1981 03 25
~ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
HELD MARCH 25, 1981, AT 7:30 P.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL
Members Present: Jim Thompson, Ladd Conrad, Carol Watson, Art
Partridge, Walter Thompson and Howard Noziska
Michael Thompson.
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Scott Martin, Bob Waibel
Chairman Partridge stated that the Planning Commission meeting
scheduled for the 1st of April has been cancelled. He urged the
Planning Commission to attend next week's Solid Waste Committee
meeting that will be held at the Carver County Courthouse.
Replat Request, Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Zamor Addition, Public
Hearing:
Waibel, the City Planner, presented his report to the Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission has approved a site plan
for Cannonball Kitchen last year. Sin~e that time the applicant
has requested for additional parking spaces.
e
waibel suggested that this be handled by a simple lot split rather
than a replat.
J. Thompson made a motion seconded by Watson to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion was carried.
J. Thompson made a motion seconded by Watson to recommend to the
City Council to approve the replat request with the condition
that the proposed facility not exceed a capacity of 225 persons.
Also the applicant should comply with the City's uniform street
and site lighting utilizing shielded amber sodium fixtures.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Final Development Plan Review, Chaparral West PRD, Dunn and Curry
Real Estate Management, Inc.:
Waibel stated that at the request of the City council the purpose
of this review is for the Planning Commission to carry out the final
development plan review with reference to BRW report. Mr. Paul
Krauss of that firm is here this evening to go over that with you.
Krauss, a representative from BRW indicated that they had been
working with the City Staff for about three months now. The project
was well in conformance with your plans as they existed in January.
e the City Council would like to see more innovative features.
Mr. W. Thompson asked how many units are we looking at and how
many units does that leave in Outlot A? Krauss answered 480 units.
120 housing units in the multiple housing area. There are 8 or
e
e
e
Planning Commission Minutes
March 25, 1981
Page 2.
9 phases to the New Horizons portion.
Mr. J.Thompson expressed concern over the development not responding
to the character of the community and also expressed concern about
the access to Highway 5.
Mr. M. Thompson made a motion that we approve this with the following
recommendations:
1-8
9
10
from the BRW/Staff Report dated March 18, 1981,
minimum setback of 100. feet for all units
subject to approval of housing types i.e. product
changes
That 50% of the units constructed be single
family as presented by the developer
11
Watson requested that construction of each phase be in order.
Watson seconded the motion. Conrad, Watson, W. Thompson, Noziska,
and M. Thompson voted in favor. J. Thompson and Partridge
voted against. Motion carried.
J. Thompson stated that he feels the plan is not in the best interest
of the City and that he sees problems with the style of the quad,
the housing mix and access to Hwy 5.
Partridge stated he did not care for the design of the quads.
Discussion, Proposed Lake and Shoreline Ordinance:
Present: Walter Coudron, Lake Study Committee Chairman
Coudron stated that the proposed ordinance has been taken from
looking at other cities and from state statutes. After two years
of study, most of the wording is from the committee and not copied
from another city.
There was some discussion regarding what was recommended to the
Lake Study Committee by the Planning Commission as to what should
be put into the ordinance.
Martin explained to the:planning Commission the areas on the ordinance
that have been changed from the original.
Enforcement of the proposed ordinance was discussed.
J. Thompson made a motion that thep.roposed ordinance be forwarded
to the City Council with the additions of the City Manager. Thi.s
ordinance is to bea duration of one year. Conrad seConded the
motion. P.artridge, W. Thompson, Conrad, ,Noziska,J . Thompson and
Watson voted aye, M. Thompson.... nay. Motion carried.
e
e
e
Planning Commission Minutes
March 25, 1981
Page 3
A motion was made by M. Thompson and seconded by J. Thompson to
have the Assistant City Attorney change Section 5 and the place-
ment of it in the ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Review Dale Green Conditional Use Permit:
The applicant has been given a 5 year conditional use permit dated
March 29, 1971, this permit was renewed in 1976 for a Sod and Black
Dirt Business.
This item has been referred to the Planning Commission by the City
Council for further discussion with the City Attorney's Office'.
This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit renewal, no discussion
was made at the City Council meeting.
Mr. Mertz, the Assistant City Attorney, indicated that the Planning
Commission should look at the Conditional Use Permit that was
handed out to them. The application stated that the proposed
business on this property is the stock piling of dirt, the sale of
sod, the sale of fertilizer, sale of seed and the erection of a
pole barn. Mr. Mertz pointed out that this type of activity is not
a permitted use under the zoning ordinance and is not a conditional
use for this property zoned R-'lA. Why was this permit issued?
This was permitted under the Township ordinance and this predates
the adoption of the zoning ordinance. This is a non-conforming
use, meaning that they may continue what they were doing before
but may not expand their activities. Mr. Mertz called the attention
of the Planning Commission to page 2 of the permit, item 3, Which
says that in no event shall this Conditional Use Permit go beyond
60 months from the date hereof. That 60 months was up in March of
1976. This permit was granted with the understanding that the
use not go beyond 60 months. The City has the discression to
terminate this activity notwithstanding its status as a "non-conforming
use". Mr. Mertz asked the Planning Commission if they wish to keep
this type of activity in an R-1A zone. This business on Hwy 5 and
the City Councils decision and the Planning Commission decision
was that they were not going to amend the ordinance to permit this
type of use in R-1A, and we have sued Natural Green to close them
down. If the planning Commission does consider renewing this
Conditional Use permit they should consider the terms of the renewal
to be more restrictive limiting them to the activities they have
actually utilized and take away what they haven't utilized.
Mr. Butler, a representative of Dale Green, indicated that he owns
the same type of business in Eden prairie and its not against their
zoning ordinance. Mr. Butler owns 89 acres in Chanhassen. Mr.
Mertz indicated that the City Council in 1971 realized that he owned
a bigger parcel of land but wanted to limit his business to a smaller
section of land. The property was a junk yard before the conditional
use permit was permitted and Mr. Butler cleaned the area up.
planning Commission Minutes
March 25, 1981
Page 4
e
Ms. Watson indicated that other requests have been made and for
the same type of requests in the R-1A district and they have been
denied. Maybe this is a good time for Mr. Butler to move his
business over to his other area in Eden Prairie.
Mr. Butler indicated that the pole barn is existing already.
Mr. Waibel stated that before any consideration be made of a
Conditional Use Permit for this request, further study and investi-
gation should be made for a number of things i.e. design oriented,
land-use oriented, how it fits in the Comprehensive plan, etc.
This property is outside the MUSA line.
M. Thompson indicated that it is time for Mr. Butlers business
to be opening, what is going to happen if he has to wait for Mr.
waibel's report.
M. Thompson stated that maybe the :Planning Commission should renew this
permit for a set amount of time. Watson indicated that she does
not want this item approved because it is a non-conforming use.
W. Thompson indicated that the Planning Commission is making it
too hard for someone who has an existing business to stay in business.
e
waibel indicated that he feels that if this request is granted
it will be setting a precedent.
Butler indicated that to keep the dust down they have evergreen
trees on 2 sides of his property.
A motion was made by Mr. J. Thompson to continue the conditional
use permit as it was originally drafted until such a time as the
City redefines the zoning ordinance on such uses. Second was
made by Noziska.
W. Thompson made a motion to amend the previous motion to read for
30 months. Both motions were withdrawn.
Mr. J. Thompson made a motion to continue this conditional use
permit as it was originally drafted not to exceed two years.
Second by Noziska. Nays: Conrad, Watson, Partridge, and M.
Thompson. Ayes: J.Thompson W. Thompson and Noziska. Motion
denied.
A motion was made to recommend to the City Council to renew this
conditional use permit for a period of 2 years for the reason
that the planning Commission is going to review the ordinances and
determine the usage. W. Thompson seconded the motion. Carried.
e