Loading...
1989 07 19 e e .e CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 19, 1989 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette ElIson, Ladd Conrad, Jim Wildermuth and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner and Mark Koegler, Planning Consultant PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR ALTERATION OF A CLASS B WETLAND ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R AND LOGATED JUST EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD AND SOUTH OF CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST 3RD ADDITION, ARGUS DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Ray Grant Don Patton Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Ernmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla: Jo Ann, what are the remarks by Elizabeth Rockwell, the comments? Olsen: Those were comments from when we first reviewed the site when the concept plan was going through. These comments were just her general comments over all the wetlands on there. Headla: Are they still appropriate? I'm not sure I can read all her writing but on that second line there under comments, it says by removing or plugging drain. Olsen: Right. See there are the 3 basins that are going to be altered. We've already done 2 with the first and second addition of those wetlands. They've already gone through 2 other wetland alteration permits so these comments are kind of all of them. The 3 wetlands that were going to be able to be altered. Headla: So it isn't quite appropriate to here? Olsen: Not with this specific wetland. Headla: The only other thing I had and I don't oppose what they're trying to do, is that we put it at 927, 930, if you go out there and walk around, I. e e Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 2 how do you know where you are? I addressed this last time and at this and I'm thinking well, should we ask for like a 6 inch something put al.ound so it's defined where the wetland beg ins. not sure it's appropriate and it's more of a question. I'm looking mound or And I'm Olsen: The way we do it is, that contour will be reflected by a drainage easement so that will be on all the surveys and that will be recorded on the final plat. So whenever any survey comes in for the house at the start or any decks or additions in the future, we'll see that easement. We'll know that that is the wetland, the edge of the wetland and the 75 foot setback will be taken from that. The people who live out there, that's why we also have that additional condition that it will be recorded against the property to try to make them aware that it is a wetland and it is protected. Other than having a fence out there or flashing light saying this is a wetland, it's protected, don't touch, we really keep trying to add additional ways to make the public aware. Headla: That really doesn't address my point. You can put it on paper. I'm asking that we put it on land. Olsen: Right. I just don't know how you would without, I don't see that you really want a structure around a wetland. You want to keep it. Headla: That's why I'm saying like a 6 inch mound or a drop in 6 inches or something because somebody can go out and mow and mow that not meaning to be harmful at all. Good intentions but they do it for 5-10 years and somebody notices it and the you come in and say, well it used to be a wetland but now it's such a low grade B wetland, let them do it. I really think we should address how do you define it when you're walking out on that land. Conrad: Do you want a monument of some sort? Are monuments used anymore? Olsen: I don't know if they are. I think just those little steel, but again people don't always see those. Conrad: You don't see them but. Headla: I think there should be something but I'm ready to recommend something. Conrad: That's a good comment. Headla: Let me just pass it on but I'd like to leave it for a time and we may not even solve it tonight but as we go along, maybe an answer will evolve. Conrad: I think recording the wetland on the individual parcels is a step but the issue is still there Dave. You're right. I'm not for creating another barrier because that sort of defeats the purpose of what we're trying to do. Yet on the other hand, you know full well that 5 years from now that people will be down mucking mucking in the wetland and when it's dry, they'll be mowing it. They'll be an area that they shouldn't be. Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 3 e Headla: And they aren't doing it intention to be harmful. Conrad: probably not. No, not intentionally. e Ray Grant: I'm Ray Grant. A suggestion, I think one of the things that we have to do is establish some taller vegetation around the edge of the pond. Maybe a suggestion would be that that will probably grow up fairly quickly, especially if it's a wet year when there's water in the pond and when the City drives by or somebody from the City drives on Audubon Road and they glance over and they see one of the neighbors has mowed down this cattails or whatever, they're going onto the easement. Maybe they can just send a letter out and explain to the guy why he really can't do that. I think that will, these cattails or whatever type of vegetation you've got established around the edge, I think that would sort of define where the wetland is. We added, this is designed to have water in it at I think the 923.5 I believe is the normal water elevation so theoretically the end of the wetland is 923.5 but in this situation we're using 927. That's the highest the water can get to from a 100 year storm. If the water goes higher than that, it flows out a way lower in an emergency overflow into the catch basin and also out beyond the emergency outlet. That might be a way, and everyday I go for a walk and where I walk there's a pond that's similar to this. It's in Burnsville but it's got this cattails and they're 5-6 feet high all the way around the pond. That's just grown up. I'd say the pond's been there 7-8 years, 10 years maybe. I've discussed the mounds out in the middle and I envision that that's what this is like. I think that's what they have in mind when they talk about the cattails. That defines the wetland just perfectly. That one has a fluctuation also. I think in a heavy storm it's gone up 3-4 feet and that's just about what happened. Conrad: Thanks for your comments. Anything else? Wildermuth: Do you represent Argus? Ray Grant: Yes I do. Wildermuth: Are you going to be developing the area or going to be selling lots? Ray Grant: Argus will build. I think they build all the houses uptown and they'll be building the houses also. Joe Miller Homes builds the house. Argus Development, Joe Miller owns Argus Development and Joe Miller owns Joe Miller Homes. Wildermuth: I see. So that will provide some measure I guess of control. The pond appears to be a very nice, very attractive addition to the development there. The one question I have is, what is to the north of that? Is that vacant land? e Emmings: Is that Dave Stockdale? Olsen: Well it will be Lake Drive just to the north. Then Dave Stockdale e e e Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 4 and the lOP district. Vacant lOP. Wildermuth: How close will the wetland be to Lake Drive? Olsen: It's not right against it. I don't know exactly how far it's going to be. It just comes around to the north. Ray Grant: I could point out to you where the wetland is today and that's this line right there so we're actually moving the wetland a little bit away from there. I'd say maybe 20-30 feet. About 20 feet. Wildermuth: will the wetland be 75 feet from the road? Olsen: No it won't. Ray Grant: Right now we're moving it further away than what it is right now. Wildermuth: We don't have any restrictions on that? Olsen: Not to streets. Wildermuth: addressed. It seems like that ought to be something that needs to be Conrad: Distance the road is? Wildermuth: Yes. In the future. Other than that it looks good. I'd like to live next to it. Conrad: How far is the road away from the wetland Jo Ann? Olsen: Lake Drive? Conrad: Yes. Olsen: The actual right-of-way has not similar to what we're doing on the east the land so I can't tell you exactly. just north of it. been established. It would be side where we have to work with It will be within 75 feet. It's ElIson: I like it. I think it will be better than it is now. I also shared Dave's concern because I don't think anyone will be checking those sorts of things and if other cities use plantings might be a solution, then maybe we should add that plantings over x length of height or something as far as surrounding it because that might just be the solution but I like it. Emmings: It seems like a very appropriate thing to do to me and the only thing I would do is say that the deed restriction, condition 3, that the language ought to include the fact that it's a 75 foot setback from elevation 927. Just so that's real clear what it's setback from. Other than that, I think it's fine. Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 5 e Erhart: I don't have any problems with this. It seems like a logical thing to do and perhaps an improvement over existing. Conrad: Okay, thanks. The reason we went from 930 Jo Ann to 927 was what? Olsen: The 930, we have the plans that you have in your packet. It looks like the top portion of the new pond but actually once we got the calculations for the high water, that's where the water will, at the 100 year flood, that's the highest it will ever be. There's an outlet and it will never get above that so we always use the ordinary high water mark for that edge and that's how we lowered it. Conrad: Of the 3 issues, if there are 3, that have been brought up, are documenting where the wetland really is for residents and I don't think we have a solution for that. Is there a solution? Is that something we need to look at? Olsen: Like I said, each time we add another condition trying to make it a little bit tighter so it's more fair. e Wildermuth: In this case I think we've got some comfort because the owner developer is also going to be the builder. Rather than selling off individual lots. Olsen: It never gets passed on it seems. Emmings: If there's a deed restriction though, that is something that an owner will become aware of when they buy the lot. If they read it or if they pay attention, if they remember it, it's a whole bunch of things that could get out of the way there but at least there's something. Conrad: Another issue is the setback from the road which is not necessarily this developer's problem. Wildermuth: I think it's something we should look at in the future. Don Patton: Could I say something? Don Patton. One of the things that the, whenever title goes over, you normally do a title search. This is going to be your registered advance easement. That would show up in the title which is certainly highlighted to the new buyer as it's closed so I guess I'm enough of a conservative but I think we need less restrictions and I think that's a certainly an option for the buyer to see where there is an easement as a matter of record. e Conrad: I think we, well I don't disagree with you Don. At least I personally don't like a lot of restrictions yet if you have an asset, I could take you through Chanhassen, I'll show you where what we're talking about is being abused right now. So on the one hand I don't like restrictions and arbitrary laws and things that can't be followed up yet on the other hand, people aren't diligent. People aren't reading all of the deed restrictions. They simply don't do that and I'm not sure I want Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 6 e to throw it on government's lap to do it but we're talking about, is there an easy way when a knowledgeable group who is developing a property can, you're the best source we have to help protect. You're putting in the development and this is the time that we can put something in that might last for a while and I'm not sure we know what that is so, you're project is in front of us. We're talking kind of in general. Emmings: Ladd if I could interrupt just on his comment. An owner will find out that there's an easement there and that there's a wetland out there and it goes to 927 but that isn't going to mean anything to a landowner. He's not going to know where 927 is on his lot and that's what we're talking about. Unless he gets it surveyed and gets a stake in the ground and that's what I think Dave is saying is that there ought to be some visual cue for that landowner or anybody else just where that 927 contour is and that's what we're really talking about. Conrad: I don't have any other comments. Jo Ann, in the staff report, the applicable regulations, you referenced Class A wetlands. We're talking about a B here. Olsen: Class B wetlands, right. Conrad: So that's simply... e Olsen: there. Yes, we brought that out from another regulation that just got in It's a B. Conrad: Any other discussion? Is there a motion? Emmings: I'll make a motion to recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit 189-3 as shown on the site plan dated July 10, 1989 with the 4 conditions of staff and altering condition number 2. Changing 930 to 927. Condition 3, changing the last line so that it reads, 75 foot setback and then inserting, from elevation 927. Just those two changes. Wildermuth: I'll second it. Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit 189-3 as shown on the site plan dated July 10, 1989 with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit revised plans providing for an uneven, rolling bottom contour for variable water depth of at least one foot and showing that the basin will have a fringe of shrubs on the upland surrounding the basin to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland. e 2. That the new edges of the wetland at the 927 contour will be protected by a drainage and utility easement which will be shown on every lot survey and that the applicant understands that a 75 foot setback exists from the 927 contour for decks and accessory structures. Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 7 e 3. A deed restriction will be recorded against each lot abutting the wetland stating that the lot contains a protected wetland with a 75 foot setback from elevation 927. 4. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT MODIFYING ZONING RESTRICTIONS AND LOCATIONS FOR CONVENIENCE STORES, GAS STATIONS AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATIONS. Mark Koegler presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. ElIson moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Tim, we'll start at your end. Anything? e Erhart: No. Not on this one. We discussed this thoroughly the last time. Emmings: The only thing I thought about when I read this and it may be real simple. If you have a place selling gasoline, and they have more than 400 feet, square feet of foor area for retailing non-automotive goods, what is it? Koegler: Can you repeat that? Emmings: If you have a place that's selling gasoline or motor fuels but it happens to have 405 feet of floor area for retailing of non-automotive goods, what is it? Does that help? Conrad: It can't be. ElIson: That's your definition of convenience store. Wildermuth: Convenience store with gas pumps. Koegler: You're saying it would kick it above the threshhold of the motor fuel service station in terms of the retail square footage. That would kick it into the convenience store. Emmings: Now it's a convenience store? e ElIson: Right. Koegler: Convenience store picks up where that one leaves off with over e e Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 8 400. Emmings: Okay, but the definition of convenience store doesn't include an ability to sell motor fuels. Or doesn't include the sale of motor fuels. Koegler: There's two convenience stores. We have one with gas pumps and one without. Emmings: Okay, and do we already have a definition? Koegler: Yes. Along with. Emmings: Alright. That was the case that popped into my mind and if it's accounted for, that's fine. Koegler: It probably would have been clearer if we would have repeated that in the previous report. Emmings: And I didn't look for it. ElIson: I like it. I wanted to make these things and I like the way we're going so that's fine. Wildermuth: I really don't have any comments other than I think they probably all should be conditional uses. Permitted and conditional accomodation probably all should be reviewed on a conditional use basis. Headla: No comment. Conrad: My only comment, under convenience store definition. that paragraph it says this includes soda and similar beverage and food products which can be heated and/or prepared on site. We do want the word prepared in there? Middle of dispensing prepared. Olsen: It's in microwaves. Ernmings: Some of they do it now. I'm aware of some that do. Conrad: prepare? Not heat. Emmings: No, I'm talking about... ElIson: You mean like a bakery in there? Emmings: No, they put together pizzas. I don't know to what extent they do it. Conrad: That doesn't seem like a convenience store to me. Convenience store doesn't prepare food. That's a restaurant. ~ Ernmings: Yes, they'd sell a frozen pizza but now make it on site. Conrad: They can heat up what they're selling to the public. I'd buy Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 9 . that but to prepare it throws it into a different category in my mind. Does it matter? And I couldn't take it any further than that but prepared bothered me. Koegler: That definition is a carryover from some of the discussions that you had with Steve when he was here. I don't know what transpired at that time. I don't know if there was supposed to be a distinction between heated and prepared. I think the intent of the ordinance from at least my perspective is clearly that it's supposed to be pre-packaged products that maybe you zap in the microwave for 30 seconds and you go out the door. It's not supposed to be a food preparation area because that gets you into health requirements and everything else that these would not begin to meet. You have the venting requirements and everything else under building code that you have with kitchens. I don't think there's any damage if it's troublesome to strike the word and/or prepared. Conrad: Is Tom Thumb a convenience store? Ellson: Yes. Conr ad : there. it's... Which we have down on TH 101 and they have a little deli in I don't know what they do to get the food to their little deli but ~ Koegler: They're doing more and more of that. Conrad: There's a lot of business there. I guess you know, it didn't seem in sync but I'm not anti that word. I just bring it up and if anybody is bothered by it, we could strike it but on the other hand, just thinking about Tom Thumb. They have a little deli in it and it's not bad. I think it is a convenience to their surrounding neighbors and doesn't bother me. Ellson: What is your biggest concern? That someone will have a prepared thing and come and call it convenience store? I guess what's the worst that could happen? Conrad: No, it just took a convenience store another step further into a restaurant category which means more traffic which means some other things but I think when I think about the alternatives of striking it, and maybe some assets that it brings to the neighborhood, I prefer to keep it in there. Elison: He didn't mean something that has to be warmed to eat and prepared could be either. Like you said, maybe a put your own sundae or something would be prepared but it wouldn't be heated so I think it should be in there. . Emmings: I supposed being under 400 square feet is going to provide some limitations too where they're going to want to be displaying so much merchandise in a fairly small space that they're not going to want to devote much to preparation. I don't know. Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 10 e Conrad: I think the only thing I see Steve is, because of convenience store and where we put them... Ellson: He said anything over 400 feet. Conrad: Yes, it would be over 400 feet. I'm not sure I see a down side. In a business neighborhood, traffic is what we're worried about and as long as we can't sit down, I guess I'm not totally bothered after going through the logic myself. Anyone want to make a motion? I don't think we're talking about any wording changes to what is there. Emmings: I've got a question. Ellson: We don't have any guidelines... Olsen: We're looking for it too. Emmings: What, the definition? Olsen: Yes. Emmings: Of convenience store with gas pumps, yes. It's not in there. 4It Olsen: Well we don't even have convenience store but I know that we've... Emmings: No, it's not in this draft of the ordinance unless it's been added since. Olsen: That's why I'm thinking it must have been an amendment. Emmings: I feel like I remember seeing it but it's not in the Code. Olsen: Whenever we have anything in there, we always define it. Maybe it never was defined. I know that it was. Emmings: What are you looking from us on this? Do we have to make a motion recommending approval? Olsen: This is a public hearing. This is the real thing. Emmings: Do we need to close the public hearing? Conrad: It has been closed. We just need a motion. Emmings: I'll move that we recommend to the City Council that they approve the ordinance as presented to us by staff and I'd also ask that staff check between now and the time it's presented to City Council to make sure that we have a definition for convenience store with gas pumps that corresponds to the other definitions we've been presented with tonight so that they all coordinate together. . Wildermuth: Second. Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 11 e Koegler: My only comment would be that convenience store with gas pumps, I think the assumption has been that that's self explanatory. That the only differential between the two is the existence of pump islands. If we need to clarify that by adding another one that essentially says the same thing except this one has pump islands, we can do that but I think the assumption, the way the ordinance is drafted right now is that convenience store and convenience store with gas pumps are the same thing as far as the building goes. The only differential is the sale of petroleum outside. Emmings: Maybe you just want to add a sentence under convenience store that would say that if they sell motor fuels too, then it will be designated as a convenience store with gas pumps or something like that. I think it should be defined in there someplace. Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 20 adding provisions concerning convenience stores and motor fuel stations as presented by staff and directing staff to look into the definition of convenience store with gas pumps between now and the time it reaches City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 4It PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CODE: A. SECTION 20-3 REGARDING DEFINITION OF DENSITY. B. SECTION 20-409 REGARDING WETLAND SETBACKS (200') FOR COMMERCIAL DOG KENNELS AND STABLES. C. SECTION 20-441 REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF THE WETLAND SECTION. D. SECTION 20-1021 REGARDING SWIMMING POOL FENCES. Conrad: Jo Ann, there aren't many people in attendance. Do you have a staff report that you want to go through? Olsen: No, we can just go through each one... Conrad: Anything different than the last time that we talked about it? Yes, maybe we should go through it. I think for procedural purposes, we'll open up the public hearing for any comments to the amendments proposed to our zoning ordinance for Section 20-3, 20-409, 20-441 and 20-1021. Are there any comments? If not, is there a motion to close the public hearing? Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. , Conrad: Let's go through them one by one. Any comments on 20-3, definition of density? Any comments? How about 20-409? Wetland setbacks Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 12 ~ for commercial dog kennels and stables. Emmings: I have a question. When we say that you're going to set back a kennel or a stable 200 feet, what are we setting back? The building? Olsen: Yes. The stable would be what would be set back. The pasture, no. As far as like a dog kennel, when those come in I also include where the concrete is and the patio. That gets into the definition of structure which we're still... Headla: What did you say Jo Ann? Olsen: I take setbacks from like the concrete area around a kennel because that's permanent and I consider that a structure also so it wouldn't just be the dog house. I would consider that part of the kennel. That we're working on the definition of structure which would help define. Emmings: Our definitions of kennel under our definition sections of the code don't, relates to the property more than it does to a building but when you use kennel with stable, that makes me think of something that's built to house the dogs with runways and all of that. What is the objective of setting back a kennel or a stable from a wetland? e Olsen: The reason I did this was that we already have that control when they have to go through a conditional use permit. They have to be set back 200 feet from the wetland but if it's in an area where you don't need the conditional use permit, we don't have that setback from a wetland so they could be right up against it. Under the wetland ordinance, they could be 75 feet but when we reserached the conditional use permit for it, we felt in working with the Fish and Wildlife and also with Roger Machmeier and Jim Anderson, that they should be set back. The stables themselves where a high percentage of they, that they should be set back farther. Emmings: Why? Olsen: Why? The concentration of the manure. Emmings: Well, I wondered if that was the reason because I supposed if you had a small pasture and a lot of horses, if you're worried about nutrient overloading into the wetland, you may have the same problem with the pasture that you have with the stable. In fact, the stable is probably cleaned out and put on a pile where in a pasture it's not going to be so I don't know, it depends on what the objective is here. If you're worry about nutrient overload, I don't know that this will do it. Maybe it will. If the pasture is big enough, it's not probably going to be a problem. If it's small, it might be. I don't know that this does what we want it to do or not. Conrad: Dave, what do you think? ~ Headla: I think we're trying to solve a problem that isn't a problem and trying to fix something that isn't broken. I don't agree with the Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 13 ~ ordinance, the way it is right now. I can cite a particular situation where I did a horse inspection. You brought up a very good point. Where is the pasture? Normally very few places that I inspect that don't have a pasture around the barn. The barn invariably stays very neat and that's the thing we're trying to control. Your corral is where the horse will stay mostly during the winter and you have a manure accumulation but the people are picking that up in the spring or early summer, during the summe~. They can take that, haul that out in the pastu~e and leave it and they can be with the ordinance or conditional use permit. What we're trying to do, and the results that you're going to accomplish, I think it might be negative. I'd like to see this thing thrown out on the conditional use permit and take another look at it. If you're really trying to control nutrients, I think you have to control it probably by densing and keeping a pasture and that clean. Not just say a stable. And dog kennels, and I'm kind of out of a dog era now but the dog kennels that I've known and I know now, they're spic and span. You go outside and boy they're clean. What are we trying to control? I think we're trying to control something we think is a problem but where has there ever been a defined problem? I don't know. Conrad: Are you just saying where the stable's located is really not the problem? Headla: That's right. e Conrad: It's the pasture. Headla: And the fella that applied here this last year. He jumped through hoops trying to get his barn at the right spot and he called me over and wanted me to look at it and we said okay let's put it here because the drainage is away. That kind of decides where the building and that made a lot more sense than that actual distance from the wetland. Conrad: Do you see a simple solution to this? I think Jo Ann is trying to solve some problems, not making it a big deal but maybe the simple solution for stables, it seems like dog kennels are easy to take care of this way but stable is probably a different thing. Should we delete stable from this one and work on it or is there a solution? Is it worth while? Headla: Yes. I think it's worth while and the reason I say that, when I drive around and I hate to see it limited to just residential single family or anything. When I drive around and I see a horse pastures that go out into wetlands. I'm having a hard time with that. I can't say anything. That's not in an ordinance. I'm not sure if cattle or horses, animals or such domestic animals should be grazing in wetlands. Maybe there's something, if enough people agree with that thought, maybe there's something there we could use to control the situation. I see animals, domestic animals grazing on wetlands, they're just degrading it conjunctively. e Wildermuth: But boy, is there going to be a human cry about something like that. e e e Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 14 Conrad: Yes. This is sort of a low impact way of doing something and probably not much but do you think there would be a great deal of outcry Dave from the animal owners? Headla: Yes. I think so. They've had their animals out there for a long time. I'm sure they look at it as their land. They bought it for that purpose. They've been using it for that purpose. I think there would be some very strong opposition. Erhart: You're referring to what? Cattle? Headla: Cattle. Domestic animals grazing on wetlands. Erhart: I didn't know there was anybody left in Chanhassen that raised cattle is there? Olsen: They'd all be grandfathered in. I don't think anybody is moving in. Conrad: The Kerber's used to have cattle out on Lotus Lake up until last year. Erhart: Did they really? Conrad: Oh yes. It was kind of neat to go by the cattle swimming in the water. Erhart: I think I agree with Dave that they shouldn't be in wetlands. I was trying to think of anybody in the south part of Chanhassen that has cattle. There's one over on 17 that raises cattle over there. Conrad: Well should we, Jo Ann what do you think? What's your feeling? I think the point's valid that Dave's, real valid, that he's raising. Olsen: Right. Wildermuth: But it's two separate issues I think. Olsen: We could look into controlling that. The ones that it would really impact would be grandfathered in so it wouldn't be changing anything. The structures we could, I'd have more control on but if that's not what people the problems, then that's okay. Maybe it isn't necessary and if that's the case, then we should take it out of the conditional use permit. The whole initiation of this was just to make the ordinance consistent. Conrad: Dave, tell us what your preference would be on this. Should we strike the stables at this point in time and do you want to do any work on this project just to help Jo Ann or do you feel that, we can leave it in and there may be little impact. As Jo Ann said, she's trying to make it consistent with Fish and Wildlife, consistent with what? Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 15 e Olsen: No. Right now our ordinance for stables and kennels, when they're a conditition use permit, under the specific conditions of that conditional use required to be 200 feet from the setback. Conrad: So Jo Ann really is trying to make things consistent. almost more housecleaning. It's Headla: On the other hand, throw it out of the conditional use permit. I think those were the words that were restricted that were not appropriate. Emmings: What did you just say. I didn't follow. Headla: Remove that from the conditional use permit. Conrad: Dave would like to change the conditional use guidelines. Rather than syncing this up with the conditional use guidelines, he's saying hey those are wrong. Emmings: Well, I don't think we know what we're doing here. I don't think there's any real, I don't feel any consensus up here for, maybe we should look at the whole thing again. Maybe we aren't doing the right thing in the conditional use either. e Conrad: probably a valid, so the question is, we could modify the zoning ordinance in terms of dog kennels and throw out stables and re-evaluate stables in context of pasture, corral or whatever. Emmings: What the compelling reason to have a dog kennel 200 feet from the wetland? Erhart: To me that just eliminates a whole lot of people from having a dog kennel on their property. If you have a 25,000 square foot lot, 200 feet deep, 125 foot frontage that backs up against a lake, that guy can't have a dog kennel. Wildermuth: Why don't we let the wetland ordinance control it so you can't be closer than 75 feet? Olsen: That's where a structure, it already is controlled by that way. Emmings: I think maybe that's enough. Maybe we should table this one and think about it some more. Conrad: I think so. Emmings: We looked at it before and didn't bring all this stuff up. Our comments were based on public comments that we heard. Conrad: And Dave is as public as we can get. e Olsen: So you're tabling of this is what? I guess I'm not clear on what you want. Do you want to review just taking out of the conditional use? e e e ~ Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 16 Conrad: I think we need you to review what the purpose of this is, especially for the stables. Also in terms of pasture land. Erhart: And dog kennels. Emmings: Give us a rationale. Conrad: And I guess dog kennels too. Emmings: Both need a conditional use permit now. Erhart: Right. I think what Jo Ann is trying to do is good. We're trying to make our ordinance consistent but let's re-evaluate these things as it relates, what it ought to be. Conrad: I would hope Dave could help you a little bit. Headla: I'd be glad to work with Jo Ann on that. Conrad: And maybe what he's suggesting is the conditional use permit may need some modification as well. Olsen: I'll check with our experts and see what they say that stables should be that far away. Emmings: I think what Dave said about density. Density would seem, near a population of horses for a certain size of land and also regulating how they dispose of their manure from the stable. Are they putting it out on the pasture? What are they doing with it? Or from a corral? Those things may be more important to regulate than where the building is. Erhart: I agree. Even the density of dogs lies because when you get a commercial kennel, then I can easily see where the 200 foot makes a lot of sense but 1 guy and 1 dog, being so restrictive is unreasonable I think. Conrad: It says commercial dog kennel. Erhart: It also says private though too. Conrad: Interesting. Emmings: I wonder, would the Fish and Wildlife people or DNR have any regulations or information about the effect on wetlands with these kinds of activities? Olsen: I can look into that. Emmings: They might be a good resource. Conrad: Section 20-441. Any comments on the penalty? e e Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 17 Erhart: I think the penalty is fine but I think the real issue here again is this information about what's a wetland and if we could provide some way of educating people, both existing Chanhassen citizens and people moving into the area buying houses, really what is designated wetland because I don't think people have any foggy idea of where the wetlands begin, even in a brand new subdivision like this. The first guy that moves in there won't have any idea where it is and just off hand I can think of 2 ways that we could improve the communications in that area. One would be to, a map that's important, to put it up in the lobby of the city hall here someplace so when people walk in, you know how you always have to wait to get an appointment with staff. They're always late and things, and they would browse around and look at these maps. Just kidding of course but the map and they could see what was designated land. If it was on their property, they would know. The second thing is, if we have all these pamphlets that we have up here and maybe print up a pamphlet. What are designated wetlands in the City so there's a higher probability that a land owner here in the city and lot owner would know if there's an official wetland and then also include in there the penalties. What's the laws and what's the penalty. Right now I don't think there's any convenient way. There is no way that anybody would know that there's a wetland on their property. Emmings: We could go around and paint them all red. Erhart: Paint them all red. Just some ideas. Conrad: You're right. Nobody knows. Erhart: Nobody knows. And then there's always the ones that, there's always the people that do do it. They sort of know but the fact that it's not blatantly spelled out for them, they go ahead and do it because they can always say, well how was I supposed to know. Olsen: Even the ones that you point it out to them, they'll still argue. They'll say that's not a wetland. It doesn't have... Erhart: But if it's on a map. Emmings: They'll say it's not wet. It wasn't wet last year. Olsen: There's never been a duck in that wetland. Erhart: If it's on an official map someplace, you can't use the argument well it's not wet because it's on the map. Olsen: We explain then it's just soils and vegetation. Conrad: Any other comments on this one? Erhart: Also point out, the map does exists doesn't it? e Olsen: Well we're updating it though. We're trying to update it. Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 18 e Conrad: Section 20-1021, the swimming pool fences. Any comments on that? Jo Ann, it says that you got some comments from people in the City. Is that right or did I misread that? Olsen: No, we've had no comments. This came about because we had people with the wording that if it was inaccessible from adjacent property, what they felt was inaccessible and what we felt was inaccessible, we didn't agree on. Plus the building code would still require them to have a fence for safety, for people falling out from the pool over the cliff so we took it out just to make things consistent again. Just make it clearer that you have to have a fence no matter what. Wildermuth: Sounds like a good idea. Emmings: Is 4 feet enough? Is 4 feet what you want? I think that I'm aware that there are 6 foot requirements in other cities. I'm wondering if, a pool is a very attractive thing and I think it's smart to fence it but I don't know if 4 feet's enough and when it talks about perimeter fences being 4 feet in height, I was going to check our code on fencing. Can fences be 4 feet on perimeters in all places on a perimeter of a yard? Olsen: As far as like on the front or corner? e Emmings: Yes. Olsen: Yes, we have no restrictions on that. You just can't block visibility. That's why we have site plans like on a permit. Emmings: Yes, like on a perimeter or something? Olsen: Yes. That's a good point. Emmings: And I supposed, it says it's located on property which is completely enclosed by perimeter fence and is what you have in mind there that at least the yard in which the pool is, that's what will be enclosed? Olsen: Yes. Emmings: Okay. I just don't know about 4 feet. Conrad: I would think that 4 feet is going to keep your infants and toddlers out. Anybody that wants, it is an attractive nuisance no matter what and because it's so attractive you're going to scale, somebody that's capable can scale a 6 foot as well as a 4. My thought there was making sure that infants, toddlers and little younger children can't easily get in. Emmings: And I'm quibbling now but if that's the goal, do you want to designate the kind of fence? Should it be chainlink? If you have a picket fence with the pickets this far apart, it's not going to serve that purpose. e e e e Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 19 Olsen: That's true. Everybody just assumes that they always put chain link. Conrad: It probably should be Jo Ann. Olsen: I'm just trying to think if there's other types of fencing than chain link that they use but I can check that. Conrad: Yes, we need your guidance on that but I think the chain link is really the way you want to fly. Ellson: I've seen people do the slat board right next to each other so you can't even see in. Erhart: Why don't you define it in terms of someone who can't get through it somehow as opposed to chain. Just try to find some words that says can't be penetratable by children. Conrad: Any other comments on this? Headla: I'd like to ask a question that Steve was pursuing and that he forgot to ask but he was going to ask. What's the intent of this? Ellson: She talked about that. Olsen: The intent of? Headla: Of this ordinance. Olsen: We're deleting certain words from the existing ordinance that were difficult to define. Headla: But are we trying to keep out neighborhood children? Olsen: Right. It's for the protection, yes. Headla: Okay, but if I had a swimming pool in my backyard and I got perimeter fencing allover the place. I've got probably 3 fences on different spots, but somebody could come in my front gate or come in the back and if I had a party, that swimming pool wouldn't have to be protected by this ordinance. Are we really trying to protect the swimming pool? If we are, then we should put limits on how far away that fence should be away from the swimming pool. Emmings: My thinking would be there Dave that if you have guests, you're aware of it and if you don't have your swimming pool fenced, you'll be watching it. I think this is more to prevent the situation where somebody wanders onto the property or is attracted to the pool from off the property where you're not aware of it. Headla: See that's what I was questioning. What is the real intent? Is it from people who reside outside the property? Are they protecting the pool from them? -- e e e Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 20 Emmings: I think so. Headla: If that's the intent, then I think the wording is appropriate. Emmings: You let the people have that choice. You can either fence your pool to protect everybody who might be on the property or you can fence your whole yard if you want to have a more open feeling around your pool and I think that's an appropriate thing. Headla: But I've seen patio fences in the immediate area of the pool. Ellson: I know people who have a big patio area and their yard and everything too so they've got all the lounge chairs. I've seen it both ways but I think more the other way. Conrad: Any other comments? Erhart: What if the closest property is 1,000 feet away? Conrad: That's okay. Ellson: But you don't want that split rail kind of fence. There's that one part about what the intent is. Conrad: A toddler can go 1,000 feet. Emmings: Okay, maybe I've got an idea. We can just add language to the swimming pool fence section that says the fence shall be chainlink or something else approved by the City which will prevent children from entering the area of the pool. Maybe people want to design something that doesn't look as cold as chainlink and if they do, fine but let's say you're going to use chainlink unless you come up with something else that we approve. I think that'd be a good way to do it. Conrad: Barbed wire, does that work? Headla: That works. That will keep a kid away. I use a lot of... fencing and it looks good and you can put wood up on it on top of it. Aesthetically I like it better than chainlink. I'm trying to think, do I want to support the wording of chainlink. Appropriate fencing but by who's definition. Wildermuth: We want it to limit access. That's what we should put. Fencing that effectively limits access. Emmings: I think by saying chainlink though, you get the idea across real clear. Put the burden on them to come up with something else that works. Conrad: Is chainlink a brand name? Emmings: No. How's that for a simple answer. I have no idea. Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 21 e Erhart: Are you looking for a motion? Conrad: I'm looking for a motion on all of them. ElIson: What about the one we wanted to leave out? Erhart: I move that we recommend to the City Council the ordinance changes as outlined by staff for Section 20-3, regarding definition of density with the changes they recommend. Section 20-409, we'll not include that one I guess. Section 20-441, as recommended by staff. And Section 20-1021 as recommended by staff with the addition of definition of a chainlink fence unless otherwise approved by the City. with the addition of those words in that recommendation. Conrad: Is there a second? Emmings: Your motion includes chainlink? Wildermuth: I don't think we should use the word chainlink. I think we should say fencing that effectively limits accessibility. Emmings: Well let's second it. I'll second it for purposes of discussion. e Erhart: Okay, then I've just left item 2 off in my motion. Conrad: Jim's comment is not too specified. Chainlink, in your motion Tim, did you specify chainlink? Erhart: I specified chainlink unless otherwise approved by the City. That's the words I used. Conrad: Then let's get consensus on that wording. Steve, you're comfortable with that. Annette? ElIson: I like it. Conrad: Jim, you're not. Dave, where are you? Headla: I think Steve made the point that it should say chainlink is getting the point across. with that, I guess I'd support that. Conrad: I think I'd go along with that too. I think your comment is valid Jim. ElIson: We're still giving him other options. Just because you might get the interpretation that to me this is not accessible. e Emmings: I like the idea of shoving the people all the way over here and then have them show you why you should let them out. Conrad: Jo Ann, I trust you can specify what we're trying to get at? Typically insurance really dictates what goes around a pool. I don't Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 22 e know, I struggle with why we're doing this because typically you don't have a pool unless you've got insurance and insurance tells you exactly what they want around that pool. Emmings: I didn't think about that. Conrad: I always wonder why we mucky mucking around with this particular one when private industry is typically taking care of it. Erhart: When people come in, aren't they responding to an insurance requirement? What do they tell you? Olsen: There are quite a few pools out there without fences. Conrad: They don't need to carry the insurance so this will take care of, you could go out and dig your own pool and put it in and basically I don't think you'd have to have... Erhart: You're right. My insurance company wouldn't even know. They don't even ask that question. Emmings: Do you know what any of those insurance standards are? What they do require? That would be a real interesting thing to know. e Conrad: Barbed wire to the height of 15 feet. I really don't know. ElIson: I think it has to be a locked fence. I think I knew somebody that was looking into that and they had to have a lock. It's not just that they have to have a fence but it has to be locked. Emmings: No kidding. Olsen: Yes, that's in here. That it has to be latched. Emmings: Latched on the inside, yes. But actually a lock. ElIson: Someway that yes, not just any old person could figure out how to do your latch and turn it and lift it up. Conrad: Having a latch doesn't mean it's locked. ElIson: Really. It could be just a lift up kind of thing. I recall it being pretty tough. Erhart: If we didn't have this and some neighbor kid fell in the pool and drown, the City would be in a position of receiving quite a bit of criticism for not having such an ordinance. e Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Section 20-3, definition of density as recommended by staff; Section 20-441, enforcement of the wetland section as recommended by staff; and Section 20-1021, swimming pool fences amended to include the Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 23 e addition of the definition of a chainlink fence unless otherwise approved by the City. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Conrad: Everything passes Jo Ann except the one that we need you to do a little bit more work on and bring it back to us and see how we think. NEW BUSINESS: Erhart: I've got some new business. Can I introduce an idea here or do you want to wait until the end? Conrad: Sure. Go ahead. e Erhart: Just a quick one. Is there any interest on, a couple meetings ago we heard a horror story about the utilities company, and I don't believe it was NSP, I believe think it was Minnesota Valley Electric came in and clearcut a 50 foot wide path under a power line. I started thinking about that because I have a Minnesota Valley Electric powerline quite a few hundred feet through my property and I've been trying to reforest this area. As I've been planting trees every year and I started realizing this year for the first time, since they came out and did the same thing on my property, now since they did it on my property every 10 years, it hadn't grown up to mature trees and what had grown, a lot had been box elders so I was a little bit upset about it but didn't say anything and yeah, go ahead and I was too busy to leave the office and find out what they really wanted to do but once I really started looking at where I'm planting these trees so I don't get them under the power line and I don't think it's wide enough to give them 50 feet so I probably have some of the trees that I've planted are closer in than that but then I heard this horror story about this property out here where they came through and did that. I'm just wondering if that's something, it so goes against the effort we made in preserving trees and so forth. Obviously you have to maintain power line clearances and so forth but I wonder if there isn't some happy median that we ought to be looking at or is it something that we just don't want to deal with. Emmings: I went out and looked at that. I was out at Camp Tanadoona and saw where they came through there and it's just ridiculous. It's just incredible overkill for the purpose that they're trying to reach as far as I can tell. I don't see why they should be able to do that. Wildermuth: Is that the width of their easement, 55 feet? Emmings: I'm sure it must be and I think they should be able to take reasonable measures to make sure that in storms, that trees don't fall ont he lines but it looks like ground zero at Nakisaki. Conrad: It's just devastating. It's just such an overkill. e Erhart: One of the things we could do is we could get NSP's pOlicy for this and find out if Minnesota Valley's approach to this kind of thing is - - e Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 24 substantially different than NSP. Don, do you know what NSP's policy is regarding going in and clearing for lines? Don Chmiel: Yes. Normal procedure is that if you have, depending upon what the right-of-way is, and a line is put through that right-of-way. Say you have 60 feet of right-of-way, the power line takes up 30 feet of it, they have the right to clear up to the outer edges of that right-of-way but they can't go beyond any of that right-of-way. Erhart: But the question, what I was wondering, do they really do that though or do they try to take into consideration, do they try to minimize the cutting? I guess that's what I'm... Don Chmiel: Yes. In normal procedures as we go through, we avoid wooded areas as much as we possibly can. In some instances you can't but in proper kinds of routings that you look at, when a company goes out to see where a line would go, those can be moved one way or the other. It's always a routing process basically. Erhart: But in this case it was an existing line. wildermuth: It probably also depends on the voltage a transmission line carries out. Don Chmiel: That's correct and I think what they put in there was a distribution line if I'm not mistaken. It was not a transmission line. Is that right? Erhart: I assumed this was a line that was serving those houses there. Don Chmiel: Then that's a primary line rather than a transmission line. Emmings: Yes. That's what it looks like. Don Chmiel: How wide of a cut was it? I was going to look at it? Emmings: You should. It's at least 50 feet. Everything is gone. Don Chmiel: How many conductors are on that line? How many wires? 1 or 3? Emmings: I don't know. Don Chmiel: You don't need that much clearance. Conrad: Jo Ann, what would you see as being the right way to pursue this? Olsen: I can look into what sort of, is there an easement? have total right to do anything. I can check and see if we or make them contact us before they do that or I'll see how What kind of control they've got. They might can limit that far we can go. Conrad: Is that the right first step? e e e Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 25 Erhart: The first thing is to see if there's any interest on the Commission level to spend any time on this thing and if we could just get the guy to contact us and we give him the pitch about trees and then obviously find out about what our level of authority is. Emmings: At Tanadoona they told us, they told me that after they did this they lost power out there because something did knock their line down. Ellson: So in other words it was for no good because if they hadn't moved it and then 3 weeks after that. Emmings: That almost sounds like it was made up but that is what I was told. Ellson: I heard that too. Conrad: Is this a case where we can contact the power company and they may have a public relations person that could come in and talk to us? Olsen: Sure. I'll see if that necessary. They might just be able to send us their information. Conrad: I'm a little bit sensitive to how you spend your time. We could give you a whole bunch of stuff and maybe a starting point would be to see if they have a public information officer or somebody who will not know the answers but might be able to address us. You could tell him or her what our comments and concerns are and maybe they could be prepared to address those issues. Emmings: And if they would come to a meeting too, it might be good to have somebody from that, a spokesperson from that neighborhood here also. Conrad: Tim Foster. Maybe he's not in the neighborhood yet. Emmings: Somebody. Conrad: Most of it went through his land. I don't know how much went through the property owner's land. Ellson: Well we have Minutes from the people who were commenting on it. Those types of people. Olsen: We've got their names. Conrad: Okay. Any other new business? Any other old business? APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission dated July 5, 1989 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 26 e OPEN DISCUSSION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION, MARK KOEGLER. Koegler: Pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan and a couple of items that we'd like to briefly discuss this evening. The first is a schedule that was handed out to you on the table. At the meeting that we discussed the Gorra case, we spun that off a discussion and threw together some land use information that was necessary for the comp plan and to thoroughly address that application as well. At that time that we stated contingent upon some things falling in line that we thought a land draft would be available in about 90 days. I guess I'm pleased to be able to tell you that things seem to be falling in line and we proposed a schedule that you've got in front of you and are asking you basically for approval of that tonight. The reason we're kind of asking for approval, you notice it shows an August 30th meetin and that is a special meeting that we would like to see with the Planning Commission for the sole purpose of addressing comprehensive plan issues. That happens to be the fifth Wednesday in the month of August so we pick up potentially another night, if we can tie up your time, that we think we could get quite a bit accomplished if that was the sole item on the agenda. We would ask consideration of that and then be ready on the 16th, coming back with material on the socio-economic section and going into land use shortly thereafter. e Conrad: asking. Comments. Specifically August 30th, which is what Mark is Anybody have a problem with having a special meeting? Headla: I'll be in Alaska. Conrad: You may have a problem with this meeting. Anybody concerned with the schedule that they see in front of you? ElIson: .These things are going to be on the schedule in addition to our ongoing things right except for on the 30th, that will strictly be a comprehensive plan. Erhart: We have a meeting on August 6th? Emmings: 2nd. ElIson: Are we going to be making room for this purposely like maybe putting off some of the other things or is this always going to be at the tail end? Do you know what I'm saying? Like sometimes when it's 2:00 or whatever and we're saying well we've got this comprehensive plan thing. I mean I'd like it to be as important as item 1 all the time. Olsen: It's been real hard to push off, when you have that application deadline and they get it in on time, it's been really hard to say well it's already full. tit Erhart: I'll agree to it if I can get a double per diem. Conrad: Hey, Tim you can get triple. We'll give you all of ours. Okay. Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 27 e Erhart: On the agenda, Mark, where are we discussuing, in this series of meetings, are we discussing land use of the rural area or is that outside? e Koegler: No, we're discussing everything pertaining to land use. All issues. Spinning off of that, we assume that's a go, also at the time the Gorra request came up for the addition to the MUSA line, that request was subsequently joined shortly thereafter by the American Legion, if you recall, who wanted to add about 5 or 6 acres additionally. Prior to that time in conversation with Steve Hanson, there was a decision that was made that the comprehensive plan should take a more thorough look at the MUSA line expansion issue than perhaps it had been to date. Parallel to that, I was recently contacted by a couple of groups who have interests in, particularly the corridor along TH 5 and certainly have some vision of what they desire to see happen there most of which requires sanitary sewer service. In order to kind of apprise you of the status of things and basically let's get everything out in the open so to speak to begin with. In meeting with Jo Ann and meeting with these individuals, it was felt that it would be beneficial tonight to allow them to provide just a brief commentary to you just to kind of orient you to what their interests are. Some of the properties they represent and kind of basically introduce you to some of the faces that I'm sure we'll be monitoring fairly closely the activities that go on as we continue in conformance with this schedule. John Shardlow I think is here tonight and two other gentlemen, Bob Morehouse and Paul Napier. Both of these groups have been invited to give you a brief orientation as to who they are. Who they represent and what some of their thoughts are. We would suggest that again this is part of setting the stage for what we're going to launch into come the month of August and would encourage the Commission to listen to that and take that into account. So with that, Mr. Chairman I'd suggest however they want to start, with either John or Bob or Paul. e John Shardlow: Good evening. My name is John Shardlow and I'm one of the principles with Dahlgren, Shard low and Uban. We are planning consultants with offices in Minneapolis and we serve as planning consultants to a number of cities in the metropolitan area and also represent private developers before communities representing them and requesting development approval. I'm here specifically tonight on behalf of the property owners that are shown in the rose color on the exhibit that's in front of you and I'm going to make my comments very, very brief. We did talk to Mark and appreciate the time that he took in meeting with us, to talk about the fact and recognition of the fact that the City is taking a closer look at the comprehensive plan. We would like to play an active role in the process to try to assist you in looking at the advantages of looking at a comprehensive planning strategy that would change the MUSA line and provide sanitary sewer service along the TH 5 corridor. Just very briefly, I think there are a number of advantages that are presented by that area. First of all, from a land use standpoint, the vast majority of the land owners out there are looking at an industrial office park type of a land use that is not in competition with downtown Chanhassen. It's also a logical progression of the development pattern that's already existed in Chaska with the Arbor Park and the Jonathon West Industrial Park and a logical extension over time of the industrial development that's already e e e Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 28 occu~~ed in Chanhassen along that co~rido~. It is fo~ the most pa~t ~emoved f~om existing neighbo~hoods and the City of Chanhassen which avoids questions of capatibility of use and so forth. It also p~esents the oppo~tunity over time to accomplish and captu~e a ve~y significant tax base. I did some calculations, just ve~y rough and ve~y prelimina~y but also ve~y conservative. You've got app~oximately 900 acres shown in that rose color in front of you and obviously it has to be a staged development pattern and done in an orderly fashion and there's a whole lot of discussion that needs to take place, but with ve~y conse~vative estimates as to pe~centage of lot coverage, building value and so fo~th, I see about 315 million dollars worth of assessed valuation out the~e which b~eaks down to about 15 million dollars in annual taxes. It's the type of land use that we find from ou~ experience doesn't ~equi~e a lot of municipal se~vices and is a ve~y good ~ateable in the sense that it doesn't require a lot of se~vices and yet contributes greatly to the tax base. We also have an opportunity since all of these people are willing to wo~k together with us as their rep~esentatives, to work in a meaningful way with you to try to plan that area as a cohesive unit and not be bound necessa~ily by lot lines and topography and so forth, other constraints. We've got the opportunity to look at a large scale planned unit development. Look at perhaps more stringent cont~ols on building materials and landscaping and lighting and signage and the other things that communities look at in terms of community aesthetics. We realize that this is at least a 2, if not a 3 step process if you look at it in the broad base. Obviously the first goal that we have is to convince the City of Chanhassen that it makes sense to change your current comprehensive planning strategy and look at trying to sewer this area. Then there's the whole interest of the Metropolitan Council and issues related to the extension of the MUSA line. We have a bu~den of proof in this process of convincing you that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and then once that has been accomplished, to work togethe~ with you to try and carry the ball to the Metropolitan Council and assist in providing the type of information that obviously will be required in orde~ to accomplish those policy changes. When you look at moving the MUSA line, I think some things that argue in favor of this type of change are certainly the amount of dollars that have already been planned to be spent on TH 5. That's consistent with the Met~opolitan Council's strategy of t~ying to be prudent about where Metropolitan investment is in getting the most bang for our buck if you will. So