Loading...
1990 01 03CHANHASSEN PLANNING C~MMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 3, 1990 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve E~-~,ings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli, Jim Wildermuth and Joan Ahrens STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner; and Sharmin A1-Jaff, Planning Intern PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 3.2 ACRES INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 2.08 AND .79 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED BETWEEN PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND LOTUS LAKE, 365 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, ROBERT SATHRE. Public Present: Name Address Alan & Carol Lenhart Stuart Hoarn Robert Sathre John Danlelson Ron Harvieux 6575 Pleasant View Way 6745 Amherst 365 Pleasant View 6607 Horseshoe Curve 6605 Horseshoe Curve Sharmin A1-Jaff presented the staff report. Conrad: You didn't go through the reco~m~endation. Basically staff has a recommendation of 8 points here. Maybe we'll cover those later. Quick question before we open it up for co~ents. The outlet that's reco~-m~ended, and I'm asking this because I think we're all going to have the same co~'m, ents on that. What rights does that outlot have Paul? As a 15 foot wide, 200 foot strip, what rights does that give somebody? Krauss: virtually none. It's not large enough to be a recreational beachlot so there's no dockage priviledges that are attached to it. It's really an anomaly that the lot we're working with tonight had a very strange config,]ration which is essentially a tail of right-of-way that was draped onto it. It really had no purpose. When we looked at the plat, we tried to determine whether ox not we should accept dedication of all of it and then vacate it again because we had no need for that outlot area. That tail of right-of-way up to that outlot serves a purpose. It's either right-of-way that would be attached to Pleasant View Road and used for that or attached to Horseshoe Curve but that area that's outlined in red has no public purpose at all and it would be severed from the main parcel by this action. By our taking the right-of-way that we do need. In talking to the property owner, they wish to maintain ownership of it simply because it gives them, they would be the buyer of Lot 2. It gives them the right to walk down to the lake on their property. They may want to launch a canoe ~from there. Really nothing else and nothing else could be done. In order to insure that it's not significantly disturbed as a condition of approval Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 2 that limit tree cutting on the outlot and would require grading permit approval. So really the fundamental uses of it are very minimal. Conrad: We'll open it up for public comments. Bob, would you like to have the floor and talk abou~ this or would you like to react to the staff report in any way? Bob Sathre: I guess it is what it is at this point. Conrad: Have you read the staff report and you're comfortable with what they said? Bob Sathre: Yes I have. Conrad: Comfortable? Bob Sathre: Yes. Conrad: Other co~m~ents. Ron Harvieux: My name is Ron Harvieux. I live at 6605 Horseshoe Curve which is the, I think it's called the exception lot there. It's the lot directly to the east, northeast of that red outlot. Yep, that's it. Thank you. I guess my co~,ents have to do primarily with it. The rest of Lot 2, up on Horseshoe Curve is not at issue with me and quite frankly I'm not sure what issue I have with the area outlined in red. I feel problemed because only today did I find out about the fact that part of this subdivision included that red line. I may be mistaken but the notification we received for the December 6th Planning Commission which was, I guess this issue was not discussed then, but I believe the notification that I received only outlined the area at the top. That is Lot 2 and there was no outlot mentioned or if there was, I must admit I misread or misconstrued. In fact it wasn't until today that my wife up at City Hall got a packet of paper that outlined the fact that outlot red is going to be involved. I have some concerns because I believe the passageway, the access to outlot red, I'm not a lawyer but I'd sure like to talk to one because I'm concerned about some issues here. I believe the passageway to that outlot red goes over what I think is my driveway. Not my driveway. A driveway that I use to get to my home. I'm not sure what the legal issues are and what happens if someone trapsing down to Outlot red, I mean I just don't know. I don't know what's there. Right about in there is part I think of the driveway that services and then from there, does that touch Horseshoe Curve right there? Krauss: Yes it does. Well actually right now it goes over this lot. I'm not sure how your driveway exists right now. Ron Harvieux: I'm very unsure how it exists on that map. That's one of my issues. rauss: Right now your driveway crosses a tail of this property to get to the public right-of-way. What we're doing by this action is we're going ot take title to this whole section of public right-of-way. Call it Horseshoe Planning Commission Meeting Janua~y 3, 1990 - Page 3 Curve so then you will have direct frontage on a public street which you don't appear to have at this time. Ron Harvieux: I guess that appears to be the case. One of my, and again I don't know if this is exactly the forum to get an answer or not but I'll ask the question. One of the issues is that what is the legal status then of the driveway that currently I and my neighbor share as of this proposal? What is it? Kra,]ss: You would have a driveway located in public right-of-way which is permissible. Ron Harvieux: And who'd responsible for any upkeep or any kind of... Krauss: You are. Ron Harvieux: So I am responsible for someone from Lot 2 going to the public lake access and red outlot over that driveway? Krauss: Your driveway, which is now constructed over private property, would become located in public right-of-way. Anybody in the public has the right to use that right-of-way for access. Presumeably if they wanted to take a canoe down to the lake, they would come down the public section of Horseshoe Curve and then make a trail or something down through the woods to get down to the lake. Ron Harvieux: I understand what you're saying. I guess I still would surely like to have someone clarify it for me. I'm not trying to challenge what you're saying. I'd just like to have clarification as to what that means to me legally. If I'm responsible for shoveling that driveway off. I mean I just don't know. I don't know what's going to happen on that piece. This is kind of a new deal for me today so I guess what I'm really here to do is I'd like to ask the Planning Commission to allow me the opportunity to take the packet of information which now exists and seems pretty clear I guess but I just kind of tried to start consuming it. I don't know if I've done that very adequately right now as evidenced by this right here and I'd like to have the chance to look at it and share it with someone who can tell me where my rights are because I am concern about what happens to that driveway. This is kind of a different cut of cloth from what I thought was going to happen here. So those are my co~,ents. ~mings: Can I just ask a quick q~]estion? Talking about shoveling the driveway and maintenance and things, who's doing it now? Ron Harvieux: I or the fella sitting here. E~m~ings: So if you continue to do it, nothing would change it sounds like. Ron Harvieux: The only thing that would change would be who's passing over it and what my legal, yeah. That's right. I wouldn't do anything differently I don't think. I'd just like to know what's involved for me. I also just really would like to have, just kind of in general, time to - Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 4 react to what I've seen here because it certainly does impact a part of the ambience if you will of... Conrad: Thanks. Any other comments? John Danielson: My name is John Danielson. I live at 6607 Horseshoe Curve. I'm on the other side of the parcel that we're talking about and like Ron Harvieux, I didn't know until 6:00 tonight that this meeting was even going to happen. I haven't had time to review anything. I don't even have a copy of it yet. I was loaned a copy at 6:00 and one of the questions that I did have as I read that was that the property appears to be able to be further subdivided. Now what kind of useage would that place on that strip, the access strip to the lake, how many parcels could the land be subdivided? Is it more than 1 or 2? Krauss: Well let's take it one at a time. Both of the lots are theoretically large enough to be subdivided. The City requires 15,000 square foot lots. Lot 2, which is the smaller one, is 33,000 square feet. Depending upon where they put the home, if they put a home as illustrated right smack in the middle of a lot, it would not be possible to subdivide it. Lot 1 is quite a bit larger with 90,000 square feet and is theoretically also further subdivisible. However, a lot of the square footage is in that arm that extends out to the street and is occupied by the dk-iveway. We think they can get some additional lots out of there but they're not proposing it at this time. Also, those lots would take variances under current statutes because they probably would not have frontage on a public right-of-way and it would be up to the City Council to approve that to technically speaking, those lots are not going to be, probably are not going to be subdivisible without variances. John Danielson: But it could be, it sounds like...up to 6 or so lots? I've known Bob as a neighbor for years and I certainly don't want to restrict. It's his property. He owns it. What I'm primarily concerned about is how much activity there will be next to me. You indicated minimal useage with a canoe perhaps. One canoe, nobody can complain about one canoe or a sailboat moored out there. Six, you know that's a different story. How about swimming rafts? Floats? Things like that. We see the lake and it's population density now. We see the number of boats that are on it already. I'm concerned about safety and I'm concerned about my own privacy. We've had the luxury of having that strip for years separating our properties and in the summer you can't even see one another. It's beautiful. We'd like to keep it like that. I guess my message is that I also would like some time to think about this if it's possible. I don't know. You know 6:00 until 7:00 or 7:15 wasn't adequate. How was the meeting publicized? Krauss: There was a mailed notice that went out for the original meeting and I believe we probably, Jo Ann, did we renotify for the delay? Did you get a mailed notice from us? It should be on the mailing list. John Danielson: Not this week. We got one back a month or so ago roughly and we were told that that meeting had been tabled or whatever and we haven't heard anything about it since then. Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 5 Olsen: We usually will send out another hearing... John Danielson: Did you get a notice Ron? Ron Harvieux: I don't think I did... Was the first meeting or the first thought different from this one? Krauss: No. What was different though is, the meeting notice that was sent out was sent out based upon the County half section map. Plat maps that we use. The plat maps that we used, the half section maps don't show that finger of property. That finger of property showed up on the actual survey that was submitted to us. It was always part of the same lot. It's all one tax parcel. It just didn't show up on our map. Ron Harvieux: I guess for me, that's a dramatic difference. I have no problem at all with Lot 2. It's the red thing potentially could have an issue with. John Danlelson: It's just that finger, yeah. I think it concerns us both. Conrad: Thanks. Any other co~,ents? Ellson moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. Ail voted ~ in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart: I think I'm starting to understand this. I probably got more out of the conversation than I did by trying to read the history. It's a tough one. Let me ask you this. On Pleasant View or next to the red, what's now termed the red outlot, where you have called Baldur Avenue. What is that today? Is that an easement? Krauss: Actually there's an existing platted right-of-way called Baldur Avenue that's 15 feet wide. What purpose it had and why it dead ended in the lake I couldn't tell you because we can't figure it out. This tall of land from this tax parcel was evidentally intended to be dedicated for right-of-way down to the lake. We don't believe we need that right-of-way for any public purpose and therefore couldn't see the point in accepting dedication of it o~ requiring dedication of it. In fact, the other 15 feet of Baldur Avenue could be vacated if we got a request from somebody to do so. Erhart: Well for the benefit of everybody. Okay. So we still have, that's a street easement or a right-of-way? Krauss: It's a right-of-way. Erhart: So by making Outlot A, we're only actually doing half of what you think, half of what we're attempting to do. Krauss: We're not compounding the problem, right. As I say, we could vacate the blue side of it as well if we received a request to do SO. Planning Com~,,ission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 6 Erhart: You cannot think of any possible reason why we'd want to have a 30 foot right-of-way right down to the lake edge? Krauss: No. What we have along the lake here is we have a sanitary sewer that Sharmin discussed which runs through here and we have a pump station that's someplace in that area. Erhart: So part of the conditions is that they provide an easement over Lot 1 and Baldur Avenue? Krauss: Right. Erhart: Can you show that one on the map Paul? John Danielson: What you're looking at there is a ravine, kind of a swale. It's on a fairly steep hillside and it's a natural place where the water typically runs off down to the lake. Krauss: The sanitary sewer that was installed runs along the lakeshore through here so while we're willing to accept the outlot status on Outlot A, we want to take an easement over something like that to protect our rights to have that sanitary sewer in there. The other easement we're talking about is some time ago when this lift station was installed, this easement that was drawn up over the driveway that exists on the property to allow our maintenance crews to get down there and that is in fact how they've been serving this property since it was first put in. We know the easement was drafted. We're not sure that the easement was ever filed and what we're trying to do tonight is just basically rectify that error in the past and put it in concrete. Erhart: Alright. So there's no reason to get access through Baldur Avenue or Outlot A to the... Krauss: No. In fact it's heavily treed and it would be pretty disruptive for us to go down that way. Batzli: Paul, doesn't the report say that the westerly half of Baldur Avenue was already vacated? Just to clarify that. Krauss: It was? We did vacate that? John Danielson: I read that in the report. I question that also. I don't really know what that means. Emmings: Unless you've got it vacated, it must be yours now. John Danielson: 15 years ago I did apply with the City to have it vacated and at the time they were unsure as to what their future plans were for it and they denied my request. Krauss: Sharmin said she found a document that was supportive of the vacation but it still shows up on the plat map so evidentally it wasn't filed. Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 7 Ellson: It's like a housecleaning job here. Batzli: Stuff not being filed. E~ings: If the west half wasn't vacated, how could anybody own the east half? That's what I don't understand. Things are getting kind of loose here but I don't understand how someone could own the east half if the west half wasn't vacated. Krauss: The east half was always private property. It was never dedicated to the City. Erhart: The east half was owned by this guy. E~m~ings: So the east half never was right-of-way? Krauss: No. Emmings: Only the west half? Krauss: Right. They accepted the dedication of a half street. Yeah, very unusual. I've never seen anything like it. Erhart: I was beginning to feel self-conscience that I was the only guy having a hard time understanding this. Okay, I think I've got that now. Emmings: But then it doesn't make sense to talk about as the west half because it's just Baldur Avenue. Erhart: Regarding directions, I have another problem on condition 1. It seems where we use the term easterly edge of Lot 2, what I think you mean there, isn't it better described as northerly edge? Krauss: Northerly. Erhart: Well, or how about northeasterly corner or something? E~'~,ings: It can't be east. Batzli: It's north/northeasterly. Erhart: Driveway access easement over Lot 1, Block 1, that's the one we thought we had but we're now going to try to catch it. It's over an existing driveway. Is that clear? Krauss: The surveyor, Attachment 1, the surveyor gave us a description of where the existing easement was supposed to be. We don't have a transparency of it but if you look through your packet, you'll find that in there. Erhart: We're talking, in item 4, we're talking about a tree preservation plan. Go on to say that clearcutting of trees of 4 inch caliper or larger shall be prohibited. I guess my question is not referring to this Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 8 particular subdivision but I guess over the last couple of years we keep treading on trying to prohibit subdevelopers from clearcutting without trying to invade on people's rights to use their property and remove trees if that's what they want to do. Now we have a situation where essentially we have one lot. We're not directing this at, are we directing this at a subdeveloper or are we directing it at the fellow who owns this lot? Krauss: It's directed at whomever would build on it and own it, yes. We've had similar stipulations attached to individual lots and larger subdivisions. I think Trapper's Pass was one, just to the northeast of here has several of those lots. Olsen: The shoreland lots. Krauss: That's true, it is a shoreland lot as well. Erhart: What, this one is? Olsen: ...under the Shoreland Ordinance prohibits clearcutting... Erhart: You're saying that there's a State law. Olsen: That clea~cutting within the shoreland... Erhart: How many feet is that? 1,000 feet. Okay. I guess I don't have a problem with it here. I think we keep adding things. Now we're adding to be marked by snowfence. I'm concerned on this whole tree, as much as I like trees as much as anybody. I'm concerned as a group we're treading ever so closely to telling somebody if they can plant or cut a tree on their property. Just as a thought. Again, we go down on 8. I guess I'm more comfortable with that one because that's right next to the lake. That's all the questions I had. Emmings: I've still got some confusions about this. I'd like to ask, at the top of page 3 in the discussion in our packet it says that the applicant wishes to retain ownership to provide means of accessing the lakeshore and that's what they want the Outlot A for. So do I understand that the owner of Lot 2 will own Outlot A? Krauss: Yes. Emmings: Okay. Then it says the property using the driveway for access can be subdivided in the future. Now I think you're there talking about this gentleman's property back here. The one that's right next to Outlot A, is that right? And it says in order to prevent these lots from being landlocked, how would that happen? I don't understand that. Krauss: Keep in mind that this very unusually configured lot actually comes down like this right now. As we read the survey, this parcel has no frontage on a public right-of-way. It's actually a landlocked parcel right now. By our taking the dedication of this segment of street and adding it to Horseshoe Curve right-of-way. Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 9 Emmings: You've giving him frontage? Krauss: Right. Emmings: Okay. And the bottom of that same page, in your table there. Under lot depth there's just a misprint under Lot 2 is that right? Krauss: Yeah. ~mings: Is that supposed to be 289? Just so I'm reading it right. Is that what was intended there? We're talking about the depth of that Lot 2. Okay. And is the reason that under Lot 2 under the next three columns that it's not applicable is because there's been no plan for a house right now or what? Krauss: That's right. What's shown on there is schematic and the home could be anywhere. ~m~ings: On the recommendations it says the driveway access to Lot 2 would be located to the far easterly edge of Lot 2 and I thought that was what Tim was getting at. I don't understand that at all. A1-Jaff: The site is heavily wooded so you really don't get very well visibility and with the way the street curves, you dOn't see any cars coming. If we shift the driveway further to the north, then it would allow better visibility. Emmings: It says to the east the way I read it. Erhart: We just changed it. Emmings: Oh, did you already change that? A1-Jaff: Yes. Emmings: Oh fine. Alright. I missed that. Sorry everybody. Let's see, easements required. Reflect the existing sanitary sewer and then (b) easement (b) there. Driveway access easement over Lot 1, Block 1. That's in favor of the City is that right? Krauss: Correct. E~m~ings: I think it should say that. Now I want to talk about Outlot A and Baldur Avenue. Contrary to what's in the report where we have a Baldur Avenue with an east and west half, do I understand now that you're telling us that Baldur Avenue is only what we've been talking about as the west half? Krauss: Only the west half exists. E~m~ings: And how far does it go from the lake? Krauss: It goes up to Horseshoe Curve. Planning Co~,ission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 10 ~mings: And ends? Okay. Then condition 6 doesn't make sense. To me it says the final plat will reflect the dedication of Baldur Avenue and that's wrong. Am I right? A1-Jaff: Except for the 220. Emmings: No, that 220 feet is not Baldur Avenue. Krauss: Steve, I think the confusion to some extent comes about from the survey we received where the surveyor labeled the outlot Baldur Avenue assuming that we would accept it or take it as right-of-way and make the complete 30 foot right-of-way. You're right. You're correct. It is not Baldur Avenue that we're taking there. It's a portion of the site. Of Lot 2. ~m~ings: Well, it's not. I can't tell that from looking, at least I can't tell that from looking at the plat because it would appear to me, it's being designated as an outlot which means it's not part of Lot 1 or part of Lot 2. It's an outlot. Krauss: That would be the case in the future, right. If you would refer to flip back to Attachment A. Erhart: I think the confusion here is the term Horseshoe Curve isn't it? E~m~ings: Well, that's also a confusion. That's a separate confusion. Now wait a minute. Let's all get on the same page. Ellson: Attachment 17 Krauss: Attachment 1. I'm sorry. On Attachment 1 you see the existing property and along Pleasant View, the property is platted out to the center line of Pleasant view. You'll see, if you extend that on around, there's a tail to that lot that goes all the way down to the lake, adjacent to Baldur Avenue, around that offsteep ladled property. By our taking the right-of- way that we feel we need for Pleasant View and for Horseshoe, that will become a free standing parcel. It will no longer have any frontage or any connection to the balance of the site. Hence the outlot designation. Emmings: I don't have any problem with that and I'm not trying to quibble with you. I want to make sure that if we're going to put some conditions on this thing, first of all I think the subdivision is fine. I've got no problem with that. I want to make sure that we're not creating any confusions by using language that seemed to be right given the information we were given in this report and it turns out to be all wrong. Let's go back to Outlot A. Krauss: Possibly it would be better if we measured it, instead of measuring it from the north, which is what's done here and it's confusing, if we measured the outlot from the lakesho~e going to the north. Planning Co~'m~ission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 11 Emmings: Why do you have to measure it at all? It's on the plat as Outlot A. Why not just call it Outlot A? Why don't we just say, you've got to take out that first sentence in 6. Batzli: I'm sorry, why don't we just take out 6? Emmings: 6 has to be rewritten. Batzli: What does it have to be in there for? It's on the plat. Krauss: I couId clarify, yeah. We got the survey that shows Outlot A last week after the staff report was written. That's why there's the confusion. EFm~ings: Okay. So 6 has to be striken. Alright. Krauss: And replaced with Outlot A. No, it doesn't have to be replaced. E~m~ings: I think that we should, I noticed I read our By-laws. I do this annually before this first meeting in the year. I didn't have a lot to do today so I read the By-laws. It says we can leave the record open for written comments if we choose or I don't know. I can't remember if it's at your discretion or whatever but maybe that would fit the bill for these gentlemen who would live on either side of this 0utlot A. If we could leave the record open for written co~'~ents. If they had a couple of weeks to get in their comments and then those could go with whatever we do with this to the City Council so at least you get a chance to speak their peace. Conrad: We've never done that. It's in the By-laws? E~,ings: Yes. The only other thought I had was that I just wonder if there should be some restrictions in this subdivision approval to make it perfectly clear to anybody who owns Outlot A that they don't have a launching pad for docks. Swi~ing docks. Don't have a place to put canoe racks or anything else. I think it's clear that under our present ordinances none would ever be allowed but if it's right in there, I think it's a good idea to put there explicitedly. Batzli: Why wouldn't it be allowed in our current ordinance if the homeowner of Lot 2 wanted to lauch his canoe from his outlot? Emmings: I'd have to go through this. I've looked at this in the past on other ones. I think you can't have an accessory use. You know all of those things are accessory uses. I think this is the way it goes and Paul probably can correct me if I'm wrong. You can have an accessory use on a ,parcel without there being a principle use so since you can never build a house on there, you could only have those things as accessory to the principle use of a residence. Since you can't have a residence, you can't have the accessory uses. Wildermuth: Or it has to qualify as a beachlot. Emmings: Unless it can be a beachlot. Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 12 Batzli: So you're saying that he can't have a raft, well he might be able to have a raft depending on something else, but he can't have a dock and he can't have, store his canoe there but he would be able to walk over the property and launch his canoe? Emmings: Yeah. Conrad: Anything else Steve? E~'~t ing s: No. Conrad: Annette. Ellson: I'll try to be brief after those two. E~m~ings: Well, pardon me. Ellson: Just giving you a hard time. I shared John Danielson's concern about the subdividing the other lots. In the analysis you talked about Lot 1 could be split but the staff is in the process of developing ordinance revisions that's going to clarify the issue. Can you expound on that? Krauss: Sure. Since the fall we've had a number of situations where neck lot situations have been approved. Variances have been given but there was no clear direction on how to handle these things. We've also had some situations, not so recently that I can recall, but where we've used private driveways to access properties that might otherwise be unaccessible. Each time we said that what we'd like to do is come back to you with a set of policies and recommended ordinance changes that will provide some guidance for dealing with these things. Probably what we will be suggesting are standards by which variances could be authorized for neck lot and no frontage situations. So as we pointed out, right now this requires a variance to be approved. In the future it either may not require a variance or it may have standards that if these lots meet, that a variance could be authorized. But at this point that would be a recommendation from us to you. It can always be denied. Ellson: I guess I was just a little concerned because of so many are going through and I think our loopholes that it has to be a hardship, I'm concerned that it easily would be one and something like this where there's only one major access and all of a sudden we're clustering in the way we want. Krauss: One of the points of confusion is the subdivision ordinance allows up to 4 homes to be served off a private driveway. The RSF district doesn't allow any. Bob Sathre: We would accept the condition where the lots would not be further subdivided. Ellson: I don't know if we can even do that legally. Can we? Not if we allow 15,000 square feet and stuff. It'd be nice to control but we're not allowed to do that I don't think. But okay, so that's part of what you're Planning Co~tission Meeting January 3, ~990 - Page 13 talking about. Just the ordinance. Overall ordinance revisions. More of a rule of thumb as to, it seems funny that you'd say okay now a variance is going to be allowed when the whole idea is not to allow them. That was one question. I already asked my other question. I never heard the phrase paper street and I was a little concerned that someday someone actually could put a street through that steep thing again for a boat launch or whatever but I seem to be consoled that that's not a problem. I agree with Steve that we should make it a point in the documents wherever possible that they're not going to be able to have a dock there and things like that. There's many a person who comes here and says when they bought this land they were allowed to do what have you and if we not only have it in our ordinances but also have it with that piece of property, there won't be any mistaking that. Nothing further. Batzli: Two questions. One is after I said let's delete number 6. The question I have, Steve you probably know the answer to this. Even though it's shown on the plat, do you normally say something in the conditions that right-of-way for instance for streets and such are going to be dedicated to the City or recorded or anything like that? Ellson: In favor of the City? ~mings: We can't delete 6 and I realized that after but what we have to do is we have to have, it seems to me there has to be a thing in there that the plat will show, we still have to get this piece from this line down to here dedicated to the City and 6 has to say that. Batzli: So you're working on that? ~mings: Yeah. They've got to call for the legal description for that piece and get it in there under number 6. Batzli: The other question I had is just number 4. The tree preservation plan. I didn't hear if that was somehow changed by Tim but the question is, can you get a grading permit before you get a building permit? Krauss: Yes, if a condition exists that says that you can. Our grading, probably another, every time we scratch at this we get another issue but the grading ordinance is one that the City Engineer is working with Planning to revise as well. We have put this kind of a condition on several recent approvals to require a grading permit. Batzli: That was my question was should it be a building and/or grading, whichever comes first kind of a deal. Krauss: That would be fine. That would be acceptable. Batzli: Those were the only two questions I had. Wildermuth: The subdivision looks appropriate. I don't like, it just seems that Outlot A is unfinished business. It seems as though Outlot A should be taken by the City and then vacated in favor of'the adjacent property owners. Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 14 Emmings: You've got to pay for it. Wildermuth: It' just looks untidy. Conrad: The City would have to buy it. Wildermuth: Right. Because they don't have a planned use for it. Conrad: Right. Wildermuth: No intention to put a street in. Conrad: Anything else? Wildermiuth: No. That's it. Conrad: Joan, haven't really said anything to you tonight but welcome to the Planning Co~m~ission. Ahrens: Thank you. Conrad: And I'll let you have a crack at this one. Ahrens: The questions I had concerned Baldur Avenue also and they have been raised already. I had problems with Baldur Avenue I guess in general. Conrad: Okay. Structure wise, the only thing that bothers me in the whole thing is number 8 or the red outlot or however we term it. That just seems real unusual and not really a purpose for anything other than some, it's there and we have to deal with it. Could the owner of that put a deck or stairway in Paul? Isn't there a setback from lots for a stairway or deck? Wildermuth: They could put a path in. Krauss: I'll defer that to the expert. Conrad: To the one in the stands. Okay, Jo Ann. Tell me what can happen on this parcel? I'm intrigued. Olsen: Decks and...or something like that, that would be an accessory structure. That wouldn't be permitted. A stairway. Conrad: No setbacks on stairways. It's pretty rough territory. It is a drainage easement so to fill it, what would have to happen? Can they fill it? To fill it, grade it, do we have something in here saying that you can't really tamper with it unless, well tree removal plan. Grading approval plan. Planning Director. Because it's a drainageway, I suppose engineers can get it by anything can't they. So thereotically it could be cleared of everything other than 4 inch diameter trees. Could be leveled. Water could be piped. Drainage could be piped down. Basically filled. Olsen: ...permit from the DNR to get a sandblanket. Planning Co~Lission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 15 Conrad: Some of that is okay. They could do that. Ellson: So do you like Jim's idea of the City buying it or you're just questioning it? Conrad: No. I'm not wild about that. I believe two things should happen. One, I think the neighbors, whether through their own fault or through ours or whatever, really should have an opportunity to get some advice on this one or to study it. For whatever reason being given, there was no signal or flags thrown up based on the data that they got and in terms of this one parcel that we're playing with and I think they should have an opportunity to look at it which means we have an opportunity to table the action for their further review or to just, as Steve mentioned, we could leave the record open and they could, it sure appears to me this is the only issue on this particular subdivision. They possibly could get that input in time for City Council review. My only comment I think is, if I were to word a motion on this one, it would really deal with number 8 and basically state that there would be no significant alteration to that outlot. Batzli: You mean that recording against the property, that they can't change the... Conrad: Basically. That would give the new owner, whoever, the right to use it but not the right to change the character. Stuart Hoarn: I'm Stuart Hoarn and I am contemplating purchase of Lot 2 and the only reason for it would be to access or go down to... I suppose the alternative is Robert could withdraw the application for the subdivision and fence the whole thing. That would create even bigger problems so I think there's a balance of interests of the various property owners that I think would... Conrad: Keep going. We create bad recommendations unless... Stuart Hoarn: We have no ideas about putting in a stairway, viaducts. None of that. Conrad: And you're promising you're going to live there forever. Stuart Hoarn: No. I think it would be a good idea to put in there that if there are alterations there, if it's not legal for us to say that we don't want to...subdivide either Lot 2 or Lot 1, I guess we can't do that but I think that's something, we would allow a deed restriction or something. Whatever was needed. There has to be someway that the two lots could agree, two owners could agree that it would not be resubdivided. It's really an unpractical thing because of the terrain and to have a city easement running right through the middle or the edge of the house could... to resubdivide it further. It wasn't my intention. Conrad: Okay. Any other comments? Ellson: Did you rewrite that one? Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 16 Emmings: Which one? Batzli: Number 6. Emming s: Yeah. Ellson: Just wondering if you needed more time. Batzli: Are you looking for a motion Ladd? Conrad: Not yet. I'm thinking. This is think time Brian and wasting everybody elses time. Yeah, looking for a motion. Hopefully somebody can deal with that parcel. Hopefully somebody can deal with providing the neighbors a chance to get some input in and some legal advice on this. I would hope we could incorporate that into a motion. E~-~,ings: I'll move that the Planning Co~,ission reco~m~end approval of Subdivision #89-20 as shown on the plat dated November 6, 1989. Batzli: I think it's December 29th. ~m~ings: The plat dated December 29, 1989 and subject to the following conditions. Number 1 would be altered so it says, easterly will be changed to northerly edge. 2(b) will be altered, simply add that the access is in the favor of the City of Chanhassen. Number 4 will be altered in the second line to say that the tree preservation plan must be submitted prior to issuance of a building and/or grading permit. There is no number 5 so we've got to change the numbering so we don't have gaps. What was 6 will now be 5 and that will now say that the final plat shall reflect the dedication of a parcel legally described as, and I'm going to leave that blank. What I'm intending here is that the staff come up with a legal description of a parcel that's defined by the northeasterly extension of the south line of Lot 2 across this way on the north and on the south it would be the north line of Outlot A. Krauss: While we're talking about dedication of right-of-way, we also need to ensure that we get the dedication of the Pleasant View Road right-of- way. Emmings: Isn't that already on here? That's the next one. Batzli: Shall show it but I think the applicant should also be required to dedicate it. Emmings: Okay, so what was 7 here will now be number 6 and it will say that the final plat will show the width of Pleasant View Road and that shall be dedicated as right-of-way so that will be altered to show that that's also dedicated as right-of-way. Down at number 8 will now become number 7 and it will say the following. The owner of Outlot A will not be permitted to grade or otherwise alter Outlot A in any way without permission of the City. The owner of Outlot A will not be allowed any dock, swi~m~ing raft, boat moorings or other accessory uses on Outlot A Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 17 other than using it as a means of access by foot to the lakeshore. I don't mean to exclude him carrying a boat down there. How can we say that? I don't like that. Let's go back. I'm going to start over with that. Let's just say, the first sentence is okay, that there's no grading or other alteration of the property with a permit from the City. Batzli: Are you striking the part about the tree removal? ~mings: No, I'm going to put that on the end. I'm going to start out this way. And then let's put down that they're not permitted any docks, swimming raft or boat moorings and then go to the language that was under number 8. The part about the trees. Just leave it as is. Then finally, the record, how long will it take for this to get to City Council? January 22nd? Olsen: Yes. Emmings: That's almost 3 weeks so that the record will be kept open for written co~m~ents from property owners that might be affected by this and they should have their written comments into Planning Staff within 2 weeks so they have time to get it into the packet to the City Council. Batzli: I'll second it. Conrad: Discussion. Batzli: Steve, do you mean to have any of your language from new number 7 recorded against Outlot A since really what you're probably or people~ would be most concerned about is if a new owner purchases it and isn't aware of these conditions. Emmings: Yeah, I think it should be recorded against the property. I'd add that. Batzli: I would accept that. Conrad: Basically you have not taken away any rights that previously existed for this parcel. Was your intent just to clarify what their rights or lack of rights were but you have not further restricted in your motion. E~'~ings: It's as close as I can get without their having just a little time to kind of stating what the ordinances say anyway. I don't think we're taking away anything. I don't like Outlot A. I don't think it ought to be there. I think it ought to be part of this gentleman's property over here but I'm not willing to go so far as to put that in as a condition of allowing a plat. I think that's going too far. Conrad: In your motion for number 7 you basically, the wording that you used to me said that they can alter only after the City, the Planning Director has seen what they want to do so your motion, based on the words I heard you say, you said the outlot can be altered only after it is approved by the Planning Director. Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 18 Emmings: I don't know. I said unless he gets a permit from the City or permission from the City. Conrad: Which is saying exactly what staff said to begin with. You haven't changed the use. You've clarified the use of that. You have basically gone along with city staff. E~m, ing s: Yes. Conrad: Any other discussion? Wildermuth: I have one question for the adjacent property owners to Outlot A. Is there any interest in pursuing some kind of legal way to obtain Outlot A? Ron Harvieux: I can't say never. I think 3 or 4 years ago we discussed a trade off of land because this has always looked like a blight and I think we kind of got somewhere but I'm not sure we stopped I believe because the City seemed to want us to plat the land which looked like it would be more expensive from what was going on at that time. At least that's what I took away than we wanted to occur so we dropped that. Since that time, I might be misstating it. I don't know if it's 3 or 4 years ago but it's some time in the past. Since that time until now I didn't know that that was back on the issue and I would be very willing to reopen those kinds of discussions. We were talking equal land trade-off. At least that was the concept then. I'd be certainly willing to reopen that discussion. Just haven't had time to do it because frankly...didn't know that Outlot A was part of what was now going on tonight. John Danielson: From my point of view, I'd be more than happy to try and have the remainder of the other half of Baldur Avenue. Conrad: John, you're so generous I can't believe it. John Danielson: I tried 15 years ago without success and I just kind of gave up but it's a nice natural piece and I'd like to keep it that way and if it were available, I'd be more than willing to put that in writing that it will be left in it's natural state. Ron Harvieux: If I might just add if I could, this may or may not be the place but I have no problem...the lake access issue is an important one I'm sure to him. I'm not sure that with a trade-off of land from my easterly boundary, I just don't know. We talked several years ago, maybe Bob could see a way to allow access right down that driveway which already exists. A clear cut straight ahead driveway to the shore. If lake access is really important, I'm not so sure it can't occur totally within Lot 1. I just don't know. I guess again, it certainly looks like...trying to run it over what we're talking about now. I'd sure like to discuss it. Conrad: Any other discussions? Planning Co~m~ission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 19 Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #89-20 as shown on the plat dated December 29, 1989 and subject to the following conditions: 1. The driveway access to Lot 2 shall be located to the far northerly edge of Lot 2. Notice of the location shall be placed in the Chain-of-Title of the lot. 2. Easements required: a. Reflect the existing sanitary sewer easement over Lot 1 and Baldur Avenue. b. Driveway access easement over Lot 1, Block 1 in favor of the City of Chanhassen. 3. Park and trail dedication fees will be required in lieu of park land dedication. 4. A tree preservation plan must be submitted prior to issuance of a building and/or grading permit. The plan should illustrate how the driveway and house placement and construction will minimize tree loss. The plan must be approved by staff. Preservation areas shall be adequately marked by snow fence prior to construction to avoid damage. Clear cutting of trees of 4 inch caliper or larger shall be prohibited. 5. The final plat shall reflect the dedication of a parcel legally described as follows: 6. The final plat shall show the width of Pleasant View Road from the center of the existing road to the Lot 1 and Lot 2 front property lines as 33 feet. 7. A stipulation shall be recorded against the property that the owner of Outlot A will not be permitted to grade or otherwise alter Outlot A in any way without permission from the City and will not be allowed any dock, swi~m~ing raft, or boat moorings on Outlot A. 8. Any tree on Outlot A with a caliper of 4 inches or greater shall be preserved. A tree removal plan shall be submitted prior to any disturbance of the area along Baldur Avenue. A grading plan approved by the Planning Director is required. 9. The public record shall be kept open for 2 weeks to give the affected property owners time to submit written co~-~,ents before going to the City Council. Ail voted in favor except Conrad and Wildermuth who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2. Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990- Page 20 Conrad: Jim, your reasons for your negative vote? Wildermuth: I don't like the existence of Outlot A and I'd like to give the adjacent property owners as well as the adjacent property owners to Outlot A as well as the applicant for the subdivision an opportunity to either work out some kind of a land swap or some kind of an arrangement. Conrad: I basically agree with Jim's co~m, ents because I think it's a real strange parcel but I'd also, even if it does exist in the end, I'd prefer to have the wording on it's use to be as restrictive as possible and I didn't notice that the motion for item 7 really provided that restriction and maintained the character of that particular outlot. This will go ahead though to City Council. Would be up there what? Did we say the 22nd of January? We left the record open for co~m~ents so the neighbors can make their comments and get them in for City Council review. I thank you all for coming in. Thanks very much. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT A PORTION OF LOT 31, MURRAY HILL AND LOT 1, BLOCK 1, PLEASANT HILL ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED ON MURRY HILL ROAD, JUST SOUTH OF MELODY HILL ROAD, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Public Present: Name Address Gilbert Kriedberg 6444 Murray Hill Road Sharmin A1-Jaff presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Gilbert Kreidberg: I am Block 1, Lot 1. I'm the one with a vested interest. In fact...that trail access to the tower. Part of that process is the acquisition of that portion of...and make sure that the activity is staying per agreement... I think it's probably pretty straight forward... so unless you have any questions. I guess the engineers don't come to these meetings. Conrad: They do occasionally but not usually. Okay, any other public co~m~ents? Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Joan at your end. Any comments? Ahrens: I have no co~m~ents about this. Wildermuth: Where is the fence going to go? There's some elusion to a fence here with a gate. Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990- Page 21 Gilbert Kreidberg: Yes, that will go across the roadway there or the pathway going back to the tower. What it will do, it will provide pedestrian access but preclude vehicle access with a locked gate to it... we had problems with snowmobiles running through there at speeds well in excess...kids playing out there and going back and forth to the school. It's designed as a safety factor and part of the neighborhood... Wildermuth: So the City is going to construct the fence? Gilbert Kreidberg: ...and that is part of all of this thing. Wildermuth: And the area is so wooded that they can't get around the fence readily? Is that the idea? Gilbert Kreidberg: Yes. They would on, at that point they would be going on private property and both of them will be fenced off so that will be the access...The City I guess wanted to service the tower from the easterly side even though they've been servicing it for 15-16 years from the westerly side... Wildermuth: Sounds good to me. I'm impressed that somebody's willing to pay that kind of money for that. Gilbert Kreidberg: You're telling me... Batzli: Two questions. One was, if I understand it, you're going to build a fence along the easement? Gilbert Kreidberg: Yes. That is correct. Batzli: Is that in the purchase agreement as well? Gilbert Kreidberg: The City has requested that I build a fence on what would be the northern border of the easement ove~...fence it up 10 feet and the yard directly behind my house is all wooded... The City property, while it is wooded, it's not particularly heavily wooded in the area that I'm going to be acquiring. It's pretty much open with some trees along... and mostly between the property line... Batzli: Is there any reason Paul or anyone else to put a requirement regarding cutting down of trees or anything else in this parcel? Krauss: Mr. Batzli, I'm really not certain as to whether we need anything. We didn't give it any consideration. This has been in discussion with so much activity between the property owner and the City Council that we basically just process the subdivision at this point. There was no intent to build on the property. There may be some use, recreational use of the property at some point in the future, some facility like that. If you'd feel more comfortable with some sort of a tree preservation element. Batzli: Well it's just interesting because there's a no building clause on it already so they can't ever build on it so what would you ever use it for Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 22 except as a backyard? Gilbert Kreidberg: Maybe I could put a pool in. Wildermuth: Right. I wouldn't want to preclude him putting a swi~mting pool back in. Gilbert Kreidberg: Yeah, that's really what it is. The big trees, the last thing I want to do is take them down unless they die. There's a lot of little trees. The City has let this thing go for 16 or 17 years. I mean it's a mess. There's all kinds of dead foliage on it. There's junk all over. If I hadn't done this, they sure would have had to Clean it up. There's a whole lot of little trees planted in bunches that had no sense to protect the trees... The one thing I might do is clean that up so everything survives because that's all there is. The real big trees are along the part for which the easement would involved... Batzli: Would you object to having the City review if you were to make a plan of what you were going to do with cleaning it up? Gilbert Kreidberg: I think it makes it kind of cumbersome on me because what I'm going to do to clean up, pick up all the junk that's there and the dead trees and weed out some of the garbage that's there. I would never cut a trees that's probably more than 2 inch spread but you know some places you have to clean up because, I mean you don't have a picture of it but along the northerly portion there's parts where there's like maybe 40 trees with 20 feet of width and 10 feet of length. I mean they're just all bunched together. In order for those to survive, some of those have to be cleaned up. Batzli: No, I'm familiar with the area. I know what it looks like and I imagine that you're going to be going in there and cutting down some trees is my only point. Gilbert Kreidberg: Oh, just little stuff. I'm not going to take anything down that stands taller than I am except for where they're so bunched together. Batzli: Well I don't know. I'll see if anybody else jumps on the band wagon. Ellson: I thought this was a happy ending. I think it's nice to see that we got what we wanted as the City out of it and usually we get neighborhoods that say don't do anything there yet they don't want to go and get the property to do anything else with it and I'm really pleased to see this guy's taking it upon himself to make it a better looking place. Gilbert Kreidberg: I think it will be a lot nicer when I'm done. Ellson: And I agree. I think it would too after I looked at it. I was confused on what you wanted number 3 to be. Planning Co~mtission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 23 A1-Jaff: That there would be no further subdivision in the future and no new residences would be built. Ellson: Okay. I got the subdivision part but I wasn't sure about, okay. I don't have anything else. Emmings: I think it's, like Annette says, it's just a good thing for everybody. As far as Brian's concerned about the trees, I like Tim am not happy about imposing much on individual landowners on a deal like this. I'm more concerned when we have a developer coming in on a larger area to worry about protecting the trees. I think what's appropriate to do it in the last one because the land that you were doing it on was closer to the lake but I think of myself on my lot. If I want to cut down a tree, I don't want to go to the City to tell them I want to cut down a tree. I've got 15 or 20 oaks that are 100 feet tall and I don't want to cut them down but by God if I do want to cut them down, I'm going to cut them down and I don't want any crap from the City about it. Ellson: We're trying to preserve our nature and natural beauty. Batzli: This might be a little bit different because the owner of the lot is going to go on there with the intention of cleaning it up and cutting things down. Emmings: I worry about people like the developers back here who came in and showed us a nice plan and said how much he liked trees and then went through with a bulldozer and just took everything down. That's the part that scares me but anyhow, I think that should be left up to his discretion but I have a more important reservation about this. You have a son that plays soccer. Gilbert Kreidberg: I certainly do. Emmings: His name is Nathan isn't that right? And when his team played my son's team last su~'~er, his team won didn't it? I'm opposed to this. Unless I can have some guarantees about next summer. Okay, I'm interested. Erhart: I have nothing additional to add other than I think it looks like a reasonable subdivision and I think Steve pretty much his words reflected my thoughts on tree removal things. Conrad: I have nothing to add. I don't feel the tree issue is an issue that I am concerned with. Is there a motion? Ellson: I'll move the Planning Commission reco~m~end approval of Subdivision Request #89-23 as shown on the plat dated December 29, 1989 and subject to the conditions listed here with one additional one that would not allow further subdivision and no additional residences would be allowed. Erhart: I'll second it. Planning Co~ission Meeting January 3, 199~ - Page 24 Ellson moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Co~-~Lission reco~-m~,end approval of Subdivision Request #89-23 as shown on the plat dated December 29, 1989 and subject to the following conditions: 1. Lot 2 be shown as Outlot A on the final plat. 2. The north 20 feet of Outlot A is dedicated as a trail easement. 3. The property cannot be further subdivided or any new residences be built on the site. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE WITH REGARD TO ESTABLISH THE MAXIMUM LOT SIZE FOR CHURCH DEVELOPMENTS AT 15 ACRES. Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Conrad: So basically you're saying that somebody could come in, subdivide a parcel and basically get around the ordinance that way? Krauss: Yes, that's correct. In fact there was a related question. If you recall we processed a conditional use permit or a site plan for a church in the Frontier building. The City Council didn't have a problem with the church going in there but they were concerned what would happen if a church purchased the building and made it tax exempt. Roger basically said there's absolutely nothing you can do about that. Whether or not a church is occupying the property, they could purchase it and put some kind of a function in it and make the whole thing tax exempt. There's virtually nothing a community can do to stop it. The practicality of it is is that it's not going to happen very much because it's expensi've property but that's the question that he left us with. Conrad: So what we've got on the books here is an ordinance that can't really, or we've got a proposal of an ordinance that really doesn't achieve what the City Council intended. There's a way to get around it. Would it accomplish anything? The way I read it right now, it's probably more restrictive in other areas because we went from church to, didn't he draft the ordinance to really say any tax exempt which actually in concept I'm more in favor of than signifying church but I don't know if it harms the City more in terms of restricting something that we may want. Wildermuth: I don't know if it's a problem of adjacent parcels is such a big issue. Do you think it is? Ellson: I wonder if there'd even be another church that would come in. We all know it's an afterthought kind of thing to what's been happening and it's a way to show the citizens that they're trying to put something in to prevent it from happening again. Batzli: It's not a knee jerk reaction is it? Planning Co~Lission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 25 Ellson: I'm just wondering the probability of it. Batzli: Well if they really wanted to limit it, why don't they do what they did with contractor's.yards. Ellson: Located it within each other and things like that? Batzli: Yeah. Make them have to be within 15 miles of each other or something. Erhart: Eliminate churches. That's what we did with contractor's yards. E~m~ings: That's where I thought it was going. It's kind of a bold proposal. Batzli: I backed off. Conrad: It's an ordinance that the City Council initiated. Is there any direction right now on this? Should we vote on it as presented? The one thing that didn't happen I noticed. When it first hit us and we sent it back, there were some conditions for other modifications for the ordinance. Basically some setbacks and what have you. Those were not incorporated into the new ordinance but still those conditions were thought to be appropriate Paul? Krauss: The conditions that I think you're referring to are the CUP conditions that apply to churches and they were not changed. Conrad: Yeah, these are existing okay. Krauss: They weren't new conditions being applied under this ordinance. Conrad: Any direction? Anybody have a feeling on this one? Steve. E~m~ings: I think the motivation for this is totally improper, that being the Eckankar Church. I think the goal was appropriate. That is not winding up with a lot of land off the tax rolls. I don't think this does it and I don't see how it can be done. Brian or someone brought up the Campfire girls. What if they came out here you know and they wanted to have, Camp Tanadoona wasn't there and the Campfire organization came out and said we want to do something at Tanadoona, we'd all be supportive of that. Wildermuth: No. I don't think so. In this stage of Chanhassen's development I would rather see some revenue producing for that property. ~m~ings: So I don't think we necessarily want to restrict ownership of land by tax exempt organizations here. This ordinance won't do it. Ellson: Maybe it's an attempt to show those that we're concerned that their concerns were at least addressed. Maybe it's not powerful but it's an attempt. We listened to them and I think that's what the City Council had. You know they were in front of all those people either not voting or Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 26 saying that they'll do whatever they can to prevent it again where we all know legally they could probably do it if push came to shove. This is at least our attempt to say that we listened to the people who were trying to do something to answer that. But again, if the Campfire girls came in or something like that, they'd probably still be able to get it. E~,ings: Except to the extent that I suppose to some extent the market is going to limit this stuff because as land prices go up in Chanhassen, organizations that want large tracts of land to do things on are going to have to go f,]rther away from the city so I think we're probably kind of protected by the increased property values out here. Wildermuth: Does any other municipality have anything like this? Krauss: Roger did some research on that and he was not able to find any other community that did it. Wildermuth: Maybe there's a message there. Ellson: Well you wonder if somebody was shopping for land and they saw that we had this and another city didn't, would it just deter him from even applying or would they say we can fight this, let's go at it? If you look at it that way, are we accomplishing what some of those people wanted. Meaning some wouldn't even maybe attempt because they think we're trying to prevent it so in that aspect it would probably work for what some people wanted to do. Emmings: Yeah, but you're assuming that those people are undesireable... Ellson: Right. Absolutely. I'm just saying that the people, and I don't even agree that it's probably a majority, want to see the City doing something and we're here to probably represent them. So is the City Council and so they're saying okay, we'll try to answer your concern or at least an attempt. If it works either slightly, then it's a try I guess. I think the City Council wants something. Conrad: We don't have to go along with it. Ellson: No, absolutely. I'm just saying I think something's going to come out just because they promised they're going to do something. Conrad: Yeah. And it's an issue that do we want to take this one on ourselves or just pass it to them one way or another and let them deal with it so they can feel comfortable because it was their's initially. Tim, you wanted to direct us some way I know. Erhart: I'd rather co~m, ent on the issue at hand. It appears to me, correct me if I'm wrong, it appears to me there's already some mechanism for the City to establish what portion of a piece of property owned by a church is taxed and which isn't taxed. You kind of have to read that between the lines here but it appears to me that it isn't clear that the Eck property is going to be totally tax free and that some mechanism already exists to tax portions of that property without this ordinance. Planning Co~ission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 27 Krauss: Roger had a memo that was given out last summer that got at that. I forget the exact wording of it but basically the tax exempt institution has to use the property for a related use for it to become tax exempt. If they are holding property as a speculative commodity or if they're renting it out to somebody else, yes. There's very good grounds for that being put back on the tax rolls. Erhart: Is there any precedent for that? Krauss: Apparently so. There's been some cases been decided. Erhart: The fact that there already is a mechanism, it may not be a perfect one. In looking at this, I think the merit of it, the potential merits of it are so outweighed by the potential problems. Those which we can anticipate here starting this thing, plus those which we can't anticipate. I sense there's all kinds of problems this ordinance could bring that we can't even anticipate. One of them that just came up and that is just the sense that we're trying to prohibit'people like Campfire Girls or someone to come into the City. I mean it could be interpretted that way. I just don't think the value is there that supports recommending this to the Council. Conrad: Any co~m~ents over here? Batzli: I agree. I don't think that this ordinance does it. I think the interesting anomaly that we're now faced with in the City is that if in fact a church can get around an ordinance like this by purchasing 4 adjacent lots, the interesting thing is then if in the County's eys since they're adjacent lots, they'd be given a single tax identification number. If they were given a single tax identification number, it would be an interesting apportionment of the use of the lot and the concurrence on the ownership which is apparently the test for tax exemption. Because according to Roger, when the same owner owns two adjacent parcels, they're given one tax ID number so in fact the church, regardless of the use, it seems under that definition, would be given a single tax ID number and all four lots would then become tax exempt. Now the law says that the church would have the burden of proof of non-taxation but if you give them a single tax ID number, it seems like the City would have the burden of proof to come back and indicate that no, you're using that as a ballfield and that's really not a related use to why you're a tax exempt organization for instance for a church. It's interesting that we're going to find ourselves in that type of situation if that is the law. But I don't think this does what we're trying to do and I don't know that it's proper that we do it in the first place so I would definitely vote against it. Conrad: That's interesting. If they bought four parcels, adjacent parcels and put a church on one and the other three had activities that really weren't related to the church. Batzli: Well for tax exempt status they do have to be related. Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 28 Conrad: Then they would literally have to structure it so those other three parcels had an activity related to the church and I don't think they could do that very easily. I don't think you could run a ballfield and substantiate that that is... Ellson: For the social clubs of your church. I think they could and I think they could have a school and a little nursery school thing. Emmings: Promoting fellowship of church members in an atmosphere of Christian bliss. Ellson: That's right. The devils against the saints. I think they could real easily. Because retreats and things like that. That's also church oriented. Conrad: But they would literally have to structure those four parcels to physically be used for a special purpose that they can somehow document related to the church. I don't know that the ordinance wouldn't do something. Jim, what was your direction on this? Wildermuth: Well I think the situation is a dile~-~ta as to the appropriateness of restricting churches in general on the one hand and the tax revenue issue on the other hand. It seems to me a way could be found if we were really serious and intent on restricting tax exempt land use. I think we could find a way to do it. Conrad: Joan? Ahrens: Well you know as an outsider to this, this whole issue that you've been discussing for quite a while, I read through this package a couple days ago and I was kind of shocked to tell you the truth that so much time was being spent on an issue that I considered to be one that the City should not be spending so much time on. I' was trying to tame my language down there but I think that it's interesting that the ordinance was written by Roger to address all tax exempt organizations and most of the discussion even here is about churches. It's obviously a knee jerk reaction to the Eckankar Church. I don't think that we should, I hate to see an ordinance that tries to limit all tax exempt organizations from, or try to limit them to certain acreage in our community. I think there will situations that arise where people will want that kind of development and then we'll have to go back and change the ordinance. I think also, to create an ordinance that is hard to enforce or impossible to enforce because they can buy adjacent parcels, is kind of a ridiculous exercise. Why pass an ordinance that they can get around so easily by just buying up adjacent parcels and I think they could build a ballfield on the end of one and say it was a church purpose. I'm in favor of the ordinance. Conrad: Yeah, to summarize. I think the Eckankar property posed a particular problem and in my mind it possibly took some economically valuable land for city use and their expansion for the business district, it took it out of circulation at least temporarily. Therefore the reaction to not letting that happen again, in my mind taking out farmland that we really haven't proposed to be part of a new co~m~ercial direction or Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 29 whatever, that would not bother me at all to take out land that is in a co~'m~ercial area and restricts the financial viability of Chanhassen I think is a problem and I thought there was merit to looking at this. As I look at it right now, I'm not sure, I don't know that there's another Eckankar property around here that's going to have that kind of impact. If some church bought it and I don't know that it would restrict some of the directions that Chanhassen would go in in te~ms of taking out commercial property that we wanted to be co~-~ercial. I think right now the land value will restrict a whole lot of that but you know, Eckankar could buy additional property. That's the bottom line. They may want to do that which is their right and for speculation purposes. Batzli: What's stopping them from buying the TH 212/TH 101 interchange? Conrad: Yeah. They literally could do that. However, I see the alternatives. I see the ordinance as something that I'm just really not a supporter of the ordinance as drafted. I'm not comfortable with it and although it was our direction to staff to liberalize it in terms of not just saying churches. We told staff that we're really uncomfortable. It seems like we're singling them out. We directed staff to come back with basically a broader category but then you look at the broader category and I guess when I see it on paper I'm just as uncomfortable as I was when I saw it limited to churches. My general feeling is to pass this along to City Council and let them deal with this because it's something that I guess I can't champion right now. Ellson: What would we have to do? Ail of us deny it or what would we have to do in order to pass it on? Conrad: We'd vote on it. We can vote on the ordinance as proposed. Batzli: Are you looking for... Conrad: I'm looking for a motion to vote on the ordinance. Batzli moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Co~ission reco~end to deny of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the City Code with regard to establishing the maximum lot size for church developments at 15 acres. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Conrad: Reason for the denial. I guess if we can su~,arize would be the ordinance will not achieve the desireable result. Any other reasons? Batzli: Well I think that several co~'~,issioners expressed that they didn't know if the, well, the result of improving the tax base of Chanhassen is a goal that I think all of us would agree is a positive and good purpose but we're not sure that this weighed and balance of that was a desireable goal. Conrad: Do we see more negatives coming out of this ordinance than positives? Is that anything? Any other reasons? Planning Co~m~ission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 30 Ellson: I think we've su~m~ed them up fairly well. They've got the Minutes also. Conrad: It's nice to summarize. Emmings: I think we all have, or at least some of us have kind of a queezy feeling that this is probably improper in so,re way. It just doesn't feel good. Conrad: Are we concerned with the overall. Ellson: Ethics I guess behind it. It doesn't seem right to be able to do that. Conrad: By expanding it to all tax exempt, does that make us more uncomfortable than we were when we were simply dealing with churches? E~Lings: Just as uncomfortable, yeah. Batzli: I think last time at least I expressed that I was uncomfortable. Whether it was for just churches or all tax exempt but given the choice of two lesser evils, I would rather not just single out churches. Conrad: Okay. Maybe we could try to suFm~arize that. Make some kind of sense out of it for the City Council. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE, DIVISION 6, SITE PLAN REVIEW TO REVISE THE PROCEDURE, EXPAND ON DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIRE FINANCIAL GUARANTEES FOR LANDSCAPING AND OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS. Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Conrad: Okay, Tim I'm going to start down at your end. We've got, it's changed a little bit from the last time we saw it. Do you have any specifics? Erhart: I notice I didn't have any comments from the last comments, additions or involved in the last meeting. I probably won't have a lot this time. I do have one question on your item 4 there where you say non-agricultural metal buildings are prohibited in the ordinance. What does that mean specifically Paul? Krauss: Specifically the ordinance is intended to prohibit the development of primarily metal buildings in all non-agricultural districts. For example you can't throw up a metal warehouse. Erhart: I understand that but does that say that? Non-agricultural metal buildings? Why don't we just say metal buildings are prohibited in the ordinance? Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 31 Krauss: It says metal buildings are prohibited in the ordinance and then if you go up to the front, I don't find it as citation, on the first page of the ordinance, well at the bottom of the first page of the ordinance, Section 20-108, it says exceptions to the ordinance. On the following page (d), an exception to this ordinance, requirement for site plan review is construction of buildings for agricultural uses on land zoned and utilized for agricultural purposes. So a metal Butler building on an agricultural piece of ground does not have to be reviewed and is acceptable. Erhart: Okay. That is the understanding you have? Okay. That's the only thing I've got Ladd. Emmings: I don't have anything. Ellson: Nothing here. Batzli: I had a lot of questions last time. This time my question is still the adminstrative approval. Section 20-113. My question is how that ties in with 20-108, Section (b). Krauss: Section 20-108, Section? Batzli: B. Krauss: Which is an exception. Batzli: If there's an exception. My question is this, you're saying you don't require site plan approval but yet really what, as the Director of Planning would be giving them site plan approval but it would be an adminstrative site plan approval wouldn't it? Krauss: Right. But it wouldn't apply to anything in Section 20-108. Anything in Section 20-108 is exempted from all the requirements of the site plan ~eview ordinance. Batzli: But you're exempting, and maybe I'm missing something here, you're exempting enlargement of a building at less than 10% of it's gross floor area which is what you say in the section of adminstrative approval but really you need site plan approval. It's just that it can be administrative site plan approval. Right? Krauss: Right. Batzli: I'm just wondering...everytime I think about it, it just doesn't seer, to make sense. Krauss: It's an exception from an exception. Batzli: Yeah. I don't know that it should be an exception. It should be an exception from the formal process but not of site plan approval is how, my gut feeling but I don't know that that's what it says. ~,mings: We could just eliminate it. Planning Co~ission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 32 Batzli: I don't know but I don't really want to do something kind of knee jerk here at the meeting because I couldn't figure it out and I didn't want to say let's just strike it but I think that's something you have to look at before we pass it. Krauss: I don't know if it's a solution yet. I'd like to think about it but it may be more appropriate to relocate that to Section 107 which is approval required and make it a (d) under that and clarify that that's an administrative review. Batzli: Yeah, you see I don't know that you have to have it as an exception or in 107. I'm not sure. I think that if it's required and you can do it in accordance with your adminstrative approval section, that should be adequate. I don't know that you have to accept it. I've also just got some words in here that I was going through and circling that you may want to take a look at after we get everything said and done. They're just changing of wording from Section to Division and things like that that I kind of glossed over last time and I think we missed just one or two here. Conrad: Do you want to read them out now or. Batzli: I'll give them to Paul. I don't think they're major deals. Emmings: He could change them on his own if it's less than 10% of the words. Batzli: I think that last time when we talked about Section 113, we had a philosophical problem as to what the authority of the Director of Planning would be. At least Ladd and I did. And when we would ever see it and when we would know about it. I like the way you tried to handle it by, rather than saying what your powers were, saying what they weren't. I thought that was a good way to try and handle it and I'd be interested in hearing from Steve and Tim if they have a problem with the way he worded it. I don't know if you had a problem with it the first time but in any event, that's all I've got to say about this. Wildermuth: I don't have a problem with that Section 113. Ahrens: I have no co~m~ent. Conrad: I've got comments on 113. It speaks to 10% of gross floor space or area but it doesn't speak to the intent of what was, when we talk about a site plan change, we're really talking about something that was just approved. Krauss: Not necessarily. You could be talking, a tenant moves into a building. Tim purchased a building or expanded into it and maybe his needs were somewhat different than the original owner and they need to make some modifications. To house some new equipment they need to push out a b,]ilding wall or something like that. Those kinds of things crop up quite frequently. Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 33 Conrad: Expanded parking space. Would that be one? Krauss: That could be, sure. Conrad: How about taking an impervious surface ratio up by 11%? Krauss: To the point where it would create a variance? Conrad: It's still acceptable under the ordinance but it certainly was a lot different than what we originally saw but it still met the ordinance. What would you do? Krauss: I don't know. I'd really have to say it's a matter of degree. If I felt it was really a departure from the intent of the approval as best as I can figure out what that was, I would bring it back. Conrad: Okay, you just said the words and I didn't see them in there but the intent is really where I'm going. I don't know, I think that has got to be in here in terms of somehow saying you have authority. You've got to look at what was originally intended to happen and make sure that if it's still meeting that original intent, then I think you should have that approval. I think the 10% of the gross floor area, that's one aspect of site plans and it misses a whole bunch of other ones so it only talks to me about one thing. And it's not bad but I guess rather than having you detail all the, detail everything and limitations on everything, I think we've got to get an intent statement in there in terms of significantly altering the intent of what was originally proposed. My only other co~m, ent on these things is there's no way to monitor what you're doing. Again, don't interpret this as I don't want to get into what you're doing. I think this is really a valid, I like adminstrative approvals but I also like our ability to monitor what those are so if we can see that you're going beyond what we'd like, there's some way for us to review the process. Maybe that's self policing, I don't know. How do we find out what you've approved without us? Krauss: Well, Ladd as we discussed last time, I think to be timely in responding to these things, I couldn't come back to you first and ask for your approval typically but we would certainly be happy to give you a periodic update and say this is what we've done on these. Is this meeting your intent. If not, let us know and we can revise our position in the future. We're asked to make these decisions on a pretty daily basis. Ellson: You were saying you're basically somewhat doing that now just to save the time and you just would like to more legal and written in here and stuff like that. Krauss: That's exactly the case. Conrad: What do people want to do? Ellson: Let him do it. Planning Co~m~ission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 34 Wildermuth: I think the Planning Director's got to have some adminstrative discretion. Conrad: And what is that Jim? Ellson: I like your idea about the intent. I think that you could look at what we're intending to do and if it looks like they're adding more parking space or impervious surface, even based on the ordinance and we know we were trying to save that big oak tree and that extra space is going to take it down. I trust his judgment that he'd bring it back to us or something that he feels is important. I think this kind of stuff is done regularly and I think we don't need to be bothered with some of these other things. Conrad: What if you were here when downtown was being proposed and for some reason they decided that altering the City Hall. When we saw it it was perfectly square with the street and it never came back to us, and that was not a site plan. I don't know what the process was but it never came back to us where the architect decided that it should be cocked at a little bit of an angle. Had we seen that, it would not be the way it was today but that's the type of thing that can sneak through. Ellson: And Barbara let that go through? Conrad: I'm just posing the question. Wildermuth: But I think if you try to... Ellson: Be all things to all people you're going to be here until midnight every night. Wildermuth: If you try to control something like that or restrain something like that, you're going to be so restrictive. As it turns out in retrospect, the positioning of the old City Hall is probably about as it should be. It probably looks much better than it would squared off as it turns out. Conrad: Well. Wildermuth: But I agree. A lot of people complained about it at the time. Conrad: It's not one of my favorite things that has happened here. It seems like a designer, I work with designers so I know what they like to do and on paper it may have looked alright but I'm not convinced it was the right thing to do. But that's just a minor example. I guess Jim, you basically don't want any kind of control on the process? Ellson: It's not saying you're not going to have any. Wildermuth: I think we've got control here. Conrad: Well how do you know? Out of sight, out of mind. Planning Co~ission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 35 Wildermuth: It says minor site plan and building alterations which do not involve a variance and which are not accompanied by other matters requiring consideration by the Planning Commission or City Council may be approved by the Planning Department. Ellson: We can get a list of what minor things have been done and if you feel it's getting out of hand. Conrad: You' re comfortable? Wildermuth: I would be comfortable with a periodic review. Conrad: Well Steve, what do you care? Wildermuth: I would be comfortable Ladd with a periodic review of adminstrative approvals. I would be comfortable with that. Conrad: Is anybody interested in that? Ellson: You mean like it wouldn't necessarily be our consent agenda or something like that but just to get a feel. I think that would make you feel better. Conrad: No, I'm just raising an issue here and staff does do this all the time and all they're doing is putting what they're doing everyday on paper. Ellson: And I think they should. Conrad: And I'm just challenging what our role is so we know exactly what we're allowing them to do and what we're not and how we want to monitor it. And we haven't in the past. Zippo. Batzli: Interesting question is how much power can we delegate to the City Planner. Conrad: We can take it away. Batzli: Well we can take it away but how much under a site plan review type process can you give to the City Planner and not have it be a public hearing or whatever is required or you know, that type of thing? I don't know. Paul? Krauss: I don't know what the real answer is but I know that there are co~,unities that have staff authorize virtually all site plans without any public hearing at all. It's just they do it adminstratively which we would feel very uncomfortable with and wouldn't reco~,end so clearly the spectrum is way over. Conrad: Tim, any comments? Well, I directed comments at you and you didn't say anything. E~m~,ings: That's because other people were talking and I'm polite. Planning Co~m~ission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 36 Conrad: This is a new role. Ellson: He's bucking for chairman. Conrad: And you can have it too. You've got my vote fella. ~mings: I think it would be a good idea. I'm comfortable with this. I think it's important to get rid of some of this stuff on the adminstrative side so that we don't have it here and that's what's being done now. The control there to me is that if Paul gets power crazed and starts putting buildings in places where we haven't seen them before, then we have other recourse I guess. The key to me is that as long as they don't involve a variance, which it says and then if we added a clause right after that that said, which are consistent with the intent of approval, and then finish the sentence, which are not accompanied by other matters that require it. I think that's enough because to me that does define minor change. Batzli: So it's up to his discretion as to what the intent was? E~m~ings: Yeah it is. But you know, if you can't trust the adminstrator side of the city to do those things, what have you got them there for? Batzli: I agree. I'm just clarifying that you're allowing them to infer what your intent was. It's a statement. I'm not questioning that they can't do that. I think they do a good job of that. Emmings: I guess I'm comfortable with what's here and as far as them reporting to us, I get enough to read already. I think if they do something outlandish, it will come to our attention some way or other. Batzli: But then it will be too late. E~,ings: It's going to be too late anyway. Batzli: I know. Conrad: Not if everytime they made a significant change, they notified us. E~m~ings: What does that mean? Batzli: They'd have to notify Ladd. Conrad: Yeah, they'd notify me at home. They could call me. No, they could literally document the changes that they thought we would be interested in. They thought. E~m, ings: Yeah, it's real nebulous. Conrad: But they could let us know. So there's a way to communicate before it really gets done. There is a way to do it. I'm not lobbying for that but I'm saying there is a way to do it. E~-~i ngs: How? Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 37 Conrad: Every 2 weeks we see what site plan changes they have approved. Batzli: Well, let's get a sense here. How many site plan changes are there evenly 2 weeks? ~,mings: He just said he's doing it on a daily basis. Krauss: When things are going hot and heavy like in the fall when they wanted to get a lot of certificates of occupancy done, there's probably a could a week. 2 or 3 a week. Emmings: Oh well, that's different than on a daily basis. Ellson: Feels like it I'm sure when you working on it. Conrad: Tim, you don't want us in this mess do you? You prefer to keep us out of this I would assume. Erhart: Yeah but I think there's, help on 20-113. Are we talking about adminstration approvals of a new site plan or are you also including? Conrad: Everything. Erhart: Are you also including in that paragraph any changes to those things that haven't been but have been approved? Krauss: Both. Conrad: Things that were approved 5 years ago. Erhart: My feeling is that yeah, you have to trust your planner to do the adminstrative things. However, in the real world when you get down to the applicant versus the planner and in a discussion of whether he wants to approve it or forcing it to go back to Planning CoF~,ission, things like adding more than 10% actually is to the detriment of the planner because then the applicant can come in and say, they can work it around so it becomes 9.9% and then takes the argument that well, since the ordinance says that you can do this because it's only 9.9%, therefore you're insulting me or something else. You're just being a jerk if you go back to the Planning Commission. I'd rather see it used more in terms of intent of the Planning Commission. Things like that because then it comes down to it is truly left up to the judgment of the Planner whether the guy is changing the intent of what Planning Co~-~,ission approved or not. Batzli: I like Steve's suggested language and if you're concerned about it, are you concerned that it looks like the adminstrator doesn't have the authority to take it back to the Council or the Planning Commission if in fact it fits within those guidelines? Would you rather see at his option he can take it back even if he thinks it is within the intent? E~m;ings: I think that's what it says. Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 38 Erhart: I'm just saying, as soon as you put 10% in there, they'll use that. E~ings: I don't think they can. Paul can just say. Ellson: It's his call. ~mings: Yeah. It seems to me it would be very much in his hands whether it comes back or not. Conrad: Especially if we put the 3 new words in referring to intent of what was originally stated. If that's in there, then Paul has total control to bounce it back or to handle it himself. Erhart: The other thing is that, does it state, basically we don't have our architectural regulations or control. On the other hand, when someone comes in here, let's say like this building of the hotel, essentially our disapproval or approval is. as much based on our perception of the architectural integrity as it is about the ordinances. Whether it passes or meets or doesn't meet and so is it clear or should we emphasize more that any changes in the architectural intent of it should come back to the Planning Commission? Again, I'm not proposing that we bring all this stuff back. I think the staff should be able to do these things. I'm trying to give them the ammunition to argue with the applicants and say yeah, this has to go back and not just being a jerk. Krauss: Well it says minor, it does talk about minor site and building alterations and I think it gives us enough latitude to do just what we did with the hotel and say that it's still a hotel but it doesn't look the way it did when the Planning Co~m~ission approved it. Erhart: So you're talking about building size essentially. There's nothing that says anything about architectural alteration. Wildermuth: I think that's a good case in point for the hotel situation where you exercised good discretion there. Emmings: Why did it go to the City Council? That's the part that I don't understand. Krauss: Well it went to the City Council initially because we were under the gun. They wanted to break ground before the first of the year for their financing. It was one of those situations where they were probably going to go to the City Council anyway if I didn't get there first and one of the things I stressed to the City Council is that the appropriate way to handle this is to send it back to the Planning Commission and they agreed. They told the developer look, if you want to push us any further, you've got to go back through the hoops. Emmings: I thought it was fine that you did. I was just wondering why you missed us in that setting. If they needed it for time, I don't see anything wrong about that, even if it said it in here. It's your discretion and could go to the City Council. Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 39 Krauss: Well and also, at the this time we're working with an ordinance that doesn't say anything about adminstrative approvals and it doesn't say anything architectural review either. Conrad: Okay. Any specific wording changes? Steve proposed the one. We incorporated the word intent and some stuff like that. Any other wording changes to 20-1137 Shall we skip any kind of a review? Does anybody want a review at all tucked in there? Batzli: I would prefer to see an update. Kind of an informal status like we currently have rather than requiring it here personally. Conrad: So not something that we'd really put into our ordinance but something that we'd have our staff just. Emmings: How about an agenda item? Why don't we put it right on our agenda to be on there as a routine item. Ellson: Minor adminstrative approvals. Wildermuth: How big a problem would that be Paul? How time consuming would that be? Krauss: I suppose we can try it and find out. Conrad: Tame your enthusiasm Paul. It's going to turn into one of those items that it will be last on the agenda. Ellson: Like approval of Minutes. Approval of the minor items. Wildermuth: At a quarter to 12:00. Ellson: We won't be here til 12:00 because there will be less of these things. Batzli: Well that's the most review you're going to get if it's required to be on an agenda item. E~m, ings: But you know we've tried this before with other things like City Council update is on there but maybe there wasn't any City Council meeting. There's nothing or maybe you're going to do it orally. I don't know. Krauss: Yes. I will. Emmings: And the other thing that was supposed to be on here was our work list. I've always wanted that as an agenda item and it not only is it not an agenda item, but it's never, well...we got talking about the agenda. Ellson: The last one we had was November 9th. Ongoing issues. That status report. Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 40 ~mings: Maybe we can talk about the agenda when we talk about other adminstrative stuff. Maybe we should try it and leave it up to him which ones he brings to us. We try it for a while. If we don't like it, we can always get rid of it. Conrad: Okay. Let's leave it out of the ordinance. Any kind of adminstrative processing for us. Let's keep that out of this document. Okay. Any other comments on the ordinance? Is there a motion? E~m~ings: I'll move that the Planning Co~tission approve the draft of review and adoption by the City Council as contained in the packet under a memo dated December 27, 1989 with the change that we've all been discussing. In the first full sentence of 20-113 so it would read, minor site plan and building alterations which do not involve a variance, which are consistent with the intent of the original approval, and which are- not accompanied by other matters requiring consideration by the Planning Commission or City Council, may be approved by the Director of Planning. Ellson: I'll second. Erhart: Would you consider adding the word to your addition, a word structurally and architecturally. Conrad: In 1137 Erhart: Yeah. ~'m~ings: Where would you put it? Erhart: Right in the middle of your, in other words, changes to the intent structurally and architecturally. Ellson: Wouldn't that limit that just to those two things? Erhart: I want to make sure it doesn't but I'm still concerned that we are not, that this whole paragraph is all oriented around structural. ...architectural and structural. Ellson: But nature is part of the intent. Erhart: Well the same words that he's got. ~mings: If you want to do something like that, maybe you want to put a parenthesis after intent. Say architectually, structurally and otherwise. Erhart: Right. You would do that including architectural, structural and otherwise. Emmings: I suppose we could do that. That'd be fine with me. Conrad: Do you want to amend your second? Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 41 Ellson: I'll amend my second to say architectually, structurally and otherwise. Conrad: Otherwise is sort of inclusive. Batzli: That is kind of a catch all isn't it? Conrad: Any more discussion? Emmings moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the City Code, Division 6, Site Plan Review with an amendment to Section 20-113 to include the following as the first sentence: Minor site plan and building alterations which do not involve a variance, which are consistent architecturally, structurally and otherwise, with the intent of the original approval, and which are not accompanied by other matters requiring consideration by the Planning Co~m~ission or City Council, may be approved by the Director of Planning. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS: ELECT CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 1990. Conrad: I'll give you my common speech on this item. If there's somebody who is dying to do this, or not even dying, I think we should nominate that person. I'm more than happy to sit on the Planning Co~ission. E~m, ings: I nominate Ladd for Chair. Batzli: I second that. Ellson: I like the idea of getting your comments ahead of time sometimes. I think you being the last isn't always to our benefit. I think it'd be nice if we... Conrad: The Chair's job is not to direct as much as to... Brian, do you feel like you'd like to chair this for a year? Ellson: He'd be late every time. Batzli: See we'd never get started on time. You're just trying to get me here. No, I'd be more than happy to sit in once or twice but I don't have any designs to become chair. Erhart: It should be everybody's objective at some point in their life. Batzli: Well not at this moment. Conrad: Tim, how about you? Erhart: No. I'm not ready. Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990- Page 42 Conrad: We've been grooming and grooming. You know I have to make a co~,ent. We haven't heard the co~'~unism speech for 2 or 3 years. Batzli: Our first meeting he gave us that speech I think, or part of it anyway. Erhar~t: The only communists that are left now are in, I won't say the word. In that State organization they call the what, Met Council. They're the only co~-m~unists that are left... Ellson: Steve, you don't want to do it? Emmings: No. I don't want to do it because I think Ladd ought to do it. I'm serious. Ellson: I think you have a real good repoire with the public and I think that's important. Some people get pretty upset. E~ings: Ladd does a good job. He's good with the people in public hearings and I think that's the main reason. The only thing I hate, as long as we're getting into it, the only thing I hate is your introductory speech. I'm real bo~ed with it. Conrad: Maybe I could start delegating some of these things. Steve, will you introduce? Emmings: Here's Ladd. How's that? Conrad: Is there a nomination for chairman? Wildermuth: I nominate Ladd Conrad for Chairman. E~m~i ng s: Second. Conrad: Are there any other nominations? Wildermuth: Annette, do you have a burning desire? Ellson: No. I was thinking it would be nice to have a couple different people only from the standpoint that I think the few times, like you've said, the two times when you've sat outside, we got some of your comments which is usually some pretty good insight and we don't usually get that until the end. I don't know about you guys, but sometimes I can have my mind made up and after hearing 3 people and I see their points, I can change my mind after I've gotten 3 other people's viewpoints and sometimes I wish your viewpoint a little bit earlier on in the discussions since a lot of it is w~ought with experience and things like that. Conrad: The nice thing about being last is you hear everybody else talk. E~m~ings: But I know at least one occasion when you intentionally didn't chair it because you wanted. Planning Co~m, ission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 43 Conrad: There are times when yeah, when I want to sway opinion, I'll try to get out of the chairmanship role. Emmings: But I think he can decide when he wants to do that. Batzli: Although meetings would be a lot shorter if we went with somebody else. Conrad: Well we haven't called the question yet. Erhart: I think Ladd does do a good job with the public and at the same time keeps it going to some degree. I think it is, we're getting in a little big of danger of getting a little bit stale. I don't think to the point where I think your service is invaluable or should be maintained for another year. On the other hand, I think we ought to be start thinking about doing some rotation. I don't want to do like the Park Commission does but perhaps maybe one of the ways to do it is to have a different Vice Chairman this year. Not that Steve's done a bad job at all. E~m~ings: I haven't done anything. Erhart: He hasn't done anything but get an opportunity to start training so to speak Some different people in the position. Conrad: I really think it's important. I'd really like to have different people chair the meeting. I think it's real important to have different people running this thing so I second your motion Tim. I find it real easy to run the meeting. It's not a strain. It's not a pressure deal. Sometimes it's more fun sitting over where somebody else is because you can take some neat shots but I'm not going to be here forever. Batzli: Now is that talking about mortality? Conrad: Yeah, I could die tomorrow. But I really think it's good so I don't know. On the other hand, I can see that some people could step in, if I resigned, I think some people could step in immediately because we've got a fairly good amount of experience on the Commission. I think we've all been around for a few years. Joan being the new person on the block. Ellson: A few hours for Joan. Conrad: A few hours and she may resign after what we've been doing. Erhart: Maybe the question is, is there any one of us who are very interested and let's say if you wanted to step out for a year. Just say you want to step out for a year next year. Is any one of us interested in becoming chairman in the following year at this time? Which is Steve. If you're interested in doing it, then I think we ought to keep you as vice Chairman. But if there's someone else interested in acting as Chairman in the following year, then I would propose that maybe we make him Vice Chairman this year. Planning Co~m;ission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 44 Emmings: Either that or give, last year I proposed that we pass it around so we get, instead of one person doing it for a year, why not let the 3 or 4 people do it or anybody who would do it. Erhart: Chairman or vice Chairman? Emmings: Just to chair some meetings. I don't know why we need a Vice, the Vice Chairman does nothing in this group except sit down when Ladd says either he doesn't want to or he's not here. Batzli: No, that's an important function to have that person in case Ladd isn't here. Someone needs to be in charge. A person with that title is important. Whether they actually chair the meeting or not is unimportant but there is someone that is kind of the second in command when Ladd can't be here. I think that's an important function. Emmings: Even if we do have someone who's Vice Chairman, I still think that anybody who's ready to chair a meeting. Anybody who isn't absolutely opposed to doing it. I know last year Annette didn't want to but maybe this year she feels differently but I think Tim and Brian and Jim, unless you don't want to, ought to chair a meeting this year. I've done it a few times and I can do it if I have to and I think everybody ought to feel that way. Conrad: I know that we got some comments from City Council back last year that they didn't want a fixed rotation. But that didn't mean we couldn't rotate it but they simply didn't want it scheduled as such. Batzli: There was a co~m~ent also that they would like to see more people get involved with chairing meetings though as well. At least from Boyt. Conrad: Is that right? Batzli: Yeah. More actively involved to be able to... Erhart: I think the problem with the Park and Rec is... Ellson: What do they do? You said like them. I have no idea. Erhart: They rotate every week. The problem you have there is you have nobody who's clearly the leader of that group because there is no leader. It just rotates and I don't think we're in danger of doing that just by allowing somebody else to chair a meeting once a year. Conrad: I think we should nominate a vice Chair. Typically what has happened this last year, even though I said we were going to rotate this thing or give other people a chance. By the time we got to the end of the meeting, that's the last thing that I was thinking of. Of saying 2 weeks from now, I want you to chair the meeting. But maybe, why don't we make a more aggressive attempt at rotating that occasionally so those people that don't feel uncomfortable doing it, have that opportunity. It is a good opportunity and I think just for our personal growth standpoint, I think it's good for people to talk to the public and try to persuade them we're Planning Co~m, ission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 45 doing a decent job. And to let them think that government is working for them. It's kind of a fun deal. I'll take nominations for vice Chair. E~'~,ings: I'll nominate Tim. Batzli: I second it. Conrad: Are there any other nominations? Batzli: Did we have to vote on you Ladd? Emmings: We're going to do it all at once I think. That's what you were planning Ladd? Conrad: That's what I was planning. Erhart: Can I give my speech? I'm going to express a concern I have in long term of, not lack of interest in being a chairman but the concern is attendance for myself personally. If somebody else feels, who has good attendance and feels that they would both want to and because of their attendance could be a chair next year, I would think they'd be a more appropriate candidate for vice Chair. I'll take it but I just wanted to... Conrad: Are you saying, do you see something? Erhart: Not the problem with attendance as Vice Chairman but in light of being a Chairman someday, is the attendance problem because of my travels...I just wanted to point that out. Emmings: Let me ask a question on that. If you were, if the Vice Chairman and Chairman are gone at the same meeting but we've still got a quorum, I take it we can still run a meeting? Just electing a chairman for the meeting. Conrad: Sure can. Emmings: So then it's not a problem. Ellson: Well and even your problem of being chairman a year after that, still gives everybody the opportunity to rotate in like they eventually want to do anyway. So if you have 70% attendance, I think we could find someone for 30% of the time. Erhart: That's fine but I would like to have, I think what I'd like to do this year is in your absence and even occasionally when you're here, is we do do this rotating thing. Ellson: That's our intent. Remember that thing about intent Paul. Conrad: Are there any other nominations for Vice Chair? Nominations are closed. We'll call a question for election of the Chairman and Vice Chair. Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 46 Wildermuth nominated, E~m, ings seconded to elect Ladd Conrad as Chairman of the Planning Commission for 1990. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to elect Tim Erhart as Vice Chairman of the Planning Co~,ission for 1990. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS. Batzli: By the way, we're supposed to give new members an oath. Does anybody know what that oath is, according to the By-laws? Conrad: Normally don't we have a written sheet? So actually Joan you're not sworn in yet. Ahrens: Can I go then? Conrad: Ail those wise decisions you made tonight, will never be reflected. There really isn't a legal implication of that oath is there? Ellson: It's in our By-Laws. Conrad: It basically talks about the respect you have to hold for your fellow commissioners. I can't remember. So we'll get that document to Joan and maybe send it out or wait for 2 weeks. Whatever. By-laws, any changes in our By-laws that anybody sees necessary? Ellson: Well just the one we just brought up. Under 3.2 it says that every appointed member shall before entering, take an oath that he will faithfully discharge the duties of his office. At any time we can amend those, do we want to say that that doesn't have to be done or he has to just read it over and sign it sometime? It doesn't seem like we're following. On page 2, 3.2. Erhart: You're referring to the last sentence there about compensation? Ellson: That wouldn't be bad to change either. Free pop at least and sandwiches every other. The only other thing, I know we brought it up before. Do you guys still think 7:30 is the best time? I kind of liked that early one when we had it. Conrad: I have a tough time earlier. Batzli: I don't even have to co~m. ent. Conrad: B~ian's position is pretty clear. I don't even know what the oath says and the legal implications of that Annette. Ellson: It seems like if we're not following it. Conrad: Well didn't you sign it? Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 47 Ellson: I think I remember reading it. Conrad: I'm sure you signed it. I think everybody has. It's just been so long since we've had a new commissioner. Ellson: Jo Ann, do you know what it is? Is it something we say? Something we sign? Olsen: It's something you sign. Ellson: Then we ought to get it for Joan here. Batzli: It's not in the ordinance establishing us. Ellson: Alright. Forget it. Conrad: Is there a motion to approve the By-laws? E~'mtings: I have a question. How closely do we want the rules that govern your behavior to be compatible? What extent do we want them to be compatible with what we actually do? Ellson: What do you mean? Emmings: Well, there's a lot of things in here that we don't do. Maybe we don't care, which is fine. I don't like rules. I don't like these rules and I'm perfectly comfortable saying we approve these rules and then we ignore them for another year. But that's sort of the way I look at something like that but otherwise, there's all kinds of things in here that we just plain don't do. Batzli: For instance, the Chairman shall conduct the meetings so as to keep it moving rapidly... I had to get that shot in. Ellson: No, it's something about us talking to the public. Only the chairman calls on those people. Emmings: Yeah. Petitioner and public will address the chair only. Not staff or other co~,issioners. We're always violating that. Ellson: There shall be no dialogue among the commissioners. E~m~ings: And (g), after all facts and information have been brought forth, the hearing shall be closed and interested persons shall not be heard again. We always open it back up and I think it's appropriate that we do or that we at least have the discretion to do what we want. We could change them so that it said that. Or we can ignore them. Erhart: I think these rules are important when you get into hot issues and the Chairman wants to call the meeting back. Get a meeting back in order. If it gets down to it, he can refer to some rules. Planning Co~m, ission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 48 Batzli: And say no, I've closed it. You've had your say. Erhart: Yeah. If you can't say that, then you can't get it back in order. ~m~ings: But there's a way to write this. You could simply say that the hearing shall be closed. Interested persons shall not be heard again. unless in the discretion of the Chairman. Batzli: But you also have, if you look at 7.2, we can always suspend these if we really wanted to. Emmings: Why don't we just suspend the rules for the year? 7.1, it says matters for discussion which don't appear on the agenda can be considered and discussed only when initiated and presented by the staff? Again, that's another one. I don't particularly like that one. I don't know why we can't bring up things and discuss them if we want. We do it. Ellson: Only when initiated by the staff. Sure, you've done a lot of that non-initiated by staff. Conrad: I don't know how that can be done because that's not legal. E~m,i ng s: What? Conrad: To have staff present something that has not really appeared on the agenda or been published. Emmings: Well it says matters for discussion. It doesn't say for any action so I don't know why we shouldn't be able to initiate matters for discussion. I suppose the right thing to do is if you got an item, is to call and get it on the agenda. Conrad: Get it on the agenda. Plan it. E~'~,ings: But on the other hand, if something comes up I don't know why we can't talk about it. Conrad: But we do. E~m~ings: So I guess, there are little things like that. Like I say, I'm perfectly comfortable just ignoring it but I don't know. Erhart: Do we have any authority to change the By-laws? Conrad: Yes. Emmings: We did it last year. Batzli: Yeah, we have authority. Erhart: Does any by-law change require the City Council approval? Conrad: Oh yeah, they'd have to. Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 49 Emmings: Do you think so? Conrad: Oh yeah. Batzli: It doesn't say that. Emmings: By-laws are things that we have to govern the way we act I think. Batzli: 7.3 and 7.4 say that we can amend it. E~m~ings: Do they? That makes sense. Ellson: I think we're making too big a deal out of it. I think this is helpful if you get somebody who's going power hungry and things like that and it brings them back to life but we don't seem to have a whole lot of problem working together and I think it'd be a lot more work going through and trying to reword it than it's worth. Erhart: I'll tell you, if we can amend it, I'd certainly be in favor of amending, I think 6 is fine but I think that 7.1 is so far away from ~eality that I think that it would warrant making a change there. Conrad: Well, what do you want to say Tim? Ellson: Do you want to take out, only when initiated and presented by staff may be considered and shall be placed at the end of the agenda. Erhart: Do we need it at all? Batzli: Well I think you want, if someone is bringing something up that people don't want to discuss, you may want something to be able to shut them off. So if in fact you wanted it by a majority vote of the Planning Co~m~ission. That if it's not on the agenda and the Planning Co~,ission doesn't want to talk about it, majority vote says we're not going to talk about it tonight. Put it on the next agenda. Erhart: Either that Brian or. the alternative of the Chairman can put it on the agenda. On the spot. Batzli: At his discretion? Erhart: At his discretion, yeah. That would keep it in order so we don't just start talking about everything. Wildermuth: Put the monkey on the Chairman's back. E~ings: I think that's fine. At the discretion of the Chairman, he can either discuss it that night or put it on the agenda for the next meeting. Batzli: So it's only when initiated and presented by the staff or at the discretion of the Chairman. I like it. It's got a good ring. Planning Co~m~ission Meeting Janua~y 3, 1990 - Page 50 Conrad: Anything else that you would like to change? Going back to 6.2(e). I don't run meetings that way where they only address me. People tend to ignore me so they're talking amongst themselves but do we want to, I don't know that that would serve any useful purpose. At least the way I run a meeting. To change it. Batzli: If they are harranging one of the commissioners, you could always point out that they should address you only. E~m~ings: And we've had public hearings where we've gotten into a little bit of an argument... Conrad: Okay, so we'll leave that in. So the only addition would be, or the discretion of the Chairman in 7.1. With that revision, is there a motion to approve the By-laws. E~m~ings moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Co~ission adopt the Planning Co~m~ission By-laws with an amendmend to 7.1, inserting the phrase, or at the discretion of the Chairman. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ELECT HRA LIASON. Batzli: I nomin"ate Jim. Ellson: I second it. E~-~Lings: I third it. Wildermuth: I haven't gone to the last 3 meetings. I have not gone in the last 3 meetings. Ellson: Then you're overdue so even more reason to be on it. Wildermuth: Number one. Number two, I really don't think we need a liason because there's really not that much that happens at those meetings. I think a lot of the decisions are pretty well predetermined. Wouldn't you agree to some degree? Conrad: Normally we assign the newest member. Wildermuth: I started out by taking notes studiously each one of these things to report back to you and I'd end up with the date written down and who was there and that was it. Ellson: Why do we have a liason? Was it somebody's idea years ago or is it a requirement? Conrad: I think just co~m, unication with those groups. Ellson: We couldn't get a report from them? Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 51 Batzli: I'm sure it was the situation that we ran into with the Park and Rec Co~'m~ission where I suggested better co~'~tunication and suddenly I was almost the representative to the Park and Rec. Conrad: And then you decided communication was pretty good. Batzli: No, I don't know that we need it. Since I've been on the Commission, I really don't recall too many reports that we've needed from them. I don't know. In the past was it a problem? Conrad: I think to make this a non-issue, I would nominate Jim. Ellson: But he doesn't have to have perfect attendance. E~m~ings: Maybe we don't want an HRA liason. Ellson: How would you like to just look at the agenda and take your best judgment if you think it's worth your while going or not and we would just trust that if you thought it was something that would concern us, that you could go. Wildermuth: I think the HRA's role in the community is going to change with what's happening with funding. Krauss: Well the tax increment districts are, you're not creating new districts and the City Council is riding with the newest district anyway directly without going through the HRA so as downtown matures and the industrial parks fill up their role, unless they come up with a new role, their role would be diminishing. Wildermuth: There's some other mechanism that seems to be coming to the forefront that's going to kind of diminish the role of the HRA. It's some financing. Krauss: Well tax increment financing is, the legislation is changing. Wildermuth: The legislation is limiting it right? Krauss: Limiting it, yeah. Emmings: If you had to say in 25 words or less what they do, what would you say? What's their role here. Krauss: I think they served a real role as priming the pump. E~m~ings: For development of the downtown? Krauss: And of the business park. The incentives and the packages they were able to put together got things going. Conrad: And what do you see the role of a Planning Commissioner on that body? Or not really on it but. Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 52 Krauss: Our HRA is kind of unusual in that to a certain extent it has a quasi planning function, or at least it did. They were instrumental with how downtown came out looking. Now a lot of that stuff was also reviewed by you but they made some decisions. The hotel site plan, the HRA actually approved the site plan independently of your review and the City Council's 'approval. So the developer actually has to go back and ask them for approval as well because they're getting $320,000.00 from the HRA. Ellson: What's your feeling? Do you think we need a liason or do you think Jim's... Krauss: Well I like the idea of having somebody available on an as needed basis. It always seems to come out that the week they have their meetings, we've already had 2 or 3 meetings and this is his third or fourth one. Wildermuth: I'd volunteer on that basis. If you gave me a call, I'd certainly go. Batzli moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission elect Jim Wildermuth as the HRA liason as needed. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CITY COUNCIL UPDATES: Krauss: The City Council only had one meeting. I guess they had 2 meetings in December. One since you last met. They approved the final plats for Vineland Forest and for Ersbo Addition. Really no new changes with that. Pretty much as you saw them. The Council also reviewed 3 ordinances that have come through you. The parking ordinance and the convenience stores and they were scheduled to review the interim use permits but ran out of time and didn't get to it. Conrad: Convenience stores, what'd they do on the convenience stores? Krauss: Convenience stores, well they gave convenience stores first reading. They approved first reading. They talked about the setback or the separation standards and your comments were related to them. They are considering, what they did is they approved, gave it first reading and said they wanted to reconsider some of the separation requirements and gave some indication that they probably would want to increase the separation requirements from the gas pumps to residential properties. They also added a change, and it was Jay Johnson who pointed it out, that oftentimes the vent pipes from the storage tanks are as obnoxious or dangerous as the gas pumps themselves so the ordinance is being changed so that the setback applies both from the gas pumps and from the vent pipes. We've had a problem over here with Brooke's in that the vent pipes are on the residential property line and the people can smell it. There was also an amendment from Bill Boyt that said that basically if you're, I forget exactly how he worded it but if you're selling motor oil and you get a conditional use permit under this section, you could have an obligation to Planning Co~m, ission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 53 collect it. Ellson: The dirty stuff? Krauss: Right. Wildermuth: I think that's a good idea...some legislation that's going to require some sort of capture of vapors from the vents of tanks. Krauss: I think they do that in California now and you get a much bigger nozzle. Wildermuth: California just passed the requirements. Batzli: Would that include then the vents for the tanks? Krauss: Well it might. Conceiveably it should. Wildermuth: In fact they even wanted to extend it to automotive gas tanks so nothing could escape from the bottleneck while you're filling it but apparently the Secretary of Transportation has determined that it's going to be unsafe. I think the Big 3 persuaded him that it wasn't a good way to go. Krauss: So they did give that one first reading. On the parking ordinance, they also gave that first reading but they made a change and the change was that any type of multi-family housing with larger than an efficiency apartment as currently drafted, would require 2 parking stalls that are enclosed. Conrad: And we sent up 1 1/2. Krauss: You sent up 1 1/2 which was the reco~endation that was presented to them. Ellson: Even after that big speech that we got and all the facts and figures? Krauss: Well he gave it again and there were some additional people there. I'm in the process right now of going back and drafting up a second reading for that. In it I continue to say that I frankly think it's somewhat excessive based on what other co~unities are requiring and based on what they can physically provide to do that. They discussed handling, breaking out townhomes and quads and handling those differently than apartments, and there's some rationale for doing that because the occupancy is a little different. A townhome is larger and tends to have more than one person occupying it and they own it longer and they have more storage requirements and whatever else. I'm bringing to them some information that basically says if you've got the standard 3 story apartment building, it's physically impossible to do that. Some information I got from Arvid Ellness who designed the apartment building going up here and a number of other projects, is that the average 3 story apartment building, the average apartment unit size is 900 square feet of floor area. The average parking Planning Co~;ission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 54 space takes up 300 square feet. So if you've got 3 floors of 900 square foot units, you can only put the 3 stalls underneath it and there is no more room physically unless you expand the basement of the building out beyond the building wall, which is done occasionally. Batzli: Put a second level of parking. Krauss: You could do that too and of course that's tremendously expensive. Wildermuth: But it was done in Eden Prairie just off Valley View. Near the intersection of Valley View and TH 4. Ellson: Yeah, I know where you're talking. We were just saying, I think his presentation to me was so persuasive in that we're eliminating a whole group of people from living in Chanhassen because we're making it so expensive to live here if we start putting this requirements on. That's why I was persuaded back to 1 1/2 simply because we're real stuffy on upper middle income and nothing less can afford to live here and that doesn't seer, right when we have so many people employed that are quite less than that. Emmings: That and the number of single parent families that buy these types. Ellson: Right and it was over 50% of them were single which could lead you to believe there was one car. That surprises me. I thought that presentation was so persuasive because I came in here and that really turned me around. Erhart: Does the group actually understand that the garage restriction applied to apartment buildings? We reco~,ended that ordinance change. Did we actually think about that? E~m~ings: I don't think so. Erhart: In my mind I did not ever think we were talking about apartment buildings. Wildermuth: I did. That's why I backed away from the 1 1/2. Conrad: I did but I sure didn't know of any kind of statistical implications of that until we started talking. The people made the presentation. What else? Krauss: That's about it. OPEN DISCUSSION. Conrad: We want to make sure that the next time through Paul that we're talking about Steve's letter co~ing back and referring to the shoreland or the beachlot ordinance. Next meeting will we be talking about a beachlot ordinance and Steve's recommendations? Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 55 O1 sen: Yes. ~m~ings: During open discussion, can we talk about the agenda? APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ellson moved, Batzli seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Co~m~ission meeting dated December 6, 1989 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. OPEN DISCUSSION CONTINUED. Conrad: Steve, you hold the floor. Emmings: Well we already talked about this. We should have an item on here that we talked about for the Director to report on any adminstrative approvals under the ordinance. Under the Site Plan ordinance I think and also there should be an item on here that talks about our ongoing issues. I think that should be an item on the agenda. I think Tim might have more to say about that. Erhart: I just asked that we put it on, can we put it on the agenda tonight Mr. Chairman? We started doing this last year and essentially you handed this thing out and I think it's important that we continue to do that so just at the last minute I made some copies. Do you have the old copy with you? Krauss: No. However we updated it to November. Erhart: This was just one I found. Can we talk about this now Ladd? Conrad: Where do you want to take it? Do you want to go through these? Erhart: Well first I want to talk about the importance that we do see it and I think we should add it to the agenda. Second I want to talk about I guess my concern about getting some progress on some of these things faster than we have been. In the past it's because of staffing problems but I guess I'm looking for some kind of a co~,itment that this year we are actually going to work on things that when the Planning Commission comes up with an issue that's important enough for them to have us look at it, I feel we ought to have some movement on it. Otherwise I question whether the Planning Co~m~ission's really accomplishing anything. Krauss: We would certainly support putting it on a regular basis. There is, we did update one in November. It was hit and miss but we added some things to it. Ellson: A lot of the things we've done too. Krauss: But you're right, putting it on a regular basis is the only way to do it and oftentimes in the conversation we come up with an item that we say add to the list. That way we can. Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 56 Erhart: In previous years we actually sat down and laid out objectives. Is this the time to do that again? Olsen: The memo that got out, didn't really prep you... Yes it is the time to do that. To come up with the objectives for this year and take it to the Council. Erhart: Can we put that on next meeting's agenda? Conrad: Yeah, I'd like to. Erhart: Prioritize these things. Ellson: Well maybe we should get this thing that we had before. We had major priorities and I think some of them we have tried to deal with. Convenience store. Contractor's yards. Tree ordinance. Recycling oil. Some of these things we have been. Comprehensive Plan but just another ~eview. I don't think we have to start from scratch again. Olsen: But there might be other issues that you want to put on that list too. Erhart: Right. So I guess if we could just get this on the agenda on a consistent basis and then for next meeting's agenda, to actually review objectives fox next year. Emmings: Maybe when we come across this as an agenda item each meeting toward the end of the meeting, we can say let's do this one next time. Let's pick one and do it. If we did that, maybe we'd get some movement. Ellson: I think you guys don't realize, I think we have done a ton of these. I mean I think we are moving right along but I like the idea of follow-up but if it means that we're going to be here until 12:00 because we've got this need to absolutely get something done the next week and another one done the next week, we all know that we get totally incompetent later on at night and just for the sake of throwing one on there, I don't want to but I think in general with what's been going on this year, we've done a lot of them. According to this November one, there's a ton of them on here that we've either handled or were on agendas and I think we are, and keeping them on here I think will do it but I don't know that we have to absol~ltely guarantee one of these will be on every time because we get some full agendas. I hate the thought of saying well, this is going to be done no matter what. I want that breathing room so that we can get out at a decent hour. Emmings: So we won't get anything done. Ellson: I think you're being hard on youselves. I think we're getting more done than you're giving youselves credit for. EF~ings: We've been trying to get the Comprehensive Plan updated for 2 years and we haven't done it. Planning Co~-mLission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 57 Batzli: But look at the effort that went into it this year. This past year. There was a lot of special meetings and maybe that's what it requires to do some of these things. ~m~ings: Right. And that's fine but if you don't stay on top of them and you don't push it every week, I guarantee you they won't get done. We can't just have a list and be satisfied. It isn't worth a damn. Conrad: Well the key that drives it is this column called status and the word ongoing doesn't drive any project to completion. What drives it is a date so I think the process and I'm not sure that I want to see this every week or every other week, and it can be done, but my feeling is that at least on a monthly basis we see this list. We review it. We see if there are dates that we want to insert to make sure that it happens. But if you feel more comfortable on an every 2 week basis, and I don't know that that would be that much of a burden either for staff to include this in the packet. Erhart: I'd rather see it on every meeting. We can elect not to discuss it if the meeting gets late but I think just to have it included with the packet gives us all an opportunity to review it. Batzli: Is it fair to have something of a project manager if you will, meaning a member of the Planning Commission who's very interested in seeing one of those items come to fruition, to be put in charge of moving it along? Ellson: Yeah, it says in our By-laws we can have subcommittees anytime. Batzli: Yeah, we could form a subcomittee and draft some of these things because it's obvious that the staff is busy on a daily basis handling reaction type projects and many of these are more proactive and things that we want to see done but it wouldn't hurt, myself included, to get more involved and meet with staff and try and come up with some drafts so they'~e not forced to have to do all of the work. Is that part of what we're here for? For instance, Steve drafted a proposed beachlot ordinance and I think that was good because... Emmings: Tim's done the same thing on trails and other stuff so we've been doing that a little but maybe we should do it more. Batzli: Maybe we should do it more. Erhart: I like the idea of identifying a project spearhead. I think that's a good idea. E~m~ings: That's a little too military. You'll have to find another image for me to get behind it. Erhart: To keep from getting...things on there where we just talk about it but no one's willing to take up the, the term I was going to use was sword. Take it up. On the other hand, it also gives someone the official blessing Planning Co~-~,ission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 58 I guess that you are encouraged to get out and do some work on it. So I like that idea. Batzli: Is that something that we should do next week when we prioritize? Erhart: Sure. Batzli: So then the next question is, can you mail a copy of the most recent status chart to us so we can take a look at it and decide priorities and talk about that next week? Krauss: It should come with the next packet. Batzli: At least by then. Olsen: We can just mail it out so you have it before that. That's no problem for us to do that. Conrad: What's on the next agenda? Olsen: The recreational beachlot ordinance. Krauss: We've got 2 or 3 subdivisions kicking around. Olsen: Zimmerman I think is coming in. Conrad: Anything of controversy or major? E~-~,ings: Why is this in my packet? Stratford Ridge conditional use permit for locating a dock? Just informational? Olsen: Yeah, it's informational. The reason the item was deleted was because a condition of the original conditional use permit was that if the applicant received a variance to the ordinance, then they would be permitted a dock and the canoe racks and they essentially obtained that through the appeal to the Board. So we had it on the agenda and then while writing the report I saw that condition and thought, well...but it's one of those adminstrative things to still let you see. Actually where the dock is proposed, we might move it just a little bit to the south to get it away from the swi~,ing area. It's just for information. ~mings: It's a funny thing there but there's no setback from that sideyard. That's the thing when I looked at it, I thought geez, you've got hundreds of feet of lakeshore here and you put the beach and all the activity on the whole thing right next to the neighbor. Right up to the neighbor's property line which is just... Batzli: There's an 8 foot sideyard? Olsen: 10 foot. For a dock, there's a 10 foot dock setback. E~m~ings: But not for the beach. Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 59 Emmings: Maybe it's okay but I don't know. It seems funny doesn't it? I don't know what's next door to there. I can't remember. Olsen: It's vacant. The beachlot is just to the north of that other piece. There's nothing out there. It's just a similar piece. Conrad: So next meeting we have, it sounds like we have some time to talk about priorities and goals. Help me reflect on when we got the City Council input for what they'd like us to work on. Was that last year? Olsen: Steve was still here and it went to Council and they didn't really give any direction. Steve left and then I took it back again saying we need some so by then it was almost su~,er. Ellson: We decided to do our own, that's what happened. Conrad: So might this have been, how many months ago? Olsen: That you finally got it back? Conrad: That I read their Minutes as to their priorities for us? Is that half a year? Olsen: 6 months, yeah. Erhart: We essentially got their comments, that was about it. They never did set the priorities. Olsen: No, it was real late and so all they did was hand me their. Erhart: And that's okay too. I think we should give them the opportunity but if they don't want to, then I think we have our own agenda here. We certainly have enough things. Con~ad: So Jo Ann, if you could resurrect their comments for us for the next. Olsen: The one that Annette has, we sent out the last ongoing list I sent out had the prioritization of yours and the Council's together. Conrad: Ah, maybe that's where I read it. Olsen: Yeah, things like Eurasian Water Milfoil wasn't exactly ours but it was theirs. Erhart: And if some of these things are done like contractor's yards, let's take it off the list. Ellson: Yeah, it was listed as being complete but I think we ought to know what we did complete. Krauss: Ladd, one of the things I forgot to mention. We're trying to schedule a special meeting for the Comprehensive Plan for January 24th Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 60 which is an alternate Wednesday from the next Planning Co~,ission meeting. To finish up the Land Use Plan and to look at the goals and policies one last time. Conrad: Okay. So Paul is just talking about a special meeting in 2 weeks or 3 or something like that. Steve, one thing that we started doing and we stopped, we're really revising those. For a while we were taking a look at the goals and we have really stopped looking at those goals. I tell you, when we get back together again in 3 weeks and review that, either we take a look. I think we should make sure we're comfortable with the goals at that point in time and if we don't want to get into it any further, we'll just jump out of it and forget about them and get into the detail. Yet on the othe~ hand, I always buy personally what the goals are and making them as specific and as meaningful as possible. So prior to that meeting, what should we do to, do we have in our possessions right now the goal statement? Have the goal statements been revised at all? You've got help me on that. I don't even remember what we've looked at. Krauss: They were revised a couple of times. We came up with an initial 8 or 12 and it was expanded on and then Steve did some. Erhart: We never discussed them after Steve did his. Ellson: He was going to put something together for us. E~m~ings: I did. Batzli: He came up with a representative 2 or 3. Erhart: We were looking for a format. We got into format issues and Steve came back with some ideas for format so we never discussed it yet. E~m, ings: It's a little like the discussion we had about the By-laws. It all depends on, I think you've got to have a philosophy about what you're doing. Goals always to me are pure air. I think you've got to have them but I think if what you're really doing, I think what people should think about is do we want to list every goal we can think of or do we want to list more broadly. What I try to do is just put down very big goals with some representative examples of how we implement. That to me is much more concrete. When I read our old goals, they never meant anything to me and I don't think, I can think of one time in all the time I've been here, that we ever referred to those in setting policies. Or in approving a plan or anything else. I can't think of a one so I really wonder what they're for. Conrad: Well if they don't have meaning, then they are worthless. You can read the goals and most of them sound like God, Motherhood and the Flag. We will provide decent access or roadways to get from one side of town to the other or we will provide affordable housing to everybody and to most of us, that could be a commitment but on the other hand, it's easy to sluff that one off and say geez, that's easy to do. We'll allow an apartment building to go up sometime so some of those are really meaningless but I think you can come up with some, and maybe they only deserve a little bit of attention and we can just carry them out. We'll devote the appropriate Planning Co~ission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 61 amount of energy to that. Yet on the other hand, there are some other goals that maybe we individuals have that we feel are important for the City to have and to pursue and this is the time to put them in and if they force a direction, then I think they're really valid to have in there. So we will review those for the last time in 3 weeks or the 24th or whenever the special meeting is. We shouldn't do it in that meeting. You should come to that meeting with some idea of something that you want to have as a goal. We're not going to brainstorm that meeting. We may get consensus that meeting but I don't think it should be treated as a brainstorm and let's figure out what they should be. I think if you've got any, that's the time to offer them. We'll decide if they're worth pursuing. Krauss: We've also tried to lay out a fairly ambitious schedule, in fact we'll finish up the other plan elements that will provide for a joint meeting with the City Council and then a series of public meetings on the land use plan and other elements culminating in some public hearings looking towards getting the thing approved to the point where we can submit it to the Metro Council. Probably in June and July and they have a 90 day review process so we're looking hopefully on having a new plan in place, if everything works the way it should, by September-October. E~m~ings: We'll start the next one in November? The update? Batzli: Speaking of going in front of Met Council, did Eden Prairie, was that the co~m~unity that was trying to get more capacity on sewage? Krauss: Yes. They did a couple of curious things. First of all a major plan amendment is apparently 40 acres swatch getting into the MUSA line. Eden Prairie or the developer came up with a site that was 39.74 acres. Maybe that's really what it is, I don't know but as you're aware, I wrote a letter that was submitted to the Council that said we're concerned not so much with the fact that they want to expand the MUSA line but that we wanted to ensure that equity of access to the facility, to the interceptor is maintained and that the Metro Council and Metro Waste understands that we're going through this process and we're going to be having a very large amendment coming down the pipeline. As far as development went, their initial proposal that was submitted in the EAW's indicated something like 66,000 square feet of commercial. This is on Dell Road which is our City line. We indicated a concern that that is inappropriate up on TH 5 given it's proximity to our central business district and all the time and expenditure and money we've put out to get that thing off the ground. They had the developer call me back. It's a developer that I've worked with before. He sent me a specific copy of a detailed copy of the plans. What they're proposing up on Dell Road and TH 5 is something on the order of only 26,000 square feet of co~,ercial service ,]se of which 10,000 square foot would be an office building. 6,000 square foot would be a daycare center. I don't know if the numbers add up but it was only a 12,000 retail strip. I wrote them back another letter that says we still think it's inappropriate to put co~ercial on TH 5 but we're relieved to find that it's much less, or the impact will be much less than we originally anticipated. That's where it sits. Batzli: So Met Council hasn't... Planning Commission Meeting January 3, 1990 - Page 62 Krauss: They haven't given their final approval but I don't see why they won' t. Conrad: Anything else? Wildermuth: What's happened to Cenvesco? Krauss: He's waiting for... Ellson: That garage thing I'll bet. Krauss: On the parking, yeah. Wildermuth: He's waiting for the action on the parking? Ellson: Well his thing wasn't 2 cars. He wanted 1 and if that gets passed, he's out. Wildermuth: But at this point they don't have anything in the ordinance. Krauss: They withdrew, the time Jo Ann and I put together that staff report that was very lengthy and that's when they withdrew and they have not submitted anything since. Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded to adjourn the meeting. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.. Submitted by Paul Krauss Director of Planning Prepared by Nann Opheim