Loading...
PC 1993 04 07CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 7, 1993 Chairman Batzii called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Brian 8atzli, Jeff Farmakes and Diane Harberts STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SITE PLAN TO CREATE 27 TOWNHOME LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD. AND t, OCATED DIRECTLY EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD, ADJACENT TO LAKE SUSAN HILLS PUD, PRAIRIE CREEK TOWNHOMES, JASPER DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Name ~ddress Jim Domholt Andrew K. Olson Gary Kassen Tom VanAsh Kirby & Susan Paulson Ritra Halling Don Patton 8251 West Lake Court 82-90 West Lake Court 8270 West Lake Court 8320 West Lake Court 8410 West Lake Court Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Batzli: One of our concerns last time was that we might be setting a precedent for another one of the medium to higher density outlots from the original PUD. Assume for a minute that we allow this one to go to 40~ impervious and the other outlot is built with a higher density project. Do you think that they will also be able to go to 40~ impervious with a higher density project based on what we do tonight? Olsen: You mean if they'd be doing the 9 units per acre? If they'd be doing like the stacked units? 8atzli: Yeah. Olsen: Yeah. I do believe that you are setting a precedent. But to be honest, those impervious coverages are really, low and for the size of those units or the lots, it's going to be really tough to meet that. Like the one, you have the long lot, outlot on the west side of Lake Susan or Powers Boulevard. I believe that they probably will be pushing the 29~ or whatever impervious is allowed on that site. They're all low. They're in the 20's or the low 30's. So yes. I believe that you will be setting a precedent. But most likely I. don't know that, it's hard for me to say what the situation is but we might be even recommending that you, even if a precedent hadn't been set, we might still be making a similar recommendation. Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 2 Farmakes: Does this wind up being a variance of a variance? Olsen: What I recommend is that you amend the PUD contract to state that Outlot C, you know change that. Farmakes: It just applies to that specific outlot? Olsen: Yeah. Or you could change it to all. Mancino: No. I think the recommendation is that we change it to all, according to the staff recommendations. It is to change all the outlots. A, which is high density and B, C, and D which are medium, all to 40~. That's in the staff recommendations. Farmakes: Then do we modify the original? Is thatla modification then of the '87 agreement and a modification of the '937 Olsen: No, that would be a modification to the '$7 PUD contract. But then what are you saying, the '937 Farmakes: Nell, I understood part 6f the question here was you were discussing that we're not gaining that much more by asking the applicant to conform to '93 PUD standards versus '87. I understand the contract has expired. But as a matter of practicality. Olsen: Well it hasn't expired but it allows you to bring in new regulations. Farmakes: Correct. But as I understand it, there was a 5 year grace period in there and what happens in the future. Does this just deal with this particular, this development? I mean if we start, being that that's expired. Or I'm saying it's expired. I don't know if that's the legal term. Olsen: Right, that's not the correct term but yeah. Farmakes: Are we cutting a new deal here? Olsen: Yes. As far as this site plan, yes you are. Farmakes: Okay, is this going to come back to haunt us? Conrad: It shouldn't. But the rationale sort of escapes me right now. The standard for the R-8 district is 35~ impervious surface. So let's just talk about R-8 districts. So what the staff is telling me is the standard should be 40~. I don't care if this is part of this big PUD or not. I'm just curious about an R-8 district and that's really the issue here. What should the impervious surface ratio be. Farmakes: Is the motivation though of this particular unit on this particular piece of land, is that, should that be implied to other developments? Conrad: But if you like what you see, then we should. Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 3 Batzli: Well we haven't been brought the rationale to adjust R-8's in general. Conrad: No. Olsen: No. · Conrad: But we certainly can address this as this particular property and I don't know that it sets a standard. Batzli: See but I don't know that it does. I'd like to come up with a rationale for why it doesn't but I'm still troubled by why we should amend the density for the Outlot B and D until we see what's proposed on those areas. Olsen: Yeah, that's fine. I think one of'the reasons that we put that in there was possibly so that if you were comfortable with it on this, that you wouldn't be setting precedent throughout the rest of the PUD itself. We weren't you know dealing with the R-8 district at all but there's no problem to limit it just to amend that condition just for Outlot C. Batzli: What scares me is that if they need a certain number of units on this particular piece of land and they have to go 40~ impervious, if you go with a lower priced medium density unit, of this style, you would need a lot more units apparently to Cover than, and if we go to 40~, then I can just picture the next one coming and saying, well now we need 45~ because these ones aren't as expensive as the last ones. And I have a tough time with that. Conrad: Me too. Batzli: And I'm willing I guess to go 40 on this provided that we can demonstrate, at least to ourselves, that they've given us something that wasn't in the original PUD. I mean kind of a quit pro pro here that you know fine that there's a demand for this kind of housing. 'That's wonderful but if they're giving us additional landscaping and they're giving us things that weren't really in the original contract, I don't have a problem I guess saying okay, we'll relax a little bit on the impervious here because I don't know that 5~ is going to matter. Provided that we have proper water drainage off of this site but, and I think we have enough open space here but I really have a problem, and I guess I'm relying on you to tell me that we have that and from the staff report it looks like we have it but. Olsen: Well there's no question that over the PUD contract they're greatly exceeding the architectural design that we possibly could have gotten and greatly exceedin~ the landscaping. They were only required to provide 500 per unit. I guess I know it's way beyond that. He could maybe even give you. Mancino: Of course it was 6 years ago too. Olsen: Correct, but that's all, you know that's the same we have with the Lake Susan Hills 9th. That's still, that's $150.00 and yeah we know that Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 4 that doesn't provide you anything now. So as far as those two issues, yes and I guess that's one of the reasons staff was in favor of this project was because they were, even to begin with, coming with those additional architecture and landscaping. Batzli: And the other side of the coin is that let's apply all of the new standards to this particular parcel and then they probably can't do this kind of development at all. Olsen: No, not this one. Batzl i: Okay. Farmakes: Then what would have'to be done? You'd have to rezone the property then? Olsen: No. Batzli: You'd end up with a different kind of unit. Olsen: Right. Their project would not go. Farmakes: A 3 story type? Olsen: Yes. Because you really reduce, with the 50 and the 30 feet, you reduce the size. But then you'll be reducing the density. They'd only build 8 units per acre and 35~ sO it's just a different project. Mancino: Right now it's 5.2. The density is 5.2 units per acre. Olsen: Well it's lower than that now with the one removed. Batzli: Okay. Does the applicant wish to address the Commission? Larry Harris: My name is Larry Harris. I'm an attorney in Waconia. I represent the applicant and I want to address, I'll try to short circuit my presentation because it appears that the Commission and staff may have come to an understanding on some issues but I want to address some points. First of all in relation to Outlot D. I don't know that the Planning Commission is aware that my client holds an option on Outlot D and