I think there are some arguments and some good logical arguments that could be advanced as part of that process. I should also be candid and st~aight forward in saying that one of the interested parties is Mills Fleet Farm. You may have heard that around the community that there is an interest on the part of Mills Fleet Farm in locating in the northwest quandrant, excuse me northeast quadrant of TH 5 and TH 41. They have been involved as a part of this group and we also ~ealize the sensitivity in the City of Chanhassen for competition with the downtown area. We feel quite clearly after the review that we've done, that Mills Fleet Farm is not the type of a commercial use that would be a threat to the downtown type of comme~cial development. Again, that's our burden of proof and it's for information to be b~ought to meetings outside of this meeting. We really think given the type of market and the scale of market that a Mills Fleet Farm has, that they become a destination, and actually bring people to the community and would be a net benefit but again I'm not going Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 29 e to preach that to you tonight. I'm just going to tell you that we recognize that as our burden of proof. There probably would be in the long range scenario the desire for some very limited service oriented commercial as part of that overall development but the vast majority of the development that we would talking about would be in the indudstrial park and office park type of land use. That's really it. I guess we're corning he~e hoping that this is a timely point in you~ p~ocess to ask fo~ the opportunity to participate in some meaningful way as you deliberate these important decisions for the future. e Bob Morehouse: Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, I'm Bob Morehouse and I'm a local real estate broker that's been active in the area for the last 34 years. We're representing primarily 2 of the landowners on parcels that have recently been sold on the south side of TH 5. The Mary Welter Farm comprised of 137 acres and the property known as the Butler property on the west side of CR 117. About all I can say after Mr. Shardlow's excellent statement is amen because this is basically the main thrust of our effort is to petition for the extension of the MUSA line in an orderly fashion and the enhancement of Chanhassen I think is going to be a natural outcome of a reasonable extension of the MUSA line due to the broadening of the tax base that's inherent in the development we hope to bring in. We've been approached by a number of outstanding corporate users that are sincerely interested in the area and one of the ingredients that we find lacking is enough industrial or business park land to offer these people the kind of corporate sites they're actually looking for. I guess that's about all we have to say at this meeting except that we sure appreciate any questions that the Commission would have regarding any of the sales efforts or any of the contacts that have been made to us and through us and we just look forward to working in unisom with the commission and with the City of Chanhassen for the fullest and best use of everybody involved. Thank you. Emmings: Could I ask just one question? Conrad: Sure. e Ernmings: Are the people that have approached you, are they looking for sites for, you say it was corporate headquarters. Is it manufacturing type of facilities or is it office building type? Bob Morehouse: Well I think they are composed of both of these things. I think most of the things that the people that have contacted us would be putting installations that would be virtually under roof with practically no outside storage of any kind. They'd be the kind of style buildings that I think would be a credit to Chanhassen and this is one area that we're vitally interested in. We're very anxious to see that corridor which is going to be a showcase for Chanhassen and if we all pull together and get together and make the serious effort to see that that corridor of TH 5 as it's four laned out to TH 41, does become the kind of showcase that I envision Chanhassen will be forever proud of it and that's the thing that we have to do in working together to see that this does transpire and it can be done. It's just a matter of the will and the effort and the union between all the entity groups that are working Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 30 e towards that end. I know we can accomplish big things if we just put our mind to it. We can have the kinds of industrial campus like arrangements that the City will be proud of. Wildermuth: Does the change to the MUSA line that you're proposing involve any residential construction? Bob Morehouse: I think that that's incorporated within the rose colored area that was on Mr. Shardlow's map. I think that the Michael Gorra property would be largely a residential effort and the way I understand Mike's thrust would be upper bracket type housing is what Mr. Gorra envisions on most of his property. I think that the TH 5 frontage would perhaps have to come under some form of PUD standard that would be maybe other than residential but I think his main thrust is for the nice residential on the whole Lake Ann area there. There are possibilities in the PUD effort on some of these other parcels to incorporate some form of residential, maybe multi-family would be something that should be looked at. Wildermuth: I should tell you where I'm coming from. I categorically I guess coming in tonight, I'm opposed to any effort to extend the MUSA line beyond the Met Council's recommendation in the year 2000 except for lOP, industrial office park reasons. e Bob Morehouse: Well this is of course our main, this is where Paul Napier and myself put most of our efforts. I don't know how many of you are aware of it but we've been working very diligently for the last 4 years almost exclusively in the Chanhassen-Chaska area. I have a long tenure of activity in the real estate business in the City of Eden prairie and was largely responsible for some of the early on industrial activity there. I sold the former Charlyn site years ago to Buck Charleston and I also sold the MTS site down there and the Water Products site and some of those other locations. This is the end of the business that we love and recognize that we've got to have residential too but we're primarily interested in the lOP effort. Thank you. e Koegler: My only other comment Mr. Chairman in closing this item, would be that as John referenced the question on the timeliness of this and I think certainly I would hope everybody recognizes it is very timely. There is a parallel as to what transpired in this city back in about 1978 when Ed Dunn came forward with the PUD that was largely residential at that time with the industrial component. It was, John would probably remember, he was involved, 2,000+ acres so we have a parallel in that time I think the chief advantage of that proposal coming forward at the time it did was it led a concrete example of everything we were discussing and hopefully we'll have that benefit once again. I think if it's in the City's best interest and it's determined to be in the City's best interest, to expand the lOP sewered area, we're going to need some supporting documentation that perhaps some of these people can perhaps provide in terms of market forces and so forth that ultimately... Metropolitan Council so I don't know, none of us can sit here tonight and say that all of our interests will be exactly in parallel with one another but I think we're all definitely headed generally in the same direction ~ Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 32 e but on the other hand it's certainly interesting to see what costs money and what brings in money. It's a strategy you know and it's that kind of stuff that helps us decide what we want. When there is a cost of putting in multiple unit dwellings and I think it's intriguing to see what that is and it's not that you want to rule them out but you've got to know that there's a price tag attached and if there's a price tag attached to that, you have to make sure that there is compensating balance. The bottom line after reading this, I don't know that Don expects us to, I guess Jo Ann I'm not looking and I'm going to open it up to other members here. I'm still intrigued by what he said. I'm not looking for a formula from him and I'm not looking for, to hire some phD's to come up with the Chanhassen formula but I guess I'm looking for some of this kind of input as we go into the planning process where somebody comes in and rezones 2,000 acres to lOP, it's kind of fun to see what that could mean financially. I guess I'm interested in what people think would be the next step on what Don said in back. Are there any comments? Tim, based on what Don said, do you have any need to know information besides this? Erhart: I think, in the first place I was really surprised at the data. Not at the direction but to the extent of the numbers. Considering how much and then more recently I started looking at buildings in the industrial area here and what we pay, what currently pay for taxes. I never really looked at it until just recently and I was absolutely shocked at how much commercial and industrial businesses pay for taxes. e Wildermuth: And how little they require in the way of services comparatively. e Erhart: Yes, well basically. Not only that, I was more taken back just recently when a friend of ours was looking at buying a house down here on Riley Lake Woods until he found out what the taxes were on that house. I just couldn't believe it. I figured they had to make a mistake but it's a 2 1/2 acre house and it's a big house and the value is $350,000.00 which I don't understand who can pay those kinds of monies for houses but besides all that, the taxes were $10,000.00 a year which exceeds my monthly house payments. But anyway, I mean $10,000.00 a year taxes for a house is just, I don't know. I guess anyway, without trying to make a case, what it's telling me is that I know we have high taxes just in our average house here in the City it ranges from $3,000.00 to $4,000.00 a household. We're right at the top level in the metropolitan area. I also know that there's people who want to come into this city with additional offices and industrial and that we're getting to the point where there isn't much land left to give us a whole lot of flexibility in trying to attract those people when in fact we have I think Todd Gerhardt here, one of his major job responsibilities is to try to attract industry into the city so on one hand we're trying to attract industry and then on the other hand we don't have a lot of space. You take that and combine it with the tax problem and everything and then add this data on top of it, it clearly indicates to me that we ought to immediately go in the direction of trying to get some, try to increase our commercial and industrial tax base in this city over the next 5 years if possible. Certainly not to restrict it which I think we're approaching. I think that's what we're approaching at this point so I thought the data was very good in combining with real world Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 31 e and certainly welcome some of the input that they will provide. Bob Morehouse: Mr. Chairman, can I just interject at this point. We are prepared to dig in with the engineering and all the data that we have already compiled and data that will be forth corning as we progress along this effort so we will be most happy to accommodate the Commission and the City of Chanhassen with anything that we have. Conrad: That's good. I'm sure we'll use your input. I think it's helpful as we try to decide how we're developing Chan. I think you obviously have a vested interest but I think from the sounds of your presentation tonight, you sound quite competent and if we decide to extend the MUSA line, it's nice to have some advocates out there that can provide us with information to go to the Met Council with. I think almost every word you bring up brings questions to mind. How do you develop and it gets a little bit mind boggling and how much planning can we do and we're concerned about taxes and we're concerned about residential and we're concerned about environment and how they all mesh and we're also concerned about TH 5 and we're not really wild about bringing too many more people on TH 5 until the highway is upgraded so a lot of situations that we have to mesh together and it's an imperfect system we've got but I think, I'm impressed by the comments you made tonight and it's good to have you out here and looking at it. e Bob Morehouse: One further remark that I'd like to make is, I just thought of this and it's vitally important on something that you just said about bringing the people, the traffic on TH 5. Bear in mind that when we sold the McGlynn site, Paul and myself, that's been almost 2 years ago and they still are not completed and the lead time necessary to get these installations, these large corporate users in place is sometimes anywhere from 2 to 3 years and some of the companies that have approached us and are interested in the area are thinking in terms of not moving in for 2 years or more so I just want to leave that thought in the Commission's mind that time is of the essence because we need that lead time... Conrad: Mark, what else? Koegler: That's all Mr. Chairman on that topic. We will proceed then in accordance with the schedule that I outlined earlier. Conrad: It may be a good time to bring up and I probably should have done it under old business. It relates to Don's comments back on the City revenue and land use. Did everybody read this, Don's comments? Erhart: I read it again just before I carne. I thought it was excellent. Conrad: It's kind of fun to go through the data. e Erhart: Yes, that data was the good part. It's surprising. Conrad: In summary Don says, hey we can't apply any formula to what we've got going here and how the balance, revenue and expense and I believe that L _ Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 33 e experience here, it's clear to me what we ought to be doing. Conrad: Anybody else with comments in where to go and what to do? Wildermuth: I'd like to see an analysis like this done for Chanhassen but I'm not so sure that it really is required once you have an analysis for an a~ea like Lakeville. I think the example is the~e. Emmings: It confirms what we've kind of been told and have suspected all along so I think we're thinking right and that's it's value to me. He said this is too simplistic but I'm real happy to have it and I think it's right. Wildermuth: I think the data was a lot more revealing and constructive than the cover letter. After I read the cover letter I thought, oh wow. Conrad: We're not going to find out anything. Wildermuth: We're not going to find out anything. e Conrad: The only thing that I saw, and is it worth while? Is it worth while, do we have questions that we'd like to, as we get into planning and zoning and passing things up to City Council, are there still further financial things that we could ask Don if we had him to a meeting? I guess I'm looking for anymore input that we need as we try to glop zones together on the next map. I have one question. As residential grows by a thousand, the next thousand, are there any hidden expenses? ElIson: New fire truck? Conrad: What are those things. Wildermuth: When do we get into a full time police department? When do we get into a full time fire department rather than volunteers? Conrad: Yes, and what that tells me is how we zone things or how much more, and maybe we're getting too fine in some of the thinking but what's hidden out there that goes in these big increments. It's not the next 3 houses that push you over but another thousand houses. Are we expecting, is there a big increase in taxes due for some magic reason? Those are the things that I'm kind of intrigued in. Erhart: There's got to be a balance to this thing. Obviously from this data, the perfect city would be one great big industrial park. ElIson: And my house. e Erhart: And a few administrators around to collect the taxes and obviously cities don't do that so there must be some other end of the spectrum that says you don't have, there must be something that planners can tell us why and how much land we should look to industrial or how much industrial tax base do we want for the ideal city because we're only looking at the tax standpoint. There's got to be another... Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 34 e Wildermuth: I think we just saw an example of what we should be looking at and that is the TH 5 corridor. On both sides for what, I don't know, a quarter of a mile probably ought to be lOP because you sure don't want, I certainly wouldn't want to see any other kind of zoning, or any lOP type of zoning down around where your property is Tim. Emmings: I think that's a perfect corner for it. In fact, I intend to make a motion to that effect. Conrad: I guess what I'd still like to propose Jo Ann is that we get Don to one of our meetings, the early part of the meeting so we can just, and Mark might be there too. We may be asking good questions Mark, just by chance, we may ask something that might dictate where we go zoning wise, especially on that TH 5 corridor because of the MUSA line and obviously the commercial use of that but I think the first step, this is interesting stuff and I think maybe if we took a half an hour with Don, that might give us some. Olsen: He's always offered to come. He's here tonight he said if you want to have him come down. Conrad: Let's not do it tonight but let's do it before, let's sync it in with the schedule of updating the Comprehensive Plan. e Olsen: You might get him in on the special meeting and that would give us time. Erhart: Are we going to get into some discussion tonight or this is it? Olsen: On the blending ordinance? Erhart: No, I mean on this planning thing. Koegler: No. That wasn't our intent. Erhart: I have questions about John Shardlow's map there relating to what you said Jim now. The year 2000 MUSA line does not go below TH 5 isn't that correct? Koegler: Until you get to the McGlynn site. Erhart: I'm talking about that area that's excluded currently. Koegler: Correct. Erhart: Now these fellows are coming in here. Emmings: It doesn't even go down to TH 5. e Erhart: Right, it doesn't even go. Emmings: Some of it. Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 35 e Erhart: So you're saying that this Chanhassen line that we've always been, that I've been looking at for 4 years is basically, we're taking a complete fresh look at this. Obviously because what these guys are proposing is even beyond that and so is it in your mind conceiveable that we would enclose a little area north of TH 5 that wouldn't be in the MUSA line or are you suggesting that we're going to go to Met Council with a MUSA line extension that basically goes down to TH 5 plus this industrial area or what's your thinking Mark? e Koegler: It's premature for me to sit here and tell you that at least from a staff point of view in putting this together that we could support a wholesale expansion of the MUSA line just as it was shown tonight. That mayor may not be true. The other statement though that you made Tim that I would pick up on was kind of what I think you were eluding to is kind of a donut hole. We end up with an area that was not in the MUSA line north of TH 5 and possibly have some in the south of TH 5 and my initial reaction to that is is that probably wouldn't happen. What you might have is a MUSA line that encompasses both of those areas but within the framework of the Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan, which is related very closely to the land use element, we're required to show in 5 year increments how sewer service is going to be extended into new trunk sewer service areas and to phase it in that way. The MUSA line will be ultimate framework of 2000 or 2010 or whatever date we're looking at and then have these 5 year blocks, if you will, that have some more progressive kind of approaches as to how those areas are serviced. A large degree of it is going to be simply due to where utilities exist right now and which way is the most prudent way to expand those. As a result of the property that's south of the McGlynn site being added to the MUSA line, it appears as though that with some sewer improvements done in that area, it may service some of the area west of the McGlynn with with a lift station down in that area. Again, those kind of things we'll look at in detail and be able to come back and say that if you've made the fundamental decision first of all that we need more lOP, these are the areas that make sense initially to look at that. Erhart: Yes, along TH 5. Headla: I've got a question for you Mark. This whole area here. If we make a decision not to support their request, what's your best guess when that would be sewered? e Koegler: The standard response to that is what I'll give you for now pending any further investigation but the sewer plan that the City adopted when the Comprehensive plan was adopted, showed most of the area needing to be serviced by the Lake Riley Interceptor that eventually would be constructed up along Bluff Creek, the Bluff Creek Interceptor excuse me, and come on up through, kind of the southern up to the northwest portion of the community. You should be aware, I think there are some viable options for servicing some of that property and that is, in a joint powers agreement potentially with the City of Chaska where the landowners to see if there was interest in Chaska and Chanhassen to have Chaska annex part of Chanhassen. You're talking about possibilities over the next 20 years, Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 36 e those are possibilities. The industrial park that was referenced along TH 41, I presume just a cursory review, you could extend some of the utilities northward into Chanhassen and serve some of the Chanhassen property that way. Headla: But if we don't do anything, when do you think there'd be sewer? Koegler: I don't really have a date. We have always talked after 2010 and who knows, maybe it's 2050. Headla: Then the other question is, if we would decide to support this and it got approved, when do you think that sewer lines would go through there? What's the lead time for all this to happen? Koegler: Again, that would be largely at the control of the City of Chanhassen through the Comprehensive Sewer policy Plan that you would identify the areas that based on market conditions, based on finance, based on ability to construct new utility lines, certain increments would be brought in over say the 1990-1995 period. 1995-2000. 2000-2205 and so forth. So I think that largely would be back at the City's control if and when you get the overall approval to include that in the MUSA line. Headla: So it could happen by 1995 or 1996? e Koegler: Portions of it could, yes. Erhart: Why is that little loop on the top TH 5 you say a Bluff Creek Interceptor, why not the area also to the west of it out to Lake Minnewashta? Koegler: That falls in that same category, if we're talking about the same thing. The Mills Fleet Farm site is an example. Erhart: Yes, I know. The line that Dave showed there. Headla: We're talking this area right in here now? Erhart: Yes. Now what's to the west of that though? Koegler: The Zimmerman piece and all of that? Erhart: Yes. How do you see that served? Koegler: The plan as it sits right now shows that being served again by this future interceptor sewer. Erhart: So it's only the land to the north and to the east of that that will be using the Lake Ann Interceptor? e Koegler: Well, the caveat that I always throw out here that I think you do have to keep in mind is that all of those decisions for the last 10 years have been based on the 10 foot contours that the City has had available. At the present time, most of the City has been flown and Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 37 e contours are being developed at 2 foot intervals for a great deal of the community. That may shed some new light on what is actually serviceable through gravity sewer to different areas potentially going out to this new interceptor. So it has been based on gravity flow and gravity flow up to and including now it says that has to go into a new interceptor. Erhart: I guess it would seem inconceiveable to me that we would somehow put industrial/commercial on, I don't see how we can restrict industrial/ commercial along TH 5 until the year 2050. Koegler: You're going to receive a great deal of pressure. You are now. Erhart: Yes. Emmings: We forsaw, you've drawn a plan already that showed, we've looked at plans that you've drawn that show that kind of development along there already. It isn't like it's a surprise. Conrad: The surprise is the people wanting it. Emmings: I'm also surprised that they all got together and are coming in here. e Headla: There's one little spot that they didn't get. here. If you get the rest, why wasn't that included? property going strictly east from the Tanadoona Road. This area right in It would be the Erhart: They didn't have the property right adjacent to, what is that CR 117? Conrad: That's going to be a green area. Erhart: It seems to be driven, again having that loop again when it now appears it doesn't make sense seems to be driven by this gravity flow thing and how important is that or is that just something we've hung on hat on a few years ago? Why not have, I mean right now we have what, 30 lift stations in the city of Chanhassen? Why not plan for lift stations? If it makes more sense to develop land along current arterials and logical places from a transportation standpoint to have industrial property, why weigh so heavily on lift stations when it's something we've already accepted it as part of our sewer system? e Koegler: There are probably two reasons for that. The major one has been a policy side at the Metropolitan Council level. It goes back to that they would recognize that just as you got into some arguments over the years with properties adjacent to the existing MUSA line, the intent originally was if it can be served by gravity sewer, it should be included in the line because that didn't require the construction of new trunk facilities which was one of their concerns. That has historically been a major policy issue. The minor thing is exactly the point that you referenced that ideally you would develop the property without lift stations because there are 30 or whatever the number is currently in the e e e Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 38 city and those are a constant maintenance problem so if you can, you avoid those. Conrad: Okay. Let's talk blending. Koegler: Interesting topic. Blending was a topic that I first became familiar with a while ago. I think Tim gave me a copy of his ordinance draft. We had agreed to try to get something together on that and then Steve was retained and I think the intention was that Steve was going to follow up on that and now given what's transpired it's fallen back in my camp, which is fine. I sat down to look at this and had intended to put together a draft and the way I started with that was to play with sketching up a couple of things in some areas and I picked some sites adjacent to other properties where I knew they were larger lots and would be developing and I quickly realized that there still are a lot of general kinds of thinking that I needed to get back from you. Some of the parameters that you're looking at. Some of the exact things that you wish to accomplish by this ordinance. Focusing on the two drafts that have been put together, both of which certainly are workable, they vary in a number of areas. They vary with regard to the lot size that each of them recognize. Tim's approach takes a distance of 200 feet where Bill's approach, if I interpret it correctly, he's only concerned with lots that are adjacent to new development. As I looked at this, the one issue that I began to ponder was eventually will you get into having to blend with blended lots. What I mean by that is, right now if you've got a property that's adjacent to a 30,000 square foot lot and you require a 29,000 square foot lot or whatever, the guy with the 30,000 can corne back and potentially split that legally under your ordinance into two IS's and then where are we? So I think some general thinking on where this is going to apply needs to be offered. The A-2 zone for example with 2 1/2 acre lot sizes, is blending going to be required there? We need to address I think the intent which I think is pretty clear but obviously that has to be part of the statement of the ordinance that ultimately we go with. Then another topic that as I looked at it I don't think probably was addressed, was the whole issue of abutting lot lines. Just to talk about lot size to a certain degree doesn't necessarily give the buffering that I think you're trying to achieve. If you look at lots, I'll take Greenwood Shores as an example but don't use that necessarily as a strict example, those lots are maybe 200-250 feet long in some areas. Do you want to allow developments that potentially can align 3 maybe single family homes backing up to that 1 lot? Does that accomplish what you want to do even though those lots might be 23,000 square feet or whatever the number may be? Seemingly, if you're going to look at this issue, there should be some relationship regarding to unit placements and lot lines so the guy doesn't have, if you're trying to protect the large property that's there now, should he be looking at 3 homes or should he be looking at 1 home with maybe a different shaped lot that more closely matches the size of the lot that the current house is on. So those are just some of the very general issues that I guess I was pondering as I was going through this and prior to trying to wade into this and put a draft together so the material would welcome any comments that you have, thoughts that you have on some of these items. e e Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 39 Ellson: It can't be done. Koegler: I should add to that, that I have probably got on file in our office somewhere in the neighborhood of I'm guessing 40 to 50 zoning ordinances for Twin City communities and other metro area communities that we work in. I did not find in a review of those ordinances, anybody that does this outside of having language in a PUD ordinance that sets the framework for trying to match conditions around the periphery sites and so forth. That's not to say it doesn't exist somewhere. We'll look a little further. I have not yet found another community that has the blending ordinance that we could say here it is guys. Cross off blending city and insert Chanhassen and we've got it so we're kind of inventing the wheel here for the first time. ElIson: And it sounds like it's awful hard to do. Conrad: Yes. Your questions in this area real relevant and I can't imagine we're going to get concurrence on any of the stuff. We typically can figure it out here. I just don't know how it's going to go through City Council and to what degree of depth we want to get in. I'm going to start it off just by talking about what I perceive to be the purpose Mark and I guess I'll just start it off so that everybody can have something to base their own comments on but my perception has always been a need to protect the older neighborhoods. As we see certain size lots, which are typically smaller coming in, I always felt it was unfortunate that we took away their community and imposed a brand new one on them. Yet we always had an ordinance that said 15,000 square foot and you can do it so my general feeling is to somehow temper the ability of a new neighborhood to sit on an old neighborhood or house so that we don't take away that community, that neighborhood that the previous resident was there. That that previous resident had. The only other thought that I had, so I'm not looking at new stuff on new stuff, I think the A-2 district becomes a real intriguing deal and I could figure that one out. That one just sort of is mind boggling to me and primarily I kept thinking, there's so many variables I want to stay away from it. That was where I came from there but I also want a simple ordinance. I don't think I want an ordinance that just is so difficult and restrictive that we need a staff to interpret what it's saying. That was my philosophic reason for wanting a blending ordinance. I guess I'll open it up for comments. Tim, you're obviously concerned with this but anybody else who'd like to react to what I said and then maybe we can take some of Mark's points and go through them and see if we philosophically have any kind of a basis to direct him. Wildermuth: Tim, I agree with you. I think we ought to be looking at abutting lots. with your initial proposal, I think we ought to be looking at abutting lots and I think we ought to be looking at something like abutting lots being within 75% of the adjacent existing lot. I don't think we can get into lot lines and abutting lot lines. I think it's just such a nightmare. e Erhart: Yes, let me respond real quick, if I can interrupt. I tried to define a process to gradually, if you have large lots, how to gradually get the lots, require them to be larger than adjacent and gradually as you e e e Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 40 go away they can get down to our 15,000 foot and I used this, this is a typical engineer's way of doing this kind. It's a mathematical way to do it. I'm not saying at all it's the best way to do it and for a non-engineer, these kinds of things I've learned through 20 years of being in sales, are very difficult for non-engineers to perceive what you're trying to do here but I've tried it in a number of examples and it does wo~k if you go th~ough it. It's a p~ocess but the paramete~s a~e totally open to discussion. It's essentially the process of what you describe. It can be 75%. You can change 75% each level. Only by changing the constance, that 300 there will dictate what the blend rate is. If you want a faster blend rate, you change that number to 150 or 250. If you want a slower blend rate, which I don't care what it is, you increase the size of that number and it will come out. The other thing is that I've already, by fact of limiting the, you set a max limit of 25,000 square feet as the number that you use for one of these lots when you calculate this thing. By doing that, you limit the size of the new. If you limit this requirement so it isn't so restrictive and again that 25,000 square feet is arbitrary. wildermuth: Right but I would say that probably ought to be 30,000 square feet... Erhart: The effect of that constant would be, if you had a whole bunch of lots 2 1/2 acres as opposed to a whole bunch of lots that were 25,000 square feet, the effect of this would be none because you even include the 100,000 square foot lot, you calculate it as 25,000. So it takes into consideration that at some point you just can't, you don't want to blend at some point. The constant, if you're going to use this process, we have to talk about what these constants are. I'm not advocating this process. I think it's one that I would naturally introduce being an engineer but I believe it will work but I'm not sure it's the best kind of thing you want to put in our zoning ordinance but I only offer it as, I think it's a workable one. I hope we will come up with one that was more easier to understand by the people using this ordinance. I'll make it clear, I'm not advocating it. Headla: Let me make a couple comments. I tested your formula at both end of the extremes and it seemed to make sense. The formula. I look back, what are we trying to accomplish and what did lead to it. Didn't one of the things that really percipitated was up in this Murray Hill area? Real nice homes here and then this other development came in. We're trying to use square feet as a common denominator. I don't think that's a good yard stick. We jump at it because it's easily measureable. Up in Murray Hill, they put in some nice homes but you've got some large properties with some nice homes. I can think of a couple properties there that they're going to be developed. Those people, you could split that into 15,000 square foot lots and have the beautiful homes and be a real asset to that same neighborhood. If we put in the blending restriction, they wouldn't be able to do that so we're really holding back some areas with the yardstick we're trying to measure and do we really want to do that? Erhart: Your point of this question was whether we want to have a blending ordinance at all? Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 41 e Headla: Yes. Erhart: We're responding to, I can remember two examples of this since I've been on here where we came in with a new 15,000 square foot subdivision and then I think in one case it was a PUD so some of them were less than that and the neighbors came in and complained that gee whiz we all have 22,000 square foot lots and this is devaluating our property. I thought that's what we were responding to. Headla: I think we all reacted positively that we should come up with some type of blending thing. That was the surface cut at it. We looked at the advantages, not the disadvantages. I was trying to look at different places in the community and then when we started talking about maybe one place is going to be adjoining 2 or 3 pieces of other property, how do we, we're seeming to be very interested in control rather than what are we really trying to accomplish. Erhart: What does that do to a neighborhood that's got predominance of 30,000 square foot lots and one of them, through his own good planning, decides to split his in half so you've got two 15,000 square foot lots in the midst of 20,000-30,000 square foot lots. Is that good or bad? Headla: Neither. What if that guy puts up a half a million dollar home e and has a well groomed yard? Conrad: He probably won't do that. That's not realistic. wouldn't like that. The neighbors bought the neighborhood. the 30,000 square foot lots. Headla: I don't know. I think they'd like that. The neighbors They bought Wildermuth: with the blending ordinance, he couldn't do that. Headla: That's right. Wildermuth: He couldn't split his 30,000 square foot lot. Headla: And I think we ought to leave that open. Conrad: So you don't want a blending ordinance? Headla: Not the way these are structured. I think a thought went into them and I looked and I looked at it and I thought they were starting to make sense and then I went back to how they were doing it and I went back to Murray Hill and I thought dog gone it, those people have the right to develop it and it's just going to be beautiful homes in there, do we really want to limit that? I did a lot of back peddling. e Emmings: The people who live on Murray Hill sure wanted to. Who live there now. I e e - Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 42 Conrad: But the fact is, in the few years that I've been here, there's no new development. Realistically, every development that comes in is smaller than the neighborhood previous development. I just don't know of many cases, well there are a couple but there are not many. They're always smaller and they're always, the neighbors are always sitting out here saying why are you letting these people do that? Don't you have any standa~ds? And we said, ou~ standa~d is, that's ~ight, the~e goes the neighborhood and our standard is our zone and it's 15,000 square feet. That's it. They said, the~e's got to be more than that. Dave, that's just group after group that says that so the logic of this one is, well we're not going to, obviously the economics are different these days but typically as you bring in new PUD's or new developments, what we can do is we can buffer that old development with at least 1 ring or 1 house of a transition type of zoning or a blending which is what we're talking about here. We're talking about a 1 house blend or a 200 feet blend, whatever it might be. I don't know, maybe it's a 100 foot blend, to somehow get it away from that old neighborhood until you put in 15,000 square foot lots. I think that's what we're reacting to. And you bring up some points and they're valid so the task here is, is there anything that's simple that allows the old neighborhoods to be protected... Emrnings: I like much better the way you just said it then the way you did when you started out. When you started out you talked about in terms of protecting the old neighborhood and I don't think we ought to think about it in terms of protecting anybody. I think we ought to think of it in terms of doing what we do all the time and that is providing transitions from one thing to another. If you think about it that way, because I also think that what you just said about, I think of this coming up most often in terms of larger developments where you're doing a bunch of acres. Up here where they did it around that pond when Boyt and Johnson got active in city politics here. A lot of thos~ issues involved blending there as I recall too. I think if you have the outer perimeter of any development like that so that those lots maybe with a cap of an acre for the lot you're blending to, the lot next to it shouldn't be smaller than 60% of it's size or something like that. I don't understand Tim's formula. I need a math guide but if we could work out something like this, I think it would be good to have something like this in the ordinance because the people who are going to be looking at it are engineers and if there's something that will express our intent clearly, then I think it would be a good thing to have it in there that way with maybe some intent statements. I think this is very complicated and unless we can simplify it, I think it's hopeless. I think what we need to do is come up with some simple ideas maybe as a starting point and have some examples worked up so we can see what it would wind up looking like but other than that, I think it's a good idea to have it. Head1a: You started out talking about Ladd, his last statement was good with that small transition area. To key off of that transition area I think is kind of nice. Emmings: Typically what you wind up with is you've got lots backing onto lots. You've got existing lots and then you've got a new row of lots backing up to them and then you've got a street. That's what you usually Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 43 e see. So what we're really talking about is that row of lots that's between that street and the lots are backing up to, existing lots are backing up to. It would seem to me that if no lot in there could be smaller than 60% of the lots it's backing up to, you're never going to wind up with more than two lots on the boundary or it's going to be unusual to wind up with more than 2 lots on that existing lot. Headla: What if it's across the street? Ellson: That's kind of a natural transition. Emmings: Yes, maybe you don't need it or maybe you do it for the first row. I don't know. For the first row of houses, maybe you do it again. Wildermuth: So many feet. 200 feet. Whatever the number is. Emmings: I'm scared of using feet because I think that could get weird couldn't it? Conrad: My thought was real simplistic on this and maybe it's too simple but Steve, and I think Tim had some concepts in there. I don't understand the formula either and I didn't try to so that's my problem Tim. It was a formula and I just didn't try. e Headla: You guys are hopeless you know. I thought it was a tremendous idea. Conrad: So then I went to Boyt's and I got confused totally so I went back to yours Tim and I tried to understand the formula. Emmings: I went to college as a math major and quickly changed to English. Conrad: But my thought was not to be matching things but with looking for transition more than a match and I think getting specific with lot lines and stuff like that, I thought that might be too many situations that we couldn't predict. Tim brought up some maximums and so did Steve. I think there's a maximum lot size in this transition area. If you've got a 5 acre lot so maximum blend lot might be an acre. It might be 44,000 feet or whatever the number might be. I don't know. And maybe there's a reason to have a minimum size and I just took 50%, and I don't know, but I took 50% of the 15,000 square foot and said well maybe our minimum blend is 22,500. So those are the sizes of the lots that we're talking about that are the transition lots. So inbetween an acres or 44,000 or whatever the number is and 22,000 and then the only other thing I wanted to know is when do we have to do, apply or what formula do we apply? Maybe it's a 60% factor. Maybe it's, I don't know what the percent number is but it's something we know that most lots that go in are going to be 15,000 square feet so we want to take it from what we think is a big lot and have some kind of a transition lot that gets this down to 15,000. Visually or whatever. That's where I'm at. Something real simple. e - e - Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 44 Headla: Would we have said...when more than 4 lots are going to be built on? Ellson: You're saying when it affects a development, not just another new house? Headla: Yes. If I have an acre of land and I come in with a 15,000 foot in just one spot, that's a different situation. Emmings: No. I can give you an example though where that might not work. Remember that development over by you. Headla: Dave Johnson was to coming in here? Emmings: No, there was a little hill there. Help me. Olsen: Stratford Ridge. Emmings: No. Further down Minnewashta there's Maple Ridge. Headla: Right across from Little Joe. Olsen: They kept changing it but it was with the one with the 5 lots. Emmings: Yes. There's that long street that goes back, I think it's called Maple Ridge and they're still building on it. Right over next to that there was a little hill and they wanted to just pack that with houses of 15,000 square feet and we all thought that was the wrong thing to do in that area. I don't remember how many there were. There were only 4 or 5 houses in there though but that's an example of where I think a blending ordinance should apply. Olsen: That's when the blending ordinance got started. That's when it was first mentioned. Emmings: Yes that was a place it was mentioned but I don't know if it was the first time. Headla: That's a good example of why there should be one. Emmings: Yes, because there you've got all neighborhoods. Either you've got big open spaces, or you've got neighborhoods going in where the lots were all bigger than that and it just didn't seem to fit. Ellson: It went in didn't it? Emmings: It was approved but... Olsen: We couldn't deny it. Emmings: Nothing's been built. And maybe they can't sell their lots because... Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 45 e ElIson: That was across the street too wasn't it? Olsen: There was a lot of financial in there too. They had to put in a cul-de-sac. Emmings: But when you say maybe it should be a minimum of 4 lots, I don't know but if you don't put any minimum on it, then you run into the guy who, and I almost wonder if you have to worry about this being a taking in some ways because you've got people who've sold off their land but retained a couple of lots to sell later and now all of a sudden they're not going to be able to develop at all. Do we have to worry about that? Koegler: That case you just referenced is a very interesting one because I looked at that when I was talking to Jo Ann. I asked, where did this first start and she said that was one of the subdivisions. I looked at that one and I don't know when those lots were platted or under what circumstances but they're highly unorthodox lots. If you look at them, they're neck lots that go back that you probably would never approve a plat today of that configuration so yes, they have large land area but they're not exactly normal lots. Emmings: No, that was a weird development. e Koegler: So that clouded it for me a little bit that clearly you should blend with those lots. I'm not saying those are undesirable but they're not normal lots so to speak. You don't have normal frontages with those lots. You don't have anything else. You have a small exposure to the street and you have a very large frontage that is being exposed to future development and if future development comes, then everybody screams about what's happening. Headla: Really it wasn't blending, we just didn't like the whole set-up. Emmings: If blending had applied, they never would have been able to come in with that goofy configuration. Olsen: Are you also then talking about definitions of old and new? Emmings: I don't think we have to worry about that. If it's just based on size, who cares how old it is? ElIson: It will probably fall in. Olsen: But if you limit the size of a lot going up against an existing property, then what if that property, the existing one wanted to subdivide in the future but they wouldn't be able to be because they they would have to blend against the other one. You'd be... ElIson: Penalizing them. e 01 sen: Both yes. Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 46 e Emmings: No. Everybody's got to play with the same dice, that's all but I wonder about that in terms of if we have to worry about if Roger should be consulted as to whether or not we're going to create something here where people are going to come back and say, you took something very valuable from me here. This was my retirement. I was going to divide this piece off and sell this later. I kept 30,000 feet just for this. Olsen: It'd be like just any other ordinance amendment. We all of a sudden went to the ordinance amendment and made our minimum lot size 30,000 square feet. Emmings: I hope that's the right answer. Wildermuth: Why don't we just increase the minimum lot size to about 18,000 to 20,000 square feet, wipe out the PUD and solve this whole thing. Conrad: I told you the story about increasing, having a zone with bigger lot sizes Jim and it didn't sell. Wildermuth: Is that right? Who didn't it sell with? Erhart: Let me point out one more thing in developing. I think my ideas on this, or were you just having a private conversation? e Conrad: No, this is a real subject that applied but go ahead. Erhart: I didn't mean to interrupt. Regarding the idea of blending. I still think it's for the transitional thing. I think it's something that we ought to have, try to develop. I also think that we can get a neighborhood of a bunch of 25,000-30,000 square lots and if one guy divides his lot, I don't think that's good. We should try to prevent that. On the other hand, if developing this, my feeling is in any blending situation, and the reason I picked 25,000 in that one constant is that it would be unconchab1e to require anybody to make a lot bigger than 21,000 square feet in any event whether he's got 5 acre lots there or 1 acre lots or whatever. To me there's a certain size that for the City to come in and say you've got to have I acre lots there or you've got to have a half acre lot because it's, well because 22,000 is a half acre lot. There's just some lot there that just is unconchab1e to waste land. So in my mind in developing this formua1, I kind of felt that 21,000 is about the maximum you'd ever want to require. That's why I picked the 25,000 so that leaves a formula. That's my input. ...1 don't think you have to develop lots bigger than 21,000-22,000 because to me above that, that's, unless somebody wants to buy that lot, then you let the market drive that but from a city planning standpoint, we should never force people to build or develop lots bigger than that. SO the whole range of this thing to me is pretty narrow. You're really only serving those guys, the existing lots that are in this 25,000-30,000 square foot range and anybody above that, we can't force people to put out I acre lots just because if someone has a 1 1/2 acre lot next to him. That generally was my thinking on the rate there. e Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 47 e Conrad: I like your logic, I'm just not sure whether those numbers are the ones that I'd support. I buy what they're thinking. Koegler: Coming to some consensus though on just that kind of point is what obviously we need to eventually do and so if anybody has any preliminary thoughts on 25,000 or 21,000 or whatever, it would help to hear that. ElIson: You had a number based on what? e Conrad: I narrowed it down to 22,000 to an acre. That was the range of the transition. I haven't gone through and exercised it. Tried to apply it in different zones. Tim way saying he couldn't imagine having a lot bigger than 25,000 and I'm just saying, maybe I can't imagine forcing somebody larger than 45,000. I didn't have a good reason for that but my range is in there someplace and I don't know what makes sense. I think there's a point where we're sort of playing a game here that doesn't count. If we don't make the transition significant, if you go from a 15,000 transition up to 19,000, I'll guarantee you nobody can tell the difference. Those people are still going to be angry that we're allowing a 19,000 square foot deal coming in next to them so it's got to be a significant one yet we can't penalize. I'm also worried on the other side of really penalizing somebody and making sure this works for everybody. I don't know that it counts to add a transition of an additional 3,000 square foot to a lot size because most of the ones that I've heard that I remember so well, they're typically sitting on something that's probably pretty close to an acre in size and typically somebody's coming in with a 17,000-18,000 square foot subdivision next to them. Those are the ones that I remember. Erhart: Really? See the ones that I remember people were sitting on 25,000 square foot lots. Conrad: The Greenwood Shores probably average that I would guess. The examples, North Lotus Lake. Those were alII acre. Erhart: But the one on Murray Hill, those were 25,000-30,000 square foot weren't they? Conrad: Some of them were up to an acre as I recall. Erhart: I think what you're looking for generally is a consensus of what we're trying to get to. If I could put something on the board and you guys plug in some numbers, I think I could give you what you want. Koegler: That's what I was going to suggest is my next move is to bring back some examples to the Commission to review playing out different scenarios. Taking some of the existing conditions around the City that you're likely to encounter. e Conrad: That'd be a good exercise. Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 48 e Koegle~: The~e was anothe~ point though that was raised that's valid and that is, what's the th~eshold fo~ when you apply the blending ordinance? If there's one 1 ac~e lot in the middle of the development or if the~e's two 2 a~ce lots in the middle of the development, does that cross the th~eshold. Does it have to be a lot that's part of a subdivision of 4 o~ more lots contiguous lots? Is the~e some threshold the~e that needs to be considered? Emmings: A~e we talking about the lots that abut up against that lot. So you might have a big development and the~e's one 1 ac~e piece up he~e but it would only be the lot, to me it would only be the lots that touch that one. Koegle~: Okay, so if you have a big development that completely enci~cles a 1 acre lot that has a little old couple on it o~ something that want to live there foreve~ and eve~. A~e you going to require those to blend even though realistically when those people pass on or retire or whateve~, someone's likely to come in and resubdivide that p~ope~ty? Emmings: If you're going to be petty Mark, 11m leaving. How do I know? Koegler: If they get a sign off from that landowner saying I don't want to be blended, then is that okay? e Erhart: You know, this is a lousy way of doing things, the averaging takes care of that problem. Emmings: I don't know. Headla: What did you say Tim? E~ha~t: Again, using ha~d to conceptualize care of that problem. only use it as 25,000 affect. this formula method which again I'll repeat it's but the fact that you average surrounding lots takes One 1 acre lot by itself, in the first place you squa~e feet so that's the maximum that it's going to Koegler: Is that your impression? Erhart: That's right. That's my impression. The other way that that dilutes that is of course the averaging is one lot by itself given that within 200 feet you're probably going to calculate in anywhere from 6 to 8 lots, will dilute that. Headla: Let me give you another scenario then. ElIson: Yes, why don't you do some of these fo~mulas with examples. e Headla: The Stratfo~d Ridge, there were some nice size properties on the west side. On the north side Dave Johnson is coming in with prope~ties that a~e around 15,000-16,000. Now the person that's to the south of Dave Johnson and to the west of Stratford Ridge, their property's, when they sell that, it's going to abut the small ones and Stratford Ridge. Now do Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 49 e you go by the smaller ones you abut or the larger? I'm not looking for an answer, it's another consideration. Conrad: There's one thing that bothers me and I'm not looking to protect one house. I'm trying to keep the integrity of a neighborhood, or make a transition from one neighborhood to another so there's less focus on, and Mark you ask some questions that I just can't come up with answers but the logic is, we're talking neighborhood and not houses. ElIson: ...x number or more. Koegler: That does put it back to you then to define what's a neighborhood. What's the minimum for it being a neighborhood that you then consider it to be blended? wildermuth: 5 parcels within a couple hundred feet? Koegler: Whatever. If you have 5 contiguous parcels sharing a common street or whatever it is. I don't know what it is but maybe we could sort through some of that by again looking through some examples and seeing how some of these scenarios fit. That will probably raise 10 other questions that you haven't even thought of tonight. Emmings: You're going to know it when you see it. ~ Conrad: The problem is, we may never see it. Koegler: It's not a black and white issue. Headla: There's got to be a reason why you haven't been able to find an ordinance. Conrad: Okay, that's enough to look at it. Is there anything else you wanted to talk to us about? Olsen: The only other thing is I have the church ordinance at the end. That again was as a result of Eckankar. Conrad: And you don't need a reaction? Olsen: No. I guess I'll be bringing it in front of you. Headla: The first time...I'm afraid that may not get whole hearted agreement on but to me one of the strongest objectives I had and still have to the Eckankar property, if that church was supported maybe by 10% or 15% of the people in Chanhassen, I wouldn't have looked at it entirely different. wildermuth: That's not in the Constitution Dave. e Headla: I don't know if this is level or not but it seemed like if we're going to take something off the tax rolls of Chanhassen, it should be for the benefit of the people in Chanhassen. Therefore, I think a certain Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 50 e percent of that membership should be a resident of Chanhassen. Jo Ann, you're smiling. ElIson: That's like saying people who work there should live here. Headla: No. Erhart: If they pay taxes. Headla: No comparison. Can we do anything like that? Emmings: Absolutely not. Headla: Why? e Emmings: Because people have a right to buy property wherever they want to and you can't abridge that right. People have a right to build their church of any kind anywhere they want to and go there and you can't abridge that right and boy, if you want to get into a lawsuit real quick, you do something like that. Although I have my own thing to promote you know that's also unconstitutional. I don't agree with what you just said because I don't think you should limit a church like that but I feel very strongly that churches shouldn't be allowed for example to own commercial property and collect rents from those and receive city services for those and not pay taxes on that income and not pay property taxes when they're operating just like a business. That is an outrage to me but again, that's not something I think you can touch with a 10 foot pole. I'd be willing to swing at it but you'd get nowhere I think. I think that's a door that can't... Olsen: The only other thing was that memo from Don. Conrad: Yes, and that's just for our information? Olsen: I told him that the Planning Commission is very anxious. What's to know what's happening, as we all do so he gave you that memo. I just had a chance to just briefly look at it so it doesn't give some dates. I don't know that they've picked the candidates yet. I don't know but again, he's upstairs and he said that if you guys wanted to talk to him about that, that he'd be welcome to come on down. I don't know if you need to. Conrad: I only want to know if that little agenda is not being met. We're 8 months away versus a month away. Headla: Tell me a little bit about that Lowell Carlson effort. What's going to really happen? e Olsen: What's happened is that we are going to start pursuing him to remove all unlicensed vehicles, junk. We've got a list from 1985 to prove, a list from him, saying what was there for his business. We're going to use that list and try to get everything else removed. He's a non-conforming use now. He's grand fathered in but he cannot be a e e e Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 51 contractor's yard. going to pursue it. His business is essentially really limited and we're Legally it will takes years. Headla: What's going to have to happen? Is he going to have to back down and cooperate and then get something resolved? Olsen: He can still apply for a building permit to store some of the structures inside, the machinery but he can no longer be, contractor's yards are not permitted so he can't follow that route again. He'll always just be a non-conforming use and he can't expand. He has expanded so what we're going to do is try to go back to what his original size was. I think that he's thinking of moving out of Chanhassen now but I don't know. Headla: I thought maybe they could settle it fast and both sides come to a good agreement. Wildermuth: Where is this? Olsen: King's Road. Off of Lake Minnewashta. He did the same thing. They both got up there and said boy we really want to get that building and we've been trying to do it. The Council almost gave them another extension. Conrad: Anything else? Emmings: I was just curious about the 25 acres on the church site. I have no idea what that means. They could have 100 acre parcel and carve out a 25 acre lot, they still own the other 75 acres. I don't know what it means to have a 25 acre lot size. Olsen: There are certain things that we could do legally. There are certain things. We couldn't go, as you were saying, there's Constitutional rights so what this is doing is saying that they would have to subdivide it and have that 25 acre lot for their church and they could own the other 100 acres but they'd have a harder time proving that that should be taxed. Ernrnings: No. Anything that a tax exempt organization owns is exempt from taxes period as far as I know. Olsen: No because like with Eckankar, Carver County is reviewing that and they may have to pay taxes. They may not have to pay taxes on the portion that's being used for the church but the remaining parcel might be taxed. So it's not set in stone. Emmings: To my knowledge it is but that's real interesting if they can't. Erhart: Keep us informed of that. e e e Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 - Page 52 Emmings moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.. Submitted by Jo Ann Olsen Asst. City Planner prepared by Nann Opheim