Loading...
PC Minutes 11-03-09 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 3, 2009 Chairwoman Larson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Dillon, Kathleen Thomas, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad, Dan Keefe, and Tom Doll MEMBERS ABSENT: Denny Laufenburger STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Angie Kairies, Planner PUBLIC HEARING: GLEASON VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) LOCATED AT 2111 ND PINEHURST DRIVE (LOT 22, BLOCK 1, PINEHURST 2 ADDITION). APPLICANT: U.S. HOME CORPORATION, PLANNING CASE NO. 09-17. Angie Kairies presented the staff report on this item. Larson: I’ll start with you Mark. Undestad: That one, we had this once before but the neighbors ended up buying more land? Or they were able to buy more? Kairies: Not this particular property but in the subdivision. Undestad: And this was a subdivision we went way back to take the two lots off because we knew we’d have some issues coming up? Kairies: Correct. Undestad: And we do. Nothing else. Larson: Kathleen. Thomas: Can you go into more of what they’re trying to accomplish with their variance. I mean I understand the patio, they want to construct a driveway? Kairies: The driveway is already constructed. Thomas: Constructed, correct? Kairies: Right. Wider than what was shown. Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009 Thomas: Okay. Kairies: So they want to maintain the driveway that’s there. Thomas: That’s there and then they want to add the patio as well by 100, okay. I just wanted to make sure. Thank you. Larson: Tom. Doll: Were the homeowners aware of this when they purchased the house? Was this a model home or? Kairies: It’s my understanding that the home was constructed prior to them purchasing it. The driveway, it was their belief that it was constructed within the code. However it did not meet the building permit plan. Doll: Is there any you know take out the 100 square foot patio you’re still .8% over. Kairies: Right. Doll: And you would, the City would like them to remove part of the driveway? Kairies: It’s staff’s belief that they could meet the 25% hard surface coverage by reducing the driveway. Doll: And has there been any alternative you know things they could do to their property to reduce storm water runoff? Could they create rain gardens or, I mean. Kairies: At this time in the City Code there aren’t any mechanisms that would allow for crediting to do that so it’s a 25% with what’s on the property. Doll: Okay. And does the City know how much it costs to take out 240 square feet of? Aanenson: Let’s back up. I’m not sure we’re answering the question correctly. They want to put the patio in the back so they’re already over. So the question comes in to put the patio in. Kairies: They’re already over 148 square feet. Aanenson: Right, right. Kairies: So that’s what would need to be removed. Doll: You sent out a letter that said they would consider not having the patio I thought. Maybe I misread that. 2 Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009 Kairies: Right. Doll: In a letter that they sent that you kind of a supplementary. Kairies: Yep, and what they did. So they’re currently over 148. They want to do an additional 100 that would bring them to 248. Aanenson: That’s the point I want to make sure that you understood. They want to, they still want more. They’re already over and they still want more. Doll: Okay. Do you have that letter or am I? Kairies: Yep. Doll: I thought they were considering that they didn’t want to add. Larson: It’s on. I think it says it in that last. Kairies: Yep. They stated in their letter that they would just not do. Doll: Okay, they would not install the patio. Kairies: Right. Doll: Okay. Kairies: They’re still over. Doll: That’s all. Larson: Dan. Keefe: Yeah, just a couple of things. You know the ill fated Pinehurst neighborhood. Is there anything sort of on a broader basis that we’ve been able to do in terms of these lot sizes? I know they’ve tried to max out the home sizes. You know the lots were expensive. We’ve got to build a really expensive house. Max it out. Is there anything on a global basis that we’ve been able to kind of come up with here? Aanenson: Maybe I could just give some background on that. Keefe: Yeah. Aanenson: If you recall, at one time the staff asked for a code amendment to require larger frontages on these types of lots. And at that time as, when the subdivision came through, obviously the goal is to get the most number of lots you can on that. While they are above the 15,000 square foot minimum, I think the average in here was 20 something. 3 Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009 Kairies: Almost 21,000. Aanenson: But that’s after we dropped them down because there was, they lost 2 lots to make them work. After this application, shortly after this subdivision was approved the developer of the subdivision actually looked at asking for variances to do 4 car garages, which we were shocked because we actually moved to where we asked them to show what type of house they’re going to put on that lot. So never under a 90 foot frontage did we anticipate a 4 car garage. We didn’t feel like there was enough frontage on those so you know it’s, it always leads to the situation we have now where someone feels you know not welcome to the city because, through no fault of their own, bought this house. It’s already in and now they want to put their patio out the back. Rightly so. But it’s already over the top as far as the hard cover. So we tried to catch it on the front end and you know they submitted a survey that met the ordinance. Unfortunately through the construction of the driveway they chose to take, not follow that and the sidewalks and now that pushed them over the top because they’re at, and we pointed out most of these are at close to the 25%, so. So it’s not the homeowner’s fault. It’s, you know they. Keefe: Well and this neighborhood’s particularly sensitive given the 100 year events that we’ve had you know. Aanenson: Correct. Keefe: And as it relates to you know directly adjacent neighborhoods so, you know this one’s particularly sensitive in terms of that hard surface coverage. Aanenson: Right. Keefe: You know, I think it was on 2101 that we had a fairly lengthy discussion around you know alternative drainage systems. Have we gotten anywhere on that? I mean are we you know looking at doing anything along those lines? Is there you know anything that we would want to do along those lines? Aanenson: I’m not sure just based on our clay soils we haven’t had the, it’s also a maintenance and it’s construction issue too. Keefe: Yeah, right. Okay. And then in regards to the patio request, I mean there are alternative you know materials that can be used for patios these days aren’t there that allow for you know, seep through. Is there anything approved within the city for patios or? Kairies: No, that goes along with the maintenance issues and inspecting and how do you make sure that it gets done properly and maintained and so there is not a mechanism at this time. Keefe: What about, as far as something like a you know deck, you know that’s a grade level deck? Kairies: They could do a grade level deck. 4 Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009 Keefe: Yeah, right. Aanenson: And there is a deck on the property. Kairies: Right on the second story. Keefe: But sort of they’re talking like a paver type of you know patio right? Okay. That’s all I have. Larson: Kevin. Dillon: If this variance is denied then what? What happens next? Kairies: That would be removal of the 148 square feet that’s addition on the site currently. Dillon: So they’d take a, they’d wreck out part of the driveway? Kairies: Correct. Dillon: Okay. What were the, I do recall a couple previous variances and what was the amount of extra coverage they were seeking in those because 1.3%, I can’t believe I’m here tonight talking about that almost. Really… Aanenson: Well you can split this though. You can say, well. Keefe: But you weren’t here for the person that had 5 feet of water in their basement. Aanenson: Right, we’ve had water in the basement of neighbors of this area, correct. Keefe: Directly below this. Aanenson: They’re asking for an additional, they’re asking for an additional 100 square feet. Dillon: I get that. Aanenson: Okay, so you could leave what they have today. You don’t have to rip anything out. You could. Dillon: But that’s what she just said I thought. Aanenson: No, you could grant them a variance on what they have in place today without giving additional or you can give them the entire thing. But if you go back to this entire subdivision there’s only a few houses built up there. And you’ve denied 2 other variances up there so. 5 Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009 Dillon: So let me ask my question again. If we deny this variance then what happens to the property? Kairies: The additional would need to be removed if it’s denied. Dillon: That’s not what you said. Aanenson: No, you have choices within that. You can leave what’s there today and not give them the additional 100 feet. You can change the recommendation. You can add to, subtract from the recommendation. Larson: Keep the driveway. Aanenson: Right. Larson: But not being able to add on there. Aanenson: Right. Dillon: And so do we know what the percentage for the previous ones were? Kairies: That I don’t have on hand. Dillon: Because there are matters of degrees in these things too. Aanenson: Correct. Dillon: I think we should get that. If we could get that before we vote tonight that’d be great. For me. Kairies: Sure. Aanenson: Sure. Dillon: The other material is a question I was going to ask that one too. So also do we know like the survey’s like accurate here? I mean because you could be off a couple inches one way and there’s your 1.3%. Aanenson: That’s quite a bit of square footage. Yeah. Dillon: Okay, so we don’t know the answer to that question or? Aanenson: Well if you go to the slide that shows what it was designed and that was built, clearly it’s significant. It’s different. Undestad: They had a certified. 6 Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009 Aanenson: Certified survey, as built as it was done so there’s the approved one. Generous: Had a professional calculate it. Aanenson: And again if you go to what the original survey is, they bumped up tight to that 25% so there wasn’t a lot of flexibility in that, the original survey. Dillon: Alright. And then you know I kind of, I looked at the letter that the homeowner sent to the City trying to justify the kind of the litmus test that we have for a variance and I you know I think their logic makes sense to me in just about all of those counts so I mean, you know I don’t know. It is, so I mean we can take time to read it if you want but it’s, I read through that and it seemed to me like they make some good points. I’m done with my questions. Larson: Okay. I have a question for you. When was the driveway put in? After they purchased the house correct? So they were the ones that ordered this? Aanenson: I don’t believe so. Larson: It was put in before they purchased the house? Aanenson: Correct. Larson: Well I wouldn’t consider that their fault then. Aanenson: No. It’s the fact that they wanted the additional 100 square feet is what we’re saying. Larson: I know but she’s saying that. Dillon: It gets ripped out. Larson: It has to get ripped out if we don’t change it so maybe our recommendation for the city, the city wasn’t willing to put that in a recommendation that they wouldn’t have to rip it out to make it the 25%. Aanenson: But you can certainly modify that. Larson; But we can? Aanenson: Absolutely. Larson: Well that to me makes. Keefe: I think you bring up a good point though. It’s sort of like when do you find out there are violations and you find out one, when there’s something that’s brought to them. I mean they 7 Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009 were sort of out there doing aerial surveys saying oh well, this developer put in too much. It’s only because they’re coming in and asking for an addition that now it becomes an issue. Larson: So that’s where they came in. Keefe: Yeah. Is that correct? Aanenson: I’m not sure. Generous: Well no, when we got the as built survey we saw that they were over the 25% and at that point. Larson: And then when did you get the as built survey? Generous: It’s after their, I don’t know the exact date but it’s usually after. Larson: I mean in conjunction from when they bought it. When they purchased the property or when they closed on it. I thought I saw something in here, in their letter that said it was something like 10 months after. Doll: It’s my understanding that you do an as built survey after the house is built and the sod is in the ground. And that landscaping is in. Larson: Okay. Doll: This house may have been there and then these people purchased it from the builder. Larson: So the grass might not have been in yet? Doll: Well no. This was an already built home. Larson: Okay, but nobody lived there yet. Doll: I don’t believe, but I don’t know if that’s true. Larson: The fact that they had certificate of occupancy. Okay. Have you got some news? Kairies: Yep. For 2101 the request is for a 3.3% which equaled 648 square feet, and for 2081 it was 2.6% which equaled 538.25 square feet. Larson: One other thing I wanted to bring up. Kind of referring back to the letter that they sent us. They’re talking about a retaining wall in the back that’s been a problem it looks like. Has holes in it and when it rains real hard, holes exist. Does that not kind of cover the reason why we’re so strict on the hard surface? 8 Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009 Kairies: The retaining wall is built as part of the subdivision. It was inspected as part of the subdivision. Larson: Well I think my point being is they’re sort of bringing this up and it’s something that needs to be repaired. It’s got an 8 foot in diameter hole. No corrective action’s been made but my point being if they have too much hard surface coverage already, they’re getting too much water already. Kairies: Right. Larson: That’s running there. So it’s sort of like thanks for bringing that up. Dillon: Or there’s some fault with that wall. I mean there could be other things. Larson: Well right and I understand that’s not the issue at hand but the fact that they brought it up sort of solidifies the reason for the City being strict on that. And I suppose that’s not even an issue for us to go into as far as whether or not that needs to be fixed because that’s. Aanenson: It’s on the docket. Larson: Okay. I think that’s all I’ve got. Have we got an applicant? State your name and address please. Carol Toohey: Hello. My name’s Carol Toohey with Lennar Corporation. We’re representing the builder and the homeowner because the homeowner could not make it this evening. We look like, it sounds based on your conversation that there’s kind of, we can look at this two separate requests. We can look at it as a request to accept the driveway as it was actually built, and then a second request to have the back patio built as an extra 100 square feet. To address the driveway, we found that there was an error in the proposed survey is that the driveway, as you can see is actually, the stall in front of the third stall is actually quite narrow for the proper use of the third stall. At it’s widest points it’s only 18 feet long. When you’ve got SUV’s that run an average 16 feet long. A boat and a trailer, easily 19 feet long. You know it doesn’t give you the adequate use of that stall or that area of the driveway. If you can go to that aerial picture that you actually have. The aerial. That one. Kairies: This one here? Carol Toohey: Yep, that’s perfect. If you see the red truck on the north side of the picture, second house in. That is a perfect example of you see the vehicle’s actually at a slant and kind of covering up the other 2 stalls. That’s what it would be like for the homeowner to use it if we had built it as proposed. That is why the driveway installer installed the driveway as wide as he did so that they could have adequate use and adequate access to their garage. So that’s why it was built the way it was. And then to address the runoff, the driveway, the water would actually be running toward the street and into the catch basin and the storm sewer system that runs in the street. If you look at the patio situation, that one would run off into the back yard and potentially impact the existing wall issue so those two separate impervious surface areas do go to separate 9 Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009 areas and impact it differently. So just you know to keep it in a two separate request kind of outlook on it. Larson: Except that’s not how it was presented. Carol Toohey: Well originally. Larson: And we have to go with what was presented. Carol Toohey: No, and I understand that and originally we were going forward as a whole request and then the homeowners decided you know what? If I can’t get that patio, as he stated in the letter basically. He’s like I’m willing to give up the patio but he just you know wants that driveway as it was built because obviously they’ve built their life around it. Aanenson: Can I just ask a question then? So when you do a 3 car garage should we be expecting those types of driveways because our concern with this was that we’re close to, and so there’s a way to kind of fudge it to get the permit and then we do what we want after? So I’m just you know, should we be expecting when there’s a third stall that all of them should be that length? Carol Toohey: Well I honestly I can’t answer exactly what happened between the… Aanenson: But you’re saying a driveway that length doesn’t work for a homeowner because we have other ones. I’m just trying to figure that out. Carol Toohey: Well I’m just saying you’ll get situations you know where they can’t use that stall. It’s not, it becomes more of an inconvenience than you know a useful third stall. And I can’t say what happened between. Aanenson: I just think it’d be helpful for us to know that. If that’s how it should work then we should expect them to be wider at the beginning and not try to taper it down because then that wouldn’t be successful so maybe our expectation should be that they should always be wider and come in that way. Do you know what I’m saying? I think it would just make it smoother on both sides. Carol Toohey: I understand the concern. Yep. Aanenson: Just so we’re you know, we don’t have this problem down the road. Carol Toohey: No, and I understand the concern and it should be addressed in the future and properly handled and. Aanenson: No, I’m just saying that maybe it should be wider all the way down if that’s the goal. To make it more useable. 10 Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009 Carol Toohey: Well and the initial permit survey should be more accurate on where the driveway would be, correct. Aanenson: Yeah. Carol Toohey: And unfortunately we found an error occurred and unfortunately our homeowner’s stuck in a difficult situation which of course we don’t want and. Larson: I’ve got a question for you, just looking at this picture and referring back to your comment about the red truck. Carol Toohey: Correct. Larson: If I were looking at this in the same way you were looking at that picture I would make the assumption that the red truck would be, say if you’re looking at the as built survey, it would be more towards where it says driveway is where you’d be parking that truck. Carol Toohey: Well if you see where it bumps in a little bit right there. That’s that third single stall. Larson: That’s a bigger stall? Carol Toohey: It’s, because you’ve got the typical 2 car garage. You’ve got the 2 car stall with a double door and then you’ve got the single stall. Larson: Is it taller? Carol Toohey: Nope. Same. Same height. Larson: So why would you pull your truck in right there if you had a big truck and you probably couldn’t fit it in there anyway? You know why would you put that vehicle right in front of the front door? I’m just being you know I’m looking at logic here. Carol Toohey: Well you know and different homeowners have different use. Maybe they’ve got 3 cars and you know maybe they’ve got 3 trucks or you know. Larson: But I can see your point if we had gone with that original thing. If a truck were in fact being parked closer to the front door. My inkling is to think that that wouldn’t be the case but. Carol Toohey: What we find what they typically use a third car stall for is an extra vehicle or sporting equipment or a trailer and a boat and that kind of stuff and that you also need the driveway in that area to accommodate such a use. That’s why I was using the truck as an example. Larson: Okay. I was just playing devil’s advocate. 11 Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009 Carol Toohey: Nope, I understand. I can understand completely. Larson: Guys have any questions for her? Mark does. Undestad: I just have one. Just to say clarify this but from the building permit survey, which is what was proposed, then the builder made the change for all the hard surface coverage on his own? While they were trying to sell the house and then the homeowners came in and bought it after the builder increased all that or, who made the decision? Carol Toohey: The homeowner did buy it as is. With the driveway and everything in. The homeowner didn’t say I want the driveway to look like this or anything. Undestad: And the builder sold that home to the homeowner? The builder who increased all the hard surface, is that right? Carol Toohey: I don’t know who makes the decision. Was it just the driveway installer just put it in? Jim Weaver: No, we make the decision. We have…Asphalt put it in and they should have done it off the original plot. Larson: Sir could you maybe step up to the podium and give your name and address so we know who’s talking. Thank you. Carol Toohey: Sorry about this. Jim Weaver: My name’s Jim Weaver. I’m with Lennar also. I’m an Area Manager in construction service. Normally our contractor would take the initial plat and go ahead and put in the driveway like that. Why they didn’t, we don’t know. We didn’t do it intentionally but we did make the mistake of putting the driveway in as it is to the right, as I’m looking at the picture. So it wasn’t the homeowner’s fault. It was builder error. Now did the builder do it intentionally? No, we didn’t. Our contractor did it that way. Took it on his own to lay it out that way. Unfortunately our supervisor on site didn’t catch it. If he would have caught it on site the day they were doing it, we probably would have had it removed. The customer moves in. Uses it for 7 to 8 months. That’s the reason we’re here. Wants his driveway to stay as is. Undestad: So just one more while you’re up there. Jim Weaver: Sure. Undestad: You’re with Lennar then. Between building it this way and getting the as built survey and then again selling it to the homeowner, no flags were raised inbetween there that you guys knew that this was overbuilt? Carol Toohey: We actually got the as built completed after it was sold to the homeowner due to the timing. 12 Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009 Dillon: So who’s in the hook to pay if this gets like the death penalty? Jim Weaver: Oh we’ll pay. Lennar will. Not the customer. And we’ve already told the customer that. Carol Toohey: They just lose the use of that part of their driveway. Jim Weaver: We’re not here on behalf of us. We’re here on behalf of the homeowner. Larson: Anyone else? Thomas: No, I don’t have a question. Larson: Okay. Well I’ll open it up to public hearing. Does anybody in the audience who would like to address this issue? No? You guys are for the next issue. Okay I will close the public hearing. Let’s discuss guys. What do you think? We’ll start with you. Keefe: Well I’m sort of in denial on both counts. You know I think that runoff in this particular neighborhood is a very real issue. I mean we’ve had people in here who’ve had serious water in their basement due to the mega events adjacent to this neighborhood and you know we’ve got the ordinance in there for a reason you know and so I think we really need to enforce it. The other reason is you know I think they have reasonable use. And then thirdly to be consistent. We’ve already made the ruling on a couple of other homes in this neighborhood. Now we’re all of a sudden going to change our stance and be inconsistent I think, I think it’s a problem. Larson: Thank you. Kevin. Dillon: I am not in favor of what the staff is recommending here. I would be in favor of an alternate resolution or whatever you call these things to say that they can keep the driveway but not add the extra hard surface coverage for the patio. I was here and voted for the two previous. I don’t even remember what I voted but I do remember the two previous discussions and so this was a little bit different from that from our recollection because this was you know the homeowner here is kind of like in a tight spot because they didn’t know when they bought it and they’re the ones that are going to have you know the problem and you know they’ve gone through the heartache of all the stuff so far. So you just I would say I’d be fine with you know letting the driveway keep where it is. It’s in the front of the yard. It doesn’t have a super material impact on the footings issue in the back so just let it go. Larson: Tom. Doll: I feel the same way. Larson: Kathleen. 13 Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009 Thomas: I’m a little disappointed first off in the whole building of the driveway. It was what it was versus what it is now. It just, especially since we approve things and we do our best to ensure that we aren’t creating runoff issues and things like that by having the hard surface coverage met on the property and not going over. With that said I understand the homeowner’s position. You know they bought a house that they thought was just, was right. You know there’s nothing that they knew that was wrong with it so I mean it’s very unfortunately for them that they’re in this position. Because of that I would be in favor of leaving the driveway and the sidewalk alone and not granting the patio. Just for something. I mean I just, I hate to see that they have to completely rip back out everything to ensure they meet their requirements but I don’t know how everyone else feels regarding it. Larson: How about you Mark? Undestad: I, you know I mean again I feel bad for the homeowner getting it that way and bottom line yeah, I don’t want to see them tear their driveway up. But I don’t want to come up with is 3 lots down the road just build it this way and then we can do it later and not have to deal with it so you know the fact that we have Lennar kind of standing in their place saying yeah we did it. We’re sorry and we’ll make it right. You know that’s I guess where I’m kind of torn up too is, I hate to see them lose their driveway but on the other hand I don’t want to set this up where somebody comes in. It wasn’t me. It was built this way and we leave it so. Larson: Okay. Well I kind of feel the same way as you guys. The fact of the matter is it was built differently than what the City expected. The fact that they want to add to it. The only way, in my opinion that they would be able to do that is if they cut back the driveway to the point where the 200 extra feet for the patio would still stay within the 25% hard surface coverage. My thoughts, golly I hate to see them pull it out but again Lennar has admitted to the fact that you know they’d be willing to correct it and because of the fact that she, or let’s see the homeowner, I don’t know if Todd or Amy wrote this but the fact that they’ve got trouble in their back yard with that retaining wall and the hole and the water and the whole issue of all that, I’d be willing to you know deny it so at that I’ll take a motion. Anyone? Keefe: I’ll go ahead and make a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies an after the fact 1.38% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case number 09-17 and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Action. Larson: Is there a second? Undestad: Second. Keefe moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies an after the fact 1.38% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case number 09-17 and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Action. All voted in favor, except for Commissioners Dillon and Doll, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. 14 Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009 Dillon: So just, I don’t know the rules of the road here but so could we put forth an alternate thing at this time or are we done? Aanenson: Well actually it goes to City Council because you need a 75% so you don’t have that so it automatically gets appealed to the City Council so they’ll make the final decision. And they’ll take all the consideration of the different options into consideration. Dillon: Okay. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, ZONING, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND REGIONAL/LIFESTYLE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Chair and commissioners. Actually we’ve been working at this process for a long time. We did a lot of preference survey. We looked at a lot of pictures and so now hopefully we have an ordinance that will allow us to move forward and provide the opportunity for future development and redevelopment in the community. Little background on the community commercial and regional commercial. The city in 2006, in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce worked to have a retail market study performed. As part of this market study it showed that the city could support additional commercial lands as we continue to build out and we don’t have enough land available. In the downtown area we’re looking for an additional 12 acres that could be supported and then as part of a regional center at 212 and Powers Boulevard they looked at from 88 to 113 acres of additional commercial land that could be developed. As part of the comprehensive plan update that the city did in 2008 we incorporated some land use amendments to designate land specifically to allow for these types of commercial developments. Adjacent to 212 we made a land use amendment from residential to office and commercial to permit a lifestyle or regional commercial center. Just to the southwest of downtown area in some commercial area that has some vacancies and vacant land we’ve designated the land for office industrial and commercial uses to permit a community commercial type use. So let’s go first with the community commercial. Again this is the area just to the southwest of downtown. The idea would be to expand our downtown area with uses that would compliment or enhance the existing downtown but provide for different shopping opportunities that currently aren’t available in here. It would permit, the idea was to permit a medium scale, bigger box user to develop here, but not to allow multi tenant, strip malls to go into this area. So we’re really trying to target it for uses that could, would not necessarily compete directly with all our smaller businesses in the downtown. The big issues that we have in creating these districts were a minimum business size. The lower end of this development that we would permit and also a maximum business. And also we wanted to try to make sure that the list of uses that would be in this district would actually enhance the downtown area. And if you look at the attached ordinance at the back of your staff report we have the newly commercial district and what we did as part of this was to have, propose a minimum business size of 15,000 square feet and a maximum business size of 65,000 square feet. This permits a full range of shopping opportunities that aren’t available here such as electronic stores, furniture stores, things that we don’t have in our downtown area right now. However it’s big enough so that you’re not going to get a bunch of multi tenant users because 15,000 square feet’s just too big. That’s usually the 15