assuming this project goes, and my client anticipates it will, sometime approximately a year from now, my client will be back before this city's Planning Commission with a development plan for the same, I don't want to say they're exactly the same units because there may be cosmetic differences. There may be slight floor plan modifications to accommodate conditions in the market, but I want to be real upfront and address Mr. Batzli's concerns about what type of precedence are being set. For this type of a project on Outlot D, you're going to be looking at approximately the same types of densities. I can't give you exact percentages, whether it will be 38~ or 39~ but I want to be up front with you that it won't be the 31~ that's in the 1987 PUD agreement because this type of development cannot work at that. I cannot speak to the other outlots. That is not part of my client's concern, although I do know that Outlot A, at least according to the way I read the planned unit development agreement, is Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 5 anticipated for much higher density than that which is being sought here. I think it's important 1=or the Planning Commission to understand that my client has attempted to work with, not only with stat=t= but the adjoining property owners to come up with a development that works with what already exists in that neighborhood. This is not an economic issue. It= economics were the motivating l=orce here, my client could meet all ol= the current P-8 requirements and get 39 units in that property. The problem is they're going to be, that there will be under a 35~ density but they're all going to be stacked. They'll have a garage and a halt= and they'll probably sell in the $85,000.00 to .$90,000.00 range as opposed to the $130,000.00 to $140,000.00 range. That's not the type ot= project that my client 1=eels is appropriate 1=or this site. But one o1= the things, I think it's important 1=or the Planning Commission to realize is it would generate more pro1=it to build that type o1= a project. A couple other issues that I think it's important 1=or the Planning Commission to realize. In relation to the impervious coverage issue. There have been some changes. While one unit has been reduced in this area, additional impervious coverage has been added because in recognition o1= a suggestion by sta1=1=, parking spaces, 1=our guest parking spaces have been added. Secondly, the city has indicated they want 1=low thru tra1=1=ic because o1= public'sa1=ety concerns. They wanted an area such as this widened. It all makes it a better project. It makes the project look better but the problem is it generates a higher impervious sur1=ace. Un1=ortunately everything is a trade o1=t=. But this project is considerably below what maximum density is according to the ordinance, the PUD agreement and your comprehensive plan. The-problem is 1=or this style and this con1=iguration ol= a lot, it being long and narrow, the nature is you're going to have long looping streets and it generates a lot o1= impervious sur1=ace area. I think it's important to realize that the di1=1=erence between 35~ and 40~ in impervious sur1=ace area here is less than 10,000 square 1=eet in an 20,000 square 1=oot development. And the issue here really isn't necessarily open space. When the 1987 PUD agreement was entered into the developer, Dunn and Curry at that time, dedicated a considerable amount o1= property to the city 1=or parks and open spaces. I recognize, the impervious requirements is designed to accomplish two things typically in a city's ordinances. One, to guarantee open spaces within the development. Two, to indicate that there's land available 1=or dedication. That there will be parks and open spaces. The second requirement has already been complied with here because in 1987, at the time the original PUD agreement was entered into, there was an appropriate parkland dedication. One o1= other issues I think is important 1=or the Planning Commission to realize is that when the PUD agreement was entered into in 1987, no one knew exactly what type o1= developments were going to be proposed 1=or the multiple unit outlot. The PUD agreement le1=t the nuts and bolts to be worked out when the actual development plans came in. They suggest that i1= an actual development plan had been come 1=orward in 1987 at the time the PUD agreement was negotiated, that the impervious sur1=ace density requirement probably would not have been the 31~ they were in the agreement. That's not to say it was a bad agreement. It's just to say that there wasn't a plan in 1=font o1= city stat=1= and the Planning Commission or the Council at that time where they could sit and layout and see. Okay, this is how a development would lay out.-This is how we need to sit these types o1= impervious sur1=ace requirements. I think there's one other issue, at least as 1=ar as the developer is concerned. We are. here tonight, Greg Hollings the engineer the developer has retained is Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 6 here. Mark 3effries, the landscape architect who's put together the landscape plan is here and I'll have him make a brief presentation to the Planning Commission to show you how the project is landscaped. To show you that the project is landscaped in a manner that exceeds the requirements of your new ordinance and clearly exceeds what is required under the 1987 PUD agreement. We are prepared to answer any questions that the Planning Commission might have tonight but because of time tables and development pressures that Jasper Development is under, we'd like the Planning Commission to make a decision tonight. Thank you. First of all, are there any questions that I can answer for the Planning Commission? Batzli: We might have some for you later. Thank you. Mark 3effries: My name's Mark 3effries, Minnesota Landscape Products and I'm a landscape designer, not an architect... Some of the changes that we've made, 3o Ann eluded to. We added one boulevard tree to Lake Susan Hills Drive. Generally, have beefed up the landscape throughout because we were given a little bit more room to do that when they got rid of a couple units. Along Lake Susan Hills Drive you see 4 bermed areas that were added that were not there. Along the property line which adjoins the neighbors, there was these 3 trees were added and there were some Black Hills Spruce trees added this way and everything kind of slid that direction, which I think there was a concern about screening in that area. We did have a detail the last time we made the presentation on these typicals up here and down here which gives you a pretty good idea of, this is a typical, a bermed area which flows from some spruce trees into some deciduous trees which is different from a bermed area which kind of stands on it's own. One other change that we made, since we were kind of back to the drawing board on this, we decided, we kind of rethought the ornamental trees on the inside and I don't know how closely you go through the landscape plan but the quantities stayed the same but the number of species were decreased from 5 or 6 to 3. And that was just a design decision. Generally deciduous trees, evergreen trees were, numbers were added and then the berms along here.. Those 4 berms were added that were not there. This is the typical that was a part of your last packet. Well I don't know if you had it. I think I showed it at the last meeting and this is the typical berm along Powers Boulevard and this is the one over on the adjoining lot line. Just to give you a look at what a profile of those typicals would look like...trees and lower growing shrubs underneath the deciduous trees and over here, 3o Ann talked about some Of the plants that would be planted in this bermed area. Some of them are quite large. And that has not been a change but some of these plantings along here are shrubs that get anywhere from 5 to 15 feet high so some are really like small ornamental trees...That's about all I have to add unless you have any questions. Batzli: I'm having a mental block. We talked to the other, did we talk to the other applicant about salt spray or was it this one? Olsen: It was the other applicant. And we have sent, met with the DNR Forester to confirm what's good and what's not good as boulevard trees. Batzli: Did we decide that the Black Hills Spruce, there's a lot of them a long Powers Boulevard there, are there not? Are those good with salt Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 7 spray or are we so far away we don't care? Olsen: Well right now we're so far away we don't care. What we're doing, we're meeting with the County next week and we'll be finding out then exactly how close the street will be coming. You know there's still that alternative that we might get some land back. But I do have that list now of what's good as boulevard and we're going to be comparing that. Batzli: Did the tree committee look at that? Olsen: No. Batzli: Is that something they want to look at? Looking at our list? Olsen: Oh. the list, yeah. Batzli: Yeah. They're going to review that? Olsen: I thought you meant each specific plan. Batzli: Did anyone get that information from that seminar? . Mancino: Yeah, I've got it. In fact I had some questions. Farmakes: Oh there were staff, city stat~f members at that seminar. Olsen: Yes. And then we also. Farmakes: I think Sharmin was at the seminar. Olsen: Yes, and we've had the DNR Forester go through the list that we've got to say what's good and what's not as boulevard versus interior. So yeah, we have that now and I'll cross check that with what's here. Mark 3effries: It's still my understanding that there's a bike path between here. Olsen: Yeah. I don't know that they salt those but. Mark Seft"ries: ...mentioned that could be a problem. Mancino: Well I do have a question about the sugar maples on the interior. The landscaping. They are very close to the roadway and I think that when you plow that private street in the interior of the development, there may be. Do you see between I think 10 and 117 Mark 3effries: Here? Mancino: Yes. There's a sugar maple and across the street from that there are two. And I see those land areas as being the places where snow will be plowed to and if that snow has salt in it, it will destroy the sugar maples because the sugar maples are very sensitive to salt in the soils. Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 8 Mark Jeffries: Yeah. Those are ali concerns I guess. You know, when you do a design you have to come up with all this criteria and maintenance is one of those things but as we looked at it, we felt there was adequate room for piling snow in other areas and in those areas to prevent that. Mancino: But there's still going to be snow there and there's still going to be salt in the snow and eventually, if you do that year after year, the salt will build up into the soil so that it will kill the tree because a sugar maple is listed as being very sensitive to salt in the soil. There are other trees like a black locust or a burr oak that will withstand the salt in the soil. So that's a recommendation and you can work with 3n-Ann on that. Mark 3effries: Right. Yeah. I think although city streets get quite a bit of salt and sand. Olsen: I don't know if private drives do. Mark Jeffries: ...for a private street. Usually contractors that use salt sand, just use enough salt to keep the sand from freezing. They don't use salt on their roads like the 'State or the-City might'to melt ice off the roads so it's probably not nearly the problem that it would be for instance out on Powers Boulevard or somewhere else. Mancino: I agree. I'm just concerned of the build-up and you don't want to plant this lovely tree and then have it die in 5 years. Mark Jeffries: I agree, absolutely. Batzli: Jo Ann, do we normally include a condition regarding a homeowners association type thing in a development like this? Olsen: You mean as far as maintaining the private drive? Batzli: Yeah. Olsen: .Probably. Well yeah, because we're tying it with the outlot. So yeah, we probably should. Even just add it to number 1. Add that this be a homeowners association to maintain Outlot A. Outlot A will essentially be the private drive and all the landscaping within the open spaces. Yeah, that should have been added. I'm sorry. Batzl i: Okay. Harberts: Mr. Chair, I just have a comment on landscaping. A comment to staff. Do with it what you want. With maple trees, again in the front, I've seen them run into problems with the utilities that service the individual units. Within 5 years the trees have to be removed because their roots are interferring with the utilities, water, sewer, whatever. I'll just throw that out. You might want to look at that. Olsen: You're talking about in front of the units? Harberts: Yeah, I'm talking front of units. Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 9 Batzli: Okay. Larry, is the applicant finished? Larry Harris: We are clearly here to respond to any questions the Commission may have but...anything more in the way of a formal presentation. Batzli: Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing. If there's anyone that would like to address the Commission, you may do so at this time. Please come up to the microphone and give us your name and address. Is there anyone that would like to address the Commission? Tom VanAsh: My name is Tom VanAsh. I live at 8320 West Lake Court. I am one of the homeowners with the property just adjacent to the proposed development. I guess when we moved to Chanhassen 3 years ago we knew that there was going to be proposed'townhomes developed and our concerns really were of the idea in our mind that we would have exactly what it appears this Commission is more in favor of and that is of the 35~ or 31~ impervious coverage. And I guess my thought on that is that's exactly what I do not want here and that really concerns me because what we're seeing I think from this developer is a very valid concern for the homeowners in this area. Our concerns were expressed at the last commission meeting and I think he did address those concerns that we had to a point that I guess I'm surprised. I would ask that this Commission do approve this developer for what he is proposing and I guess for right now that's all I have to say. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Just to respond to that a little bit. I don't know that the Commission favors a 3 story development over this or not. Something we try to do in Chanhassen is to get a mix of housing for different types of incomes and different types of densities and different styles of housing. And when this PUD was originally passed, it didn't envision that type of a unit and what they're proposing is changing it, and that's why I think we're moving so cautiously. I don't think it's because we favor that but by looking at what's been done in the past, it appears that that's what was envisioned as a part of this larger development. And so I appreciate where you're coming from. That this looks better perhaps and may be favored by a lot of the people surrounding it, and that's one of the things obviously that's sitting here in the back of our minds as well. But we're kind of wrestling with some other things on it's changes to an agreement and we're trying to come up with rationale and whether it makes sense. But I appreciate your comment. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Andrew Olson: My name is Andrew Olson. I'm at 8290 West Lake Court. My concern would be on their north end, on their park view and the landscaping they've made their improvements with the trees and stuff but there's still a big space they have left in there and that's a space, from my house I look down in that area. And when I went over and looked at the ones in Waconia, I took the pictures,-the Polaroid pictures that you looked at last time, and I was concerned about the blandness. And the shutters and the window treatments they've done have improved that but it wouldn't hurt to add two more trees in that space in there just to break up the view for me and that would give those lots additional landscaping for themselves, or spread something out. Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 10 Batzli: Would you point on this map to where you're referring to? Are you referring to units, the back of units 5 and Andrew Olson: This one. I'm up over here. I look down right in here. Batzli: Jo Ann, is the reason that we didn't put any, is that where. Andrew Olson: ...parking on here? Olsen: No, actually it's my understanding that the views and your views were still cover ed. Mark Jeffries: Jo Ann, that's the old plan. Olsen: Right, I know...They've added. This is the new one. The colored map... Mark 3effries: Maybe we've got a little disagreement as far as what the sight lines are here. Our intent was to screen those. Olsen: Screen all the sight lines. Mark 3effries: I thought that was done with this. And the way we had, we actually stood out on the property and tried to determine that and to the best that we could determine, those were the sight lines. I thought the sight lines were coming off this direction and we didn't want to completely close that area off. We wanted it to be open the sight lines up for the people who live here'out towards Powers Boulevard. Or out towards that parkland that's out there. $o from my mint of view, I would not be opposed to tweaking some of these to do that if they're not drawn exactly in the right spot. Batzli: 30 Ann, let me ask you something. I know that we were talking about having kind of a temporary pond in that area on the city property. By moving those trees, is that moving it within an area that's going to stay pretty soggy? Olsen: We don't have the detailed plans on the'design of that pond so I can't answer that. But I don't believe it's going to be...yeah but as far where the soil will be saturated and the depth,-I don't have those. Batzli: I'm just thinking white pine might be the exact kind of tree you want there. Mark Jeffries: Well those are all you know, concerns when you get to the installation, there's also...design and quite likely, when the site is graded, you will make some adjustments with maybe species and where an island may sit or whatever...That's very true. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Did you have anything else sir? Andrew Olson: No, that's it. Batzli: Does anyone else? Okay. Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 11 Gary Kassen: My name is Gary Kassen and I live at 8270 West. Lake Court and I'd like to start off by complimenting the builder on how well he responded to our concerns at the last meeting. I'm really pleased to see the changes that he's made and I think they're very nice townhomes. If we're going to put townhomes in there, I think they're nice townhomes. The concern that I had was, or maybe it's a question, is the type of trees that you're going to have along Powers Boulevard and the plan that I picked up from Jo Ann last week listed, correct me if I'm wrong, Black Hills spruce, Austrian pine, white oak and sugar maple. Is that correct? Mark Jeffries: That's correct. Gary Kassen: Okay. I contacted the Forestry Department at the University of Minnesota and 3 of those 4 are very tolerant to salt. The sugar maple, like was mentioned earlier, is not very tolerant. And they recommend within 60 feet of a highway that you do not use sugar maple. So I would assume that would be within 60 feet. Olsen: We now know that too and we will be working with that. Adjusting that. Gary Kassen: As a possible alternative you may want to consider a Norway maple. They look about the same and they're very tolerant to salt. That's all I have. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Anyone else like to address the Commission? Thank you very much sir for your comments. I was feeling sorry for the landscape designer here. We're all trying to redo his design. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. Rll voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: 3elf, do you want to start? Farmakes: Why not. I'll be over with first then. I too feet that the developer has responded well to all the points that we talked about last meeting. I'm not as concerned with the 5~. Looking at that as a problem. But I am concerned about it as a precedent. And I'm not, I have to admit I do not understand the legality commitment that the city made in '87 as well as I should. I read the history and so on but it didn't leave me with a good confidence level that I understand the philosophical commitment that the city made. I understand the practical commitment .and so on. I am a little nervous though about how long term the city commits. How long do we commit when we change these ordinances over years? Where we start to become more practical to solve the problem. The problem of developing a large expanse of land and that takes a certain amount of time to develop hundreds of homes upon. Where we leave with the old ordinances and where we begin with the new. And what our attitude is towards that once it's expired. Do we pick and choose or, that leaves me. a little uncomfortable. I would prefer that when that type of event happens, that there's a better sequence of what we go to, maybe we should be looking at that farther down the line here. But getting back to this project, Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 12 obviously up in the corner there against the single family zone, the developer has responded well to those concerns. I'm not going to get into picking and choosing trees. I think that the staff can work that out between the Arboretum and the stuff that was brought back and so on. Obviously in the long run it would save us a lot of time if we would develop a list of trees that are in restrictive areas.. Restrictions in weather and salt and leave that up, like we did with the primary list and let them choose from that. And I'm glad that the homeowners are pleased with this. We sort of had a series I think of a couple of developments here in a row where the builder has worked to his neighbors concerns and it seems to have worked out well. And it gives me hope and optimism so that's the end of my comments. Batzli: Thank you. Nancy. Mancino: I just have a couple of questions and a few concerns and I also would like to branch off a little bit about the...of this proposal because I think that there are some good strengths in it. The questions I have. 3o Ann, I'm concerned about the limited number of visitor parking spaces. I mean if I lived here and I'm going to have people over for, my husband's family over for Christmas, one day occasionally, and the family reunion, where do people park? I mean. I can see the 4 spaces and I see the 2 in front of our garage. And let's say I have lO cars and Lake Susan Hills Drive is now going to be restricted parking. So do people end up going to the West Lake Court and parking their cars? Olsen: Well it's wherever they can park, I mean a lot of the private drive itself in here is going to be signed no parking also and, I mean that's always a concern. Actually we don't have anything that requires even the 4 visitor parking. That's something that we just kind of threw in. They're meeting all the parking requirements just with their garage. Harberts: It's called public bus. Olsen: So it's a good concern. I don't know, it was an issue where we decided yes we do need some visitor parking but we don't have any equation that says how much per unit. Yes, there's going to be always times when there's not going to be parking that's acommodated. Also, just the fact that the impervious coverage was already so tight, we didnt' want to add 10. It's just we wanted the more green space there so, you know what we've done to address that is to mark the places where we don't want people to park. I think we realize that there are going to be cases where there will be parking along the streets and so we're being proactive and saying okay, if that happens, this is where 'we absolutely don't want it. We don't want parking, on street parking. And that's as far as we've gone. Mancino: Is this a reason to amend the R-8 and some of the multi density to that standard for visitor parking? Olsen: Yes. Mancino: Because you know I can see at Christmastime, you have your whole family and have a family reunion over, and they're trapsing from West Lake Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 13 Court to your particular unit here. Olsen: Especially when it's a private drive. Yeah, and they're narrow. Yes. But again, you have to understand that that's going to demand more for you to amend the impervious coverage possibly. I don't know. Underground parking lots. Man¢ino: Thank you. My other issue is, I'm still having a hard time moving from 35 to 40 impervious coverage. I like open space. There are only 3 reasons to me to justify to move and I'm'still not sold and one of those is the low density of the, I had thought it was 5.2 units per acre. Is that still? Olsen: Well now it's, I don't have my calculator but now it's 24 units. Mancino: And that's the gross density? Olsen: Yes. We do gross density here because it's all, you really can't take out the, otherwise you just have the townhome units itself. It's not like they have a lot and a public street to take out and wetlands. So it was gross acreage. So it'd be 24 units divided by the gross acreage. $o I did not recalculate that for the 24 units so I'm sure it's less than 5, if it was 5 with the. Mancino: Well no. According to the last staff report, which is from the 17th, you had calculated it. Olsen: 5.9. Oh okay. So 5.2 is the new one. Mancino: Now when the original agreement was written in '87 and it had 9.33, was that also gross density? So are these comparable? Olsen: Yeah, that was gross density. And what that was doing is that they had mentioned, during the concept plan review was say like Outlot C was going to have 42 units and Outlot D was going to have you know 56 units so what we did was go back and 4.5 acres with the 46 units and that's where we came up with the densities for each one. Again I'm not sure where the 31~, 29~ impervious coverage came from. Mancino: But for the going to 40~ we get the lower density. We're also getting one level units and you know the other thing about this Outlot C is that it does abut Lake Susan Park so that there is open space abutting it. There is a parklike space. So you know, that's still an issue for me and I haven't really decided. But I do know that if we change this particular outlot to 40~, I don't agree with the recommendation to change the others. I think that each outlot developer should come before us and give a direction. Olsen: And prove his case, yeah. Mancino: Some of the strengths that I think this development brings to us is that it's targeting a very important housing market and housing alternative, and that is the need for empty nester housing. And I did see that in the comprehensive plan that it is one of the segments that the Planning Commission Heeting April 7, 1993 - Page 14 comprehensive plan said that we have a current need for. And that is that 55 to 64 year old empty nesters and I think it does a good job of targeting them. I think the architectural design is of high quality. I think with the changes that were made. I think the landscaping is excellent. Very good. A few changes but I like the landscaping. And I also think that it's compatible with adjacent single family home neighborhoods. I think that the owner/occupied townhomes are of high quality design which fits with the single family homes in the area. And I think it will be creating a good mix of homeowners as far'as there's going to be families. There's going to be singles. There's going to be couples. It's just a nice mix. And the...is another strength is just the densities. The low density of 5.2 acres. So that would be a good reason for the development. And that's all. Batzli: You initially said you weren't sold on the 40~ but you,ve got a lot of strengths here that made it sound like you're leaning a different way. Are you not sold enough on the 40~ that you would vote against the project the way it currently stands? Do the strengths not outweigh the 40~ for you? Mancino: I would like to hear some other viewpoints. At this point they outweigh. Batzli: Okay. Fair enough. Joe. Scott: Without repeating anybody. I'm kind of coming at this looking at how this particular development would fit into the housing continuum that I see in Chanhassen and we do a really good job of getting poeple into town who can afford $130,000.00 and up and that doesn't leave a lot of room for new residents. And where I live, right across the street there are twin homes and judging by how long they're on the market when they sell, there seems to be a pretty strong demand for, and I think these are probably under $100,000.00. $o I guess where I'm coming at this is something that, this is a piece of property that could be utilized for a more affordable housing and I'm kind of, I think Ladd and I may be hung up on the same thing. When we take a look at the impervious surface number and then say well, for those of us who are concerned with that, looking for compelling reasons to move off of that very easy to'understand issue and have the development proceed as proposed. So I still haven't, in my mind I still haven't seen what are we getting that's unique. What's interesting. How does this enhance what I call the housing continuum. So I mean that's what's getting in my way. So I would say based upon what I've heard right now, I still see the 35~ is the stumbling block. Ledvina: Generally I would, I also feel that the other outlots, Outlot and D...I don't think they should be included with this at this time. This is a difficult issue to wrestle with in terms of affordable housing and all that. I think we have other opportunities in this area with Outlot A being designated as even a higher density with R-12 so, and I look at the overall development so far and I think this arrangement with Outlot C is going to blend in very nice. And I do think the developer has added value to this plan beyond what would normally be expected so I'm going to support it as it's proposed and as staff has recommended. Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 15 Batzli: Thank you. Ladd. Conrad: I think the developer's done a good job of responding to some of the neighbors comments and it's good to see the neighborhood supporting. I think I would too if I had an option of 8 units or 9 units per acre versus what is being proposed. I think I'd be lobbying for what the developer is asking for. I 'm struggling, there are a lot of pros and cons. There are more pros than cons in this one. I think the units are nice. Obviously when you increase the price by $40,000.00 or $30,000.00 over what it might have been, you're going to get better units. I think the landscaping is good. The city may make some money on the taxes. I think the support is good. The housing type is maybe new for Chanhassen. Negatives is the impervious surface and the setbacks and what We may call affordable housing. You set out a zone or a district and you kind of say hey neighbors, so when people move in you understand there may be some higher density there and that's what we try to do in some areas. So people can plan on higher density. And then when the market's not there you sort .of wonder well, if the market's not there for the higher density, should we let it go. I guess I don't have a problem letting the higher density go. Sooner or later we'll have that problem. Sooner or later we're going to have to find a place because the market's going to be there and then we're going to surprise a lot of people by changing the zoning. They'll be real irritated because they bought it before we changed the zoning. Here's a case where we kind of said hey, it might be higher density. The developers saying market's not there. As I look at this, it does meet a need for empty nesters. I can't allow it to set a precedent unless staff comes back and tells me that 35~ impervious surface is wrong. They're telling me that it's wrong right now. Olsen: For this site plan. For this style of homes. Conrad: You know philosophically, I guess the bottom line is I need staff to, I need you and Paul, 3o Ann to come back in and tell me why we like 35~. Why 40 isn't right. The logic is, I thought, to have some space for people to be outside the'ir home. No matter how high we stack them or whatever, you can go outside and there's a place for you to sit down, have a lawnchair and a picnic table. That's why Chanhassen sticks pretty much to the 15,000 square foot lot sizes. We don't particularly don't try to go under that, even in the development in the PUD. We really have a tough time going under 15. We're trying to create open spaces where nobody is and people can enjoy it in common and we're also trying to create space' for residents. Residential use in your own yard. I look at this and I say, well when people go outside their house, and this is what I'm struggling with. When people go outside their house, where do they go? Maybe they don't care. 8ut with roads and the footprints of the housing, there's not a lot of space to be in. And that's really what bothers, but then I'll play the flip side. Will the other 5~ really make.a difference? 10,000 feet. Batzli: Divide that by 24 units. Conrad: It wouldn't. If it was in one spot... Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 16 Batzli: But you know where they're going to be. They're going to be in their backyard if they've got a deck. They're not going'to be in the frontyard where all the driveways and stuff is and is there enough room in the backyard to put a picnic table? Conrad: That's the issue in my mind. What do we think? 8atzli: There's as much room in their backyard as there is in mine, and I live in a PUD. Conrad: And what do you think about your backyard? 8atzli: That's where we spend all our time. I don't know-. If you wanted a bigger backyard, you'd live somewhere else, and I had that option. Olsen: And there's no children here either. Not that that should matter but. Conrad: Why do you say that? Farmakes: Are you putting that in the ordinance? Mancino: Well there may be. By the time that they, if they added on the bottom level, 2 more bedrooms and you've got 4 bedrooms. Olsen: It's my understanding that children won't be in here but. Conrad: So the recreation space is on the outside of the property towards the road. Batzli: They have as much backyard as I do. Except tha% they're sharing it with somebody right next door, to some extent. But that makes it bigger and smaller I suppose at the same time. Ledvina: I think the access to the public facilities here is pretty good so that counteracts that situation too. Conrad: To a degree, yeah. And that's a positive. Farmakes: I also think with this type of design, it's kind of ambiguous where front and back is. Batzli: If there are kids, they'll be in the street anyway. They're in the street in our neighborhood. Olsen: Or the driveway. They don't like the grass. Batzli: If you've got to bounce a ball or ride a bike, they're not going to be in the grass anyway. Farmakes: But the agreement does allow for a park close-by. Conrad: $o why are we so concerned in Chanhassen about 15,000 square foot lots? Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 17 Olsen: We just discussed that tonight. Conrad: What is it that compells us to provide every resident with that kind of space, which Brian I know you're committed to. Batzli: Yeah. Conrad: And wanting space for people to be and if we're saying with this one we don't need it. Mancino: Well no, the majority of people may, I mean I wouldn't buy in here because it doesn't have enough space for me. I'm a gardener. I want land, more land around me. So I wouldn't buy it but I think that there are some people, and I'm willing to say there are some people that don't care about that. I don't know what the percentage is. Batzli: I view it as a visual thing. I view it in this case as I'm getting enough in trade with increased landscaping and berms and sight lines that I don't need that additional 50 feet per unit or whatever I get if I demanded that 5~. I view it as a safety issue. As enough space for people and a visual thing and in this case I just, I don't know, it doesn't bother me. · What I would like to do, and I agree with you is, we've set certain limits somewhat arbitrarily in order to have a limit and to give guidance to developers. And if we think 35 is the right number, we should know why we think it's the right number as opposed to 40. And it shouldn't change based-upon what kind of unit you can build based on 35 or 40~. Conrad: Right. Absolutely. Batzli: That's the only thing the troubles me here except that I look at the other side of the coin and I say, well in this case it doesn't bother me. They're giving me enough that I can justify it in my own mind and I don't think I'm setting a precedent unless they're willing to give me the exactly same things on another lot where they want 40~. And they're going to have to give me a lot of landscaping. They're going to have to give me enough sense of openness that you're getting at least as much if you were buying a single family house in a PUD. Which is what they're doing here so. Conrad: Okay. Why are they giving, how are they giving you enough openness? Batzli: Well I'm just saying in these backyards it's as much as I have and I'm saying. Conrad: All your lot is in the front yard. Batzli: Well I know but it's around the street so I don't go there so maybe that's a problem with this design being along Powers Boulevard. But that's why I don't go in the front yard. Because you feel like you're in a fishbowl. Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 18 Conrad: The only absolute is in our recommendation, whether it's pro or con is that, and I think the Commissioners have said it already in point number 2 here. I'm not willing to talk about the 40~ for the other outlots. And I guess I thought we asked legal counsel to tell us whether we set a precedent doing that for the rest, and 3o Ann said we did. Now I don't know if that. Olsen: Well within this PUD I think you. Conrad: No, we can do anything we want within the PUD so 40~ here and 35~ in another parcel in a PUD should not set a precedent. Should not in my mind but again I'm not a lawyer. Olsen: With other R-8 districts, simple R-8 districts, no you're not setting a precedent. Conrad: Right, right. But I would make that real clear if we did decide to go along with that. That our intent is not to set a precedent for the other outlots. The only other question 3o Ann, on point number 7 under recommendations. We had storm sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event. Why is that 10 years? I thought we always used lO0 years. Olsen: It's with a whole new surface water management and I know that we, at all those meetings that we have, the SWMP meetings, with the new design, I'm really not the person to be answering this but the 10 year is now preferred over the 100 year and exactly why I can't. 8atzli: Ladd, that must have been the meeting you and I missed. Ledvina: If you sized for the 100 year storm, you'd be making 5 foot culverts all over the place. And when you're talking about just physical structures, even if they wash out once in a hundred years, the cost of building that additional sizing is just not worth it. Conrad: That got by us didn't it? Batzli: Yeah, I don't remember that. Conrad: Yeah, well it's understandable. Batzli: We could just build these houses on stilts. Conrad: We've had a couple hundred storms in the last couple years and that can screw up everything you've done for the previous 9 years or whatever. Batzli: Don't know how that got in. Olsen: The 10 year now is what Bonestroo is recommending. Batzli: This isn't our Best Practices Handbook kind of stuff now? Okay. Olsen: The 10 year, I can't tell you...but they now come up with the design and 10 year is what they're proposing. Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 19 Batzli: Did you want to address this? Greg Hailing: I could answer that question a little bit because I'm an engineer. The 10 year, like he said, is the pipe design. If you look at 100 year storm and design like swales between buildings and that sort of thing so it can go over the curb, so it will be deeper in the street, that type of thinQ, on your bi~ storm. On your ponds normally there's some, the ponds are sized for 100 year storms but the structures, which is the pipe leading out is a 10 year. That's what they're referring to. Batzli: Yeah, and that makes sense then with this condition because what it's talking about is the storm sewer. Did you have anything else Ladd? Conrad: That's all. Batzli: Okay, Diane. Harberts: I'm going to be supporting staff's recommendation with the exception of number 2 as was discussed by the other commissioners. I guess just a general question is, what is affordable housing? There's current legislation right now down at the State Capitol that will basically penalize cities if they don't have a certain percentage or whatever of affordable housing. It could also dictate what roads will be built and what roads will not be built and 212 is one of those that may not be built depending on, I guess it's really a question to the city or whatever in terms of some guidance here. What's affordable housing? Conrad: This is not it. Harberts: No, this isn't it. Scott: The Met Council will define that. That's the unfortunate thing. Farmakes: Maybe we can ask the legislators in St. Paul. Scott: Well it's already to the House. Harberts: It's on the Senate floor. Mancino: Where do we have affordable housing? Medium density. Olsen: Well we're getting some now with the Oaks. Were you involved with that? Mancino: Is that the one's across the street from Target, up on the hill? Olsen: Right. And then the apartment units downtown are affordable. Batzli: But we can't, other than setting aside some zoned areas, what do we do? Do we have to build it if we don't have enough? Olsen: Usually you have to subsidize. That's what's happening with those two cases. It's being subsidized. Planning Commission Heating April 7, 1993 - Page 20 Farmakes: Does the City though become involved in that? Olsen: The City does get involved. Farmakes: Should we be involved in specifying market prices of homes? I don't think so. I don't see where we're. Conrad: We just have to make sure there are some forecasts to new. residents who are moving in so they can understand where we might be tempted to put it so they can make a calculated because when they build, that there's a chance that affordable housing might be next to them. That's our obligation. Ledvina: Just so the Commission is aware, the Carver County Housing 'and Redevelopment Authority has contacted out city staff and asked to work with our HRA in seeking out projects for high density and subsidized. So there are some joint efforts, that are being initiated. Farmakes= I don't think Chanhassen has been anti high density as far as apartment buildings. We have some large apartment complexes that are quite old in the community. The question then becomes though, do we build a building and there's no market for it. And it won't be the first time the government has specified that something be built and there's no one to fill it up. Conrad: You really want the market demand to be there first. Or at least I'd like that to be. Yeah, if you took a vote of Chanhassen residents, not many people are going to ask for high density. Scott: No but if you look at the reverse commute issue and you see how many people are working in that part of town or that kind of housing and coming here to work. So is there a market? I don't know. Farmakes: There's also, is there precedent though? We get into, we're getting off the issue here but, Batzli: Diane, did you have anything else? Harberts: No.. Batzli: I, on a kind of more technical basis here, I would like to see our first condition changed to talk about requiring some sort of homeowners associations in order to take care of the common drive and outlots to the extent there are any on this property. And condition number 2, I would like to see Outlots A, B, C and D kind of deleted and say instead something like, this site cannot exceed 40~. I'd also like to see a 15th condition which talks about sight lines to the north and to review the species of trees for salt tolerance, etc but I'm willing to, you know I'd like to see their landscape designer work with staff just to make sure that those issues are covered and not need to get into so much of a requiring what they do. Our knowledge is that we're at the formative stages I think of our knowledge and that's dangerous. I think the professionals should be looking at that. You've been to one seminar I mean . Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 21 Mancino: I mean I've got my list here. I'm all prepared. Batzli: Anyway, so we're working on that but I appreciate your patience with us and we have a concern which should at least, I think that demonstrates our heart's in the right place anyway. On a more big picture level, I believe that this doesn't set a precedent. I think there's been kind of a give and take here that at least that would be required in the other areas, like Outlot D for example where apparently'this developer has an option. That we would have to see something at least as good as this before me relax it as we did in this Case. I think in the PUD we're safe that way and since the PUD doesn't generally apply to an R-8, we're not setting a precedent outside of the PUD. So I don't see that as a problem. I think that this development, you know Ladd and I kind of bounced it back and forth there. What is different about this that makes it okay for me and I don't know what it is. I can't really put my finger on it other than I feel that we're getting enough in berming and landscaping and there is enough area in the back that for people that want to live in this type of a unit, I think we're giving them enough space. And only time will tell. If they sell and they're successful and they're well kept for, we did a good job you know. This is not an exact science. 8ut I think, looking at this, that it is, they did a pretty good job on this design and I think they've met a lot of the neighbors concerns and so I'm going to go with the staff recommendation to go to 40~, although I would like us to take a look at that in a bigger picture. Not just focusing in on the microcosm of this development and see if 3S~ is too low and if we're trying to hold them to too tough of a standard. Or, did we come up with 35~ based on the 3 story kind of thing and if we want R-$ and the 3 story kind of units to both fit into an R-S, what is the right percentage that we talk about then? $o, having said that, is there a motion? Farmakes: ...why don't you make the motion? Batzli: I can't make the motion. I would certainly entertain a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Prairie Creek Townhomes as shown on revised plans with the conditions 1 thru 14 amended by number 1 reading, change Lot 25, 8lock 1 to Outlot A and homeowners association By-laws shall be submitted to staff for approval and filing against the subject site. Number 2 would be amended to read, after the word coverage of this site cannot exceed 40~. And a new condition 15 . would read, the applicant shall submit sight line detail for the northern portion of the development and work with staff to agree on species of trees along Powers 8oulevard and internally to the project. I'd love to entertain a motion that said something like that. Ledvina: So moved. Farmakes: I'll second it. Batzli: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Conrad: Can you do what you just did? Batzli: I didn't make the motion? Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 22 Ledvina: I made the motion. Harberts: Is this normal precedence that the Chair makes the motion, he can if that's what's usually been followed? Batzli: No, the By-laws say I can't. Conrad: Sure can't. Olsen: But there's no reason they say that. I mean we can change that. There's no reason. Next meeting we'll change that. Batzli: Well, did I make the motion Ladd? Do you think I made the motion? Conrad: Yes. Batzli: I can't withdraw it because I really didn't make i%. Ledvina: Do you want a friendly amendment? Conrad: No. Batzli: Is there any other discussion? Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Prairie Creek Townhomes as shown on the revised plans dated March 25, 1993 with the following conditions: 1. Change Lot 25, Block I to Outlot A and Homeowners Association By-laws shall be submitted to staff for approval and filing against the sub3ect site. 2. Amend the PUD Contract to state the impervious coverage of this site cannot exceed 40~. The city shall petition Carver County to vacate any unnecessary right-of-way along Powers Boulevard (CR 17). 4. The townhome units shall conform to. the design and. architecture as proposed by the applicant in their attached narrative dated March 24, 1993. 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval. 6. The proposed walkway along Powers Boulevard shall be constructed within the development in accordance to the City's typical 8 foot wide bituminous trail standards, unless it is to be relocated within the County right-of-way by Carver County and City. 7. The applicant shall supply detailed sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event for the City Engineer to review and approve.. The Planning Commission Meetin~ April 7, 1993 - Page 23 applicant shall construct an interim sedimentation basin at the storm sewer discharge point (Outlot C). The basin shall be sized based on contributing area and land use, approximately 0.30 to 0.50 acre/feet in size. In addition, the applicant shall pay a cash contribution into the City's storm water management program in lieu of constructing a retention pond on site for water quality purposes. The City's surface water management consultant, Bonestroo & Associates, will determine the cash contribution amount. 8. The applicant shall suppy detailed construction plans for sanitary sewer, watermain, street access points and storm sewer improvements for the City to review and approve. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 9. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as MWCC, Health Department, Watershed District, PCA and Carver County Highway Department. 10. Parking shall be prohibited along Lake Susan Hills Drive ad3acent to this development, the City will proceed in preparing a resolution restricting parking along Lake Susan Hills Drive. 11. The applicant shall incorporate the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for site restoration and additional erosion control measures during the construction process. 12. A cross access eaesment should be conveyed to all the lots for use of the private street. 13. Fire Marshal conditions: a. The marking of fire lane on private and public property shall designated and approved by the'Fire Chief [pursuant to 1988 UFC Sec. 10.207(w)]. See site plan submitted by Fire Marshal for exact location. b. 'INo Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be installed as per indicated on submitted site plan [pursuant to Chanhassen City Policy ~06-1991 ( COpy enclosed)] . c. A 10 foot clear space shall be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. NSP transformers, telephone, cable boxes, all landscape trees and shurbs. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance. d. Submit a Fire Marshal approved "Pre-Fire Plan", pursuant to Chanhassen City Policy #07-1991 .(copy enclosed). e. Add and/or relocate fire hydrants as indicated on submitted site, pursuant to 1988 UFC Division 3. f. Fire apparatus access road shall be designed, built and maintained before and during construction of the townhouse units. Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 24 The driving surface, must meet Chanhassen Engineering specifications, pursuant to 1988 UFC 10·207(f). g. Premise identification Policy ~29-1992 (copy enclosed). 14. Building Official conditions: a. Indicate lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevations for each house pad on the grading plan prior to final plat approval. b . Submit details on corrected pads including compaction tests, limits of the pads and elevations of excavations to the Inspections Division. A general soils report for the development should also be submitted to the Inspections Division. This must be done prior to issuance of building permits.. C · Adjust property lines, building sizes, wall openings or a combination of all three to comply with the building code prior to final plat approval· d. Provide easements for driveways and private roads to a public way prior to final plat approval· e. Submit proposed street name(s) for review prior to final plat approval. 15. The applicant shall submit sight line details for the northern portion of the development and work with staff to agree on species of trees along Powers Boulevard and internally to .the pro3ect. Ail voted ~n favor except Conrad who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Batzli: Nas there any other no votes? Okay. And your reasons Ladd? Conrad: Really the issue of impervious surface and space. Enough space in this particular design for people. I'm not convinced as we shrunk our setbacks, I'm not convinced in this design that we have people space built in. Batzli: Okay. That's a valid concern. The motion does carry. When does this go to City Council? Olsen: It now goes to the City Council on April 26th. Batzli: Okay. Thank you very much for coming in. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli so noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated March 17, 1993 as presented. OPEN DISCUSSION: 8atzli: Jo Ann, did you want to talk to us about this urban wetland coalition memo at all? Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 25 Olsen: No. It's pretty self explanatory. Batzli: Okay. Open discussion. Let me just ask this question Ladd. We're in open discussion. This is our last item and then we can get out of here. I would be happy from refraining from doing what I just did if it bothers the Commission. In fact, even if it doesn't bother the Commission. If even one Commissioners is bothered by what, by me stating the motion and asking if someone would like to make a motion like that, I would be happy to refrain from doing that. Conrad: I think Brian when it facilitates, when you recognize a confused Planning Commission and you think you can condense it, I think that's real valid to do it. On the other hand the negative is, it doesn't make us think about, Planning Commissioners think about making that motion. Batzli: I would agree. Conrad: And I think that's real important. Your job is not to, it's our job to make that motion and your's to make sure we can do it somehow. So I've said both things but I think in some cases, when you have a good grasp of the situation, I think you should be, that's okay with me. 8ut it's really, the Chairman cannot make a motion and that's in Roberts Rules or whatever. Harberts: It depends on what the precedence in previous meeting. Olsen: It's in our By-laws. Batzli: It's in our By-laws and I don't want to amend our By-laws...it's been the precedence of this group that the Chair does not make the motions. The reason that I did it, and this is not to be condensending or anything else but the group, to a large extent has not had a lot of activity in making motions such as this and that's why I did it. I was trying to facilitate. If people don't agree with the motion and want to change it in any way, they should do that. I'm not trying to ram anything down anyone's throats other than to kind of go through the motion process until people feel more comfortable doing it themselves. Scott: Well in my case, I mean I wasn't particularly nuts about the situation anyway so I wasn't going to be making the motion on it. But you're right, because I'll look at some of these things and I'll go, okay I'll give it a shot. And you kind of go through it and I know where you're coming from because then in a lot of instances, even when I'm in favor of a particular item, I find it somewhat awkward to sit down and go, kind of go through this but I'm always willing to do it because that's, I think that's causability to go, now what are we really agreeing to here and I recall one time when I went through that and then you asked a really good question about something. And then Ladd, and discussed it a little bit more and I think after going through that effort, we got to be real comfortable with what we were actually trying to accomplish. $o you know, I personally don't have a proble~n with if you go and state that. Batzli: Well I'm going to do it, ~"11 tell you right now, I'm going to do it very minimally but I thought I had heard a consensus that we were going Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 26 to go on this and when no one really jumped into the fray, I just kind of did it. So I apologize if it offends anyone. Conrad: I think I should do it Brian. I guess in this case I wish you didn't because I was interested in who was going to say what. And I don't have any, ! have no problem sitting here for 5 minutes waiting for somebody to do it and I really don't and we shouldn't feel that pressure to do it. I think it's just a good exercise for us to be thinking about that. And we have no problem if the motion doesn't get a second. I don't think people shouIdn't be afraid... Scott: Or if you're not really convinced enough that something should happen to make the motion, because I sure wasn't. Conrad: See that's what the silence was telling me a little bit but I was interested in who was going to step forward. And it was you. Batzli: And I wrecked it for you. Conrad: Mr. Large Lot steps forward and makes the motion. Batzli: You wanted to get out of here early Ladd. Conrad: I've got to go but yeah. Farmakes: I think as a matter of practicality he Just went through, at the end how he would change the ordinance. It summed up, I thought what the majority of the opinion was so I didn't see any reason to repeat it. Other than a technical, maybe we should make an ordinance about this. Olsen: There's no reason why you can't amend the By-laws. I checked that with Roger and there's no reason why the Chairman. Batzli: I don't want to amend the By-laws. I don't want to make motions but I was just trying to facilitate. Do we have a huge meeting for the next time? Olsen: No, but you've got Lake Susan Hills 9th. Scott: That's a huge meeting. Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded to adjourn the meeting. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim