Loading...
1988 06 01 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 1, 1988 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Annette ElIson, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli, James Wildermuth and David Headla STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR A 60 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CHAN VIEW, HERITAGE PARK APARTMENT P&RTNERS. Public Present: Name Address Torn Zumwalde George Beniek Sue Welliver Applicant 412 - 76th Street West 7611 Huron Avenue ~ Barbara Dacy presented the staff report. Conrad: I got a call from Brad Johnson saying he was on his way from St. Paul. He'd be delayed but he would be here. He's not trying to dodge it but we'll open it up for public comments, if there are any from the applicant. Any comments at all on the revision to this particular apartment building. George Beniek: I live on 412 West 76th Street. I guess my only question is, was there, I imagine there was a public hearing on the initial which I don't recall ever receiving a copy of. What's the purpose of the change now? To who's benefit is the change? Is it more units going to be in there? Dacy: No. There is no change in the amount of units that were previously approved by the Council in 1987. The only thing that's changed is how the building is sitting on the lot. Basically it's shifted more to the south and has become an "L" fashion as you see there. The north/south and the east/west access as opposed to a "Un formation. As to who's benefit, I don't know. George Beniek: Why are they requesting the change? Is it our purpose to know that? Dacy: The architect is here. Torn Zumwalde: I can try and answer that. I am Torn Zumwalde, the architect on the project. I designed the original project and also the revision to it. The original project, we did not have a contractor Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 2 . involved. We did not have a lot of marketing input. In the last year we got a contractor involved and we've dome some marketing input and those are the prime reasons for the changes in the configuration. With the original building that was "U" shaped, we had a lot of units that were pie shaped with minimal exterior walls looking up to an inside court. From a marketing standpoint, the people we talked to felt they were less useable or less rentable. Less desirable units. From the construction end, all of those wedges in the building were very, very costly and what was happening was we were spending so much money on those that the rest of the building would have suffered for it. So what we feel, in the super configuration is that we're getting a much better, more efficient building. The units have increased an average of 24 square feet per unit. They're much more liveable than the other ones were. Basically those are the reasons. George Beniek: stories? The heights of it is going to be approximately how many Tom Zumwalde: The same, it's 3 stories. The identical number of units. The same number of parking spaces. Basically just the configuration change. George Beniek: Handicap? . Tom Zumwalde: There are three hand icap uni ts in the bui lding. Totally accessible. As far as rent levels and all of that, I wish the developer were here to answer that. I really don't have all that information. It will conform to allow the senior citizen access? Sue Welliver: I live on Huron Avenue. I own a double bungalow there and I'm concerned also about my tenants and myself, since I live there, is access. There's going to be 60 units and you're going to have a lot of parking and that type of thing and a lot of cars. How are you going to get out onto 78th Street without any stop signs onto 78th Street? It's very difficult right now. If you're going to put that up and have the only access onto that road, how are you going to get back out? That's what I'd like to know. - Dacy: The access to the apartments will be from Chan View and there will be two access points. One opposite the Huron Avenue intersection. Here's Huron Avenue here. The entrance to the parking lot will be directly opposite of that and there will be another access further to the east on Chan View. So cars entering and leaving the site will come from Chan View, iff they're going to be headed to Great Plains Blvd., they'll go over to here and then go south to the Great Plains Blvd. and West 78th Street intersection which there's a stop sign at that point and West 78th Street is now a flow through on that. There's no four way stop. That was eliminated with the reconstruction of the south lane of Great Plains Blvd.. Additionally, there could be traffic that goes west on than View that would eventually hit Laredo. The City is just finishing up, we're reconstructing Laredo Drive as it intersects West 78th Street. There's a right turn lane now that will be on Laredo Drive going onto West 78th Street. Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 3 . Sue Welliver: Yes, but I mean when you try to get onto West 78th Street, that is the most difficult now that they eliminated the four way stop sign there. Also, on Laredo, eliminating that. You want to go east, anyway from there, it's very difficult. We have to wait 5 to 10 minutes and that's just normal time. You get into rush hour and it's terrible. Dacy: I agree. There's a considerable amount of traffic on West 78th Street in both locations. In this location in front of Kenny's, because that leg is part of TH 101, MnDot's requirement was that we remove the stop signs along West 78th Street to promote the flow through on West 78th Street and to control the traffic coming from Great Plains Blvd. onto West 78th Street. There's no question that during peak hours that main street is a busy street. I can't dispute that. Sue Welliver: Are they going to do anything? Are they going to suggest to do anything for that for the residents in this apartment unit also? Like are they going to put a four way stop on Laredo and West 78th or do you know? Dacy: No, there are no plans to put a four way stop at either location. Again, MnDot is requiring us that we can't have stop signs on that leg of what is known as TH 101. What's there now can control the traffic but yes, it's going to be busy during peak hours. I don't know how else to explain it. ~ Sue Welliver: I have rental property right now and that's one issue that we have right now is because you can't get out. Now you build a 60 unit apartment building, those owners are also going to have the same problem there. I think they should look at that and I think the City should decide on putting in stop signs. There's a church there with children going across. I think there should be stop signs and I think this is just going to add to the congestion. Conrad: It sure will add to the congestion by putting in 60 more units there. There's no doubt about that. I guess the question becomes, Barbara, you're telling us that the intersection at TH 101 or West 78th. Is that 78th? Dacy: Yes. Conrad: That MnDot really does control that and what is our influence in terms of the traffic problems? Dacy: As you recall also, the City has a long term plan, it's really not long term because we're trying to accomplish it along with the four lanes of TH 5, creating a new leg of TH 101 that would go through the Apple Valley-Redimix property, cross TH 5 and hook up into Lake Drive East. That would take a significant volume of the north/south traffic from TH 101 and take that out of going through the downtown area but there is going to be this interim period in here where the north/south traffic on TH 101 is going to be going through the downtown area. e George Beniek: How many parking places are there shown on their plan? Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 4 e Dacy: 108. Tom Zumwalde: The building has a 60 car garage below it. There's one garage space for each unit and then 48 open stalls out in the parking lot. The same as it was before. George Beniek: right? So there will be a basement in the building? Is that Tom Zumwalde: That would be the garage, correct. Conrad: The parking lot did look small didn't it? George Beniek: Yes. Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Tim, we'll start down at your end. What are your comments? Erhart: space. I really don't have any. I think the building space is unusual It's built well and I think it's adequate. e Emmings: I don't really have anything. but so what. I liked the other building better Conrad: Yes, the other building was prettier. Emmings: This one's efficient. ElIson: I don't have any comments either. I think it's just fine. Conrad: Nobody's talking about traffic. Brian? - Batzli: I was going to talk about landscaping but I'll talk about traffic a little bit. Kenny's is going to stay where it is isn't it? Throughout this whole development so we're not going to lose any traffic... I guess I would recommend that, I've seen the paster of that church has asked that stop signs be put in there, at least so people can get across the street to go to church. We're adding potentially 108 more cars a day or more. When you talk about back and forth trips, a lot more congestion at that intersection. I guess I would like to see whether we can convince MnDot of some other way before we get people getting inpatient and trying to pullout and creating havoc at that intersection because I think it's a problem. I personally waited there trying to get out of Kenny's market for, it is several minutes. That's not really an exaggeration. I guess I'd like to see something. I don't know what we can do in this particular instance but it sounds like MnDot is kind of calling the shots on it but I do think that's a concern. Not having been involved in the original building, I don't know if I like the original building or not. Your one condition that asks for the additional plantings, what are you going to, I didn't understand where that's going to be. Chan View and the parking area? You're just going to have more plantings in that one strip? Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 5 . Dacy: Yes, in this area. Batzli: Do we require a certain plantings to be put in? Are we going to get like little pine trees that are going to take 15 years to grow to shield this thing? Dacy: No. The ordinance requires for evergreens that they be a minimum of 6 feet at planting and I believe the landscaping plan, in some cases there were taller trees. Batzli: Because this is going to be a 3 story building and when you have a 6 foot pine tree, it's going to take 20 years to mature and you have a single family homes in the area, I don't know. Obviously the people are going to have to look at the building for a couple of years no matter what you do. That's all. Wildermuth: I guess I have a question about the storm water runoff. Jim Lasher, in his letter, spent quite a bit of time talking about an on-site retention... e Dacy: Part of the problem in determing that, the ultimate storm sewer plan is that the City needs to finalize it's plans for the drainage of the abutting properties. This site here is where a daycare center is proposed to be located and all of these properties here interrelate so what we're trying to do is have BRW and the applicant on this project work together so there is on-site retention on this property and make sure that it's properly directed to whatever is finally determined on the daycare site also. It's hard at this point to give you a definitive answer of the catch basin over here or here. Wildermuth: There doesn't look like there's going to be room for a catch basin on this property. Dacy: If you're talking about a retention pond. Is that what you mean? The City's intent was to create a storm sewer system and piping and so on so an actual pond wouldn't probably be used. There might be a very small depression in there but it was my understanding from BRW that we're looking at a storm sewer system. Wildermuth: With an underground garage, I can see a lot of problems there. Like with the storm that we had last year. That's going to be flooded because that whole area is low and it all drains. I think what we should do is strengthen the language for the storm water runoff. Put in provisions that that be made... I guess we're looking at the BRW letter. That's all I had. Headla: ...Even if there's City's storm sewer that will catch the runoff, then this apartment complex will pay for that? e Dacy: Yes, the applicant is responsible for all necessary storm sewer improvements from the runoff from their property. Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 6 e Headla: Does that appear to be adequate to allow that storm sewer to take care of it? To me that seems that's the logical way to go but is there anything else we should be looking at? Dacy: The intent of condition 1 from staff was taken from BRW's letter that we want final utility and storm sewer plans from them. That will be reviewed both by in-house engineering staff and BRW. Before they get a building permit, they'll have to satisfy those issues. Headla: Did you get any input from the Fire Department today? Dacy: People from the Fire Department talked to me today but... Headla: I talked to Steve yesterday and I said I want to know if we recommend approval of this, is the Fire Department going to require any additional fire fighting equipment? His first comment was, well we're ordering the aerial ladder. We're ordering that so we're covered there. I said, is there anything else? He said I don't know, I'll have to talk to them. I said, well get back to Barb on Wednesday. Dacy: No, Steve did not talk to me. The primary fire protection equipment is the requirement for sprinkling so that's the number one best defense as far as... e Headla: I'm not talking about defense. I'm talking about we got hooked into being required to have an aerial ladder in this City. Have we overlooked something else that we can't charge the apartment complex for or are the general taxpayers going to have to pay for it? Dacy: Not to my knowledge will there be any other need for any other type of equipment. The aerial ladder is a significant addition to Chanhassen's fire fighting capabilities. Between that and the requirement that the building be sprinklered is the best that we can do. Headla: Last time we beat around quite a bit on the soil borings. Have they done any of that work? Dacy: I know soil borings have been conducted on site. The area where the parking lot is is where most of the poor soils are located. Headla: They will have to take special precautions there so that doesn't break up in a short period of time? How do we cover that? Dacy: The applicant will be responsible for maintaining the parking lot in an acceptable condition and I believe they will be soil corrections. Tom Zumwalde: As required. There are a lot of borings that were done on the site and I'm not certain exactly how bad it is down at that end but we're putting in concrete curb around the entire lot. Putting in a bituminous parking lot. That's a rental property. We'll be forced to e keep it up just to keep it marketable. Headla: Where do you have all your trash containers? Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 7 e Tom Zumwalde: The trash collection area will be in the basement of the building or the garage. Headla: Will they be coming in from Huron to go in there? Tom Zumwalde: That's correct. Headla: That tends to be off of where the real soft soil is? Dacy: The poor soils, from my understanding, were over in this direction. Tom Zumwalde: It gets worse as you get into this direction... Headla: What do you do, you take soil borings and based on what you find that determines the type of base you put down? Tom Zumwalde: That's correct. Headla: And the City Engineer has to approve that? Tom Zumwalde: The City Engineer will be approving all that... Headla: That's all I have. e Conrad: I don't have any additional comments. I think those that I've heard are real valid comments and maybe whoever makes the motion might want to say something in there that the City Council decides what the traffic impact on West 78th Street might be. Maybe review whether we should pursue some kind of a stop sign on West 78th. Headla: I'd like to talk about that again. When does it look like TH 101 will go through by that Redimix and that? Dacy: Hopefully during the 1992-93 timeframe. Headla: Once it does that, then we would be able to put up a stop sign.. .? Dacy: Right. What would happen is that that portion of West 78th Street would revert to local control. That would no longer be TH 101. Headla: What if it takes them two years to get that thing totally built, then that would be two years when... Conrad: It's a problem right now. I know that and this will add a little bit to that and it may be an opportunity to look at the whole situation. I don't know what the flexibility of the State is but we may, somebody may want to ask the City Council to look into the matter. Is there a motion? . Wildermuth: I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Final Plat Amendment for the Heritage Park Apartments PUD #87-1 based on the plans stamped "Received May 12, 1988" subject to the following conditions: 1 through 10 and I think the items in the BRW letter referred to in condition 9 should be specifically spelled out regarding storm water Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 8 e handling. I would assume that it would have to make adequate provisions to handle... Does anybody have any suggestions on the traffic situation? I think the traffic situation in terms of what the City will be allowed to do after...and TH 101 gets rebuilt, in terms of the natural course of events I think if that situation becomes really bad...specifically read it into the motion. Wildermuth moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Final Plat Amendment for the Heritage Park Apartments PUD #87-1 based on the plans stamped "Received May 12, 1988" subject to the following conditions: 1. A detailed utility plan showing water, sewer and stormwater connections as well as fire hydrant locations shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to building permit issuance. 2. A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted indicating the additional plantings to be located between Chan View and the parking area. 3. A pedestrian walkway shall be provided on the site in conjunction with the development plans for the retail projects to be developed to the south and east of the parcel. e 4. Detailed facia and signage plans shall be submi tted for Planning Commission and City Council final review prior to building permit issuance. 5. Removal of the existing single family residence shall be accomplished prior to building permit issuance. 6. Detailed lighting plans shall be submitted prior to building permit issuance. 7. All parking areas shall be lined with concrete curbing. 8. Compliance with the comments as noted in the Building Department memorandum dated May 25, 1988. 9. Compliance with the comments in the letter from BRW dated May 25, 1988, specifically #6-11 on pages 2 and 3 and #1 on page 3. 10. Compliance with comments as noted in the Fire Department memo dated May 27, 1988. 11. Compliance with the comments in the letter from BRW dated May 25, 1988, specifically spelled out regarding the storm sewer. 12. Direct City staff to research the traffic situation prior to City Council review. ..~ All voted in favor and the motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 9 I. I PUBLIC HEARING: JAY KRONICK, PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO TO WEST 78TH STREET, 1000 FEET EAST OF DAKOTA AVENUE/TH 5 INTERSECTION: A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-714 TO PERMIT RETAIL GARDEN CENTERS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY DISTRICT. B. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE YEAR 2000 TO REDESIGNATE 1.7 ACRES OF INDUSTRIAL TO COMMERCIAL. C. REZONE 1.7 ACRES FROM IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT TO BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY DISTRICT. Barbara Dacy presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad opened up the public hearing. Dacy: Unfortunately the applicantls in Maryland. Conrad: Did we send out notice for the public hearing? Dacy: Everybody within 500 feet. ~ Conrad: And to the owners of the Chanhassen Office building have not called you nor Redman Products? Dacy: No. Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: I guess weill take them one at a time in terms of our comments. Weill start Dave, down at your end and talk about garden centers that is a conditional use in the BH district. Headla: Really the only comment I have is I like the idea of a garden center, the whole bit. Ilve got a fear of the unknown. If we say yes to this, for a garden center, I donlt see how we can control other garden centers. Unless we... Conrad: It is a conditional use. The point in this district is to make it a conditional use which means we see it. It gives it the opportunity to occur. It doesnlt give it the total right. It does have to come in here and we can apply whatever standards we want to it. Do we have standards in here that would help us review later? A center would meet certain conditions? 'e Dacy: For garden centers specifically, no we donlt. Conrad: So typically I like to see conditions. If it is a conditional use, what are we looking for to guide us in granting it as a conditional Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 10 . use? Staff hasn't prepared that. Maybe what we can have input on but it's only, how many BH districts do we have, two? Dacy: The BH district is located primarily along TH 5. It stretches from the Hennepin County border then west to the end of West 79th Street. e Conrad: So I think Dave, what we're saying, that's the district and we're saying it now can, it's not permitted, it's now possible to have garden centers but it's not automatic. They have to corne in and talk to us. We don't have any standards to evaluate whether it's good or bad but it's a question right now. The concept in my mind about highway business district was quick in and quick out, low intensity. The concept was we had limited traffic. We had limited road use in those areas and we wanted to help the highway traffic through gas stations or restaurants get in but the idea was not that that pattern was to go through the rest of the Chanhassen. It was to help cars going on TH 5 find services that they needed. Maybe Chanhassen residents could out there too but it was really key that we didn't have real great traffic handling roads at that time so we weren't looking for real intensive uses. We were really saying this is a district that services cars that are going out onto TH 5 for whatever the basic needs are. Whether a retail. We've got retail down there obviously so that's not a problem. It's just whether you believe. In my mind, to tell you where I'm at right now, it's whether we believe that this is a traffic generator, that it's going to go. Is it like the Gardeneer? Is it like a Frank's? Is it going to generate traffic that we can't handle in that area and in my mind, that's the question that is still open. Dacy: In comparison to what is already permitted, fast food restaurants, financial institutions, automotive service centers, retail shops, liquor stores, motels and hotels, I think garden center, even a Frank's Nursery, because it's so specialized, I'm positive that the trip generation reports for a garden center are lower than those types of uses that are already permitted. Batzli: Except on Saturday morning. wildermuth: That's part of the advantage of having a garden center. The pressure will be on weekends rather than during the week. That's not a good intersection there. Conrad: These are all independent actions that we're taking. We can make it a conditional use. This particular application may not be appropriate but if we feel that it's appropriate in that area, then we can make it a conditional use for business highway and that's the only district we've got. That's the only business highway district going along TH 5 that we've got in Chanhassen. e Headla: inputs. I feel comfortable right now but I'd like to hear what the other Wildermuth: I would like to see that parcel stay business office. I'd rather see another office building there... but I guess I can't corne up with a good reason why...a nursery or garden center. 1.7 acres is Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 11 e certainly adequate size. I don't know how big Frank's is... Batzli: I guess two questions came to my mind. Why are we rezoning and doing this thing, wouldn't that normally be part of the process of a conditional use permit? When we see what the guy has put together rather than rezoning it to suit a conditional use permit application that we may not even approve? Dacy: Two reasons. Number one, the applicant has a purchase agreement on the property and wanted to pursue this application to see if the City would even consider rezoning the entire thing to business highway. Number two, yes you do have a specific request that you can pretty well bank on a conditional use permit application for a garden center at this location but tonight you're basically being asked, are you comfortable with rezoning this particular parcel, in total, to business highway? Are you comfortable with all of the uses in that district to remove the split zoning on the property to entirely business highway? If you just wanted to act on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment and would prefer to postpone the other two applications, that's certainly within your power. Batzli: I guess from my own point of view, I don't know that a garden center is any more intense than these permitted uses. In fact, if it's going to be a conditional use, I think we are going to take a look at it to make sure it's appropriate. As far as rezoning, I don't know that I'm comfortable rezoning this not knowing why I'm rezoning it. e Dacy: Again, the applicant doesn't want to have the parcel split by both zoning districts. He wants one consistent zoning for the entire parcel. That's the reason for the rezoning. Batzli: But he doesn't own the land at this point does he? The applicant? Dacy: No, he has a purchase agreement. ElIson: He'll buy it contingent on all this happening? Dacy: Right. Batzli: I guess I'd prefer seeing either the landowner and the applicant. I understand but that's just what I would prefer. Dacy: The landowner did consent to the application and Jay had to make the decision of which meeting he had to come up to. Either the City Council meeting or the Planning Commission for flight schedules and so on so he opted for the City Council. e Ellson: I don't see any problem with a garden center. I think we'd be in trouble if we tried to say no in the business highway. Especially when you're saying outdoor display of merchandise, screened outdoor storage... Whether I want it or not isn't really what I get to chose. It doesn't look like it would fit in here and according to some of these other things, I don't see how we can no to a garden center. I'm kind of on the side of Brian. We're zoning this just because some individual wants it Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 12 e zoned that way and I guess I don't see a whole good reasoning on that. In the staff's report you're basically saying... will not have a significant impact on the availability of industrial. I guess I can go along if you feel that but I just don't feel strongly that there are some really good reasons. Some guy would like all of these things, so okay then we'll rezone it just for one individual. Emmings: Do you only want us to comment now on the... Conrad: All three. We started with one but that... Emmings: I don't have any problem with rezoning... I'm curious about TH 101. Does any configuration of TH 101 potentially involve this land at all? Dacy: It's too far to the east. Batzli: They're not planning on putting a stop sign at that interchange though are they? At that service road there for TH l0l? Do you know where I'm talking about? When they realign, the last time I saw the realignment, was there a stop sign there or did they move that service road back? e Dacy: TH 101 will be realigned. There will be a median in Dakota and West 78th Street will "T" into that and continue on. So where's the stop sign? Batzli: will there be one where the access is currently? Dacy: Here? Batzli: Yes. Dacy: Yes. Erhart: What has happened? We're now looking at TH 101 being realigned at TH 5. The last time we talked about it we were...of the industrial. Did that go through? Dacy: No. Erhart: The last I heard it was kind of a dead issue. Apparently it's still alive? Dacy: Yes, the City is still going to try and pursue it because it's a vital part of the transportation system. So one means of doing that was the tax increment district but there are other financial means available. Erhart: So 1992 that will include... 4IJ Dacy: We're going to try as hard as we can to achieve that date. Erhart: On the other place where we allow garden centers now is in the BG district? Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 13 e Dacy: That's correct. Erhart: Then that's essentially the downtown? Dacy: That's west of the downtown area. James property. On the Burdick property and the Erhart: What do you see as the difference between the intent of the general business district and the business highway? Is it something to do with TH 5? Dacy: Yes. The general business district permits much greater and more intense variety of uses. The Chairman's description earlier of the intent of the business highway district was accurate. The listed uses in the zone are specifically oriented to the traffic flow. Erhart: Even when you go downtown you almost have to get into your car to go across the street. Where the bakery was. Dacy: Right. There are some similarities and there are some differences. Some of these in the BG district would need a much larger land area whereas a business highway district primarily consists of smaller, 2 to 3 to 4 acre parcels so there are some differences between the two. e Erhart: On that access road, say you corne out of this nursery and you go east, your route back to TH 5 is what? Can you get back onto TH 5 going east? Dacy: At the present time, no. When TH 5 is four lane, there will be a full movement intersection at Dell Road and TH 5. Erhart: So someone coming from the direction as Dell Road, they come down 78th Street and... Dacy: Right. Erhart: Most likely the traffic going into that area would take the TH un ex it. . . Dacy: That's another point as far as the garden center is concerned. It's the type of use as opposed to a fast food restaurant because from a marketing standpoint, a garden center you really don't need that immediate direct access as where this property could be a prime site for a fast food restaurant because of it's location. Erhart: Fast food restaurants are allowed? That's a permitted use in the area? Dacy: Right. e Erhart: The problem is, it's more of a problem up there with street layout. Given, I guess I'd agree with other commissioners, given the other uses that are already allowed as a conditional use in this area, it Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 14 e would almost be senseless to...garden centers in this area... I'd be in favor of adding that as a conditional use. As far as the zoning is concerned, I guess my history of being on the Planning Commission is you can try to accomodate people who own the land if it doesn't otherwise cause an intrusion on who abuts, I guess I'm in favor of it... Conrad: I don't have a problem with the zoning ordinance amendment to make it a conditional use. Philosophically though, I like the garden center. Therefore, the other two things I don't mind. In this particular case I really would like the industrial use. I would prefer to see a plan to persuade me that this garden center will add to the area and until I see that plan, even though it's more concrete than, I'd like to see something concrete before I rezone the property. I have to be persuaded. I'm not at this point in time. I'm concerned with traffic. I don't have a problem with graden centers in the BH districts. Headla: Are you...or against this? There's a lot of Council members talking about beachlots. ...where a contractor. Conrad: It may actually work in that area but I just don't know enough right now to rezone it just because somebody's asking to rezone it. I think we can get him the philosopic feeling that yes, it could work in the zoning district. e Headla: Let's talk a little bit about that. Because it doesn't, how many possibilities can it be? If we rezone it, do you prefer to see it more industrial? Conrad: Yes, I think so. I see an office building on one side and I see Redman on the other. That's kind of the way I thought that area would develop. There's some good rationale for putting a garden center in here mind you because the intensity would be on a Saturday-Sunday and therefore somebody could persuade me that just because of traffic patterns and things like that, that it could be a benefit in terms of overall Chanhassen. I don't know that right now. I don't know what they're planning. I don't know what they're thinking about how to develop that land. So philosophically I wouldn't do it but if somebody gave me, in this one case, if somebody gave me a concrete example of what they're thinking of, I might be tempted to change the zoning for them. Headla: What if somebody came in and wanted to use that for fast food? Conrad: I wouldn't do that. I think that's just a traffic generator that would be bad all the time. Emmings: But they could do that. ElIson: It's legal. e Headla: They can have that and maybe we should go for the garden center because it could be a whole lot worse. Conrad: You're right. Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 15 e Wildermuth: The best of all worlds would be an office or distribution center... ElIson: That's not saying it never can be by having a garden center. Conrad: I think we did put the auto service center in there didn't we? What's the differnce between an auto service center and a garden center? Headla: How is that garden center working out over in Eden Prairie? Have they had any problems there do you know? Dacy: I don't know. Headla: If you don't know, it probably isn't a problem. Dacy: I wouldn't know. Tim Erhart asked a question that couldn't be heard on the tape. Dacy: The best that I can say that, typically lines are drawn...boundaries. This parcel was goes right through the middle of this parcel. a split as two zoning districts. when the zoning district overlooked unfortunately it The parcel is operating as e Erhart: So it makes sense to zone the whole thing? Dacy: One way or the other. Erhart: Most of this land... Dacy: With the office use you are going to get more peak hour traffic, morning and afternoon and that's going to exasperate the traffic situation. with a manufacturing facility, the same thing. Conrad: It could by chance be quite complimentary to the area. Then on the other hand it's a little bit out of sync with what's there. Is ther a motion on the zoning ordinance amendment to permit garden centers as a conditional use? Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #88-7 to amend Section 20-714, Conditional Uses in the BH District as follows: (5) Garden Centers. All voted in favor and the motion carried. e Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Land Use Plan Amendment #88-3 to redesignate 1.7 acres of industrial to commercial subject to the approval of the Metropolitan Council. All voted in favor except Batzli and Erhart who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2. Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 16 e Erhart: Why do we need approval from Metropolitan Council on this? Dacy: Because we're changing our Land Use in the Comp Plan. It would be a minor amendment through their office. ElIson: How did it get split like this in the first place? Normally we would never have done this sort of thing? This was always a one person, one owner land? You're saying this was just part of an oversight? Dacy: Right. Batzli: By voting for this, what we're going to do is move the BH line over. Erhart: Or you could go the other way. Conrad: Your reason Brian? (for voting in opposition) Batzli: I'd like to see something in writing, more concrete as to what they're proposing to do with this property prior to changing the land use. e Erhart: I want to add my vote to opposing also. The reason I would like to have just a little better analysis... Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Rezoning Request #88-3 to rezone 1.7 acres of property from IOP, Industrial Office Park to BH, Business Highway District subject to approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment by the City Council and the Metropolitan County. Ernmings, ElIson, Headla and Wildermuth voted in favor of the motion. Batzli, Conrad and Erhart voted in opposition of the motion. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3. Conrad: Brian, your reason? Batzli: Pretty much the same reason as well as the fact that I'm not convinced that it shouldn't be rezoned entirely to IOP. Conrad: Tim you voted. Erhart: Same reasons I stated before. Conrad: My reasons, I would like to see a concrete proposal in front of us. I'm extremely concerned about the traffic problem that may be generated with the new realignment of TH 101. - Emmings: ...1 think you told me that we can't proceed that way. We can't consider rezoning, we can't demand they have a plan taken into account in the anlysis of whether or not we're willing to rezone. Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 17 e Dacy: I'm still conferring with my previous opinion. What you're deciding on the rezoning issue is if you're totally satisfied with all of the uses in that district being applied to that parcel, yes, you may have a specific site plan that's coming in at the same time but you've got to be aware that that specific site plan, that he developer could call it a picture, the property is sold and you could be looking at another use for that district. You just can't based your approval on the rezoning solely on that site plan. Batzli: I would like to state that I don't think there was any real analysis of what that property could be zoned. Should it be zoned lOP? What should it be there? We were presented this as if it's going to be a garden center. There was no anlysis of what the use of that particular site should be. Emmings: Except half the site is already exactly the zoning we gave the whole thing so I suppose to the extent that the... Batzli: I know but it's arbitrary on which way you want to make the whole lot. I think we've should just look at that. Emmings: I guess the answer to that would be, either one didn't have... e Dacy: We can certainly do that analysis for the Council. Conrad: That's would be appropriate. I think they would appreciate that. Steve, you're absolutely right. This is philosophy here. This is ivory tower non-specific but nobody's persuaded me that we should change it. I can go either way and the only way I can go either way is to see the real stuff and the real stuff is not here. In the absence of a real thorough staff investigation of what's the best and in the absence of the applicant being here, I don't want to change the zoning. Emmings: My thinking on that issue, this particular item that we're mulling over tonight is, you could spend four years deciding whether it would better to be BH or lOP and we wouldn't be any further along than we are now. Conrad: Right. But if we saw the applicant and they had a plan, we might be able to make some real good positions but the applicant doesn't want to sit here tonight. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTIONS 20-695, 20-715, 20-774, 20-795, AND 20-815 TO PROVIDE FOR MINIMUM BUILDING AND PARKING SETBACKS FOR LOTS ADJACENT TO RAILROADS AND RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Public Present: e Name Address Darrell Fortier Architect and Land Planner for Frank Beddor Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 18 e Barbara Dacy presented the staff report. e Darrell Fortier: We appreciate first of all, the City's attention to this detail. We personally never found it confusing. We thought the ordinance was fairly clear and we believe, up until now, that the ordinance indicated that we were abutting a railroad tracks, just as we did when we built United Mailings and when we built Instant Webb and when we looked at other developments here. If that's causing the confusion, we'd certainly appreciate that the confusion be clarified so we may get on with our plans. We believed, up until now, that the original conditions, about six years ago when we received concept and site development approval of Park One, was that we were actually going to be allowed a zero setback for building and parking. We had an earth shelter proposal and there was a considerable debate with the Planning Commission and Council. We really since have backed off that proposal and we developed what is a plat that you see in front of you. We have since then also agreed that a 20 foot conservation district for preservation of some of the trees would be appropriate. I'm not sure if anyone has been through the Drive there in Park One but we maintain what we believe is a very beautiful area and we have tried our best to preserve as many trees as possible and we've cQoperated, we think, with the staff the best we can. Putting through a drive that really blends well with the environment but in doing so we have relatively narrow and deep, I shouldn't say too deep, some of them are only around 250 feet for depth. We don't object to having a 20 foot building and parking lot setback from the railroad. That's what we believe we have now when we established the 20 foot conservation easement. We would not be opposed to having that clarified and established. That's a minor difference. I believe the ordinance right now is saying, or what you're proposing is suggesting 25 for building and parking. We would just as soon keep it consistent with the conservation district and make it 20 feet. If you're willing to get 0 and 10 feet right now, and that has to be clarified. We are a little bit confused also about the language in the present ordinance the way it's written and perhaps I could ask Barbara to interpret this for me. If that's acceptable to you. Barbara, in our first sentence here under the proposed ordinance on page 3, it reads off street parking areas shall comply with all the requirements, etc.. Where you add the new language you say, abutting railroad trackage and commercial or industrial districts. We're wondering why the word and is in there and the word or. This seems to us that we would have to abut a railroad trackage and a commercial or industrial. We would rather see it simply saying if you're abutting a railroad trackage or commercial or industrial. Dacy: track there uses. For a rear setback. Let's say you weren't abutting a railroad and you had a rear yard situation with another industrial use. Then should be that rear yard setback between two abutting industrial There should be some separation. Darrell Fortier: I guess I'm still confused. 4It Dacy: Okay, as written the ordinance said if you abutted the railroad track you could go down to zero, right? If you didn't have a railroad track, otherwise the ordinance said... Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 19 e Darrell Fortier: 50 feet to a residential. Dacy: No, let's skip residential. If you didn't have residential and you had a lot here and commercial lot here. Or industrial and this was your rear lot line, you'd still have to meet your rear setback which is 10 feet, right? Darrell Fortier: That's correct. Dacy: So what we were trying to say is that those parts of the City where you did, and this would be a reason for putting it in, where you did for example let's take Instant Webb, you abut a railroad track and you've got industrial zoning right next door also. We wanted to make sure that yes, you could park right up to the railroad tracks. In this case, if this area was single family or residential, then that would trigger... e Darrell Fortier: The difficulty we find when we look at the land abutting a railroad track and commercial, for one property line to abut to this, there are two uses, it would be difficult on one side. How does the diagram you've drawn, if that was a railroad track between the industrials, wouldn't you say the industrial abuts the railroad. Not the railroad and industrial. We would say it abuts one but it doesn't abut both. It abuts the railroad tracks and beyond. We certainly agree with abutting both. Abutting trackage and something. When you only have one property and that one property side going there, it becomes confusing to us. If there was someway to clarify that we would certainly appreciate it. The same is true when we get down to the other paragraph that's being added where it says, abutting any residential district and railroad trackage. The way we look at it, it was stated that residential could be on the north and the railroad could be on the east but they would not both be on the north side. Am I making my point reasonably clear? That's where the confusion is coming into us. Dacy: Our concern is that the zoning line runs right along the railroad tracks. ElIson: Between? Dacy: Right. The Commission needs to decide what type of status do you want to put on the railroad tracks? If that just happens to be the common land between a residential zone and industrial use, does the existence of a railroad tracks justify the zero setback back to the tracks? That's what you need to decide and that's fine if you do. Erhart moved, ElIson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. - Conrad: Barb, I need you to diagram this for me. I'm really struggling with this. When I think I get it straight, I need you to raise that board.. . Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 20 e Dacy: Let's say here's the railroad tracks, we're going to have an industrial lot here, industrial here and this lot is residential. The zoning line for the residential runs along the property line and along the railroad. The question is, in this case, the proposed ordinance says if you abut railroad tracks... Conrad: Would you do me a favor? What the current ordinance says. Dacy: Okay, the current ordinance says, if you abut the railroad tracks you can park right up to the railroad tracks. Wildermuth: Railroad easement. Dacy: Correct. Conrad: Does it matter what the other district is on the other side of the tracks? e Dacy: Let's just ignore that. This is case 1. Case 1, you can park up to the railroad tracks and the building setback is 10 feet. In this case, staff's concern is that because the zoning district line exists right here and because the ordinance as written it says when you have an industrial commercial district abutting a residential district, you should have a minimum rear yard of 50 feet. That's one sentence but then there's another sentence in there that says, but if you abut railroad tracks you can park right up next to the railroad tracks. So we're trying, when you have this situation, you're trying to say, what should we do in this situation? Should we still allow them to park up to the railroad tracks? Do we recognize the railroad itself as a separation and buffer or do we reduce this or should we keep it the same? Mr. Fortier was saying, I didn't think there was a problem in the first place. So if the Commission wants to direct staff that that's the way we should be interpretting that section, that makes our lives a lot easier, that's sure but our Attorney said, it's kind of ambiguous and you can get into a situation that could be challenged. Conrad: Okay, let's talk about what the railroad tracks does do from a buffering standpoint. Is it typically elevated? Dacy: Yes. Conrad: So by itself, other than the fact that three times a day a train comes through, do you believe it is a good buffer separating industrial from residential? Dacy: Yes. Erhart: What's a typical railroad easement? e Dacy: I think on this drawing it's showing as 130 feet. Conrad: What's 130? Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 21 e Dacy: The railroad right-of-way. It's at least 100. Erhart: So it's more than the number of feel we require anyway. So what's our Attorney talking about? Dacy: Some precedent maybe later on. ElIson: It just seems like you could say it easier. Dacy: That's what in the report we were sa~ing. In the locations in the City that has railroad going in the commercial and industrial areas. For example, in the industrial are the railroad is elevated and there is significant grade change as well as the 20 foot conservation easement. That lessens as proceed west into the downtown areas. In that case you're talking about a distance factor. Plus, there still is the requirement of screening between commercial and industrial and non-commercial and industrial areas. Batzli: Did you evaluate this in light of perhaps light rail going through here as well? What we would do down in that area? Dacy: With the light rail use as opposed to a railroad use, this particular track is used on a fairly consistent basis. From what I know of light rail, they are supposedly less noisy. e Batzli: But more often. Dacy: Potentially, it could be. It depends on how many trips it makes. Batzli: As far as where the districts come together and where the light rail would go, you're on a different line... Dacy: That line would be the railroad line that goes south of Lake Riley and then along the TH 212 area so that's the line that would be proposed for light rail. Batzli: Right, but did you look at if it would impact that area at all? Dacy: In this area we still have the same slope and elevation conditions. It is so far up and there is a ravine at the base of these properties that it's going to be low impact. As a matter of fact, anything building in this area would have to be, and remember from the contractor's yard application, we're going to have to go more towards...because it slopes back. Wildermuth: property? How would the conservation easement come into...on the Beddor Was that negotiated? e Dacy: They went through the platting process in 1986 prior to this ordinance being adopted and that was established by the Council with the condition to number 1, preserve a screening area along the rear of the lots so it was a condition of plat approval. Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 22 e wildermuth: district... It almost seems like a good idea in any case. A conservation Headla: Railroad trackage bothers me. I'd like to see all the terms changed to railroad right-of-way. I like the crux of it. I guess I keep thinking...railroads in it. Dacy: If a railroad doesn't exist and you have an industrial lot or a commercial lot directly abutting a residential lot, then the 50 foot setbacks still apply. We're only concentrating on those applications with railroad tracks. Headla: I mean ...and railroad tracks along here. Ellson: There's still 100 and some feet inbetween them. If you took out the tracks, there... I wonder if they might have problem with the current one. Discussion said for lots directly abutting any residential. I would think that if there's a railroad track that's not a direct abut, or whatever the term would be, therefore you're covered. Maybe you want to put in parenthesis, railroad means not abutting or something like that but I think that's spells it out absolutely perfect. e Dacy: I think there should be some clarification if that's the way the Commission wants to do it, maybe just adding a paranthetical statement saying this does not include lots that abut railroad trackage. Ellson: Something like that. I think this makes more sense. Maybe like you said, you've have problems where there's... Darrell Fortier: I realize the public hearing is closed and I appreciate the chance to speak again. I did forget one other thing that was important. When we did the platting of Park One, we gave up an additional 10 feet of right-of-way for the convenience of designing the crossing at Dell Road and West 78th without knowing what the alignment is going to be. We simply did it for convenience of the engineering staff and road design. At the same time it was understood that we were giving enough but we didn't want to be giving up more even more of the land so at that time it was agreed that the plan would either be reverting back to Park One or even simplier yet, would be a relaxation of the setback requirements on Lot 7. Right now we hear there is a 15 foot proposal for the side yard on Lot 7. This is the property with one lot that addresses the Eden prairie side. We'd just like to refresh the City's memory on that. Perhaps Barbara if you go through the records or talk to the Engineering again, it was simply a convenience to expand the right-of-way district because at the time, Eden prairie was not interested in constructing the road. I think the same thing is true of the 60 foot right-of-way that was extended all the way down the east side. e Dacy: The 50 foot setback, you mean the residential setback? Darrell Fortier: That's correct. I think because there's only a road, this road's not as wide as a railroad track... Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 23 e Dacy: That's another good point. Maybe we should add, instead of a railroad tracks separating a residential and industrial, why don't we have the street right-of-way. Ellson: I think we just have to define directly abutting. things that do not make them direct. These things include trackage, easements and roads and things that prevent them direct abutting. There are railroad from being Dacy: As a matter of fact, the previous ordinance, the 1972 ordinance had an exclusion for areas that were separated by street right-of-ways so the idea...statement disclaiming railroad right-of-ways and street right-of- ways so that would be a good idea. Conrad: Wo we need to make a decision on the 25 feet? The staff recommendation of 25 versus the 50? Dacy: To be honest, that number basically carne from knowledge that the conservation easement existed out there already. If what I'm hearing from the Commission, if you don't want to establish a specific setback and just say what the district regulates now is appropriate when you have situations where the lot abuts railroad trackage, that's fine. It would be less confusing as far as staff was concerned. Instead of throwing out another number. e Conrad: Would anybody like to pursue the 20 or 25 foot setback as originally drafted here? Does anybody want to document that setback in the ordinance or should we let it be loose as has been in the past? No feelings? Headla: Have we had problems in the past? Dacy: To be honest, because we're anticipating applications in these specific areas, we really haven't deal with this issue but it's corning and we'd like to get it resolved. There are a couple of applicants going through the process. Headla: What's that you mentioned when you have industrial, a road right- of-way and then homes on the other side? What's that dimension? Is that the 50 foot setback if you're abutting a street right-of-way? Industrial with homes on the other side of the street? Dacy: That's part of the issue that we're looking at. We have no setback as you've described that situation now. What the ordinance is saying if the rear yard directly abuts a residential area, then we need another 50 feet. e Batzli: So if there was a road you would be looking at, the other setbacks are as follows language? Dacy: Right. Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 24 e Headla: Did the Park's people, the Park and Recreation look at this at all? Dacy: No . wildermuth: I think uniformity as far as the last sentence, side street side yard shall be a minimum of 25 feet in all districts. Dacy: That's referring to corner lot situations. Where you have two streets abutting a lot, that is defined as a corner lot and the side street yard is that yard that's not the front yard but the other side of the lot that abuts the other street. Emmings: You brought up one other thing here and I just want some clarification. You talked about the screening... Now obviously if you have two industrial uses abutting one another and you've got a street there. If there's a railroad track...is there any screening requirement? Dacy: We're saying that we would still enforce the screening requirement dispite the existence of the railroad tracks. Emmings: Okay, so if there was trees on part of mine, that screening isn't going to take land so in effect, even though it says there is no setback requirement because you have a screening requirement, you will end up with a setback from the railroad right-of-way anyway. Is that right? e Dacy: Yes. Wildermuth: Is the screening requirement the conservation easement...? Dacy: Yes. Conrad: And that's the basis for the staff recommendation of 25 feet setback. Dacy: It was some type of a distance... Conrad: We need that, whether it be 20 or 25, is that in step? What does that do for us with it? How does that help? Dacy: You could divide extra feet of area to work with. To be honest with you, there's not much difference. Emmings: When you get to the screening requirements, how did that one wind up being? Dacy: It basically went on some total... Emmings: So you guys took into account what was there and did something e reasonable to provide some screening? Dacy: Right. Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 25 e Emmings: That seems to be the better way to go because first of all, railroad right-of-ways seem to provide plenty of distance. What's one other thing you're looking for? The other thing is screening. We've got the screening requirement that we should be sure applies to these situations and then allow staff to be able to be flexible with the developer. Maybe there's a hill but maybe it's only 15 feet but maybe that's enough then. That spot will screen it from the other use and we don't need to be always straight hard lines. Conrad: Does the screen, we keep rashing here from one thing to the next, does our screening ordinance, does the screening requirement ordinance, will it take care of, should we review it to see how it applies in this particular case by a railroad track? Dacy: That's the best I can give you in help screening requirement is you have to have a 6 an industrial or commercial and residential. consistent screening. one way or the other. The foot opaque screen between You're got to have a Emmings: We're talking about between a commercial or industrial use and the railroad right-of-way that has the same residential on the other side? e Dacy: Are you saying that you want to look at that also to see if that's required? Conrad: We would like to possibly, as you suggested, we don't know that we need 25 feet. I don't know that I need 20 feet. If we've got a screening requirement that solves the problem, I might just feel comfortable with the screening requirement versus a distance. Emmings: Because you already have the distance. Conrad: Right, the distance is already there. The only thing is, with railroad tracks are typically flat and that's not a screen. That's flat. Therefore, I would look at that to see if that's solving any of the problems that the distance is attempting to solve. Barb, would you like us to table this item and have you take a look at it? Dacy: No. Conrad: You'd like to get rid of this? Dacy: Yes. In order to construct a 6 foot screen, either between berming or vegetation, you're going to need at least, at least 10 feet of land area so that planting materials can be maintained at least at minimum. That's what the landscape ordinance and we recognize other issues. I think we really need to clarify the parking and building setbacks on this issue. I hate to have it linger on and on unless you guys really don't think it's okay. e Conrad: We're not seeing the need for a setback at this point in time. At least I'm not. Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 26 e Darrell Fortier: I'm sorry my eyes aren't quite well enough to recognize Annette's last name but I think she really has hit the nail right on the head. The confusion is whether or not the property abuts the railroad or whether it abuts residential. If we were to say that there will be some... which says abutting a railroad is not to be considered as abutting residential even if residential were across the railroad tracks. I think we've got to clarify that. The presence of screening requirements can certainly be reviewed with sight lines, etc. when the building plan is reviewed and we already have screening requirements...that gives you at lesat, even if the residential were built across the railroad tracks, that gives you at least 130 feet or 150 feet of distance. It is far more generous than the majority of residential developments would have that abut highway or something. The issue of getting rid of the confusion that the Attorney's brought up, are we abutting residential or are we abutting railroad seems to be the most germain issue. If we could get rid of that issue tonight, I think our whole lives would be made a lot easier. Conrad: Annette, how did you think you could sove that problem? ElIson: Something like either a parenthetical phrase that is distinguishing a road and a railroad as separating that. Conrad: And you would put that where? 4It Ellson: The ordinance as it is, I like. I would just go that one line that says areas shall be 50 feet unless directly abutting any residential and then say something to the effect of a railroad track or road, what ever we might else think of. A horse path. Who knows what else we might have around here, are considered separating and abutting, whatever. I can't rewrite it but I'm basically saying that we want to say that those things are separating that and therefore you're not abutting that residential. In other words, we're trying to let them know that the 50 feet isn't required if there's a railroad tracks. If someone tells me what is going to constitute not abutting a residential. Batzli: In other words, what you're trying to say is direct means direct. Underline directly. ElIson: That's exactly how I had it in my notes. Just underline directly. Emmings: You can't indirectly abut something. ElIson: Or define the exceptions of what we mean by not directly. Which gives you a parenthetical phrase, does not directly would be where a railroad track's involved, a road's involved, whatever. - Conrad: Okay Barbara, how do you want to work this to get us out of this thing? Dacy: Taking Annette's suggestion, I would add the following after the second to the last sentence. Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 27 !e Emmings: I don't know what you're looking at. Dacy: Look at the first ordinance. Conrad: 1216? Dacy: Yes. And number 6 there, second to the last sentence, the minimum rear yard shall be 50 feet for lots directly abutting any residential district. (This does not include lots which abut railroad right-of-ways or street right-of-ways.) Batzli: I don't think that clarifies it well enough. You're talking about the...with that directly adjacent to the railroad tracks. With what you just said, you could have a residential on the side yard, railroad tracks on the back yard and yet you've just fit your definition... Conrad: Do you have an alternative plan? Batzli: No, I was trying to put together some language. I was just trying to say something about, what we're not talking about is when there's a railroad or road immediately between the two properties. I was trying to come up with language that said that. e Wildermuth: Let me try something. 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 tracks rights-of-way and commercial or industrial districts. No side yard shall be required adjoining commercial uses for off street parking facilities. ElIson: You didn't mention residential. Wildermuth: No parking areas shall be permitted in any required side yards. That's what you want to say. Dacy: As written? You don't want to change anything as written as far as that's concerned? Wildermuth: Well, what we would be doing here is crossing out two words, except that, and taking... Dacy: I guess I don't understand what you're... Wildermuth: You want... e Dacy: No, that's existing now and I don't want to mess with that. It's saying that if you directly abut another commercial or industrial use you can establish adjoining off street parking facilities and the side yard setback wouldn't be imposed. You could have a shared parking lot situation. I guess Brian, I still don't understand where you're coming from with your comments. Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 28 e Batzli: If you were talking about the rear yard abutting that, I would have agreed with you. You just said it abutted. Dacy: The minimum rear yard shall be 50 feet for lots directly abutting residential district (a railroad right-of-way or street right-of-way). This would not apply to lots abutting the railroad right-of-way or street. Batzli: If your rear yard, you're talking about your rear yard line abutting that, then maybe that will work. You're not limiting yourself to that. Make that on the side yard. Dacy: So you want to eliminate the word rear? Batzli: No. It's got to be parenthetical. I'm trying to limit your exception to the rule. If you've got a railroad going down your sideyard, you're abutting that, then you don't need a rear yard setback under what you just said. Dacy: I see what you're saying. So then you're saying in the parenthesis then, qualify that by saying, this does not apply for lots having rear yards abutting railroad rights-of-way or street rights-of-way. e Emmings: If this helps, isn't what we're trying to do, would it help to get away from where we're talking about rear yard, side yard, front yard, whatever and we're talking about whatever boundary abuts either the railroad right-of-way or the street right? So why don't we just say that when a property line abuts a railroad right-of-way or street right-of-way there will be no setback requirement but it will be subject to screening requirements. Dacy: I think if we did eliminate the word rear in that sentence, we're still saying that if you've got a residential district abutting a commercial or industrial district, you need 50 feet. No matter what type of yard. Rear, side or front. Batzli: Okay, so just take out the word rear. Dacy: Right, and then say if the lot abuts a railroad right-of-way or street right-of-way, we're saying that you don't have to have the 50 feet. Batzli: Yes, I will agree to that. Emmings: Read the way for them. Dacy: The minimum yard shall be 50 feet for lots directly abutting any residential district (this does not apply for lots abutting railroad right-of-way or street right-of-way). Emmings: But you only want to exclude it on the side where it abuts and ~ you're not doing that yet in your language. Dacy: Okay, help me. Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 29 e Emmings: I did. I read what I would say. Where the property line abuts a railroad right-of-way or street right-of-way. Batzli: (Except the side street side yard.) Getting rid of that one. That's legit though. Emmings: I don't understand it but if everybody else does, I'll vote for it. Where the property line abuts the railroad right-of-way or the street, the setbacks for that yard shall not apply but it will be subject to screening requirements. That's the idea. I don't definite1y know how to say it. I think that's what we're trying to get at. Dacy: There's got to be some way that we can use that an existing sentence and add an exclusion. Emmings: Why does it have to be? Dacy: It just seems to be a lot easier. ElIson: It's seems the logical way. Conrad: It's going to be hard for us to draft this. e Dacy: If you can agree with the intent of saying that 50 feet is not applicable when the lot abuts railroad right-of-way or street right-of- way. Emmings: It's the line. itself isn't it? It's the particular line. It's not the lot ElIson: You're saying if the railroad is in the rear than the rear setback doesn't have to be that. If the road's on the side than the side setback doesn't have to be that. That's what he's worried about. Emmings: Right and you're saying if it abuts it on the rear it doesn't have to do it on the side. We're worried about the particular side that abuts only. Dacy: Correct. Erhart: You're not putting that in your language. and do that. You need to go back Dacy: What we're saying is, if the yard area directly abuts a residential district you have to have 50 feet. Emmings: You have to have 50 feet on that yard. Dacy: Okay. (If a portion of the lot abuts a railroad trackage or street e right-of-way, this section does not apply.) Erhart: Only for that portion. Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 30 e Dacy: I just said that. I said this portion. Batzli: Can we take about a 5 minute break here and just get together and try to draft something? Conrad: I don't think we need to. I think we have given Barbara... I'd prefer not to draft wording to an ordinance by the Planning Commission. It's just not appropriate but the intent Barbara, I guess we'd have to agree with what Steve is saying. I don't know that there's a practical aspect to Chanhassen in what you're saying. Emmings: Where there's a railroad or a road, you've got the distance. Now we're concerned about the screening. So we're not so concerned about setbacks except in so far as screening takes a certain amount of land. Conrad: Does everybody agree with what Steve said in terms of philosophy? Barbara, if we agree philosophically with Steve's, if that's agreeing with some kind of an intent, what would you prefer to have us do? We can't make a motion on absolute words because they're not there yet. Dacy: page City have I would recommend that you move to amend the Section as listed on 3 of the staff report. State your intent and then I'll get with the Attorney to draft the language. As a matter of fact, what I'll do is the Attorney review verbatim Minutes to make sure. e Conrad: Do you have a reason to move it through the City Council in two weeks? Dacy: I don't think it could get to Council by the 13th anyway with him having to review the Minutes but it would certainly be on the 27th. Conrad: So it could be back here for our next meeting? Dacy: So if you wanted to table it until the next meeting... Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to table action on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Sections 20-695, 20-715, 20-755, 20-774, 20-795 and 20-815 until the next meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 18, 1988. All voted in favor except Conrad and Headla who abstained and the motion carried. OPEN DISCUSSION. e Conrad: Let me introduce this. Commissioner Erhart would like the Planning Commission to discuss the attached at Wednesday's meeting. Tim, I think as I said before the meeting started, this is really a nice analysis. You did a real nice job of reviewing the situations down there. I appreciate that. That's really terrific. Steve, did you have any Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 31 e recommendations that you wanted to give? Emmings: Yes, I just think too, Tim has made a very compelling case here. Both from the way you handle contractor's yards when they're moving into the A-2 district and I think this ought to go to staff and they should give us their input on what Tim has proposed here and we should consider it as an amendment to our Zoning Ordinance. Conrad: I guess we could go over this tonight Barbara, verbatim or Tim could give us an overview of it. It's real understandable. I'm not sure that he needs to do that. What Steve is saying he'd like staff to review it and comment on the specifics of it and tell us where staff feels it is inappropriate or look for the loopholes or look for the reasons not to make this an amendment. Dacy: We have reviewed it and give the approach as similar to the one that you took with the BF district. That maybe we should send this to Council. If the Planning Commission endorses it, give it to Council as a discussion item. Say this is where the Planning Commission would like to head on a potential zoning ordinance amendment issue. Emmings: The choice between letting them have a first look at it as opposed to sending them specific language to change the ordinance? ~ Dacy: It might be good this way so that the Council can get a feel for where the Planning Commission is coming from as a whole on this. Erhart: Except the last paragraph, I think there's only one paragraph that's missing. Rather than just passing, you say here's a great idea and pass it to Council. I think it's worthwhile having Commissioner's comment on some of these items before we pass it on. I agree that we shouldn't try to create language here at this point and get to the specifics but I think in this kind of thing, they really need to look at the comments of the Commissioners. Emmings: I don't agree with you for the simple reason that we don't very often pass them something that's so thoroughly explained. Conrad: It's real logical. Emmings: I think what we're saying, I think that's a good idea to pass it up to the Council just maybe with a comment that we think that based on this we should make some changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Dacy: We could schedule it for the 27th. Kind of reserve a special area. Erhart: So you're basically, your comments are that you're in agreement with all of it? ~ Emmings: Well, we'll talk about that. Erhart: So what you're looking for from the Commission is saying to them, we're generally in favor of that going to the City Council. Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 32 e Emmings: Do they want us to basically look at the zoning amendments to bring the zoning ordinance in line with a lot of the things that you're discussing. Conrad: Is there anything in here that somebody would like to bring up as something we wouldn't want Council to see? Something that we don't agree with in Tim's analysis. Is there something that's really objectionable? wildermuth: There's one thing that occurred to me as I read it. ...the A-2 district out there? Almost everything is already is A-I and one of the things, in addition to letting in A-2 would be to require that the contractor's yard...in A-I. Erhart: There is a substantial difference between A-I and A-2. wildermuth: But in your own table analysis here. Erhart: There is on lot size and so forth. Dacy: The A-I is 40 acres and that's specifically for ag preserve. e Erhart: You eliminate A-I and there are only two parcels in the whole city in A-I. Dacy: We can't eliminate A-I because State Law says we have to provide for a zoning district to allow it. Wildermuth: That was just a thought that occurred. Dacy: The only staff comment is on the contractor's yard. That might be a little politically messy because four years ago the Council went through a process to amend the agricultural districts at that time to allow contractor's yards so now you have a process four years later that's proposing to eliminate them and Tim and I have talked about that. Wildermuth: This is a different Council. Dacy: Exactly and that's another reason that I think it would be good to have the Council discuss this thoroughly before you start notifying property owners and conducting a public hearing. Headla: What was your point? e Dacy: My point was that four years ago the Coucnil specifically amended the agricultural district at that time to include contractor's yards. Now this amendment would go back and exclude them. Remove them as a conditional use so I'm saying that four years is relatively a short time span and I talked about this with Tim and that might be politically messy for some of the Council members. That's the reason why it should be discussed though. Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 33 e Conrad: What we'd like to do then, if we send this up to Council for their discussion and their direction to staff. Erhart: Are we all saying generally favorable direction on this? Conrad: I've got some small nit picky things. Erhart: You're using just the Minutes to support that? Conrad: I think in our motion we can... Erhart: You're looking for a motion? Conrad: Yes. Erhart: Okay. Conrad: And send this to City Council to provide staff with the direction and I think under that motion we can comment that the Planning Commission endorses this particular paper. Is there a motion? e Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to send Tim Erhart's memorandum dated May 27, 1988 onto the City Council for them to direct staff and the Planning Commission with regard to it's content and further action on it, noting that the Planning Commission finds this to be logically explained and an all around good idea. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Emmings moved, ElIson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.. Submitted by Barbara Dacy City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim .