
CBD, commercial uses
R-12 & OI; dry cleaners/St. Hubert
RSFr single family
Available io the site
The siEe
Chan View
High Density Residential & Commercial
EH[I[HISSEN
R-12, High Density Residential
CBD, Central Business District2.6 acres
UD-R
- -r..*-!'-{rr,!i{l'a*&?rrt
--7too
- - --!
-72OO
-730C
I'
6
o
a
(E
LAKEI
\.
.\
t
7400
R
q1
fl12
BG
RoI
12eo
oo(DI
o
- 8200
3 IoF
?
oo(Do
cc(,c
fr5
;
5H LAKE
c600
6300
I
RD
'l
\
N d,
9t
OI L,t
2
sr
&
ata
Bo
liE
a
Ia-I
I
!RSF
INNENclno'r
frlcE t
16 rH sT
I
,ll DI
'a
.--
I
:.rrrr:8Xl[-ii I:
IEItr -t!!IEI I:Tle -Llt .FrE-li r::[l
-.=
[!]r.ll
'IIIFffi trlta l'i!!t!i:ll
EgEiSIGTE frtrr,llllt llll!lE
=llr
u
at
H:
,
-Irt7
lr I ,I.9
JIt
rr i-rj
iarr-J
-.)
rrl
a a
I DPdryE=lr:z,
ol
I
-8loo
LAKE SUSAN
l__
I
Heritage Square Apartments
June 1, 1988
Page 2
REFERRAI, AGENCIES
Fire Department
BRW
Building Department
BACKGROUND
At tachment
At tachmen t
At tachment
#1
li2
#3
This application was reviewed by the planning Commission at theItlay 27,1987, meeting and by the City Council on June 15, 1987.The Planning Commission recommended approval subject to six con-ditions regarding submission of detailed utility, landscaping,lighting, facia and sigoage plans and provision of a pedestrian
walk$ray (see attached minutes). The City Council approved thePlanning Commission's recommendation and added a seienth con-dition to require that all parking areas be lined with concretecurbing ( see attached minutes).
PROPOSAL
Staff recommended that the applicant file this plan amendmentapplication because the configuration of the building has changedas well as its location on the Iot. Previously approved was aconfiguration which reflected a "U" with a long double bayparking area. This proposal shapes the building into a "L" with
adjustmenLs to the parking layout. Prior to applicationr citystaff and the cityrs downtown consultants, Fred Hoisington and
BRW, reviewed the revised site plan with the applicant andadvised hirn to maximize the distance from the adjacent singlefamily lots and to increase the amount of screening along Lhesouth 1ot line.
ANALYS I S
The proposed plan locates the building 30 feet from the west lotline and 70 feet from the lot line for the existing apartmentbuilding. Although the building is ten feet closer to tshe e,rest
Iot line chan what was approved in 1987, it is also fifty-fivefeet further Eo Ehe south than the originally approved building
Iocation. The applicant has also proposed a band of evergreen
and deciduous screening along the west and. south lot lines. Thiswill help to break up tshe expanse of the building. As now pro-
posed, the location of this building should not ad.versely affect
adjacent residential properties.
BRW has provided detailed corurents regar-ling utility and grading
issues as they relaEe to other projects currently planned in the
downtotrn redevelopment process. The applicant wiIl need to sub-mit a final stormsewer and utility plan to address the drainage
and utility issues identified by BRw and the Fire Department.
Her i tage
June 1,
Page 3
Park
1988
Apartrnen ts
Landscapinq
The Building and Fire Department
must now be sprinklered given theof the Building Code.
Some of the comments in BRWrs letter regarding landscaping havebeen addressed by teheapplicant (comment *5, page l; comment 91,page 2). As to the interior landscaping requirement, additionalplantings should be provided betrr,een Chan View and the parkingarea.
note t,hat the proposed buiJ.dingCityrs adoption of Appendix E
the city now owns the existing residenceof the site. This will be removed withbuildings some time in August.
in
the
the southwestdemolition of
corner
o ther
RECOMII,IENDATI ON
Planning staff recommends thefollowing notion:Planning Commission adopt the
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Final
Amendment for the Heritage park Apartments pUD #87-1 basedplans stamped "Received May 12, 1988", and subject to thefollowing conditions:
PIan
on the
I
2
5
6
A detailed utility
connections as we l,lmitted and approvedpermit issuance.
plan showing 'rrater, sewer, and stormseweras fire hydrant locations sha1l be sub-by the City Engineer prior to building
A revised landscapingadditional plantingsparking area.
shaIl be submitted indicating the
IocaE.ed between Chan View and the
plan
to be
3 A pedestrian walkway shall be provided on the sitse in con-junction with the development pfans for the retail projects
t,o be developed to t.he south and east of the parcel .
4 Detailed facia and signage plans shall bePlanning Cornmission and City Council finalbuilding permit i ssuance.
submi t.ted f orreview pr ior to
Removal of the existing single
accomplished prior to bui Idi ng
Detailed l ight.i ng plans shalLpermit i s suance .
family residence sha11 bepermit issuance.
be submitted prior to building
7
8
A11 parking areas shall be Iined with concrete curbing.
noted in the Bui lding
25, 1989.
Compl i a nce
D epar tmen t
with the co[unents as
memorandum dated May
Heritage Park Apartments
June 1, 1988
Page 4
ATTACHMENTS
9. Compliance trith the comments in the letter from BRW datedMay 25, 1988, specifically, #6-#11 on pages l and 2 and #1 onpage 3.
10. conpliance with comnents as noted in the Fire Department memodated May 27 , 1988.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
llemo from Steve Madden dated May 27, I9g8.Letter from Jim Lasher, BRW, dated May 25, 19gg.
Memo from Building Department dated May 25, 19gg.Application.
Planning Commission minutes alated May 27, i-gg7.City Council minutes dated June 15, 1987.Reduction of previous building plan 1ayout.Site plan stamped ',Received Uay- 12, I9bg".
CITY OF
EHINHISSEN
MEI.,IORANDUM
TO: Barbara Dacy, City Planner
FRoM: Steve Madden, Fire Inspector 4*-
DATE: May 27, 1988
SUBJ: Heritage Park Apartments
Upon completing the plan review for Heritage Park Apartments, I
am requesting the following:
1. A key box be installeil on the front of the building. UniformFire Code, Division II, Section 10.209.
2. Itater supply should be installed as marked on the site pIan.
3. Please install a fire alarm system throughout the building.
The alarm system should be sent to a central dispatch (U.L.
approved). The central dispatch may be applied with flowalarm in the sprinkler system. Alarm system shall beinstalled accoriling to NFPA standards. Uniform Fire Code,Division I1I, Section I0.307 and 10.308.
4. An automatic fire extinguishing system shall be installedthroughout building. This system shall be installed toinclude the attic and loft areas. Chanhassen City Ordinance82; Uniform Fire Code, Division III, Section 10.309.
5. A standpipe system shall be instatletl. The standpipe systemshaLl have outlets on each floor, including the basement.
Uniform Fire Code, Division III, Section 10.312, Table
10 .312.
Also, the Uniform Fire Code has requirements for the buildingwhile under construction and we would request that this Fire Code
be followed:
I. Fire extinguishers are required in aII areas.
2. Temporary standpipes should be installed with a basement
out let .
If you have any questions, please see me.
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
PLANNING
TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEERING
ARCHITECTURE
AENN€TT, RII{GAOSE. !!qIFELD .]AF!lS, GAFONEF, [rc IHFESHER SOUAFE 7@ IHIBD SIF€ET SOUIH MINNEAPq]S MN 55415 . PFIONE 612/370{7M
May 25, 1988
This letter is in response to your request for review and corments on the
Her'itage Park Apartments project. (Review drawings stamped City of Chanhassen
rev iewed May 12, 1988.)
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
1 All setbacks meet or exceed requirements for this project. The sideyard
setback on the west side of the building has been increased, as per our
discuss'ions, to approximately 30 feet. This provides an excellent area for
planting which will help screen the building from the adjacent property
owner.
The west access road to the parking lot has been aligned with Huron whichwill make a safer intersection for traffic movement.
I
3 Presently, there is no way of movin
Street as a pedestrian. I was unde
pedestrian ljnk was planned for thi
movement. Is there any such intent
rom this development to West 78th
he impression that some type of
rea which would allow north-south
gfrt
5a
?
4. The grading of the northerly most end of the building seems quite abrupt.
The bu'i lding js approxjmately 6'-0" above road grade in this area. The
grades should be biended to a more natural slope towards the street.
C'ity ordinance calls for a 2'-0" berm bet\./een parking areas and ad t ,properties. This is not reflected in the plans on the east or de
of the I ot.
6 All attempts to gather storm water on site have bee
should include a catchbasin/storm water system whic
storm p ipe on Chanview. The park'i ng 'l ots shoul d no
The entire residential area north of this developme
number of storm sewer catchbasjns resultjng in sign
Great Plajns Boulevard Iow point (behind Kenny's).
egl ected. This plan
ould be piped to the
rai n i nto Chanvi ew.
I acks an adequa te
cant problems in the
rect runoff from thi s
property adds to the problem. No new storm sewer is shown on the plans.
EAVIO J BENNEIT
DONALO E HUNT
DONAIOW FINGFOSE RIChAROPI/I/OLSFELO PETERE JARVIS LAWFENCE J GAFDNEN THOMASFCAFROLL
MAFKG SWENSON JOHNS MCNAMAnA FTCHAROD PTLGA OALEN BECXMANN
CRAIGA AMUNDSEN
OENNISJ SUTLIFF
nn
hwtd
ntifi
D,i
MINNEAPOLIS OENVER
Ms. Barbara Dacy
City of Chanhassen
690 Coutl er Dri ve
Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Ba rba ra ,
PHOENIX
Ms. Barbara Dacy
May 25, 1988
Page 2
7.
Because some type of trench drain or catchbasin will be required to
pjck up runoff from the proposed garage entry ramp, thus requiring storm
sewer, we recormend that all parking lot drainage be control led "on site"
and conducted via new storm sewer to the existing Chanview storm sewer
'I i ne.
There are presently some grading/drainage problems on the north side of the
Colonial Center. Arvid EIness Architects should work closely with BR}{ to
coordinate storm water management and grading in this area. In particular,
relief of storm water in the Heritage Park Apartments, Day Care, Colonial
Center quadrant is critical , and needs to be addressed via storm sewer or
overl and rel i ef.
The driverray radius at Chanvlew should be City standard (i.e., lo-foot
radius).
As mentioned in our review of 5127 187, the utilities, as shown on Chanview
are not correct. They should reflect:
9
A
B
18',
8u
8'
RCP
VCP
CIP
Storm Sewer
San i tary Sewer
Wate rma i n
10. Proposed utility services, sizes and locations for the building should be
identified.
11. Fire Protection Requirements shou'ld be careful ly reviewed and detailed to
meet the requirements of the City of Chanhassen Fire Marshal I (i.e., Nosite fire hydrants are shown).
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
1 Additional deciduous trees are needed around t
ordinance of 1 tree every 40 linear feet aroun
evergreen screening on the south and west prop
excel lent screening from the adjacent property
he parking lot to meet the
d a parking area. The
erty l'ines wi lI provide
owne15.
2. According to Article VIII - Landscape and Tree Remova'l Regulation, Section
3 - Interior landscaping for Vehicular Use Areas: This plan does not meett for every 100 square feet
of vehicular use area. The total vehicular use area, excluding the
h of the wester'ly most parking is 16,686
into a requirement of 834 square feet of
this area there are only 3 parking bay
al of 432 square feet. As the parking
numbers are equal and it looks to be a
area, I suggest that additional Iandscaping
ing 'lot be provided. This can be e'ither in
roposed material or an increase in plant quan-
underg round access drive sout
square feet. This translates
i nter,ior I andscapi ng. t'lithln
islands for pl anti ng at a tot
requi red and parking provided
problem to expand the parking
d'i rectly adjacent to the park
the form of larger sizes on p
ti ty.
6.
Ms. Barbara oacy
May 25, 1988
Page 3
?AII plant material choices are consistent with City ordinances and required
sizes.
PRELIMINARY ELEVATIONS
1. Material selections for horizontal lap siding - Type I or II, should be
better identified in terms of product selection.
PIease contact me with any questions or corments concerning these issues.
Sincerely,
NETT -l.loLSFELD-JARVIS-GARDNER, INC.
. Lasher
L/sk: Gary Ehret
Fi 1e: 62-8711
J
J
MEMORANDUM
TO: Barbara Dacy, City Planner
FROM: Steve Kirchman, Building Inspector
DATE:
SUBJ:
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
CITY OF
EHINHISSIN
$ort.
Ylay 25, 1988
Planning Case 87-1 PUD, Heritage Park Apartments
A 60-unit apartment building requires 3 handicap accessible units
(sBC 1340.9100). City ordinance requires I.5 parking spaces per
unit ( Zoning 7-I-10). This would work out to 5 handicap spacesin the tenant garage. These spaces should be located to thenorth of the elevators so that handicapped tenants will not haveto cross the garage entrance to enter the building. One handicap
space should also be provideil in the outside parking lot.
A building of this size is required to be sprinklered (SBC
1305.6905) and will have to be Type V - l-hour construction.parking garage must be Type I construction and separated from
R-1 occupancy by a 3-hour occupancy separation.
The
the
eo
APPLICANT:
ADDRESS ?c>B-. too
I.AND DEVELOPIIENT APPLICATION
CITY OP CEANEASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanbassen, MN 55312(612 ) 937-1900
OV{NER:
ADDRESS
Ce 6""49-- |l"rrvernPs G,N
TELEPHONE (Dayrimel 131 *Zip Code1539
REQTJEST:
Zoning District Change
zoning Appeal
Zoning Variance
Zoning Text Anendment
Land Use plan Amendment
Conditional Use permit
Site pl-an Review
PROJECT NA.[48 €€
PRESENT I,AND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
REOTJESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
PRESENT zoNrNG (g>
fr//,t. €5gtl €-ptrta
TELEPHoNE 121-7
1 lol A'*,*E 9"urv
qs+3 \zi773
p code
14€r.ris
t4LTtfi-E Jt OEt"likl-I L'/
Sou,u
REQUESTED ZONING
USES PROPOSED o wr cDtd4
2.Lq .e€s
LOCATION a ot--
REASONS FOR THIS REQ UEST
r
rev\)
* A.-**o
.*--i.;U
MAY i 1 19BB
LraTNS l-{4^J.t-
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach 1ega1 if necessary)
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
a (fl0DA
I
N4,v.
Planned Unit Development
_ Sketch plan
_ Preliminary plany-- Final pran A+4ElD/UqVf
Subdivi sion
_ Platt ing
_ Irletes and Bounds
Street,/ Eas ement Vacation
WetLands permit
/
SIZE OF PROPERTY
.)
City
Land
Page
of crranrrast
Dev elopmen t
2
Application
e
This application must be completed in fuLl and be typewritten orc.Learly printed and must U" l""o^puii"i'Uy aIl infoimarion andprans required by i"pii.uii"-;;;;"3;;i;"nce provisions. Berorelr.Lrng this applicaiion, you shoirld conter with the City plannerto derermine rhe speciri.'"iatili;; ;;;.appricabre to youi'appL i cat ion rocedural reguirements
FILIN G rNS TRUC T IONS :
Signed By
The undersibned representatthat. he is familiar r.riLh thapplicable City ordinances.
ive of the applicant hereby certifiese procedural requirements of a-I1
5/(,Ir
The. undersigned herebyauthorized to rnake thisdescribed.
certifies that the applicant has beenapplication for the propelty herein
Date
Dat e
A Iic
Signed By
Fee Or.rne r
Date Application
Appli.cation ree
Ci.ty Receipt llo.
Recei ved
Pai d .J-..
230//
be
and
cons idered
Appeals at
This Applicat ion wi 1rBoard of Adjustmentsmeeting.
by thethei r Planning Commiss ion,/
FTLING CERTTFICATION:
---
rl
ra.
{\
Planning Commission
ttlay 27 t 1987 - Page
Meeting
42
Conrad: Werll make
werIl, stop in.
sure that $rerre out there. That's a good idea BilI.
Bill swearengin: walk up the hill right across from my house, that's wherethe driveway is going to go. Thatts a high speed road by the way. ftrsposted at 35 but the traffic travels mostly at 45 to 50. To dump a roaddown a hirl onto that is going to cause an inf inite number of pr o-b rem s.You'Il have more objeclions to dumping onto chaska Road from the neighborson Chaska Road than you will from Murray HiIl.
Nancy swearengin: The comprehensive pl,an, that \^rhole area from our land onthe four acres and all that, we're still chopping a$ray at it in pieces andrrerre not brending. yourre supposed to read the conprehensive pLan on howyourre going to build corners so everything blends. werre chopping awayagain.
Conrad:
well.
Ho$, are we doing that again? I kno$, the Comprehensive plan very
remember is that Murray HilI RoadBefore it gets to Chaska Road it's
BiII Slrearengin: you,re spot zoning.
Conrad: No, werre not spot zoning.
BiII Sr.rearengin: you still have us guided for single family and yet weenjoy a traffic count of 30 some thousand cars on our immediate corner-There should be a buffer between his development and TH 7 and that should beus.
Conrad: But right now yourre zoned single
BilI Swearengin: Right.
AIIen Putnam: I think one other thing tois not exclusively in Chanhassen either.in Shorewood.
family right?
PUBLIC HEAR ING:
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO CONSTRUCT A 60 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING ON 2.5EeREs.- rnp-np pe-nEer, rs-Zb-uno
sTE-iEE s s-D r s r R r c r a-r.r o-I s-r o
HIGH DENSITY R ESIDENTIAL ANDR-12,
CATED olr rnp soUrn slSE-oE-t n e ll v-r rw
CBD, CENTRAL
OPPOS ITE THE
HURON INTERSECTION, CHANHASSEN DOWNTOWN D EVELO PMENT ASSOCIATION AND EI RSTAMERICAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION.
Barbara Dacy presented the SLaff Report on this pUD application.
Tom zumwalde: Given the rate hour, r believe arr of you received a fulr setof drawings and do you want me to go through the drawings again? as r jothrough it r'l.l try to exprain some of the concerns from oui side and tieconditions that were put on here. one that was mentioned we felt that we
{
{I
Planning Commissionllay 27, 1987 - Page
Meeting
43
'need a greener buffer around the site itself. I vras a little bituncomfortable creating too much of a barrier only because I think then rrerrestarting to...than to make them all- work togethei but r guess the oneconcern, the one area is here. The difference in density in building sitesfrom one to the other. rn terms of screening the resid"ntiul buildirig fromthe new deveropment along here, it's our hope that the new buildinq jistsouth of the site will be not a frontal building but rather have a-nice backside to it as werl so we wonrt be rooking at a slrvice area but it wirl be acrean face. r guess what r'm saying in essense is that we like to minimizescreening that area around the site. what we,re proposing is a three storyon a concrete garage. The garage itself wi1.r be approximately 50a berowgrade and 50? above grade. As the grades are right now. what vre would bedoing is some berming around the building so a good portion of the garagewirr be hidden by that built up portion. rhe drive ltserf has a si-ngle-entry/exit point at about the center. rtrs actually on the east sid6 of thebuilding. You enter and you would have parking on each wing of thebuilding. The red area shown on here is stairs and elevatoi and mechanicalstorage. The three upper levels are kind of an inverted question markconfiguration. There are approximatey 20 units on each floor. The firstfroor has a community space in the southeastern corner. There is a dashedline around it. The balance of the froor then are units. 13 two bedroomunits and about 8 one bedroom units per floor. Each floor has a laundryroom and then several storage areas for indivi.duar storage for each unit.Let ne speak just f or a moment about the conf iguration of the buiLding.Barbara mentioned the soil probrems on the site which restricted our use ofthe land in terms of buildable area. Everything along Chan View andbasicarry the R-12 portion of the site, is a poor soil section that buildingrequires pilings. In putting the building over in this area, first of all -
we're pointing it a little bit away from the res identia t area and also thisconfiguration has a very limited portion of the building that extends out toChan View. You go back to the site plan for just a minute and look at thatportion of the building that faces chan view. rtrs not so dissimilar to the2l/2 story building right next to it in terms of size. It r,rould be aIittle higher and a little wider but it certainly a 1ot different than \"rhatyou see on the model over there with the entire building spread out along
Chan View. I think that Lrilt soften the transition from residential tocommercial and if you look at the commerci.al side of it and go to anotherdrawing of that showing the proposed commercial development is well, therelationship as you come in the rea I i gned west TBth Street, you end up withthe proposed two story office and medical building. The three storybuilding and then some one story buildings over here so from a planning
sense and just a spacial sense, you get a nice feel of the buildings kind ofrising up one on the other. I feel in a larger sense as is shown on thisplan that this building configuration fits very well with the commerciaLbusiness as proposed right now. Now Irm going to skip back again to thebuilding elevations. They are not intended to be this red. I don't knowhow it reads on your monitor but what we're looking at essentially are earthtones that fit in with the rest of the community. First of aLt, the styleof the building generarly will be fairly traditionar. you have gabred ends.Living units with balconies and steep roof sropes on the gabred ends so you
wouLd be l2/LZ slopes which is a very traditional quality to it. The-t
-r
Planning Commission
l{ay 27, 1987 - Page
Meeti ng
44
building materials themselves, I'm looking at about 56% brick on the lowerportion of the building. It reads dark on the monitor. Above the brick wewould have the lap siding right in this area and up into the gabled ends.
Then for the roof itself, werre proposing asphalt shingles. There $/as somediscussion with Barb this week concerning the type of asphalt shingles since
most everythinq in Chanhassen now is cedar shakes. The scale of most ofyour buildings is a IittIe smaller such that cedar shakes on a building ofthis size probaby would not be appropriate. It also r.rould be prohibited
from a cost standpoint. What r.re're proposing is a timberline type asphattshingle which has the appearance of a cedar shake type of roof. Generally,that's it. I don't want to spend any more time on it.
Brad Johnson: I think you probaby know I r^rould like to state why werre
doing what we're doing. Basically, as a downtown redeveloper, our objective
is to internally finance the acquisition of almost Two milLion dollars r.rorthof property on the north side of the street. Tear it down and then build
what we're trying to buiId. one of our problems is building something big
enough to accomplish that so what happens is that as we were going through
the process of getting final approval from the City to do Retail west, they
wanted to know how the rrhole downtown was going to r^rork and as you will
start hearing here preLty soon our grocery store is moving over here
someplace and dif ferent kinds of things so werve shoved a Iot of wha t we
perceived to be retail type of endeavors are going to be more to the west of
the Dinner Theater nor"r. It has to do with the people wanting highway
visibility. At least with our current situation. our objective was to be
under construction and have the north side of the street completed by the
end of next year so we went about trying to figure out how we could build
enough mass in order to generate enough tax increment so that we could then
purchase the property, tear it down and build something new. So what werre
dealing with in scale is a plan that has to meet the HRA and City Councilrs
requirements as to the amount of building we'11 build during a certainperiod of time so we can take care of vrhat is considered to be the blight of
the community which is the Hanus building. There is about a million dollars
worth of acquisition, I hate to call Bernie's building a blight but it is.
Bernie Hanson: Careful .
Brad Johnson: But basically right here is my problem so when we make a
proposal to the City and they have approved this. See, this is part of our
development problem. we've got a contract with the city to build this. The
City has a conEract to tear dovrn the Rettl,er House. These are aII things
that have been done as part of the HRA process. The City Council and HRA
have basically approved this because they signed a contract to do this.
we're generating most of the money, the excess increment from here. The way
we have to go through our process on redevelopment is we go to the HRA.
They approve it financiatly. we go to the City. They approve it
financially and then we come back to you to see what you think of it. As
you know, we're kind of running through it. Werre running through the
process and I think last time when I was here with ReLail west you said
you're going to see a Iot more of us because now you get more involved in
bhe overalL process. The bot.tom line is, in order to accompl-ish the whole
{L
J
Planning Commissiontiay 27, 1987 - Page
Meeting
45
-r
{
downtown area, we have to generate x amount of increments. originally wewere going to put the housing over here. we discovered that to acquiie thisone building was g250,0qg.gg and we could not afford to do it. Then erediscovered we had g5gg,6g0.gO worth of excavation and pilings that wouldhave to be dumped to build on that site. These vrere al1 surprises as wewent through in trying to create a plan that we were working on. So we didsome more surveys and found out there is a hiII right here h-idden in theground that te could build this particular building. Our first design isnot.very nice but the new one is quite nice I think and with the new plancoming in, I think we end up with a pretty substantially good Iookingbuilding vrhen we accomptish it. We have to.increase the density by 20 unitsso vre bought some more property which is the Rettler building and put theBloomberg property which was originally supposed to be business and we thensaid, we think we can accomprish this so we signed a contract with the citysaying we'Il produce a 920,A00.00 something over here and 2.5 million dolIirsomething right here. Thatrs the kind of process we have to go through andthen as we erere going through that, about 3 or 4 weeks ago we sa id now waita minuEe, what are we going to do with this now? So we,ve been runningaround and rrre found out that somebody was thinking about putting a clinic into$rn and as of Thursday we were the selected choice for the new medicar artsfacility which wiII be built in the City if we can get it aIl put togetherthrough the HRA and through City Council. This is planned as a two story,
30,Aq0 square foot medical arts buitding which wiII be half medicaL and halfarts, retail type of space that wil be going into there. As a requirementof this, the clinic is requiring that this become a daycare centei over hereand that one be put in the communi ty. That comes f rom the fact that t hereapparently has been a serv ice for two years to try to f ind a site for a daycare center in this communi ty and they think this is good so we're undercontract and you'Il be seeing things on that one. We'1l be able to put atot lot back here and it wiLl be close to St. Hubert's and that's kind ofvrhere werre at and why the plan is as it is. There is plenty of parking tomeet all the requirements but there has been a fairly big change. Itts hardto envision how this aIl would go together if you just saw the f irst page.AII this new part wilt be presented to the HRA next Thursday as part of r,rhat
we now perceive a doable and rentable which would be more important, planfor the downtown so that $re can generate the dol lars that are necessary. Atthe HRA level, it's very much oriented towards how can you, that,s us,generate enough tax dollars so we can change the do!,rntown area. Wouldn'tyou say?
Dacy: Just to clarify so the Commission understands, also in that contractthe HRA fully recognizes the role that the planning Commission plays. Thereis also a statement in there that they have to comply with any app-licablezoning ordinance review, subdivision review, etc.. you guys are theplanners for bhe community. you don't have to deal with the finances.Thatrs not your purvue. Yourre to be dealing with planning issues.
Brad Johnson: So the process is HRA, City Council, back to the planning
Commission for our kinds of stuff. I think that's why things come to youafter they've been through a big circle. By the eray, we met with all theneighborhood people three times. Thatrs r.rhy nobody is here. They are al1
Planning Conmission
t4ay 27, L987 - Page
Meet i ng
45
-(
Noziska moved, Wi ldermuthfavor and motion carried.
seconded to close public hearing. AII voted in
Headla: This letter from Fred Hoisington, could you comment on that?
Dacy: The intent for his third item is that he r.ranted to insure that
everyone is aware that there is l'70 feet left as opposed Eo 239. It doesput more of a constr ict ion as to what you can do for the site plan for theproperty to the south. Brad mentioned they are just culminating theirplanning process for vrhat $re commonly refer to as this being Retail Central
and Retail East. Mr. Hoisington when he r,rrote the letter did not have thebenefit of this pLan but he was just flagging an item that he vrants everyoneto be aware of at this point in tine.
Brad Johnson: What hers saying there is if we were to build retail, we
would have to build it right here in front of this 1ot. We were aware ofthat and that's why this is now parking. There wiLl be a lot of parking for
the medical center.
Dacy: That's really an item for discussion tonight. If the Commissionfeels that the proposal is proposing too much, then the option is to scale
back the yard and the additional area is left for commercial area. Thisissue tonight that you're dealing with is just a proposal.
Brad Johnson: As you see it there, the project for best use is how you
define it. Ho r., we define it is how much tax dollars is generated for the
ci ty.
Headla: I guess I donrt want to say best
today but in 10 to 26 yeats. Where are wegoing to be a hinderance in 2g years?
use.
going
Irm
to
thinkingbe in 20
not only ofyears. Is that
Tom zum$ralde: This piece of property was al-ready zoned R-I2 which is the
highest housing density you have. Traditionally what happens is Ehat $rhenyou go from single family to commercial, you go to a higher density housing
before you get to commercial in almost any community I can think of andthatrs essential whatrs happened here. You've got single family residences
up further north. You get dowo Eo Ehe 2 l/2 story apartments here. You geta larger apartment and then you start hitting the commercial area and that,sfairly typical in aImosE any community. At Ieast any that Irm.a$rare of interms of overall planning and land use.-L
aware of what the plans and everything is.
Headla: Ho$, are you sure that area is being put to the best use for the
nexg 4g-50 years?
Dacy: You are questioning whether or not the apartments are appropriate use
there?
Headla: Yes.
{
Planning Commission
t(ay 27, 1987 - Page
Meet i ng
47
r
{
Wildermuth: What kind of precedence are we going to be setting if weconsider this as a Planned Unit Development? In the recommendationssaid that the Planning Commission has to decide if this location isappropriate planning for development or what is the alternative?
wildermuth: The only extent for which it is precedent settinghappens to be in the tax increment dist,rict? Ho$, long does thdistrict survive? UntiL the debt is retired?
Dacy: The PUD process is really a rezoning process based on an individualsite plan. The community has a lot more discretion because it is a rezoningapplication and you are evaruating a specific site pran for a specific site.The alternative to the puD application was submitting a site plan review anda subdivision application. But because of the density of the proposal avariance would be required. The other opticin that $ras suggested vras youcould literarry create a zoning district to allow 24 units per acre. we di.dnot recommend that however because of the past process $re just rrent throughthe past three years that you could file a rezoning application for thatanywhere else. one of the other reasons for the pUD, it was at this onespecific location and had other existing apartments surrounding it to thenorth of similar dens i ty.
Conrad: So based on that logic, vre're setting a precedent for the taxincrement district in terms of density.
Dacy: The entire tax increment district, or I should say the downtown, isguide planned as commercial. As Mr. zumwalde noted, this area along ChanView is guide planned as high density as well. Werre talking about anadditional acre of land that's being used for multipLe family. If there wasto be another proposal for multiple family in the dor.rntown area, you wouldhave to go through a guide pJ.an change so to take back on the commercialIand that we already have now, Irm sure the Council would not...
you
is that ite tax increment
Dacy: Thatrs correct and at this point I think r^,e'rein 1994.
proposing to retire it
Erhart: Is this the pUD ordinance we just passed?
Dacy: Thatrs r ight .
Erhart: Doesnrt that talk about minimum lot size of
Dacy: Thatrs regarding single family development.
Erhart: That's the only thing r.re've got.
Dacy: No, it refers to other uses.
Wildermuth: I don.t have any further questions. IIike the elevation views.
L2,0U0 feet?
{-
like the design and I
{L
Planning Commissionllay 27, 1987 - Page
Meeting
48
Noziska: I guess the density is a bit high but in looking at the plan, Ireally don't have any objection to it. I think they,ve done a nice job oftaking a pretty big buiJ.ding and making it look as small as you can and it'sa rather clever use of a good soil so I guess I don't have any objections.I don't think it would be out of context that bad with the neighborhood. Idon't think I object to seeing that. I'm glad to hear that we're going tohave some daycare available because those kind of apartments are going to
need daycare. More so than we do even today so I think it's a good plan.
The only one thing that I always come back to is I would assume that it.s
wood frame above the garage.
Tom zumwalde: That I s correct.
Tom zumwalde: I talked with the Fire Inspector for the City about variouspotential problems he saw and had addressed those to his satisfaction. Interms of the building and the details of fire wa1ls and so forth, they havenot been figured out yet. Werre not at that stage of development. We will
meet all the code requirements for fire and for the building inspector too.
Noziska: I know werve got a motel that's an excellent example of a fireresistant structure and that makes me feel good in a community that has avolunteer fire department because I know when we start building, if we buildtoo many huge barns Iike this, we're going to have to do something with ourfire department so that's aLso money and taxes later on. I think the motelpeople provided for an excellent exarnple of an affordable fire resistantstructure. Those are the thoughts that are my mind and maybe with the soilconsiderations it's not possible to make a fire resistant structure. That Idon't knov, but other than that, I go along with Jim.
Emmings: Even so, itrs not 2 per unit and maybe you donrt needagain, like we had this other one that came up here and I think
do visitors park and all that and maybe itrs adequate. I simplyto know but it bothers me. Is the parking in Ehe garage, it isthe people who live there I assume?
them but
about where
have no wayreserved for
Tom Zumwalde: I am assuming the same thing. That it will be just st.rictlyresidents. The way your ordinance is set up, it's one covered space perdwelling unit is required. There are 50 units so there are 60 spaces in the
Noziska: And it always bothers me putting a buililing of that size togetherwithout more concern over fire. I just don't knov, how one would even putfire walls in the building that's configured that direction. I aLrrays thingof Chanhassen as having rather Iimited capacity. We've got ptenty ofneighbors around here but still that's time.
Emmings: I think it's really an attractive building. I like it a lot.
Parking is the thing that I key in on. Maybe I'm becoming and Barbarapredicted I would bring this issue up and I have thought about it becausethere are 60 units there are 2 parking spaces.
Dacy: It should have been 108. That was my fault.
r-t
Planning Commission
l4ay 27, L987 - Page
Meet i ng
49
garage and then 48 open spaces. The vray your ordinance reads, it's L t/Z
spaces per one bedroom unit and 2 spaces for the two bedroom or Iarger so
r.rerve got 108 spaces and that's exactly what the ordinance calls for.
Emmings: I know it meets the ordinance because that's what our report says
and maybe thatrs perfectly adequate. It just seems to me that people whohave a tvro bedroom unit are very likely to have two cars and I donrt know
vrhat happens if many people show up at once to visit, I don.t know wherethey are going to park.
Noziska: Downtown -
Emmings: I suppose they could park in the retail area and hike over there.
Brad Johnson: If it gives you any comfort, we anticipate around Lq to 2g ofthose units will be occupied by single senior women. We r.rould probably
request to have a spot per center. We find that we were normally running ahalf a car per unit is even enough.
Emmings: How do you take into account people who come? Not just people wholive there but the people who come to visit?
Brad Johnson: Just by the odds and the numbers.
because thatrs what. people have found over time is
I think i trs done
adequate.
that vray
Conrad: The question is, is that the standard to accommodatethat's a real concern. If it's all taken up with residents,we're wild about having people park on the street.
guests
I donr t
and
think
Tom zumwalde: For $rhat it's vrorth, your ordinance is consistent with everyother ordinance that Irve seen. It's based on a certain number of parking
spaces per dwelling unit and I don't ever recall seeing an extra number ofspaces set aside for visitor parking so it's my assumption that in theircalculations, the spaces for the number of units, there is also some forguest parking. In this particular instance, we don't have a great deal more
room on this site to add any parking. I guess I would question from anaesthetic standpoint first of aIl what it would do to the site if we were toadd more spaces. Are they in fact going to be necessary or are we going totake what could be green and turn it into bituminous? The other thing Ilook at would be the alternatives for parking. If in fact there was a day
when everyone had guests over or something, I would assume that thereprobably are some other alternatives around Ehe area with the amount of
commerciaL space.
Emmings: Let me ask you this, I donrt $ranE to beat this to death because Ithink reasonably I think it's fine and the Staff says it,s fine but if itwould turn out that there was a shortage of parking, could you expand? Itlooks like there rnight even be room to expand parking to add to.
Tom zumvralde: There is space back in here.
-r
{
-{
{\
Planning Commission
tl,ay 27 , 198'7 - Page
Meeting
5g
Emmings: The other thing, I rrould expect that this is the kind of thingthat is reaIIy known in exquisite detail by people who plan so I'm going totake my comfort in that but Irm not going to find aoy comfort in the factthat our ordinance is consistent r.rith other ordinances.
Tom Zumwalde: The Edenvale apartments that are just dorrn the street on TH 5and TH 4, r.re built that and that's a one to one. Werve had to add 21parking spots to that.
Emmings: When
Tom Zum!,ralde:
you
One
Emmings: And r.rere
Tom Zumwalde: Yes.
Emmings: So one to one turned out to be adequate but here we have one to
one and a hal f.
say one to one.
car per uni t.
they aII single bedroom?
Tom zumwalde: Itrs the first one we've had to increase the parking
Emmings: It looks there is room to do that here.
Noziska: Steve, if it's not on a Sunday morning or early Saturday evening,they always have St. Hubert's parking lot.
Erhart: PUD I see is real simple to apply if we are assuming that we'regetting something extra. Let me go back a second. How did $re ever justify
these densities under the old ordinance?
Dacy: They $rere were built some in the late 50's prior to the Comp plan or
Zoning Ordinance.
Erhart: How did we ever come up vrith 12 units per acre in the most recentzoning ordinance? Did we make provisions for apartments complexes?
Dacy: Right, but only at the density of 12 units per acre.
history shows us that thattsErhart: I was jusE looking at what our
inadequate for an apartment building.
Dacy: Through the Commission process and the Council it came back that 12.Originally 15 rras proposed. It went to Council and they said no, thatrs toohigh. If you came back and had it amended for 20, Met Council would jump upand dovrn for Chanhassen to do that. They $rould love this plan.
on.
Erhart: So le t's assume
transfer again? Dens i ty werre all in agreement on that, whaE istransferring from one area to another?
Dacy: Right and that really isn't applicable in this situation.
density
{
Planning Commi ss i on
l4ay 27, 1987 - Page
Meeting
51
-{Erhart: That's what you're trying to comply with in a pUD.
Dacy: Transfer isn't the right term. Yourre real-ly allowing an increase indensity over erhat is typically required by the zoning ordinance.
Erhart: And in exchange for that we give some varioussaying what we're getting is tax increment financing?
things and here we're
Conrad: Based on this development, what have we taken the density up to?
We taken frofi 6g units for this development, what does that work out to per
acre?
Dacy:23.
Conrad: So really what werre doing in my mind is we're saying 23 units peracre in the City of Chanhassen is acceptable. We're saying downtown right
now but werll be pressured for other high density, multiple dwelling areasto the City for us to explain why 23 there and why not 23 there and we'II
come back and say...
{\
Dacy:
in the
Conrad: The HRA
At Staff's suggestion that they file another application outside likeCurry property.
Conrad: What I s on the north side?
2 I/2 stoxy apartments.
has reviewed this plan or is
Tom zumwalde:
it going to the HRA?
Dacy: They have rev iewedcontract. They have seen
rePort.
the financing package and the development
an overall schematic but they have not seen this
Conrad: My only concern is based on Ered Hoisingtonts commentis dividing up that eastern portion of the downtown. I thinkthat's being interjected there. I think that looks good but Iwant to get into the planning of that as Iong as somebody elsethat and it makes sense from the downtown standpoint.
on how that
the green areadontt evenis looking at
Brad Johnson: ?his is the housing portion and not seeing r.rhat is plannedfor the rest. we herd up this proposal untir r^re had figured out what werregoing to do with the rest of the downtown area to ad j ust to vrhat we justdid, no problem and we use the same firm for every development.
Conrad: If somehow we discover Brad that parking space is not enough
because these people tend to have far more visitors than tbe average, whatcan be done? I really donrt want parking spaces. I don,t like it buE Ialso don't think it's smart to put it out on the street either and force it.What are the chances of restricting? youtre putting in more density thanwhat r.re originally planned and vrhat the area can hold, are therepossibilities for restrictions for the apartment building people where you
Planning Commission
t4ay 27 t 1987 - Page
Meet i ng
52
-r
{L
sewer
subm i tted
Brad Johnson: I guess the way we hanille that question because it always
comes up when a building is built, is that we try to sho$, you how we
could add 12 more spaces or something to the site and then redo it if
somebody on the Council or you guys say we have to do it. Irve done that on
a number of projects where we've just singled out here's an alternate sketchof how vre can do whatrs proposed. It's a fairly common question.
Especially vrhen you start going over I L/2. we can come back with an
alternate sketch for city CounciI.
conrad: Obviously you would approach the issue by finding more spacesrather than restricting residents in apartment buildings? I dontt have any
more comments. I Like the way it looks.
Noziska moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Planned Unit Development Request #87-1 subject to thefollowing conditions:
I. A detailed utility plan showing water, sewer and storm
connections, as weII as fire hydrant locations shall- beprior to building permit issuance.
2
.1
4
A revised landscaping plan
screening along the south,building permit issuance.
subm itted deta i 1i ngeast property 1i nes
sha 11 be
west and
additionalprior to
A pedestrian walkway shall be provided on the sitewith the development plans for the retail projects
to the south and east of this parcel.
ln
to
conjunction
be developed
Detailed facia and signage plans shall be submited for Planning
Commission and City Council final review prior to building permit
issuance.
Removal of the existing single family residence includLng theproper demolition procedures.
6.Iighting plans shall be submited prior to building permit
A1I voted in favor and motion carried.
Deta i Ied
issuance.
Chairman Conrad lef Ethe responsibilities the meeting at this point and Steven Emnings assumedof Cha i rman .
-t L
allocate so many spaces for visitors? Is that a possibility where visitors
have certain spaces in that parking lot and the balance is for the
residents?
City Council I'4eeting - June l-5, 1987
CO}IDITIOML USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE STABLE 3530 HIGHVIAY 7, DAVID OBEE.
Jo Ann Olsen: Ttre appl icant is requestirg a corditional use perm it for aprivate stable in the RSE district. It is going to be limited to two horses.Staff is recommerdirg approval. We feel that the site is screened from all
surround ing protErties. Is large enough for two horses and it is reviewed
annually for ttp horse perm it so any problems witJ: it can be taken care of.Staff is reconmending approval with the conditions set forth.
@uncilman Horn: What's the size of tlre stable?
Jo Ann Olsen: ltrere are two proposed sizes but the applicant has stated that
he decided he isn't going to build any building right now if it,s going to bea problem.
Councilman Geving: I read all the comments from the planning Commission likethe rest of you but I really wonde! what the intent of Mr. Obee is. Herstalking about a very large building then we find out he owns a lot of
equipment ard so forth. Whether or not the stabling of these two horses isreally ttle issue. I don't mind him having two horses in that area. It's astable permit request. I have seen the letters ard comments from the
neighbors but lrm most concerned about whatrs going to go in that buildingthat hers proposing. I wond--r what his motive is ard question that. Otherttlan tiat, I donrt know how we can issue a stabte permit just to put horsesin. I don't know how that works with l4r. Headla-
Jo Ann Olsen: there is an existing building that he would be using for thestable instead of constructing a nerr, one.
Counci Iman Geving: So in fact, if he had the horses he could move them in and
use tfEn if he had tlle permit? I have no other conments.
@uncilman Johnson3 I went out and looked at the site and noticed there areexisting stables to the west arxl pretty well treed area. For two horse arxlIimited use of the building in there for just horse stables and stuff
associated with that, I donrt have a problem with this.
Bill Schmid: I o$rn prolErty directly west of Mr. Ooee's proposed site. A
few years ago a few of the present Council members were here at that time ardthere was a permit granted to a Mr. James FrizzeLl on the west side of me for
two horses. Jim keeps the place very neat. Very clean. Very tidy.
Regardless of all that, when it rains, it smells. you canrt get arounl it.It's a pasture. tlor^, there are horses on the east side ard I,m very much
opposed to it LqqZ. there are 73 Lots and I believe you have a letter from
I
I
56
202
6. Detailed Iighting plans shall be subm itted prior to building permit
issuance.
7. A1I outside parking areas shall be lined $rith concrete curbing.
AII voted in favor except l4ayor llamilton who abstained ard motion carried.
201
I tlre applicant because rezoning the prolErty to c€ntral business district alsoincrudes other comnercial uses. rf, for some re.son, the murtipre famiiyproject were to fall through, you r^rourd have commercial uses located diiectryonto Chan View, d irectJ-y across from the residential develognent. Oth;;avenues that were discussed with the applicant were a zonin! ordinanceqreldment to alrow high density district arourxl 23 units pei acre ard thefinal option v"as tr* zuD apprication al-rowing the counci 1 a littre moreleverage in negotiatirg with the alpL icant ai to establishing things likepedestrian connections, arrowing the project with the tax in6remenf districtard requiring additionar lardscaping. That was why ttre rezoning issue wasnot...
City Council |4eeting - June 15, 1987
Don Ashworth: yes.
Councilman Geving: Irm ready to al4)rove this but I have to put this inbecause ttre neighbors have carled me in this area. t rive within two blocksof this area and there has been some discussion and most of them have appearedhere before the planning commission. r think the various comments *"."'ih.tit's just too much density for our area and they wourd have liked to have seena 48 or 50 unit apartment building here. I want to throw that in as a plugfor the people but r personarry approve of it. r think we need the r and 2Hroom units in the city ard lrm all in favor. I do have to ask oneguestion. !,lhether or not this unit was projected in our downtownredevelognent district for 60 units?
G Mayor Hamilton: r just \^rould say that t live in the apartments across thestreet fron this on chan vieh' anl those people there are anx ious to see itbuirt because they would like to move inlo it so r think it's a really niceproj ect ard I would like to see it move ahead.
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Ceving seconded to approve the pUD
application for the 60 unit apartment complex rocated on tte south side ofGran View with the following conditions:
1. A detailed utility plan showing water, sewer ard storm sewerconnections, as weII as fire hydrant locations shall be subn ittedprior to building pennit issuance.
2- A revised randscaping plan shalr be sukn itted detailing additionarscreening along the south, west ard east protErty J. ines prior tobuilding permit issuance.
3. A lEdestrian walkway shall be provided on the site in conjunction
lith tle develoFnent plans for the retail projects to be aevelopeil tothe south and east of this parcel.
4. Detailed facia ard signage plans shatl be sukn itteal for planning
Commission ard City Council final review prior to building permitissuance.
F.oy?I. of existing single family residence including the proper
dsnoL ition procedures.
49
2AO
City Counci J. l4eeting - June 15, 1987
Mayor Hamilton: It was a barbeque that tipped over on a balcony on the thirdfloor ard our ordinance already prohibits barbeques dl aparunent balconies.
Counci lman Bolt: I don't know tflat we're real weII prepard to fight a fire
thatrs very high and Irm concerned. We're buildirg this wittr a wood frame ardI watched one burn down vthen it vlas in construction and they go up real fast.
Mayor Hamilton: Jim Chaffee who is our Fire Marshall coutd probably respordto your @ncern.
Jim Ctnf fee: We have discussed this issue, or at Ieast I've discussed this
issue with the Fire Chief and Fire Inspector ard we are considering ard Idon't know if we brought this up but requiring sand piping whi.ch would really
help us out in any kird of fire. It would prevent any situation like happenedin eagan arrd probably would not allow barbeques and charcoal grills on tJ:e
balcony in this case. We are very concerned about that issue to make it assafe as possible.
Counci lman BoltE: My other question is the 60 foot spa.ce loss for retail.
Brad, since yourre involved with both erris of this, maybe you can teII me alittle about the consideration of that Iost retail space.
Brad Johnson: You gul.s remember r^rhat the overall dor,rntown plan \,ras ard we
were going to extend the retail in a Iong Iine up and down the city. In the
process we discovered one, that there may not be an immediate market for thattlpe of space in that one location and in addition to that, \de also needed to
increase the amount of increments that we could generate. In other words,build bigger buildings. So we put the apartmenE building in. The apartmentbuilding was originally su6poseil to be 40 units so the site plan $/erre working
on currently and brought to the HRA on Thursday is to change the plan and make
use of now tte beautiful clock you just approved witl be located right here as
an entrance into the whole town. Ihe apartment itself Iooks like Ehe clock.
So as you come into the community you'll have that ard actually have a littlecourtyard located right in here. !'lhat they were concerned about is we wouldnot be able to set this retail strip all tte way down the street. we will notbe doing that because that's not in the plan currently. Instead we're goingto plt a tr,Jo story, $rhat we'Il call a medical arts buiLdirg in there which we
were contacted by Dr. Mccullum who is at eEnhassen Clinic and they are goingto move their facility there if vre can get the whole transactions puttogether. Ihen we have a daycare center going in here that we r,rill be showing
before you here in the next tero weeks that will go in this location ard werre
exci ted about aII of this because itrs a start doing the downtown and maybehotEfuuy getting out of that side of the street. That,s the current plan.
