Loading...
PC 1997 11 19CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 1997 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7;03 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Alison Blackowiak, Allyson Brooks, Craig Peterson, LuAnn Sidney and Kevin Joyce STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Oenerous, Senior Planner; Sharmin A1-Jafl] Planner II; and David Hempel, Asst. City Engineer COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions or feedback primarily for staff'? Joyce: Bob, under park and recreation you have all the expenditures in '98. Is that through the referendum? Generous: Primarily. There are some that they had programmed previously. Joyce: Does that mean you're going to spend it all in '98 then? Generous: Some could be carried over. It depends on how fast... Joyce: ... get it all done. Generous: I'm not sure...I believe it's like... Peterson: We spoke a couple meetings ago about the number of potential units that the plan.., as far as into the future of how many buildable lots or homes available... How does the capital improvement plan as it's designed today, parallel that? Or does it parallel that exactly or is it ahead or behind of the same philosophy that you used before. The number of units you want to keep available. Aanenson: Maybe I could talk a little bit about that. We're doing something different in our comp plan. You are allowed to do a floating. The reason that we... floating MUSA... by having a long range plan.., ability to shift resources.., to accomplish that. So we wanted a long term, what's the best use of where... We're looking at a 3:1 ratio as far as housing stock... IS that what you were looking for? Peterson: Yeah, exactly. Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 1997 Aanenson: ... flexibility... As Bob indicated.., we're dependent on outside sources for the roads and that's... Peterson: What kind of assumptions have you made relative to 212 and Highway 5 expanding? Anything? Aanenson: Highway 5 is programmed to... and no build assumption. That's why we need to have the flexibility.., so those are some issues that we have to look at. Peterson: What about Bluff Creek specifically? I mean that's probably the next one in queue to go into the housing stock or go into production, quote unquote. How do, when do you factor that in or did you, just out of curiosity? I know it's a... Generous: Well as part of the amount of housing.., steep slope area .... factored in housing units... Peterson: Where are we at in the process of review? Are we really the first, other than your staff Kate, are we the first people to really see this or has Council? Aanenson: Actually yeah... Generous: This specifically has... Peterson: I know they're working on that now and so have they already tweaked this or not? Generous: They like the idea... Peterson: Thanks. Other questions, comments? Blackowiak: I've got a few questions. First of all one that we had talked about today. The supply ofbuildable land. This is I think getting at what Craig was talking about. We have come up with another source for a good rule of thumb for buildable land supply or? Generous: Well Kate just provided the Met Council... What I found out from the Builders Association, they said at a minimum a 5 year supply to keep the land values stable... Blackowiak: I guess my question to Bob, just so you understand is, I feel that the Building Association might be a little bit biased towards having a larger supply so I was wondering if Bob could find some kind of an academic source that might be a less biased source and I guess that couldn't happen so. It was short notice I realize. Okay. I do have a couple more things. Also in the existing policies, number 7. We talked a little bit this morning about the fact that demonstrating adequate future funds might be difficult and I didn't know if it should be worded that way. So I have, I don't know if you looked at that at all. I have a suggestion anyway and I don't know we'll kind of start at this point but instead of saying capital improvements should not be funded until it's demonstrated that adequate future funds will be available to cover O & M 2 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 1997 costs. I would suggest something in the line of, before capital improvements are funded, future O & M costs should be estimated and factored into the budgeting process. Something along that line so, I don't feel that you could ever actually demonstrate that there will be adequate funds. I mean so that's just wouldn't make sense to me. I mean find budgets for them. Try to figure out what they might be. I don't think it's really fair to ask you to demonstrate that something you can't, I don't think really do that far out so, something maybe like that. Estimating costs, etc. And then finally, Bob or Kate I'd like you to talk a little bit about some of the funding sources that you've identified in terms of their liability. Their longevity and also any possibilities for new sources. And specifically could you define enterprise funds? I wasn't clear on that. I need some help on that and that's it for me so. Generous: Just to let everyone know, on pages 24 and 25 of the document. That's where all the... Enterprise funds are directly related to an enterprise... In this instance it's the city sewer and water service... As a part of that fee, people pay not only for the actual water that they use but.., and some of the fee goes into a capital.., use for those specific programs... They're not translatable to other programs... Assessments. Those are the primary.., funds for capital improvements... There are some variances in that for the 429 projects which use some... ISTEA are the federal dollars that are generally used to do road projects... The park and trail fees are directly.., park and trail improvements. Referendum of course... State aid is a form.., roads that are designated by the State as State Aid highways. Storm water fees or SWMP fees are the fees that the city collects, I believe it's quarterly and also as part of any development... The tax increment financing dollars are for.., and finally the developer... In that case what's.., facilities that are beyond what their project.., for instance going from an 8 to 12 inch water line or upsizing the storm water facility... Blackowiak: Okay. Most of these seem like they're fairly.., amounts or fairly predictable amounts in terms of the assessments and general funds and so on and so forth. For example the ISTEA and the State aid. Do you see any major changes, either up or down in any of these or I mean. Brooks: ISTEA actually hasn't been re-authorized by... There's numerous competing bills in ISTEA funding and ISTEA is really going to depend on the funding and which bill gets passed. I think there will be an ISTEA bill, otherwise America will not have a Department of Transportation or a highway system. But it's the degree in which it passes. The other question that is up in the air right now is the enhancement portion with the trails and preservation and railroad depots. There is a move on by some states not to include enhancements anymore. There's some departments of transportation that don't like spending money on enhancements.., so it is not clear at this point whether that will continue to be. Aanenson: The park and trail fees are also predicated on development .... developer and the economy... Blackowiak: Thanks. Peterson: Any other comments? Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 1997 Conrad: A couple Mr. Chairman. Bob, what's the procedure for reviewing capital investments? These numbers on an annual basis. What happens? Generous: They're part of the budget process... Aanenson: The way the comprehensive plan is written right now, it should be reviewed every 5 years. The last time was in 1991 so really the Planning Commission should be looking every 5 years and the Council should be looking at it as part of their budget process... What we're hoping for tonight is something that's not... Conrad: Well my question does relate to that. When you put a 20 year plan out in front of me, that makes me nervous. I think most companies can't really project past 5 and you're trying to do 20. But I can't give a stamp of approval past 5. It's really tough to do 5 so my methodology therefore is to say, or my rationale after that is okay, that's your best guess and that's good to forecast where you're going but I need to know what the annual review process is because we are not involved here. I want to make sure that if this is there, one the City Council's doing it. But then there are two other groups. At least one that I know of. Park and Rec should be reviewing that annually too, which should be fed up to the City Council. If there is an environmental protection committee, or whatever this other, I'm not even sure if we have one or they're functioning. I'm just ignorant of that but I want them to review these numbers. I don't know, I won't know but I want.., procedure supporting the policy. The policy should say on an annual basis these numbers are reviewed. So my point is I want, I need to know that there is a procedure for reviewing this annually. I need to know that the environmental group is doing that specifically. I think Park and Rec is doing that. Generous: Yes. They review that. Conrad: Okay. There's nobody that can supervise... Aanenson: Yeah, you can't do the budget without doing an annual. What we're saying, the reason we went to 20... that's our ultimate build out so to work backwards is where are we going to be. What's the priority's going to be? We just took itto the... Conrad: I can support the policies as long as I know that there's a review process. Because priorities change and I can't say that these just generally are the right ones to follow every year. I want people reviewing them. Specifically, I'm going to make a point because I don't know when it comes back. Under park and rec. When I look out 20 years and I've been talking about this for as long as I've been around. We don't have an outdoor amphitheater in Chanhassen. And we talk about meeting and greeting and community and we don't have an outdoor amphitheater which is basically a hillside with dug in benches. So I'm real bothered by the fact that it's not there. I've talked to people over the years. It's always we don't have funding. I won't vote for this. I think if you're responsible and you're trying to get citizens of Chanhassen together, we say we are. We do have a pretty nice theater in town and we do have some history in theater and other communities have amphitheaters and they're small. They don't cost a lot of money. You have to 4 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 1997 find the land to put them on. I don't see that being attempted and that bothers me. So that is a real irritant. The other specific that I just would, under the storm water management section. Lake Minnewashta has some major money going into it and I'm just curious as to what that, Bob if you knew what the. My recollection was it was $600,000.00. Is there one specific project that is causing the bulk of that? Aanenson: The reason for that is, Lake Minnewashta is pretty much.., storm water generally... We've done quite a bit of projects that aren't accounted for on Lotus Lake, so... really go back to a plan that was put... We tried to typically sprinkle those around when we try to do a project and then looking at what other road projects are like, as Bob indicated.., tie resources together. If we've got a road improvement project, tying the storm water... Conrad: Is it supporting.., plan? Aanenson: Yes. We're following.., but there has been a little bit of development. There will be some... Peterson: Tagging along on what Ladd, one of Ladd's questions. What about, other than ourselves and Council... provides feedback to the numbers, citizen input process facilitate that? Aanenson: Eventually this whole process... Peterson: So this is the exception within the comprehensive plan that we. Brooks: What is the interpretative center? Is that new that we're building? Aanenson: Right, that was a part of Bluff Creek. The intention there was to provide an interpretative center, the 100 acres that we acquired, the O'Shaughnessy property... Brooks: Is it a million dollar to build a center? Aanenson: No. That's what we put out. That's an estimate. There's options. There's an existing home to put on the property.., other resources too. That was supposed to be in connection with the school... Brooks: So was that the same with Bluff Creek? Aanenson: Or the elementary school for school children. Where they can actually have a resource...with that 100 acres as kind of a laboratory. Brooks: Okay. Peterson: Other comments? Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 1997 Sidney: Just one more. This one I have for Bob. Wondering about land acquisition for park and rec.., project out farther than... I guess I saw on the first page that we have a specific density requirements of having a neighborhood park within a half mile of each residence. I'm wondering if, based on... future for parks. Generous: Yeah, as part of the park plan and... Sidney: Are there numbers associated with... Aanenson: The way it's currently calculated, by so many acres per person.., depending on density. Higher density.., so when we looked at the original park element, that was something that was attached specifically to tell you where park and rec... As far as larger parks go... Generous: The quick answer is no, we can't be certain.., once you get it out beyond 5 years... This gives you a general... Sidney: They really can't predict beyond '98? Aanenson: Well we can in a rough sense based on the comprehensive plan.., but that's the best we can do to put that dollar amount... Peterson: Have we given you enough? Brooks: I liked.., amphitheater. I think that's a good idea. Conrad: Everybody says it is and we never do anything about it. Sidney: How long have you been asking? Conrad: Oh probably, again there's so many reasons not to do it and money is one and finding the right land is one. But I've talked to folks for 5 to 10 years that this is, I think this is an important thing for the community to do. You go to Eden Prairie, they have some nice amphitheater over at, what Starring Park or whatever it's called and they have their community plays and outdoor celebrations and we have no place to really do that here. And unless you put it in the plan, it won't happen and it probably wasn't funded through. There's a lot of things that don't happen, that don't force it to happen but it's one of those things that you think, you've got that's supposed to happen you know. Brooks: I know Anoka's been working really hard to bring back their amphitheater. They have a... falling in disrepair and they wanted to try to bring that back so, I think it's a good idea. Aanenson: Todd did put out those.., park referendum. Got some identified... Conrad: Well that's a tough deal Kate because you know you have a referendum, you off'er something to every section of the community so everybody gets something for their neighborhood. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 1997 And in the absence of that, then you put money into sports facilities and then you ignore maybe some things that we really talked about and what we've had major activities over the last 5 years of where this community should go and what brings it together as a community and that is one of those things that does it. That we tried to do it with the parade, but that's a couple hours and you can meet on a baseball field but there's something wrong with that you know because that's not for everybody. The amphitheater is something that I think should be done. Jill Shipley: ... Carver County Library Board and I'm Chanhassen's representative to the Board and I'd also like to speak to the library issue with regards to this plan. A library is another facility that truly builds community and you'll see from this plan that it's slated for, along with the City Hall expansion, to be improved in the year 2005 and the dollars slated for it are a million dollars. We've been working very closely with the Chanhassen City Council over the past 6 months to present the need for improved library facilities in Chanhassen. Chanhassen is the ideal community of a strong, strong library. We are a high income community. These are the people who use and value library services. We are a highly educated community. Again, these are the type of people that truly value and will use a library if we provide the facilities that are needed. I would like to make a request tonight that you not approve this plan until you have spoken with the Carver County library board and heard some of our data of our needs. We'd like to make a presentation similar to what we did with Council to show you the really strong need for a... I'd also like to request some sort of representation from the City because we have such a unique arrangement in Carver County with our library services where the County does the funding for personnel and for materials, but the city provides the space. There's no Todd Hoffman of Parks and Rec. within the city staff who speaks to this issue. I would like to find some, either planning commission liaison for library services as well. Any comments? Questions to that effect. Peterson: Maybe just questions for Kate more than anything else. Is that, I mean it certainly sounds like a logical idea of some sort. Some kind of, whether that be with us, I don't know if that's the most logical. Aanenson: Maybe to give you a little bit more background on this issue. As part of the budget process, the library board did ask for additional space and dollars... I did look at this as part of... budgeting process... We're not asking you to adopt this tonight. We said we want you to look at the.., and ultimately the Council's going to decide that but if you want to keep feedback on the timing and want more information to help you prioritize... Peterson: I think it would be interesting to see the scope of what you're requesting. Whether you're requesting of that Si.whatever million. If you're requesting $100,000.00 or if you're requesting the full.., for expansion. Not necessarily tonight but in some format that we can go forward basically. As we talked about earlier, this is a... process that will be approving in the coming weeks and months so. Jill Shipley: I'm confused by Kate's comment because we've not made a request for anything in the budget process. Aanenson: No, you did make a request for providing additional space... 7 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 1997 Jill Shipley: I'm not aware of that request at this point. Aanenson: What... Jill Shipley: We requested that a task force be... Aanenson: The Council elected to do that. The Council at this point.., but a task force was.., and if you have additional information, we certainly agree.., we concur with that. What we're looking at is... but if you feel that you want to make it a higher priority, want to convey that.., if you felt it was important to have... Peterson: My first reaction is I think it would be interesting, speaking on behalf of fellow commissioners, just to see a one page summary of what you're really, what the scope of it is. I mean right now I don't think any of us can respond other than yeah. It's a great idea but then there's a lot of great ideas in here that aren't in here as a cost.., the balancing that we have to do. But I think as you heard Ladd speak to... reiterate by saying a gathering point and that is one that certainly has a priority in the hearts of a lot of the citizens. So if you could present a one page synopsis of what some of the scope is... first step. Jill Shipley: Okay. We'll go from there. Thank you. Peterson: Anything else Bob you want to hear from us? Good job. BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT DISCUSSION. Mark Koegler: Chairman, members of the commission. The draft that's before you tonight, continuing the process with the Bluff Creek ordinance, contains changes that really came from a variety of sources. From the discussion we held a couple of weeks ago. We think we've addressed most of those points. From comments that were offered by the City Attorney as part of the ordinance draft and then some additional staff items. Let me just kind of quickly highlight some of the major things and then I want to point to another case study that we've looked at in the last couple of weeks which maybe gives you a better picture of how this applies to a piece of property. First ofl} one of the major changes occurs on the first page and it's simply we cross referenced with the city's subdivision ordinance in addition to the aspect of the zoning code. You probably noticed also at the City Attorney's request, it's now called an overlay district right up front rather than referring to it as the Bluff Creek Watershed District. There was confusion in that regard. There was a modification to natural habitat area. Definition that was again in response to some of the comments that Roger had offered. The discussion that occurred at the Planning Commission last time, there were a couple of points raised that kind of led to modification of purpose statements. First of all to get some language in there about the benefits, the financial benefits and so forth associated with this type of development pattern. And then secondly and perhaps more importantly, to make a direct reference to the Bluff Creek Watershed management plan itself and that's done in line 16 on page 4. It refers to the term, definitions and appendices... What that does then is that ties back to not only defining some of those things like significant 8 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 1997 resources and some of those other significances and