The URL can be used to link to this page

1988 08 17 - CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 17, 1988 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli, Jim Wildermuth and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Annette Ellson STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LOCATE A CHURCH IN THE RURAL DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HWY. 41 APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE NORTH OF HWY. 5, WESTSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH. Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report. Headla: I'm not quite sure I understand where it says Page 5, July 13th, the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit. Number 1, the two approved septics sites must be staked and preserved prior to receiving a building permit. Aren't they staked now? - Olsen: We're just saying that they have to remain staked. A lot of times after a site has been approved or when grading of the site begins, a lot of times they're not properly roped off and the sites are damaged. Headla: And I understand there really isn't any other hard spots with this or with the applicant. The applicant is aware of all this and they agree with all this? Olsen: I don't know if they agree with it. Headla: Do you have any hard spots with any of this? Bryan pike: Oh yes. I have a few. Do you want to hear? Headla: I guess I'd like to hear if there's a serious disagreement. - Bryan pike: When we put the site plan together, we had this 60 foot easement going across as well as the sewer line that you can see clearly, this stiped line going across. When we came to the planners, we were told that we needed a 50 foot setback from that 60 foot easement road and originally when we put this site plan together we designed the parking lot, we see the edge of the parking lot, it is 50 foot exactly from that 50 foot easement road back and the church which we originally wanted to put up in the corner, the church that we originally wanted to put up here facing this way we moved down here because of the 50 feet again from this road. We noticed in the Minutes of the last meeting one of you asked them a question about the possibility or whether they had reserved easement rights. We understood that there were not. I've done some checking with our attorney and there are not. We understand then that it is still Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 2 e possible for us to move our building up in here and build in this area. If we did that, it would open up a primary site. This line right here is the sewer construction limits. We did give them permission to move down into here some dirt that came from this 52 foot hole that they had over here but this area hasn't been touched where the church is. It would enable us to put a primary site right next to our building. The soil borings were done right in here. We feel for the primary site a simple septic system, if it fits with the soil borings. I got this report yesterday. I sent my secretary after it at 4:30 and I looked at it later in the afternoon. Then I called the architect about 5:00 so some of this is new to us but what we're being told is that a mound system 350 feet away is going to cost us about $12,000.00 to put up. From what Machmeier says at the end of this report, it sounds like he thought we might have to even pump to that 350 foot mark. Is that what you understood? So the pumping would be an additional cost to us as well. What we're hoping is to be allowed to make an adjustment to this plan to swing that building up and we'll submit new soil borings into that area that is right below the church or if it's required by you, we'll do the whole thing. We were not given an understanding that we could put the church up in that area before. We were told that we had to stay back 50 feet from that 60 foot easement. e Erhart: There is a 60 foot easement or there isn't a 60 foot easement? Bryan pike: There is a 60 foot easement with property owners that are behind us so they are not land locked to the east. Erhart: So the City has that easement right? Bryan pike: No, the City doesn't have it. Olsen: This plan is providing a 60 foot easement for the future road. Erhart: Because you've asked them to provide it? Bryan pike: Who's providing it? Olsen: You show it on your site plan that you're providing that 60 foot easement. Bryan pike: We provided the 60 foot easement for the people that we bought the property from to the east. Brian Klingelhutz, Leland Getschatch and Leland Basalm and Leland Getschatch. Erhart: So that's in your contract with them? Bryan pike: It's in our city. The city has nothing... -- Erhart: But it's in your contract. Bryan pike: The 60 foot easement is but no 50 foot setbacks on both sides. --- Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 3 e Erhart: Well, that doesn't matter. Bryan pike: Oh yes it does. There's 1.5 acres of land that we were told we couldn't touch that we can now touch. Erhart: But you have to provide, does that contract say exactly where that 60 foot easement is going to be? Bryan pike: It says that 60 foot easement IS right here and we checked with our Attorney and that is all they got. They don't have any rights to a 50 foot setback. I don't think intentionally but we didn't have proper information when we sent this to our architect and we want to move that building to gain as much of our property as we can. In fact when we master planned this thing, if we ever grow to the point of needing bigger buildings, which we hope we will someday, we really limited ourselves to a point where we have to cover everything just about out there with parking lot to meet the current City requirements for our next bigger building. Conrad: Jo Ann, explain that. Are we talking about a 50 foot easement from a 60 foot right-of-way? Olsen: A 50 foot setback from an easement. 4It Conrad: And that was whose condition? Olsen: I'm sure this was information that was given, there is plans for Lake Lucy to be continued through that property and that would be best to maintain that 50 foot setback. Erhart: Our ordinance states that a 50 foot setback exists from a street, not from an easement. Olsen: From right-of-way. Erhart: An easement for right-of-way? Emmings: The 60 foot easement they have through there, to landlock, otherwise they have...is a 60 foot easement for a road, right? Olsen: Right. Emmings: And does the City have the right to have this property owner stay back 50 feet from that road easement or don't we? Olsen: Technically it's from right-of-way. Dacy: We recommended the 50 foot setback because that's what the Zoning requires from a street. Sooner or later there will be a road traversing that property. e Emmings: Lake Lucy. You're talking about Lake Lucy or are you talking about the road from the people behind? . Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 4 Dacy: Lake Lucy. The applicant is saying well, I want to move closer, than he should be aware that if Lake Lucy Road comes through, his parking and/or building may become non-conforming because they're within that setback. Emmings: But once it's there it's there right? Dacy: Right. Emmings: It sounds to me like they want to change the site plan. Can we look at it now? Conrad: You do want to change the site plan, is that what you're saying? Bryan pike: We're not asking to make a major change but... Conrad: But you do want to change the site plan? Bryan pike: Yes. Conrad: Do you want to just have us table this until you can bring it back? 4It Bryan pike: If you think that that is... Conrad: It's sort of up to you. We'd like to see what you really want to take to City Council versus something that's kind of well, we're not sure where this is. We'd really like to see the absolute final. Bryan pike: I don't know how you all function but is it possible for us to say we want to move it up here? We have our architect here to show you exactly on the condition we could continue on and cover the other areas that are mentioned in here that are talked about? Conrad: Okay. If we find too many cases where we're not seeing something close to what's going to go to City Council, we will table it. If we find one or two that we think you can solve in two weeks with staff because we think that there's an agreement, then we don't need to see that final plan that you're going to present but if you continue to add different issues, then we'll table it and have you bring it back so we can see more. e Bryan pike: Okay. There's two other points that are in here and they are conditions that we want to bring up. That is, we were wondering if we had enough screening. It looked liked in the ordinance that the screening that we have would be appropriate. If we're not, I don't have the species of theses and we're going to have to by and get them but we do have screening that is in here. There is more actually than we show. We don't show every tree that's here. Some of these are pretty good sized trees. We had a picture up here that we could show you some of them. It said in the ordinance that if there was already existing, that that could be considered as part of the screening. And we don't have to screen for a road that as we understand, this is the firmest that I've heard about this road. Each time I've asked there's always been the possibility that that Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 5 e road would never go through. If that road never goes through, then we're wasting a lot of space and effort. Okay. We have a picture of those shurbs. Is that a possibility? Do we need to put that extra screening up is what our question is? Emmings: What extra screening? Where does it say he has to have extra screening? Olsen: The ordinance requires that there be screening between the vehicular area and the road right-of-way. There are some existing trees out there. Emmings: But what I see here Jo Ann is it says they have to provide a landscaping plan. Couldn't they present that plan and if there's adequate screening, I supposed they wouldn't have to do more. As I look at this, all you're being required to do right now is provide the landscaping plan. You can put the existing vegetation on that and as long as they're satisfied. Bryan pike: Okay. So we submit that to you? That part? Olsen: Yes. The only thing that doesn't allow to count is... e Bryan pike: The only other thing was the paving. The paving of the parking lot. We're wondering if we can stay with gravel. It would be our sincere desire and hope to put pavement out there because it'd be a lot nicer but our budget right now, would not allow us to build the building. It would be an additional $27,000.00 to put that in right now and we're trying to build a building and we're saying that in this area, we're not going to be disturbing anybody. Our traffic flow is definitely not the traffic flow that's right across the street in Minnewashta Park and that is not paved. It's all dirt so we're wondering if that were doing. Conrad: We'll mull that through. Okay, Dave. You're still on. Headla: He's got me really...across the street there. He's right, that's all gravel. I was convinced he needed blacktop but he sited something else. I'll pass. Conrad: Let me throw it back to Dave. In terms of the plan that's been presented, do you want to see that back? Are you concerned that the plan is going to be different? What's your feeling? Do you want that to come back here or do you want to do it in conditions? Do you feel comfortable with it as it is and let the City Council have at it Dave? Headla: I think it was an interesting question that you asked and I want to throw it back to Barb and Jo Ann, are they comfortable with it? Are they just a little ways away if they make the change? They've been so involved with that. After we get done I'd like to hear their opinion on that. e Conrad: Jo Ann, what do you think? Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 6 e Olsen: That's the first I've heard of it too and I would expect it to be a major change. They're changing all the parking area also. Conrad: You would change the septic site too I would imagine. Bryan pike: The primary site. Carey Lyons: My name is Carey Lyons, ...the architects and we are designing their structure. That would be the intent. To move the church to this area to allow the primary septic site. To move to this area so the church would not be required to go 350 feet and possibly pump to that primary site because it would be a suitable site adjacent to it. There would be some rearranging of parking and access to the building and there would be the relocation of that one site but beyond that I think we could work with the staff to meet all your requirements and not hold the project up. Conrad: Let's talk about this setback from a right-of-way. I guess I still don't know what, if that is our standard, a 50 foot setback, it is a standard? e Olsen: It's from a dedicated right-of-way and this isn't a dedicated right-of-way. Conrad: It isn't a dedicated right-of-way. Batzli: What section is that in? What section is that 50 foot setback? Dacy: The rural, it's under the RR setback. It's 50 feet. an issue for... It's more of Batzli: Well, right-of-way is not defined in the Zoning Ordinance so I doubt it's right-of-way you're talking about. Olsen: It's from the property line. Batzli: Easement, on the other hand is and it's either public or private for what that's worth. Dacy: Again, if it's not 50, if it's below that, then the applicant is taking his chances as to the non-conformity of the building in the future. Conrad: And what is the risk to the City? Dacy: As far as what? Conrad: As far as allowing them to build within this setback area? e Dacy: At this point, none. Olsen: They might end up with a church with barely a setback once the street is in. Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 7 e Conrad: So once the street goes in. Olsen: You might have a church parking lot... Dacy: And we don't know if they're talking 40 feet or 30 feet or what so maybe it's an issue that we can resolve. I don't know. Bryan pike: Do you build 60 foot roads through there? Is there not some extra space in there anyway? Dacy: For a 60 foot roadway is a typical right-of-way for a street which could accomodate two lanes of traffic and boulevard areas. Bryan Pike: So there is some extra space on both sides of the road then? Dacy: Yes, but that's not included in your setback calculation because the right-of-way, that boulevard area may be used for installation of utilities, pole lines, trails. Wildermuth: How close to the easement do you propose to place the building? e Carey Lyons: We don't know at this point. We just discussed the issue this afternoon so we haven't had a chance to analyze it to determine exactly where it would best fit and allow that primary site to move up adjacent to the building. Conrad: I'm going to interrupt you. If they don't know, I think we have to table the issue until, if you're talking a couple feet, I think we wouldn't mind it but if you don't know yet, I think we've got to have you knowing. If you were here saying we are going to do it exactly this way, I think we could probably pass something conditioned upon that kind of knowledge but if you don't know yet, am I off base? I don't want to belabor a meeting when we are probably going to table it if they don't know. I guess I'm kind of uncomfortable. Headla: I think it's appropriate Ladd. Emmings: The other issue is, if there's a strong likelihood that there's going to be the extension of Lake Lucy Road going through this property in the future, I think they'd be foolish not to take it into account even if they don't have to. We ought to make sure we know what our basis is for imposing it because I think there should be that setback from that easement that we mentioned. Batzli: I think we also have the basis to look at that since this is a conditional use. e Conrad: So if you'd like to revise your plans, I think we could go ahead tonight with the plans as you've presented and we could pass a favorable motion but if you do want to change them, we will table this until you can come back and tell us specifically what you want to do. Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 8 e Carey Lyons: I can understand your point and your stand and it's very easy to see that you feel that way but it's also, you should also appreciate that if we're allowed to build within that 50 and we just are now made aware of it, why are we the only ones to be penalized? Conrad: I just think you should know that what the Planning Commission's role is, is to take a look at as close to absolute plans as possible so we can make right decisions. What you're telling us is you've presented us, and through whatever reasons, I understand that you just found out some information this afternoon and I appreciate that and you can't react in a few minutes but on the other hand, our role here is to take a look at what really is real. What really is being, what you want and so far, what you're saying is we want to change a lot of things. Parking lot. Location of church. Septic systems and I think it's not appropriate for us to say we agree because we don't know what you're talking about yet. So we understand that you got new infomration and you certainly have the right to change whatever you've got but on the other hand, from our role, I think it's not appropriate for the Planning Commission to react to something. Our charter is to react to something that's being presented as actual and you don't have that to us tonight. Bryan pike: How long of a delay are we... e Conrad: I think it's a simple, straight forward. I guess it's going to depend on where you want to locate the church. I think generally we would ask staff if they really believe a road is going to go through there, I think that's what Mr. Emmings just said, if there is a road that we anticipate that will be going in there, we're probably going to hold you to that 50 foot setback. I think what we challenge staff to do is say, is that a real thing. If the road is kind of imaginary and we may never do it from the City standpoint, then we take a look at that and say, gee if we're not convinced that it's needed for Chanhassen, then we'd be able to slip some of those maybe standards or regulations, whatever. But if they come back and say, yes we really believe to serve the neighborhood to the east, there has to be a road there, then we're probably going to uphold pretty much the standards that we set. And I think it's also to your benefit. Bryan pike: I think Jo Ann has already stated that it isn't something that is legally, that the City can take. Emmings: That's something we want to look into. Batzli: I would disagree with it for one. I'm just reading the Statutes. Emmings: I found a definition for right-of-way here. e Batzli: But it's from, it's a setback4 If you go to setback, they define it as roadway easement. Easement is both a public or private right. Headla: But we haven't adhered to that. Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 9 e Batzli: I don't know what we've adhered to. Code says. I'm just reading what the Bryan pike: What does that mean? Conrad: These are two lawyers, I don't know. Let's try to resolve that before the motion occurs. It means we don't, as lay people up here, we don't understand what the law specifically commands us to do. As Planning Commissioners, we don't know what's right or wrong and we'd like the staff to consult and tell us what is appropriate. So if we don't have to enforce the 50 foot, if you have full right to use that 50 feet, that's your perogative. We don't know. We can't tell what our ordinance is telling us to do right now. Therefore, if we table it, we're talking two weeks. You're two weeks further down the line. Is that right Jo Ann? Can we sneak him on the next agenda? Olsen: Sure. e Conrad: So we'd bring you back as soon as we can which is two weeks from now so we'll delay that. It may be to your benefit. On the other hand, if you want to run with what we see, I think we can react to that. We haven't discussed bituminous. I think the other thing they deserve to hear though, a little bit of conversation on what we want to do with the parking lot. Jim, what do you want to do with the parking lot? They don't want to pave it. Wildermuth: I think in view of the contours involved, it would be very desirable to pave it. Batzli: I agree with Jim. Emmings: I agree. Erhart: I agree. Conrad: I think the same. We'd like to see it paved. At least I think you're taken care of on the landscaping. That looks clean to me. paving you've got to do probably. Based on what we're saying. City Council disagrees with us occasionally. We get involved in setting precedent and things like that in terms of what the ordinance. It's hard for us to say, well you don't need to pave and we understand the financial considerations that you're under but when the next group comes in and says they don't want to pave, we don't always have rationale to say why you don't need to and why they should. So typically we uphold the ordinance because the ordinance is driving a lot of our decisions here. What I'm saying is we're looking at the ordinance. The City Council may have a different opinion. . Bryan pike: Does the ordinance require it in that area? Olsen: For commercial, it states for any commercial or industrial uses or similar uses like that, they must be paved. Concrete curb. It's in the parking section. It was staff's interpretation that the amount of traffic Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 10 e on that parking area is similar to other uses that we have proposed in rural areas where there's a lot of traffic where it's going to be eroded. Run off into wetland locations. Bryan pike: What I understand her to be saying is that it's her interpretation of that ordlnance. Conrad: You persuade us that it's not based on your interpretation of the ordinance, I think you may have a chance because it doesn't necessarily say church. You could dig into it a little bit and say, based on our interpretation on how we read it, we don't need to. Bryan pike: Would it be wrong for us to say go with this plan for tonight and then present our change to the City Council? Is that wrong to do that? Olsen: Staff would recommend that it probably be taken back to the Planning Commission. Bryan pike: See, we're pressed for building before fall. We're in a situation where we're meeting at 1:00 in another church. We're hoping to get it up. If we have to break frost ground, we know that we're not going to be able to afford that. Ie Conrad: I suppose that's your right. It's not the process we like to follow because typically we kind of like to clear the way for the City Council so that when we say something regarding planning, they say yes. The planners. These lay people who think they're kind of planning. They agree with it. It makes sense but on the other hand, you have the right to go in and say this is what was approved. Here's another plan that was not approved and you potentially could present it to them. They immediately, it's a gamble on your part. They could table it and say send it back to Planning Commission because they haven't reviewed it this way. It's a gamble. It would cost you an additional two weeks but it's sort of up to you. Batzli: Jo Ann, what is the likelihood that MnDot gives up an access permit for the current arrangement of their driveway? Olsen: I spoke with Evan Green and he sounded like that wouldn't be much of a problem. Batzli: So with this condition, you probably wouldn't have a change approving it with them applying for the driveway access permit? They wouldn't have to change. Olsen: Right. e Conrad: What do you want to do? Bryan pike: We don't want to throw that political hot potato at the Council. Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 11 e Conrad: I'm glad you're doing that. I'd prefer you to come back. Any other comments on this one? I didn't let you folks to my right talk about this one a great deal, but anything else? Emmings: I think I'd look at the same thing that Bryan did. I think we should make a motion to table it. We should also have the City Attorney look at it and maybe Bryan could just outline what he's been scribbling over there because I think we can impose the 50 foot easement but I think we should get a legal opinion on that because that's going to make it real simple for them. Batzli moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission table this matter in order for the Wests ide Baptist Church to determine whether they want to rearrange their site plan and also move that the staff has the City Attorney review whether a 50 foot setback is required in the RR district in this case and the setback is defined as a roadway easement. The definition of easement includes both public and privately held rights. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Olsen: And just for the record, we did not have a current address for them. I had to call somebody to get their reports to them. I've talked with them by phone. - Dacy: The point being that what he represented is not exactly true as to when he received that report. I L, I~ PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 76.5 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS OF 66.5 AND 10 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES, AND LOCATED AT 775 WEST 96TH STREET, TIM ERHART. Public Present: Karen Hasse 630 West 96th Street Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Conrad: It's hard for me to understand the 30 and 60 foot easement Jo Ann. If you could graphicly help us. - Olsen: It's in the rural area so any roadway easement right-of-way would have to be 60 feet. We did obtain 30 feet when the Worm property came through, the Jeurissen and Worm property so what we are requesting from the applicant is the additional 30 feet that would be necessary to provide us with the 60 foot and it would jog up. Typically you would want it to continue straight across. What we're saying is that these properties, the only time you can acquire that right-of-way easement is when the property is platted and these two pieces of property can not be subdivided until Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 12 e sewer and water is available so if, in the future, this property is subdivided, we do need a street access to Flintlock Trail, you would have to acquire 30 feet is you don't have the...on the Erhart side. Conrad: Who would have to acquire it? Olsen: The City. Conrad: And that road would benefit them because they would be subdividing? Why would that road benefit them? Olsen: If these properties subdivided when sewer and water was in, then they could... Conrad: We could get the other 30 feet but until they do, all we can do is...them and the City would pay for them? Olsen: Right. If the subject property, since it has so much acreage, this could subdivide before sewer and water and if it is found that a street to here is necessary to connect it up to this property, the street improvement would benefit the Worm property. e Conrad: If he wants to subdivide the property to the north, we can force him to provide the additional easement at that time? Olsen: Right. Conrad: We're not locked out of it? If he is wanting to develop and the neighbors to the south are not, we can get our full 60 feet if we want to? If he subdivides. Right now he's only wanting to give the 30 because he's obviously not interested in subdividing. I don't know if it's not obvious but he's not interested. He's not trying to give up more than he needs to. Olsen: Right. It's usually the road is split. Conrad: Right, because it is benefit to both sides. I guess I just want to make sure that we're not locked out. The City is not locked out of getting additional right-of-way. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Karen Hasse, 630 West 96th Street: When you talk about easement for the roadway, does that also mean an easement for any trailway system would be delayed until subdivision can take place on that present acreage? Olsen: They're two different subjects actually. What the Park and Rec Commission did decide not to require any trail easements at this time e either until the property is subdivided. Tim Erhart: I'd like to make my presentation. I just wanted to repeat for anybody here, the purpose of the subdivision is only because, we Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 13 e bought the property on a contract for deed 8 years ago and the balloon payment is due in April which requires us to get a mortgage. Today, with the foreclosure laws that the State of Minnesota passed a couple years ago, banks will not provide mortgages on any piece of property over 10 acres in size because they can not foreclose on it. So what we've had to do, just apply for a mortgage is to go through the subdivision process which is what this is. To carve out the area around the house of 9.9 acres so when we go in to apply for a mortgage, we have to show them a house and less than 10 acres. We have no intenion of subdividing or selling the 10 acres or anything at this time. We're simply following the rules that the State and mortgage companies have provided. I agree with the comments that you had Ladd on that easement. I think either us or any of the neighbors on West 96th Street really particularly want a street extended beyond where it is so I don't think anybody is saying they want it. I think it's logical at this time, as long as we're doing this process, to pick up the 30 feet which is traditional where there could be someday I suppose a street when sewer and water comes in. I think that makes perfect sense. If someday somebody wanted to go in and subdivide the whole thing, they would put a whole pattern of streets in there that would be somewhat in line with that in mind to build... along the street property. e Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Emmings: I guess I would be in favor of there being a 30 foot easement from the east property line over as far as Flintlock Trail. I guess it makes sense to me to pick that up at this time not knowing what's going to happen in the future so at least we've got that much because it looks like a natural connection. The only thing I'm wondering about is if it shouldn't go all the way down to that Homestead Way so that whole think potentially would be looped but I guess for now, I don't see any reason to do a 60 foot easement. I think if we have 30 feet down the trail that's good enough. That's all I've got. Batzli: Did we get the amended plat? Did your condition 2 disappear that you used to have? Olsen: No, we don't have the amended plat. Batzli: I agree basically with what Steve said. I agree that we should get a 30 foot easement and up to Flintlock Trail seems appropriate and we'll be able to hook back in. Wildermuth: Staff recommendations look appropriate. Headla: Appropriate. e Conrad: Me too. Any motion? L Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 14 e wildermuth moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #88-18 to plat one l0 acre parcel and maintain a 66.5 acre parcel as a metes and bounds description with the following conditions: 1. The applicant provide an amended plat creating Parcel A (10 acres) as Lot 1 and maintaing Parcel B (66.5 acres) as a metes and bounds description. 2. The applicant provide at least a 30 foot roadway easement along the southerly property line up to Flintlock Trail. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GARDEN CENTER ON 3.7 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED BH, HIGHWAY BUSINESS AND LOCATED ON WEST 78TH STREET JUST WEST OF REDMOND PRODUCTS, JAY KRONICK, AND WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GARDEN CENTER AND HOLDING POND WITHIN A CLASS B WETLAND ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, HIGHWAY BUSINESS AND LOCATED ON WEST 78TH STREET JUST WEST OF REDMOND PRODUCTS, JAY KRONICK AND CITY OF CHANHASSEN. e Public Present: Name Address Jay Kronick Gene F. Ernst Applicant 122 West 6th Street, Chaska Barbara Dacy presented the staff report. - Jay Kronick: I'm the applicant, Jay Kronick. I'll start out by saying that most of the changes to the existing site plan that staff is recommending... The berm along the parking area with the hedge would need some cuts in there that...access to the parking lot. ...I'd also like to mention that I've agree to provide a screen where the mulch and bags of fertilizer will be stored. The plan does not show that presently. There is an additional impact...across the railroad tracks. That would take the form either of some kind of fence right next to the building...would rest between the screen... A couple of minor changes from what I have shown on the site plan. The exterior lighting as proposed, there's one high sodium fixture proposed. Otherwise I've proposed some soffit lighting along the front which is directed straight down, medium intensity. The gravel road which back from the parking area to the north is to be constructed by the City primarily for access to the storm water pond to be constructed back there. I've discussed with the engineering staff the appropriateness of using that for my own business use and not for customer use and I don't think the plan mentioned that. I included... I also am concerned with the traffic and the appearance of the site. I chose to locate in Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 15 e e Chanhassen rather than other areas because I like the nature of the town. I want to be a part of it and I want my business to grow and prosper and to do that it's going to have to be... I do intend that the business will grow. That's why half the property is left vacant at this point. That's why I bought a parcel of this size, or am planning to buy a parcel of this size rather than one of half the size because my future needs will...of this size. I've got a plan to grow. Otherwise it wouldn't make a lot of business sense. I enjoy the nursery business. It's fun but I'm also here to make a living. The site is intended to handle what I anticipate will be a reasonable volume of use for the first few years. Unfortunately I can't be more specific than that. I don't know how fast the business is going to grow. I can give some projections based on...but the site as designed is adequate for initial and the first few years. I have a tough time agreeing to a review of the screening after the one year. That's really the only problem I've got with this. You see my plan. I think it's reasonably clear as to where I want to store materials and what type of materials and I would just assume that we proceed carefully at this point and say these are the things that need to be done to effectively screen in and then come back several years down the road when I go to expand to the other side of the property and need to apply for whatever permit or conditional use that you need at that time for the expansion and that seems to be the appropriate time for review. I'm submitting my initial facilities to what you see on the plan. It seems to me that a fair deal ought to be to impose the conditions now rather than to come back a year later after I'm in business and comply with that. I view that as a little unfair. I'm willing to work on making it real nice. Headla moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla: Would this be a year round operation? Jay Kronick: I would be open for business year round, yes. Headla: It seems to me I got hung up on one thing. I remember when the Chanhassen Lawn and Sports were in here, we severely limited them on outdoor sales. The last time we reviewed SuperAmerica, we restricted their outdoor sales. I think we've got to follow and be consistent in our policy and say, outdoor sales we don't do here. I don't know how far to restrict that. Now maybe it's bigger berms. More trees around the sides. I think we've got to do something like that to be consistent. Bernie, if he put big berms, could he go ahead and have some tracters and lawn mowers outside. I think we really restricted his business. I think what we did was right but I think we also have to be consistent. Conrad: Barbara, can you compare the situations for us? e Dacy: Sure. The SuperAmerica site is located in the Neighborhood Business district which has a different intent and a different goal rather than the Business Highway District. Bernie Hanson's proposal was in the Business Highway District. Council did allow outdoor display of I think we established 12 tracters and 14 lawn mowers so there was a limited Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 16 e amount of outdoor display. Again, with this use, the garden center is the nature of the use. They're not advertising, he's not displaying pots and garden clippers. He's displaying plants that need to be outside. Our recommendations for the screening were aimed at trying to just screen the structure's use to support the plans and the pots that they're located in because there are going to be a series of arborvitaes. There are going to be a series of evergreen trees. Not necessarily use trees to screen the trees. Batzli: Didn't we distinquish though between outdoor display and outdoor sales in Chanhassen Lawn and Sports? He could display them but there were no outdoor sales allowed? Headla: We had a discussion on where do you draw the line. Dacy: That's correct. Brian's correct that we allowed the outdoor display and that is consistent with this application. The sales building is for the actual transactions and that's the same thing we did with Bernie. Batzli: But we're not making it a condition here. For instance, Frank's has an outdoor booth that during peak periods they have a couple cashiers out in the backyard and they start ringing up sales out there. Are we going to let them do that in this one? e Dacy: The application that was submitted, by indicating the sales building, I had assumed that the register is within the building and if you want to clarify that for the record, you can add that as a condition. You might want to clarify with the applicant if there's actually going to be an outdoor booth. Jay Kronick: I have no intention of selling material outside. It would be brought in or a receipt would be brought in and all transactions would be rung up inside at all times. That's essential. Headla: I think the business is appropriate. I'd like to see it be in here. The rest of it I like. It's just, I don't know. Are we in conflict with some of the others? Should we put in a higher berm? You left it at 2 feet. I guess I would have felt much better and it may hurt business if we raise it to like 3 feet or make it... As you're driving by in the car, I don't think you'd see all those tables or do you have some information on the 2 feet that they wouldn't see that? Dacy: A berm along the front is 2 feet and they will be planting materials on top of that. The Commission, it's within your pervue, if you want to require a higher berm. e Headla: I suspect you've done some background work on it, that's why I was asking that. Just to bring that out. Okay, that's all I have. Wildermuth: The question I have, item 6 sanitary sewer service shall have a sand trap prior to discharging into the public sanitary sewer system. What's that about? Is that in the storm sewer? Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 17 e Dacy: I know it's not the storm sewer and Larry, that's the one question I forgot to ask him but he obviously feels that it's necessary and it's an engineering detail that they have to address. Wildermuth: It doesn't sound logical. I think the staff has done a very good job of addressing the issues here. I think they put together a good analytical report. I have no further questions. Batzli: I guess just reading Larry's report, he does talk about it in his sanitary sewer section. The second paragraph of that section. I don't know why they'd need it either. I'm assuming they're not taking all their water from their outdoor water and putting it in the sanitary sewer but anyway. I was kind of looking at this and I just pictured Frank's at peak seasons and I don't think the parking lot is going to hold everybody who is there buying all their fertilizer and stuff and my question was really, I assume you calculated the number of parking spots by the square footage or whatever your formula is. Is that right? Dacy: Right. 18 spaces is being proposed and we talked about that with the applicant. We used the greenhouse area and came up with some type of ratio on the outdoor display area. Garden center use is not specified by ordinance. There's a section in the ordinance that allows the City Planner to review what's being proposed and make a determination and we felt that the 18 would be appropriate. e Batzli: there? Is there going to be parking allowed on West 78th street right Dacy: No. The advantage to the site is that they do have the ability to expand to the east and add on another tier or parking directly to the east. Batzli: I guess I feel that 18 probably won't be satisfactory if his business takes off at all and I'd like to see more spots if possible. I assume the pylon sign meets all of our signage requirements? Dacy: Correct. Batzli: Are we going to see this again as some sort of, you'll see it again as part of the building process? Dacy: That's correct. Batzli: But a building this square footage normally wouldn't require a sprinkler system? Dacy: That's correct. e Batzli: Even though it may have flammable weed killers and other things stored inside? Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 18 e Dacy: That's correct. According to the UBC and their classification on this building and it's occupancy. Batzli: I guess I'd like to see the Public Safety Director take a look both at what mayor may not be stored within the sales building and also what the water useage of this place will be during water shortages because I assume they would be exempted from watering bans. I also had the same concern about differentiating between outdoor sales and displays. I think if we limit some applicants by specifying that they can't perform outdoor sales rather than displays, we should be somewhat consistent. Conrad: So you want the trees inside? Batzli: No, I didn't say that. They can display them all they want out there but they're not going to set up cash registers outside. e Emmings: Condition 4, I agree with the applicant's statement that, I think we ought to do it now. We ought to look at this thing and figure out what's going to be adequate. Tell him he has to do it. I think it's always hard to go back a year later and tell him he's got to do more. Especially if his screening involves plants that aren't going to have grown to their full height in a year. I can see you want to leave the door open a little bit but if that's the case, if we're going to leave this in than I think it's got to be rewritten because all it says is the site will be reviewed in a year and it doesn't say what you'll do if you deem it to be inadequate. If it's going to be left in, I changed it just to read that the screening of the site shall be reviewed in one year and if the City determines that the screening is not adequate, the applicant shall be required to do additional screening. Make it say something. If that's what you mean to say, then let's say it that way but on the other hand like I say, I'd be inclined to say let's evaluate the plan and then just impose it now and take number 4 out all together. Conrad: Let's follow that up. What's the concern that we don't have the right screening right now or what's going to change in a year that we can't anticipate? Obviously we don't know everything but what are you thinking Barbara? Dacy: I think maybe Steve described it the best as far as to leave the door open to make sure that the greenhouse is screened. To make sure that the display area is properly contained. What the applicant has suggested is that instead of number 4 that you put in a condition that says the conditional use permit shall be required prior to expansion of the use. If you want to go the route of approving the plan with the conditions as is and making it clear that if he wants to come back and expand the conditional use permit is required at that time. Emmings: Won't that be the case anyway? e Dacy: Yes. I'm just offering that just to make it clear. Conrad: Restating what is required so the applicant understands. Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 19 e Emmings: Is it clear that, you mentioned Shorewood Nursery and I guess I agree. This looks to me like that type of operation and I spend a lot of time over at Shorewood... As far as you mentioned that they have trucks and a design business and so forth. It's kind of, almost a contractor's yard type of use. This could not be used that way I take it? Dacy: If it's a contractor's yard, no. Emmings: But let's say, if they do have trucks and Bobcats and so forth for doing plantings, I'm assuming that they can't be parked there? Dacy: That's not what's being proposed, correct? Jay Kronick: It's not being proposed but I would ask the question, what is the limit on the size truck that I might have? I propose a truck for a vehicle, a small pick-up truck. Where do you wish to draw the line? I will need a forklift for my business. I don't anticipate needing a Bobcat but if I decide to get into the landscaping contracter's business, I'll move that operation off somewhere else where it's suitable. This is a retail facility. Emmings: What you're asking me is what is the limit? I don't know. What is the limit? What would he be allowed to do here and not do? e Dacy: He's got to be able to do the things that he needs to do to move the materials in and out. The vehicles that he has described are not vehicles that would be involved in a contracter's yard. Jay Kronick: If I could add one thing, I anticipate the possibility of landscape contracter's bringing their trucks in and buying materials from me or truck traffic would come into the site. Emmings: I don't see any problem with that. And it's clear that if you wanted to expand this onto this area that's marked future expansion, which is the lot that's in the lOP, anything you wanted to do over there, he'd have to come back to the Planning Commission and the City Council? Dacy: That's correct. Emmings: Now this is a big open field out here and what if he does use it for storage? If he ever needs storage, it's going to be an obvious easy place to go to put it. Dacy: Your conditional use permit is based on approval of this plan and he's only showing the display on the north and south side of the building and that's all that would be permitted. e Emmings: Okay. You went through this analysis with the traffic and you came up with this 1,100 ADT figure which you thought was real high. If it were that high, would everything be adequate then? You could handle that? Dacy: It's hard for me not to say that because what there's not out there is any, trip generation analysis is different than a parking demand Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 20 e analysis and you could have trips coming in, staying for 5 minutes and leaving. 18 parking spaces could be adequate for the length of stay. I can't answer your question as to if 18 spaces is adequate for 1,100 ADT. Emmings: From what I observed, again over at Shorewood, I think it might be adequate. If the use of this is going to be similar to what's over at Shorewood, I think it's adequate. Dacy: Shorewood, I don't think there's even close to 18 spaces there. It's just a gravel driveway off the road and... Emmings: I don't think I've ever seen 18 cars in there at one time. The part that's in the lOP, there's no chance that could be broken off separately or sold for some other use or something like that? Dacy: It's the applicant's intent, he has bought the entire property. He wants both sides for his use. They are separately described so he could, if he so chooses, to sell off the lOP parcel. Emmings: If something like that would happen, would the setbacks be appropriate? e Dacy: The ordinance would allow for a joint parking situation. Joint parking lot situation and I think that would happen in this case. Emmings: And the setbacks as far as the buildings are concerned would be alright is that, for whatever reason would become a separate parcel? Dacy: In the lOP District, it's 30 foot front setback and the side setback is the same, so there's no change there. The lOP parcel can accomodate some type of small industrial office. Emmings: Are we looking at the alteration permit now? Conrad: We really haven't. Emmings: I like the fact that the staff report puts in the 12 points from the conditional use permit and analyzes this thing based on those 12 points. I think we ought to do that all the time. I think it's probably a lot of work but I think it's a real good approach to do that because it really waxes it. You know exactly where you're coming from. I don't have any qualms about the outside display but I think there's something to be said for being consistent in talking about the restricting of sales. I don't think this is similar to storing pop cans outside of a SuperAmerica or even lawn mowers... Erhart: The gate is intended for what, securing it at night? e Jay Kronick: Yes. Erhart: So the gate's not part of the business during the operating hours? Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 21 e Jay Kronick: It will be left open during the... Erhart: Then there's no fencing around. The gate is simply to prevent people from using your parking lot at night? Okay, in the wintertime what, you say you're going to be open year round, what are you going to sell? Jay Kronick: Bird supplies. Food and feeders. Christmas in season. January and February I'm going to take a vacation. I would not want to close off the option of operating year round but I may close for a few weeks in the winter months. Erhart: I assume you're going to sell Christmas trees? Jay Kronick: Yes. Erhart: I think it's a good plan. I also wanted to comment on the format of staff's presentation. It's really helpful to get this down. Conrad: It is. socket lighting? The socket lighting. Do we have any problem with the Is it soffit or socket? Oacy: Soffit. e Conrad: What do we need to do in terms of the applicant's request for use of the gravel road back through? Oacy: I think that we could work with him on that. The only issue that I want to resolve about having the general public using the road is only for a liability standpoint and I'm sure we can come to some type of agreement. Either a yes or a no. It is agreed that the City will be constructing a gravel road and we should look at the liability issues. Conrad: I don't know what to do with the screening issue with 4. I don't know how to define that. I think the applicant should know what we're thinking about and if we can't define what we might be looking for, I guess my preference is to eliminate it although I do appreciate staff's comments because we don't really know what we're doing in terms of screening the whole site. We don't know what it's really going to look like until it goes up. But on the other hand, I don't know that you can hang this over his head so whoever makes the motion, you've got to deal with condition 4. I think we need some clarification on condition 6 because I don't have a clue what that means. wildermuth: In reading Larry's report, I understand what that's all about. That's the sedimentation and dirt. Conrad: The natural run-off from the garden center. e Wildermuth: This is strictly the sanitary sewer system. It's a real sand trap to keep dirt from getting into the sanitary sewer system. Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 22 e Conrad: Okay. And I think the condition of no outside registers should be dealt with. The owners of the properties to the east and west were notified of this public hearing? And they're not here? I have no other questions on this. Is there a motion? Headla: Was this one sodium light going to be? Is that the one on the building? Dacy: Yes. That will be located on the doors. Emmings: Illl move the the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #88-13 based on the Site plan stamped "Received July 26, 1988" with the staff conditions 1 through 12 except striking out 4. Deleting number 4. I guess in place of number 4, just to keep the numbering neat weIll put in a condition that says that there will be no outside sales of merchandies as opposed to outside display of merchandise and to clarify that the sales transaction will take place within the building just as the applicant said was his intent to do. lId also like to condition approval, lId like to add a 13 that says that he shall also comply with all conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit, assuming it's granted to him. Just to tie again those approvals together. Dacy: Is that going beyond condition 2? e Emmings: I'm sorry, did I miss something there? Batzli: That's approval not compliance. Emmings: I want compliance with the conditions so I guess what lId do there Barb is, instead of having a 13, let's alter 2 to say, compliance with the conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-8. Batzli: Approval and compliance? Emmings: saying. If he gets approval then he's got to comply. It hasn't been approved yet. I see what youlre Batzli: Correct. Emmings: Let's do it that way. Headla: Second. Batzli: I guess I would like to see the Public Safety Director take a look at the intended use of materials that will be stored in the building to determine if sprinkling will be required. e Emmings: Do we have to have that as a condition or is that something you can just do? Conrad: That can be a directive to staff before it gets to City Council. If the use of this site exceeds the expectation of 18 parking stalls, the applicant obviously will, more than likely will use the rest of the land Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 23 e to east. If that gets incorporated into the same business, will we have an opportunity to review the screening and all other issues on this particular parcel? If all of a sudden he comes back and he starts putting parking on the property to the east, will we be able to review the site plan as we look at it or the current site and enforce any additional conditions at that time? Dacy: Yes. We did that with the Lyman Lumber application because it would be part of the total site so I'd say yes. Conrad: If the building, if he chooses to sell that parcel off and sales and parking requirements, if he chooses to build a bigger building, I think I've answered my own question. Emmings: Tell us what the answer is. Conrad: Yes. Batzli: If the gate is closed at night and there is an emergency requiring people to get into the building, how are they going to do that? Dacy: The Public Safety Director and the Fire Chief reviewed that issue. What they suggested is that it be locked by chain and lock because they have cutters in their truck to cut through a chain so that was reviewed specifically. e Batzli: I was surprised that Dave didn't ask his question of will we need more equipment. We've got the bolt cutters already. Headla: I've got a question on the parking lot. You always talk about curbing and sometimes you put concrete curbing and sometimes blacktop and now it isn't discussed. Dacy: The plan does indicate concrete curbing around the edge of the parking area so that's a standard condition. Emmings moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-13 based on the site plan stamped "Received July 26, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: 1. Installation of a 6 foot evergreen screen along the south, west and north walls of the greenhouse and installation of a 2 foot hedge along the east side of the display area in front of the sales building. 2. Approval and compliance with Wetland Alteration Permit Request #88-8. e 3. The applicant shall file a plat application in conjunction with the City of Chanhassen to reserve the necessary utility easements and to properly convey the northerly portion of the site to the City. 4. There shall be no outside sales of merchandise as opposed to outside display of merchandise. Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 24 e 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the installation of these public improvements. 6. The sanitary sewer service shall have a sand trap prior to discharging into the public sanitary sewer system. 7. Details for the installation and connection of the sanitary sewer and water services shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to final approval. 8. A check valve shall be installed on the sanitary sewer service prior to discharge into the public sanitary sewer system. 9. The proposed utility easements shall be revised to include a 40 foot wide utility easement which shall cover all of the existing and proposed utilities. 10. A revised grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval as part of the final review process. e 11. The proposed water service connection shall be "wet tapped" in accordance with the latest published version for the Standard Specifications for utility Installation from the American Water Works Association (AWWA). 12. Details for the service connection to the 10 inch diameter watermain should be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to final approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT. Dacy: This is a joint application between the City and the applicant. The storm water management plan that was done for the City by our engineer identified the need for a storage pond in this area and upon reviewing the site, we've been able to work with the applicant to create a storm water facility in the northerly 1.6 acres of the site. We've already received the Armey Corps approval permit and now we're going through the Alteration Permit to comply with our own ordinance requirements. Jim Leech inspected the site last May. We are conforming to the standard 6 conditions of the u.S. Fish and wildlife Service. Staff is recommending approval. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. e Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 25 e Emmings: I changed number 1 to read, compliance with the conditions of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-13. Conrad: Anything else? Is there a motion? Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #88-8 based on the plans stamped "Received July 26, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with conditions of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-13. 2. Compliance with the Army Corps of Engineer's conditions of approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTORS YARD ON 39 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES AND LOCATED ON HWY 212, JUST WEST OF THE ASSUMPTION SEMINARY SITE, HARRY LINDBERY. e Public Present: Name Address Shirley Brewer Everett Olson Harry Lindbery City of Chaska 2675 Flying Cloud Drive Hopkins, MN Barbara Dacy presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Harry Lindbery: I got a copy of a letter sent to the City and...crossing on that creek, two areas that he had 14 inch culvert. It ran over the center lines...I have those sitting there just waiting for the okay for a permit to build that road in there. We were going to go ahead and then Barbara Dacy says well, hold up until you get your permits so they're sitting there waiting to be installed. Conrad: Have you reviewed the staff report? Have you looked at the staff report and the conditions? Any comments on the conditions? Harry Lindbery: No. e Conrad: Okay, good. Thank you. I'm sure we'll have questions. Now we'll open it up to others. Any comments? Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 26 e Everett Olson: I live right across the road from him. That road that goes down in back and... You've trucks and cars going in and out, what kind of a dust mess are you going to have then? We're the only ones along there that take care of it anyway so are we going to make something nicer or are we going to make something more like the Seminary? You know what the Seminary looks like? We don't need another trashcan like that. Conrad: Sir, the staff report said that it was a recommendation that it be an asphalt drive going back. Everett Olson: What hours? Conrad: So it's not a dirt road. Everett Olson: Well, the way it was stated. That's what she read. Dacy: I said the applicant is proposing gravel. The staff recommendation is that they pave it. Everett Olson: the day right? And what hours will the trucks be going in all hours of Are they big trucks or little trucks? e Harry Lindbery: We have a large Catepillar. A large...but that would be very minimal. I would say our traffic would be less than what is done out there now. It would...out there right now today. Conrad: The staff report is saying the hours of operation would be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.. Everett Olson: That field that's on this side of the trees...what's that going to be? Is that eventually going to be a junkyard? There's an old grain drill there and there's old sheds and some dead trees. Harry Lindbery: We're planning to clean that up but I haven't touched anything. We haven't even removed the...until we get the okay to go ahead and do it. Everett Olson: I'm asking about that field there. Harry Lindbery: There was a man that wanted to take and rent that to put soybeans in there. Everett Olson: I mean you won't be storing equipment there? Harry Lindbery: No. Everett Olson: You'll be, everything will be in back of that tree line? e Harry Lindbery: Now 10 or 20 years down the road if we wanted to do something different, we'd come back and ask the Planning Commission to change it. I have over 40 acres there but I can't look down the road 10 or 20 years ahead if we want to do something different. Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 27 e Conrad: Anything else? Any other comments? Shirley Brewer: I'm Shirley Bewer from the City of Chaska. Fortunately you're staff... I just want to reiterate some of the things that I...in terms of...and it is a straight shot right down onto this contractor's area. We share... As far as the screening goes, Barb is absolutely correct that...I would just want to encourage you to screen the best possible... I want to share with you some of the things we are experiencing with traffic on the highway. That is a most dangerous situation going out of two curves and we do have a trucking firm located to the south of that area. There are a minimum amount of trucks that come in and out of that site and basically there is movement at all hours ...sugar haulers... Even with that we've had...fortunately no accidents even though they are very slow pieces of equipment and they're moving into and leaving the site... The trucking facility that was approved in Chaska, we allow only right-in and right-out turns so we wouldn't have trucks stopping and crossing through the...and I think that's probably one of the reasons... I would question... Dacy: I did visit with him at his site in Hopkins. I did not talk to any of the officials at the City. Shirley Brewer: On your on-site inspections, did you... e Dacy: Currently he's operating his business out of his home as well as having other satellite facilities at other industrial parks. Shirley Brewer: me. ...we understand the need for contractors yards, believe Conrad: I want to thank you for coming here and while you're here, the part of Chaska that overlooks this, tell me about what's developing there. Shirley Brewer: It's a combination. We have a concept plan. The person who purchased the acreage purchased 350 acres. The concept plan that was shown was a combination of commercial and primarily residential. ...residential proposed in...depending upon where the subdivision is. Conrad: As it abuts up to the Hesse Farm property, what is going there? Property lot sizes are what? Shirley Brewer: We have a proposal for 5 acre sites... I can't assure that that's going to happen. We don't have the large acreage lots... successful with the development just north of that site has 4 to 7 acre lots and they've been for sale for 3 to 4 years with only one sale. That developer...came back with a replat which sold out in the first year with the lots... e Conrad: I appreciate that and I thank you for your update. Just sharing some concern that I've had when we saw what was going next to Hesse Farms many, and I don't know how many months ago but it didn't look in sync with what Chanhassen had and maybe we'll never get anything in sync with what is there but it seemed way out of sync at the time when we looked at it I I I , ~ Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 28 Ie but it wasn't close. I take this opportunity. I thank you for coming and sharing your thoughts but I guess I also take a chance to say, we want to be a good neighborhood and sync in things with you but we also like you to do the same with us. What I saw first proposed certainly was not. Erhart moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart: I've been quiet tonight saving myself for the next two issues. Thank goodness it's still early enough to breathe some fire. Let me ask a question here first. Am I someplace else or is this an A-2 district? Dacy: This is an A-2 district. e Erhart: Thank you. I guess what scares me the most about this, and I tell you the timing is great because I had the opportunity to go through all the old Council meeting Minutes of 1984. Two things. One that scares me, that this proposal, rather than here could be right next door to me and we could be having the same meeting and could be looking at an industrial project right next door to an area where I've put a tremendous amount of effort to make it rural and residential. Secondly, going back to 1984 where we adopted for the first time in recent history where we even allowed contractors yards, you look at the spirit of the discussion and basically the reason they passed it, the reason they incorporated the contractor's yard was to allow the small guy who worked out of his house with maybe a truck, to continue that use and not be non-conforming unless I read it wrong. Maybe that's what I wanted to read but that's the way I read it and so we passed the contractors yard ordinance. I look at this, this reflects I guess the last stage in a pattern of proposals we've seen in contractors yards. The next step obviously is a contractor complex. It's the next logical proposal to see. Read it. The A-2 district. The intent statement is for preservation of rural character while respecting the development patterns by allowing single family residential development. I think you know what, I could talk on this for 20 mintues and I'd just be saying it allover again. I guess the next step is something that I read very interesting on page 10 of the Minutes where Scott Martin is talking about, what does a conditional use permit mean? I guess being on the Commission now for over 2 years or something, I guess I've always been sort of under the impression that when something comes in for a conditional use permit and it meets all of the requirements that we've stated, then somehow you have to pass it through because I don't think we've ever turned one down. Now I see where a discussion takes place where that may in fact not be the case. In fact the Commissioners and the Council decided that if everything just doesn't fit and they don't want it, that we can turn it down. That relates back to the comments when we passed this ordinance that we can allow contractor's yards. They readily admit and it appears that they all agree that in someplaces in the A-2 area, even despite we may be trying to protect the little guy from not forcing him out of town, there are some areas that do not lend themselves to contractor's yards and the way we're protected there is that we have this conditional use permit that we as Commissioners if we decide that this is not this is not the appropriate place for this, e Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 29 e we can vote it down. The question I have, is that the way other commissioners see the conditional use permit procedure? Is that the way staff sees it? Dacy: Yes. If the Commission wants to recommend denial, if you feel that the location is inappropriate for whatever amount of reasons or facts that you can determine, you have that right. That's exactly what a conditional use is. Erhart: Any comments on that? Is that the way you see it Ladd in terms of the Chairman? e Conrad: We'd like to think that we have been wise enough to determine what those conditions are in advance so it forecasts to the potential developer what we're looking for so we don't waste their time exploring something that may not fit and typically when we put something into a conditional use permit, I don't think we spend enough time thinking of those conditions. We charter staff. We have staff to do it but I don't think we really, and maybe we're not smart enough to think of all situations but I think we kind of put it on staff's shoulder to think about it and maybe that's not appropriate. It is conditioned on things that we're looking for and I think legally speaking, an applicant could go back to those conditions that are satisfied in any other case. Yet on the other hand, if we're looking for a certain type of development and it's kind of clear based on those conditions what we're looking at, then I think we can vote it down. You need to hang your hat on something if you vote it down. Erhart: I think the problem here is, and I don't want to start getting into the next agenda but the problem is you've got an intent statement for a district here. You have a use that we're allowing that is incompatible with that so what we've tried to do is put together a list of conditions. The fact is, no matter how many conditions you put in, it doesn't fit and I think I'll stop there before we get into the next discussion but I think that's the problem we have. I'll stop there and let me get into this specific proposal. I know the area well. I was down there again today. Simply you start out with Hesse Farms and those people paid a tremendous amount of money, a lot of money and I assume people in your development are paying a lot of money for this view of this valley. It's putting an industrial use in there just is not compatible. I wish I would have taken the time to make some calls to some of those people. I would have liked to have seen more comments here tonight from the neighbors. The question is are they far enough away, so far that they didn't get notified? Dacy: The folks in Hesse Farm were notified because the boundary of the parcel goes all the way up to the railroad tracks. e Erhart: The second thing is, we do have an industrial area right next door. If you really think this is an appropriate use, I hope you agree with me, let's just change this to BF. It certainly doesn't fit with the A-2. Again, I think we're going to end up with utility poles and storage just like, this isn't a little guy in the house working out of his garage anymore. These things all evolve. This one has evolved and he's Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 30 e starting... The nature of any business is to grow. It has to grow and this is going to grow just like all the other contractor's yards and the City can't run down there every year with a Polaroid camera and determine well, you grew and therefore you're fitting the conditional use permit. It's unrealistic. I also agree that it's a very dangerous system situation down there. The area does not have the access roads for a large amount of traffic going in. That's one of the reasons why we zoned it agricultural and low density residential. I would just hope that the Commission would agree with me that it's an inappropriate use. Even if it's allowed in a district, that's inappropriate for this particular area. Conrad: Because it's too big. Erhart: It does not fit at all with, if we're looking at specifically for the area, it's too big for the intent of our ordinance which I hope we change tonight. It just doesn't fit with the residential character of the area. Conrad: But it's permitted. e Erhart: That's what I was trying to get at. I think it's allowed if we think it fits with the area and I think we should be exercising our right and our responsibility to eliminate intrusions and not to allow intrusions and this is an intrusion. It's agricultural low density residential area. It's without a doubt an intrusion. Whether or not we change the ordinance tonight, it's just common sense. This does not fit. It's an agricultural low density residential. e Emmings: I'm a little ambivalent about not having any contractor's yards in the A-2. It doesn't offend me as much as it offends Tim because I think it's kind of is a natural kind of rural use. It sure isn't a residential situation. ...trucks in a residential area and I guess you could say we're going to restrict them to the industrial areas but that's not really appropriate either because if I've got a business like a lot of these contractor's yard folks do, they're not at home. They leave with all their stuff in the morning and they come back with all their stuff at night and they're not really running a business and just to store their machinery and some of the things that they use, it seems reasonable they should be able to do that on their property when they've got a big piece of property. I thought what we did before in allowing them into the A-2, part of the reason was to get a whole bunch of non-conforming uses at least pigeon holed someplace. It seems to me that's what we were doing. The guy who's a small operater who's living in a rural area, let him store his stuff there. This plan seems to be a much larger scale and I don't like it but I don't know where the dividing line is. That's the hard part for me and I don't really have anything to offer. I guess when I look at this, to me it seems to me the scale is too large for that area. I did not drive down to see this property and I wish I had but I didn't. On paper it's a beautiful piece of property. It doesn't really seem appropriate. There are all kinds of houses up on the bluff there looking down into a 6 foot fence isn't going to make any difference so I don't like this proposal. I don't think it's appropriate but like I say, I don't feel like I know what or maybe that's really the next issue here, Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 31 e I don't know how to define the dividing line. Batzli: In looking at this initially I didn't really get the impression that it was too grandiose of scale for this piece of property although I heard from both Tim and Steve that they both felt it was too large and not in place. I guess I'm not sure on that. I kind of had viewed the idea here of, it's in writing. It meets requirements that have been set and in theory the law is supposed to allow people to act reasonably in their dealings and it seems to me that we set the expectation here that if you comply with your criteria, we're not just going to say well, we don't like this. Somebody is going to have a bad view and we're not going to allow it. I'm in favor with modification of several of the conditions for approval of this contractor's yards. That's not to say that I like contractor's yards in the A-2 district but I think we've established that they can go in there at this point. We might try to change that later tonight but right now they are permitted. I think it is somewhat of an unsafe condition however. If you're going to be hauling telephone poles onto this site, you're going to need one heck of a long left hand turn lane to get it out of the traffic. That's the concern I have as well as I think we should assert our somewhat standard language about having a pumper contract on the holding tank. e Wildermuth: I definitely agree with the pumping contract on 9. I don't see legally how we can turn it down at this point. If it would come in next month, we probably could. I guess if you had to envision a contractor's yard, this one would be one to fully screen naturally. Almost in the center of a large parcel of land. I guess we're a little late with our ordinance. Headla: I had a question for the owner. Were you going to bury the diesel oil tank? Harry Lindbery: Yes. We were thinking of it. If we would comply with the Codes, the fire Codes and the State of Minnesota and contact... It would be just for our use. It wouldn't be for sale or anything. One man asked about poles. Well, the only time we would bring in a load is if we had to be out at a job site... They would leave right at that time. Normally we load either at a St. Regis of Shakopee... Headla: How big are the tanks you think you'd be putting in? Harry Lindbery: We would try to put in one big enough so we could take advantage of the price on the transport load. I assume that would be about 8,000 to 10,000 gallons. Headla: In 10 years, do you think you'll be burying another one? e Harry Lindbery: No because by taking the whole transport load, you save about 5 cents per gallon and there would no use to put in another one as long as it would suffice. Headla: So you'd want to put in like a 20,000 gallon tank so you can carry a semi load plus some because you aren't going to pump it dry? Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 32 e Harry Lindbery: Normally your price break is about 7,000 to 8,000 gallons so the man in the shop would stick the tank, I'm sure that he could control his...and I think that would probably be 10 days to 2 weeks. It wouldn't be that one would have to come in everyday or anything like that. e Headla: Okay, you answered by question, thanks. When I looked at this I really had a couple of questions. First one was, it's always nice to say no you can't do this or whatever but one of the things, you want to look on the down side of it. If this didn't go in, what could go in or what might be more appropriate? I guess I felt there were many things that could go in that would be much more appropriate. Particularly along agricultural lines. The other thing that I really started asking myself. I don't know if you run into detail, on Resource Engineering and I think it's just a tremendous by Machmeier and Anderson, page 3 to 4. I think they wave just a tremendous flag in front of us. They're talking about burying a diesel fuel tank. They're talking about semis corning in. They're talking about maybe washing them. Trying to contain the diesel fuel and you're always going to be changing or you're going to be working on these vehicles, trying to contain, catching all that in a holding tank. It just doesn't work 100% of the time. Give me 20 years and I'll bet you can go out there and you'll find plenty of polluted water. Not saying that people don't have good intentions. They can have 100% good intentions. You just don't contain all that. On the paper here, it says we've got very porous soil. It's dangerous. We've got a creek running right through there. I just don't see over a period of time how we can control that. I think we're looking for trouble. Primarily on the environmental issue, I don't think this is appropriate. I think we've got to look for more agricultural efforts. Conrad: Other contractor's yards, in terms of the size of this versus the other ones that we have in Chanhassen, how does this compare? Dacy: This proposed application is up to 15 vehicles and that is consistent with the operation that we approved with the Admiral Waste Management site at TH 101 and TH 212. The Merle Volk operation as well as Gardeneer operation is similar. The same number of employees on site. Conrad: To follow up on Dave's comments, how do we control discharge from the trucks? Dacy: The site has been graded and the proposed elevations are such that the run-off is proposed to be directed into the holding tank and the other remaining part of the run-off would be directed into the retention pond. If I take your comments correctly, you're saying that's fine but there may be some things beyond that might occur. Headla: That and the porousity of the soil. Not just run-off but going down also. - Dacy: All I can say to respond to that is that we have worked with the applicant to address those concerns to make sure that the waste water corning out of...holding tank and run-off from the parking lot is going to ~ Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 33 e go to the retention pond and there's a skimmer on that. way I can sit here today and say that there's absolutely has to be designed for the standard, the diesel tank has fire codes. That's just a given in the requirement. There's just no no... The tank to meet all the Conrad: What could this site be used for? Dacy: Other than agricultural activities, it could be resubdivided using the 1 per 10 calculation, we would allow 4 building sites. The list of the other conditional uses, wholesale nursery, cemetery, metal extraction. Conrad: I think the next item on the agenda will resolve the intent. I think my perspective of contractor's yard, I'll take maybe some of Tim's thoughts are really secondary to the primary purpose of living. I think to clarify some of Tim's comments, I don't feel it's appropriate that we're out looking for major commercial development. I always felt that contractor's yards were a support to somebody who had an occupation that was living there. That just had accessory equipment. That's been real clear to me in the last couple weeks or months. Obviously this is not the case that deals with that as a part of the ordinance but in dealing with this one, I'm having a tough time finding a reason to deny. e Emmings: I think what he just said, there's a lot to it. Here's a piece of property that's being purchased for to put this business on it as opposed to someone who's primarily involved in living in a rural situation that this is accessory or secondary. ...a business that requires him to have some machines. Dacy: What you're discussing is really standard number 2. Will it be consistent with the objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and this chapter meaning the Zoning Ordinance. Again, the Commission has the ability to state whatever findings it feels that the application is either consistent or not consistent with what you feel the ordinance is dictating. Conrad: Tim, what else do you want for use? Agricultural? That's not a practical use down there is it? Erhart: That's what it used now. It's farmed. Conrad: right? But we all understand the right to use it for something else So you prefer to have four houses? Erhart: There's farm fields right down in that area right now. Conrad: But in terms of the intensity of use, that's using a very minor portion of the whole property. - Erhart: I don't know that it makes any difference. I can't build a 37 floor tower on my property because it's not allowed and it's incompatible. I don't understand why we have to, if it's not the greatest farming land, whoever bought this property realized it was in the valley and it's likely to be more sandy soil. Fill it with whatever our zoning and our Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 34 e comprehensive plan dictates just like everybody else. Conrad: Any other discussion? Does anybody want to make a motion? Erhart: I'm willing to make a motion that we deny the approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-11 as presented to us. Headla: Second. Emmings: Whatever we do we're going to make sure we layout our reasons? Conrad: We'll have to. Erhart moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-11. All voted in favor of denial except Wildermuth and Batzli who opposed the motion and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Conrad: The conditional use permit is not approved with a 4 to 2 vote. The reason Brian for your nay vote to turning it down? e Batzli: My reasoning is that I think we've got an ordinance on the books that we should stand by it. If we don't like it, we amend it but I don't know that we really have valid reasons to turn this down. All and all I thought it was a pretty good proposal. I had some concerns with it but not enough at this point to reject it. wildermuth: I agree. We have a set of ordinances on the books and basically it looks like a good proposal. It's virtually in the middle of a 40 acre parcel. It's well screened from the highway. It would appear to be appropriate use. Conrad: I'd like to continue on and give the Council reasons for those of us who voted against it. Tim, can you condense your feelings to a few words? Erhart: Again, just an overall feeling that this is not compatible with a rural, really it's become a low density residential area. I also am swayed by a couple new points that were brought up and that it doesn't even meet the intent I think of the original ordinance which was based on having someone who lived at the site use their storage shed or garage. This is not intended...at all. Essentially an office and warehouse building. I think Dave made a great point on the potential pollution. This is an area that's particularly sensitive to pollution but moreover it's the incompatibility with the surrounding uses and what our overall intent of this area is. In both our ordinance and our Comp Plan. - Emmings: I essentially agree with Tim's comments. I guess this is the A-2 and this is not, although we do have an ordinance we have to deal with, this is not a permitted use. It's not a permitted accessory use, it's a conditional use which I think allows us to look at it much more Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 35 e carefully. As far as the standards themselves are concerned, it's clear from reading the history and the approval of contractor's yards at all in the A-2, that we intended to include those people who were living in the rural area and this was sort of a secondary or accessory use of their property rather than being the whole reason for developing the property as this plan seems to be. The scale of this seems to be, to me, still too large. It would be more appropriate to an industrial area. I think the traffic issue is an extremely important reason. The reference to the traffic and as far as aesthetic compatibility, I think is standard 10. With the types of developments that are going on in the Bluff, and just with the general nature of the river valley itself, I don't think this is aesthetically compatible. Conrad: My comments, I think the applicant did a very nice job of working with staff and presenting a good plan and working issues out. I commend him for that. I feel that I have two concerns in terms of traffic problems on TH 212. In terms of the potential pollution problem down there which may be worked out. However it's still, based on my comments before, I feel that it's a greater intensity of use than I anticipated that we could allow in a contractor's yard. I felt that contractor's yards should be a secondary use to that site and commercial businesses should go to our industrial areas. e Headla: I agree with you Ladd. It's a very good proposal and I think they tried hard but if I look at the year 2000 and think of the way it's going to expand and the number of spills that are going to happen and I'm not saying the people aren't trying diligently. You just don't control things 100%. Then the petroleum products that go into the soil and into the water system, the whole area's affected. That really could go over a large area. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTIONS 20-572 AND 20-574 OF THE CITY CODE CONCERNING PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN THE A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Public Present: Name Address J. Hallgren David Stockdale Diane Weeks 6860 Minnewashta 7210 Galpin Blvd. Emmings: Could I ask a question? Are we going to go through these one by one and vote on everyone? e Conrad: I think we have to set direction. Emmings: Can we get done with one at a time? Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 36 e Dacy: Most of the people in the public are here for the contractor's yard issue. This is a public hearing. We had intended on some of these that you could take action on. Emmings: What are they? Dacy: This is a Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Emmings: Yes, so we are going to make a motion whether each one is approved. Dacy: Yes, either approved or leave as is or recommend for further study. Conrad: I suppose we could approve them. I guess my comment reflects, they are conditional use permits and I don't see the conditions. If they're going to be conditional, I don't know what the conditions are yet and therefore I was having a tough time approving any of these tonight. Erhart: I think what Barb said, there were some that are pretty straight forward. Emmings: If we're eliminating things, that's no problem. We can approve them with recommendations that staff bring them back. 4It Olsen: And the ones that we're recommending to add already have conditions. Just generally, what's been suggested is to eliminate contractor's yards, bed and breakfast and mineral extraction from the A-2 District and then to add temporary retail nurseries, churches, recreational beachlots, golf courses, group homes for 7 to 16 persons and public buildings to the A-2. I'll go through the first three that we're recommending be eliminated. The first one is contractor's yards. As Tim Erhart has presented, it was first, the ordinance was a condition to allow for the existing contractor's yards in the rural districts. Staff has gone through some of what would happen if we do remove the contractor's yards so we agreed that they are coming in each time and not necessarily the whole business that they're accomodating on the side. We do hesitate eliminating it from the A-2 district just because then all those existing uses that do have a conditional use would become non-conforming. Conrad: And so what? Olsen: They can not increase their size but if they burnt down or if they closed down for one year, they could not rebuild. Conrad: That has nothing to do with regulation. Being able to regulate. So they become non-conforming, it doesn't restrict our ability to be managing these yards in any degree? Olsen: No. 4It Conrad: In applying the conditions that we had on? I know that staff has never liked non-conforming uses. In this particular case, it sure looks Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 37 e like it's a good alternative. conforming. I don't know why staff doesn't like non- Olsen: First of all, it seems like the intent of the whole ordinance in the first place was to make them so they were no longer non-conforming. Currently they are a conditional use which has specific conditions that you can eliminate those specific conditions from the ordinance. with specific conditions to each site, with that conditional use we don't know if that's... Emmings: Wouldn't they be grandfathered? This is, that would have no regulation on them whatsoever? Olsen: That's what I think. Conrad: I would think that their uses would be frozen. Olsen: They can't expand but whether or not... Emmings: But you have no right to...if you can't impose the conditions we have. e Conrad: There is something to that and I think that is why staff has always told us to make them conditional so you have the regulations because when they're non-conforming you lose control. Emmings: Because we had all those people coming in for conditional use permits at the time because we wanted to give them some control. Batzli: What would happen if we made another condition that it be a secondary use? Olsen: That was one of staff's recommendations. Instead of eliminating them completely, is to come up with more strict conditions and what we were trying to define is that they must be an accessory use. Erhart: I think we have to find out specifically the answer to that question is to what happens if the current use is conforming and we make it non-conforming so specifically what happens? Olsen: Most of the conditions are those standard conditions that we would use. Conrad: Are you totally confident of what you just said? Olsen: The standard is, yes. Batzli: What's the gentleman's name that runs the excavating business? e Emmings: Lowell Carlson. Batzli: Isn't he a non-conforming use? Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 38 e Emmings: No. He never came in for a conditional use permit. He's still non-conforming. Batzli: We've never actually imposed our conditional use? Emmings: We haven't been able to because he's been... Olsen: Evasive. Emmings: He didn't have to apply for a conditional use permit. He was grandfathered in. Headla: He keeps expanding. Olsen: We do have a difficult time controlling that and enforcing... Conrad: Let's continue on with your staff report but I just wanted to raise that issue. e Olsen: Just a few specific conditions that we added with that conditional use permit. I think that if you eliminate it as a conditional use permit... The standard conditions of the ordinance would no longer be enforceable because it is something that is recorded with the County. In summary, we would rather not have them non-conforming uses. We would still have some control but it just appears that the conditions that we do have now are allowing uses that contractor's yards maybe aren't appropriate. Conrad: I don't know how we're going to hold a public hearing on this tonight if we keep opening them up and closing them down on each issue. I guess I'd like to hear the public's comments if they do have any on this particular subject. We'll run this real loose. I'd just like to open it up. I'd just like to open it up once and close it once on this whole issue and get their comments as we hit different items rather than opening up for each item. Are there any comments on this particular aspect of contractor's yards that anybody would like to bring up? Diane Weeks: I just hate to see you eliminate contractor's yards as a conditional use. There are many that are very good and I think...take away those as a conditional use, therefore... It just doesn't seem like a responsible thing for a governing body to intentially make a property non- conforming. It seems like...intentionally the 15 properties non-conforming. Up to a few years ago we went through all the hoops and made all the applications and did everything you told us to do. We're meeting all the conditions as far as us personally concerned... e Dave Stockdale: I live on Galpin Blvd.. I applied for a conditional use permit a few years back and prior to the buying the land I purchased the property, I put my own business out there... Right now I'm enjoying raw land. We applied for a conditional use permit identical to what was approved a few years back and similar to the... What I saw denied earlier is the way our... the conditions for denial...conditional use permit. Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 39 e Diane Weeks: I just wanted to make... If we happen to have a fire or something would happen...we would if we're non-conforming but we're still living on that property... Conrad: What do we want to do on contractor's yards right now. Which direction do we want to set? Erhart: Is that true if they burn down that your use is eliminated? Dacy: The way the ordinance reads is that no non-conforming use building or structure except single family dwelling which has been damaged by fire, explosion, flood, act of God or other calamities to the extent of more than 50% of it's assessed market value may be restored. Erhart: Okay, that's the building and structure. Dacy: No, it says non-conforming use, building or structure. Erhart: How do you rebuild a use? Dacy: The use of having the contractor's yard use. Storage of vehicles. e Erhart: Whether or not a contractor's yard, the garage or shed burns down in the A-2 area... I agree, we wouldn't want to find ourselves in the situation where a garage burned down and that business... I think we've got to be careful to set up that situation. That wouldn't be fair. Dacy: It's still a use but if the primary use of the garage is to house those vehicles, what would happen is that the assessed market value of that use would have to be determined... Erhart: Whether or not you're a contractor's yard, it means you would have to have a garage... Dacy: Correct. If it's a garage for your personal vehicles and it burns down, you can't rebuild it because of outside parking. Conrad: Just opinions on what direction you'd like to go. We can vote on something if we so desire or we can just set a direction for staff on this issue. e Erhart: I'll give you my comments here. I don't have any problem, I have two contractor's yards on West 96th Street where I live. For the most part they're not a problem the way they are and I don't think those necessarily are so much the concern however I do want to point out that there is problems with those 10... It really comes from, the buildings are very nice but it comes from the outdoor storage. That's the problem with the Lowell Carlson property. We've had some problems in our area with outdoor storage that tends to accumulate and I think what I'm trying to get to here is that I think we can adequately regulate and find a way to work with the existing contractor's yards and yet basically place a message that the City is growing. This is becoming more and more of a residential area and that at some point here, or this is a good point to Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 40 e quit expanding that use. The way we have it now, although you might say that because of the 1 mile radius thing, the thing is, you can get one of those guys quit and then another guy like the application we say today and I think it's a good time to just basically make it non-conforming and quit the expansion of that use. I think there are too many problems. I'm not suggesting problems in my area or that the people here cause the problems but I'm looking 20 years ahead. It's difficult to define what it's like on the south today is on one end of the spectrum. I know Ronnie has got a nice brand new house and everything and it's fairly clean and how do you define that? I think it's a timing thing and I think it's time that we do what Eden prairie some years ago and say that we are now going to protect our low density residential rural areas because there are so many people living out here now and we're going to make contractor's yards non- conforming. The option to that is, just make it more strict. I guess I'd be agreeable to that too. Obviously I think we all agree that we have to do something but instead of looking at just making it the primary use being their residence, make it a condition that too, I think we should try to eliminate outside storage. e Emmings: I would not be in support of making contractor's yards non- conforming uses. I think it would be better to have a set of standards. Maybe they should be more strict but have a set of standards that we're comfortable with and rely on those standards and the general conditional use standards to prove or set restrictions on contractor's yards. I think it's much better to have, it seems to me what was going on when, or it's obvious that's what was going on when this contractor's yard was made conditional uses was to start to get some control over them to keep them from expanding. Keep them becoming problems and if we turn them into non- conforming uses, I think we'll have them of all coming back again and we can't get rid of the ones that are here. We don't have to make more. I'm particularly concerned with the scale of the one we looked at tonight so I think as a matter of theory, I think it's better to have good standards and I would recommend that we'd better spend working on those standards so we're comfortable with them and so that they work rather than giving up on them. Batzli: I agree with most of Steve's comments. That's not to say that if there was a way to eliminate them in the A-2 district, which we would run into the non-conforming problem, I would be in favor of that as well but it doesn't look like it's going to go that way so I would recommend trying to consider a new set of standards where we would be insuring that it's a secondary or accessory use. You're going to run into problems such as this gentleman that has split off the land running into the same problem Tim had trying to get a mortgage. He's going to try and get a contractor's yard with this other parcel of land, it's going to have to be office definition of an accessory use if it's on an adjacent parcel. e Wildermuth: I agree. It sounds like we need to change our regulations rather than a straight outlawing of contractor's yards in the A-2 districts. Headla: I feel we should have a contractor's yard but the conditions that Steve mentioned, I think we ought to look at. One of the things I think Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 41 e that we really want to control is the size. That's one of the main things, if we can control that we can control a lot of the problems. Conrad: I agree with your comments. Let's direct staff to take a look at some of those conditions that may give us a little bit more control in terms of size. What else besides size are we looking at? Headla: I think the type of equipment. When you start bringing in these great big diesel tankers and burning diesel oil. Conrad: So that from an environmental standpoint, the equipment type may be appropriate. The amount of outside storage. Dacy: Employees. Conrad: Number of employees. Batzli: Can we make it a different setback from wetland areas? Wildermuth: How about trucks to and from the site? Dacy: Vehicles would be the best way. e Conrad: Take a look at accessory use, secondary use versus primary use. Headla: Let me just make the comment on traffic. Lowell Carlson has several vehicles and they're going up and down but I don't think it's wrong. I think it's appropriate. I don't have a problem with his vehicles going back and forth. It's the other huge trucks go up and down the parkway...so vehicle useage like that for like a ma and pa operation, let them have it. Erhart: Can I ask Ron, how many vehicles do you have...in your operation? Ron: Two trucks. Erhart: You've got what, two besides your personal vehicles you've got three trucks? Emmings: When we approve these as a conditional use, do we record that information at that time? The number and type of vehicles that are going to be used and keep that information here so we always know that? Conrad: Intensification is something we've never been able to deal with either. It can border on being unfair. We can freeze the use that whatever you apply for, that's what you get but on the other hand, in the cases where intensification...and that's why it's a conditional use but we still have a hard time measuring the real impact. e Emmings: But on the other hand, if you see someone corning in with a plan and they've got a building and they're going to put all their vehicles are going to be inside and their outside storage is going to be minimal and they've made provisions for screening and so forth so it can not be seen, Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 42 e what do we care? I don't know. That doesn't bother me. Conrad: Anything else on this? Okay, does that kind of give you some feel? Diane Weeks: coming in... I was just wondering, you're talking about...and people - Conrad: Yes there are. Not on yours but on other contractor's yards and there are cases where they are poorly maintained. There are abuses and we hear about the abuses at different times during the year. I think what Chanhassen has tried to do is accomodate a limited scale use of property because we've always thought it was fair to do that. The primary intent was, at least my philosophy has always been, if somebody else had property and they had some work that's associated, they should be able to work off of that property. That seems right to me. Tonight we saw something where it was obviously a larger scale. That's just big and all of a sudden we get a little bit nervous I think, or I am when I see something like that but going back to your question, there are abuses in contractor's yards. There are traffic patterns that the neighbors just complain about. We tell contractor's you've got to use certain road access and if they have a lot of trucks going to that location, those different truckers don't always take the preferred highway pattern so you create traffic patterns that maybe you prefer not to and then the neighbors come in and complain so it's not consistent and it all depends on the scale and nature of the operation. The other reality is, Chanhassen is growing and neighbors are moving. Whether we want them or not, people are moving into Chanhassen. We're trying as a Planning Commission, trying to figure out where that puts us. Let everybody use their property fairly but also be realistic and say there's growth out here and somehow we have to anticipate what's going to happen when those people reach us. Emmings: Maybe some things that we can look at are setbacks for storage. Another thing that I'm wondering, you just brought it to mind, have we approved any contractor's yards under the standards that we presently have? Dacy: The Admiral Waste application and when they went through the ordinance... before all these folks came through the process... Emmings: Except Lowell. I guess my question is this. As far as complaints that we get, if any, do we keep track of those by the way? Dacy: Yes. Since we've had the Code Enforcement officer. Emmings: Do we have any ability if we get complaints about one particular contractor's yard, do we have any way, I supposed if he's violating your standards then you use your enforcement but if it's not violating some condition of the permit, then there's nothing you can do about it? e Dacy: If the complaint is valid and if they are violating any ordinance requirements or permit conditions. It depends on what they're complaining about and what actually is occurring. Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 43 e Emmings: It would seem to me that the types of complaints that are corning in, all ought to be constructive to us as to what kind of conditions we should be imposing I guess is what I'm trying to say. Erhart: Your thing is, I'd like to tie down the actual use a little more specifically. One thing right now where we're using it for actual contractor's yard, landscape contractor, building contractor but when you talk about these garbage trucks under contractor's yard, I think we ought to tighten that up. Basically let's talk about people who run their businesses out of their garages or storage sheds. Conrad: Next item. Bed and Breakfast. Olsen: bed and we feel We feel Bed and breakfast. When this ordinance was amended, we researched breakfast quite a bit and we carne up with specific conditions that will allow bed and breakfast to be compatible in the A-2 district. it should be maintained as a conditional use in the A-2 district. Erhart: The reason why I brought these to your attention is because I do not have strong feelings one way or the other on the rest of them but I started writing up a philosophy of the A-2 district and these got brought in so don't feel that on the rest of the issues that I have no strong feelings one way or the other. I'm nut against bed and breakfast establishments. e Conrad: Does anybody want to eliminate bed and breakfasts from the A-2? I guess the 5 rooms is really arbitrary. I guess I could go along with the 5 rooms but there are great bed and breakfasts with 7 rooms. I think it's just an arbitrary number. If somebody carne in here and had a use with 7 rooms, I would be ready to change it on the spot. That's my only comment. It's just as good as any other number. Batzli: I like 5. I hate to disagree but 5 is a great number for a bed and breakfast and I would hold firm. I've been in a lot of bed and breakfast in my day and 7, they don't cut it. You want the small homey feeling of a bed and breakfast. Not this large bussling hotel of 7 rooms. Erhart: Can I corne in at my house and make that into a bed and breakfast? Dacy: As a conditional use. Erhart: Is it the intent of the bed and breakfast to use old homes or just... Emmings: That's what typically is built. Erhart: We're not...to build a motel out there? e Dacy: If it's owner occupied. Emmings: What are you thinking? Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 44 e Erhart: I just bring it up. Batzli: 11m being slightly facetious when I say hold the line at 5 rooms but 11m envisioning this small owner occupied type place. My only experience with them is overSeas and theylre really neat and you get to meet people along the way. I don't envision trying to let people build hotels in the A-2 district. Emmings: Maybe itls the place to put a little intent statement. Conrad: You donlt want to turn the asssumption seminary into a bed and breakfast? Something like that would be really intriguing for me and I donlt know how we justify it but it was a case where it might be an interesting USe down there. I would like to do something totally out of the ordinary right now and ask if there are any other comments from the public on any of the items. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Erhart moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. e Conrad: Letls run with the bed and breakfast and letls keep it in there. Therels mineral extraction. Olsen: Welre saying if you want to remove it, we should study it further to See what impacts it would have. Conr ad: Should we direct staff to study it further? Erhart: Yes, I think so. I have a concern about mineral extraction. Conrad: I donlt know how much study you want to put into this. It doesnlt Seem like itls worthy of a whole lot of time. wildermuth: Especially with only one site in the City. Conrad: 11m not in favor of mineral extraction. I See no benefit to Chanhassen but I guess I would like to have staff take a look at it and say is there any... Olsen: We just have to work out... Erhart: Barb, we had a question here while you were out and that was, if we were to eliminate contractorls yards or letls say mineral extraction and they are now under regulations of a conditional USe permit with a number of conditions, do we lose that ability to enforce those conditions once we eliminate them from the ordinance? e Dacy: No and 1111 confirm that with the City Attorney but I would say the opposite. Yes, we would be able to enforce the conditions of their original approval. The non-conforming status really protects the City from the use from expanding. For us not to be able to enforce the Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 45 e conditions of approval, then they can go hog wild. Emmings: Yes, but you know what you've done there. I guess what you've just said is, we can pass an ordinance and drop all your non-conforming uses to come in and get conditional use permits so we can impose conditions on you and then we're going to jerk out your conditional use permit and make you non-conforming uses so that they can't expand or if you're destroyed, and by God, I'll tell you, I'd be willing to take over a lawsuit against the City. That'd be a dirty trick. Erhart: You've got one of those guys as non-conforming anyway because they're not...and none of them have 5 acres so they're non-conforming anyway. Emmings: Well, how would they get permits? Dacy: Because the 5 acre standard and all those other standards weren't passed until 1987. Erhart: tonight? Okay, is anybody prepared just to eliminate mineral extractions I vote just to eliminate them. Olsen: There may be other issues. e Headla: What happens if I want to clean up my barnyard with a Bobcat? Am I supposed to get a permit for that? I see you talk about grading in here. I come through with a Bobcat and I scrape my barnyard. Farmers scrape their fields. Where do you draw the line on grading? Dacy: That's part of the reason why we're saying we prefer to study it. Headla: Okay, I agree. Batzli: Is mineral soil? Dacy: Yes. Conrad: Okay, look into that more. Olsen: Temporary retail nurseries. Number one, we can't really control a temporary use and we just feel that retail nurseries is too intense a use in the A-2 district. Conrad: But we could allow it temporarily. How could we do this? How could we accomodate a farmer who wants to sell produce on their land during the selling season? e Erhart: I know you're not going to vote for this but I keep coming across this idea that you can make a temporary use. I looked back in the Minutes again and I read, in 1981 a permit was issued and I can't figure out under what section of the ordinance but we issues a permit in 1971 for a 5 year conditional use permit. Now isn't that a temporary permit? Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 46 e Dacy: That's illegal. Emmings: We got a letter from our Attorney that says it's illegal. Conrad: I really like that idea. You've got 3 years. Emmings: And that's what they're asking for. You say give me 3 years. Why can't we enforce that? Erhart: Our Attorney. I guess the one that hit me was the fellow who now is downtown so I think it all worked out. His initial proposal was to put a retail nursery out in our, actually it was our RR district. I just felt it was sort of ridiculous. Given that we could give this guy a temporary permit, if we could enforce this temporary, it made good sense to take TH 101 or TH 5 and allow them to put a temporary use. That was my only thought. Dacy: What Roger is coming back and saying is that State Statute says that if it runs with the land, then the property owner has realized a certain amount of investment of that use and on the land. For the City to come back 3 or 5 years later, even though he may have agreed to that condition and come back and say, no you can't do it anymore, Roger was saying that the City is on shaky ground because the temporary nature of it is not really valid. He has made a solid investment in that land. e Emmings: Under the conditional use section it says that they are not personal but run with the land. So you throw that into that calculation and that makes it, that's the problem but if you couldn't make them personal, what if we had some way to give a certain individual the right to do something on a piece of land for a certain period of time? Don't call it a conditional use permit. Call it something else. Call it a license. Dacy: You can't avoid that though. It's either permitted, accessory or. . . Emmings: No. If it's a conditional use, why can't there be a license? Dacy: Even if it's a license for a business, that use still has to conform with the Zoning Ordinance. We just can't establish another set... Headla: Why can't we ask him to post a bond that he's going to get out after x number of months? Dacy: It's still the same issue. Headla: Yes, but if you've got the money in hand, he's got a little more incentive. e Dacy: But still requiring them to leave within a certain amount of time, with or without money, what the Attorney is saying is that's not consistent with State law. Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 47 e Conrad: ...It seems like if you want to make an investment and build this structure and you know that it has to comply or it has to cease after 5, that doesn't seem like an unfair thing and I don't understand that. Erhart: Especially if you're going to deny it. and it would seem to me you could allow... You can deny it entirely Emmings: There's a conflict here too that someday might be a problem but a nursery is defined as an enterprise which conducts retail and wholesale sale of plants grown on the site. That could be an agricultural use or nursery as accessory and directly related to the care and maintenance. It doesn't say anything about... Conrad: Okay, churches. Add churches. Anybody against churches? Anybody concerned with the recreational beachlots? Batzli: I guess backing up to the churches for one moment, I am really disappointed that this church who has that interceptor line running 10 feet outside their door can't hook up to it. They're 150 feet or whatever away from a Class A wetlands. The perfect time to do it and there's so much red tape around here, they can't hook up. It amazes me. e Conrad: That's just the way it is. You sign a contract and you sign stuff and you have to live up to it. Batzli: It's like that guy last time who instead of fighting City Hall moved out of Plymouth to Chan only to find that we were just as bad as Plymouth. Emmings: Golf courses are okay? Conrad: Staff is looking for direction. Keep them small or make them big? I don't care if they're big or small. What do we care? Batzli: For instance, the Lafayette Club. Let's look at that. hole golf course. Residential all around it. Now obviously it's lake as a huge buffer and a railroad tracks running right behind place like that, I don't know. I guess I would call a City like Minnetonka Beach or wherever the heck they're located in and ask if there's complaints about a big club like that on a small piece of land because they have functions continuously. Wedding receptions and everything else. Small 9 got the it but a Headla: It isn't that easy access to it either. Batzli: I was trying to think of other ones that were big that have a lot of receptions or not so big actually that were built up around, for instance, Minnetonka Country Club. Are they in Shorewood? e Emmings: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 48 e Batzli: Fairly close to residential on the one side and they just go right over the 10th fairway to residential. Emmings: In Hopkins, Oak Ridge has houses on two sides of it. Erhart: It gets back to this non-conforming thing. We have a golf course in our City and we make it non-conforming. It's a resource there that's not well done but I think it's starting to get to a point where it's starting to come along. I'd like to see us encourage that place to grow into a real asset. Right now they can't grow. Emmings: You're seeing housing developments now where they're being advertised as built around golf courses. Erhart: Look at the one in victoria. Batzli: What's the one in Eden prairie? Conrad: Edenvale. Batzli: Condos built all the way around it. - Erhart: They're doing one out here in victoria. of the subdivision. The golf course is part Conrad: But here you recommended that it be a conditional use in the A-2. Erhart: What was the option, a permitted use? Conrad: Yes. It probably should be conditional. size and the fact... I think just the shoe Olsen: And in the unsewered area too. Batzli: I think that was our initial concern when we talked about it was because if we do make it a large facility and they have a lot of receptions and all that kind of thing there, and it is unsewered, what kind of problems are we going to run into? Conrad: We're saying to staff on this one, we think a big golf course and clubhouse is acceptable. Are we not saying that? What we're now looking are their conditions that we might want to hold up. Group homes. Emmings: I don't know much about group homes. Batzli: I don't have any idea what a group home is. Olsen: We have a definition of one. _ Dacy: We have one now on the north side of TH 5. Headla: The old Harold Vender farm. Planning Commission Meeting August 17, 1988 - Page 49 . Erhart: And we allow them in the A-I? That's my argument for recommending is if we allow them in the A-l, why wouldn't we allow them in the A-2? Olsen: It was always the intention. Conrad: Yes, it should be. Public buildings. Any feelings on that? Erhart: Same thing. It's allowed in the A-I. Conrad: Going back to group homes. Do we have conditions for the A-l? Olsen: They have to be a mile... Conrad: Anyway, I think that takes us through it. I think the things we could, do you want to handle all these collectively? We could make a motion that dealt with beachlots. Olsen: I have a recommendation that covers this. Erhart moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend adding churches, recreational beachlots and group homes for 7 to 16 persons as conditional uses in the A-2 District. All voted in favor and the motion carried. e APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 3, 1988 as presented. All voted in favor except Batzli who abstained and the motion carried. OPEN DISCUSSION: Erhart: Barb and I talked about the last meeting on this TH 101 thing. I think I sort of spoke on behalf of the Planning Commission a little bit on indicating that we were all concerned, we felt that issue was important to try and resolve this TH 101 thing... Emmings: What's the status right now? Dacy: It's going to Council Monday night. Pursuant to the Planning Commission's direction, we are investigating other options beyond the north and the south leg. We met with MnDot today to try and determine some type of understanding of schedule so depending on which options is chosen, we wouldn't lose TH 5 as proposed so we're hopeful but cautious. . Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.. Submitted by Barbara Dacy, City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim