Loading...
1987 11 04 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 4, 1987 e Chai,tlman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad, Howard Noziska, James Wildermuth and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT #87-4 AMENDING THE UTILITY CHAPTER OF THE COMPREHENS~PLAN To-~nTIfA DESCRIPTION OF ON-SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM POLICI~ AND INFILTRATION/INFLOWfPOLICIES, CITY OF CHANHASSEN APPLICANT. Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on the Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment. Chairman Conrad opened the meeting up for public comments. Noziska moved, Siegel seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. - Headla: The only thing I found on the page at the end there where they talk about project description and they say annually televised existing sewer lines and other suspect areas. That sounds like we're pouring money after money after money until we say yes it is. I guess we aren't involved with finance but when we put annually televised existing sewer lines and all other suspect areas, I think that's extravegant. That's my only comment. Conrad: In terms of the inflow part of that, and that's something that I'm not familiar with at all, and a lot of this stuff I didn't understand, are we meeting the letter of the law? Are we doing a good job in this in terms of how we're accomodating Met Council's directive? Dacy: I think we're beginning to. That study that was done in 1982 pinpointed the areas that we should begin televising and pinpointed the areas that we should be starting some of these other projects. It's not until now that we've had the financing available to do televising issues because of regularly accepted municipal program as an on-going maintenance program. So I think we're beginning to do a lot of the things that Met Council and Metro Waste expects us to do and by doing that the City is expecting the regional agencies like Metro Waste to do the same th i ng with the i r lines such as the Lake Ann Interceptor and other facilities that they have around the metropolitan area. As was stated in there, it's no one communities fault for I and I, it's a much bigger issue than that. It takes everybody's cooperation. Just what _ we're doing in the downtown is going to make a tremendous impact in . reducing excessive, so I think we're taking a positive step forward. Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1987 - Page 2 . Conrad: What else could we do? Dacy: The real ambitious part of the project descriptions there is indicating the project to identify the residential actions. People that have sump pumps or have pump foundation drains that are directly hooked into sewer systems, that's going to be a big step to take because that means knowing where you are and interviewing folks and explaining what the problem is and then trying to give them the alternatives so that they can drain their water someplace else. Disconnect that connection to the sewers. I think that's the biggest challenge is trying to get it on an individual household basis because as soon as you feel you disconnected one connection, somebody else in some other part of the city has probably made another so it's a never ending battle. Noziska: head. It's like St. Paul. Bribe them with $410.1010 or $510.1010 per Dacy: That could be a possibility. Noziska: Say hey, come show us where you quit dumping into our sewer and we'll pay you $410.1010 or $510.1010. $410.1010 or $510.1010 is probably pretty slim compared to where all that water ends up on the end. It's a tremendous amount of volume and a lot of expense to get rid of. So ~ much more volume to treat. Conrad: I'm real comfortable with our on-site treatment systems requirements just because I'm familiar with what we did and obviously have to take staff's word and the consultant's word and recommendations and pass those along. Is there a motion? Siegel moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment #87-4 to amend the utility Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to include the proposed sections entitled, Infiltration and Inflow and On-Site Treatment Systems as reflected in Attachments #1 and #2 and subject to review and approval by the Metropolitan Council. All voted in favor and motion carried. CONSIDER REQUEST TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO CREATE RURAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, MERLE VOLK AND LOTUS REALTY, APPLICANTS. Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on this Zoning Ordinance amendment request. Conrad: Tom, why don't you tell us what your perspective is on this issue and give us an opinion. I think we have to decide how it fits into Chanhassen but I guess try to persuade us that we need an aggressive district to do this. Why do we need a district to do that? e Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1987 - Page 3 e Tom Hamilton: Thanks Mr. Chairman and board members. I'm in an interesting position working with both the City and now being out on the street generally talking to business people and getting around the community a lot and finding out what the problems and what the nature of concerns are and one of the things that has corne up is with the redevelopment of the downtown we are displacing a number of businesses that have been good and viable businesses in the community for a number of years. If you stop for a minute and think about that, if you think about where are they go, they can't stay where they're at because we going to tear the buildings down and the buildings they are currently in they are paying maybe $4.00 to $5.00 a square foot tops. There is no place else in this community for them to relocate. If they go to the industrial park they're going to be paying $10.00 per foot which is pretty much the going rate for the types of needs that they have. So I began wondering about this and I hate to see a business in town leave from a Mayor's perspective. I want to keep all the businesses here tha t we poss i ble can and I ha ve been do i ng some other th i ng s with Mer Ie Volk and we got to talking about this issue and I was the one that raised it with him rather than he with me. I said what if Merle we expanded your facilities out here and asked some of these people if they wanted to corne out here and relocate on your property in your contractor's yard and remain in business in the City of Chanhassen. He felt that that would be a good use of the property. Consequently we continued to follow through on this and find out what your feelings ~ would be and perhaps what the Council's would be. I guess I wasn't ~ really asking for a rural industrial district. What we have there right now is a contractor's yard. We have approximately 2 or 3 uses there, maybe there's 4 of them right now, using Merle's property. All we're saying is, we'd like to expand the use of the contractor's yard, take perhaps 30 acres and say this whole 30 acres can be a contractor's yard under Merle's control and the uses that would go in there would be typical contractor type uses. The list I gave you was just an attempt to point out some other uses that could go in there. They all relate to construction, either building or road or yard or that type of thing. There are a couple that don't. For instance, the fiberglass repair, that's a boat business that's here in town now repairing fiberglass. He repairs boats that have been damaged with fiberglass. Merle does not want to have anything in there that's going to create problems, noise and dust, using chemicals, he just doesn't want that. It's a headache for him and he doesn't want it on his property. The chrome peopl e, as a ma t ter of fact when down and approached him to see if they couldn't move onto his land to see if they could keep their operation going and he said absolutely not. He didn't want to have anything to do with it. Mostly because of the chemicals they use and how he thought they were disposing of them up here which is primarily down the sewer. So I guess it wasn't an attempt to say it's a rural industrial. We asked Barb if she could corne up with some type of zoning and perhaps that's the right verbage, I'm not sure. What I'm really saying is we're looking at a contractor's yard and it will remain a contractor's yard with just some increased useage. If you remember here a couple of e weeks ago, Mark Koegler presented to yourselves and the council some Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1987 - Page 4 e concept plans of how the highway corridors are going to develop in Chanhassen in the future looking out to the year 2000-2010 and Merle's property was projected to be zoned commercial or industrial. That doesn't mean it will. It may change from that but right now we're looking at that type of use. We have the Chaska Industrial Park that abuts up right next to Merle's property. Chaska has been after the City of Chanhassen to some degree and they've talked to Merle on more than one occasion about purchasing or annexing some of his property so they could expand their industrial park because their industrial park is nearly full. They just continue to get people in theirs and they are filling up rather quickly. I've talked with Merle about this and said we'd much rather have your land stay in Chanhassen where it can be taxed but if we could utilize it better to the better advantage of him, naturally because it's his property and he'd like to make some income off it, and to the advantage of the City so we can generate some additional taxes off his property, I think it would help everybody. This of course would be a 15 to 20 year use of the land and as it continues to develop west and we get new property, he understands clearly that that is not going to be the use, that this use that he has there now is going to go away. It will be industrial or commercial or residential or whatever it ends up being at that time. So that was the reason for the request. I talked to Barb about this and we asked about how should we approach it. We do have tenants that would like to move out there. We would like to put up another building. We're just a asking should we go have it rezoned or should we ask for a conditional ,., use? I did bring a map along. I kind of hesitate to show it to you because we had it drawn up and then we just started drawing on there ourselves as to what might happen to it eventually and really what happens is you end up having kind of a circular road around the internal part of his property where you could have these contractors yards or contractors uses going on within his property all on the 30 acre parcel. To me, then looking at it from the city standpoint, I thought what a good idea to perhaps put a lot of these uses in one spot where you can control it more effectively. It would give us an opportunity to take perhaps some of the lawn care people who are scattered around the town and perhaps some of the plumbers who are scattered around town and working out of their yards and we could enforce our ordinances as they should be and say there is a place for you to go. You can go out here at a reasonable rent rather than the residential area. That was another thought that I had. I felt that it would be certainly a good thing for the City so that's where we're coming from. Conrad: Who right now Tom wants to relocate from downtown? Who's being displaced that is considering moving out there? Tom Hamilton: Jim Derhaag who is the racing fellow. He races trans am cars nationally and he has a garage and he has two cars. He repairs and redoes his own cars and that's all he does. I think there are three men that work in there including himself. He has an office. e Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1987 - Page 5 e Conrad: So he would need to put up a building? Torn Hamilton: He would be in one of Merle's buildings. He doesn't need that much space. He's got maybe 3,000 square feet. When he comes back from a race they totally tear his car apart, clean every part, replace anything that's broken and put the car back together for the next race. He just needs to be someplace where there isn't a lot of dirt and a lot of people. He does't want to be around people. He just wants to be someplace where it's inexpensive for him to operate and he just comes and goes. He doesn't grind on cars out there. He doesn't create a mess. You ought to go into his garage over there. You wouldn't believe it. You can eat off the floor. You wouldn't think they are working on cars. Wildermuth: That gal with the little body shop, is she looking for a place too? Torn Hamilton: She has moved and I'm not sure where she went to but that's the kind of use that Merle didn't want because she does body work. She's sanding and filling and painting and that gets to be not only hazardous but you're polluting the air. If you don't filter everything right, it can be. The boat fellow over here, Marine Fiberglass, he's going to need to have a place to go. He likes Chanhassen. I've talked to him and he would like to stay here in the .. communi ty. He's close to the lakes. He feels that Chanhassen has been .. good to him to this point and he would like to stick around in this area. There's also a furniture repair, a wicker place that paints or something I'm not sure, and they would need a place also. Those are the ones right now and there are couple of them have already moved out before we could find them a place to go. Conrad: So these types of people need a building? So they would be constructing other than the one that would rent from Volk, they would need to build something? Torn Hamilton: Well no. Our idea is to put up a building as soon as we can, 60 by 150 foot building which is similar to the building that Merle has on his property right now where these 3 or 4 uses that are there work out of except for Gardeneer and they have their own building. Basically they only need from 1,500 to 3,000 square feet each so in a 60 by 150 building you could divide it into 1,500 square feet sections, you could get 6 separate uses in there depending upon how many square feet they would need. You may end up with only four. I don't know of anybody that would take up a whole building like that. We're not looking at someone that big right now. Some other people who have expressed interest in going out to that property are a fellow who does a soft water service and he needs a place merely to store his dry salt and then you take it out to your home when he services your soft water. He would store it there and then drive his tryck and deliver the salt to the homes or businesses or whatever he serves. There's e well drilling company, Stodola Well Drilling, they would like to be on Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1987 - Page 6 e that property. Preferred Paving would like to be there. Of course in the wintertime they just need a place to park their trucks because they don't work. They just need a place to put them. Now they may need another building similar to what Merle would put up because they would have to do some repair to their equipment and a few other things they would like to keep inside. As the whole thing developed, and as I told Barb, if the whole area was a contractor's yard, it would still be conducted that each time somebody came into the area, say the Redimix Plant down here for instance wanted to relocate, in my opinion Merle's property would be just perfect for that. You have two major roads right there that they can use. You're in an industrial area. You get them out of the downtown area for one thing and still keep them in the community but that would still come back to the Planning Commission for review and then go to the Council for reivew. It's not as if we're just going to, any guy that comes along we're going to stick him in there. That's not the object. I just want everybody aware of that. Emmings: Why would it come to us? Tom Hamilton: For review. Just to make sure that everybody's aware of it. Emmings: But what would bring it in? Dacy: The site plan review. -Tom Hamilton: Right because we would design the site. We want it to look nice. He wants the place to look nice. Berm everything and make sure things are screened so you can see the layout of the land and you would know who's going to be out there. Emmings: So he couldn't rent the space to anyone out there without it coming back here? Tom Hamilton: I think that's an option. That's something that's fine with us. You never know, he may come back and somebody will convince him that they should have something that creates noxious fumes but I think the city ought to review that prior to him saying, sure I'm going to rent you the space. This gives the City some control over it. I don't think we want to lose that. Looking at the other side, I don't think we want to lose control of that. Emmings: Wouldn't we have more control is we leave it as a conditional use than if we make it a permitted use? Tom Hamilton: Fine, you can do whatever you want. You can have conditions on a permitted use too I suspose. There's more than one way to do it I guess is all I'm saying. There are alternatives. Dacy: The BF district for example specifies that all uses in that district have to come in as a conditional use so you could use that _verbage. Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1987 - Page 7 e Tom Hamilton: I think Barb and I have been talking about trying to accomplish the same thing only doing it different ways. I'm kind of saying if you made 313 acres a contractor's yard with multiple uses in there, it's really one contractor's yard and what you're trying to do is consolidate some of the small contractors that are around and put them in one spot. Conrad: Would you want to get rid of all the other contractor yards in town? Would you want to close down all the other contractor yards in town then? Tom Hamilton: I think it should certainly be an attempt. Certainly those that are in residential areas. I don't think it's a bad idea. The alternative is that Merle has the right to sell off some of his land. If somebody comes in and says they'd like to buy 113 acres, I don't see any reason why you couldn't sell it and then you're going to have to be faced with another guy coming and I want a contractor's yard right here and I've got 113 and this is what I'm going to put in there. You can divide the land up too. Controlling it under one person, I think is to Merle's benefit to do it this way. Conrad: If the City wants to do that, then that's the way to do it. If you want to advertise for these types of uses. I'm kind of questioning, they can't afford a lot of other stuff and when you talk _ about $5.1313 per foot, that's not expensive stuff. I don't know what "'kind of tax revenue, I'm not sure what the benefit is. Tom Hamilton: There's no question that these people are living in the real world. I know what the rents are out there and I'm sure all of you do also. They're not cheap. Jim Derhaag for instance pays $2.513 per foot. He could probably go to Victoria or Norwood or someplace and find another rundown building that he could put a little bit of money into and pay $2.513 per foot. I guess I'm saying, why should we tell them to do that. If we can keep them in town and keep the tax revenue here out at Merle's property, even at the $5.1313 rate I'm sure you'd get people to pay that. There are always going to be those types of people and those kinds of businesses that want to run a business. Look at a lawncare person. How much rent can they afford to pay? Not very darn much. They're mowing lawns and plowing streets in the winter. They're running pretty much on a shoestring. Emmings: What would it cost them to use the mini-storage for example that's been built on TH 2l2? Would that be valid for some of them like that in the case you just mentioned? The lawn service type of thing? Tom Hamilton: I suspose they could store their lawnmowers in there for the winter but if they are there in the summer, they're running all the time. It's a daily business. I don't think that's what those are intended for. e Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1987 - Page 8 e . Emmlngs: That's what this sounds like to me. mini-storage. It's kind of a bigger Tom Hamilton: But mini-storage is a cold storage and that's what it's intended to be. It's not to be running a business out of. I think if we found somebody doing that, it would be in violation of the city ordinance. Dacy: Some uses on this list that's been submitted could be defined as the definition of a contractor's yard but part of the reason for the proposal for the industrial district is to allow the auto racing repair and cabinet making and fiberglass repair and so on that is not permitted at this time in the A-2 district. So the Commission has to pick a side. You can continue granting conditional use permits for contractor yards on Mr. Volk's property but the request is to create a special little zone to allow these other uses to occur right along with the contractor's yard and set it apart separate from the A-2 district. You don't want to amend the A-2 district to allow these various types of uses allover the rural area. Tom Hamilton: This list was just intending to give you some ideas. I imagine you could probably come up with five pages of kinds of small businesses that could go into an area like that. That's not our intent. These are people who have asked and need space and these are ~some of the proposed uses. We're not out recruiting people believe me. ~We're not out calling people asking them to come here. This is strictly in response to people calling us and calling Merele and asking for space. Wildermuth: I think in view of the fact that it's adjacent to the Jonathan Industrial Park, it looks like an appropriate land use. What kind of problems are we going to run into with the subdivision adjacent to it? On the other side of Galpin. Siegel: The Wally Otto subdivision? Tom Hamilton: That's about half a mile down north on Galpin on the other side. Emmings: It looks like we've got a large lot residential both to the north and to the east of this property. Tom Hamilton: There about 4 or 5 homes between Merle's place and TH 5. Jerome Carlson has a home in there and I think there are about 3 or 4 other homes that are kind of right on Galpin as you go towards TH 5 to the north. Dacy: On the east side of Galpin there is Mr. Schmi tt's in there, Gustafson, there's another one and then... e Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1987 - Page 9 e . . Emmlngs: At what pOlnt would those people be allowed to comment on this process that we're going through here? Dacy: Because the conditional use permit application was filed, the 500 feet requirement does incorporate the 4 or 5 homeowners on the east side and the Carlson's so they would be notified as part of the conditional use permit process and with some direction we could easily noti.fy... Headla: The term contractor yard is extremely nebulous and I didn't realize what was bothering me until you started talking contractor yard and different uses. Contractor's yard to me has the connotation of that's just what it means. That's not necessarily the case. That bothers me. I can see some uses could be very acceptable but... Tom Hamilton: I think our ordinance, I was just reading the definition of contractor yards as we put in our ordinance whi.ch I tried to follow. It's any area use of land where vehicles, equipment and/or construction materials and supplies commonly used by building, excavating, road construction, landscaping and similar contractors are stored or serviced. It includes both indoor and outdoor storage. That's by definition of what our ordinance says a contractor's yard is. Headla: When we bring in heavy equipment, to me that's more than just Aa fringe area. Remember about 5 months ago was it we talked about the ~contractor's yard there, the people on Galpin Lake Road on the north and south of TH 5. They were concerned about all the traffic. We guaranteed them. It just isn't logical to follow that road. It's amazing the people making a left hand turn and heading west to go down Galpin Lake Road in the morning. Now on TH 5 they put a turn off so you can go around. I think there's going to be an awful lot of traffic on Galpin Lake Road going down to CR 18 and I don't know that road can handle it or the people can handle it. Tom Hamilton: I believe it's a 9 ton road isn't it? Dacy: Right. Tom Hamilton: It's a 9 ton road. When you build a 9 ton road you expect it to get used and there's very little traffic on that road now. There might be some in the mornings. Headla: We guaranteed people heavy equipment wouldn't be going down there. Right here, that's what we said and now I see it happening. I think we've lost some credibility there. Tom Hamilton: I guess I don't see that. I travel that road a lot during the day and once in a while I see a semi perhaps going down there. Generally that's going over to the Chaska Industrial Park. If what you're saying is that nobody should use that road, shouldn't tltdrive heavy equipment on there, then you're going to have to go to Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1987 - Page 10 tltevery business in Chaska Industrial Park and tell them not to use it. I don't think that's what our roads are for. Our roads are there to be used and our city is growing west and we're going to find more and more use on all our streets and highways. Headla: I wish we would have explained that to the people when they were here. Tom Hamilton: Yes, I think they need to realize that. If they don't, they've got their head in the sand. It's growing that way and there's going to be more traffic generated. That's why those roads are built the way they area so they can withstand that volume and heavy equipment but I don't see much on there right now. I really don't. Merle is an excavator, he's got all kinds of heavy equipment. He exits everything out to the south and he goes out Lyman Blvd. and that's the road he uses. None of his equipment, supposedly no one that works for him, I know that he watches that pretty carefully because he knows that part of his conditional use permit, all his traffic exits south and enters from the south on his road onto his property out to Lyman Blvd.. Headla: I agree with you during the day I don't see much traffic there but it is noticeable in the morning. What area are we really talking about? Are we talking about both east and west of Galpin Blvd. there by CR l8? 4ItTom Hamilton: Just on the west side. Headla: And we're also talking any of this would not have use of water and sewer facilities? Tom Hamilton: Not city facilities. He would put, naturally if you're going to have people working there, you would have to have lavatories so he would have septic systems installed. Headla: How do we equate that where we wouldn't let anybody do that up along TH 5? Are we inconsistent if we would say yes on one and no on the other? Dacy: That's one of the issues that the Commission has to discuss. In the garden center proposal, that was a retail/commercial use that was being proposed. In this situation, a contractor's yard is allowed as a conditional use in the A-2 district at this time. The proposal is to create a district to not'only continue that use but to include other uses that wouldn't necessarily be a retail use but would be uses such as what was listed here. Repair, storage areas, lawncare, snowplowing. I guess what the Commission needs to determine is to be able to identify non-retail uses to try and generalize the specific type of uses that have been suggested as examples. In the past the uses in the A-2 district were quasi-agricultural. You could make an argument that a contractor's yard was quasi-industrial but yet wholesale nurseries tltand mineral extraction and contractor's yard as conditional uses in the Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1987 - Page 11 e A-2 area. We need to define that line between "urban industrial" and "rural industrial". Those that require sewer and water to those that do not. The Commission should decide how far you want to go with this district. Headla: On the volk property, the contractor yard, we didn't let him put in the sewer and water did we? Dacy: He has a septic system out there but there was no new system moved with Gardeneer. Headla: No, but didn't we grant him a permit to put in an on-site septic system? Dacy: No, because it was just uses of the existing buildings. Torn Hamilton: Gardeneer, his building that's there now has been there for quite a while. He has some septic and he has water. Noziska: But it's a small system? Tom Hamilton: Right, but there are very few You've got one mechanic working there during there's one guy who does some cabinet work. _repair of their trucks and headed out. Headla: It had been there for quite some time? people who work there. the day and I think The rest of it is used for Noziska: What we're talking about is intensifying that use and gathering people for commercial endeavors in an unsewered area. Tom, most of these things that I see here, I know people don't like to pay rent but is the rent in our industrial park with city sewer and water beyond their means to pay really? Tom Hamilton: I think so. Noziska: I look at it in an industrial park as a place for these people to go because you can put up a relatively inexpensive building and section it off into pieces yet you've got the city sewer and water. I question the advisability of beginning to encourage this sort of thing and if we encourage it one place, do we have to discourage it somewhere else or can we discourage it somewhere else. I know those are the things, the thoughts that are going through my mind is do we set a precedent then that leads us into someone else wanting to do this. Then do we have to be totally arbitrary and capricious, totally fair with the next applicant that walks in? Those are the things that are bouncing around in my mind. To start creating an intensive commercial use, whether it is or it isn't real intensive, it's obviously getting more and more intensive. To the fiberglass repair outfit, they have to have employees. The cabinet shop, they've got _emPloyees. Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1987 - Page 12 e '1 Tom Haml ton: of them. The cabinet shop has one and the fiberglass guy has two Conrad: That's what you know but if you're running good operations in any of these categories, whether it be plastering, stuccoing, roofing, plumbing, you know on down, if you're running a decent operation, it could be a big shop. Tom Hamilton: Perhaps I shouldn't have given you the list. If you want to look up the definition of a contractor and a contractor's yard you will find that those are contractors that could be in contractor yards. Anyone of those uses could come in here, whether they have 2 employees or 50 and request a conditional use permit for a contractor's yard if they have the property in Chanhassen. It's as simple as that. I couldn't even point to one on here that we even have any interest in. I'm just saying these are contractors. They are. Noziska: But by creating a district, are we encouraging them and then are we encouraging a gathering of these folks whether they are a few bigger folks or a whole bunch more littler folks? And if we're looking at somebody who wants to pay $3.00 to $5.00 per square feet for rent, we sure can't provide much of a building for that. That's for sure so are we really improving the city of Chanhassen that much or are we going the other way? That's the question. 4ItTom Hamilton: One building would probably generate about $6,000.00 in taxes so if that's worth something, then that's something to consider. To me it's worth considering. Siegel: Is that industrial park in Chaska got city sewer? Dacy: Yes. Siegel: I had this question some time ago when a similar situation came up. Do all cities hold onto themselves their own sewer systems and water systems? Don't they cooperate with neighboring communities? Dacy: Chaska is defined by Met Council as free standing. They have their own sewer system and their own treatment plant. Other communities that are within the MUSA line obviously you know about that. The MUSA cities and free standing cities all have to conform to Met Council. In this case, the deannexation issue that was brought to the Council and it was tabled so Mr. Volk could potentially come back with some different options because that 40 acres that they wanted to deannex could be serviced by sewer and water. There was concern on the Council that the 40 acres put into Chaska which would be a loss to Chanhassen so the issue was sort of tabled to see if some sort of compromise or other situation could be worked out. Beyond that nothing has happened. e Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1987 - Page 13 e. Slegel: When you say it could be serviced, probably a larger area than that could be serviced by sewer and water. Dacy: From the topographical information that we have on the site, the westerly 40 for sure could be serviced by Chaska. I think that the easterly half could also be if it had to. Torn Hamilton: Sure, Chaska would let them have it all if they'd build up. Siegel: Is it just strictly because of the Met Council's restrictions that communities in this case could not cooperate? If you have a fringe area bordering one community separated by a large agricultural area in this case, that area can not receive sewer and water from the neighboring community that has sewer and water because of the restrictions? Dacy: If a joint powers agreement could be executed between Chanhassen and Chaska, you could potentially have utilities extending from Chaska into a Chanhassen parcel. However, number one, Chaska has to prove tha t they have capac i ty to do tha t and Met Counc i 1 is corn i ng back and saying that it's Chaska responsibility to potentially swap out an equal amount of acreage from their community so that there is no increase sewer demand. So there is an option available but one way they do get eback to meet the sewer capacity rules. Noziska: There isn't any incentive for Chaska to do that is there? Dacy: That's correct. Noziska: It's a loser all the way for them. Dacy: Because if they have to swap ou t acreage to equal i ze a sewer capacity so you can keep running in circles and meanwhile Chanhassen is saying then we have to have a trade-off, it's going to be industrial zoned. Torn Ham i I ton: The way it would be a winner for them would be if they would take all that acreage and build it in their industrial park, they serve that area with their power company. They buy power and they sell it and they make a lot of money off of it. They would make more money off an industrial park electricity than they would off of picking up 40 acres of some residential area and stuck that out. Siegel: And still leave the property in Chanhassen? Torn Hamilton: Right. They don't want anything but the power. Really they want the company there because they can sell them the power. Siegel: It seems to me that there is like we have the business fringe _district, I don't really have a quarrel here since the potential use of Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1987 - Page 14 _ that neighboring land is probably going to be an industrial park too on that west side of Galpin Blvd.. I don't really have a quarrel with establishing sayan industrial fringe district but I certainly would not be in favor of allowing it be under any other circumstances than a conditional use permit. Emm ings: I don't thi nk I've got a real good grasp of what it is they want to do out there. I don't feel like I really understand what it is that you want to see in there and I think on the positive side, putting some of these contractor's yards together in one spot, maybe berming the whole site or maybe you could do something with that. If the whole thing was going to be developed at once and I could see a whole plan, I think I'd be a lot more comfortable. Otherwise, there's a potential there for an awful ugly mess. When Torn mentioned the Redi-mix... Torn Hamilton: This is where the building is proposed to go. The rest of this would be ideas. Emmings: This is just some free hand drawing on a piece of paper. It doesn't really mean anything in terms of a real plan to me anyway. It's not being submitted as precisely what you're going to do. It's just an idea. Is that right? Torn Hamilton: Take the red ink off of there and you will see what we _want to do right away. Emmings: I think what Dave said about Galpin, as far as I know, as far as I recall, we conditioned approval of the Gardeneer use of that property and made a specific condition that they would not be allowed to use Galpin. That they had to go south and go out to TH 41. I imagine that was approved by the City Council and I think that's important because there is potential, there is residential single family development going in along there and I don't think the Redi-mix trucks mix with that very well. Even if it's just storage. We have a experience here with what that looks like and I don't think anybody would want that anywhere near them. You talk about it's a shame to lose anything if they move out of town, I'd be happy to stand and wave good-bye anytime they want to go. That's kind of a personal opinion. The contractor's yard thing and the potential for breaking it up into small pieces, I don't think really exists under our present ordinance because one of the conditions, one of the standards for a conditional use is that no two contractor yards at the present time can be within a mile of each other so I don't think we really have to worry about the alternative scenario that Tom came in here where they break it up into little pieces and each person would come in for a contractor's yard. It just won't happen. We've got that covered here. So I think there is some positive things to this. I would be concerned about the sewer use and I wouldn't want to see any uses out there that would have a lot of employees or need a lot but I don't think, that probably isn't a real problem. I think this thing is so inmorphis, potentially there _are so many thi ng s tha t could go in there. I f somehow we could narro w J Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1987 - Page 15 _ the scope, I may be interested in approving it but I think since it's in the A-2 at the present time and without having sharper definition of what they want to put in there, and I'm not talking about classes of things but I guess specific businesses and how they would operate, I'd be inclined to want to leave it under the way it is. Just because I just don't feel like I can get a handle on it. Conrad: Do you feel that we should have a zone where we can cluster uses like this together? Emmings: That sounds like a good idea...I don't know if this is the spot we'd pick. I'd rather survey the community and pick that spot rather than just put it there because he wants to put it there. I wouldn't mind considering that spot but if the idea is that Chanhassen needs a place for a kind of a lower rent, less intensive use for businesses that somehow don't fit into the downtown and somehow don't fit into the industrial park, then we ought to go out and look for the best place in town and if we want to consider that, fine. Let's not just look at that one. I guess I should say for the record too Tom that you appeared before us another time talking about your dual situation as Mayor and now an applicant in front of the Commission and I think this is an example of the situation where Chanhassen loses your leadership as our Mayor in something that's kind of a brand new thing. I think this is an example because you've been hired by a developer who _wants a specific thing from the City and I think you are in a position where Chanhassen suffers for not having your leadership. Conrad: I guess my general posture right now is, if I were to direct where we go, I feel comfortable allowing uses, especially for relocating under the current conditional use permit. I think we're all going to verbalize a little bit differently but I think that can moni tor and manage and see the di fferent uses as they come in. We probably could build that into a district but it seems as a permitted use in the distr ict, I can't envi sion how to structure it. It's sort of mind boggling and maybe that's just because there are too many unknowns right now. I would have a real tough time developing a district and determining why it should go one place versus another. Yet in terms of relocating our downtown folks, I'm sensitive to that and I think my general position would be to try to accomodate that through the existing conditional use process. It kind of accomplishes some of the things that you talked about. It's probably more restrictive right now than maybe what Merle Volk would like to see. I think Planning Commission and City Council went around that the last time we added an additional use to his property. Unless I saw a real definite proposal and then let staff determine why, I think a zoning district has to be an aggresive district. I hate passive districts. To say we're going to put a district out there just to accomodate something. I think that's sort of a flimsy way of running zoning ordinances. What it's good at is it maybe prevents a little bit of _staff time being involved in some of that stuff but I think a zoning, Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1987 - Page 16 e it's an active use. It's a way of soliciting business to a particular area. I'm just not sure myself that some of these low intensive uses are of interest to me. I think the better contractors and the bigger contractors will be able to afford places and then the ones that aren't big and want to be here, they can still use our conditional use process for contractors yards and we can accomodate them but I'd really need to see a specific proposal and have staff tell me why that should be before I could react to a particular zone. Let's kind of get a feel because I think you came in here Tom saying you could go a variety of ways. This is not necessarily the way you envisioned it and it can happen a different way too and let's take a poll. I guess what staff needs or what we should direct staff to do is should we have them do more legwork in terms of a real zone checking out other cities. Do they have a zone? How do they accomodate stuff like this? Maybe doing a little bit more research in that area or should we save their time in that area and have them take a better gander at the current conditional use permit process and how it's acommodating uses. Wildermuth: I think the creation of this zone is good planning. Rather than having contractor yards scattered throughout the area, they come more and more in conflict with residential uses of the land. It would not be good planning. We've got an opportunity to locate and in fact I'd like to see that whole parcel designated as a district or a zone. The area immediately adjacent to it is already industrial park. 4ItEmmings: One side. You're forgetting three other sides. Two sides. Wildermuth: For all practical purposes, the area between TH 41 and the Volk property, I don't think there's too much question about what's going to happen there. It seems to me it's logical. Conrad: So you're in favor of a specific zone? Wildermuth: Well in favor of a specific zone. I think we run the risk of creating a community where we're going to have nothing but, it's going to be a bedroom community. A subdivision community. One subdivision after another. We've got to provide space for businesses, for industrial use. I'd like to see some employments opportunities in Chanhassen other than just retail. We've done that with the industrial park but there are businesses inbetween the Press type of industry, the CPT type of industry and the retail busines district and I think as a well planned community we ought to provide for that. Noziska: I understand what you're saying but there are several communities that in their industrial park they will have buildings that are specifically for small business. I guess what I'm saying, we're going to have a lot of people who need 2,000 or 3,000 square feet here, 2,000 square feet there with 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 employees each. We're set up already, and I think Chanhassen has done a nice job of creating a very nice industrial park and to me, it seems like to push that into tllPur already established industrial park makes an awful lot more sense Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1987 - Page 17 e than taking a piece of land and trying to push little businesses out into that area. Wildermuth: The only problem I see though is that this kind of businesses, this kind of semi-storage business takes more land, less building facility than let's say Components Engineering. A company who just put up a building here. It's a little more intensive manufacturing use. That kind of business can support a higher land value, higher per square foot building value. Where there's a lot of truck storage involved and things like that, I don't know if those businesses can support or if they generate the kind of revenue that can tie up the amount of land that it would take to service them in an industrial park environment. Noziska: Okay, so let's take sort of a mul ti use office/warehouse. That's really what we're talking about where there's a little area for the office and then out in back in this big barn is where they store their fiberglass equipment and have 2 or 3 or 4 boats in there, wha tever they're wor ki ng on at the time. We see an a wfu I lot of those office/warehouses scattered out allover everywhere. I really thing that the industrial park that Chanhassen has developed is an excellent place for them. I really don't think that there's anything that couldn't be handled if there were screening for some outside storage. Is that what you're worried about? ~ildermuth: I think that's one of the concerns. Noziska: I know we have Hanus up here who has a lot of outdoor storage and he's got it screened. Whether that's right or wrong or indifferent, wherever you put him, even if you put him out in the middle of the cow pasture, you're talking about creating some sort of a rule and regulation to screen him. So wherever you put him you're going to have to screen him. Dacy: I just want to make a point of information and then see if I can summarize some of the comments that I'm hearing. If you recall when Gardeneer came through the application process we had included a map that picked up on the one mile radius requirement that no two contractors yards be located closer than one mile and that map, based on what has been approved to this date, basically has used up the A-2 area. You also recall that we had to process a variance request along with Gardeneer because they were requesting two, Merle's contractor's yard and Gardeneer's contractory's yard on one site within one mile so technically they had a variance application. The zoning district option, we would eliminate that or we could amend the ordinance to do that so that we could allow the contractor's yards within that one district. What I'm hearing now is that the Commission feels comfortable with allowing contractor's yards as a conditional use. That's what has been done in the past and that's what gives you control of outdoor storage, landscaping, berming and those uses but what I'm ~earing you uncomfortable with is uses that don't meet the definition ~- Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1987 - Page 18 e of contractor's yard in terms of the ordinance. I know that the applicant disagrees with that to some degree but the fiberglass repair and auto racing garage repair and sign painting and those types of uses, the staff feels that those uses don't meet the contractor's yard definition. What I'm hearing is the that the Commission is uncomfortable with how do we identify those non-contractor's yard issue. If something can be proposed to classify them, are you willing to consider that or do you feel the other point of view that we're going a step beyond and opening an open door for a nebulous type of uses that will be located in that area. Is that a correct summary of your comments so far and does that help you in coming to some kind of direction? Conrad: I think it summarizes a lot of opinions. If I were to take a straw vote, it looks like there are two people who would be in favor at this time of something in front of us as long as there are some controls on it. Howie, where are you? Noziska: I have a concern about intensifying use in the rural area. I always have. I just don't know how we can control it once we've got a building there. If it was set up specifically to handle 1,500 or 3,000 square foot businesses and we've got a 9,000 or 12,000 square foot building, then that means all of a sudden we can start putting a number of people in there with a number of uses. Not only traffic but ~lso sewer. I really think, of course I'm very impressed with our ~existing industrial park and granted there may be some people who are living in the 18th century and sure $2.50 is not reality in anybody's book. I don't think $4.00 or $5.00 a square foot is much reality until you get out into some barn in some farm somewhere. For going businesses and multiple businesses, there are a number of ways that other communities have of keeping those types of businesses and services in town. I agree with Tom, we don't want to lose these people. I jus t don't feel mysel f that go i ng into an unsewered area wi ththem is a solution to the problem. I think we should search for someway to keep them here but I think by dumping them into an unsewered area is not my idea of a solution. Tom Hamilton: I appreciate all the comments and that's true we'd like to do something out there and keep the business in town. It doesn't really matter how we do it and I do believe in the process that the cities go through to accomplish this and I do appreciate what's being said. I think what Jim is saying is there are some businesses that are between an industrial park and a Merle Yolk property. They haven't graduated yet to the industrial park. They aren't big enough. They don't make enough money. They haven't been around long enough. You've got to walk before you can run. I think Dayco Concrete is a good example of tha t. I'm not sure where they were housed before they came to Chanhassen but they were a pretty small ou~fit and they probably got a start someplace similar to Merle Yolk's property and now they've moved into the industrial park. We would hope that this would happen ~ith these businesses and perhaps there would be some successes out Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1987 - Page 19 e there and those people would develop their businesses and they would be able to move into our industrial park but our industrial park Howie, I agree is a very nice park but we're not set up to handle people like this. There isn't anyplace down there where they can go and pay a reasonable rent to get the type of facility that they need to have. The facility that Merle and Bill would like to build would cost them about $170,000.00. It's not just a falling down shed. There would be greenery around it and it would be nicely done so it's not like we're just throwing up something overnight and it's going to look like heck and fall down. It's a pretty substantial building. You can't build a building like that in the industrial park. You can't charge the types of rent that you can charge here. You can probably charge $5.00 a foot and they'll probably have some very viable business people. That's all I wanted to say and I appreciate your comments. Headla: If we let this building go up out there, why wouldn't people like J & R Radiator be allowed to go out there if they're going to get their rent for less than half? Torn Hamilton: That's not the kind of use that he wants to have there. Wildermuth: Besides J & R Radiator by virture of their processed water that he uses. ~Tom Hamilton: You're looking at a high water user. Basically we are "'looking at contractors. People who go there in the morning, get their equipment and maybe make some repairs to their equipment then they leave the site and they're out working on a site someplace all day long and come back in the evening, park their cars, maybe take their calls. That's basically what goes on there today. If you drive down there in the morning it's busy. The people are coming in. They're getting their equipment and they're leaving. The rest of the day there aren't too many people around. You've got a mechanic in back and a guy answering the phone, other than that there's not much going on. Wildermuth: I think we have to put some real teeth into some of the restrictions in terms of waste water and water useage. Tom Hamilton: The building that's proposed, there would be no sinks but in the toilet. There would be a bathroom sink. There would be a stool and a sink in the bathroom. There isn't any other facility for water to be used. It won't be used. Conrad: Let's give staff some direction. Noziska: Maybe you've got an idea there. We're not the only fringe community today in the metropolitan area. There's a whole bunch of them. How have they approached this particular problem. Conrad: I guess I still have serious doubts on this one because I .on't know if we create a zone, where does it go? How many zones do we Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1987 - Page 20 e want? How does that infringe on, really the area it goes into is agricultural and zones are kind of a lifestyle when you think about it. You plop this zone in the agricultural district and it's changing their lifestyle. Even through there are ways around that but it bothers me a little bit and it bothers me putting industrial uses or heavy uses in agricultural area. I guess I agree with Howie on that yet maybe there's a solution to this that some other community has come up with that might provide some guidance. Torn, are you going to corne back next week with a conditional use permit? Is that your direction? Dacy: Maybe we could talk about that for a little bit because what's being proposed is the construction of a building. As in the Gardeneer's or Merle Yolk's application, we know how many trucks are going to be there. We can estimate from what his business is and the applicant is proposing the construction of a building to house a potential contractor's yard. That raises the issues to the Commission on how comfortable you are dealing with a conditional use permit application of that nature so that's why the applicant is trying to approach this issue from two meetings. Conrad: But the applicant's corning in next week with a conditional use permit. We're saying Barbara we don't know. That's what we're saying. At least four of us are saying, we're not sure and two are saying probably it makes some sense. Based on that straw poll with four of us Awho say we don't know, we're saying is there any more information that .you can get us that might help clarify a particular zone? I guess I still an skeptical personally that we'll find that. That I'll be comfortable with something but do you thing there's information out there that you can find that might help us? Other communties that have taken on this thing and have rules and regulations that shows us types of uses that they permit and they have some track record. If we saw that, then I think we might be able to find locations for this type of district. Without that I think it's just terribly difficult to grasp. At least I'm having a real tough time doing it. Dacy: Okay, so what you'd like to see back is an analysis of other locations that could be appropriate for this type of district and number two, what other communities are doing as far as the rural areas and the types of uses that they allow. Number three, to look at the non-contractors yard type of uses. Conrad: And number four would be comparing our contractor yard restrictions to other communities contractor yard restrictions. Emmings: Also, could they look at maybe building a case for this as, could this Yolk property be a buffer between the industrial park that's right there adjacent to it and the residential to the east. Maybe a case can be made for that. Dacy: To a certain extent I think that's happening now pending ~evelopment of the industrial park in Chaska. Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1987 - Page 21 e Emmings: I guess I'd like to know, does it make sense as a transition between industrial and agricultural because I can think of how it might but it may turn out if you look allover Chanhassen, if we wanted to look for a place to put a district, maybe that's it. Conrad: I'm not sure that this is an asset for Chaska. Why is the Chaska Industrial Park filling up Tom? Tom Hamilton: Because they're giving the land away for nothing. Conrad: That's true. It's a tax increment deal. Tom Hamilton: They give the land away from nothing because they get all their money back in electricity. Conrad: Well, you've heard what we're going to do. Get some more information. That's what I got out of this and maybe we'll have a little bit more concrete info but I assume you're still going to be coming in with that next week and we'll take a look at it. Emmings: As far as Howie's point about putting this stuff down in the industrial park, I thought that was a real good point. At least that makes sense as the first place you look before you might locate this up, and that seems to be impossible and I'm wondering is it just ~ecause of the style of buildings that are going in there are just too ~~xpensive to build? Tom Hamilton: Part that plus the price of land. You can go down to the industrial park and pay, I don't know what are lots selling for down there Barb? Dacy: No I don't. Tom Hamilton: I don't know, you go down there and pay $10,000.00 per acre for land in the industrial park right now and put a $100,000.00 building in. Wildermuth: Right. The other thing is, if you move into the industrial park the chances are good that you're going to spend between $40.00 and $50.00 a square foot for a building. If you're going to spend that kind of money for 150,000 square foot building, I don't want a contractors yard next door to me. Emmings: But maybe some of these uses might be appropriate down there where some aren't. Maybe the people who own that land, if there's enough interest in that type of use, maybe the landowner down there would be willing to put up a nice building that will allow some of these places to come in. Wildermuth: I think the City might take a look at putting up some sort ~f buidling. Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1987 - Page 22 e Tom Hamilton: Our definition of a contractor's yard says inside and outside storage and I think outside storage is where the problem comes in. The industrial park people don't have any outside storage. You look at Merle's operation and just because of the type of work he does, excavating, he has to have stuff outside. He just can't store all his stuff inside. He's got too much stuff. Buckets for his backhoes and new blades and all that stuff is outside. The boat guy would have some boats sitting outside. Outside storage is important and it's cheaper. Merle's land is real cheap. He doesn't charge them anything to put stuff outside and let it sit there. Wildermuth: How much land is available in our industrial park at this point? Tom Hamilton: In the park that's being developed there's very little left. There's only half a dozen lots and it's going to have to go on the other side of the tracks. We've got a big piece over there north of Lake Susan that hasn't developed yet and west of Lake Susan also. Noziska: There's really quite a little land left in the basic area. I know I was in Roseville and I saw an industrial park that went in, the buildings went almost entirely around an open area in the center and they had an area where you could get semi's in and out of the back there but yet they enclosed and maybe I'm not understanding exactly ~~hat kind of businesses it is we're trying to keep in Chanhassen but it .seems to me like that would be the type of arrangement where you had a combination of inside and outside. Hanus stores a lot of stuff outside and I don't know, that mayor may not be a good example. He's in the community and he's sitting there with a lot of exterior storage. Regardless of the goofy tennants, that's a problem but to enclose it with buildings with one area to enter and have it sort of enclosed by the building itself, that makes some sense. If we're trying to keep these little guys and it seems to me with someone with a small business and one that needed a variety of services, I don't know maybe Jim's got a point. Maybe the City of Chanhassen should encourage and participate in keeping those kinds of people here. I agree with you. I don't think we want to start losing gals that fix and paint cars and guys that fix boats. I think we want to keep those people in our community but I think the intensity of that use is something that bothers me in the unsewered area. You know how I am about unsewered areas. I was against going to 2 1/2 acres and I'm tickled pink with the 10 acres per single family residential. I think that's a good idea. I can live with 5 acres. I don't have a problem with that but I think 10 is better. I think now we've got all these fancy rigamarolls to limit the intensity of infiltrating our ground water and then this seems to be going against that again and that's probably one of the reasons that I'm having difficulty. Tom Hamilton: There will be e:ank and pump I'm not sure it is. It's going to be very light use. very few people using it and you could put in a holding it every year. You probably have to pump it once a year '" Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1987 - Page 23 e because it just plain wouldn't get used. alternative. I think that's a good Noziska: Have you run some projections on that little sketching that you've got there as far as what that means to Chanhassen in the way of taxes and etc.? Tom Hamilton: The building would generate about $6,000.00. Just the one building we're looking at right now. If you increase the uses and I haven't had a chance to talk to the assessors to find out what kind of changes you would put on that property but it would increase the taxes. If I can get the information for you, I'll see if I can talk to the assessor. Noziska: All those sorts of things are important parts of consideration which obviously you have more knowledge of and understanding. OPEN DISCUSSION: LOT WIDTH AND FLAG LOTS. Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on lot widths. Conrad: What do you think? Keep it the same? eNoziska: It doesn't seem like there's any consistent guidance out there. It's whatever anybody or any particular community feels is right. Conrad: I guess I just get the feeling we're not gaining anything by changing the ordinance right now. Headla: To me we've had several situations where flag lots, it looks liked it was very reasonable. I don't what else the developer could have done. Dacy: One example, or at least I felt that a flag lot was and a variance was deserved was on the Shadowmere subdivision at the end of that cul-de-sac. They had kind of a hammerhead shaped cul-de-sac and if they would have built the cul-de-sac and created the lot lines so you could get the 90 feet across, it would have meant a retaining wall of 22 feet in height and x amount of cutting and filling and so on but if they can achieve the same number of lots but do less damage to the topography, and the topography I thought in that instance was the best reason to do that. Other examples, there was controversy in the Creek Run subdivision on Yosemite and then we talked a lot about this in the Centex and Curry Farms development. There are 2 or 3 flag lots along the steep slopes and cul-de-sacs also. The Commission felt that in the Creek Run example that it was pushing a line that he's trying to get an ~dditional lot out of there. I think the Council went along with that ~oo. Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1987 - Page 24 e Siegel: Barb, wouldn't you find if you had a standard arc width that you would avoid some of those kind of things just because of the cost of construction? They would have to be planned according to the topograhy of the land and meet the requirements and we wouldn't have to worry about variances for flag lots or that kind of thing. If you had an equal distance arc around a cul-de-sac and wanted to open up them to building odd shaped cul-de-sacs to take full advantage of every square foot of land. Dacy: To me that's another way of enforcing it. You can establish a 40 to 45 foot length along the arc or the curve of the cul-de-sac. You would end up with a 80 foot lot width at the setback line. If you increase that, then your lot width gets bigger. To me that's just another way of saying you have to have 90 feet at the setback. Yes, establishing a distance along the curve of the arc also would eliminate the flag lot option because you're establishing a minimum width at the cul-de-sac and not saying, you could go down to 15 feet and go back out and at the building setback line I am at the 90 foot lot width. While we're talking about flag lots, should I move onto that? Conrad: We should make a decision on this while we're talking about it. Is there any reason to change? Does anybody want to pursue that? Okay, we'll keep it. ~acy: We're glad we talked about it because a couple developers come ~n and say this 90 foot thing at the building setback line is ridiculous. You folks are too restrictive but after we called around to other communities, we find that that's not the case. Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on flag lots. Emmings: Do you have a minimum width? Dacy: Technically right now we're just saying everything has to be 90 feet and you have to abut on the street. If you wanted to you could put a sentence in the subdivision ordinance that said if a flag lot is to be created it shall have a minimum width of x feet but I don't know if you want to get that definitive at this point. Emmings: The only thing is if you're looking at it as preserving your space for future possible street. Is there anything in there about flag lots now, in the zoning ordinance? Dacy: No and not in the subdivision ordinance. Emmings: The thing that comes to my mind, we can sure leave it the way it is and the other thing we might do is just address flag lots in the ord i nance and say we don't 1 i ke them for these reasons but we recogn i ze there are certain places where they might be appropriate as a variance .and list those things. I think those are real good points that you ade there. Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 1987 - Page 25 . Noziska: So that wouldn't totally close the door but it would... Emmings: It would show that we're predisposed not to like them but there are certain cases where we will look at them because that will help us remember in the future too. And we want to say, Iwhen we do it, we will probably want to have a minimum width of, I don't know. You may want to give an easement or something over more land to be sure there's enough space there to build a road in the future. Conrad: I like that. I'm comfortable with keeping it the way it is but putting in some rationale for any variance to the conditional use. Dacy: Okay, then we can bring that back. The Planning Commission reviewed the City Council meeting update. Tim Erhart arrived at the meeting. Erhart moved, Siegel seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.. _bmitted by Barbara Dacy Cl.ty Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim .-i. ..