that's what we talked about last time, but also it contains the listing of some of the species and things that are endangered and that are of concern so that incorporates that by reference as a part of the ordinance draft itself. Further on in the ordinance, again at the request of the City Attorney we've talked about potentially clustering rather than transferring. A technical sense we were looking at clustering of density rather than transfer per se, particularly with transfer occurring in other properties. And I think that essentially was some of the major changes. There were some minor verbiage changes and we've cleaned some things up as we've gone along. Some of those pertaining to the issue of this ordinance and how it ultimately will react and relate to the PUD ordinance which is going to be modified somewhat in the future. Let me quickly highlight another case study that we've taken a better look at to give you a feel for how this fits and then Kate and I can sit and we'll answer questions that you might have. If you recall last time we talked about taking a look at the property generally known as the Erhart property and we have done that. We looked at a couple of scenarios and hopefully... For orientation. This piece of property fronts on Highway 101 and 96th Street. North is up on this particular graphic. We started with a traditional subdivision approach if you will, looking at single family detached lot arrangement. Total site is about 122 acres but it does get impacted by right-of-way for TH 101. Additionally there is right-of-way for 212 which is over on this side of the site... The 145 lots depicted here aren't really.., you might be able to add a few more lots... Net density is right around 2 units per acre. Just a hair over. The average lot size being about 21,300. The smallest lot about 12,000 square feet. The total... That compares to a density, I think the average lot.., pretty comparable to some of the Longacres developments... We then took a look at application of the standards that are in the Bluff Creek ordinance. First of all we... is pretty heavily impacted by both primary and secondary corridors in the western area. The primary corridor being a line hatched area. The secondary corridor being the dot pattern... If you look at the kind of clustered approach, it still takes single family detached.., what you can end up with, and again this is a hypothetical example. The pattern may be similar to this.., as a part of the development. In this particular case we have.., to about 3.8 units per acre. Average lot size depicted here is about 11,300 square feet. Smallest lot would be 7,500-8,000 square foot... There happen to be 167 lots depicted here but that number could go down a little bit.., in that previous scenario you could get a few more than 125... is concentrated into a different area of the site. Preserving then what becomes about 51% or so of the site in the area that occupies the primary and secondary areas of the corridor, as well as... wetland portion of the property. So another graphic example in kind of a series of those that we've looked at where the piece of property obviously is heavily impacted by the existence of the primary and secondary corridors that are outlined in the Bluff Creek Watershed Management Plan. With that Mr. Chairman, as I indicated before, I think Kate and I would be happy to respond to questions that you have. Still the goal is to reflect any further comments that you might have regarding the ordinance and ultimately to take that to public hearing in the near future. Peterson: Thank you. Questions? Comments? Joyce: Mark, I have a question... Number one, on the Erhart property. Is that entirely in the Bluff Creek overlay? 9 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 1997 Mark Koegler: It is within the entire overlay corridor. The only area, again the watershed area itself goes beyond the primary... Joyce: That's, because I have a related question to that but that's what I'm trying to figure out. Mark Koegler: I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it is wholly within the overall Bluff Creek watershed area. Joyce: Do you remember what the comprehensive plan guide looks for as far as zoning? Mark Koegler: It's low density residential. Joyce: Low density residential, which is what? 4? Mark Koegler: 1.2 to 4 1 believe gross units per acre. Aanenson: That's what the first drawing reflected. Joyce: Right. Aanenson: If someone was to come and lay it out.., low density subdivision, with an average.., so averaging, coming in with a PUD, the average lot size has to be... Joyce: So the net would be, I guess I'm just trying to visualize. You have the comp plan and the guide, and then this overlay which supersedes the zoning... ? Aanenson: In addition to the zoning. Joyce: But first of all the standards are higher on, particularly like on a primary. Secondary, certainly they're higher and that would supersede... Then we go back to the comp plan, the low density. There is an example you have a net that currently doesn't exceed the density level. The highest you can go to is 4 units per acre. Aanenson: Right, but what we did is we took the entire piece.., but what we want is a way... Joyce: I understand that but you could not go to 4.1 units per acre against the comp plan, correct? Mark Koegler: Well that would depend on definition because what we've done when we've put this new layer of ordinance onto this piece of property is we said, we're taking now out for purposes of development, the primary corridor area which up to this point in time has been included within a net density calculation. If you look at the traditional pattern as this one that's on the screen right now, we're at 2 units per acre. Largely because obviously we're developing that primary area as well as that secondary... I think what becomes the issue is, once you go from this level of calculation to applying the ordinance, do you still use the same set of ground rules as to how you look at net. Do you look at net as taking out the primary area for the whole site or do 10 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 1997 you somehow at least in the secondary area look at net by saying well yes, but it includes the primary area and factoring that into net density is really so and so for the entire property. Joyce: So you are including the primary? Mark Koegler: We did in the example, just to show what the impact is. Joyce: But in the ordinance you didn't? Mark Koegler: The ordinance actually takes it's derivation back from, this is really I think a very valid exercise because the process is that there needs to be a concept prepared such as this that shows how a property could be developed. What kind of density could be achieved on the site and it has to be a realistic plan. Then essentially what we're seeking to do with the ordinance is to cluster that density in other locations on the property. So we're not looking to provide... necessarily to increase that density but to accommodate that density. Joyce: Right. Mark Koegler: In this particular case it does fall within the 4 units per acre no matter how you cut the net calculation. Whether or not that would happen in every single case, I suppose we'd have to look at that a little further. Joyce: Well that leads to my second question. A lot of this property within the Bluff Creek overlay.., things like that. So for them to change the zoning, I mean obviously you'd have to go... low density or something like that. Aanenson: Well we've guided it. Again, this is an area outside the MUSA and it may not.., but we've guided it for low density... The other part to your question was, under the current ordinance the 4.1, they couldn't do that even... That's why we're trying to change the PUD. We're not trying to penalize people for clustering. We want to encourage clustering. Joyce: Promote it is what it says in the... Aanenson: Well what we're trying to do is, the development pattern is different than we did in the past where we got more sensitive and this is again.., where there's a primary and secondary zone. Not just to cluster for clustering sake but... Joyce: And I'm just trying to figure out if there's control here. Aanenson: Exactly. There's a large lot subdivision to the south of this. A small one that actually the people benefit from clustering because the homes that are on that northwest comer will actually benefit because the cluster.., but we're going to have to look at that individually and there may be circumstances where they'd have to buff'er.., but for the most part, the primary and secondary, or in the overlay district, they all have to... 11 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 1997 Joyce: I'm getting more comfortable with this ordinance. I'm glad it's come up a couple of times. You kind of have to work through it. Aanenson: That's...we think we've worked through... Mark Koegler: Again, this is just in quick concept form but we have shown for example what the existing developments on 96, with the concept plan. Larger lots abutting that and open space immediately north of some of... to accommodate transition of uses between existing developments... Brooks: I noticed and I probably should have talked about this earlier.., clustering residential but I don't see where it really addresses industrial where we have areas within the Bluff Creek overlay... Mark Koegler: Well we reference that by talking about clustering of units and impervious cover because when we were dealing with, basically we have two types of land uses for the most part outside of the open space designations within the corridor. Either industrial, industrial office park or residential. There are a few very small pieces of commercial that are kind of some of the donut holes and things. But we're dealing with that and the impervious basis rather than on a square footage or some other basis in which you might look at those buildings. I think a meeting or two ago we looked at an example of the industrial park and it was based on impervious cover and being able to transfer that amount of impervious cover that would be allowed on that site to a tighter area within the same property. Aanenson: So instead of 70... maximize the part that you're going to... Brooks: And that's why, you know an office park to me is fine but when we say industrial, and I bring that back up to Mark... Aanenson: That gets back to the comprehensive plan... Brooks: ... about the wildlife and stuff and all of a sudden... Mark Koegler: I think you raise a good point though in that probably more of the focus has been on residential and maybe we just need to go back and make sure, and enunciate clearly enough that there's a commercial industrial component to it. Brooks: Yeah, I think that would be a good idea. Peterson: Other comments? Conrad: Mark, could you get us a copy of a good ordinance that uses density transfer? Mark Koegler: I can, boy a good ordinance. You had to qualify that. There are some examples you know as we've talked about before in these series of meetings. They really are not examples 12 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 1997 with the same kinds of components that we're looking at, and particularly the urban scale densities. I can easily provide you with a number of examples that are more rural in nature that are dealing with, you know 1 unit per 1.2 acres. We've even looked at those just simple to examine some of the techniques and there is no direct application. Aanenson: We've exhausted all the resources. Mark Koegler: Close. We are continuing to search for that but we have not found a really apples to apples. Aanenson: We also had, we think it's the right... Conrad: Have you just looked in the State? Have you looked outside? Aanenson: We've looked outside, everywhere. Conrad: This has been an issue for 10 years Kate. Density transfer has been preached. Aanenson: We're on the cutting edge. Peterson: Have you checked our libraries by chance? Conrad: The PUD ordinance will become a factor in density transfer? Is that right? Will it really, density transfer, will it be guided by our PUD ordinance restrictions and guidelines? Generous: The only way you'll be able to do it is... because you could do a large lot subdivision and just lose the primary... Aanenson: ... only do clustering.., which we've always felt that.., historically we've had a problem with large lots in certain areas... Conrad: There aren't many regulations in this ordinance. It's pretty open and on the one hand I'm not going to challenge it because I love, I like density transfer. I think it's, but Kevin I just, you know your point is you're getting more comfortable with it and I think that's great. But a lot of this will come down to how much do you want to protect an area and are you willing to allow 5.7 units to protect that area, which will take us over the single family and put it into a different category. Joyce: ... understanding of that. Conrad: Well no, it's open. We haven't addressed. Joyce: But the comp plan still supersedes that, correct? Aanenson: Yeah. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 1997 Joyce: So that was the point I was trying to make is our comp plan is our control feature. So if you have this as low density, some of it clustering, and if they average out to 3.87, so it's not over 4. Conrad: Over the whole site. Joyce: Right. A lot of this land is, what large estate which is. Aanenson: That's what it's zoned. Not guided for. It's zoned large lot. Joyce: I'm sorry. But it's zoned A2 so it had to come in front of us to get it to low density, correct? Aanenson: Right, although it's guided... Joyce: And it's guided low density, I mean it's guided large lot. Aanenson: We've guided the whole city. Remember before we said we weren't going to guide large lot in the rest of the city. We don't have that designation. It's currently zoned that way until such time as urban services are provided.., but what we said is we don't want to take a first example throughout the rest of the city because what it does it takes out the significant features. What we said is we'd rather have it go a little bit smaller yard and preserve some natural features... We're not trying to... we're just compressing it into.., small lots. It might not be the same type of... Brooks: Let me ask a question.., large lot. If you have a large lot, a 5 acre lot by Bluff Creek and Joe Schmoe wants to subdivide it and now sell off2 1/2 acres and build a house. Now, are we going to be able to guide the house going up the slope and off the primary zone? Aanenson: You will be able to do that. If it's in the primary or secondary zone. Pardon me? Joyce: I said if it's in the primary, he can't develop on it at all, correct? Aanenson: Well you have to, we'd have to look at that.., it'd be a taking... We looked to see if there were any of those... Mark Koegler: I'm trying to think if we have examples dealing with the vast majority of them with larger, currently undeveloped parcels that are either in, there might be a few. Peterson: Other comments? Thank you. OLD BUSINESS: 14 Planning Commission Meeting - November 19, 1997 Aanenson: Just to let you know what's going on for the December 3rd Planning Commission meeting. We will put on the historic district. Talking about what should happen in the area... First you need to decide whether you have the right area that we have identified and kind of set some framework... Also we received an application for.., site plan review for Bluff Creek Partnerships... property east of Bluff Creek Elementary... church. There will be a public hearing... That will be our last meeting... That's all I had. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: LuAnn Sidney noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 5, 1997. ONGOING ITEMS: Blackowiak: I have a question. Did the City Council interview Planning Commission candidates and? Aanenson: Correct, and it is scheduled for a meeting on Monday... Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Aanenson: In December we should have someone. Peterson: I thought they already met them. Aanenson: They interviewed. I'm not sure who.., select somebody. Peterson: Anything else? The public portion of the meeting was adjourned and the Planning Commission held an open discussion regarding the auto dealership. Conrad moved, Sidney seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 15