Loading...
1987 11 18 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 1987 ~Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad, James Wildermuth, Robert Siegel and Howard Noziska MEMBERS ABSENT: Steven Emmings and David Headla STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner CONSIDERATION OF CREATING A RURAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, MERLE VOLK, APPLICANT. Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on creating a rural industrial district. Conrad: Under the B column, would that mean that any contractor's yard would have to receive a zoning? If we followed that alternative, would they have to receive a rezoning of their property? Dacy: A rezoning, no. What Alternative B is saying is that you create a district and you call it something, rural industrial or whatever, but you permit contractor's yards only as a conditional use and they have 4It to come through the conditional use process. Conrad: What would we do with the current contractor's yards? So we create one district which had multi-contractor yards, what would we do with the others that we have in town right now? Dacy: We would have two options. You could leave the A-2 ordinance as is and continue to allow contractor's yards as a conditional use in the A-2 district or if you wanted you could go back and amend the A-2 district to eliminate contractor yards. Erhart: How many contractor yards are there? Dacy: There could be about 3 or 4. Conrad: You closed in your comments Barbara by saying there's a significant economic impact in what we're deciding tonight or looking at. What does that mean? Dacy: What I was saying is that at the last meeting there was a lot of discussion about the economic issue involved for some of these uses. Some of these uses, because of the price of land, they may not be able to locate in an industrial park. Some of these uses are located in structures that have low rates for leasing and it's only natural that anybody would want to find a location that's cheaper rent than anyplace else. All I'm saying is that in the future there may be more economic ~impacts in the future for those people than there may appear to be now. Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 1987 - Page 2 _conrad: We're discussing this issue because the next item on the agenda is a conditional use permit and for those that were not here at our last meeting, we wanted to decide whether there should be a zoning amendment and I think tonight we're going to make some decisions on whether we think the staff should follow that up or not and make our recommendations to the City Council in terms of whether there's a zone that is appropriate. After we talk about that, than that may shed some light on the subsequent item on the agenda. This is not a public hearing but I'm interested in any comments that people may have that are in the audience tonight. We're sort of searching around in terms of the need, the necessity and I think if there is anybody that has some comments to shed on what you've heard the staff talk about, we'd appreciate it if you had anything to tell us. Roger Schmidt: I have two questions. First of all, it's a general question. Why does it, I have to agree with with Barbara has to say about the number of contractor's yards in the communities around the area, why does Chanhassen feel that they have to be an exception to say victoria, number one. Number two, if you were going to rezone to permit these kind of uses, does that qualify as spot zoning? Conrad: Your first question we'll just have to decide tonight whether we have to be an exception. Whether it's important. Whether we feel it's significant. In terms of spot zoning, it's kind of true. What we'd want to make sure, if we had a zone, if we felt it was important, tal think it would be significant that we worked it into a plan. That we ask staff whether there were other locations that would meet any kind of requirements for a zone like that and I think you heard their comments. There is another location. Does it make sense to be where it is for economic reasons, for buffering reasons? I think you heard the staff's comments too and we all took that in. To a degree, putting in a downtown business district is spot zoning. You have one and maybe that's all you need. I think we have to decide whether one fringe business district is all we need and again that could be important in how we design our community. It could be termed spot zoning but if it makes sense, then maybe it's not but I think what we would want to make sure of is that we had alternative sites for a zone and that there was some rationale for why we put it where we did. Anything else? Shirley Bowers, Chaska Communi ty Service: ...a park that is very comparable to your Chanhassen Lakes Park. We are concerned with seeing contractor yards adjacent to what...CR 18 which is one of the major east/west roads... We would not like to see higher quality industrial structures happen along that road... We are not unmindful of contractor yards. There is a definite need in an area like Chanhassen and Chaska for them so...and we are looking at the future expanding almost all of their activities to that site. At least 20 million dollars being built on that site and to know what's happening next door... I think all the cities have to be aware that the biggest tax burden we have is from the school districts and the county... e Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 1987 - Page 3 -conrad: I think what we'll do is get Planning Commission's perspectives and any questions we may have and react to this particular opportunity or direction. I think the applicant has asked, Merle Volk has asked for us to consider a zoning change and we have some alternatives to look at and give staff some direction. Erhart: Maybe the easiest solution is to have Chaska annex the whole thing then you'd have sewer and water available. Wildermuth: In exchange for what? Erhart: Assuming that can't be done, I would definitely oppose looking at the area across Audubon Road. It's to be considered a district that doesn't spread an industrial district in the rural area. It's not the same kind of property. It's very open where this is partially wooded and has an area across the street that is open and that you can get to from all directions. I'm adamantly opposed to doing that. Although if you were going to make a second district, to make it more meaningful, I think that that number 18 space below is more appropriate. Thinking this thought over the last week, given that it already is a large contractor's yard and we're probably not going to change that, as I go back and during the new ordinance, at that time we discussed the alternative of allowing contractor yards throughout the city of Chanhassen in the rural area as opposed to making one district filled with contractor yards. At that time the position was taken that we're ~going to allow contractor yards at various locations in the A-2 area and this could be one of them. Reflecting on that, I think perhaps we should go back and review that and I would like to see us take the position that we do have one large area that's already a contractor's yard. We've accepted it. Do the best with that that we can and eliminate contractor yards completely from all other areas in Chanhassen. In other words, keep it as a conditional use for the A-2 area, if that's allowed. Is that correct Barbara? Dacy: Yes, those are the two options. Erhart: So I'd like to see that. As far as your comments as to what to do with this area, I believe that with proper landscaping you can effectively shield the equipment. Even if the equipment does sit outside, I think it can be shielded effectively but I think we ought to be real specific about how that's done. This is unique. I don't think we can apply our regular berming and landscaping rules and ordinances would apply to the industrial but I think we ought to be specific in the height of the berm and the thickness of the trees and types of trees. Evergreen, I think they ought to be 6 feet minimum height in two rows and such that this is properly screened so it doesn't and I don't think it will adversely affect Chaska's industrial park. I think it will be an asset if it's properly screened. Also, I think as you start moving equipment back into the rear area, if they can do that without additional permits, I think that ought to be stated upfront ~ that that addition has to be screened from the industrial park. Then I Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 1987 - Page 4 _think it's fine. Considering the existing use of the area, I think it makes sense to expand that use in that area as long as the surrounding areas aren't affected. Now that we've got it, let's eliminate contractor yards from the A-2 area in the rest of Chanhassen. I don't think, quite frankly, the A-2 area of Chanhassen is not agricultural. It is a residential area and contractor yards are not consistent with the density of the residential building and residential homes that we're getting throughout the rural of Chanhassen. Conrad: Tim, to summarize, you would create a zone? Erhart: Yes. Conrad: Would you keep uses as conditional uses? In other words, you create a zone but you'd keep them as conditional uses but you would also want to eliminate contractor yards from the rest of Chanhassen in the A-2 district? Erhart: Yes. I wouldn't vote for anything. Conrad: So in other words, if you didn't eliminate contractor yards from the A-2 district and other areas, you would not vote for a zone? Erhart: You got it. 4ItWildermuth: Can we legally do that? Conrad: I think we could. If we felt comfortable that we could, that we solved the need and allowed a use in the city of Chanhassen, I think we could eliminate that. We couldn't go retroactive. I think the current contractor yards would be grandfathered in. Dacy: I went through the file and found a transparency that shows the number of contractor yards. Stockdale's is up here on CR 117. He has not executed his operation or he has not begun his operation yet nor has he executed the permit that was issued. He hasn't filed a letter officially withdrawing the application yet so as far as I know the application still stands. In any case, if we were to assume that one was there, we talked about it a couple of years ago. Then to the south of them Mr. Benson has his contractor's yard and then the wholesale nursery and landscaping contractor's yard along TH 101. Mr. Langdon's operation on West 96th Street. Mr. and Mrs. Clark's operation on pioneer Trail and then we're expecting on the site adjacent to TH 101, we amended the BF district to allow contractor's yards about 6 months ago and I expect to hear an application here quickly. So the circles around this reflect the 1 mile radius. Erhart: Around that comment, I guess I wouldn't be opposed to contractor yards in the BF area but I might also comment that Northwest Nursery is not a contractor's yard, it's a wholesale nursery. e Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 1987 - Page 5 eDaCy: Yes, it's primary is a wholesale contractor's yard in that equipment and site. nursery but they do act as a services are being stored on Erhart: Meaning what the tree removers. Dacy: At one time, as I recall, when we went through the process, he did have a cement mixer on the site. His operation obviously is just himself. Siegel: Do we have any contractor yards outside of the A-2 district? Dacy: The only one would be the application that we expect to receive along TH 212 BF's district. Siegel: In other words, we don't have any in any residential area? Dacy: There may be some illegal uses that we're not aware of. Siegel: In considering your study of other cities in the metro area, did you look at just cities that had agricultural zoning? Dacy: Yes. I wanted to call those cities that were similar to Chanhassen in that they were half urban and half rural. Those included were Apple Valley, Eden prairie, Plymouth, Lakeville, Rosemount, 4ItShakopee, Inver Grove Heights, Prior Lake, victoria, Anoka, and Ramsey. Siegel: So a substantial number of them still have agricultural zoning? Dacy: Yes. Siegel: That business fringe district down along TH 212, thl= Gedney Plant, is that in the business fringe district or is that another zoning? Dacy: The Gedney pickle Plant is zoned industrial office. Siegel: And that area is just restricted to the Gedney property right? Dacy: Under the terms of the zoning ordinance, if Gedney's operation were to cease at that location, any use permitted in the lOP district could be located at that location. Siegel: And they have a pre-existing grandfathered in sewage contract with the city of Chaska? Dacy: That's correct. Siegel: When we were discussing about having a fringe industrial e district, I was thinking that that area would surely be an ideal area Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 1987 - Page 6 ~ecause there already was an existing grand fathered in and fairly successful industry going there and I think we should consider that as a possible expansion area even though we don't have sewer but for things like contractor yards and uses we're looking at, that should be in my opinion a good location for that type of growth if we needed it in the City of Chanhassen. Dacy: I should comment that the property adjacent to that is Mr. Gary Brown's property which is zoned BF which came through last spring for a storage facilities. The area adjacent to Gedney's is now zoned BF. Siegel: What is the progress of this talk about annexation of this property to Chaska? Is there any talk or is it sort of at a standstill? Dacy: When the request was discussed by Council, they presented their individual viewpoints on the proposed deannexation and the direction back to Mr. Yolk was to come back with some type of proposal and work with staff members from Chaska and Chanhassen and Mr. Yolk to get some type of proposal that would make a compromise as to Chanhassen deannexing 40 acres of land that would be created as an industrial. Council was seeking some type of items in return so that Chanhassen and Chaska could look at the overall impact of deannexing the 40 acres into Chaska. Some of the council members were concerned about loss of tax base, creation of land that would be in competition with Chanhassen's tltindustrial zone and the business park; Those were some of the concerns. Siegel: There was no discussion about the possibility of Chaska seeding property down around the Gedney property to the City of Chanhassen in exchange for the Yolk property? To me that would be a natural switch if there is property available in that area. Dacy: There was nothing concrete as far as swaps. Again, the direction was to come back at some point with some type of specific proposal. Siegel: But right now it's really in who's court? Dacy: It's back in Mr. Yolk's court. Tom Hamilton: I talked with Merle and Merle talked with Chaska and I talked with Bob Roepke, the Mayor of Chaska and the ball is in their court to come up with some land... Also I'd like to comment on swapping land down by Gedney's, I think you're looking at some lowlands without very much potential... Siegel: It seems to me there is vacant land that is buildable because the industrial land down there next to Gedney's could be swapped. I'm not talking about the river bottom. _ Tom Hamilton: It's the same thing... / Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 1987 - Page 7 ~Siegel: But it's sewered. Tom Hamilton: Not to us. Siegel: It would be if it were annexed right. Tom Hamilton: Merle's would be if Chaska, if we would have the opportunity to sewer at the time... Siegel: Even though we have existing sewage available to Gedney's? Tom Hamilton: Our sewage does not handle Gedney's. Siegel: No, but couldn't it be worked out where it could be an exchange basis since the sewer line actually would have to go through the properties concerned to Gedney's. Dacy: Maybe Shirley can help me but I think the Gedney plant has an on-site treatment or are they on Chaska's? Shirley Bruers: No, they have municipal water and sewer. They do have settling ponds... I'd just like to make a comment about the property surrounding the Gedney plant we consider prime industrial because it has major highway TH 212 access, you have rail access. There is talk about abandoning the railroad...but we are asking to keep 4Itthe track open from about the Gedney Plant... It is my understanding unless for some reason the letter didn't go out of my office, there was a proposal sent. Siegel: For a land exchange? Did it concern that area? ShirleY'Bruers: That was one mentioned... Siegel: Maybe Barb would know about since the sewer would be going through the property already. Even though it goes through Chask's sewer service, would that be sewered industrially if we had an exchange of property just like the Gedney's? Dacy: So you're saying that Chashassen would receive sewer service from Chaska? Siegel: Right. what we're talking about is Chanhassen land already receives sewer service from Chaska. The Gedney property is the example. We're not really doing anything other than expanding that area in an exchange program to annex unsewered land in Chanhassen for sewered land in Chaska? I don't know what the politics would be. Dacy: As far as use of utilities is concerned, Chanhassen or Chaska could execute a Joint Powers Agreement or Joint Agreement utility use however since the sewer is coming from Chaska and Chaska is going to ~ have to satisfy the Metro Waste Control Commission and Met Council that Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 1987 - Page 8 _the additional capacity is not being added to their system. It was my understanding that the deannexation of the 40 acres of the Volk site, as fas the land swap with the City of Chaska was to swap out an equal amount of acreage so there would be no additional sewage capacity. If the swap idea would meet approval of the regional agencies and if both councils agreed to whatever is being proposed, it's possible. It seems to me, since the Counc i 1 meet i ng I ha ve not spoken to the Ci ty Manager about this. I am not aware of the letter. Siegel: In respect to the 1 mile limit on adjoining contractor yards, say we were to keep everything as it is and allow contractor yards by conditional use permit only, we would still have to change the zoning ordinance in order to accomplish what the petitioner is asking right because we're talking about a contractor's yard next to a contractor's yard and right now we're restricting them to a mile separation. Dacy: As you recall from last year, when the Gardeneer made their application to operate their contractor's yard on the Volk site, we also processed a variance along with that request to the variance for the one mile requirement. That was granted based on the fact that Merle Volk's operation and the Gardeneer's operation was occurring on the same property. That was the basis for the variance. Siegel: I guess my next question is, what's preventing the adjoining contractor's yard operator to come in with the same kinds of proposal 4Itthat would appear for expansion for a ballooning effect of his . contractor's yard designation to include this type of a designation that we discussed as a zone? Dacy: If your question is what's to prevent him, the only answer is nothing. Siegel: So really that whole area, we could be faced with other petitions from other owners of properties along that road to come in and do the same thing that Mr. Volk wants to do with his property? Dacy: If it's within the one mile requirement... Siegel: I guess I tend to see this as a real can of worms type of situation. Any action we take may have a worse effect than no action. I see a lot of things that could come up. Haven't come up yet but certainly sets one to thinking that there is a lot of possibilities that we could open by doing something like changing this to allow a contractor's yard zone that we haven't even contemplated yet. I think the ideal situation would be the exchange of properties. As long as both communities are happy with it in allowing that property to develop as a A-l industrial area, taking any chances with the spot zoning situation. Shirley Bruers made a statement that was not audible through the tape. e Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 1987 - Page 9 ~Siegel: But if you were looking at apples and apples, you could have buyers to that property sewer tomorrowed because it's zoned for Chaska Industrial use right and it is allowed right today to be sewered. Wildermuth: Barbara, what are the disadvantages for creating a rural industrial district of this property? It could include or exclude contractor's yards. Dacy: The Commission has to decide the extent of the use that you want to allow in that district. If you want contractor's yards plus any other types of uses or if you just wanted to limit it to contractor's yards. The disadvantages as I eluded to earlier in my presentation was that when you create a zoning district there's always the potential that there will be a rezoning application for that type of district someplace else in the city. Wildermuth: But are you bound to grant that? This is a pretty unique situation. It's adjacent to another industrial park. Ultimately, 20 years from now, probably fate will tell, Carver Park is in Chaska and this will be a full blown industrial park. Dacy: That's correct. With any zoning district or any zoning ordinance amendment, the city is not bound to approve it. My concern is that it creates a statement from the community that there are areas in the rural area that would be considered for this type of use such as _the business fringe district has a number of things that allow you to look at placing that district someplace else. The pros that I identified were that you can by establishing a district go beyond the current standards that are in the ordinance and establish as many standards as you want for exterior buildings, for storage, landscaping, screening objectives. You can create a district that really tailors the type of development that you want to occur. Wildermuth: I guess that's what I would favor. Creating a rural industrial district that would go as far as Tim is proposing to limit or preclude any other contractor's yards in Chanhassen. I guess I wouldn't favor creating a rural industrial district with limited use recognizing that it's not served by city sewer. Noziska: I'm still wrestling through my mind with what positive impact this is going to have for Chanhassen and I have trouble with that. One of the reasons we scattered those contractor's yards out as much as we did was to limit the impact on the environment. Now all of a sudden we're going to stick them together. To intensify this type of use, some people have already figured is a questionable use of the land, somehow to me doesn't seem to hold water. When we start putting together 9,000 square foot barns and put in a variety of people or businesses in there that require obviously water and sewer to some extent, I really think to do that in a rural district without city sewer and water, is not a set goal. I just keep thinking that. Then I keep thinking about attorney man hours this might create. I think that e Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 1987 - Page 10 ea preceden tis someth i ng we ha ve to cons i der. I f we go ahead and go for this spot zoning, so to speak, which in my mind is not planning, simply a reaction to one man's request. I'm wondering if we're not opening ourselves up to one hell of a big can of worms that by the time we work our way out, we'll be very sad we jumped into it. So, I somehow think that we're still lacking some informatin. I don't understand why if Chaska has written us a letter nobody knows about it as far as the land exchange. If that land is going to be used for that particular purpose, I vote it should be city sewer and water. Having a common land exchange with Chaska, that doesn't bother me. Whether it will intensify use in the rural district without some organized sewer and water, I just can't go along wi tho I think that Barbara brought up a good plan when she said that there is a potential for a significant economic impact to the occupants of this 8,000 square foot homeowner. In the future, should it be deemed that city sewer and water needs to be put in. Then the very people that we are trying to keep in the city will be forced out anyway. I don't think it's planning. I think it's reaction. I kind of have an objection in my own mind to sort of what appears to be a lack of communication or understanding with Chaska's position and ours. After all, we've got a lot of lineal feet and we have to coexist with them and I guess I wouldn't want them to do something on our borders that would be detrimental to their program. I know what they havewhat they have in place right now and I would surely think that would be a very nice industrial park there if this, and I don't think regardless of screening of fences and this and that, I'm 4Itnot sure how we could turn the so called styles next to... So those are the things that are bouncing through my mind and I think perhaps we need to hear more about this land exchange. If we're going to do something like this, I would just as soon not walk to the edge of the cliff and jump off of it only to find that the water is only 2 feet deep. I'd first like to put a pole down the water to find out what we're getting into before we jump into this. Jay Johnson: The land use change is not for this property. different 40 acres. It's a Conrad: Is everybody clear on that? The land exchange is for property west of where the pole barn has been requested to go up. The land exchange that Chaska would take or we would swap is not part of where we would zone this district. It is to the west. It's attached to it right now but it is not part of it. Siegel: Who's property is it? Conrad: The same. Siegel: I guess that's the confusing part about it. Jay Johnson: If an exchange did occur, this property, that other 40 acres would be applicable for the zoning because it's adjacent with the tt rest of the property also. Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 1987 - Page 11 4Itconrad: My comments are kind of brief. I'm real comfortable that Chanhassen has a liberal contractor's yard requirement right now. We're one of the few that allow them and I think we've heard a lot of negatives on allowing them. We do allow them and I think we're taking care of particular uses in town that can meet some of our conditions. I really don't see a need to liberalize it any further and I don't see a significant impact. We're not going to eliminate other contractor's yards. They are grandfathered in no matter what we do and with the current ordinance I think we're fairly restrictive in adding new contractor's yards out there so I guess I'm not sure what, I feel real comfortable that Chanhassen is dealing with contractor's yards adequately right now. I'm not comfortable putting another zone, a more intensified zone like what we're talking about in an agricultural area. I'm concerned with the intensified impact that that would have on the land and again, I'm a proponent of, if there are contractor needs, I'm a proponent of separating them by the current ordinance. I do like how that ordinance deals with it. I don't believe that this contractor's zone would be a buffer by any means. It would be a distortion of the word buffer. And I think there are better controls in other zones in the city that allow some of these similar uses. I think there are better controls in those zones and I wouldn't feel comfortable if we could come up with the proper zone and the proper controls in this particular zone to make it really work. I think I'm very in tune to what Howie and Bob said. I think we don't know what we don't know right now and I think that makes me a little bit uncomfortable at this _point in time. So my bottom line is I don't feel we need a new zone to accomodate an intensified use of contractor's yards. I'm comfortable with how we're currently handling it. Let me just take a poll because we have to get some kind of, we don't have a motion in front of us. We have to give staff direction and I guess I want to see what direction we want to give staff. Tim, you're direction would be to come back with a draft of a zoning district and hold a public hearing if I were to try to echo what you feel appropriate at this time. Erhart: My comment, I agree with Howie's comment. What's the benefit to the City? I think the benefits are two fold. One, if we do this we can eliminate contractor yards in the other areas. To me that's a benefi t. I don't like contractor yards mixed in wi th essentially rural residential, agricultural. The second thing is I guess I'm a believer, and the second benefit is, this is an existing contractor's yard. It's unsightly and because of their desire to increase the intensity, we can go back at this time an force him to shield that whole area with the proper landscaping. You're not going to get that opportuni ty unless the developer wants it.' If they want something, we get something in return so to answer directly, I'm only in favor of doing anything as long as we can get both of those benefits out of it. Conrad: Bob, where are you at? In terms of directing staff, how would you do it? e Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 1987 - Page 12 _Siegel: I guess I would feel that although there are some better things and I can see that to possibly creating a zone, I see more question marks and potential for expansion of the request for this type of zoning, that we wouldn't really have much of a leg to stand on to refuse if we go ahead and do this for one property owner. The concept that we're going to eliminate contractor's yards throughout Chanhassen except in one location I think is not realizing the full potential of the property owners coming in and asking for similar uses. I think the way we have it right now is the way it should sit. Conrad: Jim, in a word I think you said let's have a zone for it. Let's put it all together. You may go along with Tim. Wildermuth: I think we've got an obligation to accomodate these interim businesses and in this particular case we're looking for an interim land use. Something that will ultimately be industrial land use when city sewer reaches it. Conrad: And Howie, which direction? Would you keep it as is? Noziska: I think the ordinances are fine. I like that one mile separation. I think that unintensifies use in the rural district. I think intensification and globbing these sorts of activities together is fine as long as you put the sewer there. I just don't think it does anything for rural Chanhassen and adds a great potential of liability eor questions that will come up from other people and I don't think we're going to consolidate the contractor's yards. I don't think we want 2 or 3... As far as stringing them up, right now we've got the greatest however you ever want it and we can simply take the conditional use permit if they don't comply with our standards. Conrad: Based on my nose count here, I think there are more people in favor of keeping the ordinance as is. Therefore, from the Planning Commission's standpoint, we're not going to direct city staff to do any drafting of the ordinance at this time or to hold a public hearing but I would imagine the applicant has the right to take it to City Council and get their input and they can give staff direction to either create an ordinance and have us review it with their guidance but at this time nothing from the Planning Commission in terms of more work. Why don't we go to the next item. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO EXPAND ~ CONTRACTOR'S YARD AND TO CONSTRUCTION A 9,000 SQUARE FOOT POLE BARN WITH A PROPOSEi5"Affi"SSDRIVE FROM CO. RD. 18 LOCATED IN THENORif'HEAST C'O'RNER OF COUNTY ROAD 117 AND-cotTN~ROAD 18, MERLE VOLK-;-A'PPLICANT. public Present: e Tom Hami 1 ton Roger Schmidt Applicant's Representative Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 1987 - Page 13 ~Barbara bacy presented the staff report on the conditional use permit request. Chairman Conrad opened the meeting up for public comments. Torn Hamilton: Representing Merle Volk he wants to build a 9,000 square foot pole barn building so he can store a lot of his equipment inside that's currently being stored outside to try and clean up his area so that's the use that Barbara said she wasn't sure of and he wants to use it for his own purposes rather than screening from the highway. If the Commission was in favor of it, he would certainly do whatever is required as far as screening and other aspects of the ordinance. We wanted to get the concept idea here first because he does have some trucks and he has a motorhome that he has to store outside and a boat sits outside that should be inside. Roger Schmidt: Torn, do you know exactly where on that property it's going to be located? Tom Hamilton: Yes I do. Mr. Hamilton then showed Roger Schmidt the location of the proposed pole barn on the property. Noziska moved, Wildermuth seconded to close public hearing. All voted 4It in favor and motion carried. Noziska: We're being asked to approve the construction of a 9,000 square foot pole barn for the storage of personal items and/or business items or whatever. Tom Hamil ton: That's right. equipment that he has. It's not too complicated. It's just Noziska: And then what assurance do we have that that's the end of the use of this pole barn? Dacy: If there were to be any other uses beyond what was represented in this application, then that would have to be processed. Noziska: And if we were to approve that storage building, then what else would be approved? The map I've got has a whole bunch of paved areas here and there. Are we also approving that? Dacy: Yes. What the site plan is showing is that there would be a paved access. Right now there's a gravel driveway from CR 18. What the site plan is proposing is to pave that and provide a paved storage and parking area for the proposed pole barn building. Also indicated on the plan is proposed berms and proposed evergreen trees. However, staff's concern was that some of the details of these items should be prepared also. Specific landscaping plans. e Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 1987 - Page 14 ~Noziska: Elevation views? Dacy: Yes. Noziska: I guess I still understand what we've been told but I don't understand if that's going to be the use, why we need quite so much in the way of asphalt and parking and I think we are quite a ways from being complete on the application. Is that what you said Barbara? Dacy: Some of staff's comments were, yes as far as what was going on the site. Wildermuth: I think the application has got to be tabled for the time being. The applicant should be asked to address the six items the staff has detailed here so we know what the conditional use is. Siegel: I agree. Erhart: Obviously at some point along the line here we need a detailed landscaping plan. There are a number of questions that need to be addressed... I guess that was my biggest concern. Making sure that we had appropriate landscaping. Conrad: I agree. I think the best thing to do is table it until we get some of the information we need on the particular use and some ~ responses to staff's questions so we can more adequately review this as ~ a conditional use. Bill Boyt: I think it would be fair to the applicant if you would give some indication that if they met staff's conditions, would you approve this building before they get a lot of time and money invested in meeting staff's hurdles. I think they ought to know, in your opinion, does this look like something that's going to work or not. Conrad: In my mind the staff report is not in snyc with what Mr. Hamilton said tonight. Personal use and existing equipment is different than what the staff report says. In my mind if it stays in terms of what Tom said tonight, I think I'd be very open to reviewing this making sure that it fit in with the conditional use requirements that we laid out before and that is appropriate use. That it works as a contractor's yard so in my mind it's not a no go. I think that my decision is going to be based on what information staff brings back and what Merle Volk expresses in terms of the uses. I think a conditional use is based on the uses and right now we don't know, in terms of the staff report, we don't know what they are so I think Tom and Mr. Volk will have to work with staff and then we can review it. It's inconsistent with the staff report and I guess what I'd like to do Tom is... As I said, that's in snyc with something I would look at favorably Tom and therefore not wasting staff time, Mr. Volk's money, your energy but if it came back significantly different, then I guess it would be up to the Planning Commission whether it was appropriate - Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 1987 - Page 15 ~use out there. Siegel: Barb, could you reiterate the reason why it's necessary for a request for a conditional use permit for the pole building? Because it was written into the original conditional use permit? Dacy: Right. One of the conditions of the current permit for Mr. Volk is that any expansion of the contractor's yard had to be processed by the city. Siegel: By expansion you mean any kind of expansion? The property is already a contractor's yard. Dacy: The conditional use permit that was approved in 1984 was based on a specific site plan that was submitted in conjunction with that application and shows locations of specific buildings and provided a list of the hours of operation and number of employees so everything that was based in that application was approved. The intent of the permit approval was if that were to go beyond what was originally represented in the application, the conditional use permit would be processed. Siegel: So really we need a site plan for this expansion? Conrad: A site plan and also a pretty accurate accounting of what's e going to take place there. Noziska: Barbara, could you reiterate for me, you went out and had a site visit yesterday or today? Dacy: Yes. .Noziska: Okay, and what again did you say was your critique on what you found? Dacy: There is vehicles, grading vehicles and I think there's a red vehicle which is an old water pumper truck that's parked next to the driveway off of CR 18. Storage of concrete pipes outside of the berm areas. There were 3 or 4 vehicles that were on the west side of the berm area near the back of the property. However, the original conditional use permit was to contain all that equipment within the bermed area or inside storage buildings that were on the site. Noziska: Did you have an opportunity to ask Mr. Volk why he isn't complying with our conditions? Dacy: No, to be honest I went down to check things before tonight's meeting and I didn't have an opportunity to meet with his representative or Mr. Volk. - Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 1987 - Page 16 e Noziska: I think that would be a good idea to find out what the story is from them. I remember another building that had some strange uses or was about to and I think that we really need to pay attention to these sort of things because it's very easily abused. I'd like to add that request to staff's duties. To contact Volk and find out what the story is and how long have those pipes and vehicles been sitting around. Wildermuth moved, Siegel seconded to table Conditional Use Permit Request #87-1 for Merle Volk until the applicant can update and upgrade the application to include specific uses and to address the six specific items in the staff report. All voted in favor of tabling the item and motion carried. Shirley Bruers: I think the Planning Commission should be commended on the professional way you've showed this matter. These issues tend to be time consuming. It's also difficult for the staff to deal with the intricacies involved... I would like to ask staff to keep us apprised of what's happening. Noziska: Wouldn't it make sense to have Chaska's reaction. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 5-11-2 TO ---- - A ALLOW AUTO SERVICE CENTERS AS A PERMITTED USE INT HE BH, HIGHWAY AND ,., BUSINESS SERVICE DISTRICT AND TO AMEND sEcTfON-s:16~2 TO ALLOW SELF- SERVICE STORAGE FACILITIES AS ~PERM1TTED USE IN THE lOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT. Public Present: Frank Reese Mark Keebert Applicant's Representative Operation's Manager Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Chairman Conrad opened the meeting up for public comment. Frank Reese with Israelson, Reese and Ellingson: We're an architectural engineering firm. The use that we're looking at here is something that's come about in the last dozen or so years. We've seen about 100 of these centers being built in the larger metropolitan centers of the United States and now we see a dozen or so under construction here in the Twin Cities. The idea of putting these uses together in a common center like this is something that's really taken hold. I guess it was about a dozen years ago we saw the gas station and grocery store merge and that's been successful but this is the same kind of thing. The uses will fit together very well and have been successful. It isn't e Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 1987 - Page 17 _something we're going to see abandoned here in a few years. The planner here mentioned briefly that the stores like this or the centers include the muffler and brake shops and lube shops, and that kind of thing that are for the handiman or the small repairs. That kind of thing. Minnesota Auto Service Centers is presently constructing and will be owning two centers in the Twin Cities now in Burnsville and in Apple Valley as you've seen in your pack there. They have plans to do this in other communities around the Twin Cities area and as you notice from what you see in the newspaper, there are a number of them being built elsewhere in the Twin Cities. There are three of them that are open. The closest being Hopkins right now. But they have built a number of them in other parts of the united States and they do a real good job. I've had an opportunity to use some of their's in Arizona. What they're typically building is a masonry building, it's fire proof throughout and they end up with a building that I think looks real nice. We'll probably get into that at a later meeting. I'm here to answer any questions you might have about this kind of a use or the mini-warehousing use. What we're looking at, basically the reason we're looking for these uses on the site is because the lot is a very deep lot and we're saying the auto use can use maybe the front half and then if we have signage out there on the road where people will know where the mini-warehousing is, then that works real well. It's handy to people and yet it isn't visible from the highway. e Noziska: On the mini-warehouse storage, how do you anticipate that being used and what's the size of it? Frank Reese: What we've seen typically in the Twin Cities is the use of small spaces, maybe 50 square feet up to 300 square feet per bay or per rental area. Typically what we're doing is building a masonry wall around the perimeter and backing up the larger units around the edge and then putting the smaller spaces in the middle. In fact, the thing we may get into here later is the fact that we usually try to have a residence, a permanent person living right there that controls anybody coming in and out and of course it's good during the night. If there are any sounds or that kind of security system which we'll have in that respect. Noziska: So you're intending to have an on-site residence? I've seen a number of these built and it seems to be well managed. I think on a location like that, a residence mini-storage makes sense. Erhart moved, Noziska seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. I I I I I . Erhart: approved? What about the other mini-storage? That's in the industrial. How did that one get Olsen: It was approved under the definition of the ordinance. Dacy: That was prior to the adoption of the new ordinance. Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 1987 - Page 18 _Erhart: Essentially we're looking at the same thing...On the other hand, this proposal looks, I think it makes a lot of sense in that it isn't in view of the highway and it uses an area that would otherwise be used for parking cars. The question would be, how do you allow it in these kind of areas and yet try to discourage people from picking prime industrial space and using it for storage would be the challenge. The other issue we have to deal with here is we have to reconfigure this somewhat. Change the lines. Olsen: That will be coming in next time. Erhart: the IOP. Currently we're just looking at allowing service centers in Number one, it's simple to change the terminology around. Siegel: I don't have any quarrel with it. I think it's a good change. Wildermuth: I like the idea of the automotive service center. I think that's a good use for that particular area. I'm not so sure about that warehouse. It seems to me that land could be put to better use for tax revenue generated. Better possibility of employment. That's pretty choice property along there. Noziska: I don't have any quarrel with this. Conrad: I don't either. I guess the issue becomes what Jim brought Using land for mini-storage but it fits. _uP. Noziska: I think some things that are important too is accessibility to their entrance. It's just unreal how these things are hidden and if they're in a good accessible location such as this. If you pay some attention to the aesthetics of the thing and the looks of the things, they are coming out with some rather innovative designs. Conrad: The only thing that bothers me is we've seen so many you just sort of wonder if they're going to be used. Noziska: You don't see many in this area though. Conrad: Chaska has one out there that's in use. Erhart: There's one in Eden Prairie. Conrad: We've got one of your favorite ones down on TH 212. How many units are out in the industrial park? Do you recall? Dacy: I believe it was approximately 60,000 square feet. How big was Gary's? Conrad: Gary's was huge. e Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 1987 - Page 19 ~Wildermuth: How much of the warehousing space is visible from the front? The store front covers most of what's visible from TH 5? Noziska: We'll get into that on the site plan. Frank Reese: The actual buildings in front, they get to be about 20 some feet tall where you're up to your areas where the mini-storage is going to be, it may be only 9 or 10. It is visible from the highway but again, you have a sign on the highway telling where to get to them. Wildermuth: How do they access off of this service road? How do you anticipate going into the storage, back behind the store front? Frank Reese: Our preliminary plans indicate two entrances off the service road there and they would work back in. There would be just a single entrance however getting into the mini-storage area. We'll be working with that city for emergency ingress for the fire department or things like that but just a single entrance into the storage area. Conrad: Have you looked at the market, and we're getting ahead of ourselves here you can tell, but have you looked at the demand and the degree of your competition and you feel pretty comfortble that they are still in demand for the use? e ! Frank Reese: Shorewood has now approved it's second one just north of us here. The first one was built there on TH 7 near the Vine Hill interchange. It was all signed up before they ever finished the building and now they're looking at another one further west up in the Tonka Plaza area so there's a real demand in this area here for it. Mark Heebert: I'm the operations partner for the service center. We're looking at this combination because it's worked in the past in similar projects. We may go to a use already zoned for it but we're looking at a use that we have dealt with before. All our homework isn't in place as of yet in terms of the market. We may during our site plan process look a little bit closer and pull off of it. We may but at this point it looks positive but if wedo pull off, we will conform to either uses of the IOP or BH, whichever you choose. Conrad: Just make sure you do it but it's your job to do it. I don't have to tell you your job but we have approved a whole bunch of mini- storage facilities. Like a whole bunch and they're surrounding us and on borders in other communities and it has to be an incredible thing. Frank Reese: We own all the apartments in the back. Noziska moved, Siegel seconded that the Planning Commission recommend Section 5-11-2 be amended to include automotive service centers as a permitted use in the BH District and to include the following in the Zoning Ordinance definition as follows: Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 1987 - Page 20 e An integrated group of commercial establishments planned, developed, and managed as a unit with off street parking provided on site and providing uses engaged primarily in the supplying of goods and services generally required in the operation and maintenance of motor vehicles. These may include sale and servicing of tires, batteries, automotive accessories, replacement items, washing and lubricating services and the performance of minor automotive maintenance and repair. This does not include major body repair where it is necessary to provide long term storage of cars and body parts. and recommend amending Section 5-16-2 to include mini-warehouse as a permitted use in the lOP District. All voted in favor and motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Siegel moved, Noziska seconded to approve Commission meeting dated November 4, 1987 Steve Emmings and page 1 by Ladd Conrad. Minutes as amended and motion carried. the Minutes of the Planning as amended on page 15 by All voted in favor of the Erhart moved, Siegel seconded to approve the Minutes of Commission meeting dated October 28, 1987 as presented. . favor except Noziska who abstained and motion carried. the Planning All voted in Noziska moved, Wildermuth seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. . Submitted by Barbara Dacy City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim III