PC Minutes 07-06-21Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2021
2
wall with fescue. This will help stop erosion, absorb water, and there are planned drain systems
for water management.
Ms. Bruner clarified the highest point of their property is when one approaches the driveway and
it continues to go down and down from there. There is not a lot of flat space and they are looking
for the best ways to provide different areas for people to be on the property.
Chairman Weick asked if the two feet on the deck is in each direction.
Mr. Bruner replied it is simply two feet out.
Chairman Weick opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m.
Chairman Weick closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m.
Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Johnson seconded that the Board of Appeals
and Adjustments approve a 20-foot bluff impact zone and 30-foot bluff setback variance
and for the construction of a deck, a bluff impact zone, and bluff setback variance for the
construction of retaining walls, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the
attached Findings of Facts and Decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST TO AMEND CITY CODE CHAPTERS 1 AND 20 TO DEFINE
AGRITAINMENT"/"AGRITOURISM"; CREATE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
FOR AN AGRITAINMENT USE AS AN INTERIM USE; ALLOW AGRITAINMENT
USES AS AN INTERIM USE IN THE AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT; AND
RECEIVE AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR AN AGRITAINMENT USE ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9111 AUDUBON ROAD
Senior Planner Bob Generous noted this is a Code Amendment and interim use permit (IUP)
review. The applicant has prepared a definition for Agritainment, use standards, an IUP in the A2
District regulations, and is also requesting the interim use for the Agritainment use on his
property. 9111 Audubon Road is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2), is almost 64 acres in
size, and is guided for Office Industrial use in the future. Mr. Generous stated the property is
surrounded on two sides by the Bluff Creek Primary Zone which is part of the consideration.
Section 20-42 permits Code amendments upon initiation by City Council, the Planning
Commission, or a petition of the property owner. Staff has taken the applicant’s proposed
language, done a strike-through, and bold format with any recommended changes. As part of the
Agritainment definition it was broader as an educational and entertaining opportunity for people
to learn about farming activities. The only issue staff had within the definition is how mountain
biking fits into Agritainment…while they may use farm fields to do it, as part of the plan it
showed going into the Bluff Creek Primary Zone and staff had concern that it may impact that
zone and prefer that use not be included. This was the only change to the definition. Staff asked
that parking be included as part of the applicant’s plan and that they maintain a 50-foot setback
from the right-of-way, including accessible parking. He noted the applicant wanted an exemption
Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2021
3
for accessory agriculture buildings, however the Building and Fire Officials were adamant that if
the applicant wants to change the occupancy or use of the individual buildings, they must comply
with all the building code requirements for that occupancy. Staff has added that the applicant
must provide sediment and erosion measures as part of their plan, mostly for the change in the
parking area to be sure they do not have runoff into the corridor and Bluff Creek. They also want
to verify that the roadway system has sufficient capacity to handle the proposed use. Mr.
Generous received an email from Carver County and based on the number provided to them
there were no required improvements on the public roadway system. The only condition was that
the driveway width be determined to provide access for one car in and out side-by-side. Staff is
also requiring sanitary facilities for use by visitors to the site; this would allow either a
permanent facility or the use of a chemical toilet. Staff is recommending approval of the
revisions to the standards for the Agritainment use as part of the interim use, conditional use
criteria. Staff suggests the interim use period be five years which gives the applicant time to
evaluate the operation and allows a request for an extension of that timeframe and also allows the
City the opportunity to evaluate any negative impacts. Mr. Generous showed proposed plans on
screen.
Ms. Aanenson backtracked a bit and said this property is guided for Industrial, so at some point
in the future if sewer and water is available they could convert that. However, the applicants
want to continue to use the farming operation. The mechanism for that is to give it an interim use
and reevaluate. She noted staff is excited about this as it would be great for residents to go pick
pumpkins and do those activities and said they allowed the applicant to craft how they wanted
the operation to go and staff is trying to reconcile some of those things that would or would not
work.
Mr. Generous stated staff is recommending approval of the amendments to sections 1-2, 20-
251.5, and 20-576 regarding Agritainment; an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for Agritainment at
9111 Audubon Road subject to the conditions in the staff report and the Findings of Fact and
Recommendation.
Vice Chairman/Commissioner von Oven noted the applicant had suggested mountain biking and
the determination was made that is not an agricultural activity. By striking it, if a resident were to
complain in a year that mountain biking was happening on the site, there would be cause for a
statement that they could not do that. He asked if something is not in the definition, is it not
allowed and has it been written in such a way that amendments will need to continue in the
future? For example, pumpkin picking and apple picking are listed – would that include zucchini
picking?
Ms. Aanenson replied they could modify it to say “produce” that could be grown on the site.
Mr. von Oven was surprised at 25% of the land being used as agriculture, which is not
Agritainment.
Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2021
4
Ms. Aanenson replied that staff discussed if it is a living farm in Agritainment, then there should
be a farming operation.
Mr. Generous noted there are 19 parcels that could conceivably come in and request
Agritainment as an interim use, with a minimum of 20 acres, zoned agricultural. The Degler
Family wanted to be sure people understood that they were not just crafting this definition for
themselves.
Gayle Degler and his son, Todd Degler, applicants, approached the podium. Todd Degler gave a
presentation on screen, explaining what Agritainment is and why the Degler Family wants to
explore the opportunity. They are still a farm and grow corn, soybeans, wheat, and alfalfa grass.
He noted a typo and asked to add the words “Archery/Axe Throwing” as part of the
Agritainment activity. Regarding parking and setbacks, the Deglers would propose that parking
should be removed from Item 5 since they feel it more appropriately fits in Item 6 as part of the
parking plan because of the unique situation. They do not believe any screening is needed for
visual impacts and would request that the 50-foot requirement from the right-of-way be removed.
The applicant proposes to screen the parking with rows of corn which could add character and
provide adequate screening. Mr. Degler also asked for a change regarding the sanitary facilities
noting where it says it shall be serviced weekly, they propose it be serviced as the operational
plan dictates; the reason is that it may not even be used on a weekly basis. He clarified the
average time on the farm is about 45 minutes and they do not get requests for facilities very
often, and it is mostly for a diaper change. The family proposed changing the language of the
IUP to say the permit shall be approved until development of the property will no longer allow it
to meet ordinance code. Mr. Degler also spoke about suggested signage regarding the Bluff
Creek Overlay District on their property and their preference not to have that signage. He also
clarified the hayride route.
Commissioner Alto stated in talking about planting the row of corn on the street, it was noted
that sleigh rides may be part of the future. She asked if the applicant wants to start tracking
toward winter activities and what the parking situation would look like during the winter.
Mr. Degler replied they would park their cars away from that setback in the winter months which
are not as busy of a time. He clarified in the winter they would probably park within the main
yard area.
Mr. von Oven said it sounds like it will be a pretty successful business in addition to what the
Applicant is already doing. He asked why it is pre-determined that this property will be
developed on in the future?
Mr. Degler replied the Comprehensive Plan is what maps it out in the future; he does not think it
has to be developed in the future but he may be wrong.
Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2021
5
Mr. Gayle Degler noted it is home for him and at this point he does not have a desire to develop
it.
Ms. Aanenson stated the City has a Comprehensive Plan but does not pick and choose when
development happens as that is up to the property owner. She noted the property is guided for
industrial and there is sewer and water to the property but if they want to continue to farm it is
the family’s choice.
Mr. von Oven asked regarding the 50 feet for parking, the reason may be to screen parking but as
a parent of young children when those minivan doors open the kids are gone. He does not know
enough about the right-of-way, but asked if Mr. Degler is personally comfortable parking within
15-20 feet of that right-of-way with his children piling out of the car.
Mr. Degler replied he is, absolutely.
Mr. Gayle Degler stated the kids are going to go toward the activity, towards the pumpkins,
towards the farm rather than the road.
Commissioner Johnson commented he has gone to the farm since they started the hayride, they
are doing a great job, and it is always fun to see what is new each year.
Ms. Alto asked staff with the proposed changes the applicant had in the presentation, is it
something that needs to go back for revisions before approval?
Ms. Aanenson stated the Commission can make a recommendation based on the applicant’s
updates up to the City Council. The City Council can then either add or subtract to it.
Mr. Weick opened the public hearing at 8:06 p.m.
Mr. Weick closed the public hearing at 8:06 p.m.
Mr. Weick appreciates the intent for the Degler Farm and does not doubt the intentions for safety
or fun; however, with the number of items included in what could happen...with all the activities
and parking, they overlap considerably. His concern is in rotating activities around the farm, it is
very packed. If they stick to the 50-foot setback for parking it basically wipes out the parking in
the front of the property. He is also concerned that there are 19 other properties that could
potentially do similar things and are their intentions the same. He noted the number of potentially
dangerous activities such as sledding, archery, axe throwing, zip lines happening on top of each
other and moving year after year is an issue to him.
Ms. Aanenson noted they tried to address this in the definition of Agritainment. The goal was
that there needed to be a farming operation rather than someone that has 20 acres, as 25% of it
Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2021
6
must be agricultural use. The intent is that it is accessory to the principal use of agriculture.
Perhaps the percentages aren’t quite where the Commissioners would feel comfortable.
Mr. von Oven asked why the percentage was lowered to 25%?
Mr. Generous replied it was partially the Degler’s recommendation. He clarified they started out
with a 10-acre site and the City said that was way too small which is how they got to the 40
acres.
Mr. Degler clarified they did not want it to look like they made the rules for themselves; through
some back-and-forth, they landed at the final number.
Mr. von Oven asked how many acres the farm sits on.
Mr. Degler replied the farm is about 60 acres, they rent other land and farm about 250 tillable
acres.
Mr. von Oven noted they are well over 75% agriculture.
Mr. Weick replied not on this site.
Mr. Degler noted that is correct and depends on if they are talking about the farm or the site; the
farm they rent is not connected to the site.
Ms. Aanenson clarified the Degler’s property is 67 acres and that would be the basis.
Mr. Weick asked of the 67 acres, how much is farmed?
Mr. Degler replied about 40-45 acres.
Mr. von Oven said regarding the definition of Agritainment, he thinks they are putting so much
in there so something is not missed. There is some work to be done to make it more efficient and
not revisit this in the future. He noted this makes it feel that they are piling stuff on top of a piece
of property; if there were one place that tried to do all these things, there is no way he’d take his
kids there because it would be too dangerous. He feels as though all of the activities are for
definition as one literally cannot have all of them at the same time, for example winter and
summer activities.
Mr. Weick said he cannot help but envision driving by a carnival. He stated someone could do it
and turn it into a business - only interested in making a buck - much more than the Deglers who
are interested in the educational side.
Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2021
7
Ms. Aanenson noted that is the reason they put the timeline on the IUP so the City can go back
and revisit it.
Mr. von Oven is a big fan of the idea and he has visited places like this a lot by driving a few
more miles west. All of the changes suggested make sense to him; however the one he feels
pretty strongly about is that it is being considered as an IUP for a reason. If there was a definite
end that was forcing the Deglers to develop that would change this and put a set deadline on it,
he would feel differently. He is a big fan that the City invests in projects they believe in, which is
why this is up for consideration. There may be some issues as to how they make it work, limiting
potential uses; perhaps a smaller list of uses is tested at first and if it is working, the City can let
it grow or change. Part of the way they would not drive by a carnival every day is on Section 20
Number 4. It feels like a site that is only farming on 25% of the property is not really a farm,
rather it is 75% or something else. Commissioner von Oven thinks they should keep with the
great idea of farmers first, educators second. This might get flipped on its head and that is when
it turns into a carnival if they only have to be farming on 25%. He does not know what the right
number is, but feels like that number should be a bit bigger. He also agrees that the Bluff signage
feels like an advertisement and should not be on private property.
Ms. Aanenson noted staff agrees with the porta-potty comment and also agrees in combining the
parking standards.
Mr. von Oven asked if there was anything on the list that staff was adamantly opposed to.
Mr. Generous replied there is some concern about archery and axe throwing.
Ms. Aanenson said regarding parking, they will let the Planning Commission decide what is
appropriate for screening, whether 50 feet is excessive or just a row of corn.
Mr. Generous said if there is concern regarding acreage, to go back to 40 acres at 25% there
would be 10 acres that are actually farmed and that is by definition, a farm. He noted that is part
of what they started out with. He stated there are other opportunities in the community that could
theoretically come in, but they do not think anyone else would have the same interests, visibility,
location, or passion.
Mr. von Oven is not a fan of the axe throwing, either. The interesting thing about the definition is
if they did not talk about it tonight, no one would know whether it is in or out of the definition.
Everyone who reviews these notes will know that mountain biking was crossed off and
potentially axe throwing was discussed and thrown out. He said “pick your next sport.” That is a
bit of the issue he has with the definition. He loves “uses including” but does not know that any
decision the Commissioners make will say yes or no to axe throwing so it does not affect his
decision. He clarified that if they do not change the definition to produce picking, then zucchini
picking is prohibited on the Agritainment property.
Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2021
8
Ms. Aanenson thinks she heard Mr. von Oven say “like uses” which would be something that is
grown on the property, and Staff would clarify that.
Mr. Johnson asked if the strike-out for mountain biking would stay in the definition like this.
Ms. Aanenson replied it will come out. When it goes to City Council they will weigh in, as well.
Mr. von Oven would like City Council to hear that he thinks they will have problems with this
definition in the future and he wants to make it better although he is not exactly sure how. Some
of the wording could be more efficient or explicit, and he suggested something similar to “like-
use.” He loves the idea of the corn barrier between the right-of-way which allays his concerns
about children running from the car to the road. Servicing the facilities weekly does sound undue
as certain times during the winter they may not even be used. He believes it should remain as an
IUP to allow the City to test, learn, and revisit.
Commissioner von Oven moved, Commissioner Alto seconded that the Chanhassen
Planning Commission recommends City Council approve City Code amendments to
sections 1-2, 20-251.5, and 20-576 regarding Agritainment; an Interim Use Permit (IUP)
for Agritainment use at 9111 Audubon Road with amendments as proposed in the notes
from tonight and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. The motion carried
with a vote of 3 to 1. Chairman Weick voted nay.
Ms. Aanenson noted this item will go before the City Council on July 26, 2021.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JUNE 15, 2021
Commissioner Alto noted the summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
dated June 15, 2021 as presented.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE
Ms. Aanenson presented highlights of action taken by the City Council on Planning matters
including the food truck item, Octoberfest, a neighborhood meeting regarding the changes going
on for residents on West 96th Street, and noted they have had between 800-1,000 roofing permits,
a new Building Inspector, and Lake Place Apartments will begin construction soon. She stated
they will not have a Planning Commission meeting on August 3, 2021 due to National Night
Out.
DISCUSS FUTURE CODE AMENDMENTS
Ms. Aanenson updated the Commissioners on what is coming up including a sign code update,
fences (shoreland fences, above-ground pool requirements, height, CUP requirements, and