Loading...
1986 07 23 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ti11Y 23, 1986 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Robert Seigel, Ladd Conrad, Howard Noziska STAFF PRESENT Barbara Dacy, City Planner; Todd Gerhardt, Intern Site Plan Review for a 25,000 square foot office/warehouse building on prope~zoned p-~pranned Industria~velopment, located at the corner of Audubon Road and Park Road in the Chanhassen Lakes Business park, PMT Building, Alfred--r'Verson, Applicant. Todd Gerhardt: what the applicant is proposing is the construction of a 25,000 square foot office/warehouse facility located on Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Park. Present zoning in this area is P-4, Planned Industrial Development. The size of the lot is 1.66 acres. Water and sewer would also be available to the proposed development. The property has level topography with a stand of mature trees along the rear of the lot line. The site design, I'll go over the site plan here. Access to the "'ite will be provided by two-30 foot driveways proposed along Park Road. ~equate separation from the intersection to the proposed driveway request has been prov ided with 327 feet to Audubon Road and 127 feet between the two driveway entrances. The site plan is proposing 44 parking spaces. The required parking spaces would be 33. This is based on the zoning ordinance requirement of one parking space for every 300 feet of office space and they have proposed 2,400 square feet of office space in their development. The number of employees on the major shift is 25 which makes up for the requirement of 33 parking spaces. An important issue at this time is site coverage. The proposed building covers 34% of the lot and the proposed building and parking area would cover 79.42% of the lot. This is about 9.42% more coverage than what Planning Commission has been accepting in other developments in the Industrial Park. PMT Corporation's response to this additional amount of plat coverage is due to the company's need for additional parking and warehouse space for their business to operafe effectively. To make up this difference in lot coverage, PMT has agreed, if they should expand in the near future on the proposed adjacent lot, that they would make up the difference in lot coverage in their expansion. On the overhead it shows Lot 1 of Block 1 of the future expansion site and I also have an overhead showing the expansion to the building which is also Attachment #6 in your packets. As to this agreement, Alfred Iverson, President of PMT, has sent a letter guaranteeing that the combined lot coverage would not exceed 70%. I have also put a copy of that on your desk in front of you. The next section would be the landscaping proposal. On the landscaping plan, a two foot berm and sod along the northeast perimeter i,itl the proposed parking lot area with one Norway Maple in the middle and a ~ction of Redtwig Dogwoods in the southeast corner. I would also like to Planning Commission Meeting July 23, 1986 - Page 2 e note that at this time the applicant has met all the requirements for 2 1/2 inch diameter of trees within the development. The two foot berm on the northeast side should also provide enough active screening for all parking activity that would take place on the site. The front of the lot will be screened with two sets of three foot berms and a clustering of Red Twig Dogwoods and Black Hills Spruce in the middle. The west section of the lot will remain with no changes, this being their future expansion area. They haven't added any berm. At the rear of the lot, again note the existing vegetation and mature stand of trees along the back of the lot. They would probably use this as the screen for unloading and loading that will take place behind the warehouse of the proposed building. The applicant has also proposed a seeding of areas disturbed by construction and after construction. I would also like to inform the developer that after the final building plan has been approved, he should meet with the City Safety Director to discuss placement of fire lanes in front of the building and location of fire department connections and also go through procedures with the fire marshall on sprinkler systems throughout the building. The recommendations from the Planning Staff at this time. The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Site Plan #86-3 for a 25,000 square foot office/warehouse facility based on the site plan stamped "Received July 10, 1986" and subject to the following conditions: e 1. The relocation of the fire hydrant located on Park Road closer to the center of the proposed building or the addition of another hydrant to be possibly located on Audubon Road. 2. The perimeter of all parking areas shall be lined with concrete curb except those areas that are to be expanded. 3. Compliance with all of the Watershed District's regulations on new construction. 4. The site coverage of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Park 5th Addition should not exceed 70% of the total lot coverage. 5. Deletion of the open drains along the north curb line and replacement with catch basins whose outlets will be connected to the existing storm sewer on the north property line. This completes Staff's report. Ladd Conrad: Is Mr. Iverson here? Todd Gerhardt: No, he's not. Ladd Conrad: Is there somebody that would like to speak for him as far as 4Ithe Staff Report? Planning Commission Meeting July 23, 1986 - Page 3 ~avidKordonoWY,Steiner Developers: We are the developer on the project and I have a couple of questions. I would like to know why, the perimeter of all parking areas are to be lined with concrete curb and specifically the north side of the property, what is the reason for that? Barbara Dacy: The requirement for concrete curbing is standard during all site plan reviews in the Industrial Park (1) to protect the landscaped areas, (2) for drainage purposes. We relax that requirement if it is known that an area is going to be expanded such as the area along your west lot line. David Kordonowy: Would you accept, in the rear, asphalt curbing? Dacy: It is our policy that it is concrete curb along all bituminous areas. David Kordonowy: Okay, the site plan was designed with input from the City and we designed the drainage according to our plan. The way it is on the site plan, I see it has been changed now to delete the open drains and then hook into catch basins. Is there a reason that was changed? Dacy: That is the recommendation out of the engineer's office. As we had discussed before, he said that he had talked to somebody in your office regarding that requirement. Beyond that information, I don't know but this ~s the recommendation out of Bill's office that catch basins be installed. David Kordonowy: Is there anyway I can talk to him and have him come back with the original position? I'm not quite sure why they were changed. Dacy: If the Commission so desires, that could be a condition of approval. Conrad: The difference is what Barbara? Between a catch basin and what? Dacy: What the engineer is recommending that the open drains be deleted along the north curb line and that catch basins be installed instead. Again, I would have no reservations about recommending that Staff could discuss the matter with the engineer's office and hopefully the issue could be resolved between the Commission and Council meetings. Conrad: I think you should do that and I think it is still open for our vote as to what we want to forward to them. I guess I don't understand the difference and the rationale for the current recommendation. We typically, on engineering matters or drainage matters, we will go along with our City Engineer. We do have trust in him. I guess we also like to think that he is communicating with you as to the rationale and we really want to make sure that happens so you are comfortable with it. At least before it gets to City Council, you understand why he is making that recommendation. Howard Noziska: What do we have for storm sewer in that area? e Planning Commission Meeting July 23, 1986 - Page 4 ~Cy: The storm sewer system is being installed, I believe, in conjunction with the new road that is being installed by Opus Corporation. I can only surmise that is what he is referring to. Noziska: Out on Park Road or Audubon Road? Dacy: Correct me if I'm wrong but a portion of the property along the north will drain to the north and a portion of the front will drain to the street and so on. David Kordonowy: The proposed road on the north end with the cul-de-sac, they are putting a storm sewer in there. Dacy: I'm sure Mr. Monk is trying to coordinate the planning of that particular storm sewer system with the site plan. Beyond that I don't know any other information. Noziska: Who is just to north there? Dacy: It is vacant at this time. It is Park Place, under construction. A new cul-de-sac that is being installed. Noziska: Maybe he is concerned about dumping the water on a developed park. ~Cy: I believe so, yes. David Kordonowy: Along the tree line to the north end of the boundary, it is more or less a low area, natural drainage type area that will never be built on but it is just a natural drainage draw through that area. If we hook up to the storm sewer where it is hooked up to the cul-de-sac and we have to run a line from the end of the cul-de-sac to the property line? Dacy: Again, I wish I could speak for Mr. Monk but I can't. I don't know but I think these matter can be resolved and maybe he meant south instead of north. I don't know. David Kordonowy: We will take it up with him and will do whatever the City wants. We just wanted clarification. Lastly, the hydrants. We see that we have two options. Tim Erhart: who owns the property? Does Mr. Iverson own the property? David Kordonowy; Mr. Iverson has an option on the property to take the property if Council approves his use for the property. So Opus Corporation owns the land right now. Erhart: All the land? ~avid Kordonowy: Lot 1 and Lot 2 and Al Iverson has taken out a Purchase ~reement on both of those lots contingent upon the City of Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting July 23, 1986 - Page 5 ~prOVing this plan so once there is approval from the City of Chanhassen, then he will buy both lots. Erhart: Regarding this paving over 70% of it, I think it is important that we make sure that is in conjunction, if we approve it, with ownership to that west lot. Obviously if you are going to pave part of that, I don't think that would be an unreasonable request. David Kordonowy: I agree and I think Mr. Iverson agrees. Erhart: Since this is new to me, I'm not too sure I have a clear feeling about that so I will pass my questions onto the next guy and see if I can form one. Steven Emmings: The only questions I have involves the same thing that Tim is questioning about. I don't see how we can impose that as a condition on the other lot if Mr. Iverson should elect not to expand his business and sell that lot to somebody else. I think we are going to have a problem enforcing it against the other lot and I guess that bothers me. If we have been sticking to 70%, even though I guess I don't know what the reason is that we are sticking to 70%. I assume there is some kind of reason behind the pOlicy. Is there? Dacy: Yes, in any zoning district there is always a lot coverage ~rcentage that is dictated to control the bulk and size of the development ~ any particular lot. If you review the P-4 district, there is no specific sentence that says 70%. It has been a policy that the City has been enforcing in site plan reviews in the Industrial Park. with this particular application, the proposed site plan meets the setbacks as we are requiring. However, there is that 9% overage in the normal amount that we enforce and Staff did have the same concern that you are expressing. How do we enforce a lot coverage percentage to make up the difference on the southern lot if, for some reason, they don't expand and they sell the lot. It is not a practice that Staff would recommend the City do on a regular basis just for that reason, for enforcement purposes. However, when we discussed it with the applicant, we discussed it at length and while the applicant could not state 100% that they were going to expand and use that lot, he stated that based on past experience, they have 225% growth. It is more than likely that they will use that lot and he said he would be willing to submit a letter guaranteeing that no more than 70% would be built on and he would go to any lengths necessary so in the event that he would sell that lot, we would make that known to future property owner. However, the Commission still has the power and it is within your purvue to say, it has to be reduced to 70%. Emmings: Couldn't we ask him for an easement on that other lot to take over enough of that other lot to reduce the percentage to 70% in the event should he elect to sell it, the new owner would have to take it with the easement and we would be assured that the sale wouldn't get in the way fjf this policy. Planning Commission Meeting July 23, 1986 - Page 6 .acy: My only concern with that is that the easement would have to be described and then you would have to set out the limits of construction on that lot and it is hard to do that without having a site plan. Therefore, it would be more flexible to give a certain percentage applicable to that and say to the property owner that you have X percent coverage and that is it rather than a certain area. My concern is that if you give an easement, an easement needs to be described specifically and there is no way of describing it. Emmings: Sure, but it will give us leverage to negotiate with someone coming in with a specific plan. They would move it around the lot to accommodate a specific plan wouldn't they? Dacy: I guess it could be done. Emmings: The other thing might be the cost. The cost of having it surveyed to have a description. I don't know. Is another reason that the impervious surface shouldn't get over a certain percent because of runoff and things like that? Dacy: Right, then you would be basically over building on the lot but in this case, the plan is meeting the setbacks that are required in the district however, there is that overage. ~nrad: The proposed zoning ordinance does say 70%, right? Dacy: That is correct. Conrad: So it was the 70%. For residential development we started at 30% coverage or in that neighborhood, I could be corrected and based on the increasing densities to an industrial park, we went up to 70%. We incorporated other requirements from different cities and felt that it was important that there be a little bit of green even in an industrial park but that is in the proposed ordinance but we have stuck very close to the 70% even with our outdated ordinance that we are playing with today. Noziska: So even though the ordinance doesn't state it. Conrad: The ordinance does not state it but we have used that 70% as a standard. Emmings: I also noticed on the plan that they have more parking spaces then they are requ i red to ha ve by qui te a 1 it tIe and I am wonder i ng if some of that parking space could be deleted in favor of having less impervious surface. Dacy: We discussed that with the applicant also. Their response, maybe Mr. Kbrdbnowyr would like to follow up on this, they felt that is the number of spaces that are necessary for the building to operate effectively, based on their own knowledge. Even though that is in excess of what the e Planning Commission Meeting July 23, 1986 - Page 7 4Itdinance requires, they feel that is what they need. I . somethIng else. Maybe you could add David Kordonowy: We looked at reducing the parking. By reducing the parking in the rear by 9 spaces or 10 spaces, you are more or less reducing impervious coverage by 2%. We still have a 7% problem and because of the company, we feel that the parking is required otherwise people would be parking on Park Road and I don't think the city wants that so he wants to keep the parking on-site. In addition, he is actually financially betting on the future because he is taking out two lots, not just one. He is very confident that he is going to expand and that is why he is taking both lots now. Not just one lot and then building on that and 3-5 years selling the building and going someplace else. He wants to be in Chanhassen. He has heard good things about it and that is why he is taking out both lots for now and for future growth. Erhart: To get around the whole problem, why don't you just call the whole area a site? He is purchasing both lots and call the whole area a site, what is the adverse effect to the development? Dacy: I think we kind of went through that option too. We discussed would they be able to submit an ultimate plan for both lots that we would be assured that it would not exceed 70% but they weren't prepared to do that at this point in time. tIlhart: Well, if you call the whole area a site? Dacy: That is true but they could still sell the lot then and the one lot would still be over the 70% that is why we discussed the option of couldn't we approve an overall plan now but unfortunately for their time purposes, it is too early in their planning. Emmings: As I see it, they are preserving their option to sell that other lot and I certainly understand their reasons for doing that. Dacy: We could record a document down at the Carver County Recorder's Office for that particular lot stating the condition that is in the Staff Report and that is if it is approved as proposed, that is exactly what we are going to do but as I said before, it is not a practice that the City should do on a regular basis. To have a property owner come in and say, well because the guy next door built on x percent, you can only build to this. However, we felt on this application he has an option on both lots, he has in good faith submitted a letter. It is up to the Commission and Council to decide whether or not that is appropriate or not. Seigel: Are we just dealing with really good faith here, is that all we are dealing with when we talk about recommendation? Dacy: If it is passed, Staff will do whatever is necessary legally so that ~t 2, there is a record at the Courthouse that both lots can not exceed tI'% in lot coverage. Planning Commission Meeting July 23, 1986 - Page 8 4Itigel: But if it should so happen that the other lot is sold, there is no legal ramnifications on that buyer that he has to abide by that provision. Dacy: Yes, he would have to abide by that. It is legally recorded along wi th the lot. Noziska: Then there is no problem? Conrad: So there is no problem as far as the overall development of the two lots? Dacy: That is the intent of the condition. Conrad: Should we also move that that would be a requirement in the recommendation that it be recorded? Dacy: If you want to specifically state that, that is fine. We had intended to do that anyway. Emmings: In what form is this thing that you record? Dacy: We have recorded such things as Platting Agreements and Building Restrictions and so on. I would check with the Attorney's office for the exact document. ~igel: with the anticipated expansion as diagramed on this map, it looks like about a 35 foot addition. Does that involve an increase in employment at that site too and would it require further parking facilities? Dacy: I believe so. Seigel: But additional parking facilities are not indicated on this map. I don't know the topography of that corner lot. What is the grading there? Dacy: Toward Audubon there is a little bit of a ravine but the rest is flat. Seigel: There is a possibility that your future expansion at PMT could be greater than that indicated here? David Kordonowy: It could be greater but not exceed 70% total of the two lots. At this point, he would expand as in the diagram. He would not even approach tha t percen tage so he would ha ve the ab i 1 i ty to do it in more than one stage yet stay within the 70% total for the two lots. Noziska: What is it that PMT does again? pavid Kordonowy: There is a ~hey are related to medical ..,plains pretty well. letter attached which would probably be better. development, medical supplies. I think it Planning Commission Meeting July 23, 1986 - Page 9 .oziska: What do we have for waste from the manufacturing process. Dacy: I talked about that with Mr. Iverson. He stated that there are no hazardous wastes involved. As you can see by the brochures that Mr. Iverson sent to me, basically they assemble instruments, etc. and manufacture those medical instruments anywhere from tissue expanders to biopsy tubes. Medical terms I'm not familiar with. Noziska: They are more assemblers than manufacturers, is that what you are saying? Dacy: Yes. I asked that specific question, if there are hazardous wastes and he said no. David Kordonowy: They have been a tenant of ours, we are a developer in the Hopkins-Minnetonka area in an industrial park, and he has been a tenant of ours for three years come this September and they are primarily assemblers. They don't manufacturer per see They are not heavy water users. They just simply get the products in, assemble them, check them for quality and ship them out. They have been a very good tenant of ours over the years, very clean. Noziska: On the concrete curb, you have no problem with that? aavid Kord(Onowy: If that is what the City desires, we have no problem with ~at. Noziska: The only other thing that I don't quite understand is the difference between the developer and the City on these open drains versus catch basins. Is this the first you realized there was a question in that area or what? David Kordonowy: Yes, this is the first time I've heard of it. Our architect has been talking with the City Engineer in trying to design it as close as possible to what the Engineer wanted. Now, I haven't talked to the architect for two weeks about it and maybe there is something that happened that I didn't know about so it certainly does not mean that there hasn't been communication in that regard. Noziska: I guess I don't have any big problems with either open drains or catch basins as long as the situation is somehow resolved between the developer and the City. I guess with the recording, is that right Barbara we record this with the County? Dacy: Yes, that is correct. Noziska: Then this 70% coverage regardless of how it shakes out, whether they sell it or whether they continue their development on it, is in effect, right? eCY: That is correct. Planning Commission Meeting July 23, 1986 - Page 10 4Itziska: As far as the hydrants go you don't care just so long as the City tells you where to put them, you will stick them there? David Kordon~wy:That is right. Noziska: I have no further questions. Conrad: I would like to see an agreement reached before this gets to City Council as to the drainage issue and I think that can be done between your architect talking to Bill Monk and explaining the criteria for the recommendation and if it doesn't meet to your satisfaction, I think you can be talking to the City Council about that when you get there. I am concerned about the 70% coverage. As soon as you exceed 70% on one parcel I think it is defeating some of the intent behind that standard. Even though we can document what we would like to have happen in the future and impose a regulation on a future tenant that may buy Lot 2, I would prefer to see the 70% adhered to or a solution given to us that is other than the one I heard tonight. I'm not sure how that works and it seems kind of clumsy and it is not as straight forward as a simple requirement that says 70% impervious surface is as much as we can stand. I will listen to somebody who would have a motion on the item in front of us incorporating the comments you have heard from the developer and the Planning Commissioners. ~ziska moved, Seigel seconded a motion that the Planning Commission ~commend approval of Site Plan #86-3 for a 25,000 square foot office/warehouse facility based on the Site Plan stamped "Received July 10, 1986" and subject to the following conditions: 1. The relocation of the fire hydrant located on Park Road closer to the center of the proposed building or the addition of another hydrant to be possibly located on Audubon Road. 2. The perimeter of all parking areas shall be lined with concrete curb except those areas that are to be expanded. 3. Compliance with all of the Watershed District's regulations on new construction. 4. The site coverage of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Park 5th Addition should not exceed 70% of total lot coverage. 5. Deletion of the open drains along the north curb line and replacement with catch basins whose outlets will be connected to the existing storm sewer on the north properly line. Tim Erhart Steven Emmings Robert Seigel Ladd Conrad ~ward Noziska Favored Opposed Favord Opposed Favord A vote of 3 to 2, motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting July 23, 1986 - Page 11 ~hart: I would oppose it. I think we should be more flexible. If these guys have future plans and are willing to buy the property and express a des i re to do wha tever it takes to someho w get the bui Id i n9 in. I agree with you that it seems clumsy but unless we can come up with anything better to recommend to them, I would suggest that we proceed with that. Conrad: You could throw in on point number 4, site coverage of Lot 1 and 2 should not exceed 65% or 60%. If you put that into your motion maybe he would be more interested in developing a solution for the current site. Noziska: I guess I basically disagree with that Ladd. First of all, 70% is somewhat arbitrary and heavens only knows where we arrived at that grandious percent. Whether it is 70% or 75% or 80%, 85% or 90%, who knows. I don't quite understand any particular basic reasoning behind any percent other than we want some shrubs here and there. I think with proper landscaping and some nice plantings here and there, the aesthetics that we are asking for are going to be covered. Quite frankly, whether a 70% or 80% coverage with asphalt and rough, the question is how do we take care of the drainage. The question is, what percentage of the site do we have covered, do we have capacity to handle the runoff because when you have hard surface, you get runoff, you don't have abosorbtion. On 70%-90% it is arbitrary, capricious and otherwise mox-nix. It doesn't make any difference so my interest and concern is that the drainage is appropriately taken care of whether it be an open drain or whether it be some storm sewer ~ whatever we decide to do with it. That has to be handled somehow between ~e developer and the City. As far as an arbitrary and capricious percentage, that doesn't strike me as being something to me, gives me heartburn. I do think we do need to have the developer and the City somehow come to grips with open drains or catch basins and that is a matter of engineering. Dump the water whether it is 10% more or less, that doesn't bother me. Erhart: On your proposal, item 4, maybe I misunderstood it. Does item 4 say that the Planning Staff is going to come up with a way to combine Lot 1 and 2 such that it can't exceed 70% of coverage. Noziska: That is correct. Erhart: So that may include going to the County. Dacy: What will happen is that the parcel is being legally described as two platted lots but those two lots are considered as one parcel because they are both under one ownership or will be. We will send out to the County the appropriate document that says for Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1 of the 5th Addition, that the total site coverage for both of those lots shall not exceed 70% so tha t when they come back in with the site plan to expand, we will look at their previous site plan and their new site plan to calculate the numbers to make sure on the total lot area. Erhart: What would happen if they were to sell Lot I? e Planning Commission Meeting July 23, 1986 - Page 12 ~Cy: If the lot so if ABC Company is split, that requirement is still on file at the County comes in, we can say, well, I'm sorry... Erhart: So that is all covered then. I take it all back. Conrad: When he comes in, they can develop how much of that land Howie? Noziska: If it was 50-50, the area was 50-50, they could only really develop 60%. They have to make up so what that says is on the side that is not having the building going on, you can only build a smaller builder. Whether that is right or wrong, indifferent, again I say I don't know. From my standpoint, my aspect is they could do a nice job of landscaping it and somehow are smart enough to figure out what drainage is going to be required and you handle it. Whether it be open drain or storm sewer, as far as I'm concerned it doesn't make any difference but the City, without an ordinance and without a legal basis, has said okay, let's go for 70%. The developer is willing to agree with that. I say fine so this whole mess is developed with 70% coverage. Bless it and don't worry about it. Conrad: You feel the design is good as you see parking on all three sides? Noziska: The parking is fine. If that is what the owner feels is necessary to make his business go, I think that is great. I actually think it is better rather than worse to have more parking space than our ~bitrary ordinance requirements because our arbitrary ordinance doesn't take ~to account the manner of this guys business. I think that is better than worse. The guy has at least thought about that. Also he has thought about the fact that if he whacks off 9 parking spots, he isn't going to gain that much in coverage anyway so I think it is fine. I think what we have got there is great. The only concern, and I think it is covered with a Staff recommendation, is that they resolve the open drain-storm sewer question and I guess the developer has indicated a willingness to work with the City on that and item 5 on their recommendation covers that adequately to reduce my heartburn. Conrad: Don't you feel the more water you keep on site without running it down the storm sewer, the better? The more water that you keep on site with 10% extra green space, don't you feel that you are going to keep at least 10% more on site and 10% less down the storm sewer system? Noziska: That doesn't make any sense to me because we are going to make up for it over here, right next door and we have tha t on record with the County so I don't have any heartburn with that. It doesn't make any difference. All I want to make sure is that we don't develop gullies and washouts at the end of these open drains or something is going to happen there. If this swale doesn't handle the runoff, and Bill Monk and the developer can determine that. Somehow that situation needs to be resolved. If it is resovled, then that is what the recommendation is to resolve it. I don't have any problem with going 80% here and 60% here. ~~at difference does it make? Ground water? It doesn't make a bit of "fference. Planning Commission Meeting July 23, 1986 - Page 13 _nrad: Storm water? Noziska: So where do we dump the storm water? Dacy: Okay, I just want to clarify also that a lot coverage requirement, the business park is designed for storm sewer systems so that on-site retention is not necessary but lot coverage is also intended for separation of structures and preservation of green space and yes, it is true that the more green space, obviously the more overland sheet flow you are going to have and so on so if the Commission feels that they want to maintain the 70%, you can make that recommendation to Council. If not, Staff has proposed an alternative even though it isn't admittedly, the best. Noziska: I don't know. I think of the whole area, both of these Lots 1 and 2, then we have 70% which is the intent of our future ordinance not our current ordinance so the intent of what the City desires is going to be followed, is that correct? That's what compromise the Staff recommends? Dacy: That is the proposal, correct. Noziska: That that recommendation follows the intent and the thinking of the City? Dacy: Yes, the condition number 4 is what the applicant came up with. ~mings: You are confident that if this condition 4 is recorded in some form tha tit would run with the land, the other lot and not just be a personal agreement? Dacy: Right. Conrad: Steve, the reason for your negative vote. Emmings: I think we ought to stick to the 70% on the lot by lot basis and that's the reason. Conrad: I agree with that comment. The motion carries. It is to your benefit to be talking to the City Engineer. Talking about water. We are all concerned about drainage in this community. We have a lot of water here for some reason. We care where it goes and how it is handled and talking to the engineer would be real important. Not only economically for you but just to understand. Noziska asked when are you going to begin construction? -Mr. Kordonowy answered, hopefully right after the City Council approves it. Approval of Minutes Noziska moved, Emmings seconded to approve the Minutes of the meeting of July 9, 1986 as amended by Conrad and Emmings on pages 2 and 4. All voted ~ favor except Seigel who abstained. Motion carried. Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1986 - Page 14 e Interview Planning Commission Candidate On a motion by Noziska and seconded by Erhart, the Commission unanimously recommended Bill Boyt as the first choice for appointment to the Commission. The Commission was impressed with his enthusiasm, decision making background and his understanding of the local process. The Commission also found him to be well spoken and articulate. Erhart moved to wait for appointment of a second member. The motion failed due to the lack of a second. On a motion by Noziska, seconded by Siegel, the Commission recom- mended James Wildermuth as the second choice for appointment to the Commission. The Commission felt that Wildermuth was thought- ful, concise and has managerial and an engineering background which could be useful to the Commission. The Commission was also impressed with Wildermuth's diligence in applying for appointment as this was his third application. e Review of Comprehensive Plan Update Mark Koegler, of VanDoren Hazard Stallings, who has been retained by the City to work with staff on the amendment of the City's Comprehensive Plan, explained to the Planning Commission the outline proposed for the revision of the land use, housing, recreation, transportation and implementation sections of the plan. Koegler stated that in addition to complying with the Sewer Facility Agreement, the City needs to update the Comprehensive Plan in order to keep the plan consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission expressed concern regarding how detailed the plan should be and the amount of time that should be spent updating the plan. The Commission directed staff to present the item to City Council to insure that they are aware of the process. Dacy stated that a memo and Koegler's guidelines were in the most recent Council packet. Dacy stated however, the item will be on the August 4, 1986 Council agenda. The Commission felt that in order to speed the review process, staff should flag the pertinent goals and policies for the chapter to be reviewed and also point out any other affected portions of the chapter. In order to maintain the proposed schedule, the plan's goals and policies will be discussed at the August 13, 1986 meeting. Consideration to Amend the Planned Unit Development Ordinance - Dacy explained that the City Council has made the recommendation to the Planning Commission to consider the amendment of the City's PUD regulations. She stated that the verbatim minutes from e e e Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1986 - Page 15 the recent Council meeting was included to give the Commission a feel for the Council's concerns including regulation of lot size, density, park dedication, etc. Councilmember Pat Swenson also expressed the Council's concerns with destruction of natural resouces within certain projects. Swenson asked the Commission to consider instituting a minimum lot size, eliminate the requirement for a PUD, and establish some type of maximum percen- tage of lots below 15,000 square feet. The Planning Commission felt that they needed to review a compre- hensive list of regulations which could be considered in the PUD ordinance. The Commission directed staff to draft the regula- tions for the next meeting. Emmings moved, seconded by Siegel, to adjourn the meeting at 12:30 a.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Submitted by: Barbara Dacy City Planner Prepared by: Nann Opheim July 30, 1986