Councilman Boyt: What are we going to do with this variance problem? I knowI talked to Barbara earlier today. I'm not sure that I got the answer downquite right as to the difficulty with rezoning this central business districtbut thatrs the third issue ard I guess I would like to hear a quick synopsis
Barb on how we're going to handle this.
Barbara Dacy: Your question is, whether or not the entire site can be rezonedto the central busines district up to Chan Vieer. we did not recommerxj that to
I
il
I
48
7 r99
I 6.
City Counci I l4eeting - June 15, 1987
7
the applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City
ard provide necessary financial, sureties for completion of the
improvalents .
Suhnittal of an acceptable final drainage ptan including calculationsfor review by the City, Watershed District, ard DNR ard compl iancewith all applicable conditions.
A homeowners association shall be established to maintain the culde-
sac is lard.
A culvert shall be installed within the ravine to alJ.ow &ainage andstabilization of tlre area.
lA. the City Brgineer must approve ttre design of the culde-sac islarri.
A11 voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed ard motion carried.
PI,ANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO CONSTRUCT A 60 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING ON ,<
ACRES, I,OCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OE CHAN VIEW, CHADDA AND FIRST AMERICAN
DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION.
8
H
Barbara Dacy: the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request
subj ect to six corditions as noted in the Staff qlCate. Staff is requestingthat an additional condition, a detail item that we overlooked, that allparking areas be lined with concrete curbing. Under the City Council sectionof the Staff Report, the proposed motion is left out and you just have thecorditions there but that should read that should the @uncil wish to approvethe subdivision that they approve it subject to the 7 conditions that aie onpage 7.
councilman Johnson: on nu,rber 7 should we say all outdoor parking areas sincethey have an indoor parking area ard you don't need to put concrete curb inthe basement? I like this. I Like the looks of this and everything else. Iwish a1l of our apartment cornplexes were as nice as this.
Councilman Boyt: there was a comment raised at the elanning Comnission aboutthe fire protection ard you irdicated you are workirg with ttre Fire Marshall
on that. Following what \^re just heard about the Eagan community, assure methat werre not goirg to go through that.
Tom Zumwalde: I vrish I could- Irm not sure what happened down at Eagan- It
vras a large complex ard apparently sornethirg went ary out there. Thisbuilding, our intent is not to install sprinklers and that is fairly typicalin most apartment buildirgs. Typically the high rises are but not ttre Istory. It is however, has fire walJ-s, fire partitions, it has all the
elements required to make it a very safe building. Again, Irm not sure what
happened out in Eagan. I hope nothing like that happens here. What I,ve
heard on the ner.,s someone was barbequingt
47
9.
--
$\
s
I
I
I
t
b
5-
$
$t
s
B
_.-
=.:D
::::-t
s
I
C\
\
l?r1 6-
r$
*
$
9
P.
$
.p
$
I
1\.,.
G.
.btzl.
I
I
If,t,
6'
I
s.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f-
i
EHINH[SSH[
STAFF REPORT
P.C. DATE: June 1, 1988
C.C. DATE: June 13, L988
CASE NO: LUP 88-3,
ZOA 88-7 , Rezone 88-3
Prepared by: Dacy/v
4)
Fz
o
=(LL
3) Rezoning to Rezone 1.7 Acles of IOP, Industrial Offic
Park to BH, Business Highway
APPLICANT: Jay Kronick
1609 Marshall AvenueRockville, Maryland 20851
PROPOSAL !Amendment to Permit Garden Centers
Use in the BH District ( Section 20-7
Amendment to
Conme rc ia I
Redesignate I.7 Acres of
1) Zoning Ordinance
as a Conditional
2 ) Land Use PlanIndustrial to
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENS ITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
WATER AND SEWER:
PEYSICAL CEARAC.:
2OOO LAND USE PLAN:
N-
s-
E-
w-
BH, Business Highway and IOP, IndustrialOffice Park D i str ict
3.7 acres
R-12; multiple family & Eden Prairie
BEi vacant commercial
IOPt Redmond Products
BHi chanhassen Office Buildinq
AvailabIe Eo site
The site is flat and contai[s a wetland.
Commercial and Industrial
CITY OF
ko
hlta
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to West 78th Street, just east ofthe Dakota Avenue/TH 5 intersection :, r,.n r:. [::/ i,lninistrat.r
.. .../ A&
/uuu
--7loo
-72OO
-73OC7400
E wfrp86
ief-Za*.:=b
.::PSr--<
'- ili't
LAKE
2
R1
oo
ao
Po
@
@
7500
-7600
-77OO
7800
7900
--8OOO
)BD
u
-8lOO
3
.r'-i(,s
oo
rO
@
fl
._J
oo
@(o
8300
I-(,
-
z
IoST
'l),1 3 toP
RSF
NENctrel
RICE U SH LAKE )
I DI
ttllIt!
I\r.
l.-raa
l11 .a
I
.)
rrrr;[rlIlFi!li E I.E I':GIro:li-El II I-lgt ItTET llrlrll ii:l ::ltl tl-I;.{,
ori:I ,1;a,lt!llllt
=llt
ttiE r D-,rj,
lr !t t Ii:J
J
.Dtt T
-I a
-.'rj lg: t
-tr
l-IFrrliDi:l E I:..Ia,aI
i[E.
tl ?-a
rt.rra tIg
N
Id
a a
q/Z=t\:2,
8600
rtEit:tr;
4
'r'r
@s,tilw
- 8200
I
I
t
Mr. Jay
June 1,
Page 2
Kronick
1988
The applicant petitioned the city in September, 19g7, to amendthe Rural Residential District to a11oe, garden centers as a con-ditional use. The City Council denied the application; however,the Council encouraged the applicant to locall elsewhere inChanhassen. During the zoning ordinance amenilment review pro-cess, the Planning Commission and City Council determined that agarden center would be better located in an urban comrnercialdistrict rather than a rural district.
BACKG ROUND
ANATYS I S
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
civen this analysis, staff finds that a garden center should beincluded as a conditional use in the BH district.
RECOMMENDAT I ON
Planning staff recommends thefollowing motion:
Planning Commission adopt the
It is proposed that Section 20-774, Conditional Uses in the BHDistrict be amended to a1low garden centers as a conditional use.In reviewing zoning ord.inance amendments, the proposed use shouldbe reviewed as to its compatibility with the intent of thedistrict as r1rel1 as other uses permitted in the district.
The intent of the BH district is to provide for highway orientedcommercial development restricted to a 1ow building profile. Agarden center is consistent with this intent in t.hit- it providesa specialized retail service for the traveling public. lltnougha preclominant portion of this use entails outdoor act.ivities,it is similar to those arready permitted as conditional uses suchas outdoor display of merchandise for sale and screened outdoorstorage. A garden center is compatibLe with these uses as wellas other permitted uses. In fact, other than its outdoor activi-ties, a garden center can be less intense than other permitteduses in the district. A garden center should be cont.rolled asa conditional use, however, to evaluate the impacts of E.he out-door storage areas and sale areas (garden centers are a permit.teduse in the BG, Business General District)
I'The Planning Commission recofllmends approval of
Amendment Request 88-7 to amend Section 2O-714,in the BH District as follows:
Zoning Ordinance
ConditionaL Uses
( 5 ) Garden Centers. "
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
The subject property is split by the Carver County and Hennepin
County border. This site was also the subject of a zoning ordi-
nance amendment review for automotive service centers. (The
applicants on that project have decided not to pursue construc-tion of the automotive service center. ) The site is also splitas to land use and zoning. The Carver County portion is zonedBH, Business Highway and is designated on the Land Use plan as
Commercial . The Hennepin County or the eastern portion of thesite is zoned IOP, Industrial Office park and is designated asIndustrial on the Land Use Plan.
The applicant intends to use the site for a garden center. Theapplicant is also considering subdividing in the future to createanother parcel for another commercial use. (This is differentthan the automotive service center application which proposed acombination of both industrial and commercial uses.) Because ofthe snall acreage involved, redesignation of 1.7 acres fromIndustrial to Commercial wilI not have a significant impact onthe availability of industrial land. A majority of the site iszoned and designated as commercial-. Redesignation and rezoningof this site t.o one zoning district and land use is appropriatein order to enforce consistent setback and other zoning regula-
t ions .
RECOMI{ENDAT I ON
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt thefollowing motion:
"The Planning Commission recommenils approval of Land Use Plan
Amendment #88-3 to redesignate I.7 acres of industriai to coruner-cial subject to the approval of the Metropolitan Council."
RE Z ONI NG
Given the above analysis, the application to rezone the site toBIl, Business Highway is appropriat.e.
RECOMMENDAT I ON
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt thefollowing motion:
"The Planning Commission recoounends approval of Rezoning Request
#88-3 to rezone 1.7 acres of property r-rom IOP, Indust.rial OfficePark to BIl, Business Highway District, subject to approval of theLand Use Plan Amendment by the City Council and the Metropolitan
Counci 1 . "
Mr. Jay Kronick
June 1, 1988
Page 3
Mr. Jay
June l-,
Page 4
Kronick
1988
If approved, the applicant will have to file a conditionaf usepermit and potentially a subdivision application if a portion ofthe lot is to be used for another comrnercial use. The planning
Commission and Council should be aware that. the City has alreadyhrorked with the property owner to create a city maintained storm-rl,ater retention pond near the railroad tracks in the rear of the1ot. This is consistent with t.he recommendations from the BarrEngineering Stormvrater Management plan report. Also, because thesite is a designated wetland, the applicant will need to file fora wetland alteration permit. Jim Leach from the Fish andWildl-ife Service has already in spected the site and has con-curred with the city's intention to create a stormwater pond inthe rear of the property while preserving some of the wetlandareas a1so. The applicant is also aware that an Army Corps ofEngineer permit is necessary. This lot is a parcel of reiord andhas been zoned commercial and industrial since ).972.
NOTES FOR FUTURE APPLICATIONS
ATTACHMENTS
Application.Letter from applicant.
Land Use PIan.City Council minutes dated October 5, 1987.Planning Commission minutes dated Septernber 9, 19g7.
1
3
4
5
((
TATD DEI'EII)PTETI APPTICLftOtr
CITI OT CE}IIEASSEX
59O Coulter Drive
Chaahaseea, MN 55317(612) 937-1900
O{NER:APPLICANI:J
ADDRESS ll,cq fr*'L".ll Avs-
(
z 1P Code_a
?n2-SS1/-4cC
Zip CodeTELEPEOIIE (Daytine
REQI,EST:
q TELEPEONEt-
x Zoning District Change
Zoning &)peal
Zoning Variance
Zoning lext Anendment
Iand Use Plan Amendment
Conditional Use permit
Site Plan Review
PROJECT NA.}IE
t-rcl(\C-&" tr,'i,*
Planned Unit Developnent
Sketch PlanPrelininary PlanFinal Plan
Subdivision
_ Platting
_ l.letes and Bounds
St,ieet,/Easenent Vacation
i{etlands Permit
xx
\Co
1-PRESENI IAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Ji^
REQTIESTED LAND USE
;PLAN DESIGNATION L-.,, .1 ;' e,"' ' c -t
PRESENT ZONING 8H "^"/. Jo
)-v.:Lr-. r,ia,a r',... -,1'r-I - -- ,.
REQUESTED ZONING
USES PROPOSED in,i 6o,rlr.,,r Cer*o.i)'F.!
1
I
SIZE OF PROPERTY
, \ - 17,1.i\ 7rrrcA'rroN r.'-r /
-<
+\;-
O . a-(\
\ ^ .. | ,,1)f'. _ a.:),," <.1 .a:/ Cl- .. ^l- .,-- ^ (, r.-:. ,..r \ .r^'--a .i'
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST r,! ", I a'r!
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach 1ega1 if necessary)
}DDP.ESS
-.)
!. ;, !-i
ICity of Chanhassent
Land Development ApplicationPage 2
(
This application must be completed in full a1! be typelrritten oiclearly printed and must U" i"coml"nl.i OV all information and
Firi:s" !iii':,.,ir":Er"';:ti:-liii,f :im::",iil"ff :.Hi, 3iff i:,liri::$U":"'l:,:nff;ll:.:l:i:;;;; ;;; p'o".ao'ii-'Iiii'Io,.n."
FTLIN TNSTRUC T IONS :
FTLI NG CERT TF T CATION :
Signed By 'L
ihui. i!':ili,,::,iiff
.il:";,::.:*"in:"t:it:,,*r:or, ce*i f i es
C 3- nnr rrcrApprcao t
F ee Ownef
Recei lred 6
Paid t
Dat e
Signed By
Date Application
Application Fee
City Receipt No.a^>d
o W, -4=a
lisltfu31
be cons ideredand Appeals at by thetheir
This application willBoard of Ad j us cmen tsmeeting.
Planning Commission,/
,\
Dat e
The undersigned hereby- certi f ies
_ that the applicant has beenil:::fiff: to rnake rtris appric".iJi*i"i rhe property herein
a
Lz\rvD Dev€TqnDVr ApPtldT/o^) - (.on,.Q
RERscus foa-rt't ts /2au 4t
l)7-o1..,rr..lC D,srz rcY CNAr,.r 66 -T'k sub_iecl p,"f ., yresnr'll,
ho r *-o z-o^'^1 , S+irc-* llS t5n<*,'o45, rt )nn*Lop +L
P.ce..+7 +eG ,"1r-d<1+I^+ +L
o(
aJ o11g sr ('
).)
?*+ ,P i\a s,{e. zr,^d. JOp M "l^y<d )o BH,
2o".rtu6 Trrf Arne,.l Dfl1 L\ff - A nelarl dJ*/.r,. cerlas it
r5
Sec{,"n 2-o-1t.-l b4 aff\g
n oe.rk-r ^s a conl.r*/cr\a-
rn ]\<. 13+l ra*6'16{,
Le a tqnou oF fl-)€frzaesery
J r - T).e- s,vLsuc| yr.yL+7 f"d\fi;.s *vvc Lo^i t-'*&r,5,-a.*,1-rrs, Tc ,t.t"lrr+i.e,:,Ope r^1,-z qS
rrra sr*4 -Ar x-*r.rl u* i* is xlrvsuJ +!. + iU" {l"slrrqfpc-tr.n b. ,Lcrg"'a*-l ^5 Co.^."..-"1a1 o.+)..e lo^J ,*-iio,
j."p."d €
Zcn,c5 *e;cf
a\lolnne;t-a-rI
+L sr*-e J+Y +\a-+ +L.s
^U +o
e
u5C
.g{o"il usn rl is
ItItI
'1
.I
l
I
* ,cr''\-r.'N.
---t ^\
cE t
rQ-jL/XE SUS,Ilt
!,'
i\
l\>"
t:.,
-t'l IIIIIrlrtt
Il
.I fl at-. ,,1
XE LACT
LA
1
i
aaII !taal
il,t
'ira
L'I(E
i\tl'qa
I *e4 To Be
.,KM/dl@J
.1
I
I
-<.
E
. -as ,
H LITE
):
j
t rrE
NILEf
I
L Of us
,.]
TA e44t44ctl
3
t,
I
4
lt
\\
I
1
,!
\,87
{
City Courrcil l,teeting - October 5, 1987
,
,:
I Counci lrnan Horn: Just to expand on what l,tark is saying. If we carry that tothe extreme then, what we need to do is leave this as agriculture.Agricultural and the protection is green acres. lhe probrem we have is thereis pressure on the people who own this property in terms of taxes ard soforth. -Ihat's what we're dealing with. If we use his example to keep this
open to $rhat r^re can do later, we have to zorE it all as agricultural to giveit green acres protection ard then when ttre time comes nove it over. I,lhathers tellirg us is an interim stq) vron't work because you're locked in ardthen you're stuck. At least thatrs uttat Irm hearing.
l,byor ttamj.l ton: liot necessarily. I donrt think you're locked in.
counci rman trorn: we're goini to create valuabre pieces of proper Ey by openingtle door to these interin uses.
!'layor Hamilton: But when_ they come in if they know only at maximum, a 12 year
use. for that piece of lard, how can you be locked in any more than that?Malbe thatrs not legal. r !,rould tike to ask Roger that but if somebody camein here ard said r want to use that piece of ra-rd on TH 41 ard rH 5 ari wesaid fine, wetrl give you a corditionar use to use that for whatever theymight be askirg arri then in 12 years you have to kno&, that use rrEy go a!,,Ery.
Roger Knutson: state statutes provide that once you issue a corditionar use,it sticks. you can't put a time rimit on it so orrce you issue a conlitionaruse lErmit ttrey have tjre right to stay there as long as they comply with thecorditions ard standards ard what not. Not duration.
Counci Iman Johnson: One thing, when we do look at this, there will be [Eople,I think when we look at any irdividuaL develognent goinl in here, we tnve toLook at it as tiat might be the ultimate use-of that land too because Iwouldn't mird seeirg that area for a very 1ong time as a nursery. Lj.ke Marksays, thatrs a very good use but while the intent may be that it,s a temporaryuse, I do bel ieve that we have to look at it beirg a long term use ard ii it -
does, if c-ommercial or some plant $rants to come in ard ihey,ve got the moneyto buy him out, then that,s up to the{n.
Mayor tlamilton: this is the first reading. Jay has been before us previouslyard is back here this evening. A.s you alr know Jay owns a business inwashington D.c. anal would rocate a -business here in ctnnhassen. .Ihat being aretail garden center so Barbara did you hrant to add scrne?
Barbara Dacy: the planning commission action was to recorunend denial of thereguest based on the firdings in the staff report $rith a note to the councilthat if you are to amerd the zoning ordinance for the first reading reqrires afour-fifths vote of the enEire Council.
l,rayor Hamilton: Jay, do you e,ant. Eo presenE anything to tJle CourEi l?
ARTICLE V, SECTION 4 (4)TO ALLOW GARDSI
RR, RURAL RES IDENIIAL DISTRICT , JAY
l9
C
ZONING ORDINANCE A}IENDMENT TO
-).,f
\r
Jay Kronick: yes, thank you. r think you touched upon a rot of the issueshere ard I'in really not goirg to make the decision for you. r arso have gi.venmany of you in the past _of t.l,e- ideas of the ttpe of deveropnent r'm propoiingout there- That's r^/hat r would just maybe reiterate arri amprify a titttebit in conjunction with some of the points you Eouched o., h".. -toniqht..
Asfar as the waste from the site, it's a five acre site with a house 6n i:. Agarden center, I rearry canrt see a probrem with the inpact there. rt dependson where you put that gallons per day limit. The traffic issue, I agree
ihele- I've tad a tough time. r've sat there for tlte rdaturar it".n'prop..tvtryirg to left back into town on rlr 5. ?herers a lot of cars arrf .o*iii*."youtve got to wait- something has got to be done about that, r wourd agree.r'* 19! a traffic rg ineer but r would be will.irq to hrork on that to the extentpossible- rrve 100ked at some data on traffic generated by retair gardencenters. They base it on factors Iike size of ttre properiy,
"qui.6 1*t,number of emproyees, parking spots, take arl these parameters and r cone upwith estimates of berween li ira tns trips per day.' that;i o* t.ip-in urnone. trip-out.. T\.ro trips per trErson. I Iook at ttrat and compare lito tnenumber of vehicres on that road at present travering back ari rortrr eicrr aayuF. th". impact seems pretty minimal to me. lJcnetheless, every car thai comeseither in or out has ro cross the highway. Therers sonethirq-to tnint<
-airut
tlpre' r have a question..that w.as .iis.i rn your discussion- aboui t iringabout putting a limit on the number of trips ier aay. How is the ""ii.ut.made iniEiarly ard what happens when the 6usiiness grows? r think thatrssomething lhat that is, do I have to shut my businJss down at I:00 in theafternoon because I h3d my 100 trips a day -and thatrs it. fhat growth isgoing to happen. As the City grorj, *y i:r,Liness is goirg to gio;- ho;fuif Vregardless of where it's l.cated so t -just had a queition "r"ut ttut. somepoints raised in stafi- report thar I ,.visn,t clear. Looking at some otherjurisdictions and how they've handied tnis soit of thing. -starr meniioneothat Eden prairie, Minnetonka, and St. touis park don,t illow ..t_ii!i.C.ncenters in rural residentiar districts. t{hether this district re*.i.# as sucnor not in Chanhassen, I don't know but I 1ook at Eden prairie ane the onegarden center of simirar scale that r see is juit rerocated out of theshoppirg center out to Eden prairie cenEer. it'" on a busy road but it,s asimilar tlpe of thing. kobably not the same taf f ic pfri fLsoOV. - lrin*ronf.has one right smack in the middle of a residenriar disirict oir-ot l,loo<ii.:noRoad. -Itrs the onLy business around. It.,s surrounded by residents in l,;-lacre.of l/2 acxe parcels. SE. touis park is another lurisdiction tnat wasmentioned. r don't ber ieve a garden center exists in- st. rouis puit r.""ur.of .a combination of high_ commeicial val,ues as ogposed to avaifaUiiity Jisuitably sized IErceIs for a garden c€nter. f !u"ss tiat's really it. Ir.Duld be happy to respord to any questions.
CourEi lman Johnson: I just h.rve mostly general comments on iEem l(d). Idonrt have a specific question fo-r :nyb-od-y. . .qs you can probably tell frL-m myearlier c!runents, I'm in favor of thii p:rticufar use at Ehis particular spocbut as r read through the planning commission arxl r berieve commissionerDnmings was the one thrt.probab]-y swayed me the most of anybody there.several things he said I tuve to igree' with. I really aori,t fife Jo sa_, itin the RR district. I donrt. reafrl urint< tf,. ui"u should be RR but Ehar,sr'Jhat we discussed a minute ago. i tr,i.,x for what he,s serlirxl aro wtrai ne,sdoing is besE suited in t}ris -area. So*" p""pf" were tal.king about movinq it
City @uncil lL.eting - October 5, 1987
I
Ii
L
L
.i-
1
l
da\
{(
I
:
City Courci I t4eeting - october 5, 1987
downtown. I personally, with the price of property ard the profit on margin
probabLy rvouldn't be affordable in downtown. I think it would be a very good
addition to Granhassen. I think we would draw people in here at various timesof the year ard help our other businesses out considerably witl1 this use. Itre
Planning Commission, they did say they do not have to be practical becausetley are a body considerirg the broad view. I think the @uncil has to be
Practj.cal but at the same time we Lnve to avoid what Commissioner Emmings
referred to as the tyranny of small decisions. I loved that one. That's a
good one because tiat's what r"re look at all the time. I like the way he p:t
that in. Exactly what Barb was sayirg a little while ago. We Iet this in,
the next one, the next one, the next one continuing until we say we are noIorger wide open. There is no restriction. I do plan on votirg against this
unless somebody can convince.me that we have adequate safeguards ddded to the
corditions of use. That rre vron I t fird garden centers all, over our RR area..
CourciLman Ceving: I thought about this a long time because Irve been
involved with the David Luse situation for about 7 or 8 years. I really wouldIike to have Jay come to our community ard build a facility lere and build a
business in Chanhassen ard I think that the business that's there now is
crertainly good use for tlat land at this time. A.s long as it remains a
nursery, it certainly could stay there as a wholesale activity. That propertyis changing hands obviously ard with that comes a new owner anf some new
thoughts. My feelirq is that we're infringing on the residential area ard I
believe that the rural residential area shouLd be kept clean of retailactivity. Retail activity should be focused in Ehe dolvnto!{n area. If Jay
wanted to grow his plants, his potted plans, his trees arri bring them onto thesite out there ard Eror,,, them on the 5 acres that he has, I see nothing wrorgwith that as a good interim use and then transport those to a downtown
location for retail sales I think would work but as far as the traffic on
Ttl 5, it's not Eoing to get any better. there is absolutely no signs that
we're goin3 to get 1H 5 to four lanes certainly within the next 3 years. Thetraffic is going to be compourding arrJ that is one issue. the primary issueI think here is that we would be openirg ourselves up to developirg a lot of
otlter ateas in Chanhassen with potenEial for retail in the rural residentialareas. I'm just afraid that onc€ that avalarrche started, it v,rould be a
snowball that we wouldn't be able to stop. It would really start to roll and
once $re make the first decision, the secord ones b€come easier because you,ve
set the prec€dent. Irm very much in favor of what you're tryj.ng to do Jay andI wish that that facility was in the MUSA line. you could develop it arrl the
highway wasn't as congested as it is but I just canrt see putting another 35
caxs, LAg trips per day, whatever the estimate might be, turnirg in ard out ofthat facility. We probabJ.y have it now more than likely with David Luse,s
operation we have at least as much as srhat you're proposirg. Therets no
question about it but I Iook at this way. Now we bave an opportunity to
reduce the congestion by movirg Luse out of there on his own vol i. tion ard
maybe that will reduce some of the traffic tiat we LEve. I guess at this timeI would have to vote to keep the amendment werre passirg ard I would vote
against your proposal to [Irt retail in the rural residential area.
Councilman Horn: I urderstard the issue of chargirg the complex ion of ruralresideotial ard Irm sympa thetic to that issue but that's not the overriding
factor for me in this case. The overridirg factor for me is traffic. I would
2L
{
be much more opelr to this typ of thirq, even if it weren,t in a downtowncommercial area, if it were not on It 5. If it was on one of the offhighways- r think there.we.would have an opportunity to have a rear toughdecision but as r-ong as it is on Tu 5, r thi;k the tiaffic is just ioturryunreasonable. Even if we don'|t make it worse than what it is riow with therrse olEration tlere, r drive past his operation every morning and watc:: himtry to merge his trucks into the traffic arrl it's scaiy to waich ret ,o. t"llyou. Ard itrs one thing r think if you have a wholesaie operation wheieyou're
-
subj.ectirg your employees to tbat. What we'd be doirq in retaii issay, this is okay for the general pubr ic and r have a rear piobren-rilr., tir.t.
Councilman Bo!.t: It sourds as though it's a .forgone conclusion how :his isgoing to go since it takes a fotr-fifths vote. i tt irrt ti,.t "r. qr."Ii." rF "-r4-r think r may have gathered the answer out of the Minutes but r wantto. clarify, is there anyplace in Chanhassen currently as it is zoned where aretail garden cente! can be located?
Barbara Dacy: the BG, Brsiness General district does arrow garden centers asa permitted use. r berieve the applicant is arso lookirq at-a sile-aiong T, sthat vrourd require a zoning ordinance amendment to the B;sines= ,ri+r.vDistrict--. The onry larxls that are zoned BG are the Burdick propeity'arc tireJames property.
Councilman Boyt: Alright. I don't know how your deveLopnent fits as far asconsistency with what Mr. James or Mr- BurdiJk has pranned roi ti,ui. plop.rtv.I would suggest that a garden center can starxl the ioll of puyinq I ...;.,substantial amount of money since we see them surviving in ,inneionta-on tn zwhich is certainl-y a very valuable.piece of property. I think there clearj.yis a need in Chanhassen. I heard tiie orher councir iemler, ;yi;; th;.Wetre approving new developments very quickly. They al-I want io ff".t -
somethirg ard right nor'r that. money il reavinj town so r think you have a goodpossibility. I would support. whaa I saw May6r llamilton .ugg"=ii,.,g u=-u-possibility when he was speakinE to the prarining commission. r think a numberof us were. saying, please grow your trees therJ if you 1ike. tt uf-=.".. aofit very nicery with what werd iit e to see happeninj on th;a pi.". oip..p..avbut r don't think we're going to support .r.,niig a retail business out of thatparticular location. I,m.impressed !y 1.u. desira to be here and youiwillingness to fly in to talk to us. - ----- e'q rvq!
Mayor Hamilton: I think Irve made many comments to the planning Commj.ssionmostry because Jay was unabre to be here ard I,ve ,ort"a "iti,-j'.v -'liiir" uiatrying to get him into tor,rn and I guess I,m not convinced yet th;t !.reshouldnrt have a retail operation on TH 5. r just don,t thint trrat
'tne
traffic to be generated wourd be of sufficieni amount to cause a rear hazardthere. - Like Clark says, there,s an awful 1ot of t.r.:ffic there .ight ".i "ith!.tatural Green and I don't think Jay's opera.ion would generat" u ,rnof a'iotmore but in talkirg to Jay I think- it,j been suggested that hj.s ..a.ii -
operaEion would probabrv be more profitabre in i-he shorc term ana-topefurry inrhe rorg Eerm if he roc:red downtown ;n rne centiii rr.l,rl1="di.-a. i".t'" ra,.certainly one of the thing: we wanE to have you accomplish, if you c.ome here,is to be successful- That's the number one ihing. That you want to be hereand stay here a rong tirne. rrJe,d like you eo s..i tere a iong ai;".- ikno,
City Council l,teeting - October 5, 1987
t
22
ni)
.. ..
-'rit'
!
G-i
((
City @uncil Meeting - October 5, I9g7
CONDITIOML USE PERMIT REQUEST 1O INSTALL A 33 FOOT AMA TEUR RADIO TOWER AND A26FOOT VERTICAL ANTENM, 7O7I S HAVTNEE TANE,ROY S. BARKE
it's disappointirg to not, because you had your heart set on livirg andgrowing and selring arl in the same area but it rooks rike that,s ioi toi.ng tobe the case.
@urc-ilman Geving moved, councirman Horn secorded to deny the zoning ordinanceAmerdment to amerd Articre v, section 4(4) to al1ow Gard6n centers is a retailbusiness as a corditionar use in the RR, zural nesidentiar District. A1lvotq.r in favo! exclEt I'Iayor Hamirton who opSrosed the motion ard ttre rnolioncarried.
Mayor Hamilton: r just wanted to clarify that so that Jay wourd know and rthink we've alr said rhar we wourd arlow you to rive aJ d.o;; iiii. Jit irrrm hearing all the rest of the councir mEmbers correctly. rhat would be anallowable use but have your retail soneplace else.
I
Mayor Hamilton: we have no contror over this so r don't know why itts even onthe agerda- rs there anybody from the neighborhood who wanted to' "p".r- oothis itqn? [b.
counci rman Boyt: As r u.lerstand the ECC regutation it says that a lErson hasa- right to put an antenna up. Mr. Barke has an antenna up so I think fromthere, in terms of the number of antennas an individual rias tirl iidt t" ptup, I donrt see that the FCC addresses that. Now maybe Mr. Barke ;anenl ighten me about that.
Roy Barke: r donrt know if there are any restrictions based on the nurnber. rdo think there is a desire on their part -to conform monitor to conform withthe. ctmmunity while at the same ti;e topography so r guess I canrt disasreewith that at ar1. ,..before rhe planning- dm*i=iion i.- rh; -u-i;i J-Ii.".you.can'! do- everything to the point ,uii"."... It does take a little bit of
I:.ir:.y_-.:.o: one thirg or another. Like the people who buy boats. They mayDuy a q)eect boat. and fishing boaE.
Councilman Boyt: l,lr. Barke as I urderstood }rour comments in the pJ-anning
?Il-1"."ro", they were alorg the lines that tii" i" primarily " rn;;-;i'c.onvenrence. Your nev, tower could be adjusted to handle wtlt lpur existingtowers are doing. Is that correct?
Roy Barke: f,b. My existing tor,rer is...r realry can,t add this same device toit.
courcilman BoyE: you indicated in the pr.anning commission that you wourd bewil,lirg to. provide a, I think it was a $3.00 fiLter to your neignbors who hadproblsns with interference.
Roy Barke: I have no problem with thaE.itrs sometimes very difficult to be sitti
work out that thing. Ihat t)49e of
Just like I staEed in tJre meeting,rq outside ard working with myneighbors if you have a problem,
23
i-
PJ- ann i ng Commission
September 9, L987 -
Meeting
Page 15
-{
{
close and as Bob said therets some massaging that has to be done. r vrould
1i ke to see some creative thinking on TH 5 when vre get to it. crassicallyit can be the strip type stuff that we see in arr the other communities aidI guess I would like to see if there's anything creative we can do alongthat roaderay but r donrt even know what that means. rt just means we hjvean opportunity of several years to think about it and maybe there issomething that we can do that's creative along the highwly. with that, whydonrt we bounce back to the public hearing and talk about the zoningordinance amendment to amend Articre 5, section 4 allowing garden centers asa conditional use in the rural residential district.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARTICLE V, SECTION 4(4)TO ALLOW GARDEN
CENTERS AS A CONDITIONAL
KRON ICK .
USE IN THE RR, RURAL R ESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, JAY
PubIic Present:
Name
Tom Hami l ton
Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on the zoning ordinance amendment.
a
Tom Hamilton: Let me change hats here and r'll represent Jay Kronick. r*q!l't. asked to represent him and r don't officially represent him in anyofficial capa_city but as a licensed realtor I have iaftla erith Jay onseveral occasions abou! the project that he is attempting to accoriptish hereand you are reviewing this evening. The current Naturar Green is going tobe moving to chaska r berieve. He needs more space so he, Dave Luse was theowner of that property, was contacted by Jay Kronick. and Jay who currentrylives in Baltimore, Maryland and owns J reitaurant in washington D.c. andthat's why he wasnrt able to be here this evening. His backgiound is inforestry and agriculture. He would like to open a garden center. His erifeis from Minnesota and that's the whore background thing why he's rooking inChanhassen. someho, he came across Dave Luse and the two of them gottogether and discussed Davers leaving and Jay wanting to open a gaidencenter here so the two of them together, rrithout anyonets interferenceapparently reached some kind of an agreement on purchasing the property.rtrs alr contingent on the Metroporitan waste commission paying-ofi r,u6e forthe right-of-vray r guess for the easement across nis properiy for the r,akeAnn rnterceptor. so Jay would like very much to have a garden center inchanhassen and he felt that would be a great opportunity for him to purchasethat property. rt r^rourd be about 5 acres is about what he needs. He wourdgrow his material on the property and he would also live on the property.There is the o1d home there that has been used as an office for ievtrar-years and he vrourd like to convert that to a home and have his family rivethere. He does however have some alternatives. This isn't a do or diesituation for him. He can rive someplace erse. rf he canrt have that as a
Planning Commission
September 9, 1987 -
Meet i ng
Page 16
{retail, center, he may still purchase it and do his growing there if thatrs
something that the Planning Commission and Council would approve and then
have his retail outlet someplace else in the community. He may also just
attempt to do his growing there or wherever he can find a place to do 1t and
live someplace else so he has several alternatives available to him. I just
$ranted to present that to you and tell you why Jay couldnrt be here this
evening. I think he would appreciate your consideration on those points.
wildermuth movedT Siegel seconded to close public hearing.
favor and motion carr ied.
AII voted in
Headla: I vronder what the alternatives are if Natural Green moves.
reaLly going to happen to that place? I don't knor,{. What can go in
Whatr s
there?
(
wildermuth: Nothing can happen to it unless we change...
Dacy: The uses that are listed in the RR District, single family,
agricultural and the conditional uses Potentially so basically that linits
it to residential or agricultural use unless we would have a request for a
conditional use permit.
Conrad: Yourve 9ot to ans$ter in your mind if you want retail in some form
in that area. so far we've kept retail, other than small scale sales, out
of that zone so I think that's your question. The zone is there. The use
as it is right now follows it can be used as a wholesale nursery or going
back to the primary zone. I think yourve got to answer whether you want to
start modifying.
Headla: Personally I would like to see it go in but I'm having a hard time
putting retail in the area with whatrs going on.
Wildermuth: without the urban services, is that right? No urban services.
I guess I would be inclined to make an exception because of the fact that,
as you said Barbarar the intensity or the use intensity is not very great.
Itrs not going to make a very big demand on the septic system for examPle.
The fact that there isnrt a ser.rer out there is not going to Present a real
problem r ight?
Dacy: No and there could be very littIe demand as far as septic systems on
the sewer.
$li ldermuth : High r.re I I irater demand no doubt .
Dacy: The problem is we're referring to a specific
very small facility. staffts concern is that unless
10 conditions, the extent to limit how much a garden
rderre concerned that we could get a large intensity
rural district area which could pose conflicts...
use. Hers proposing a
you really identify incenter could operate,
retail outfit in the
L
wildermuth: Even if that development were a Frankrs style operation, I
donrt see where that would be a Problem would it?
Planning Commission
September 9, L987 -
Meeting
Page 17
-t
(
\.
Dacy: staffrs analysis is based on the proposed use in reration to thedistrict- uses. rf you feer that a Frankrs nursery can co-exist with singrefamiry development then thatts fine. werre just having probrems from thestandpoint that those are completely two different tyfeJ of uses. Retailversus single family deveropment. Another potential -witrr tne zoningordinance amendment, yourre sending out confricting messages of whai a RRdistrict should be. Does that answer your question?
Conrad: Just remember Jim when you get into retail sales, thatrs adifferent animal than whoLesale. yourre talking about night time hours.You're tarking about weekend traffic. yourre talking traific issues.You're also talking rrhat's the difference in this retail versus that retail.Therers no difference between selling a potted ptant and selling a skirt.Therers no difference.
Wildermuth: Itls the eray that I look at this. I lrould see that areaprobabry either as high density o! a commerciar piece anyway urtimatery.Here we go violating what werve just said. rt wourd ue a rrira and fasi rureabout urban serv ices .
conrad: r think if you can identify a scope, retail sales under gl-o,6ag.sg.Traffic under 4 cars a day or La0 cZxs a aiy, whatever it might be becausemy problem is, there is no difference between that retail and another retailso whatever you do here will sort of set us up for other retail in thi.sdistrict which is okay if we erant other retail in that district.
siegel: rt's too bad we havenrt proceeded erith the previous subject to thepoint srhere vre know $rhat werre going to do along TH 5. r hesi ta-te to see awig shop with 5 acre minimum lot size. everything in perspective. we havedone other exceptions in other areas where werve made tondltionar usepermits available and r think we can make it restrictive enough. rtrs toobad we canrt get this do$rntown. rf we could force them out of that locationand put them into one of those nice spots downtown that is sti1l vacanL rtt\tourd probably be a better drav, for him and a better draw for chanhassendowntown arthough that isn't that far a$ray from downtor.rn and r see thatthere is a possibility that that is going to end up being commerciaL in ashort time. r don't have any problem wich this gaiden c-enter concept aslong as r,re put the appropriate conditions on it and r donrt think tim beingcontrad ictory.
Conrad: Does that mean you don't mind retail, in this district?
siegel: Thatts what r said before when we talked about zoning and then thepossibility that r.re're going to have to look at doing that. es long as it'spranned properly and. the appropriate requirements are put on the apfricants,I donrt have any problem with it. For one thing I donit judge retiifestabrishments rike you do that they're arr one and the slme. Therers awide variety of retai,l establishments. rf you carr a car dealership aretail establishment, it's not a barber shop. rtrs not the same. ihere arecategories of retail that I look at being different.
Planning Commi ss ion
September 9, L987 -
Meeting
Page 18
(
Siegel: I don't have a big problem with this from it's use or aesthetic,
being in this area and especially with what's happening all around that.
Emmings: I'm going to take the position here that we ought to keep retail
completely out of the RR. Again, werre the Planning Commission. we have no
obligation to be practical. We don't have to, we could ignore the fact thatthere are 4g million trees growing out there right now and it looks like aretail nursery. Just like last r.reek and I think that's vrhat we should do.
I think we should look at that piece of grouhd like, we should ignore thepresent use of it because when you look at the present use of it, it's just
a tiny step. It seems so reasonable. I think I told the guy when he was
here that it seemed like such an easy, natural thing to do but I thinkthatrs very dangerous for us at least. If the City Council wants to make an
exception here, maybe that's fine but I think if we don't stick to our guns
on the new zoning ordinance. Therers a process called the tyranny of small
decisions where you make these natural, easy steps and one day yourre over
here and by god the next day yourre way the hell over here and you don't
know how you got there and I think we ought to hold the line. The retail,
when you read the RR, you look at the intent statement, it's single family
residential subdivisions intended for large lot development. Thatrs the
intent of the RR. .That certainly does not contemPlate commercial uses and
when you read down the permitted uses, the accessory uses and the
conditionat uses, none of them are commercial like this erould be. we also
just got done talking about erhat the development on TH 5 is going to be and
said we shouldn't have urban scal-e develoPment out there until wetve got
those services and I think we ought to stay true to that princiPal too. I
don't think we ought to violate that because it is commercial and although
it's less intensive than a lot of other commercial or retail thinks might
be, you're going to have a hard time making that distinction I think to a
developer who comes in once we've opened the door. Thatts going to be a
very difficult distinction to draw. There are going to arguments on each
side are going to be of equal weight and we're going to lose ground that
i{ay. If they can make an argument that.rs as good as the one rde can make,
we're going to lose so I guess I'm really persuaded by what staff has come
up with here. The Ianguage and the intent under the RR doesn't allow this.
As a footnote though, we're talking about putting a frontage road all along
TH 5 down to TH 4l and if that was there, I would have no trouble with thisthere at aII but I think that's a long ways off and for now, as a growth
policy, I think we should not have comrnercial in Ehe RR.
Conrad: I agree erith steve and I agree with Staff. I think my biggest
concern is opening up the door to retail in a residential area and I donrt
know how to control it if we did do this one. r think philosophicalLy I
agree erith the intent of the agree as it is right now and I agree that
retail should have the urban services so unless there are other things,
questions.
(
Tom Hamilton: Irm notit's fair for me to be
go 1n9
tryi ng
speak
speak
on
for
Jayrs behalf because.I donrt think
him when he hasn't even asked metto
to
Conrad: Garden center is one?
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 1987 - page 19
,,( to but r think there are some things that r do know about the bus iness tha thaving been in conversations with him and Brad Johnson was tarking to hinabout his business r want to share with you. Jay said that not o-nly was hegoing to have a prant store where his major busin-ess wourd be aprill May,June and then your lesser business during the rest of the summel when y6u'redoing some shurbery work_in your yard and perhaps some other plantingsi Hewould probably aLso consider having Christmas tiees for instance for a monthor whatever length of time that you sell Christmas trees for so there vrouldbe those actually two periods of time when that wourd probably be a busyarea- It rrouldnrt be rike a Frank's, at least his comment to hyserf waihers not interested in crafts and he doesnrt intend to get into that type ofthing so you've got a coupre of periods where traffic w5uld be heavy aii agood share of the year there would virtually be no traffic there. i ttrinfin order to comPare traffic flows you need to look at the traffic flows outthere now and even though thatrs a whoresale use, therers awfully heavytraffic going in and out of that piece of prop"riy. Both trucks andemPLoyees. There are a lot of employees there and there are a lot of trucksbringing materials_in and arso taking materials out so you may not even seean increase in traffic at that spot ihourd it be retail,-. gob-made a goodcomment that it wourd be nice to have him dorrntown and r know that Br;dJohnso-n, working with CHADDA, has been trying hard to convince Jay that heshould be downtovrn and that would be in .riy,! best interest to be indowntown. one of the things that r thj.nk;rl of us need to consider when anew business comes to town is we want that business to be successfur. we
t hrant,that_ person to come to town, to have a business to last and the bestL way.tor hlm to be successfur in a 10t of people's opi.nions, is to have hisbusiness within the cBD so there are othei choiceslo him and I think *ljtthave hit on those and they are very valid poi.nts. r guess rrm kind of t-ornon this because r feel both ways. r r.rourd like to."e him the abiLity and rthink he could, to grow out there. could he not do his growing there andthen not have the retail facility there at arr but do hii growing andperhaps even live on the property? That,s something he may be a6le to do.
Conrad: Yes. Thatts log ical .
Tom Hamilton: r think for the success of his business he would be betteroff if he were in the central business district and r think he probablyrearizes that but his heart is really out there and he can see r,rhere hecou.rd live and grow and work, wark out his backdoor and he could be dealingrrith the customer. That looks pretty attractive.
Headla: He could grow all the stuff out there?
Conrad: He can use the
does the
I and
Lake
as it is currently.
Ann Interceptor go through his property?Siegel: Barb,
Dacy: Yes.
Siegel: When you
proper ty.have an interceptor sewer line going right through your
Planning Commission
September 9, 1987 -
Meeting
Page 2g
{
(
Dacy: You canrt use it.
Siegel: You canrt use it?
Dacy: Right and that's the basis of the Lake Ann agreement is Metro waste
gave us permission to install an interceptor. However, Chanhassen can not
use that until the year 2000 or until the entire urban service areas are
developed.
Wildermuth: Why is that?
Dacy: The major issue was the grovrth control issue and Met Council felt if
they would allow hook-up into the Lake Ann rnterceptor going outside of
their !.lUsA line would be contrary to the uetropolitan Development. And
rea11y, to get the Lake Ann Interceptor was a major victory for the City andCouncil. Itrs just a major accompli.shment that we are able to have that.
Even though we canrt hook up into it now, that is addressing some caPacity
issues for not only Chanhassen but the entire sewer service area.
Emmings: I notice I had this marked and I forgot to mention it in my
comments but another thing that was of interest to me in the staffts report
was that they pointed out that Eden Prairie and St. Louis Park, Brooklyn
Park and l.tinnetonka, garden centers are not permitted in the rural. or
residential area. They are permitted only in the commercial districts. The
worse part about being so rigid about these classifications is ere start
sounding like the Metropolitan Council.
Conrad: There are so many charming things about having what he urants to do.
There are some neat things that I would like to see but when you get back
into being practical and in terms of hov, you manage that type of development
and thatts when things become a little bit tougher.
Emmings moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to
deny the request for the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Article v,
Section 4(4) to allow garden centers as a conditional use in the RR,
Rural Residential. AIl voted i.n favor except Siegel who opposed and motion
carried.
Emmings: You said permitted
siegel: welI, the
on the other side
use , did you mean
uses in the area.
or conditional use?
instance the industrialperm i tted
that
Eor
L
of the highway.
Tom Hamilton: I guess it would be good too, Jay $rould probably appreciate
it if you would have some comments to make about encouraging him to even
come to town. If you woul.d like to see him out there growing.
Siegel: I would just go with a garden center with the given restrictions
that it should be a permitted use in this area given the proximity of the
area and the surrounding useage of the area and the potential development in
that corr idor.
CITY OF
EIIf,NHflSETI[
P.C. DATE:
C.C. DATE!
CASE NO:
Prepared by:
June 1, 1988
June 13, 1988
O 1s enlv
STAFF REPORT
Fz
c)
=LL
f
E
tIJF
U)
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Sections
20-695, 20-715, 20-755, 20-774, 20-795 and 20-815
to Provide for Minimum Building and Parking
Setbacks for Lots Adjacent to Railroads in
Residential Zoning Di str i cts
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITI:
AD'IACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:N-
s-
E-
w-
WATER AND SEWER:
PEYSICAL CIIARAC. :
2OOO LAND USE PLAN:
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
June 1, 1988
Page 2
ANALYSIS
A11 of the commercial and industrial districts, except for the
CBD District, contain the above referenced regulation. Ascurrently worded., it is confusing to both the developers andstaff to interpret setbacks for properties that abut bothrailroad trackage and residentail districts. This amendment has
been initiated by staff as hre are anticipating several applica-tions which are affecLed by the interpretation of this language.In fact, some of the potential applicants will be present at themeeting. The City Attorney has staEed that it is a confusingsection and should be clarified.
Staff has reviewed several ordinances from surrounding com-munities. The majority of the ordinances do not have specific
setbacks for commercial and industrial areas that abut a residen-tial district. In those orCinances which did establish different
seLbacks, the setbacks were increased for those districtsabutting residential areas. The ordinances did not differentiate
between structure setbacks and parking setbacks and none of the
ordinances had reduced setbacks for sites abutting railroad
trackage.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Sections 20-695, 20-715, 20-755, 20-774, 20-795 and 20-815 - Offstreet parking areas shal1 comply hrith all yard requirements ofthis section, except that no rear yard parking setback sha1l berequired for lots clirectly abutting railroad trackagei and, noside yard sha11 be required when adjoining commercial usesestablish off street parking facilities, except that no parkingareas shal1 be permitted in any required street side yard. The
minimum rear yard shall be 50 feet for lots directly abutting anyresidential district. Side street side yards sha11 be a minimumof 25 feet in all districts.
Attachment. #2 illustrates areas where commercial and industrialdistricts abut railroad trackage and rasidential districts. Thefirst sentence of this section refers to off street parking areasstating that no rear yard parking setback shall be required for
lots directly abutting railroad trackage. it also states thatthere shall be a minimum rear yard of 50 feet for lots directly
abutting any residential district. Although the commercial site
may directly abut railroad trackage, it. may also abut a residen-
tial district. Therefore, the interpretation of this section
could either be that for those areas abutting railroad trackage
and residential districts that off street parking in the rear
could directly abut railroad trackage or that the parking areasin the rear must maintain a 50 foot setback from the residential
district.
Staff finds that 50 feet is too excessive in instances whererailroad tracks exist and would recommend a 25 foot setbackinstead. This r,rould maintain separation from the railroad tracksand would permit adequate space for berming and landscaping.
Further, the ordinance states that a "rear,, yard setback of 50feet is required. In some cases, a commercial or industrial areamay abut a side yard. The ordinance should not differentiatewhat type of yard it is, but rather establish a minimum setbackfor the building and parking areas abutting residencial areas.
RECOMMENDAT ION
Planning staff recommends thefollowing motion:
Planning Commission adopt the
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance
Amendment to Amend Sections 20-695, 20-715, 20-755, 20-774,20-795 and 20-815 to read as follows:
Off street parking areas sha1lof this section except Lhat norequired for lots directly abutcial or industrial districts.
comply rrith aI1 yard requirements
rear yard parking setback shall beting railroad trackag e and commer-
No side yard shal1 be required
when adjoining commercial uses establish off street parking faci-lities, except that no parking areas shall be permitted in anyrequired side street side yard.The minimum yard for structuresand parkin areas sha11 be 50 feet for Lots directly abuttinq anyresidential district not separat.ed bv railroad trackaqe. The
minimum yard for parking areas and building structures sha11 be25 feet for lots directly abuttinq any residentiaL district andraiLroad trackaqe.
of 25 feet in all
The side s treetdistricts. "
side yards sha11 be a minimum
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
June 1, 1988
Page 3
Staff is recommending that the regulations be amended Lo diffen-tiate between parking and structural setbacks for propertiesabutting residential districts and railroad trackage. As shor,rnin Attachment #2, there are only a few iodustrial and commercialareas that abut railroad trackage and residential districts. Themajority of the industrial and. cornmercial areas that abutrailroad trackage also abut industrial and commercial property onthe other side of the tracks. The commercial and industrialsites irhich abut both railroad trackage and residential districtsare separated by slope and vegetation along the railroad trackagefrom the residential districts. In fact, a 20 foot conservation
easement was reserved along the rear of the lots abutting thetracks in the industrial subdivision behind the press building.Therefore, having a reduced setback along these areas would not
have a negative impact to the residential areas since therailroad right-of-way itself provides separation. It should benoted that this amendment only affects the setback. A six footscreening requirement is also required beti^reen residential andnon-res i dential uses .
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
June 1, 19 88
Page 4
Excerpt from ordinance.
Map showing locations of areas which abut railroad trackage
and residential districts.
1
2
ATT ACHMENTS
CH.\NHASSEN CITY CODE
Sec. 20-693. Perrnitted accessory uses.
The follorving are permitted accessory uses in a ..BN" District:
(1) Parking lots.
(2) Car wash (when accessory to automotive service station).
(3) Signs.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 10(5-10-3), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20694. Conditional uses. ..
The following are conditional uses in a ..BN', District:
(1) Convenience store with gas pumps.
(2) Automotive service stations.
(3) Drive-in banks including automated kiosks.
(4) Temporary outdoor display of merchandise for sale.
(5) Standardrestaurants-
(6) Bed and breaksfast establishments.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 10(5-10-4), 12-15-86)
State law reference-Conditional uses, M.S. $ 462.85gb.
Sec. 20-695. I-ot requirements and setbacks.
The follorving minimum requirements shar be observed in a "BN,, District subject toadditional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter:
(1) The minimum district area is three (3) acres. This paragraph may be waived in the
case of expansion to an existing district.
(2) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet.
(3) The minimum lot frontage is seventy-five (?5) feet, e\cept that lots fronting on a
cul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage ofsixty (60) feet in all districts.
(4) The minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty (150) feet.
(5) The maximum lot coverage including ar structures and paved surfaces is sixty-five
(65) percent.
(6) off-street parking areas sharl comply with all yard requirements of this section,
except that no rear yard parking setback shalr be required for lots directly rbutting
railroad trackage; and, no side yard shall be required when ailjoining co^merci"l
uses establish joint off-str-eet parking facilities, as provided in section 20-ll.Z2, except
that no parking areas shall be permitted in any required side street side yard. The
minimum rear yard shall be fifty (80) feet for lots directly abutting any residential
district. Side streets side 5rards shall be a minimum of twenty-five (28) feet.
Other setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards, thirty-five (3b) feet.
o
o
7216
o
$ 20-693
i 20-772
(17) kivate clubs and lodges.
(18) Community center.
(19) Funeral homes.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, S 11(5.11-2), 12-15a6)
Sec. 2G713. Permitted accessory uses.
The following are permitted accessory uaes in a "BHl' District
(1) Signs.
(2) Parking lots.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, S 11(5-11-3), 12-15€6)
Sec. 2G714. Conditional uses.
The following are conditional uses in a "BH" District:
(1) Outdoor display of merchandise for sale.
(2) Supermarkets.
(3) Small vehicle sales.
(4) Screened outdoor storage.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, S 1r(5-1r4), 12-15-86)
State law reference-Conditional uses, M.S. $ 462.3595.
3
C
a
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
Sec. 2G715. Iat requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in a "BH" District subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modi{ications set forth in this chapter:
(1) The minimum district area is ten (10) acres. This paragraph may be waived by a
condition use permit in the case of expansion of an existing district.
(2) The minimum lot area is twenty thousand (20,000) square feet.
(3) The minimum lot frontage is one hundred (100) feet, except that lots fronting on a
cul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage in all districts of sixty (60) feet.
(4) The minimum lot depth is one hundred frfty (150) feet.
(5) The maximum lot coverage is sixty-five (65) percent.
(6) Off-street parking areas shall comply with all yard requirements of this section,
except that no rear yard parking setback shall be required for lots directly abutting
railroad trackage: and, no side yard shall be required when adjoining commercial
uses establishjoint off-street parking facilities, as provided in section 20-1l22,.except
that no parking areas shall be permitted in any required side street side yard.
Minimum rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet for lots directly abutting any residential
l2l8
o
o
ZONING
(5) Major auto repair and body shops.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 13(b-194), 12-15-86)
State law reference-Conditional uses, M.S. $ 462.g595.
\ 20-77 L
Secs. 2G.?56-20-270. Reserved.
ARTICLE XX. 'BF' FRINGE BUSINESS DISTBIC,T
Sec. 20-7?1. Intent.
-o (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, S t4(5-1.1-1), 12.15-86)
Sec, 2G,755. Lot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in a ..BG,, District subject toadditional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter:
(1) The minimum lot area is twenty thousand (20,000) square feet.
(2) The minimum lot frontage is one hundred 000) feet, except that lots fronting on acul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage of sixty (60) feet in all districts.
(3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty (150) feet.
(4) The maximum lot coverage is seventy (70) percent.
(5) off-street parking areas shall comply with all yard requirements of this section,except that no rear yard parking setback shall be required f". lrt" di.""tly ";;;;;;;railroad trackage; and, no side yard shall be required when adjoining co_mu"ciu-l
uses establishjoint off-street parking fac ities, as provided in section zo-ttzz,
"*"*ptthat no parking areas shall be permitted in any required side street side yard- Theminimum rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet for lots directly abutting any residentialdistrict. Side street side yards shall be a minimum of twenty_frve (25) feet. Othersetbacks are as follows;
a. For front yards, twenty-hve (25) feet.
b- For rear yarils, twenty-frve (25) feet.
c. For side yards, ten (10) feet.
(6) The maximum height is as follows:
a. For the principal structure, three (3) storieVforty (40) feet.b. For accessory structures, two (2) stories-
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 1A(5-19-S), 12-15_86)
The intent olthe "BF" District is to accommodate limited commercial uses without urbanseryices.
s 20-772
*c. 2O-772. Permitted accessory uses.
The following are permitted accessory uses in a ..BF,, District:
(1) Parking lots.
(2) Signs.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 14(5-14-3), 12-15-86)
Sec. 2G773. Conditional uses.
The following are conditional uses in a ..BF,, District:
(l) Automotive service station \i/ithout car washes.
(2) Truclirtrailer rental.
(3) Utility services.
(4) Outdoor display of merchandise for sale.
(5) Cold storage and rvarehousing.
(Ord. No. 80, tut. V, $ 14(5-14-2), 12.15-86)
State law reference-Conditional uses, M.S. $ 462.3b95.
*c. 2O-774. Iot requirements and setbacks.
The follorving minimum requirements shalr be observed in a "BF', District subject toadditional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter:
(1) The minimum lot area is trventy thousand (20,000) square fe€t.
(2) The minimum lot frontage is one hundred (100) feet, except that lots fronting on a
cul-de-sac shall have a minimum fr.ont footage of sixty (60) feet in all districts.
J
C
(3)
(4)
(5)
The minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty (150) feet
Ttre maximum lot coverage is forty (40) percent-
off-street parking areas shall comply with all yard requirements of this section,
except that no rear yard parking setback shall be required for lots directly abuttingrailroad trackage; and, no side yard shall be required when adjoining commer"ial
uses establishjoint off-street parking facilities, as provided in section 20-1122, exceptthat no parking ar.eas shall be permitted in any required side street side yard. Theminimum rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet for lots directly abutting any residential
district. Side street side yards shall be a minimum of twenty_five (25) feet in alldistricts. Other setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards, twenty-five (25) feet.b. For rear yards, twenty (20) feet.
c. For side yards, ten 00) feet.
L221
o
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(1) Adaptive reuse of vacant pubric or private school buildings for private business uses.(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, S r5(5-15-4), t2-15.86)
State law reference-Conditional uses, M.S. $ 462.35gb.
Sec. 2G795. Ir,t requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements sha be observed in an,,oI,, District subject toadditional requirements, exceptions and modifrcations set forth in this chapter:
(1) The minimurn lot area is frfteen thousand (15,000) square feet.
(2) The minimum lot frontage is seventy-frye (7S) feet, except that lots fronting on a
cul-de-sac shall have a minimum lot frontage of sixty (60) feet.
(3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred frfty OS0) feet.
(4) the maximum lot coverage is sixty-frve (6b) percent.
$ 20-793
(2) Signs.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 15(5-15.3), 12-1b-86)
Sec. 2G794. Conditional uses.
The follorving are conditional uses in the ,.OI,' District:
a. For front yards, thirty-five (38) feet.b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet.
c- For side yards, fifteen (1S) feet.
(6) The maximum height is as follows:
a. For the principal structure, two (2) stories.b. For accessory structures, one (1) story.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 15(5-lS-b), t2-lb-86)
(5) off-street parking areas shal comply with alr yard requirements of this section,
except that no r.ear yard parking setback shall be required for lots directly abuttingrailroad trackage; and, no side yard shall be required when adjoining commercial
uses establishjoint off-street parking facilities, as provided in section 20-1122, exceptthat no parking areas shall be permitted in any required side street side yard. Theminimum rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet for lots directly abutting any residentialdistrict. Side street side yards shall be a minimum of twenty_five (25) feet. Other
setbacks are as follows:
Secs. 2G,?96-20810. Reserved_
1226
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
s 20-814 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(3) Public buildings.
(4) Motor freight terminals.
(5) Outdoor health and recreation clubs.
(6) Screened outdoor storage.
(7) Research laboratories.
(8) Contracting yards.
(9) Lumber yards.
(10) Home improvement trades.
(lt) 1166u1" and motels.
(12) Food processing.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 16(5-164), 12-15-86)
State law reference-Conditional uses, M.S. $ 462.8595
Sec. 2G815. f.ot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements sha be observed in an "Iop" District subject toadditional requirements. exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter:
J
C(1)
(2)
The minimum lot area is one (l) acre.
The minimum lot frontage is one hundred ffty OE0) feet, except that lots fronting on
a cul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage of sixty (60) feet.
The minimum lot depth is two hundred (200) feet.
The maximum lot coverage is seventy (70) percent.
Off-street parking areas shall comply with all yard requirements of this secrion,
except that no rear yard parking setback shall be required for lots directly abutting
railroad trackage; and, no side yard shall be required when adjoining comrnercial
uses establishjoint off-street parking facilities, as provided in section }O_LL2Z, exceptthat no parking areas shall be permitted in any required side street side yard. The
minimum rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet for lots directiy abutting any residential
district. Side street side yards shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet in all
districts- Other setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yar.ds, thirty (30) feet.
b. For rear yards, ten (10) feet.
c. For side yards, ten (l0) feer.
The maximum height is as follows:
a. For the principal structure, four (4) stories/fifty (b0) feet.b. For accessory structures, one (l) story.
. 80, Art. V, $ 16(5-16-5), 12-15-86)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
oOrd.N
7228
o
-
6aoo
RSF
6600
-6700
6800
6900
7000
--7tOO
Taoo
-aoo
-t6oo
-
t70o
RlcIRS
R4
R12
T
l
\1.
J
I
8r:
SlooR12
18
2
PUD-R
c'
I
UD_R
-l
RD
L OTUS
R
R1
I
R12
z
-
3 lop
RSF
N
RIC E Y SH LAKE
LAKE SUSAN
RD
1 /,
EZ!#l
!alt
I
rt!
I
ll
,
TT
tt3 !
!I a
!a
3
RSF
-laoo
k
I
l3
\t/
L A KE
ol
R12
F
€
R12
-' 4200
n
6$
I
t
{
-iloo
tooo
400 '1.,'
900
700
600
500
300
?oo
lt
co
n
c)r\
\
\r\
zm
c,
=
,aI
xo!
m
m
o1
I
IIII
't
\.i.-
a
o0
i'.
r200
: !.... ,..
ttIIII
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISS ION
REGULAR MEETI NG
MAY 18, 1988
Chairman Emmings called the meeting to at 7:30 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, AnnetteBatzli and Jim Wildermuth
Steven Emmings, Br ian
order
EIIson,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and David Headla
STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, Cjty planneri Jo AnnPlanner and Larry Brovrn, Asst. City Engineer
01sen, Asst. City
PUBLIC HEAR I NG :
SUBIDIVISION OF 5.5
PROPERTY ZONED A- 2,
MILE SOUTH OF CR 14
Public Present:
Name
Robert Buresh
David HalIa
Don Hal Ia
ACRES INTO TWO SINGLE EAMILY RESIDENTIAL
AGRICULTURAL ESTATES AND LOCATED EAST OF
AND ADJACENT TO HALLA NURSERY, ROBERT J.
LOTS Ot{
TH lgt. I/4
BURESH.
Address
Appl i cant
I0AAO Greatlgqg0 cxeat
Plains 81Plains Bl
vd
vd
Robert Buresh: r'd just like to put this issue to bed. r wourd like toget. access to the property with a public street if possible and my secondoption wourd be to do it with a private drive. tn lalking $rith Don andDave, r think there's a consensus that they want a street and a publicstreet wourd be desirable. r was wonderi ng i.r it vrould be possible torecommend a 30 foot public street wj.th no parkjng on there lo theywourdnrt have to go t.hrough the expense of repralting their existing prat.
Jo Ann O1sen presented the staff report.
Emmings: Yourre aware though that therers a problem r"rj ththere canrt be another road coming off of TH IgI so closethatrs platted jn for thej.r development.
Emmings: Have you talked to them about that possibility?
MnDot in thatto the road
Robert Buresh: r donrt have a sorution for it other than if they put thatstreet in, that has arready been approved in thei.r pr.l, p"."ib1y we couldhook up to it somer.ray and not go ouE to TH r0l but roop bick around.Build a 3a foot street that wourd, when their prat.finilty develops andtheir streets are going in at that tjme, chaE we wirr do 6verythi'ng to-cutoff and cone through that door.
Robert Buresh: Briefly. I don't kno$,but we talked about a 30 foot street on
accesses onto TH 10I d j.dn't come up inthat out nos, as a possible option.
that we specifically mentj.oned that
h i. s . The i ssue of the t$roour conversations but I just threw
Planning Commj ssion
May 18, 1988 - Page
Meet i ng
2
Emmings: Okay,
Robert Buresh:
anyth j. ng
Noth i ng
Dave HaIIa: Let me try to go through this real fast so we donrt take up
much of your time. Going back ove! the history to refresh your memories
on th is. Originally Roy Teich came into the Cj.ty of Chanhassen wanting abuilding permit to give to his son-in-Iaw as a gift for 5 acres. At thattime Russ Larson r./a s your Attorney for the Ci.ty of Chanhassen. He ruledthat because of our deed, and it's still in that description t.oday, thatthat road was ours exclusive in perpetuity, that easement. So Larson madehis legal ruling and said in order for Teich to get ingress and egress by
using that easement Halla's had to give him permission, which we did in a
document which you've probably got in front of you now that Roy Teich'sAttorney drew up. He spelJ.ed it out. We had a premonition that in thefuture that additional lots would be sold. WeII, very shortly after thatthing was done, Teich sold this piece that Bob Buresh is trying to get abuilding site on novr, to Dipwick and then oipwick sold it to Nikolai and
then Oipwick got. it back and then Ljndqul st got it and now Buresh isgetting it from Lindquist. In all of that time, I put that road in thereto service my house whj.ch is on the end. I hauled in there some 225,ggg
tons of rock. I paid for that myself. I havenrt had one bit of
cooperation from Teich. HardIy any cooperation from Graffunder on the
maj ntenance of that road. I believe it was in I98I ox L982, we were sued
by Teich on Graffunder's behalf for parking cars along that road. He won
that lawsuit and Judge ?homas Howell, a District Court Judge rules that vre
could not park cars on that road. But he also ruled that that maintenance
in that agreement was upheld and that they had to be responsible for the
maintenance. Now we tried on a number of occasi.ons, at least 6 or 8
occasions meeting with Lindquist, meeting with Teich, meeting with
Graffunder, meetj.ng with Pauly, who is Tecj.h's soo-in-Iaw where the whole
thing got started, trying to get them to agree on maintenance. Theyabsolutely refused to do anything. We've gi.ven Graffunder a biIl. At one
time he sajd Irll pay half of the bill. It was $890.A0. He r^ronrt pay it.
Snowplolring in the winter is a real paJn. I have to plow that aII the wayout. Graffunder is not the kind of the people that anybody would want for
a neighbor. He won't plow that driveway until after I opened it up and
then four days later. The snokl can be 2 feet high in there so I have toplow j.t wide enough so I can get out. He wonrt do any maj ntenance. When
we tried to maintain the road and we run a movrer down there or something,his wife is out there just hollerjng and they got the Sheriff out there.
Oh, you're getting a little gravel over on our grass or something. Theycut their grass along the road, blow their clippings out on the road.
That seeds down so the road gets all green. We go over there with some
weed k j.Iler and spray the grass on the road, not on their Iawn but on theroad, she calls the Sheriff on us because werre spraying weeds in theroad. Itrs been nothj.ng gentlemen but a pajn j.n the behind. you canrt
anybody to agree for maintenance and I have refused Eo do any maintenance.
I have been doing jt aII these years since I've ljved there since t97O andnot one of those other people has even shared. We have talked with each
one of them. Tejch, Graffunder, Pauly and Li.ndqu j st and not one of them
will share the expense. Werre not gojng to take them to court and sue
them over it but werve already got a commitment and Irve got the records
else?
eIse.
Planning Commi ssion
May 18, 1988 - Page
Meeting
3
ri.ght here if anybody r.rants to see it from Judge Thomas Howell who ruled
9! it, that the agreement is upheld. Nor., also j.n that agreement and I.allike to read thjs to you so that you're aware of it. Weive got a copyhere but letrs go on the second page. And it says here, construction of
!ome. begins. It_says vendees agree not to object the Village ofChanhassen granting the vendors or said Vernon pauly and JuAith pauly abuilding permi.t. Vendors or thej.r ass j.gns agree to pay for maintenancealong subdivided rots for a period of five years after said subdivisionuse after which t ime and in the event there is joint use of the said
easement property, the parties hereto agree to share the naintenance costsover the easement property.
Emmings: I wonder if I cao cut this short. I want you to say whateveryourve got to say but if I can summarize this in a way thatrs fair to you.It seems to me that what you're saying is, ...aII the responsibility forthe road even though other people use it. Number tr^ro, yourve got a pointthat the road is really yourrs exclusively. you have the excrusive use ofthat easement?
Emmings: And r guess one of the conditions, are you aware the one of theconditions that the city has imposed on his being granted the right tosubdivide is documentation that woulcl verjry that iis property his a rightto use that easement. rn other words, putting the burden on him to shoithe city before this actualry goes through, that ne has the right to usethat easement? Nor", does that satisfy your concern?
Dave HaIIa: Correct.
Dave Halla: Let me ayour question because
couple of thJ.ngs in hereit's spelled out in this and I think I can answer
agreement.
Don HaIIa: One of the questions yourre going to come up with is $rouldr allow for a resubdivision. we've already brought and paid for threeseparate redoings of subdivisions. r'm not going to pay for anymore. rrvegotten it approved. r donrt want to open a can of wormi because there isa chance that if I go through with another subdivisi.on, you folks mightdemand that I connect my subdivision to the subdivision to the east.Thatrs $LqA,00g.g6. I'm not payi ng $Lqq,gqq.A0 in Iots sa1e, putting in aroad, redoing the plans, everything else. Irm not gojng to pict< up [nattab so my answer is no to that one. We were disapproved on havj.ng theroad to the south once. we didnrt want to get into a lawsuit on it so weput it aII on our property. We tried to play the game but I sajd if I'mputting it on my property and not bri.nging it down and using that 30 footeasement because thatrs... That was dj.sapproved so I guess Itm saying no.Bottom line.
Emmings: Same question to you. Assuming that we would approve thesubdivision, if we would prace a condi tion on his abiri ty--or condition theapproval again, satisfying the City, if he has legal right to use thateasement, pracing that burden on him, does that satisfy your concern vrithrespect to use and maj.ntenance of the road?
Planning Commi ss i on
May 18, 1988 - Page
Meet i ng
4
Dave HaIIa: No. Because yourve stitl got the same situatjon. Eventhough Teich signed it, Roy Teich, and it says in there that itrs bindingupon their heirs or assigns, he won't honor it. Graffunder has got the
same thing and itrs a recorded document. Graffunder won't honor it.
Emmings: So what youtre saying is there,s an agreement
having problems enforc ing?
there that you,re
Dave Ha 1la : Rjght.
Enmings: That's a problem between you and your neighbors.
Dave HalLa: AIso, this subdivision has always been referred to by theCity Planners and by their Attorneys as Teichts illegal subdivis ion. Hestuck that thing in there when he couldn't do it in the beginning and allof these people have been stuck with it for years. Norr, Buresh comes outthere and he likes it and wants to build a house and all that on there,but you donrt solve the probLem like that. If you people go along and
approve this, aII you're doing is creating a bigger problem. Nobody will
honor the maintenance agreemen!. The only way you can enforce it is to gointo the court and end up with a big contest and nobody r^rins anything.Itrs a mess. Itis not going to get any better and until it's resolved,Irm not in favor of anybody else using that road because I'm the guy rrhorsthe goat that paid for all of it and Irve enjoyed all that that I want to.
Don HaIIa: Arenrt you just complicating it? shou}dn't the horse comebefore the cart? The road thj.ng should be approved fj rst before you
approve a subdivision of that. Iot and multiply the problem. If there is
access and jf there js a legal easement that serves thjs property, that
should be determined first. Then secondary, go through a subdivision
instead of creatj.ng two lots that have the same problem.
Erunings: Jo Ann, has our Attorney looked at this and said
he thinks the pos j.tion of the Halla's, that they have the
to the use of that road is correct? what does he think?
whether or not
exclusive r ight
Ol-sen: Two fold. He addressed this
letter at all. It was just one lot,the right to use that.
with the HalIa subdivisi.on in asaying that yes, they do have
I SSUe
he was
Emmings: That Buresh does?
Olsen: Yes. He had a copy of the easement but once jt was subdivj.ded it
would be creating a new lot and the City is essent j.ally a second buildableIot there. Thatrs where he's started to say that we better have the
guarantee that that would be serviced by that access.
Ellmings: what does the City Staff think about the ord j.nance... Should he
have to do that as a part of the application process rather than having itas a condition on approval or donrt you care?
Planning Commi ss ion
May 18, 1988 - Page
Meet i ng
5
Olsen: Typically yes we would have that...I donrt seedone. That it could still just be a cond ition.
why it couldn I t be
Emmings: fs there
on this one?
anybody else from the publi.c here that wants to speak
Robert Buresh: First of aII, if you do not give a public street and itdoes- remain as a private easement, r go on record pubricly as stating thatI will be a good nei.ghbor and honor my portion of any maiitenance orupkeep agreement. I donrt anticipate any problems in that area. Thesecond thing, rrve been delayed because the Hallars were going to develop.r could have done this a rong tirne ago and rrve been put 5tf 6ssenti.a11y'over a year no$, waiting for this to happen and waiti ng to see vrhat theHalla's are going to do. Nor., they did so now arL of a sudden a new issuecomes in- where we atready got an opinion from the city Attorney oncethat legarry r can drive to that piece of property. Di;ide them into harfacres now and you divide them into 10 little pieces or 2 big pieces ormaintain 5 L/2. Legarry r can stirr drive to that propertyi My Attorneyhas checked it out thoroughry...and we tatked to tht city ettorney todayand we have to send some more documents over or maybe the same document!but I'm beginning a little bit anxious. Now that r hear another issueafter waiting over a year and waiting for the Harla,s to do their plat andr agreed to that because r thought...mine should be a function of theirsrather than them being a function of mine or we end up with something ihatwouldn't be in the best interest of the city- But I,ve waited patie;tlyfor them- to reprat and now that they have, i wourd like to proceed as fastas possibre and not be del-ayed by another i.ssue that r thinl nas atrea-ybeen settled.
Dave Halla: I think you people have an opportuni.ty here, ri.ght now andthe city council has the other opportunity in the next week Is to say hey,if this- j.s.the.way it js, you people live up to that agreement, part ofthe condition if we pass an approval is that everybody -
ag rees to- pay thatmaintenance. If you donrt do that, all yourre going lo io is have abigger mess and werre going to end up in a lawsuit ind the City...
&nmings: There I s nobody here that wouldn' t
r.rho are using the road, it makes sense thatmai.ntenance.
agree with you that the peoplethey share in the cost of
Dave Halla: He might be a goodintentions but the other people,the street and wave at them.
nei ghbor. Hets saying heisItm telling you I wouldntt
got good
wa 1k acros s
Erhart moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing.in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: you can probably talk about the legal issues all nightdonrt think the best. thing to do rdould be to make this a puUiicguess at this poiot in my mind. I believe that that pers6n who5.5 acres or rdhatever it is, probably does have the right to usedriveway but I don't know if he has ihe right to creat6 a bigger
AII voted
but I
road I
owns the
tha t
burden on
Planning Commj ssion
May 18, 1988 - Page
Mee t j. ng
5
that driveway and he probably doesn't have access from any place else. we
could probably talk about that legal issue untj.l rrerre all bl,ue in theface. I don't really I j.ke requ j.ring the applicant to provjde documenta-
tion to the City. That he has the legal right to do that because I thinkthe only thing he could do for the City would be Lo probabl-y get some sortof declaratory judgment such as a lav,rsuit. Yourre basically asking him
either to agree with the HaIIats up front or basjcally sue them to getjudgment. I donrt know erhat other kind of documents. I donrt knor., whatkind of documents staff envisi.ons that hers going to be able to get.
OIsen: Werre just going to have their Attorney sPeak together with our
Attorney and to confirm that he does include that in the subdivided 1ot...
Bror.rn: The intent of the conditions was that the aPplicant provide some
existing documents. In the time frame r.re were not abLe to locate it but
we were under the assumption since that ProPerty or parcel in the past
seemed to have access or appeared to have access to it, that there must be
some document out there so the intent was jusE for the apPlicant to
provide an existing document. Not to come up with a new one.
Batzli: Yourre basically asking him to perform a title search to
determine if his deed restrictions Eo his property includes use of that
acces s ?
Brown: Correct.
Batzli: Even if it doesn't...I dontl think I tike making that a publ ic
road much better. If it is true that that Property already has legal
right to use that road, I think the addition of one more lot, basically by
subdividi.ng that lot in two would be a much better solution than...
wildermuth: I thj.nk we should look at the resolvjng the two
far as the subdiv j.sion is concerned, it appears to meet all
subdivision requirements. The road j.ssue apparently has got
resolved between the tvro parties. The City j.s not a part of
agreement. That agreement and the legal description of Mr.
property is ProbablY...
parties.
the
to be
the
Buresh's
AS
Ellson: It sounds like a complicated matter. Irm trying to think of what
we have the right to do and I can't say anything more than saying yes,
thatrs an okay plan. I can understand why MnDoE says no public road and I
feel like my hands are tied. I'm thinking what I can do. r feel for this
guy with the no fun nej ghbors and I feel ljke Mr. Buresh I,riII probably
keep up his end of it but it jsn't in our jurisdiction Eo say...we can't
rea-tly-write in a condition 1j.ke that to my knowledge so I feel like all I
can say is I like the One recommendation where itrs okay to come with the
easement and unfortunately it's thejr problem. Irm sure you've got no
Iove loss with those neighbors, I probably would take them to court even
though more people lose. They might as well be one of the losers
because. . .but that I s about where f rm at.
Erhart: I donrt have any questions or comments.
Planning Commission
May 18, 1988 - Page
Mee t j. ng
7
Emmings: r feer that pretty much the $ray Annette does in that r thinkwe're here rooking at a proposed subdivision and the subdivision seems tobe alright. ?he problem is the access to it and there there,s a 1ongregal history that r don't think we really get involved in. rt seems tome, the way to resolve this, the only people objecting right nohr to your
Proposar Mr. Buresh are the Harlars and if you can come to an agreementwith them between the time this leaves here and by the tirne it lets to thecity council, it wouLd seem to me then that there $rould be cleai sairing.r know there are ways to write agreements such that if peopre donrt liveup to their agreement, you have an agreement in writing, flying out whatthe property owners will do. Agreements that will run-with- the rand so itdoesn't matter who owns them, where if they donrt rive up to those they'libe assessed and becone riens on the property, they can be foreclosed u!on.r've written them myserf and it's arwayi a pain in ttre neck to enforce onebecause it means a court acti.on but you've got a real strong tool becauseyou're basicalry terring the person if you don't live up to it r^re're goingto foreclose on your property. rf you guys can sit dowi-r and tark and comeup with something and get your attoineyi lo draw up an agreement . . .naybeyou guys can courd get along. Maybe you courd arl go together and take onthe other parties who donrt seem to be as willing .i yo.,-u.e to help.That t s just an idea.
Erhart moved, Batzli seconded that the planning commissi.on recommendapprove subdivision of 5.5 acres into two single family residentialon property zoaed A-2, AgriculEural Estates for Robert Buresh to beserviced by a private drive with the following condiaio;;;--
tolots
I The appLicant sha1l provide documentationsubject property has the right to use the
The approved septic sites mustconstruction on the site.
The applicant shall provide a driveway access plana turnaround as requested by the Fire Inspectoi.
which verifies that the30 foot easement.
which shall address
be staked and roped off prior to
2
?
6.
4
5
Type I erosion control shall besides of Lot 2, Block 1 prjor to
Wood-fiber blankets or equivalentdisturbed slopes greater than 3:I
installed along the south and eastthe commencement of any grading.
shall be used to stabilize all
The developer shall be respons j.ble forcaused by construction or construction da J. ly on and
traffic from
off-sj.te cleanupthis si te.
Al-l voted in favor and motion carried.
Emmings: I'm sure you understand, that does include the conditionhas to satisfy the City that you,ve got a right to use that road atpoint. j.n time. If you guys come to some agreement between now andtime it gets to the City Council, that wonit be an issue anymore.
that hethis
the
Planning Commission
May 18, 1988 - Page
Meet i ngI
SIGN PERMIT VARIANCE TO SECTION 20-1260 TO CONSTRUCT AN 89 SQUARE EOOT
PYLON SIGN ON PROPERTY ZONED A_2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED AT 615FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, SUPERAMERICA STATION, ROMAN MUELLER AND SUPERAMERICA
STATION, I NC.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Enmings: Is the 78 foot sign they have now, was that grandfathered in?
a sign committee so that wasOlsen: Right and that was approved by
approved and has been grandfathered in.
Roman l'lueller: My name is Roman MueIIer representing SuperAmerica, L246west 98th Street, Bloomington, Minnesota. I think she's presented ourcase here quite well. I think therer s one error and thatrs that ourstandard sign is 22 feet high, not 26. The sign company submitted thisfor us and marked that dimension in in error. We would like to maintain
8g square feet. You can see our logo on the sign is 40 square feet atthis point in time. The rest of the sign is j.nformational . In this casewith this particular location, the lo$rer half where the drawing showsInstant Cash, would actually be a third product in there with pricing. weare required to have pricing on our signs. The question becomes whetheror not we will show pricing on t$ro or three products.
Emmings: The sign that yourre asking for now is how high?
Roman Mueller: The one werre requesting?
Enmings: The one that you're asking for.
Roman Muel-ler: Our standard pole with sign is actually 22 feet jnstead of26 feet. IErs shown on page 25. The 16 foot d j.mension was shown.
Emmings: The present
as high.
sign $ras 24 feet high so this one might even be not
Roman Muel-ler: Correct. WerlI be dropping j.t 2 feet fron what. thecurrent sign is. In the area, Iooking at it, I'm sure yourre all familiarwith it, it is along the hjghway so there are relatively good traffic
speeds and we feel that something of larger size gives you the ability toview it while yourre traveling Ehrough there in traffic and at that speed.If you have any questions of us, please ask.
Emmings: Alright. There is no one here from the publj.c on this issue sois there a notion to close the public hearing?
Erhart moved, Wildermuth secondedin favor and the motion carried.
close the public hear ing.public hearing was closed.
to
The
Erhart: Is this sign standard? Di.d you buy large quantj.ties?
All voted
Planning Commission
May 18, 1988 - Page
Meeting
9
Roman Mueller: yes jt is. I already have thequantity from our manufacturing in CincinnaEi,
ErharE: So what we're lookingquestion I have.
srgn.
ohio.
They r.rere j.n bu 1k
for is a variance. Okay, that's the only
There would be a variation of about 12.g square feet from
Erhart: uy position on this isalready existing. That it poses
$ror thwhi 1e. Let me summarize.Theirs is 80 that exists.
that itrs so close to the sign that's
enough hardship that it makes it
The ordinance requires 64 square feet.
Roman Mueller:
where it is.
Ellson: I was
currently?
Emmings: Itts presently 78 and they want to make it g0.
Erhart: I know but the ordinance is G4. Itrs so close thatcouldnrt tell the difference between g0 square feet so I'm inapproving the var i ance.
you v i sua 1lyfavor of
wondering, vrhat's the reason for replacing the one you have
wildermuth: Irm incrined to agree \rith Tim. The difference betweenby 8 sign and a 9 by 9 sign, roughly is pretty...but I do think theought to meet the maximum height requirement and with that standardpackage you probably do accomodate that.
an 8
sign
Roman Mueller: We
problem.can cut the pole down for that. Thatrs really not a
Roman Mueller: The new logo package. superAmerica has changed their Logofrom the old sA that it was before. A red letter and a blue letter with amore. script style to the current style that it has on here which we'reputting up in about 500 locations iir the midvrest and eastern states. rtwould be Ehe only one Ehat didnrt have it if we didn't change itcurrentry. r think the Metro area werre got about ro reft io do. This isthe only one werre requesting a variance. I think Ehat everybody herewould recognize the value of a corporation's identity which is ti.reir rogo.rf Northwest lras sti1l frying Repubric it would rook a littre funny.
Ellson: r can understand how you got grandfathered in and how you kind oflucked out because of that but rrm probabry in agreement with staff thatif nobody else can have one that big than I can'i see that they takespecial circumstances.
Batzli: Is there only one size sign from your corporat j.on?
Roman Mueller: There are two sizes. An g x 10 which is what this i.s anda 10 x 13. If youid like us to put a lg x 13 up, we'd be more than happyto obrige. Thatrs the standard sizes. The majority of cities has thesize sign within those limits and thatrs how the siies were based. x sizefor placement erhere we could get x and the other rarger or smar-rer for the
Planning Commission
May 18, 1988 - Page
Meeting
Lg
other size.
Batzli: Are
special size
you suggesting that you havenrt made other exceptions for
signs?
Roman Mueller: We have made exceptions. Therers no question about that.
Werre deal-ing on one right now where it's not so much the size as theshape. They do not want us to change the shape of the current sign so weare conforming to the previous sign size but with those size signs, wealso have a separation section that has the pricing and products calledbowtie. You notice the old sign there currently has the SA logo. Thenbelo$, that, not counting what werre dealing erith now, is the product type
and price so if you counted both we'd actually probably be over what wehave here.
Batzli: I guess I undersEand the importance to get aI'm inclined to agree that having been grandfathereddonrt think increasing it 2 feet i.s setting much of aalso like the fact that they're actually lowering theinclined to go for a variance.
standard Iogo andin at 78 feet, I
bad precedence.
height so Ird be
Wildermuth moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Sign Variance Request #88-4 for an 89 square foot sign to
measure no more than 20 feet maximum height from ground level for the
SuperAmerica Station. AII voted in favor except EIIson who opposed and
motion carr ied.
Ellson: Itrs setting a precedent that everybody else can have big signs
later on.
your motion max imum height of 20 feet?Dacy: Was
wildermuth:Yes.
Enmings: Thatrs $rhat they had said they
Roman Mueller: Measured from the ground
you referenced the station. There might
Emmings: lghere do you measure from when
Dacy: The ground.
Erhart: I think therers a big difference insite because they were asking for L2 feet andsee thjs setting the same type of precedence.
were vrilling to go with that.
$rhere we install the sign because
be a slope in there.
you measure the height?
one on the industrial
asked for 4 and I donit
the
we
I
Emmings: I agree with Brian and Tim and Jim I guess. For the samereasons. It's such a minimal difference from what they have. In factwerre getting something back where they're lowering it. That part wonrE
apply and it's only 2 feet larger. That said, is there a motion?
Planning Commission
May 18, 1988 - Page
Meeting
1I
PUBLIC HEAR I NG :
RICHARD ERSBO, I21I LAKE LUCY
RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED SOUTH
ROAD, PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE EAMILY
OF AND ADJACENT TO LAKE LUCY ROAD:
A
B
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO CREATE FIVE S I NGLE
WITHIN 2OO
FAMILY LOTS.
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO DEVELOP
WETLAND .
rEET OE A CLASS A
The staff report was waivedapplicant.as there was no public present besides the
Emmings: Have you seen the conditi.ons that Ehe staff has put on this?
Richard Ersbo: yes.
Emmings: Do you have any problems with those conditions?
Richard Ersbo: No.
Emmings: Do you have anything you,d like to add to the staffpresentation?
Richard Ersbo: No.
Dacy: Thatrs going to be locatedright in here.
in the northwest corner of this lot
Erhart moved, Etlson seconded to cLose the public hearing. Arl voted infavor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
BatzLi: r guess r'd rike to recommend that we include the staff report byreference into our l,linutes of the meeting here since rrre get the staifreport on record. r di.dnrt have a lvhole lot of questioni. r thought theconditions were appropriate except for this one storm water retentionpond. Were $re going to talk about the withi.n 2gg feel of a wetland?since vre're talking about storm water retention ponds, r guess r rdas kindof curious as to exactly r.rhere that was going to be.
Batzri: rs that going to be similar to the one vre talked about rast time?
Dacy: No, this is much bigger in scai-e and character. Itrs much smallerthan that one.
Brown: As a matter of fact, staff had originarly looked at not havingstorm water retention pond simply for the fact that the increase in rin-off due to the rooftops of the homes due to the cul.-de-sac real-ly wasnrtadding a whore rot of additionar flow. However, on the other siSe of thecoin obviously we can't ignore the sedimentation process that occurs in ahording pond before discharging out into the wetland. The pond is goingto be very minimal in size. More to answer the question, I don't know it
Planning Commission
May 18, 1988 - Page
Meeting
L2
this pointl something we can cover through the plans and specs phase of itbut itrs going to be very minimal at best. We had to at least extend thecourtesy to the Watershed District since they're in charge of evaluatingwater quality.
Batzli: That part I guess that I djdntt get yet is that your requirement
that they receive a drainage easement from the adjacent property owner.
where's adjacent? Which one?
Brovrn: That would be to the east.
Batzli: But in your report you say the drainage is directed to the wesE
so youtre saying that instead of directing it...
Dacy: Hers right. Itrs vrest. It's the easement going into the rretland
from the culvert. Itrs on the west side-
Batzli: Irm confused now. Yourre draining things to the west correct?
Brown:
BatzIi:
Brown: There are two easements in question
easement to the east is strictly, it states
applj.cant shall pursue a utility easement.drainage and our motive for that...
Correct.
So your acquisition of a drainage easement is to the east?
here. Number one, the
in condition 3 that the
It has nothing to do with the
Batzli: Irm in agreement with your utility easement. Irve only beentalking about the within 2Ag feet of a Class A wetland. who do you lrant
to get at the drainage easement from?
Erhart: Doesnit that property drain through there now?
Bro$rn: The property does drain through there nov, but the applicant has
sholrn on their plans, since this is the property boundary line here, over
here this parcel is owned by Mr. Ordenblad and thj.s pipe is shown
extending onto his property and therefore the applicant again has theresponsibiJ.ity of providing the city with either some sort of easement
document or revising his plans such that his pipe stoPs here at theproperty boundary. No way that he can extend that pipe into somebody
elses property.
Batzli: Hers got a culvert going under the road then?
Bro$rn: Yes.
Batzli: So that's going to drain his holding pond into the next door
neighborfs proper ty?
Brovrn: Correct.
Dacy: Into the wetLand.
Planning Commission
May 18, 1988 - Page
Meeting
I3
wetland. However, it will be at the predevelopmentBro\^rn:
runoff Into the
rate.
Batzli: So you erant the easementproperty a Iittle bi t?
just because the pipe sticks out of the
wildermuth: It looks like the easenent requires about 30 feet.
Brown: Correct.
Brown: rf the applicant wants to pursue that, yes. we rdourd like to havethat pipe extend out to the edge of the wetland. However, if it comesdown to a hard situation and they canrt reach an agreement, then ererrecertainly willing to look at a revision of this plin.
Batzli: r guess r would like to crarify r^rhat werre trying to do there. rwourd rather make a strong recommendation that we would rike to see thati.t goes to a certain point and he work with staff or the adjacent propertyowners. That I s it.
wj.th Brjan that we should word that justthan that, I have no other questions. Itof the requirements for the subdivision
ELlson: Nothj.ng here. It looks fine.
Erhart: That's the onry thing r had was again, r think we shourd changeitem 2 to basically say to wo;k with staff to create a drainage soluti6nthat wilr be acceptable to both the city. otherwise r think it's great.
Enmings: I donrt have anything either...so is there a motion on this?
wildermuth: I agreedj.fferently. Otherthe staff report allsatisfied.
1. A berming and landscaping plan shallapproval providing screening on theto Lake Lucy Road.
be submitted prior
two double frontage
a little bit
looks 1i ke
are
to final plat
Lots adj acent
Ellson moved, wildermuth seconded that the pranning commissi.on recommendapproval of Subdivision Request #87-36 as shown on the plat stamped"Received April 19, 1988r' subject to the following conditjons:
2
?
The applicant shall enter j.nto a development contract vrithand provide the City with the necessary financial suretiesguarantee proper installatjon of these public improvement.
The applicant shaLl pursue a utility easementeast of the proposed plat such that a manhole
Lake Lucy Road may be eliminated.
the
to Ci ty
across the parcel to theIocated 26 f.eeE south of
Drainage swales shalr be provided between the proposed house pads andthe upstream sropes to provide adequate drainage around and away from
4
Planning Commission
May 18, 1988 - Page
Meeting
14
5
6.
The applicant shall maintain the 50 foot right-of-way and
shown in Attachment No. 3 until such tine as the proposedroad is extended to the south as a public roadr^ray.
The watermain shall be jacked under Lake Lucy Road.
the house pads.
The applicant shall exert all due care to minimize
Lucy Road. All restoration on Lake Lucy Road shall9 ton section specifications.
driveway as
north/south
destruction of Lake
be to the existing
7.
I
9
Teto 2g foot utility easements shall be provided as describedpreviously in this report as part of the final plat review process.
The applicant shaIl provide stormserrrer calculations which verify thepreservation of the pre-developed runoff rate and aII storm sewercapacities as part of the plans and specifications review process.
Lg.The developer shall obtain and comply with all condi.tions
Watershed District.of the
I. Creation of
tot l.
L2.The developer shall be responsible for daily on and off-site cleanup
caused by construction of this site.
A11 voted in favor and motion carried.
Erhart moved, Batzli seconded that the planning Commj ssion recommendapproval of Wetland Alteration permit Request *88-7 as presented on theplans stamped "Received April 19, 1988" subject to the followingconditions:
a stormwater retention pond on the northwest corner of
2. The applicant will. work with staff to create a culvert dra j.nage
solution beyond the hoLding pond which is acceptable to the property
owner to the west and to the City.
3 Approval of a
Resources.
permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural
4. Compliance wi th the condiEions of subdivision approval No. 87-36.
and motion car r i ed.All voted in favor
1I. llood-fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize alldisturbed slopes greater than 3:I.
Planning Commission
May 18, 1988 - Page
Mee t j. ng
15
PUBLIC HEARING:
DEVELOPMENT SITES
IMMEDIATELY NORTH
A
B
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY OE CHANHASSEN YEAR 2OOO LANDUSE PLAN TO ADD I2.2 ACRES TO THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA ANDTO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROI.I AGRICULTURAL TO INDUSTRIAL.
REZONING OF 5.6 ACRES OE PROPERTY FROM A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTA?E TOI OP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK.
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO CREATE
ON 62.86 ACRES OF PROPERTY.
5 INDUSTRIAL LOST AND TWO OUTLOTS
LIMITED LOCATED WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO AUDUBON ROADOF THE CHICAGO MILWAUKEE RAILROAD TRACKS:
report was waived as there $ras no public present except theThe sta ff
applicant.
Enmings: Does the applicantreviewed Ehe condi tions that
t ant to nake a presentation? Have youthe staff has imposed upon approval.
Rick Sayther: yes. Irm Rickwe worked pretty closely with
agreement.
I have read the report and yes,
and planning. We,re in
happy to make a presentationdo it but if you dontt want
Custom Products was supposedto know something about his
Sayther and
engineering
Emmings: Anything additional you wanted to add?
Rick Sayther: I don't think so. I'd sure beif you $rant one. I certainly came prepared toit. My brother Rock, the owner of Industrialto be here in about 4 minutes. you might rrantbusiness.
i{i Idermuth :
Rick Sayther:
Sounds like
I learned
an j nteresting business.
some things reading the literature.
Brown: Maybe I can clarifycooperative in working wi th
a little bit. Mr.the Mcclynn site.Sayther has been very
The eng i neers for the
Erhart moved, wildermuth seconded to crose the pubric hearing. Ar1 votedin favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart: r liked the literature. rn fact, r can use some of those kindsof products. Are you the same engineer working with Mcclynn by chance?
Rick Sayther: No sir.
Erhart: The question is, you donrE see any probrem with providing utilityIines and $rorking with the firm thaE.'s doing the engineering. there?Finding space to conbining water?
Planning Commission
l'lay 18, 1988 - Page
Meeting
I5
McGlynn site is VanDoren, Hazard, StaIlings. Itrs not
combine utilities. That it should be a condition thatwould like to combine and both applicants have talked
have indicated that yes an arrangement can be reached.of how and both of them have been very cooperative.
cri tical that theyit is absolute. Weto each other andItrs just a matter
Rick Sayther: When Mcclynn came in it was before we had started ourprocess. They proposed to run the sewer up the east side of the Lot linea ways before they crossed because if they !,rent directly across the road
and got to the corner of Park Road and Audubon they'd be on our land and
they probably, rather than seek an easement from us they just chose to go
a different way. Itrs easier to cross right at Park Road because if you
go up the east side of the road with the sewer yourve got conflicts with
underground utilities. Other buried utilities and on the west sidetherers an open shot. I think it will be a little cheaper to cross
together and do it at the intersection.
Erhart: That's not a condition anyways. The business, does it intend to
use one of these lots and resale the other one?
R j.ck Sayther :Yes.
Iot doErhart: Whi.ch you intend to use?
Rick Sayther: Right nor., werre talking about LoL 2, Block 1. The large
one. Lot 2 up here is the largest of the lots and the whole reason for my
brother to move to Chan was to get a bigger site. He hlants the
flexibility to have a bigger lot. He rrould go there and I guess his long
term plans is, this lot might not even be big enough fot 2g years from
now. He might later want to expand out into the area that doesn't have
sewer service and isn't going to be zoned properly either.
Erhart: The l,lusA line basically extends along the northern boundary of
this land currently?
Dacy: Right. It roughly runs just soutl'l of Ehe Park Road intersection
straight across. The zoning line runs along this 1ine.
Erhart: This is the first time Irve seen an extension of the MUSA line
for a development. Is it basically the rule of thumb that werre using
here in a sense is that if you can run at graviEy flow, that our city isprepared to go to Met Council to get an extension of the MUSA line? Is
that it?
Dacy: Right. Because itrs such a small area, 12 acres and because it can
be served by usj.ng sewer lines within that gravi ty flow area, we arepetitioning to add it as opposed to the previous application r^rhere you hadland swaps. Met Council still has to aPProve this and there's noguarantee. So far their staff has indicated that they would, the Met
Council staff would support it.
Erhart: Basically on the fact that itrs gravity... The other question I
had was, I think we state that the additional sewer will not have a
Planning Comrnission
May 18, 1988 - Page
Meeting
L7
significant
was a lot .
impac t.
If you
compar i son
going to
on that zone.
could somehow
to the total
throw us over
24,490 gallons aget my mind right
day. I thought thaton that.
Dacy: In
that's notstation.
capacity of the system... The l0trour capacity limits for the lift
Brown: Plus the fact those numbers, correct me ifdesigned at 2.5 peak for design purposes. In otherfacilities therets quite a fudge faitor in there.
Rick sayther: The numbers that are used are not specific to my brotherrs
99mpin{. Hers a dry producer. He doesnr E use water. It,s irst a rule ofthumb for industrial use and itrs supplied by the Met councii. rn fact2100a galLons per.day per acre is whii they -are considering in tvpi""i -
industr iaI si t.uations.
I rm wrong, that I swords, for sizing of
Erhart: AIright, that's the questionslooks like hets a real nice division inres j.dential area or a9. The fact thatis there and being itis across from their.
I had. I guess the factthe industriaL and fu turethe sewer is there and theindustrial park, I would
is it
street
support
Erhart: Basically Ehey're all tjed toqether.other arguments, so far I support it.
Emmings: Now are you comment on all of those three?
I think unless I hear some
maybe he'sthat I prov ide
You I re selling
Ellson: I like it. No other comments.
wildermuth: I think
and should be a realanticipating mov i ng
manufacturer.
this is a very good example of industrial subdivisionasset to Chanhassen. I think the company that isinto chanhassen is one rre consider 6enlpoiluting
Rick Sayther :
slapping me atto people tha tyour time, f'm
Uy brother is real proud of the fact that,the same time but he says I have real jobsreally do something. Not like you Rick.selling a product.
Batzli: My questions,interim cul-de-sac. I
when they... In otherend of the road ?
I guess two ofthe road not
words, is the
The first one was, ourbe put through the ouEl-otscul-de-sac going to be the
S
them.going to
proposed
Ri.ck sayther: Our proposal now is to stop, we erould plat the right_of_way_ through those two lots but we would build the street in green untilsuch time as there could be an extension. Really the reason Eo stop ithere is that someday, presuming therers going to be more sewer area outthere sometime someday- Later one there wiri need to be utilityextensions in the right-of-way. rf we alrady paved over that area we,dhave to take it out so that didn't seem like- ii made a lot of sense. rrmshoering the street stopping where the gravity seurer stops.
Planning Commission
May 18, 1988 - Page
Meeting
l8
Erhart: Yourre talking about rather
opposed to r{ha t. might happen?
than not change the plans today as
Rick Sayther: The staff asked during review, $rhat are
meantime? I was trying to address what we would build
sometime in the future.
you
now
going to do in
instead of at
Erhart: So your cul-de-sac is going
we require an easement tso the end of
to end there.that.The question is should
t^rou ld
used the
Batzli: To the edge of outlot B at least.
Rick sayther: what my proposal is, is to plat the right-of-way as if this
werenrt here. PIat the 60 foot wide street dor"rn through here and thengrant the City an easement for this circle. For the half of the circle
that's outside of the right-of-way because it's a separate document that
could be recorded. or it could be shown on the plat too and vacated
later. I guess it wouldn't matter. The intent is to set uP the lots the
r.ray they really rrrou ld be. It could either be a seParate easement or on
the plat.
Batzli: I donrt know that it matEers. I guess which ever way lhe city
staff vrould want it Eo go. The other question is, what is the likelihood
of success when we petition the Metropolitan council for an extension of
the MUSA line that they're going to grant that?
Dacy: Given that the Met Council staff has jndicated that they
support it, I would say that our chances are, I believe Pat Law
percentage of 79?.
BatzIi: Do
g ran ted?
we hrant to approve this conditional upon the extension being
Dacy: I think I have that in the motion donrt I?
Wildermuth: The cul-de-sac will be paved just like a street.
Rick sayther: Yes, it would be a regular street except part of it would
be ripped out.
Batzli: Would we normally require that the easement be included? Theplans that Irm looking at I donrt know that you really showed that adifferent cul-de-sac was going to be built. The staff report did and so
my question is, do we want to put in our conditions that that easementwill be put through the outlot at this time so ere donrt get into a problem
later on when the outlot is going to be developed without access to a
roadway?
Dacy: I think that's fine. uaybe the condition should read that the
right-of-way be platted to the end of outlot B. we rea11y donrt want to
be creating a public right-of-way in an outlot.
Planning Commission
May 18, 1988 - Page
Meeting
19
Wildermuth: The first one.
Batzli: Yourre approving recommendation of the subd ivision separately.
and the land use plan amendment to anend the yeax 2666incl-ude 12 acres and redesignate it to industrial subject toof the Metropoli tan Council.
Batzli: Yes, so lre recommend approval of the land use plan.
Daey: Right
MUSA line to
the approval
Dacy: Are you saying that you r^rant. the
upon Iand use plan amendment approval?
subdivision approval contingentSure, that I s fine.
Batzli: Those were my two questions.
Emmings: r agree with Brians rater point. r think it shourd be tied in.I donrt have any problems with it.
Batzli moved, wirdermuth seconded that the pranning commission recommendapproval of Land Use plan A.'nendment Request *gg-2 to amend the yeax 2OOg
MUSA line to include 12.2 acres and to redesignate this acreage fromagricurtural to industrial subject to the approvar of the MetiopolitanCounciI. AII voted in favor and motion cariied.
Erhart moved, Elrson seconded that the planning commission recommendapproval of Rezoning Request #88-2 to rezone 5.6 acres of property fromA-2, Agricurtural Estates to rop, rndustrial office park is shown and ascescribed in the preriminary plat dated April 26, 1988 rrith the conditionthat l4etropolitan councir approve MUSA rine extension. All voted in favorand motion car r ied .
Batzli moved, Erhart seconded that the pLanning
approval of Subd iv j.sion Request #88-9 to createoutlots as shown on the plat stamped ,'Received
to the following conditions:
Commission recommend5 industrial lots and t$roApril 26, 1988" and subject
I. The applicant shaLl enter into a development contract with theand provide the City with the necessary financial sureties toguarantee the proper installation of these public improvements.
ci ry
2
?
The applicant sha 11the connection and
Audubon Road.
provide suf f ic j.ent utility easemenEs to facilitatefuture repair of utilities along the west side of
The applicant shall revise the grading plan to show the constructionof a pondj.ng site which ma j.ntains the pre-developed runoff rate andprovides adequate storage fox a L6O year frequency storm event.
The applicant sha 11preservation of the
provide storm
pre-developed
sewer calculations whi.ch verify therunoff rate and all storm sewer
4
Planning Commi ss j. on
May 18, 1988 - Page
Meeting
2g
system capacities as
process.
part of the plans and specifications review
5.The road profile shall be revised to show a landing zonethe Minnesota Department of Transportation' s guidelinessubmitted for approval by the Citi Engineer a- part of t
speci fications review process .
r.rhich meets
and shall be
he plans and
the Plann i ng
on page 52 byfor the motion.
6 The proposed right-of-way shall be revised to a 60 foot right-of-wayr.ridth, and shall maintain a G0 foot radius at the end of thecul-de-sac as per ARticIe 3, Section 28-57(b) of the ChanhassenSubdivision Ordinance. The proposed right-of-way shall be platted tothe edge of Outlot B and submitted to the City Staff a plan signifyingthe amendment to the right-of-way.
7. A11 utilities shall be jacked underneath Audubon Road.
line being approved by the
AI1 voted in faovr and motion carried.
APPROVAL OE MINUTES:
8 Subdivision is contingent upon the MUSAMetropolitan Counc i I .
Erhart moved, Wildermuth seconded to approve the Minutes of
Commission meeting dated May 4, 1988 vrith the change notedBrian BatzIi regarding clarification on the voting outcomeAll voted in favor and the moti.on carried.
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REGULATIONS, DISCUSSION.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Emnings: we had a long discussion around this where
come in for a variance when I want to build a garage
nothing was changed in here to reflect any of that.
Olsen: Thatrs where we discussed it. The frontyard,
30 foot setback. That way you wouldnr t have t'o do a
I
in
said, why rrauld I
my frontyard but
you still have the
var iance.
Emmings: My point then and I read it and it was kind of confusing so
maybe I havenrt made myself clear on it. My rearyard on a riparian lotthis would say that I canrt build a garage in my frontyard which is theside of my house away from the lake. The street sjde whjch is the logicalplace for it. My point is this, why don't vre say that on riparian lots,no detached garages and storage buildings in residential districts shallbe located in the front or side yard excep! on riparian lots.or somethinglike_that. The point being, then I can come in and simply get a buildingpermit rather than having to go through the variance process.
Dacy: But you still have to meet the front setback.
Planning Commi ss j. on
May 18, 1988 - Page
Meeting
2L
Emmings: I alrrrays have to meet every setback. I knowsetbacks. I just wonder why I have to go through theNo one builds their garage between their house ;nd thethink.
I have
vari.ance
lake, I
to meet theprocedure.
don't
Dacy: So yourre looking at either 7 ox g?
Emrnings: I donrt knor^r. I was trying to modify number Ihave a better idea. No, 7 stays just like.it is.but maybe you
Dacy: What I'm saying though is, that would be the section.with each numeral have a serparate rule for each numeral.
Emmings: Then do you want to add another number?
We're trying
Dacy: Number 7 pertains to riparian lots.
Erhart: Why did you come up with number Iobjection to having the detached garage in
to begin with? Whatthe front or side of
was
the
the
home?
Dacy: That.s standard practice in most zoning codes.
Batzli: Itm losing the chain of thought here. I guess from theneighborhoods rrm from, the garage is arways detached and it,s alwaysbetween Ehe house.
Wildermuth: Itrs on the side yard or rear.
BatzIi: No, front.
Emmings: where I grew up it vras always rear.
Batzli: It depends. If yourre in the City and you're going down the
3lf9y,_itrs always in the backyard but in a lot of *ore rurilized, justkind of places Irve seen, quite a few garages are in the front yard-because itrs right up against the road and you've got the house set back.
Erhart: r think yourve got to remember where we started on this thing. rtstarted about six months ago when some guy came in here wi th 7 acres onRSF district and wanted to put up 30,996 sqtrare foot barn. Somehow nor^rwerve got this around to werre talki.ng about accessory buildings. Intodayrs marketprace, no one builds a singre famiry house in a small- rotwith detached garages. rrm not even sure that th;t's an issue. r aLmostthink by adding number I that we may create a problem that rearry doesniiexist.
Batzli: It may
have a garage.
be that there are smaller homes located about that don't
Erhart: I would think they would vrant to put it in the rear.
whose street it is.Batzli: It depends on
Planning Commiss i on
May 18, 1988 - Page
Meeting
22
Dacy: An example of that is in the Carver Beach area. Those older areasand typi,cally they are within the 30 foot setback and we do have theability to put them through the variance process so ere can evaluateexactly close that it should be. I real-ly recommend that you keep t inthere because then law, even with the previous ones, stands up in this
book.
Emming: It's not a bad general rule.
Dacy: Right. Exactly. For separation of buildings and the street...
Erhart: Did you have anlmore on that Steve? I srant to get back to this.
Emmings: No. I guess I'd like to find a way so if a person on a riparian1ot !,rants to build a garage, they can come in for a permit and make sure
they meet all the setbacks but not have to go through the variance. ThereisnrE any doubt that if I come in as a riparian lot owner and I $rant tobuild in my frontyard, Irm going to get that variance. The City's notgoing to make me build between the lake. They're not going to make me putit in the rearyard.
Dacy: I'm not going to say always but you're chances are j.ncreased.
Emmings: Isn't this one of those situations whereit through the permit process rather than having to
through the cost and expense?
we can let staff handle
make a person go
Dacy: what I was thinking of to discuss r.rould
that on riparian lots the detached garages, do
only to detached garages as opposed to storage
Emmings: I donrt know.
Dacy: Therets an aesthetic standpoint.
Emmi.ngs: I would say garages. I
buildings at this point. I would
be Eo add on a sentence
you j ust lrrant to exclude i t
bui. Id j.ngs?
guess I wouldnrt mess hrith the accessory
say garages.
Dacy: That detached garages may be Iocated in the frontyard but it mustmaintain the front and side setbacks.
Erhart: I thj.nk with your 4 and 5, the way ir's coming out right now,it's not getting accomplished what I see accomplished l.ncluding what I.m
concerned about. That is, it.'s a situation where essentially a
subdivision, even though it's in the A-2 or RR district, j.s essentially agroup of small lots. Generally \riEh our current ordinance the tendencyis to do 2.5, economically that size. They come out just like an RSF
subdivision and the concern is that on these buildings, the houses areuniform. Again, like anything el,se it's to avoid a situation where they
come in and put in a metal building in the middle of a residential area.
The $ray it reads now is itrs kind of mushy so what I'm saying is, maybe
what the reaL cutoff here is when do you get out of this subdivision
Planning Commission
May I8, 1988 - Page
Meeting
23
Erhart:
Iess.
ElI son: If itrsto the house.
Do the same as you did in item 4. you use the term 5 acres or
Dacy: Itr s sti 1I pe rcept j. on of archj.tectural cont i nui ty.
have walking d i stanceto be a garage, you have to
the
going
Dacy: The 5 acres really came for the storage bui 1dings.
cruster and when do you get into the rurar area? r rm not opposed to metalsheds at alr in the rural areas... Dave wourd argue that not on 10 acres.5 seems reasonable to me. Bruff creek, the Hesse Farms, a rot of thesewhere youfve got Lao homes coming in there putting 2 l/2 acres, they arealL 2 L/2 to 3 acres subdivision so when yourre done there is thetemptation to put that metal shed when soirebody has built a $30A,AAg.gOhome- r rrould rather 39j"i! this acreage thing down to 3 acres if youhave a concern about this bigger buifding rath;r than making it aconditional use because what-happens in 6onditionar uses we forget i{haEthe intention was.
Erlson: why donrt you make the point that this is trying to eriminatemetal sheds? We spent a Little bit on that one before.
Erhart: we can combine alr of this in one. what rrd rike to do isanything below 5 acres they can not be arlohred at all and erase thecondition use permit.__ Secondly, make them argicultural . Change 5,detached garages on arr residential, all lots-ress than 5 acres must bearchitecturally consistent. Nor., if the Commission feels 5 acres is toobig, rather than making this mushyl rrd rather reduce the 1ot size soeverybody feels comfortabre that we're doing a service for ihissubdivision. Does that make sense?
Emmings: Where Irm confused is if the detached garage, obviously thatdoesn I t include accessory buiIdings...
Erhart: The lray you have it norrr, detached garages. you just restrict itfor residential districts. A-2 I assume is not at aII.
Dacy: No. I used the term in at1 residential districts.
EIlson: Even A-2, that's residential.
Erhart: I see. So you are including the A-2?
Dacy: Maybe you can clarify it to make sure detached garages in al,lagricultural and residential districts must be architeituriffy...
Erhart: r think you shourd say 5 acres or less. on lots 5 acres or ress.
Batzli:._ rf a guy has 240 acxes then who cares erhat his detached garageIooks Iike?
Planning Comm i ss j. on
May 18, 1988 - Page
Meeting
24
Erhart: Werre
buj.ldings?
differentiating between detached garages and accessory
Dacy: Yes, because the storage buildings, then you,re getting
and aII that business and you real-ly shouldn,t be...
into metal
Erhart: Does this
less than 5 acr es ?
change then alloer us to put up metal buitdings in lots
Dacy: We are not saying anything about metal buildings.
Erhart: Are $re differentiating between accessory structures?
Dacy: You're differentiating between detached garages and storagebuildings.
Emmings: Do we have definitions for each of those in the ordinance?
Dacy: We have a definition of a garage and build ing as a structure.
Erhart: What about the guy who comes in and saying Irm not proposing thatI build a detached garage. I'm proposing to build a storage shed.
Emming: That I'm going to put my car in.
Erhart: Yes, so all- of a sudden this doesnrt apply anlrmore.
Dacy: we do have a definition of a garage.
Erhart: AII I want to do js prevent someone from coming in and saying I'mbuilding a L,zqg foot meta1 building.
Batzli: On accessory structure it doesn't have to be primary...so he canput up an accessory structure without coming in for action.
Enmings: We do have accessory structures?
Dacy: Right.
Erhart: Why canrE we just say
RR district no detached, or in
accessory str uc tu re?
on item 4, change it
all these districts,
say in the A-2 and
detached garage or
to
no
Ellson: The little ones, you're telling Lhem they can't have Ehem.
Dacy: Because you I re
wards or just getting
Erhart: Irm saying no accessory
on Iots 5 acres or less. Change
accessory structures.
forcing peopLe to, instead of going to Montgomery
those . . . .
structure
the word s
shalI exceed I,OgA square feet
from detached garages to
Dacy: Start over. On 4 or 5?
Pl ann i. ng Commission
May 18, 1988 - Page
Meet i ng
25
Erhart: on 4. rn the A-2 and RR districts no accessory structures shallexceed l,OO0 sqoare feet.
Dacy: That I s there.
Erhart: Yourre using the term detached garage.
Dacy: And storage buildings.
Erhart: okay, rrm satisfied. r-guess r lras thinking of storage buildingsr was thinking of those rittre tiny buirdings but you're using the term fodescribe all of them. Okay, Irm satisfied.
Batzri: r'd rather see the terms defined than coming up with detachedgarages and storage building which isnrt defined anywhere.
Ennings: Accessory structures seemed broad to me.
Dacy: storage buildings are listed as an accessory use in the district.Storage building is an accessory structure.
Hnmings: If accessory structure is the broadest term, why not use it?
Batzli: We have pools under that. parking lots.
Dacy: Thj.s got back to your original discussion between useand we beat each other over the head and thatrs why vre camestorage. What are we trying to regulate? Storage buildingsTheyt re all accessory structures, yes.
Erhart: What happens with a horse barn?
Dacy: Werre calLing those a private stable.
Batzli: Private stable would be an accessory structure.
Dacy: Private stabLe is a conditional use.
Wildermuth: Itrs in a ctassification all by itself.
Erhart: I go back to rdhat I originally said, we should changetone of accessory structure shall not exceed IrAOA sqnare feet.
Dacy: But the term accessory structure includes docks, pools,storage buildings, tennis courts.
Ellson: Didnrt we talk about, this before? We came up lvithbefore.
and structure
up wi th
and garages.
the whole
93rages,
storage
Batzli: I didn'E like storage then and I stjll dontt Iike it.
Dacy: I think vre need to be consistent though $rith other terms in theordinance and as long as werre listing storage buildings as listedaccessory uses, we should try to keep that.
Erhart: Itrs clear to you that a horse ba?n?
Dacy: That could be number 8.
Erhart: Why donrt you just state detached garages...
Dacy: Because a private stabre is a conditionar use in the singre familyand itrs a permitted use in the A-2 and RR. That's an issue. Do you wantto review the size of the buildings through the conditj.onal use peimitprocess for private stable depending on the number of horses and theacreage or did you want to set a maximum acreage for calling it anaccessory structure? As a conditional use it can be the principle use ofthe land.
Erhart: How big was that stable?
Dacy: I think that was over l,UOl. I think it was Lr3g6 ox L,4gO.
Planning Commission
May 18, 1988 - Page
Meeting
26
might include it in the
going to be a buildi.ng
Erhart: Letrs just take the storage out and letrs say just
Accessory buildings.
Bnmings: There you go.
Batzl j.: I would recommend personally, that we come up withfor our definition section for a storage building. What isbuilding and that woutd solve our problem. Then we can uselike using the term but I don't like really creating termswhat.rderre talking about right now but is somebody tries toand it's not defined anywhere.
bui 1d ings.
definition
storage. Then It we know
me in la ter
a
ait
tha
co
Emmings: You
BatzIi: It's
structure .
Emmings: Not
Batzli: Not
definition means $re
that's not connected to the main
do not. . .
Emmings: Whether it's cars, stables or anythi.ng.
used primarily
used primarily
for...
for whatever.
isnrt
bo th
Batzli: You have to define what itrather be...because then you take inpole barns and whatever e1se.
rather than what it
the Sears barns and
,.s.
the
I rrou ld
bigger
Dacy: Okay, we can do that. Jo Annls an accessory use so if werve gotdistrict, then as written they wouldthey wouldn I t.
jusE pointed out that private stablesl0A acre parcel out in the A-2
need a conditional use permit. No,
Planning Commission
May 18, 1988 - Page
Meet i ng
27
Wildermuth: If itrs under l,gAA sqloare feet it doesn't...
Batzli i Proceeding onto number
and storage buildings and startyou differentiating between the
building?
4.,.but then we leave our detachedtalkj.ng about accessory buildings.accessory building and the storage
9arages
Are
Emmings: Thatrs the term you didn,t vrant to use butin (c). You used accessory buildings.
Erhart: Going back to that one, that sentence oughtwe're going to have a rule against lrTgg sqoaxe footjust make it a rule.
you also used it down
to be eliminated. If
bui Idings, then let' s
Batzli: That begs the question on vrha t do you allow on 5 acres or more?
Erhart: Werre not imposing restrictions.
Batzli: If we l-eave that in
use process.there you have to go through the conditional
Dacy: I think that ends up the way it's being
we had intended it r^ras for 5 acres or less.
lrrj.tten but I think the way
Batzli: I don't read it thaE way.
Dacy !
Erhart:
Then that shouLd be clarified.
Dacy: Our intent was that if it was an ag lot, not part of thesubdivision as you had described, that they may need a building more thanlr0qg sqnate feet and rather than having them come in for a variance which
means a hardship has to be demonstrated whereas a conditional use permitis a Iittle more flexible.
Erhart: My concern is that we permit everything.
Batzli: Over 5 acres.
What are we trying to clarify?
Erhart: It doesn't say over 5 acres. If yourre going to changethat if you had more than 5 acres and you h,anted to buj.Id I,000feet and come in for a conditional use permj.t, Irm all for that.
it to
square
say
Dacy: ThaE's an option. You could be getting a lot of conditionalpermits for accessory buildjngs and/or, as written, there is norestrictions on accessory buildings in the A-2. I should say, theybe in the front and side yard and so on but that's about it.
Erhart: You're saying with thecurrent ordinance read s?
proposed ordinance change or as the
use
can' t
Planning Commission
May 18, 1988 - Page
Meeting
28
E'mmings: You'd rather have then come in for a variance?
Erhart: Yes, because I think if we,re going towrite a rule... The rule is written for a goodthat itrs a good reason.
$rrite it, why would we
reason. If r.re bel- ieve
Dacy: Hov, abouE if $re do this? ShaII exceed l,AgA square feetacres or less and add some language for lots used primarily forfamily purposes.
on lots 5
s i ngle
Erhart: Farms on 5 acres or less.that conditional use sentence or do
Erhart: No, Irm all in
l.ly concern is that when
about it.
everybody with just eliminating
$rant it to stay in?
thi nk
more
IS
you
Batzli: Ird be happy to eliminate that sentence but I still
section might raise the issue of what happens when yourve got
acres.
this
than 5
Erhart: Irm assuming hrhat it says is if you've got more than 5 acres, youput up anything.
Batzli: Irm assuming that as vrell.
Emmings: I don't knov, if I want to throw out the sentence. The ontything, if somebody had a good reason to put up over L,ggg sq\taxe feet
5 acre piece. If you look at our standards for issuing a conditionalpermit where it can't depreciate surrounding property value and it hasbe aesthetically compatj.ble. If we could control it to that extent.
ona
use
to
favor of that...horse barns. I agree with that.
thi s comes in we won' t real Iy si t dor.rn and think
Emmings: I don't know. 1,000 square feet
case somebody wants it. A machj.ne shop orbuild cabinets or something like that.
Erhart: ...Ird even go to Lr,OA squarerrhole thing. Instead of 5 make it 3. I
anybody selling in the rural more than 5split l0 acres into 5, than I dontt carein.
feet on 5 acres. Just cut thedonrt think werre going to seeacre lots. If some guy vran.ts
what kind of buildings he puts
Ls
if
not a lot for 5 acres
somebody wants to use
1n
it to
Batzli: I think 3 acres is probably a good number to go with then.
to
Dacy: The current ordinance reads the same way. you can have I00 acres
and you canrt have it in the front and side yard.
Erhart: Let me try to clarify this. Letts say we have in sentence one inparagraph 4. We agree that the $rording, detached garages and storagebuildings with your definition Brian, is perhaps acceptable. Then thequestion becomes, as I read it, we add another paragraph that allows
someone to come in for a conditional use permit. To me thatrs thequestion on this. An I right or wrong?
Planning Commi ssion
May 18r 1988 - page
Meeting
29
Emmings: okay, so if you put 3 acres in the first sentence and eliminatethe second sentence and have it say that over 3 acres there are norestrictions on properties greater than 5?
Wildermuth: As long as the setbacks are satisfied.
Batzli: That rs my next question. why do we have setback requirements forthe RsF and-..
Dacy: Werre just establishing different setbacks for RSF and R-4.
Erhart: I think the confusion that Brian and I have is when you use theword residentiar district and rrm not sure in our minds, because the A-2says Agricurtural Estates, werre not sure that your ranguage covers that.
Dacy: We are specifying the district though.
Erhart:. You're saying that no detached garages or storage buildings inany residential district sharl be located in the required front and side.
Dacy: In number 3 werre specifying...
Batzli: RSF and R-4. So if you lived in A-2, you could put...
Dacy: You r{ould go by the original ones in the A-2 district. They wouldbe in the front and rear.
Batzli:
RSF and
Emmings:R-8, and
So vJhat yourre doing is yourre actual-Iy lessening the standard inR-4 districts?
Residential districts
R-12.
Tim, in the ordinance are RR, RSE, R-4,
Dacy: Now werre increasing the setback because right now they can have itback to 5 feet within the rear yard. Nor./ in the RSF district we,re sayingif itrs 296 or less you can put it 5 feet on the rear and l0 on the side.If you're over, you're up to 15 feet.
Batzli: What would the normal rear yard setback be?
Dacy: For an accessory building iE's 5 feet.
Batzli: so if
A-2 is includedIimited by the
Erhart: Theagricultural
it.rs over 2q0 sq\axe feet...but according to thein a residential district. So if you h;d A-2,setback in some other section $rer re not looking
are
at?
ord i nance ,you
You need to say residential and
Emmings: So you want to add all residentiat and the A-2.
same goes for paragraph 5districts.
Erhart: ...item l and item 5 and hre add A-2.
Planning Commission
May 18, 1988 - Page
Meeting
3g
alI residential districts
detached garages that haveabout storage buildings?
Batzli: I want to retract everything I saidparagraph 4. Irll let them worry about that
Dacy: So the second sentence of 4 is dropped
should have the first sentenceEmmings: You
about that second sentence in
when the t ime comes..-
and that I s it?
in 4 changed to say...
Erhart: Andabout, is it
cons i stent?
5 injust
Wha t
and
to
the A-2 district.
be architecturalLy
Batzli: I thought I would just ask though.
Dacy: There is also the
detached garage is but atthe structure.
deed restrictions. .. To beleast there it's something
honest I think a
that is dependent on
Emmings: Barb, we have unanimously...to A-2. yourve got to change whereyou put all the argicultural distri.cts. you can't put A-I up there. you
canrE enforce this. It should be in A-2 and all resident.ial districts.
So 5 should be changed to just say A-2 and all residential districts.
Erhart: The last question remains r guess is do we want to take rots of 2L/2 acre subdivision and allow these metal storage sheds. Thatrs thequestion and r'm proposing that ere add storage sheds to 5 to prevent that.
Batzli: I think by Iimiting size you,re going toshed and yourre goiog to el,iminate a guy coming inLester. I donrt think we can regulate the sheds.
we could.
aIIo$, the Sears storagewith a 45 x 17, x. 361Ird sure like to think
Emmings: Iresidential don't think we'11 have a problem...
districts and you're using accessory
Do we mean now just
bu i ld i ng a nd do rde want
Olson: We talked about that and storage buildings they didn,t have to bedesigned to make those.
Batzli: Can we differentiate the Sears barns by saying that under 200sguare feet doesnrt have to be and over 209 does? Just a question.
Ellson: You can get those things mighty big and already prefab and thento ask to paint it your col,or and have a roof the same, thatts asking aIot.
what
Erhart: I'm talkiog of that small lot subdivision from putting metalsheds in. what happens in 2 l/2 acre minimum and yourve got a consistentneighborhood and the temptation...and the next dooi neighbor can't dothat. You're trying to protect the value of one neighbor against what
some other guy will do. That's what Irm trying to do.
Ellson: You buy those things already made and then to go back and make
them architecturalty sound or then you,ve got to go back to your stuccohouse or whatever.
Planning Commission
May 18, 1988 - Page
Meeting
3I
them included in A-2 here or not?
Dacy: If the structure isinEerpretted as the primary
Erhart: I think the basis
that in the 3 acre or less
agricultural purposes, that can beused for
use.
of this !'rhole thing applying to rural areas islots. If it's 10 acres.
Dacy: This could pertain
garages bui 1t .
to RSF or multiple family. We just don't want
Erhart: I agree. All I,m saying is if agreement...in any residentialdistrict and on any lot less than 3 acres in the a-2 area, no accessorybuilding or structure shall be buirt and so on. r think what you don,iwant to do is get t]ne 2g acre parcel- out there and prevent som6 guy fromputting a storage shed up. That happens frequently.
Emming: Okay,
A-2 lots than 3
so we say in anyacres. Then it residential district or Iess than 3 acres.says no accessory bui ld ing .
Dacy: Change it to storage.
Emmings: Storage building and thatts all?
difference between an accessory building or a storage
Dacy: Letrs just say no storage buj.Iding,buildings shall be erected.
detached garage or accessory
Dacy: Yes.
Batzli: What,s the
shed ?
Erhart: The bes t
accomplishes what
term yourve found is accessory buildjng.
$re' re trying to accomplish.
IT
You I re IookingBatzli: I would agree. I would say there, accessory use.for accessory everything.
Dacy: Again, anytime you
Ellson: You canrt have a
Dacy: That covers it all.
Emmings: Letrs try that and
Erhart: Is this coming back
say no accessory use that means docks.
po rch .
see how it r"ror ks .
to us?
just talking that it's been so long wea public hearing with the changes.
Dacy :
sho u ld
Yes, Jo Ann and I rrere
reaLly readvertise for
Planning Commi ss i on
May 18, 1988 - Page
Meeting
CONTINUE BF DISTRICT DISCUSSIOII.
Erhart: All I want to do is, if we can
want to deal with planning issues or weIf we want to get into the legal issues,here. We'II never get this out of here.
the question of whether weget into the legal issues.
never get this through
settle
want to
WE I II
Emmings: I mentioned to Tim when we were sitting here that maybeshould find out the legal problems involved before we spend timeon this. Tim's point was that we should ignore the legal issue.it onto the City Council, we should do the planning decision andworry about the legality and I thj.nk that makes a lot sense.
we
work ing
. . ,moveIet them
Dacy3 As a matter of fact, Roger went out and looked at these sitesand we had a talk about it in preparaEion for tonight's meeting.
today
Emmings: Why donrt you tell us about that.
Dacy: He is really concerned about changing the zoning to ag on themajority of these properties where it cantt be proven that it is aneconomically reasonable use of the property as;n ag use. For example,the cord storage. That wilr be non-confomring. Maybe a better exampre isthe Jack Brambilla's lot r^rhere that small building was. rf thatrs vacatedand r^re change it to A-2, it's really dubious that the City can prove thatthat's a viable lot for either a9 purposes or for a single family home.
Erhart: He's already there right? Hets grandfathered in. Ir'Ierre noteconomically changing that.
One question. Is the BF zone that we've got dorrnit can be to cover the properties that are already there
there?
Emmings:
small as
now, as
Dacy: Itrs just a vacant building.
EIIson: Then he comes in with a new person as a renter.
Dacy: How about if I just finish. He followed that up by saying maybelvhat we should do is the city has used an appraiser in the past and nothaving the appraiser do a formal report but Just going out lhere undersite inspection and look at values of some of these properties because theAttorney is concerned that by rezoning we may be taking. He said that'sfine if you're wilring ro pay for it. That kino or gefs to the issue thatyourre talking about. The council is the one that authorizes, especialrythe rezoning and authorizes acquisition of the property. Anotherarternative other than rezoning to A-2 is that Lne city become a rittlemore ambitious in creating...for this area. Either frontage road or someset of standards that are going to try and resorve the traffic i.ssues andthe zoning issues. That is possibre. That means a public improvementproject and assessments back to the properties. They have to have sometype of use of the land that's going to enable them to pay off theassessment. Itrs like betr,,reen a rock and a hard place.
Planning Commission
May 18, 1988 - Page
Meet i ng
33
Erhart: Someone would haveit important enough that we
use.
Dacy: Yes. As a matter ofmunicipal boundary. I canmain concern is the taking
fact originally it extended over tohave Roger write his feelings up forissue. Thatrs fine if we,re willing
to come
want to
to
do
theyou. Histo buy it.
Dacy: What I could do also, if you vrant, kindanalysis of, there are 8 properties in there.it. Have Roger analysize it and then you haveentire history.
the public hearing and then... Isanything about it? Long term land
sense. Do you think we ought topass this up to the City Councilon this? If they want us to
of a parcel by parcel
Have the appraiser eval uatea better feel for the
Emmings: I donit know if this vrould makeIet the City Council, do you want to justor should vre ask them to give us directiontake a look at it.
Emmings: Shouldnr t direction
Counci 1?
for something like that come from the City
Batzli: I
would 1i kelook at it
Erhart: If the Commission thinksthen Ietrs go to Council and saythis point, we think itrs a valid
them to look at it.
guess what Ird propose is that we make a resolution thatto see _ that preserved in A-2 and rrre want the City Councilthen give us direction. Just make a resolution.
we
to
what werre proposing here is a good idea
we think, without getting into details at
and good planning proposal and we'd like
Emmings: Letrs send Timts updatedconsideration be made.
letter along and that further
Erhart: r calIed Eden prairie on this subject, the Minnesota valrey, andylat i got from this phone call, they have what they call a conservatorydistrict- rt covers this area down there, the uinnesota River valley.The Purgatory creek watershed and the Bluff creek watershed. what it saysis you've got your zoni ng districts but within this conservatory districithere's also a condition and itrs on density and types of use. It,s sortof like a...that overlays these special areas. r consider the Minnesotavarley and the Bluff creek area is the same potentiar for that so that waskind of, I vras talking to Barb about this, a6out getting someone to comeover and just tark to us about preservation of green areas and these areasin general . Try to give us some direction on what to do to get thoseareas preserved. During the small time Irve been here I've seen wherej.t's been easy to come in and the next thing you've got a subdivision
coming in and it doesnrt hit you that night, it's inconsistent with thereal long term opportunity to have a green area. We donrE want it righton Bluff Creek which years ago we already sort of planned to.make it is agreen area but it never really got official so we missed it. ...BluffCreek Greenrs did. Came back and negotiate to get some easements.
Dacy: For ?
Planning Commission
May 18, 1988 - Page
Meeti ng
34
walking. For Bluff Creek for the golf course. That
Pioneer Trail. lle approved it all the way through.
asked a few questions and the developer caught on to
Erhart: It was a
subdivisj.on a)-ong
remember Thompsonplot within this.
I
Batzli: Is
over I ay?
that something that should go in the Comprehensive plan? Our
Dacy: Our sretland, your floodplain and shoreland ordinances all are nowoverlay districts right now Don called me back and he said that thatconservative district did not apply to the Minnesota River Valley. Iasked him to write a Ietter to us clarifying what are the regulations forthe the land immediately abutt ing ,IH 212.
Erhart: Anyway, their whole valley area is zoned agricultural.
Dacy: He said what they have besides the ag zoning is they do haverestrictions on steep slopes which is simitar to our zoning.
Batzli: Are we unanimous in wanting to implement Timts plan?
Emrnings: Thatrs what I wanted to ask. Do you need a formaL motion orresolution or someth j. ng ?
Dacy: Why donrt you go ahead and move.
Erhart moved, Batzli seconded that the planning Commission would like tochange the BF district to A-2 in the location east of TH lot. The CityCouncil should take into account the comments of the City Attorney and theappraiser to give direction on whether or not to pursue with thatapplication. Also, that the City Council take into account Tim Erhart'sIetter regarding this issue. A11 voted in favor and the motion carried.
Erhart moved, ElIson seconded to adjourn
and the motion carried. The meeting was
the meeting.
adjourned at
voted in favor
P.m..
A11
9:45
Submitted by Barbara DacyCity elanner
Prepared by Nann Ophe i m
CITY OF
EHINHISSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEUORANDUU
TO: Planning Commission
FROM3 Barbara Dacyl City Planner
DATE: }{ay 26, 1988
SUBJ: Open Discussion Item
Commissioner Erha.rt would like the Planning Commission to discuss
the attached at Wednesdayrs meeting.
Tim A. Erhart
775 l,lest 96th Street
Chanhassen, lili nnesota 55317
Hay 27, 1988
Pl anni no Comi ssion
Subject: Land use in A-2 Districts of Chanhassen
I'le have recently reviewed a number of proposals raising the question: tlhatis proper land use in Chanhassen's A-2 Zoning District? The proposals we've
seen inciude batting facilities, miniature golf courses, produce stands,retail nurseries, contractors' yards, garbage truck storage and cleaning,
etc .
[,le have attempted to use our zon'ing ordinance as a guide in approving or
denying these requests. In general our new ordinance is consistent in its
assignment of compatible uses in the various zoning districts. The
exception is the A-2 district where the allowed uses are incompatible in
some cases. As a result, I have become increasingly uncomfortable with the
reconmendations that the commission has been forced to make following the
guidel ines of our zoning ordinance.
In analyzing this problem we should review the first stated "Purpose" of our
zoning ord i nance:
l-21 - "Protect residential , commercjal, industrial , andinstitutional areas from the intrusion of incompatible uses."
Applying this goal as the basis for deterrnining acceptable uses in aparticular zoning district rte must decide which uses are compatible and
which are intrusive within any particular district.
The titles of the districts, to a great degree, tell us what the intendeduses are. For examp)e, the intent statement for the A-2, AgricuituralEstate D'istrict states "Preservation of rural character while -respecting
development patterns by allowing single family residential developmenl". I;
general , those uses which are compatible rrith intent of the A-Z districtare those associated with raising crops and cattle. In addition, thingsfound in residential areas such is sr,ii mmi ng poo1s, tennis, day cire, aid
home o-ccupations would be compatible in thii irea by definjtio;. One cangeneraily conclude that uses relating to agriculture-and Iisted in the A-1,Agricultural Preserve district as well as those uses general'ly related toResidential and found listed in the RSF, Residential Single Fariily djstrictshould be ailowed. This anaiysis is straightforward and-one mighi concludethat a method for creating the list for the A-2 district would be to simplylist all those allowed in both A-l and RSF districts. For the most pirlthis has been done as the following chart shows.
I
Permi tted Uses A-I RSF A-2
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
Agriculture X
Public & private parks & open space X
Single family dwellings X
UtiI ity services X
State licensed day care centerfor twelve or fewer children X
State Iicensed group home serving
six or fewer persons X
Temporary real estate office and
model homes
Arboretums X
x
x
x
x
Perm'i t-t e d Accesso r Uses A-l RSF A-2
Agricultural bui 1di ngs
Garage
Private stabl es
Swimming pool s
Tenn'i s court
Signs
Home occupati ons
One dock
Road side stand
Private kennel
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Condi ti onal [Jses A-I RSF A-2
Pubiic building
Temporary mobile home
Group home for 7-10 persons
Churches
Private stabl es
Residential beach I ots
Commerci al kennel s, stables,
riding academi es
x
x
x
x
0
x
0
x
x
x
x
x
2
There are three other major categories of uses which keep coming to the
Commission as a desired use (by appljcants) in this district. Some are
incompatible uses and shouldn't be allowed yet are found listed as allowed.
Some uses are probably compatible, but are not allowed.
OPEN SPACE RECREATIONAL
SALE OF UNPROCESSED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
. INDUSTRIAL/NON-AG COMHERCIAL
I believe we must carefully analyze these uses and eliminate those which are
currently allowed which are intrusive. Ue should also review some uses
which I believe should be included in the A-2 district but are not.
Completing this task vtould el jminate the contradiction in the Iist of
allowed uses and better help guide Chanhassen's growth. In addition, we can
avo'id some of the problems we now experience such as contractor's yards in
an RSF district which become permanent neighborhood fixtures.
OPEN SPACE RECREATIONAL
Defi ni ti on:
0pen space recreational can be defined asparcels of inexpensive land for outdoor
Examples: Golfing, hunting c1ubs, stables,
Analysis:
those uses which require large
sporti ng or cultural activity.
parks, arboretums, zoos.
Notably absent from the list in the A-2 area are: Pubf ic Buildings,
Churches and Beach Lots. I suggest we review the absence of these uses
since it appears we are acting as if some of these are inciuded as
allowable uses in the A-2 area.
In analyzing this, you can see that to a great degree, the A-l and RSF
districts are inherently compatible as we see that all most all of the uses
I isted are allowed in both districts. Note that industrial and commercial
uses however, are not allowed in either area.
General Use Cateqories Discussed:
These uses aiready exist within the A-2 district of Chanhassen and are not
intrusive with the rural nature of the area. Some of these activities
require buildings or equipment which may be intrusive, however in all cases
the structure is accessory to the primary use, that being use of the land.
J
This is a business whose major
unprocessed agri cul tural products
nursery stock.
activity js seiling or distributing
such as vegetables, fruits, flowers and
An al vsi s:
Our current ordinance al'lows both road side stands and wholesale nurseriesin the A-2 districts. The road side stand is retail, wh'ile the wholesale
nursery, which by definition, is not. Our ordinance does not restrictactivity to sales of only those items grown on site. Sales of agricuituralproducts by 1oca1 growers have long been associated with the rural setting
and as iong as the sales are restricted to unprocessed materials e.9.,fruit, plants, trees, etc. I believe this activity in fact compl iments the
agricultural nature of the district.
Should we allow retail Nursery sales in the A-2 area? I bel ieve we should.lie currently have two nurseries wjthin our A-2 district. Halla Nurserysells retail because it is grandfathered. Northwest Nursery would .l ike toseil retail, but is restricted to wholesale at thjs time. L'i ke Halla,
Northwest grows some of its material on site.
I suggest that if retail sales occur on site that we limit those sales to
materials grown on site or on surrounding properties. This would, in fact,
encourage owners to maintain current farm land in some kind of production
rather than sub-dividing. In effect al lowing retailing of "home grown"
products can actual)y assist the city .in maintaining our open space as long
as poss i b1e.
I also believe we should make the retail sales of agricultural products a
temporary one. Th'is would prevent operators from building permanent
structures and prevent incompatibii ity 1ater, when a higher densityresjdential use occurs. These buildings must be removed and the use
suspended when an A-2 (or RR) area becomes residential on1y.
4
SALE OF UNPROCESSED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Defi ni ti on:
INDUSTRIAL/NON.AG COI4MERC IAL
Definition:
An industrial or commercial use can be defined by an activity involving
employees, equipment and warehousing whereby a product is manufactured or a
service is rendered. The primary facility of an Industrial Non-Ag/
Commercial use is the buildings and equipment whereas the land becomes an
accessory. This compares to farms, nurseries and outdoor recreation where
the land is primary and the structures and equipment are accessory.
It is obviously more econonical to put a contractor's yard on a farm site
where land is cheaper than in an jndustrial park. Due to the closeproximjty to the metro area and the cost advantage compared to industrialdistricts, we are seeing a growjng number of requests for cond'itional usepermits for contractors' yards. It appears that Chanhassen is one of the
few remaining suburbs allowing contractors' yards in 'its Rural Residentialareas. I'le have worked hard to develop plans and ordinances which assure theorderly development of Chanhassen maintaining its natural beauty and sma11
town image. Quickly our beautiful open areas are turning into industrial
sprawl as contractors' yards pile up vehicles, storage gaiages, equipment,
mounds of barren dirt, rotting lumber and rusting steel .
Uhen a conditionai use permit is approved for a contractor's yard, thepermit goes with the property. As a result, we cannot seem to el iminatethis use when residential density jncreases, as it certainly wil1, in this
5
Anal vs i s
Somehow, in the A-2 district, we have come to accept the idea that an
industrial use is compatible within the rural setting. I cannot deveiop any
argument for concluding that such a use is at all compatible with the stated
intent for the A-2 district. Moreover, I find that industrial and non-Ag
corrnerci al uses are the most intrusive uses conceivable when you consider
the type of buildings, their permanence, the equipment, and the type ofactivity including numerous employees, are central to the purpose of this
use.
No different than those businesses which occupy our industrial zones, a
contractors' yard, is an industrial use.
. There are employees who live off-site. The business is housed in an industrial building. Equi pment i s used for the purpose of conducti ng commerci al
business. There is warehous i ng. There is payrol I. Nothing is grown on the site which contributes to the business. Buildings are permanent
area. Lastly, historically the c'ity has been unabie to enforce
regulation which appl ies to contractor's yards. As a result,
contractor's yards tend to grow and becone increasingly unsightly
intrusive.
the
the
and
Following is a list of uses allowed in the A-2 d'istrict whjch are neitheragriculturally related or residentially related, nor are they allowed in thepurely agriculturai area (A-1) or the purely residential area (RSF). The
one exception is Bed and Breakfast.
Condi tional Use s A-2A-1 RSF
Bed and Breakfast
ltli neral extract i on
Cemetery
Contractor's Yard
Commerci al commun i cati ons
I'lhol es al e nursery
El ectri c Sub- stati on
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
One might argue that the A-2 area is uniquely suited to serve some of these
uses such as commercial communications and sub-stations. The remaining, I
bel i eve, are i ncompat i bl e and shoul d be removed as permi tted or
conditionally permitted uses in the A-2 district. For example, I must
question whether mineral extraction is still compatible considering the
increasing population density in our A-2 district. By listing "bed and
breakfast", does that mean we want someone building a new hotel in our rural
area?
The nost gross intrusion however is the contractor's yard. Contractor's
yards have nothing at all to do with agricultural activity. They are
incompatible with residential and agricultural settings. They are, in fact,
a blight to the single amenity which Chanhassen residents value most when
asked - our rema'ining open and wooded areas.
tle must be careful not to confuse a landscape contractor with a wholesale
nursery. Landscape contractors are industrjal . They do not grow anything
and therefore cannot be considered agricuitural . lle must be sure that the
language of our ordinance properly separates Iandscape contractors from
nursery operators.
l,le have had an opportunity recently to observe first hand the results of
allowing contractors' and landscapers' yards within Rural and Residential
areas of Chanhassen. After studying the issue, I have concluded that
allowing contractors' yards outside an industrial zone goes completely
against the purpose and objective of our zoning ordinance. l,lorst, it is a
growing b1 ight to our community. Lastly, we are creating problems which
are not easy to solve in the future as we have seen in the Lowell Carlson
property case.
6