Loading...
PC 1993 01 20CHOSEN PLAIN6 COfl~ISSION REGULAR NEETING J~U~RY 20, 19~3 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts, Ladd Conrad, Joe Scott, Bzian Batzli, 3elf Farmakes, Nancy Manclno, and Matt Ledvtna ST~FF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planner II PUBLIC HE~RING SU~IVISI~ ~ PL~tI~ UNIT D~LO~T ORDI~E ~EI~T R[~I~ E~UIE~ENTS OF CUL-E~ LI[N~THS. Kate Ranenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. Ledvina ~oved, Far~ake~ ~econded to clo~e the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing ~as clo~ed. Batzli: The record should show that there's no one in the crowd really. Normally, for those of you who are new to the Planning Commission, after we close the public hearing, go around. Get comments from the individual commissioners and we'll do that in order, normally starting from one side or the other. Tonight I'm going to start with Ladd, just so that I don't have to put anybody on the spot. But don't be bashful about asking questions or raising issues or asking why we're even doing this. So having said that, Ladd. Do you have any comments on this? Conrad: I like cul-de-sacs. I like islands in cul-de-sacs. Cul-de-sacs can be a real benefit and amenity. I don't have a problem with the ordinance but I just want everybody to think. One thing, did we rob this literally word for word from Minnetonka? Did we add anything other than 600 feet? Ranenson= Yeah, because they have 500 feet. So yeah. Conrad: Okay, so we said 600 but the rest is their's. It's a real technical type of ordinance. It really doesn't talk to you about the purposes and why we're doing it. It says, here's the technical stuff so I don't like how it is but I'm not going to belabor it. It doesn't say, you know the big deal about a cul-de-sac is the situation case of emergency. So we haven't changed any specs. In terms of a wider street or whatever. We're just saying emergency vehicles. There's only 12 houses down there so no big deal. I guess again, we've put the technical things down and I think 600 feet is okay. That's going to solve my-ideal. I just want everybody to know that when the wording says center islands within cul-de-sacs shall be prohibited, that's' basically what it means. It says unless, but basically we're, the engineer's going to recommend against them all the time. Nothing more. Batzli: Would you prefer to see (a) an intent section, and (b), that define what sort of center islands would be appropriate? Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page 2 Conrad: Brian, I Just don't like the ordinance because of all the technical stuff. Do I want that? Do I want it to have an intent? Cul-de-sac intent? We haven't given any, you know if we're going to have, unless a design is approved by the city Engineer, it basically takes us out. You know point number 3, we are not part of the decision making process. You should know that based on the... It's not allowed. The City Engineer could allow it. If we think it's a valid uae, and there are problems with center islands. You've got maintenance problems and you've got snow plowing problems and there's no doubt. They just happen, when they're done right and somebody maintains them, they're really pretty and they really make that cul-de-sac in that neighborhood a real nice area. So it's a compromise between making it a nice little community, a nice.little area street versus allowing for emergency vehicles to go all the way through. I'm not going to make an issue. No, I don't like what I see here. !'m not making an issue out of it. Batzli: Well see, we scheduled the discussion, Just a little bit of history. I think you probably, the new people got a flavor of why we're looking at this but with a recent proposal of the Lundgren development over at TH 5 and TH 4i. The Planning Commission reversed itself at the last minute by putting through what had been two cul-de-sacs and requesting that it be changed into a thru street. Based on that, I requested that staff bring it up as an item for discussion as to whether or not we like cul-de-sacs and to look at it from a planning perspective as opposed to a -safety perspective because I thought we weren't getting the complete picture of what and why we were recommending for or against these cul-de-sacs. We've heard and the staff report makes it very clear that a litany is becoming somewhat repetitious. Well that's putting it nicely. We've heard repeatedly that these are safety concerns, safety issues for fire trucks going down cul-de-sacs. Turning onto a wrong one. Not being able to turn around. If for example the entrance gets flooded, which is what happened, down in 7ox Hollow several years ago when we had the 13 inch rain, can you get out a separate way. ~e've heard the safety concerns and what I wanted to hear last time was, that's fine but from a, not from a safety standard but from a neighborhood development, sense of community, those types of issues, what are we doing by constructing a lot of cul-de-sacs. And we addressed that a little bit last time. I was kind of disappointed. I think we ended up talking about it late at night so those concerns were sort of glossed over. But ~hat I'm hearing tonight from Ladd at least initially is that he likes them. He thinks they're valuable in certain aspects. R feeling of security. Crime. Those kinds of issues that weren't really, ! don't think fully flushed out the first time, the last time that we talked about it. And if other commissioners have those concerns, I don't want to blindly adopt the ordinance if we're not really sure why we're doing it or maybe we should adopt it from the standpoint of safety and then re-evaluate it if it is a concern that there's going to be a lot of development coming in and we want to limit it. We would rather limit it and then go back and look at it as opposed to not having any limitations on it, or very few limitations on it, while we're studying it. I mean we can look at it one of two ways but, said that. Matt, do you have comments? Ledvina= Just a couple of things again that, the topic of discussion that was batted around last time was the length and we talked about 500 feet and Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page 3 750 feet and the 600 foot distance is fine. I guess I wouId, I think that some of the things that you said Brian could be flushed out in an intent statement, which could be you know a header to this thing and discussing some of the safety concerns in the community, etc. I think we could change item 3 to read, taking into consideration what Ladd said. Center islands with cul-de-sac bubbles shall be allowed subject to design approval by the City Engineer, Fire Department, etc, etc. I think that accomplishes the same thing and it's not a negative thing. It's a more positive thing. And it's just saying we want to make sure they've done right. I guess I think we can cover that by just changing that to the positive. But other than that, it would be good for the developer to have some guidance on this thing and we kicked it around and I kind of felt sorry for Lundgren, the way they had to work through this thing. If they would have had this ordinance, I think it would have been a little smoother process for them. So I'm in favor of the ordinance I guess, and I don't know if we can just direct staff to include an intent statement and then send it off, you know with this other change, or if we need to see it again. I don't know about that. Aanenson: I think we're clear as to what you're looking for. The community issues. Crime. Ledvina: I think the verbage that would go in there is all contained Paul's report here. It would just have to be distilled and Just hit the right spots ! think and I think it's ready to go. Batzli: $o you would propose that we Just proceed by giving it to staff to draft an intent section? Ledvina: I think that would be appropriate. I'm comfortable with that. I think they understand what the issues are and if they review the Minutes and include some of your discussion, I think as it relates to the cul-de-sac as part of the community and how it effects the community. think developers will get the idea that they'll touch on it. They'll think about it, maybe if they hadn't before and as they see necessary, they'll incorporate that criteria into their decision on whether they will develop with them or not. Batzli: I guess I'm not sure what my goals are in putting in cul-de-sacs or not putting them in. So I don't know that I'm comfortable letting staff do that. I'm not sure what my goals are yet. For example, it's a dumb example but my particular development, Fox Hollow, could be considered a huge cul-de-sac if you chopped off the emergency exit which is now becoming a regular thoroughfare through North Lotus Park.. Huge cul-de-sac with many different little cul-de-sacs in the interior. However it has a main loop. And in the summer it's quite an extraordinary event that everyone in the neighborhood walks around the block with their little kids, and it's fun and it brings you closer to everyone in your neighborhood. And the issue in my mind is, if you have a cul-de-sac, that's a long cul-de-sac, you probably, you may get some movement up and down that but it's kind of a phenomenon in some of these newer developments that you see people walking around. Now if you promote something like we did in the Lundgren development where you have cul-de-sacs and there is no promenade, are you eliminating this sense of small little communities within a bigger Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page 4 community? And I don't know that staff has answers to that and I don't know whether we want to encourage that or not, but it seems to me that kind of discussion, you know should we be promoting these or shouldn't we be, I think maybe we want to think about it. But I don't know if we should or not. I don't know. Conrad: There'e not a real clear answer. We're weighing safety vermu~ some neighborhood thing. Continuity so it's, I think the 600 foot is reasonable. What we want to do is give a developer the opportunity to use their .land and not abuse the land and cul-de-sacs many times can do that. really didn't like changing the Lundgren thin~. I wasn't here for that decision, eut I didn't like that. I thought the cul-de-sacs. Batzli: I was the only one that voted against it by the way. Conrad: My congratulations Brian. Ledvina: It's not like we trashed all the cul-de-sacs. We just...that one street. There was 4 other cul-de-sacs I believe so they had both things in that development. Conrad: Well they really give the developer' some opportunities to do different things that are just not a grid street system and they can incorporate the lay of the land a little bit. I'm not uncomfortable with what the wording of our point number 4. And we don't want to encourage long cul-de-sacs. There's just no point. I think some of them have been huge, and I don't think we need that. So again my comment is, I like them but we don't need excessive cul-de-sacs. I think some of it's just the mechanics of how we want to express ourselves in an ordinance. Ledvina: Well ! live on a 900 foot cul-de-sac and I've never seen a police car in my cul-de-sac so that concerns me. Batzli: Well I don't know, I grew up in Tonka Bay where it seems every road is a cul-de-sac. Long cul-de-sac going out on little isthmus or penninsulas or what have you and there was never any problem so I don't understand. Ledvina: Not that that is a problem but you know, in $ years you'd like to see one police car. Batzli: When they deliver your packet. Mancino: I have a question. Matthew, you said that you lived on a 900 foot cul-de-sac? Ledvina: Right. Mancino: Did it help give you a sense of intimacy, neighborhood? Ledvina: Well, I like it alot. We see our neighbors a lot and I don't know, there's just a, it's true. I don't interact with the'neighbors behind me because they never come around so I think it does tend to isolate people into smaller groups. Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page $ Farmakes: So if the road was connected 9 houses down, do you feel that You would be any less intimate with your neighbors next door? Ledvina= Yeah I would. Actually I'm right at the end of the cul-de-sac so they would connect that around but those other people that live in back of me would most likely use my street more. I don't know. They wouldn't neceasar£1y have a reason to but they might ~alk around the block a little more. I don't know. Conrad: The people who live in cul-de-sacs love them. Everybody in this Council chamber...they love cul-de-sacs. BatzIi: I bought my house because I thought I was on a cuI-de-sac. Farmakes: You thought you were? Batzli: Well yeah, they put it through with the park but I bought it because I thought I was on a cul-de-sac. Hancino: I have another question. I don't live on a cul-de-sac but I live at the end of a private road and I like it for the safety purposes. The other thing is, if you also like it because of the privacy it gives you, do you feel that it gives you more privacy than you normally would get with a thru street? Conrad: People ~ho live on them like that aspect, yeah. Mancino: Okay. So we have privacy and we have security, safe. Batzli: I think they like it if they have children as well because they feel it gets much less traffic. So their kids can play in the road and they don't have to be worried that they're going to have cars zipping through the neighborhood using it as a thoroughfare. Scott: But unless a developer has a long recentangular property, they're probably not going to have one cul-de-sac with stuff on the side. I mean they tend to have, at least in our neighborhood, ~e have the promenade situation ~ith cul-de-sacs off the outside and then kind of a, not a common area but ~here all the lots come together and I think the intent is.just to minimize the length of the cul-de-sac and what ultimately determines how somebody determines how something develops is the shape of the land. I mean they're going to try to maximize the number of lots that they can get on the property and depending on the topography and the shape of the property, is probably the major determining factor. Batzli: Matt, did you have anything else? Ledvina: No. Batzli: Okay. Joe, why don't you go ahead and complete your comment there. Scott: My soliloquy. My personal opinion is, I tend to agree with, I mean you talked about safety and so forth but the sense of, one of my priorities Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page 6 is the sense of community and having the ability for people in a particular neighborhood, not only to interact with themselves but other neighbors but then also with adjacent neighborhoods. And obviously because of the climate we have here, that that's going to happen more often at certain times of the year. But from reading through this and talking to neighbors and people on cul-de-sacs and not on cul-de-sacs, and in talking to a couple oi: developers, this is really not onerous. I don't think it really compromises a developer's ability to get their Job done to make the kind of return they need. But the thing I keep coming back to is the safety issue. The time you need an emergency vehicle and they can't get down there, that's part of it too. But I'm primarily concerned about the community aspect of it and I think it's a Lundgren development where there's, I believe it's a connection between Timberwood and the Lundgren development. You know what I'm talking about. I think that sort of thing should be encouraged because when you think about the traffic. I mean it's one thing when you talk about Frontier Trail connecting through Norsk-Fleck and coming back in that way. That's a thoroughfare situation but I think because of the railroad tracks and because of the way those two adjacent developments were set up, I don't really see that being a thoroughfare because I think both, going through Timberwood, if you're coming off Galpin and you would go through Timberwood south and then you'd come back out on Galpin again. So in that particular situation, I don't think you'd have a thoroughfare there. That would just be something that would be utilized by the residents. But I'm also familiar with, Brian with your area where that's a neat way to get from CR 17 to TH 101 is to go Pleasant View and go right through your neighborhood. So I think it's important to determine, is it going to become a thoroughfare or is it Just something that's going to be utilized by the residents. Batzli: Well staff assured us when they connected the road that it would never be used as a thoroughfare. Not this particular staff. Scott: Alright, I have no more comment on that. Batzli: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: I have no problems against cul-de-sacs. I think our discussion may be discussing the merits of cul-de-sacs. I think what we're discussing here is a reasonable solution to a conflict, different conflicts of interest. We have one that's profit motivated. We have one where it's consumer driven and we have others such as Fed Ex or Hanus Bus Company or police, a whole slew of issues that service a community that are hampered by not having a connection from neighborhood to neighborhood. What this is asking for and suggesting to a developer, as far as I can see, is a reasonable amount of length going to a cul-de-sac. We don't have a long cul-de-sac and I would like to see an intent statement where, or reason for this because it seems like in the past we did have this ordinance and it sort of got fuzzy. And some of that was our interpretation and also I think some of these larger developments that meander over large, difficult type topography, seem to lend themselves to these 18 houses down on a private road turning into a cul-de-sac and coming back. I'm not sure about 4. When your comments on 4 Ladd, did you. You know on 4. Did you feel that that was necessary or omit it? Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page 7 Conrad= No. ! think it make sense so you can have a cul-de-sac. You can't go longer than 600 feet but if you have to hear the criteria, I like that. Farmakes: So you like them listed out rather than just ask for a variance? Conrad: It tells a developer exactly what they can and can't do. Why they can propose something longer. That's exactly what we want. We didn't do that very well in point number 3. It just says it's prohibited period. And point number 3 is saying, if we like them, and there are real problems with islands. There really are but. - Ledvina: But the main two issues are safety and maintenance. Farmakes: It still doesn't stop them from coming forward with PUD and asking for a long cul-de-sac correct? Aanenson: Right, that's correct. And as a staff we may encourage in some situations that we'd want them longer to save vegetation or. Farmakes: Okay, so that opening is there. I'm going back to some of the, we're cutting down on some of the discussion on some of'these site plan reviews. This would go a long way in doing that. It gives a-reasonable intent of what the design is. Telling developers, hey if you're going to design this, design this knowing that we would like a modification of a reasonable cul-de-sac arrangement so we don't.have these long extensive private roads. And it seems, not reinventing the wheel but the rest of the communities around who are older, as far as cosmopolitan age, are following a standard, anywhere from 500 to l,O00. So it seems like 600 or, 600 is what it used to be correct? Ledvina: No, 500. Farmakes: It used to be 500? Okay, so we came up with 600 for whatever reason. It seems like that would be a reasonable amount of homes I guess to the access road. And ! would support that. As to the actual numbers that are up on the top there, I'm going to trust our engineer on that and my comments on the island I still, aesthetically, I have no problems with islands. As I have no problems with cul-de-sacs. Just again, that they're not over used. Conrad: Right. Right, but you know staff's point and it's real valid, is maintenance. It's real valid. There's no doubt about that but boy are they pretty and do they take a circular area that's bigger. You've got this big circular area that's kind of ugly and you put an island in it, all of a sudden it's pretty. So it's a real neat amenity if we can justify the maintenance and stuff. If we can't justify it. Mancino: I saw one last Sunday night in an Edina...Edina suburb and it was an island which I hadn't seen too many of them. I don't think, are there any in Chanhassen right now? Scott.' Is it Hesse Farms or Hesse Farms? I know the large lot on the bluff, there's a couple of them up there that look kind of tear dropped Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page 8 shape but it's like, they're not standard width streets. it's a private road. I think actually Batzli: There's one on the end of, going into Lotus off of TH 101. The whatever Estates there. The big huge houses out on the point of Lotus. There's a tear dropped shape one there. I mean that thing is probably older than the hills. Mancino: Well this one was round and there are oaks in the neighborhood and then they had 2 or 3 oaks and that was about it. I mean it wasn't really landscaped. There were 3 just very natural big, huge oak trees that were in the center island. Visually it was very nice and it broke up again the pavement that was in the circular area. Scott: I wonder if that's something, because we're talking about an exception to cul-de-sac length. Talking about significant vegetation. I mean perhaps if there is significant vegetation, i.e. mature trees that could be saved by using a bubble or whatever, an island. Maybe that's one of the things that if you're talking about Ladd, if you're talking about adding (a), (b), (c) and (d) to number 3, perhaps some of these'may apply. Points for 4 it might apply and 3 as well. Ledvina: You might even adjust the alignment your street to center those 2 or 3 oaks in that one spot. Scott: It's certainly not being lost on the commercial side of it. Then that would be an enhancement to the lots. The value of the lots that would be on that particular cul-de-sac as well so I would think the developer would keep them in... Farmakes: I'd just sum up my comments in saying that again, I support limiting this and I would support the 600 square feet. And I'm open to modifications but I think that the intent that we're talking about here think is important. Batzli: Okay. Nancy. Mancino: Well, I don't think I have anything new to add to what Jeff just said. An intent statement I think would be helpful. I am very much pro cul-de-sacs for the security, the privacy, the environmental rasons that we've stated. The feeling of intimacy of neighborhoods that one can gain. And I don't think it necessarily has to detract from a sense of community. I don't think that your intimacy in your neighborhood takes away from your feeling of a larger thought of community. In fact I think it can add to instead of detract. So I don't think it's one thing or another. I think it's part of the whole sense of community. Having neighborhoods and having them very intimate and people being close with each othe~ and then bringing that into a bigger picture. I support the guidelines for developers for 600 feet and would like to see, as Matthew brought up, the center islands changed to a more positive statement that center islands shall be allowed subject to the approval of the City Engineer and Fire Department. And maybe we can add to that also. 8atzli: Okay, is that it? Diane. Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page 9 Harberts: I guess I'm just going to add that I just had difficulty with cul-de-sacs with regard to the center landscaping because it's purely from the cost factor of streets, maintenance, snow removal. So I guess I can support the ordinance but I have trouble with allowing any type of center but I guess I appreciate the significant vegetation, trees, etc that would be saved as a result of allowing such. From a cost perspective, from safety, from getting the vehicles in there' to do their job, especially from a safety issue, it's usually very time related. You don't want to be · caught going down the wrong street. .That's what it gets down to when it comes down to safety. That's all I have to add. Batzli: Okay. Kate, I've got a couple of questions on the wording. On paragraph 3 where we talk about center islands shall be prohibited, blah, blah, blah and privately maintained. I assume we're talking about the center islands shall be privately maintained· Aanenson -' Correct · Batzli: I think we need to add the words, and shall be privately maintained to there. But more troublesome in that sentence is the, we can change it but regardless of how we change it, they may be allowed you know if the design is approved by the City Engineering and Fire Departments. We don't really give them any guidance and ! guess this is where the intent comes in maybe as to why we're trying to allow them, or what.types of designs might be found allowable. ! think you're setting yourself up to be arbitrary and capricious and all those other good things by just saying, we might allow it. We might not. If we don't want them, clearly if we're trying to discourage them, we should clearly leave it prohibited. If we're trying to get them, maybe we soften it. We're going to allow a couple. It will be interesting to see how they work out. By encouraging them, we may get a lot of them and find out that they're a problem. I don't know. I'd rather almost do a test pilot and discourage them unless we get positive results. But the other question I had was in 4(a). Where it says the resulting street grade would be more than 7~ or the connecting segment or substantial grading is required. What does that mean? Aanenson: What we're trying to say is you may need to go longer in order to reduce the severe slope. If you can make it go longer and balance the grade, maybe that will reduce the slope· $o maybe it needs to go to 700 feet to make the grade. Batzli: Oh, is that what that means?. Well, connecting segment. that meant, if you were going to connect it and that would require substantial grading. I thought Aanenson: It should be additional length or something. Maybe that would be worded better. Batzti: But the resulting street grade would be more than 7~ of the connecting segment? Aanenson: I would say, yeah. Batzli: Is that what that means? Planning Commission Meeting 3anuary 20, 1993 - Page 10 Aanenson: Yeah. The additional segment. The additional length, maybe is more clear. Batzli: I understood the substantial grading part but I didn't understand whether we were talking about additional length, like you just said, or we are talking about if we connected it somewhere else, that would be severe. For example, look at up on the Summit. There were some real severe grades up there and we ended up putting in an emergency access road but we didn't put in something else because I think in part because of the severe slope coming back down that and we didn't want to have people going up and down that in the winter. So I guess what I would prefer to see on this particular ordinance is staff to take another whack at it. By putting in an intent section, maybe clarifying what 4(-a) means for us and we should, if we decide to do something like that, give them some guidance on whether we want them to change paragraph 3'. Harberts: I have a question with regard to paragraph 3. It talks about establishing the chain of title. How is that exactly done? You know sure it's something within the. Aanenson: It's recorded with the plat. Harberts: But what's the mechanism to force them to maintain it? You know if you have 12 houses and number 9 and 8 does not want to participate, I mean are they going to be in front of the Council? Scott: Or does that set up a neighborhood association type situation? Batzli: You could either make that lot part of another lot I suppose, so that one person has responsibility, or rec~Jire that they have a homeowners association that owns it jointly. Harberts: Well that's what I'm wondering. Aanenson: Right. Well I guess that's the intent is that there will be some, either be assigned to a lot or these total lots abutting that. But you're right though, there still could be a problem with that. Farmakes: Are you saying to reword 3 to the extent that that's achieved or do you get rid of it and deal with it in the intent statement? I'm not following you on 3. What you're suggesting for 3 other than the shall be. Batzli: I wasn't suggesting that we do anything. I would like to leave it this way until we find out how they work in the Lundgren development. I would prefer that we prohibit them and if we. decide that we like them and they work out, then we encourage them. Personally. Harberts: Who's responsible for any liability that occurs? Mancino: $o there are going to be some in the Lundgren development? Batzli: Yeah, they passed didn't they in the Lundgren development? Aanenson: I be 1 ieve so. Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page Il Conrad= I didn't see any. Ranenson= The two that they had them on we connected. Batzli: Did they get knocked out? Conrad: I thought they got cut but I don't know. Matt was there. I'would swear they were taken out but I don't know. I guess reinforcing what Brian just said. I think there's some valid issues on both sides of the islands. I think they should be not allowed unless they meet certain standards. ' So I guess I'm comfortable being negative on this one. Saying they are not allowed unless they protect trees. Unless there is a clear way for somebody to maintain them. Unless they meet certain specifications. Haybe they have to be 20 feet in width or circumferenc or diameter. Maybe they have to have certain vegetation on them. I don't want a little mound out there. So again, I'd say don't allow them unless the developer can show us they're really an amenity and then so, if we have the standards, then we can say yeah, that meets the standards and yeah you can have them. So that's my. Ledvina: So take number 3 and flush it out with those...? Conrad: Right. Scott: And also, the responsibility for maintenance and liability insurance would really be a standard. Conrad: Yeah, absolutely. Because we don't want to maintain it. The point is, if a developer thinks it's an amenity, then he has to figure out or she has to figure out how to. Batzli: Well ! would discourage us putting liability insurance in there only from the standpoint that we have many, many outlots in cities that are the responsibility of homeowners associations to maintain and we've never required them to purchase liability insurance for those outlots. Scott: So that could be a precedent. Batzli: That would be huge. Farmakes: But if that's part of the purchase, when you purchase your property and it's required that you're part of this homeowners association, how does the city deal with that then if they're not taking care of the lot? Do they, does the City then proceed to maintain the lot? Send the bill to the homeowners? Aanenson: It's a possibility. Scott: Kind of like weed ordinance approach. Aanenson: The City could pass an ordinance to do that. Batzli: Okay. Is there any other discussion? Does anyone have a motion on this issue? Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page 12 Conrad: I would move that we table this until staff can put an intent statement in and revise points number 3, that based on our comments.' Anything else? Batzli: I'd like 4{a) clarified. Conrad: Batzli: And with 4(a) reworded. Is there a second to .the motion? Ledvina: Second. Batzli: Is there discussion? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commim~ion table the Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Ordinance ~mendment regarding requirementa of cul-de-sac length~ for ~taff to include an intent statement, revise number 3 and clarify number 4(a). All voted in favor and the motion carried. pUBLIC HEARING: INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR A S/M. ES TRAILER FOR THE O~K PONDS/OAK HILL PROJECT. LOCRTFD NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET BETWEEN KERBER ~ POWERS .BOULEV/~RDS. LOTUS REALTY. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. Brad Johnson: Mr. Chairman, members Of the Commission. The purpose of this, as Kate has stated, is that in order to get financing on a multiple family project today, you have to have significant pre-sales. And this is about 109 units so we're going to need at least probably somewhere between 8 and 16 pre-sold before the first building can be constructed based upon the requirements of the financial institutions. $o we really have no choice in the case of this type of unit but to request the temporary sales trailer. I think the layout is there. The lighting question, I doubt if this would be open at night but if it is, I'm sure there'd be lighting so I think that would be reasonable. It's more of a daytime sort of an activity. There will be electricity to it and there will be a Satellite. We don't have that in there but most of these don't have Satellites so we have an exterior Satellite. And if you remember when Rottlund was building some units over here, that's kind of what they operated out of for a year was about, I think it was a sales trailer. It will be skirted. I don't know if there's enough time to do any landscaping because we'll hopefully be out of this by June or July. Although we've asked for a full year, the hope is that we could start construction and be into the models by mid- summer so I don't know if the landscaping thing is there. I think on the other hand, they want it to look as pleasant as possible on a temporary basis to attract people to come in and do it. It is, it's not a metal sided trailer. It's wood sided and we don't have a picture of exactly what it would look like but you can envision a wood, sort of small mobile home. Very small. That's about what it is, with a skirt on it. It's temporary. Probably looks a little better than our construction trailers that you have Planning Commission Meeting January 20, [993 - Page [3 around here. ! have some pictures of some but ! don't think... As far as the $1,0OO.OO. I think all of us in the development business, we'd just as soon not have money sitting here at the City if we can use it someplace else. In addition to that, this is a rented trailer so it costs so much per month to have it there so there's sort of an encouragement to get it out of there if you're not using it. Rnd also, as part of the site permit, the grading permit, we were required to put $250.00 sort o4 as a. to assure us that we'd return the site to it's previous type. So there's already $250.00 on deposit here in the city for that. There was a $400.00 application fee to Just process this and so we's really like to have a significant reduction on the $1,000.00 or have it just go away. The ordinance does not require anything like that. As I said, we're already paying money for the trailer, and that's fine with that. If you've got any questions, it's something we have to go through' in order to accomplish anything OVeT there. Do you have any questions of me? Ledvina: How are you going to excavate the frozen soils? Brad 3ohnson: With a large backhoe. Ledvina: Okay, so you're going to break through the frost? Brad Johnson: Yes. Ledvina: And what are you going to be doing with the soils that are taken out of here? Brad Johnson: I imagine theY'll be moved to the side or put in some place'... The process we're going through this will probably be in place sometime in March so the weather will be warmer. Ledvina: I'm sorry. Brad Johnson: We'll be into this in March probably, by the time the backhoe is in place. $o there will probably be a couple of weeks where you will have some things piled up but we'll take care of it. Again, it's our intent, the site has to look good or we're not going to attract anybody. The backhoes can go through just about anything so. Mancino: What year is the trailer? Is it.a new one? Brad 3ohnson: It's relatively brand new. It's a trailer and it looks a little bit like a house but it's not a true house. Batzli: Ne might have some more questions as we go here. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? If not, is there a motion to close the-public hearing? Farmakes moved, Manctno seconded to close the public hearing. All voted tn favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Nancy, we're going to start on your end. Brad Johnson: I might mention also it does have a deck. Planning Commission Meeting January 20, i993 - Page 14 Batzli: With decorative rope around the deck. Go ahead. Mancino: Gosh, I don't have too many questions. What are-the business hours that are permitted when you have something like that going-on? Aanenson: As far as a residential zone? Manci no '. Yeah. Aanenson= It would fall under the conditional use that's normally associated with that. [ would think in other models. Now i'f there was something in a building itself where it's lit and there's restroom facilities. Under this circumstance, like Brad mentioned, I don't see people going there when there's not a lot of facility space past 9=00 at night but I think that's something if you have concerns about, that you may want to attach. The reason why I didn't specifically address it in the report is that I felt it's topographic and kind of isolated from everything else in that area. I'm not sure how much of an intrusion it would be but if that is a concern. Hancino'. ...concern at all? Aanenson.' No, they felt it was far enough away. There really isn't anything else right there. I mean it's mostly commercial that you can see but if that's something that you're concerned about, you may want to put a 9:00, 10:00. Batzli: Don't we have limitations in our ordinances as to the amount of light spilling off of a? Aanenson: Correct. Half a candle at the property line. Batzli: Right, and so what would we be limiting? Ranenson: The hours. Batzli: The noise? I mean this thing isn't going to make noise. ~anenson: That's why I'm saying. That's why I didn't specifically address it but if the lighting is a concern. Batzli= Well they're going to ~ant some security lighting there on all night. ~anenson = Right. Hancino.' $o there will be some lighting probably attached to the outside of the trailer? Brad 3ohnson: Or a pole at the corner...the only neighbor that can see us is Eckankar across the street... Mancino: Those are the only questions ! have. Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page 15 Batzli: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: I have a few questions in regard to staff. Temporary signs with a temporary building, how is that effected with the signage permit? Rte we talking about signs on the building or would they be off the building? Aanenson: Well the project itself would be allowed two development signs identifying the project. Up to 64 square feet. I'm assuming that they'd put one on Kerber and one on Powers. Then there's distances that they can be to houses but again, this is such a large area that there's significant area to work with that. And then a directional sign that would be allowed. Farmakes: Brad, do you intend on lighting these signs for night display? Brad Johnson: Yeah. I don't think that you have... Farmakes= Banners, that' sort of thing? Brad Johnson: This whole project falls under the sign ordinance and [ think there's just called temporary sign and we follow those regulations... Farmakes= So that's how you envision it? Okay. Brad Johnson: ...without a permit. Correct? Aanenson'= Correct. Batzli: Banners were for temporary. Farmakes: Yeah, but they're a temporary useage. I'm just wondering, that would not last out the year so. Brad Johnson: Everything we're doing is temporary. I know banners are permitted but I think you have to... Farmakes= As they stand right now in the ordinance, I think they're limited to, as far as days, there's a time. Aanenson: Right. Ten consecutive days, 3 times a year and I think that's a little bit different circumstances. There's specific ones for, this is under residential development and this is different. I think the other's more geared towards commercial.' Grand openings. Those sort of things. Farmakes: I want to comment the developer on working with the neighborhood on this development. It seems to me you really bent over backwards to make that work. When you were discussing that with the neighbors, considering where the ordinance sat and what your property was zoned, I'm really glad to see that. [ thought in some cases they were being, pushi'ng the envelope and ! thought that it was good to see that type of problem worked out before it got to Council. The other issue that I want to touch on. For more than decade I've been c~tving down CR 17. The deer in our area use that ravine for a crossing between Kerber and the wild land, or the wetland area on the other side and cutting across CR 17. They constantly come up and go across into the Eckankar property from there. When we develop this Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page i6 ;- property, the ridge up there and so on, it will confine them even more into that crossing area and I'm wondering, has DNR made any comments of our wildlife? As we develop further and continue to expand, we will confine more and more the wildlife transportation corridors into narrower and narrower bands. Do we have warning signs at all anticipated fo~ these types of problems or do you wait until you've hit so many deer? Aanenson: Frankly I haven't thought about that. That's something we can look into. What their policy is on that. I can give you a report back. Farmakes: Because I can tell you from experience that that's where they cross. And they go through there every day as a part of their route, or rounds or whatever they 'do to make a living. Batzli: Having just hit one on Thanksgiving Day I can tell you, you don't want to do that. Farmakes= So you had venison. Batzli: No. It was too late at nigh~. Sheriff pick him up. I didn't go back. let the Farmakes: That's the extent of my comments. Batzl i: Okay. Joe. Scott: Brad, what is that just roughly? What does a trailer go for every month? What's the rental.on that trailer every month? Brad Johnson: About $250.00. Scott: $250.00 a month. On the $1,000.00 surety, Just my personal, experience with Brad and some of the projects he's involved with. I think there's plenty of motivation to have that trailer out of there as soon as possible and I Just don't see that baby sitting around. So my personal opinion is that that should be significantly reduced or eliminated but you guys can sanity test it because II'm not an expert on this stuff. Batzli: Well my initial sentiment is, this is a big project'worth a lot of money. This is $1,000.00 they're going to get back. ! don't, I mean that was my initial reaction. Now Brad made me think about it again but that was my initial reaction. Scott: Okay. I don't have any further comments. Batzli: Matt. Ledvina: Just initially had a couple of questions for staff. One of the things that I looked back in some of the attachments to this. It says, and I think this is the grading permit. It relates to the, in the conditions is the final plat approval for the Oaks shall be granted by the City Council. When does staff anticipate that final plat approval to be gained? Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page 17 Aanenson: Well it's our understanding, as soon as he has some pre-sold units that he wants to final it out. Ledv ina: I ' m sot r y. Aanenson: That as soon as he gets some pre-sold units, then he will be finaling out the project. I think that's probably better directed towards Brad but, he only has one year. That's the'ordinance. He.has one year. The preliminary plat approval is good for one year. It's our understanding that he's shooting to do that in June. Ledvina: $o it'd be the end of June. That's when you anticipate that final plat approval will be received? Brad 3ohnson: At the present time, the process of getting plat approval is hung up in trying to decide whether it should be public road or a private road...the final plat would be filed... Normally they're filed formally at the time you get your final. You kind of wait until then. Part of the financing. Ledvina: Nell okay. If that's the case, we've got the cart before the horse a little bit here. That doesn't Jive with the timing that's discussed in the grading permit, which is attached here. If you look at item 12(c), it says no sales trailer shall be placed on the site until final plat approval for the Oaks has been granted by the City Council. Aanenson: Let me give some clarification on that. Because this doesn't require, the grading permit is not before you tonight and except for the fact that he needs a trailer. The reason why the trailer, the grading permit wasn't issued is the staff didn't want to issue the grading permit until we knew that we at least had preliminary approval by the Council. He came in on December 2nd, before the date the Council approved it. The staff wouldn't sign off on it. Engineering was ready to give it to them but we felt, we didn't want to give him a grading permit. Have him go up there and disturb the site unless we knew the project was at least a go on a preliminary basis. Ledvina: Okay, so this grading permit is not valid? Aanenson: No it is. But it's got a date that's significantly ahead of the, a good month ahead of what he applied for the trailer permit. Again, because he's just working under one acre, the grading permit's administratively. He comes in, posts the surety. He signs a letter agreeing to the conditions that the engineering lays out. But when the engineering department reviewed it with myself, I felt unco~fortable allowing them to grade when we didn't know for sure the project, just the sensitivity to the neighbors and we didn't want to go in there and have them disturb the soil and say, you're letting them go ahead and we don't even know if this project's been approved. So we asked them to wait until we knew the project had been approved. Rs you recall, we only had one Planning Commission meeting in December and then to get this into the next docket. So it was more administrative. Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page 18 Batzli: Sorry to interrupt. Brad raised a point that he's posting money under that permit to restore apparently, getting rid of the gravel or whatever. Aanenson: Right. Batzli: Will it really cost $1,000.00 to, if we have money to restore the site, meaning get rid of the gravel and that kind of crud already under a different permit, why is it going to cost $1,000.00 to haul the trailer off? Who's going to collect it? Aanenson: I'm just trying to, engineering gave me these dollar figures. Now again, the $250.00 is just for the grading itself, and the grading includes, as you brought up, how were they going to grade and where is that excess soil going to be? That $250.00 includes erosion control measures and the like, okay. Just the strict grading, okay. Now when he asks for the trailer permit, that's when he comes and says, okay now I want to put gravel on there and now I want to put the trailer on there. Batzli: This doesn't get rid of the gravel? Aanenson: We haul the gravel off. Restore the site. Reseed it. Some of this may, I'm uncomfortable telling you that that's a $1,000.00. If you want the staff to look at that and then have engineering comment on it, I'm Just going by the figures they gave me. I think I concur with what you're saying. That $250.00, if he's paying that a month rent, there is some incentive for him to return the trailer and-maybe that's too high but I think that's something we may want to have engineering comment on. Scott: ...part of that $1,000.00 is also site restoration? Aanenson: I think part of it is, yes. Some of it's just, they do overlap a little bit but I'm not sure what. It may be can be reduced. I think that's something we can look at. Ledvina: And the other thing I wanted to find out this, you indicated that it's less than 1,000 cubic yards. Has the staff calculated, done the calculations? Aanenson: Yes. Engi neet ing has. Ledvina: Okay. Because I look at this grading plan and first of all, the grading plan is not complete in terms of the contours on the cut along the east side. There's another 8 feet of cut that should be shown if you're going to maintain that slope that's indicated on that plan. Which shows, which would result in about an 18 foot cut. And if you have a 30 x 50 foot area at 18 feet, you have 1,000 yards. So I don't know, I'm uncomfortable with that. Just looking at the grading plan right now and saying that that's less than 1,000 yards. Will there be a culvert at the driveway for Powers Blvd. there? Aanenson: For the storm drain later? Ledvina: Well for this entrance off of Powers. Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page 19 Aanenson= You mean the curb cut? Ledvina: No, a culvert for the ditch there. Batzli= A culvert under the temporary gravel road or something. Aanenson= I'm not sure on that. I don't believe so. Dave didn't put it in his...application. Oh, it did say that under the Carver County. It says a culvert is required, 15 inch minimum. That's a requirement of the County then. Do you want to turn to the last page of the report. Two conditions by the County. One is a culvert. It's Just a catch all that says they're required, they're bound by all of our conditions. Ledvina= And then I guess the silt fence, there's no indication on the map as a part of this report that there's a silt fence to be placed and ~here it's going to be placed and if there's going to be stockpile. Soil stockpile. I definitely want to see a silt fence around that. I know these are. Aanenson: There is one on this, they've indicated Type I. We can certainly have engineering look at it again. I'm Just going by Dave's recommendation on this. Batzli: You mean you didn't double check Dave's calculations? Okay. Ledvina: There's more cut to the east here than what's indicated and if that slope is maintained. Aanenson: Just for clarification. I didn't look at this as'far as the specific engineering. I relied on our engineering department but I'm assuming that this is a representation of the final grading and the trailer, how they're throwing the trailer on there. I'm not sure they're grading. You know Dave sat down and met. with them and reviewed exactly the portion so I'm assuming that it's under the 1,DOD square feet but I understand what the concerns are. Ledvina: Okay. Aanenson: This is a representation of the final grading plan so it's larger, eut it was helpful to show 'exactly, shading exactly would have been a better representation. Ledvina: Yeah, which area is actually disturbed. Aanenson: Right, and maybe we should do that when we issue the permit. Ledvina: The timing. So they're looking at actually doing this grading in March, is that correct? Brad 3ohnson= Well the permit will not be granted until... Aanenson-' Well it has to go to Council. The grading fo~' this? Ledvina: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page 20 Brad Johnson: February-March, somewhere in there. Ledvina: Okay. That's all I have. Batzli: Thanks. Ladd. Conrad: I don't have any problems with this. I guess I'd like to see point number 4. If we can change a few words in point number 4, I could reduce the surety amount. You know if we said the rental trailer will be skirted, wood sided and well maintained, that would give me the feeling that it is a rental trailer and there's motivation to get it off site. So I could reduce the $1,000.00 by whatever staff would recommend. I don't have any other concerns. Batzli= Okay, thank you. Diane. Harberts: I really don't have any additional comments. I guess I appreciate the last comments added. I guess I would support Just a $1,000.00 surety bond just in the sense of it covers the city in case something does happen that hasn't been planned for. Batzli: Okay. I don't have any additional comments. I appreciate Matt's comments regarding the grading. That your review went above and beyond the call of duty on that. Seriously. I appreciate that. Does someone have a motion? Conrad: Is 1,000 yards a key part of this? Batzli: It's just going to be handled administratively. Aanenson: If it's under 1,000 it can be handled administratively...and I trust Dave's judgment that it's under l,O00. I think it would have been helpful, as Matt pointed out, to shade exactly what that area was because we show... I will certainly, when it goes to Council, we will clarify that and shade that area. I think that's helpful. Conrad: See under the recommendations Kate, we haven't said we recommend approval for grading under l,O00 yards. That's not a part of what we're saying. Aanenson: What you said is your number 3, it says they're complying with the city grading permit and we can only administer .those if they are under i ,000 square yards. I think that's what we were trying to say. Conrad: Ah okay. Batzli: Is there a motion? Would someone like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use Permit ~93-Z for a temporary sales trailer for the Oaks Development with the conditions listed in the staff report and number 4 modified to read, the rental trailer will be skirted, wood sided and well maintained. I would welcome such a motion. Conrad: So moved. Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page 21 8atzli: Farmakes: Batzli: Is there a second? I'll second it. It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Conrad moved, Farmakee aeconded that the Planning Commia~Ion recommend approval of Interim ~se Permit t93-1 for a temporary sale~ trailer at the Oaks Oevel~ment with the foll~i~ conditions: l. Any proposed signs will require-a separate permit. · · Surety of $1,000.00 for removal of the trailer and restoration of the site. Compliance with the grading permit and Carver County Temporary Access Permit and the city grading permit. 4. The rental trailer will be skirted, wood sided and ~ell maintained. · The sales trailer will be allowed for one year from the date of issuance or until the first 8 unit townhouse is built, which ever comes first. All voted in favor, except Matt Ledvlna who ~ and the ~otion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Batzli: And your reasons? Ledvina: I'm not comfortable that this represents a detailed enough site plan for the staff to take it from here. I think there's probably, more than 1,000 cubic yards of grading involved and I'd like to see the silt fence shown around stockpiling and such. I'm sure there's, you know these things you're going to take care of but just in the future., if it could be a little more detailed and have a little more review of something 'like this. I'd appreciate it. Batzli: I think with your objections to the motion and those comments, I'm sure that staff will take a look at that now. Thank you. And this goes to City Council when? Aanenson: First meeting in February. The 8th. Batzli: Okay, thank you for coming in. Old business. Is this another, is this a continued public hearing? Aanenson: Harberts: Aanenson: Deleted. It's been deleted for tonight. Did they say why they puIled it? No. Sharmtn may know. I'm not aware of it. Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page 22 O~N ~ ZAT I ONAL I TE~S. Batzli: In particular the things we need to do are elect a Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. Adopt our By-laws and appoint several liason members. Normally, for the purpose of voting Chair and Vice Chair, well we've done it several different ways. We've done it by secret ballot and by show of hands. Conrad: Darts was the best time though. Batzli: Unless people are uncomfortable, I would prefer to just .do it by show of hands. Unless someone has an objection to that, so that we can move along more rapidly. Conrad: So we should make some motions for nominations. Batzli: I think we should nominate and then if the person wants to do it, he or she should appropriately respond. Like no way, or okay I'll think about it. Conrad: Brian, I know you've chaired this for a year and you've done a terrific job. I think you've done, I've seen you grow in this and I'd like you to consider taking it for another year. With a relatively new commission and I think we need your leadership and I think you've handled the public hearings very well and organized things very well. So I would nominate you for Chairman for one more year. Farmakes: Second. Batzli: Well thank you and I will accept your nomination. Kind of hesitantly in that I have a 7 week old son but I'd like to try it for one more year. Is there anyone else who either would like to be nominated or are there other nominations? Conrad: I guess it's by decree then. Batzli: Well, I won't even call for a vote unless we're forced to do so. Vice Chair. Since we have so many new members, I know it's difficult to nominate someone so I guess, and I realize that as Ladd kind of nominated me, if you would like to be Vice Chair. I don't want to have to put somebody on the spot. Nominate me. Would someone like to be Vice Chair, is the issue. I guess if you would let me know, otherwise Ladd has chaired the Commission in the past. For years and if he would agree to do that, if someone else does not want to be the Vice Chair, I would nominate Ladd. Farmakes: Second. Mancino: Third. Batzli: Is there someone that would like to be Vice Chair? I don't know if Ladd is sold on wanting to be Vice Chair. Conrad: Well it's real clear that I don't need to do this stuff anymore but I will. 8ut normally we like the Vice Chair to move up to Chairman and Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page 23 it's real clear that I don't want to do that. I think it's real, one of the things that's neat about being on the Planning Commission is that different people have the opportunity to lead it and you kind of want to wait until those people have a little bit of experience to do that. So the only reason I would be Vice Chair is really to substitute. Simply that. I've run a fair number of meetings so I can do that and I wouldn't mind doing that. It's okay but just so everybody's clear. The intent is not to move up. I think there's other people here that will do that. Farmakes: So don't miss any meetings Brian. Conrad: Please don't miss any. Batzli: Also in the past, if there's no other nominations I guess we'll elect Ladd as Vice Chair for the upcoming year. Okay. But I would like to express that when Ladd was Chair, it was much more democratic than my autocratic reign and he encouraged me to chair a meeting. I don't know that I ever did take up his offer but if there is someone who, after a certain number of months would like to try it and get a little bit of experience under their belt and see whether it's something they want to do, and want to do on a continuing basis, let me know and I'd be more than happy to let him or her chair a meeting. Preferably, you probably don't want to take one, your first one with irrate groups in here but from time to time we get a little bit lighter load and that might .be a good one to try. Okay, moving right along then. By-laws need to be approved. Is there a motion? Well, are there any changes and if not,. is there a motion to approve the By-laws? Mancino: I just had a question when I read them. It's $(h). The Chairman shall have the responsibility to inform all the parties of their rights of appeal. What do they do if someone wants to appeal what we are recommending to the City Council? What's the process? Batzli: Well ! have taken that, and the reason that I always give my speech up front is to let people know that what we are doing is recommending and that the City Council makes the final decisions. And so they need to go to the City Council to make sure t~st, if we reject it, the appeal is to the City Council but the City Council's the one making the final decision. On the other hand, if we table things, I assume that the City Council could suesponte if you will, determine that they will consider it. Although I don't know that that's ever been done. Scott: What is suesponte? Batzli: On their own volition. They can just do it. So what I have normally done is, when there are groups in here, tell them, you know be sure to follow it to the City Council. Another thing that the Chair needs to do is tell these people when it's going to be on the City Council agenda, and we do try to do that. That's the rationale that I've read into that particular clause. Aanenson: Also sign appeals or variances come before the Planning Commission. I think that's the only appeal that you, so you do hear those. Variances for signs. Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page 24 Batzli: See I tried to do it in the earth work permit and I think I got that passed. I think we're the initial body that hears that as-well. Mancino: Thank you. Conrad: That's interesting that Mr. Chairman, under Section 2-1. We have a curfew of 11:00. I just want to underscore that. We should underscore that for staff also. Scott: The Chairman can waive it though right? Batzli: Yeah. I've also requested for the past several years running that this be reviewed to become gender neutral and I still know that in 2.2 there is an occurrence of the word his. So I would appreciate staff going through this and doing that. Okay, is there a motion to approve the By-laws. Conrad: So moved. Ha nc i no: Seco nd. Conrad moved, Hancino seconded that the Planning Commte~ton approve their By-laNe for lg~3 as presented. All voted in favor and .the aotion carried. Batzli: Attendance at City Council meetings. We've tried to do this one of two ways in the past. We developed a scheduled over the course of the year where we rotate it so that you in essence attend one out of every 7 City Council meetings, or attempt. And we've tried to do it where someone has volunteered or the Chair has volunteered to attend as many as possible. What we've done in the past 2 years, I think Steve when he was Chair 2 yeats ago, Steve Emmings. One of the former Chairs of the Commission. He attended jus[ virtually every meeting. City Council meeting. I don't know that we had a rotation schedule that year. But that can become a large burden on the chair and although I try to attend the meetings where we have a big controversial issue, or other things, I'don't think I'll be able to make all of them. So what I would like to do, and especially with newer people on the Commission, is get them to. attend some Council meetings. Although in this case the 3 new people probably have attended more than their fair share of Council meetings already. But it is interesting to see how the Council reacts to our suggestions and input or how they don't react to our suggestions and input, and get a flavor for how, what our role is and I guess I'd encourage that. Councilman Wing: Brian, I'd like to give my personal opinion is, when I was on Public Safety and we researched and I felt confident...and felt we had done the best job. Then the Council would get into their 10 minute spiel and start tearing it to shreds and coming up with all sorts of diverse directions that we had already put together and come up with a decisive answer. I attended those meetings and [ held my ground and I made it clear that we had discussed that. I made it clear that that's old business and I think it's one thing, it's nice to have you show up but when these issues come up, I'd like that representative to stand up and hold the Planning Commission's ground because I think you have an impact and I think it might be very helpful to the Council in making these decisions. So if Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page 25 you're in the audience, it's nice to see you but to actually stand up and say, here's where we went and why and this is our opinion. I think you should represent the Commission...and I would urge you to be vocal. Batzli: I would agree. Councilman Wing= I would really welcome your comments. I think they have a significant impact in helping us... Scott: I like the idea of rotating because that gives everybody, I mean we have two new Council people and I think we ail need to, I'd like to see a schedule where you know far in advance when you're supposed to be there and then of course you'd want to go to other ones if it's particularly controversial. But that's what I'd like to see personally. Batzli: Okay. Why don't we set up a schedule like that Kate. Aanenson: Okay. We'll put it in your packet for next time. Batzli: Put it in the packet and then you can take a look at when, and generally what happens is it's Just an additional packet that Public Safety or the Sheriff drops off at your door several days before the Council meeting. Aanenson: What I would suggest too is we'll just go ahead and put everybody down and just rotate it around. If you do have a conflict for that meeting, if you'd just ask someone to switch with you or work it out. Batzli: Can you make sure that I get a copy of the agenda and not the packet on those weeks that I'm not scheduled to go though. Mancino: I'd also like to add that those of us that are new, may want to not only go when we're supposed to on the rotating schedule but maybe add a few more into that to {;et the flavor and to learn as part of the process. Conrad: Richard, just out of curiousity. The reason a lot of us stopped going was because, and this is years back. This is not recent but this is a while back. We weren't called upon for our input. It was uncomfortable. So your comments tonight are, whether we're called on or not, if we hear the drift going the wrong way, and I'm kind of verbalizing this for those, for all of us I guess. But if we're call on or not, if we see it going a different direction than what we felt, that we should be aggressive and stand up. Councilman Wing: Oh I think so. Ladd I don't know if it's appropriate to call on you or not. I guess if I was the Mayor and Chairman, I would probably specifically do that because we ask Scott Hart for his input. And staff. I think if someone from the Commission was there, I would clearly recognize them and as a matter of fact, I'll mention that to the Mayor. I think that would be significant. Conrad: I think when an issue is confusing, and we've gone through it and dissected it, and geez you know, we take hours to dissect this stuff. Sometimes we can actually minimize the amount of time you have to go Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page 26 through the issue again. But that's I think, the Mayor would have to feel comfortable calling on somebody. If you're representing the Planning Commission, say what were your insights and again, the:tough part is, we all have our own opinion. But you've .got to represent 7 folks and sometimes, typically we've been able to send pretty clear direction here. We negotiate. It's not 4 to 3 votes. We're trying to get clear direction, if possible. If not, if it's a split issue, then that's the way it is but when it's real clear, then I think City Council knows exactly where we stand. But sometimes it's not that way so a person standing up can represent their own opinion but they also have to represent the balance. Aanenson: I think some of that Job is the burden of the staff too. We always try to put a Planning Commission update and try to, if there's different opinions, try to shake out what those major issues were and I think as a staff we always try to represent what the views of the Planning Commission were too and I think that's some of our job. Make sure those are carried forward. Farmakes: I do think though that we should be aware that we're a part of the process and not the process. Nobody voted for us. We're appointed. So when they sit on the Council that's a different realm of accountability and even though we may all follow through and give our input, we shouldn't be disappointed sometimes when the Council may decide to go another way. And we have to realize that. And I think in the past, on other Commissions and I don't think this Commission is guilty. I think some people have gone off sometimes on their own agendas when they have come to a commission or got onto a commission. They have an agenda that they want to follow and they sort of go off ad hoc Council, or try to create that. Where they're initiating developments on their own. I think we have to be careful of that. Harberts: I'd like to inquire that staff, when you put that.schedule together, if you could contact me when you put that together because I have conflicts. Other meetings that I'd like to maybe just take a look at the schedule and see if I can work out a couple meetings that will work within my professional schedule. Batzli: Okay. Very good. Liason attendance at Housing and Redevelopment Authority meetings. Ledvina: Paul got this one wrong. 8atzli: Pardon me. Ledvina: Paul got this one wrong because I have been going to the HRR meetings. conrad: We've got a guy. Batzli: We've got a guy? Do you want to continue going to those meetings? Ledvina: Sure. I'm getting a lot out of it. Batzli: Okay. Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page 27 Conrad: Matt's one of the best ones we've ever had. Batzli: Well I have an inkled feeling t'hat Joe may also wish to attend some of those meetings so if you do, obviously the more the merrier from the Planning Commission there. If you do want to trade off or could do something. Feel free. Scott: Yeah, if you have a conflict or something but yeah. I'd be moderately interested in that sort of a thing. Councilman Wing: Can I just interject on that? Batzli: Sure. Councilman Wing: If you're going to attend those meetings, could I just recommend that you vocalize and be aggressive because if I had my choice of attending HRA meeting or Council meeting that would be scheduled...HRR has more power than I've got on the City Council. Be more effective there than any place else. If you've got good ideas and I think you ought to be... there because they're making major, major decisions. Way over my head. $o if you want to have impact, be at that meeting and speak up. Batzli: We've attempted in the past to get a liason to the Park and Rec Commission. If anyone's interested in that, I think it would be interesting to at least have someone visit them from time to time. We make a lot of decisions that are based on what they're deciding and I think it would be good from time to time to get a flavor of ~hy they're deciding things. I know everytime I say this people look at me and.say, okay. Fine. Go ahead and do it Brian, so I'll just leave it at that for right now before I rope myself into going to another meeting. But I think we should consider that because we our zoning and land use issues regarding parks and open space I think is directly impacted by these decisions they're making and sometimes we look at what they've.decided, we don't need a park here. We don't want this. We don't want that. And we look at it and we blankly say, well that's not our problem so ~e can't consider it. Well, true and not true. I've always had a-problem with that and I would like to get a better feel for why they're making some of these decisions. Aanenson: Can I just add to that Brian. They're also undertaking doing a comprehensive park plan and I think what you say is really true. We may want to get someone involved in that process right now because they're' looking at doing that. Scott: I know in the Sunlink proposal, that we're not going to be looking at, I know there were a number of references to park space and how it connected up with the trail system and that sort of thing so that was, I was pleasantly surprised to see that so I can see where you're coming from on that. Batzli: Okay. That takes care of our organizational items. Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page 28 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Batzli: We used to do this real formally, for those of you new to the Commission, and we somehow or another decided that all we've got to do is say something like, does anybody have any changes and that's the end of that. So does anyone have any changes? I would just like to once again make of record that Ladd's comment at the parting of Joan and Steve. And I quote, "Well, good things to Joan. I think Steve deserves what he gets.' I liked that. I missed that last time actually so thank you. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Batzli: Do you have an update Kate? Aanenson: Sure. I could Just go, at the last Planning Commission meeting where Goodyear was on, we had a very lengthy discussion. And what it results is the possibility of maybe putting into place a moratorium along the Highway 5 corridor. $o we're in the process, and Council hasn't decided that's the option but we're going ahead and noticing and looking at that issue. Again, it came back to do we have the design guidelines in . place to guarantee what's going to happen along that corridor. '$o that item was tabled for a month and we're working on going ahead and noticing the moratorium issue. The Gateway concept plan was also up for conceptual approval before the City Council. It was a lengthy discussion, as it was here at the Planning Commission. The moratorium isle came up again on that and again, because it's a concept. There's 'so many issues that need to be resolved from the staff level, that we're kind of tracking along with the Highway 5 study. What the staff recommended and the Council went along with, which I think makes a lot of sense, is that we said they cannot come back for preliminary approval for at least 8 months, which we feel gives us time to get the Highway $ corridor study behind us, or at least into the adoption process and give us some time to resolve some of those other issues. At that point we feel like they'll have slot more information that we can do to look at how it should be c~signed. Batzli: Speaking of Highway 5 team, people, project. I can't think of the committee's name. Aanenson: Corridor study. Highway 5 corridor study. Batzli: Okay, but who is the committee that's looking at it? Aanenson: Well Nancy is on the committee and Jeff's on that. Mancino: I'm also on the subcommittee. Aanenson: Yeah, and Nancy's on the subcommittee too. Batzli: How many people is the Planning Commission entitled to have on that committee? Or don't we know? Did the Mayor appoint them? Does Council appoint them? Are we still okay, because Steve was on that committee. Is he still going? Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page 29 Aanenson: No, but then Nancy was appointed as a citizen and now she's on as Planning Commissioner too so it's kind of two fold. If Steve wants to still come as a resident, great. We were going to put that on but we felt we had two. If more of you would like to come, certainly I think that's another interesting. A lot of work needs to be done on that. Long range comprehensive planning issues. Batzli: Okay. Thank you. Aanenson: So anyway, those two issues are very timely and you'll be seeing a Iot more on those two issues. We had the amendment on that you recommended approvaI on as far as the metes and bounds. Approving those. ActualIy Don Ashworth had a Iot of concerns about that so we went back and rethought.that. Originally we felt it was a cost kind of issue and the Council was kind of retunctant. They felt'that maybe some more thought should go into that. Maybe we should require platting and if we did, maybe it could only be 25 words or less. So we're rethinking that and doing some more research on that issue. That's it. DISCUSSI{)N OF SEPTIC ORDIN~. Batzli: Do you want to give us a little blurb on what this is about? Aanenson: Sure. If you recall, we amended the ordinance to say, we had the 2 1/2 acre minimum when we're outside the MUSA and we went ahead and amended that and we kind of bounced around, what should be the minimum. We went with the 15,000 because that's our existing minimum lot size. Rs long as you could get the two septic sites on there. At that time-we didn't put in a collective system and there was some issues. I know Tim had looked at that. Maybe a collective septic site would work. I know that the ~ursery, Halls Nursery is also looking at, they're doing some platting and using a collective sewage system where you had the 15,000 square foot lots and at such time that sewer becomes availabe, you could vacate that system and go ahead and plat the rest of those lots out. We had some concerns about that. Paul was on one side of this issue and he felt maybe it could work so we brought in some experts. Namely Roger Machmeie~ and 3im Anderson sat down with the staff and went through that and they really strongly advised against doing a collective system. There's Just a lot of headaches as far as the staff's concerned. Liabilities if the system fails and so ! think we're going to stick with what we originally proposed. Is that the 15,000 square foot lots is the minimum as long as you can provide the two septic sites on site, and not go with the collective system. Batzli: Okay but, help me out here. We're allowing 15,000 square foot lots then as long as you can provide a well and two septic sites. Aanenson= Right. Batzli: And most of the area of the city is heavy clay so that isn't - possible. Aanenson: Well no. What we're talking about as far as the, what you'd need for the collective system is what we're talking about. The poor soils because you need a longer, linear, as it explains in engineering terms. You Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page 30 need a much longer dispersion and it doesn't work under a collective system. I think you're right though. I don't think we will see a lot of 15,000 square foot lots. I think it'd probably be more closer to maybe 20 to 25 to get both those on there. 8ut again, we still have the one unit per 10 acre density still falls into place. Okay, you still have to have that density but what we're saying, if you want to split off and plat the rest of the outlot, you can chop off a smaller, half acre lot. Again, what we're trying to do is provide in such a way that sewer, when that does become available, we haven't got a large subdivision of 2 or 3 acre lots that we're trying to now assess for sewer and water. Batzli: Let me ask the question again. Maybe I'm really slow on this issue. Collector systems were discussed because a 15,000 square foot lot is not large enough to contain a building site, a well and two septic sites. Does that mean that the two septic sites are collector systems or two regular septic sites? Aanenson: That's not why it was discussed. No, that's not why it was discussed. I did the originaI report. I'm just reading off of Jo Ann's. That's really not where it came from. It came from trying to be more efficient in land use. I think there are some situations where the 15,000, and Tim had looked at that in looki~ at some of his property and again, like I said, Halla Nursery had looked at doing some of that. Just trying to be more efficient in some of the land use. I think there-are some circumstances where the 15,000 square foot lots will accommodate. Again, it'd probably be more like 2.0. The reason we were looking at it is just to be more efficient. Maybe it makes sense, maybe every other lot. The two lots together would use a common lot inbetween. At such time sewer becomes available, you vacate the middle lot but again, the mechanics of the engineering doesn't pan out to make that work. That's what the experts have told us so, is that clear? Batzli: $o for now, what do we need to do with this? Aanenson: Nothing. We just wanted to let you know. This really came from Tim unfortunately. Tim was the one that really wanted us to investigate this, and unfortunately it got bogged down and so it's really driven because he had requested staff to investigate the possibility of using collector system. Because we never put in the original ordinance when I wrote it, because my original review and information I got said it doesn't work and Tim said, can we revisit that issue. $o what we did is we hired the consultants to revisit it and so they recommended no. It's really not feasible. Conrad: But you're still looking at it? Aanenson: Well we've adopted the ordinance that says, if you can get down to 15,000 square feet and put two septic sites and a well, great. If you can't, then maybe you need a half acre, maybe you need an acre. Maybe you still need two but we will allow you to go to our minimum if you can meet those qualifiers. That ordinance is in place. Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, I guess I looked at. this specific item and the whole discussion centers around mound systems. And that is in truth, most Planning Commission Heeting January 20, 1993 - Page of the mound systems, or most ot= the septic systems that are going to be placed in this area, are going to be mound systems. That might be guessing 60~ to 70~, but the other 30~ are not mound systems and the discussion that's contained, you know as the attachment here doesn't really apply. So just 1=or the record, and ! don't know. Aanenson: Are you talking about pumping or something? Ledvina: Well no. Just the standard type o1= septic 'system. Granted there are a lot of clay soils in Chanhassen but there are areas where there are sandy silts and sands, and those areas are maybe, I don't know what the percentage but I'd be guessing as to maybe 40~ or 25~.. $o the discussions is very one sided and I still don't know how this all relates. I would agree with the points that are made within this star1= report regarding mound systems but again, we don't have the whole story. Satzli: Would you like to see staff continue to investigate this? Ledvina: I don't know. I guess if there was a reason to believe that collector systems are a viable alternative for development within our borders then, you know you've got the situation regarding mound systems covered but are we saying that standard type collector systems are okay, or what are we saying regarding that? Aanenson: I'm sorry, I didn't follow what you were asking. Ledvina: Well, we have the situation regardin~ mound systems and in the engineering limitations o1= those types of things, maintenance, etc but what about a standard type of collector system? Aanenson: Well what we did is we looked at the general, we had the Building Department and then we looked at what's below the MUSA line in those areas that we believe have a possibility of developing and we looked at the soils and you're right. Ledvina: $o you actually looked at the soils... Aanenson: Of the areas we believe potentially, already. Exactly Ha'lla. If he could go forward with this system, he would be in here probably within the next few months. So we looked at where those potentials. You're right. There may be some other ones but we believe that those probably aren't ready to develop in the immediate'future and at such time that we may be inside the MUSA anyway. $o I understand what your viewpoint is. Batzli: I'm still struggling to know where, i1= we want to do something with this. It looks like we spent some money on a consultant. Aanenson= This was directed because again, .Tim Erhart asked the staff to revisit that issue and make sure that when we adopt the ordinance, we left collective systems out. He wanted to revisit to see, does it make sense? Can we do collective systems? We're saying no, we can't. We're going to leave it the way it is. We're not going to make any modifications to the ordinance. Right now we're saying, they have to be on site. You cannot have a collective system. Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page 32 Batzli: Okay. I guess I would prefer then that the City not spend more money on a consultant unless the Commission has a burni'ng desire to revisit this issue for one reason or another. Mancino: I just want to make sure I understand this. You feel that you have researched the universe of collective systems that would work in this area? Aanenson: No. No. Mancino: But you've given it a pretty good shot? Aanenson: Yes. And I think the areas 'we feel that could develop, it's not going to be economically feasible. The risks as far as if it fails. The City's risk. We feel at this time it's not a prudent decision to go forward with it and we'd recommend that they be on site. Scott: So this basically confirms the way the ordinance is? Aanenson: Exactly. Scott: So this is informational and it's not anything we really have to. Aanenson: Act upon, right. And again, it was driven from Tim and I apologize that Tim didn't have the chance to respond. We'd certainly let him know. Conrad: But staff is still working on the off site collector? The off site septic site, or are you not? Batzli: I think they're done. Kate? Aanenson: Right · Conrad: You're done. Batzli: Unless we want them to investigate further. Conrad: Well no, Jo Ann's note says in the last paragraph, staff is now reviewing the possibility of allowing indivic~al septic sites to be located on adjacent property of that 1S,O00 square foot lot is possible. Aanenson: They would Just go with the bigger lot. I'm sorry, where that came from because what we said, if it needed to be bigger, then you need to be bigger. Batzli: See I would be totally against allowing a 15,000 square foot lot and then locating the septic systems off the site. That's totally against what we were trying to do. Aanenson: That's exactly right. That was not our intent. We said, if you've got sand and it works, great. If not, then maybe you have to be a half acre, maybe 3/4. Whatever it takes. Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page 33 Batzli: And that's why I thought this sentence from Jo Ann that said, the problem is you can't fit all these things on there, my big comment was going to be, then we raise the size of the lot because then the wool was pulled over our eyes. The whole process that these things could fit on there. ~anenson: Right. ~nd that was not the way it's read. ~nd I'm sorry, but' this went through Paul. I didn't have a chance to read it but I did work on that ordinance and you're right. That's not what the intent was. That was just, we said do we want a minimum. Because remember we talked about, I think a hail acre and we said welI, first of ali we never had a minimum if you recaI1. Ne never even put a minimum in there. Ne said if you can even go smaIler and we thought well geez, we don't want them to go smaller than our minimum lot size. So we said, okay. Let's make it our' minimum lot size but the qqalifier is, you had to be able to get those three things on there. And that's specifically written that way. Batzli: Okay. So you're not working on that, good. DISCUSSION OF 1993 GOR~..$. Batzli: You have in here the Planning Department goals and budget request as always. Do you need to cover that in 30 seconds or? Aanenson= No, and I also passed out some ongoing issues'too. I guess if you had any more direction. Paul did want me to mention to you that City Council will be having a joint staff meeting, Council meeting, and you may want to attend. Batzli: I attended that last year. Aanenson: Yeah, normally the Chairman may attend that and if you can't be there, you might want to delegate that somebody else but I believe it's February 6th and that will be a City Council goal session. Batzli: February 6th? Saturday, yeah. Normally over at the Fire Station. The size of the staff remains the same? Aanenson: Yep. Batzli: No more people for your department or anything else? Aanenson: Planning staff, yeah. Just so everybody's clear. I'm not sure everybody realizes but 30 Ann's here 4 days and I'm here 4 days so that's how we set it budget wise. · Conrad: What do you do the other day? Aanenson: Actually I do 5 days and 4 days. I rest. Scott: I noticed in here that it'd like to be considered that you go from 4 days to 5 days, Aanenson: Yeah. I had mentioned that yes. Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page 34 Scott: Okay. So it's nothing that's going to be included in the '93 budget but that's something that would be considered for '947 Is that kind of what? Okay. Batzli: Normally what we do at this time of year is look at what we've done and what we have ongoing to determine whether there's something that we want to be looking at that we're not. Or that needs to be revisited. Kate passed out before the meeting ongoing issues and what we've been trying to do by using this vehicle is to make sure that things eventually get taken care of or that we recognize that we're not working on something. Kind of give ourselves a lack of progress report. And the issue, what we've done in the past and I don't know if it was helpful or not. Maybe some other commissioners want to comment on it, is to kind of force everyone to bring to the next meeting, after this organizational one, things that they would like to see happen in the next year. Kind of a wish list or how they would rank or prioritize the items on the ongoing issues sheet that looks like either they're not already taken care of or they're languishing. Generally over the past 2 years i think the items have slowly been getting worked on and they've been taken care of. We haven't added a whole lot of new stuff to it I don't think. Aanenson: Except for the Highway 5 which kind of has a lot of sub things underneath. Batzli: Yeah. Ladd, do you think it's useful to try and force people to bring their wish list in and talk about it next time? Conrad: Probably should. You've got to collect our in, ut. You've got to collect City Council's input. See what they're thinking. Batzli: Yeah, because generally I think what Ladd is getting at, if we choose our wish list and what we've done in the past is talked about it and come up with the priority of items and then sent it up to City Council so that we weren't wasting our time. If we've determined that for example the open space zoning is the most highly sought after thin~ that we can possibly think of, and they come back and say, why waste your time. We're not interested. We don't care. If you pass it-, we'll just let it die. Then why should we do that? That's why I think it's some~h&t important that we determine some sort of ranktn~ of these things are items that we're interested in trying to get accomplished in this next year and at least send it up to them so they know what we're trying to accomplish. Conrad: And it forces them to think a little bit too. Like they're managing what we do and it's a good exercise. Jeff, are you going to propose review of architectural standards? Farmakes: Be the architectural police of Chanhassen? No. Conrad: Well it's an interesting. ! Just wanted to plant that seed. We talk about it all the time. Farmakes: That's been incorporated in the Highway 5 study but I think we have to do an educational thing to. define what that is and I think some people are confusing it with looking at a style of architecture rather than Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page 35 principles of architecture. And that's therein the difference. And that's going to. take some education. The staff has a consultant and a planner and they're working with those issues and we're dealing with that now in the subcommittee of the Highway $ corridor that is dealing with standards and I 'm not sure how that will translate into city ordinance in general. But it's a good start. Conrad: Well I know you care, that's why I brin~ it up. Yeah I think we should. I don't know what the agenda is for next. This is nice. Aanenson: You're goin~ to have another Lundgren subdivision on. You're going to be seeing a lot of subdivisions. The.next every one. Every meeting now. Harberts: I'd like to bring up a point of reference too on that. I'm Just wondering if there's some type of protocol with regard to one of us that may have conflict or potential conflict of interest in projects that come before the Commission, what the protocol is. Does that include, do we sit through the public hearings? Do we remove ourselves entirely from the room? What's the protocol? Batzli: When I've had to remove myself on a conflict of interest, I've tried to announce early on in the, not the discussion but around, right away prior to the public hearin~ that. I've sat up here and just not discussed it or voted on the issue. Other people have ~otten up and and sat out in the crowd so as to further distance themselves from the decision making process. Harberts: Has there been a legal perspective on that from the City? Aanenson: I know the Council they have to declare that they usually do. I can check on that for you. Harberts: Because there's one pending with that Sunlink property because I'll be involved on that. Batzli: I think at a minimum you need to disclose it and not participate in the discussion or decision. So what I would like everyone to do. Mancino: A real quick question on prioritizing when I look at the issues and other items and I see the 1995 study area ! say, oh. Let's look at that in i994. Tell me something a little bit about how long it takes to. look at an area and come up with land use, zoning, etc. Aanenson: This one is tied into the Highway 5 corridor study. This is also known as the Fleet Farm kind of area. It's the northeast corner of Highway 5 and 41. Batzli: We're actually looking at that. Farmakes: That was part of the...to be determined later. Mancino: But when is later? Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page 36 Farmakes: '95. Hancino: '95, okay. That's what ! wanted to know. Scott= Then the '95 study area south, is that the elementary school site? Batzli: That's north of there isn't it? North and .west of that. Harberts: It's just below, isn't it below that Lake Susan? No Timberwood. Batzli: Yeah, but it was also down south. Do you guys have a copy of your comprehensive plan? It's designated in there. It's not in there? Aanenson: We got the maps a couple weeks ago. 8atzli: Oh, so you don't, have a little reproduced map in there? Harberts: I thought it was just under Timberwood. Aanenson: I do not know where the other one is. Batzli: Well we should know that. Okay. Aanenson: I believe that one's not in the MUSA area, is really what I believe. I think it's south. I don't know. I'll check on that for' you. Farmakes: Well there was an additional study area to the south. Not on TH 5. I believe the school was south, there's so many proposals but I believe all the school proposals were south of TH $. The study area, I didn't think... Scott: I think this was, the map that originally came along with this comprehensive plan had a study area south. Batzli: Yeah it does but it's south of this proposed school area. The school is in the MUSA line. Mancino: Fleet Farm is right here and. the school is Tight here. 8atzli: But it's all north of TH $ in that area. There's another one to the south where 169 and 212. Conrad: What's that study area for? Batzli: Which? Conrad: The one to the south. Batzli: Because we didn't know where the road was going to go exactly. At the time we passed the comprehensive plan. Aanenson: And what zoning we wanted arOUnd it. Scott: Is that the proposed TH 101/212 interchange area? Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 1993 - Page 37 Batzli: No. We zoned that land as I recall. Harberts: Industrial. 8atzli: Well it was commercial around the intersection. Harberts: Yeah, because we're looking to map a park and ride there. 8atzli: So for next meeting,-if people can take a took at the ongoing items. Issues. Come up with a priority and also bring in those things that you think we should be looking at that we may not be. That would be helpful. And does anybody else have any discussion items? Conrad moved, L®dvina seconded to adjourn the mssti~g. ~li voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting ~as adjourned, at 9:35 p.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim