Loading...
1989 07 05 . e e CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 5, 1989 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Annette ElIson and Jim Wildermuth STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR FILLING IN A PORTION OF A CLASS A WETLAND ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF KINGS ROAD AND MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, DARYL KIRT. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad call the public hearing to order. Daryl Kirt: ...we've been looking at this for close to a year trying to find a location... The wetland, the lake is actually quite a ways back. It's a small body of water, maybe a pond size or something. We feel that this is the most logical site which will have...for a backyard... Erhart moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla: I watched that particular part over the last 20-25 years just gradually fill in. That whole corner at one time was pretty low. I'm very interested in not to see that go much further but if those people build a house there, what are their obligations to maintain that wetland? Olsen: Again, they're under the regulations. They would have to go through another wetland alteration permit if they wanted to fill anymore which they would have a difficult time getting. They have setbacks that they have to maintain. They received the variance for the single family residence because without that it would not be a buildable lot. Headla: What about in the summer time if they would want to put a boardwalk over that wetland? Is that a problem? Olsen: They couldn't do it without a wetland alteration permit. Headla: How about in the wintertime running snowmobiles through there out to Little Joe? Olsen: There's nothing to prevent that. Headla: Whatever happens here, maintaining the wetland or we call attention to it so it's registered with the deed. Do you have that in place? e e e Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 2 Olsen: The wetland alteration permit is recorded against the property. Headla: Okay, so the next person who buys the property, they would be exposed to that? Olsen: As is the variance. Headla: What they seem to have is pretty reasonable. The one thing that bothers me, what's a Type III erosion control barrier? Olsen: That's the heavy duty one. It's got the silt fence, the hay bales and the snow fence. Headla: But that's temporary. What I'm scared is a gradual growing, encroachment onto that wetland. Not in 6 months or 9 months but over a period of 5 years, 10 years. Did you consider having a more permanent erosion control barrier there? Olsen: I don't know if you can be any more permanent. They always deteriorate over time. You could, if you want, to whoever buys the property knows where the edge of the wetland is, you could have them put some stakes in just like some markers. Headla: How about even some treated timbers, 8 x 8's? The runoff will not go directly into the wetland. At least it will hit this barrier first. It's kind of a borderline. It's very definitive and that's kind of what, I'm looking for 2 things. To have a definitive line and some type of more permanent barrier. Olsen: It fluctuates. It could come up closer to the house too depending on the amount of rain we would get. That would be hard to put a set border. Headla: I just want to bring those points up. That's all I have. I think this gentleman wanted something. Daryl Ki rt: The wetland actually dr ies up. The wetland... Batzli: How much wetland are they actually filling in here Jo Ann? We've said minimal but. Olsen: It was I'd say a tenth of an acre. It's a very small amount. Batzli: A tenth of an acre? Olsen: Yes, it's very small. Batzli: Just a general question and it might not pertain to this case. Last meeting we had we discussed at great length no net loss for wetlands in the City of Chanhassen. We don't discuss that at all here. Is that because this is already a lot of record so you can't make them upgrade even though it's already a Class A wetland? If this had been a Class B wetland, could you have said to them no you have to dredge it out and make it a -~ Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 3 e better wetland? Olsen: This one, really it was a Class A and it's really in good shape that's remaining. This edge part was marginal because it had been filled in the past. That was, there was really nothing to go in and improve it because then you would really be making it possibly harming it by going in and trying to improve it. One of the reasons we did allow them to fill in a portion was to allow them to have an area because it was a lot of record. We did not see where it needed to be improved. Batzli: But in this particular instance, you couldn't have made them improve it because it was a lot of record even if you wanted to? Olsen: No, we could have. Batzli: You could have? Olsen: Even without the wetland alteration permit, it doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't be able to build their house. It helps with the foundation and just gives them a little bit of a backyard. e Batzli: Well I'll have to admit that I did not get to this particular site so I don't know what the wetland looks like but I get the feeling might have down at that end. My only other question was, we've also in the past talked about letting a portion of what we filled in or what have you go back to natural vegetation. We don't talk about that at all here. I think something Dave was getting at was talking about runoff and kind of a first barrier. Are you proposing that we allow them to grow grass and mow it down to where the erosion control is installed? Olsen: When we met out on the site and discussed the fill in, it was our understanding between the applicant that that would become their lawn. Their back yard. Batzli: And that was discussed with the DNR, Fish and Wildlife? Olsen: Fish and Wildlife. Batzli: And they thought that was appropriate or at least minimally disturbed? Olsen: Yes, they were not upset with that at all. They felt that that was a good compromise. Again, if you haven't been out there, it's just a real small area that they're filling. They will actually be improving it somewhat because there's garbage and stuff thrown in there and they're cleaning that out. e Emmings: I don't have any questions. My only comment is that it seems to me they certainly have a right to build in here and I think they've done a lot to try to minimize your impact on the wetland and it looks like the staff's done a lot of work with them in trying to decide what's reasonable in the situation and I don't have any problems with it. Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 4 e Erhart: How big is that lot above the ordinary high water mark? Olsen: It's almost 6 1/2 acres all together. Erhart: The whole lot? Olsen: Right, the whole lot and then the area above the ordinary high water mark is just that small corner. It's just a corner. The wetland goes all the way. Erhart: Is it 15,000 square feet? Olsen: I don't know. There's not that much below it. Erhart: How far is it from the lot corner edge to where the edge of the fill would be? Olsen: They're meeting all the front yard setbacks. Their property line is shown in the darker. The corner has the lift station so that... Erhart: It looks like about 10,000 square feet. Even though it's 6 acres, the buildable area is pretty small. Olsen: There's no question about that. e Erhart: So we're trying to make it bigger and, well. I guess what I'd like to see done here and I really don't have any problem with them building a house and the commissioners who live in the area don't appear to have any problem but in light I guess of our acceptance of just recently the concept of no net loss of wetland and as a suggestion of something nice is to mitigate what you're doing by actually, when you have the equipment in there, to actually build a pond. If you have the equipment in there, it's fairly easy to do. Olsen: There's open water already there. Erhart: Yes, and generally that's the kind of thing that we've been asking for in return to fill is to improve a wetland and taking a cattail area or Class B area, a nice improvement is simply opening up a small little pond and it's surprising the amount of wildlife you'll get in even a pond of 50 feet square. In looking right out the back of your house, a nice amenity to boot so I guess I'm okay with this but I'd sure like to see that done. I think it would be a nice amenity and I think also keep us in conformity in what we're trying to put in place in the City here. That's my only comment. Conrad: When we grant a variance or wetland alteration permit Jo Ann, is that line registered on the plat or how do we document where that wetland alteration can be? ~ Olsen: We've got it on file and then we record it. Conrad: It's recorded on the plat? Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 5 e Olsen: Right. And we have a description that we use from that lot. An elevation. Conrad: So in the future there's a way to go in and make sure that it's not bigger than what we originally granted? Olsen: Right and we always had the official copy that we can go back to. Conrad: So it's on staff documents. Where else is it? Olsen: The wetland alteration permit, what was permitted and any conditions is always recorded with the property so is the variance. we depend on to find out if they did fill more in the years ahead is official copy of the survey. What the e Conrad: I agree with Tim on this one. Class A, it seems like we're treating this differently than every other one that we've talked about recently and I think staff has done a good job of reviewing other wetlands and making sure that as we tamper with them, we improve. Here's a case where because the wetland seems so big and the parcel so small, we have sort of ignored that policy. I think we're all trying to relate to Mr. and Mrs. Kirt in wanting to build there and we appreciate what they want to do. Yet on the other hand, what we're doing is filling in a Class A wetland. In light of what we've been doing, I just haven't been sold that they can build there without filling in. I'm just looking for, the only reason I have is what Tim volunteered is to improve it with a pond but I really, as much as I want to figure out how to make this happen, it's a Class A wetland and the only thing that I've heard is that there's been a dumping ground there before but still then that means there's a way to improve it if it's been a dumping ground of other stuff so I guess I'm just plain not sold. Yet I'm real receptive to wanting to be sold on this because I'm not sure that there's going to be a real harmful impact yet how do I look at this Jo Ann in light of all the stuff that you've been processing in front of us. Olsen: When we go out on the sites, the first thing Paul and I look at is well can it be improved. This is, what they're doing is just a real small area. They're kind of filling in an area that kind of comes in and they're just cutting that. Filling that little part off. The better wetland is just starts here and it's the lower kind of an even existing kind of a pond area. Then it gets a little bit higher and then you have the wetland that's adjacent right to Lake St. Joe. Anyway, one of the things we always look at is well if they fill in a portion, how can we improve the rest but this is one that you just don't... Conrad: So it's a loss. Basically what you're saying is there's no way to improve it. It's a definite loss. e Olsen: It's a very minor loss but yes, there's really no reason to improve any of the rest farther out. Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 6 e Conrad: And how does that fly in the face of our ordinance? The ordinance says philosophy is no loss. I think we're easily persuaded in a B wetland but here we're talking an A. I'm just looking for a way to rationalize. Be consistent. Mrs. Kirt, do you have something to say? e Mrs. Kirt: I'm not disagreeing at all with what you're saying. The only thing I want to sat at this point is what you're asking for is something that we've already considered doing but I think what you're asking for is going to take a little more extensive work because you're going to have to start 600 or 700 feet down and start excavating this area out. You can't just go in there because this water only comes seasonally with rain because there's a drainage ditch underneath the road from the field across the street from us. So in the spring when it thaws or like this summer when we've had quite a bit of rain, there is this water that comes over here and it sits and then it stagnates until finally it dries up. What you have, like I say, it starts 700 feet down so you have to bring it, excavate all of that 700 feet down. All the way down to where you're going to build a house before it would improve the land because it just isn't all there... and I wouldn't see how it would really improve the property. It would be nice to do that at a point...to do the extensive work and do it correctly. If you can't do it right, I don't see any point to doing it at this time. If you go into the area and you look at the area that Jo Ann has been trying to explain, there's no cattails basically. There's cattails out along the, the only place there's cattails is going up and down Minnewashta Parkway beyond where we're going to build. There's cattails there and the area we're talking about filling is...just grass and when it dries up there, the only thing that grows there is grass. Erhart: Is that correct that there is no cattails up to where you're proposing the edge of the fill right now? Mrs. Kirt: The cattails are all where it says Minnewashta Parkway. Emmings: Where on the map? Erhart: Can you also show on there the area that you see that's going to be filled. Emmings: Where's the edge of what's already filled in? Olsen: This is the edge of the wetland is this dark line. That's the existing edge of the wetland. Emmings: So that's what's being filled in is from there out to the next line? Olsen: It comes in, you can't see the contour but it kind of comes up in here and this is where it has started...It's kind of on a hill and then right here is where it gets into the nicer wetland. e Conrad: Is it really an A wetland Jo Ann? Olsen: This? Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 7 e Conrad: No, the one that we're filling? Olsen: It's all continuous. If it was all by itself, it would definitely be a B. This is an edge of an A but I would still consider it a wetland. It's all one. That's what I always look for is if it doesn't need to be done or improvements but this one is just... Conrad: Dave, did you have a point? Headla: I started to think about the line you were pursuing and the land, the 32 acres to the north I think is part of it. That's going to be developed shortly. There's going to be a lot of homes in there and where Mrs. Kirt talked about that drainage in the road, that's going to be a major drainage for that area. It really is just a natural drainage and maybe someone, either the village or we should, I certainly agree with you. I think maybe there should be some type of pond there or something holding it and it doesn't have to be right next to their house or anything. Even if it's a little further back in but that could be a tremendous catch basin for all that runoff of all the different ponds. You're draining I would guess, my land drains in there and part of the other so I would guess you're draining a good 30 acres. e Conrad: Jo Ann, so how do we justify this? It's flying contrary to our ordinance. You're saying staff agrees with it. I don't think anybody is hostile against what they're doing but on the other hand, I don't know how to justify. How do we justify it? Under what pretense? The fact that there is no degregation? The fact that the runoff is not going to be any less harmful? Any more harmful? Right now the staff report doesn't give us any reason to justify this other than it's minor compared to the 6 acres yet it's still a net impact. Olsen: That's not why because I compared it to the 6 acres. It's more that this is an existing lot of record. They could have come in and said we want to put in a house twice as big and filled it in. The reason that they're not right on top of the wetland and filling it in, you're taking the position then that they don't need it. We've worked with them to have as minimal amount of fill but still give them a lot that gives them some use other than just the house pad. Conrad: You're saying it's a reasonable expectation on their part to be able to fill in because it is a lot of record? Olsen: we have, I'm not saying that they would have had the right to fill it in but I can't say that there's no net loss. There is a net loss. Conrad: Forget about the 20 feet that's filling in. a net impact? What is the impact of filling that in? drains over their property and into the wetland? Is there going to be How much water e Olsen: I can't tell you how much but it definitely does drain over their property into the wetland. Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - page 8 e Conrad: I would assume not much is draining over their property right? Olsen: Not in that area. Conrad: Which way is the water flowing, just out of curiousity? Daryl Kirt: South. Headla: The road in front will catch most of that. Very little water comes right off their property. Olsen: I can go out there. Paul is gone for a month in Alaska but we can go back out. He's working on the oil spill. I hesitate to make certain improvements to it until I can guarantee that those are definitely improvements. Conrad: I'm just looking for some way to rationalize this Jo Ann. not Paul Burke going out and saying something. I don't need him. been out there a couple times I assume already right? It's He's Daryl Kirt: The DNR was out there and did a report, maybe if you want to read that. Ernmings: What's the bottom line of what they say? e Daryl Kirt: They say they wouldn't have any objections to even two lots...they just don't want the lakeshore damaged. Emmings: We're meaner than they are. I tell you, this won't be a very popular opinion for the people I'm talking to up here tonight but I'll tell you how I'd rationalize this one. It just plain seems reasonable number one and number two, it's too damn small to worry about. That's the way I feel about it. If I'm going to have, we either say to them it seems to me, build your house there and I'm sorry your backyard isn't neat as it comes up to the wetland. They seem to be kind of filling in a hole and making a nice smooth edge along there. We either say go ahead and build your house there and you're going to have to live with that raw edge or let them fill it in and round it off and I think that that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I don't need any more justification than that. Obviously there's a net loss to the wetland which I think is essentially insignificant because it's so small. That's the way I looked at it. Conrad: Dave brought out some point and that point was erosion, the permanent erosion control. After the bales or we string whatever, when we do the landfill, Jo Ann do you feel that on the long term basis there is no need? You basically said there was no need for permanent erosion control because you don't feel there is erosion going across that land. Any water. e Olsen: Once it's all stabilized, no I don't. Again, I don't know if there is anything permanent. I know that we have more trouble with erosion control breaking down and going into the wetland and not being properly maintained so I would not be in favor of... e e e Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 9 Conrad: Would you ever put fertilizing restrictions on a house this close? Olsen: Sure you can. Conrad: But you haven't volunteered that? Olsen: It's just that who's to say if they do it or not. Emmings moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-6 as shown on the site plan stamped "June 23, 1989" subject to the following conditions: 1. Type III erosion control shall be installed as shown on the site plan. 2. The applicant shall receive a permit from DNR and the Corps of Engineers. All voted in favor except Conrad who was silent and the motion carried unanimously. Conrad: My only comment is, you can hear we're sensitive to what you want to do. We're also real sensitive to the wetlands and I think you're doing a good job out there from what we can tell. We'd really appreciate it if you'd keep that sensitivity. Whether it be through your own personal vigilance or whatever on that site. It seems like you are and that's why I'm kind of comfortable. We spent far longer on this one than I thought we would but it's also a case of where we have so many of these coming in that we treat them like they're going to have an influence on the next couple and the next couple and Chanhassen is just filled with wetlands that we're trying to preserve as you can tell. They're a really important resource so sorry for keeping you here a little bit long but I think it's an important issue. Mrs. Kirt: ...I'm going to try to keep it natural around there. Conrad: voted. Now see if you would have said that before I probably would have That's important. Mrs. Kirt: We like it natural. Headla: Normally loons stop in that lake coming and going north. This is the first year since I've lived out there I've seen loons, I just heard it the night of the 3rd and early the morning of the 4th. It's the first year that they've been nesting there. Conrad: They're nesting? Headla: I'm hearing them through the year now. Are you the ones who put in the dock in Minnewashta? Daryl Kirt: No. . e . Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 10 PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT CHADDA ADDITION INTO 4 LOTS, ZONED CBD AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GREAT PLAINS BLVD. AND WEST 78TH STREET, COLONIAL SQUARE. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Brad Johnson: We're just here to see if there are any problems with it. It's part of the downtown plan. Batzli moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart: I don't have any comments. Emmings: I don't have any comments. Batzli: I don't have any comments as long as Dave asks my question. Headla: I'm disappointed to see them do this after all the discussion we've had about that infamous sidewalk and now it's all for naught. Olsen: The sidewalk is still there. Headla: Isn't it in the outlot or where is that infamous sidewalk? Do I have the right spot here? Conrad: You're close but I don't think it negates... Headla: Oh, it's over there. Okay, then I don't have anything. Conrad: No comments. Erhart: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #87-28 as shown on the plat dated June 23, 1989 subject to the four conditions listed in the staff report. Headla: Second. Batzli: Were we going to renumber the other lots? Emmings: Right. That was my same question. Batzli: I think that should be part of condition 1, isn't that right Jo Ann? Olsen: Yes. Batzli: Did you have some wording Steve? Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 11 e Emmings: No, but I agree with you. That's the one thing I don't see here that should be here. It should be specific as to what we're doing. Batzli: So remaining Lots 2, 3 and 4 shall be renumbered 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Erhart: Okay, I'll amend my motion. Conrad: Dave, will you amend your second? Headla: Yes. Erhart moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #87-28 as shown on the plat dated June 23, 1989 subject to the following conditions: 1. A change in lot numbering including the redesignation of Lot 1 as Outlot A and renumbering the remaining Lots 2, 3 and 4 to 1, 2 and 3 respectively. 2. The provision of additional easements as per Exhibits 1 and 2. All easements to be verified by BRW before filing of the plat. ~ 3. Acquisition of requisite cross easements over Lot 1 and Outlot A. 4. Vacation of sanitary sewer easement. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE, SECTION 20-237 REVOCATION AND INSPECTION REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Emmings: I have a procedural question here I think. Under the open discussion packet, this same thing appears. My impression was that under the open discussion stuff, we're just going to take a look at these. Olsen: This one was published. Emmings: Okay, so then we won't be considering this one again? . Olsen: No. What happens is we've been sending things back and forth to Roger. I've been working with him and he just combined everything at once. This had already been separated out. Erhart: I assume the sequence here is if someone complains, then they have wording that Scott Harr can go out and check, which they could do anyway. Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 12 e Olsen: Right. This really is just for the public to hear. Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: I have a couple problems with this. One is, it appears that you're going to give notice in advance of a City Council review. Does that mean that an inspection is part of that review? Olsen: Well we usually call. It's practiced now. We always call and let them know that we're going to be corning out. Erhart: That's not what this says. This says the City Council will review it. It doesn't say that you're going to notify them that you're going to go out and look at the property. Olsen: This says review of the permit itself. What we're doing with Lowell Carlson next Monday. Batzli: It doesn't appear to me that there's proper antecedent basis if you will for what you're talking about. When I read this I had no idea what it meant and I kind of feel like I'm kind of familiar with that Code ~ Section. Maybe other people felt comfortable with it. Conrad: So you're concerned that there's not cause for calling an inspection? Batzli: I don't know what the City Council's review of the permit is? Has the City Council ever reviewed a permit? Olsen: A conditional use permit? Batzli: Yes. Olsen: Yes. Emmings: I think I can remember some. Conrad: What we do, when an applicant comes in typically for expanded use. Olsen: The one I remember now is Lowell Carlson. Emmings: Of course he never had a permit. Olsen: No, he does have a permit. He's had one since 1985 but he's never met any of the conditions so we're bringing that up for consideration of revoking his permit next Monday. ~ Erhart: Brian, to make it consistent with the first run on sentence where it goes on to say sufficient cause for the termination of the conditional use permit by the City Council following a public hearing. We could change e e . Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 13 the last sentence to say the property owner shall be notified in advance of the City Council's review of the permit following a public hearing. Batzli: Do they need a public hearing to review it the second time around? Olsen: To review the conditional use permit? Batzli: Yes. Olsen: For the possible revoking of it, yes it is a public hearing. Emmings: I think that gives them their due process. Erhart: What you're saying is the language just isn't clear. Emmings: I'm not sure what's bothering you. Can you explain it again? Batzli: Yes. I guess this sentence, this dangling sentence. The property owner shall be notified in advance of the City Council's review of the permit. As I recall, we don't talk about the City Council reviewing the permit before we say that in this section. Olsen: But in the section right before it, I don't know if it says for the termination of a conditional use permit by the City Council following a public hearing. Emmings: And the section is called, part of the title of the section is revocation and the first section deals with the fact that failure to comply with the condition can be sufficient cause for termination or actually that should be revocation. Where that says termination, if that said revocation that would help it make sense I think. Olsen: Maybe the last sentence in Section 2 isn't even necessary or we could maybe add, maybe that actually belongs up in Section 1. Emmings: Well does the Council's review take place concurrently with the public hearing? Do those two things happen at the same time so the fact that there's a public hearing, that's notice to the owner but this is just to be sure there's a separate notice that goes to the owner in addition to be sure that he knows that something is taking place on his permit I assume. Erhart: No. Jo Ann I think hit it on the nose. That last sentence belongs in the first paragraph. It belongs at the end of the first paragraph because you're dealing with the subject of revocation and in the second one you're dealing with the subject of inspections. Batzli: Yes. I like that a lot better. That makes more sense then. Erhart: And change the word termination to revocation I think. Batzli: Currently in the code it's termination. e e . Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 14 Emmings: Well you could change the title if you wanted to. One word ought to get changed. It doesn't matter which one. Olsen: Okay I'll go through that because I know revocation is another section in itself. I'll make it consistent. Batzli: My other question, my first one was such a big hit, why again are you removing, or any other violation of this chapter? Was that Roger's idea? Olsen: We're just cleaning things up. One of his reasons was that the conditional use permit, you have those specific conditions and then your general conditions of a conditional use but if you're going to revoke it or do anything as far as misdemeanors or penalties against it, that it should be specifically that they're in violation of those specific conditions of the conditional use permit and not for the Council to say, well their lights were on one night or something. It was just to make it more specific. Batzli: I see two things happening then if you do that. One is you're going to get a lot of additions that Steve likes to put in that says they have to comply with every other thing that they put in front of us like the site plan, the this, the that, the this, the that. You're going to end up listing a bunch of other things in there. Or alternatively you're going to end up with a catch all thing in the wetland alteration permit that says, they have to comply with every other section because otherwise you're going to have people for instance on let's say a wetland alteration permit and a conditional use tied together where they violate the wetland alteration permit. You want to cancel their conditional use permit but now you can't because that's not the thing that they've violated. So either the staff has to be very, very careful to include as conditions to tie it all together or we have to review it. You're taking away a large club. Olsen: It wasn't, we weren't really strongly, we could go either way. That was just his feeling that we should focus on this specific condition and the general review. Focus on the conditional use. He was looking at it in the other way where it could be too general. Emmings: I agree with that. Batzli: It could be too general but then just as a caution to us and you, if we do conditional uses requiring compliance with a lot of other things, we should include those conditions. Emmings: My guess what Roger is thinking is, you're taking away a real substantial property right and they're going to fight you tooth and nail and you're going to have a hard time withstanding a vague and indefinite Constitutional type challenge. Batzli: You're cited for a nuisance because you leave your lights on all night and a neighbor complains. Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 15 e Emmings: Yes and I think he wants to get away from that and you're right, we're going to have to be real careful on the conditions to be sure that we've got all the bases covered when we write them. Batzli: But that's putting a heavy burden on us. Conrad: Yes, which is appropriate. Emmings: And that's fine because you want it to be a significant breach before you ever invoke something. Conrad: You also want to force the conditions, us to make a decision what the conditions are. If you don't, then there's no reason to have it. Then it's a catch all but it's not enforceable. e Emmings: Although some of the conditions we do put on are pretty trivial too. Lights is a good example. You ought to shut them off at 8:00. Well what if they're on until 8:10? Now they can't be there anymore? You hope people use good sense on stuff like that but you worry, especially about a highly charged political issue like Eckankar. This is coming out in response to Eckankar is creating the thing that is ripe for abuse. There's so many people that don't want Eckankar here and made it so obvious and our City Council had 3 people on it who didn't vote yes for it. At least not out loud. This bothers me because it comes out as a response to that. It's like let's design something so we can, this certainly could be interpretted that way. As a way to maintain a measure of control to get rid of them later and I'm sorry to see it for that reason but I don't think this says anything that we couldn't do already really. I think we could have put in as a condition that unless they live up to all the conditions we'll revoke their permit. We can put that as a condition in each one and accomplish the same purpose. Batzli: Well what was the last conditions, speaking of that? Didn't they put in some condition that it was going to be inspected annually on the Eckankar one and that's because this ordinance amendment hadn't been passed yet for review? Olsen: Right. always put on. A lot of times with a conditional use that condition is Not always but most the time. Emmings: It's so punitive though. Okay, we have to pass your permit but we're going to be watching you. That's what it sounds like. Olsen: That's what people wanted to hear. Batzli: In the past there have been abuses of conditional use permit where this probably would have been, put a little bit more teeth into... e Conrad: My only other comment on this is the City Council may order annual or more frequent. That's sort of wishy washy and I guess I've always felt that it's important on conditional uses that they be reviewed every year for compliance. I think we set, I don't believe that staff has the time to really, or it is a priority right now, let's put it that way. I don't Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 16 e believe it is a priority for staff to go out and review conditional uses. I think it should be. Batzli: How many conditional uses does the City currently have approximately? Olsen: Lots. I can't tell you exactly. Conrad: There definitely is a staffing impact on what I just said. To annual review. We're not talking about something that doesn't cost money. Batzli: Like is lots l00? 200? 500? Olsen: I would say 50 to 100. Conrad: So talk about each one being half a day to review a year. Batzli: It's going to take somebody a month to review them all. e Conrad: Yes. So the word may is real, my preference would be to put teeth in conditional uses so there's an annual review. I'm not going to make that an issue of mine right now but I'd like to send that signal through to the City Council that I think that's significant. That they should have an annual review and that if they can justify the cost, it should just that. The terminology could still read or more frequent based on this specific need or cause but I'm not going to change the language or I don't propose that we change it from what I see here. I just want to raise that flag to the City Council so they can review that. Anything else? Erhart: I agree with you 100%. You could set up a process where people would have to pay for an annual review. They have to get licensed every year. Conrad: It's a significant priviledge on their part. Emmings: You're talking about licensing again now. It's more like licensing than it is like a conditional use permit and I think that's a real interesting idea. I've been interested in it. I think it's a good idea. Erhart: Licensing? Emmings: Sure. When you sell every year and get a license. with you selling cigarettes to and say you better shape up or thing with the liquor license. cigarettes you have to come into the City You pay a fee and if there's been trouble minors in the past year they slap your hand we may not pass this next year. The same Why not with conditional use permits? Headla: You brought that up before and I think you had a good point. e Emmings: I think the trouble is just it would overwhelm the staff. Conrad: It's more paperwork, yes. Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 17 e Emmings: But I don't know that. Erhart: Except I'm not sure staff has to do that. We've just added an enforcement person to the city, Scott Harr. Since that position wasn't filled 2 years ago, it might be that maybe he would have time plus the additional income coming in from the licensing might off set his expense. Usually when you create a new position, there's a period of time there where you kind of create your work. Emmings: Arguing the other side of the issue, I think the problem is, I'm not going to build my business here if you can't give me some assurance that I'm not going to be allowed to continue it's reasonable operation. Usually when it's a conditional use permit, a lot of times there's real substantial building going on or people are spending a lot of money to locate something here and they come in, they bought an option on the property but they're not going to go any further unless they're sure they're going to be able to operate and a licensing would result in so much uncertainity, they'd go someplace else with their use. Batzli: You said it earlier in regard to the vagueness and the indefinite issue is people probably have a substantial property right or interest as part of the conditional use. e Emmings: That's the problem with that idea. Batzli: But then again, a liquor store probably has a very significant interest in something like that too. Olsen: The problem with conditional uses is that even like with Lowell Carlson, even if they revoke it Monday night, so what? It doesn't stay there. Still, he's just a non-conforming use. Maybe if it is licensed, it seems like I asked Roger about that. Did I give you an answer on that? I remember asking him about licensing conditional use permits. I think it's something you can do. Ernmings: We talked about doing that in a situation where we wanted to have an interim or a temporary conditional use and then the legislature made it possible to have it so I assume we just forgot about going that other route. Conrad: On the item in front of us, does anybody want to give any different direction on this other than what we see and trust that City Council will read the Minutes and review the tape. Emmings: Do we need a motion? Conrad: We do need a motion, yes. Is there a motion? e Emmings: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of zoning Ordinance Amendment #89-1 to Section 20-237 of the City Code as written in the attached ordinance with the following changes. First of all that in paragraph 1, the word termination be changed to e e e Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - page 18 revocation. Secondly, that the second sentence in paragraph 2 be moved up to the end of the first paragraph. That's it. Erhart: Second. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment #89-1 to Section 20-237 of the City Code as written in the attached ordinance with the following changes: In paragraph 1, the word "termination" be changed to "revocation". Secondly, that the second sentence in paragraph 2 be moved up to the end of the first paragraph. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli: I would like to pass a resolution on to City Council to strongly urge the Council to explore the possibility that all conditional use permits be inspected annually. Conrad: I think that would be a good resolution to pass forward. Batzli: Well I'd make a resolution like that. Conrad: Do we need a second on that resolution? Erhart: Are we going to discuss it? Conrad: Yes. Erhart: I guess before we do that, I'd like to see us look at the various conditional use permits and look at each one and see what kind of abuse we've seen or abuse is possible before we just pass up a resolution like that. We may, without really thinking about it, we may be suggesting, if we're suggesting a licensing or an annual review, maybe we're suggesting something that's not needed. Batz1i: The resolution is to explore doing that. Not that we immediately implement it. Erhart: But why don't we explore it? Batz1i: It certainly isn't on our list of things to do that they gave for us to do. Erhart: That doesn't mean we can't do it. Batzli: You're going to have a staff person look at 50 to 100 conditional use permits and tell us what they all say. Erhart: No. I was thinking in terms of the various conditional uses that exist, what are those that would really be a benefit to the City to have them reviewed annually. e e e Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 19 Batzli: But see I think that would involve having them look at every conditional use. You're going to take a lot of a certain staff person's time. Erhart: Well what are you asking for? Batzli: I'm asking for the City Council to kind of put it on our list of things to do so we can get somebody to look at it. I don't want to ask Jo Ann to go off and do something that the City Council isn't going to want us to look at. Emmings: You're basically asking them if they think it's worthwhile for us to take a look at it? Batzli: Yes. Conrad: You're right. I think that's really wise but I didn't hear. I think Brian is ask the City Council to say this is a priority for us to take a look at. That's how I understood your resolution. Batzli: That was the intent. Emmings: Right now do we primarily depend on complaints? Olsen: An annual review would be great. I think it's needed. Emmings: Are our files arranged or our permits arranged in such a way that you can just go up to your office and say, I can identify every conditional use that's been approved in the City right here? In something? Olsen: Yes. We've got a listing, a notebook. Emmings: A list in a notebook of all conditional use permits. Olsen: Yes, and then they're all in the file cabinet together. You can just look through them. Batzli: We're in the 60's. Olsen: We're trying to get them on computer too and what I was trying to do was to have it so I could sit down every day and punch in and see what would be up for an annual review. What the conditions were and we just haven't got it on computer but we're getting it. We've got an assistant, an intern working. Conrad: So Brian, what's your resolution again? Emmings: Maybe this is too formal. Maybe we could just ask them if they want us to look at it. Batzli: That was the intent was whether we should explore whether an annual review is needed on conditional use permits. Should be implemented. e e e Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 20 Erhart: Are we in open discussion yet or do you want to wait? Conrad: Well that was what we want to pass forward. need to vote on that? I don't know that we Erhart: No, I'm in general agreement. things I think would be good so I'm in exploring with the City Council to see could study it further. I think an annual review of these agreement with Brian that it's worth if they look favorably on it and we Conrad: With that comment Brian and Tim, do we need anything else Jo Ann? Olsen: No, I'll just put it in the update. Erhart: In that light, I'll bring up another subject before we get into the next thing because I was going to wait to the end, if I could say something Mr. Chairman? Conrad: Go ahead. Erhart: I'm really disturbed at the lack of progress. On a page and a half, almost two pages of issues, this Planning Commission has attempted to work on in the last year and a half and have spent considerable time and effort, personal time and effort without compensation to try to push forward and doing a good job as Planning Commission members. That we have failed to make progress due to the fact that our city does not maintain the staff positions that are available. I really don't know how they expect that we're going to make any progress without getting these positions filled and I just want to emphasize to the City the frustration that I'm beginning to have being on the Planning Commission. Coming to these meetings and not making progress on this list of things. I can only attribute it to the fact that we've had months and months of not having a planning director. I guess I'd like to hear the rest of your comments but I'd like to see us move forward on this because it's getting very frustrating to not work on this list. There's a lot of important issues here such as the blending ordinance. I can list 7 others on here that I think need attention and these have been on here for more than a year with no progress. I guess I'd like to encourage the city adminstrator to get these positions filled, which are budgeted and to allow us to go forward here. Conrad: I think we all have to support that comment. Jo Ann, what is the status of interviewing? Olsen: I don't know that we're interviewing. I know the deadline for the applications was a week or two ago but I don't know that anything's happened yet. Emmings: How many applications were received? Olsen: I saw that we got quite a few but just not real good applications. I don't know. I haven't talked with the City Mananger. Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 21 . Batzli: I hope whoever we hire doesn't read that part of the transcript. Emmings: If nothing else, maybe, I don't know. They're not paying, that staff position right now it's funded but nobody's getting the salary. Why couldn't they give it to someone like Mark and have him come back. Olsen: We're using him as much as we can. Emmings: Yes but why couldn't he take one of these at each meeting and get some action on it and kick it along? If it's going to be a long time, because I agree wholeheartedly with Tim. If we're not going to see any progress on this stuff, I don't know if they'd authorize any expenditure so they could put together a little position paper with a suggested course of action and we could act on one every time we meet until we're done. Olsen: Actually Mark is finishing up all the Comprehensive plan so A, 1, 2 and 3 is going to be done. I've also given Mark the blending ordinance. He's working on convenience store moratorium. The rezoning of BF district to A-2, he's got that also. Emmings: When will we see those back? Soon? Olsen: I'm also keeping him pretty busy with some of the planning reports when we get heavier agendas. Convenience store moratorium, that's almost done. e Batzli: What I'd like to see though as part of any kind of really corporate practice, I'd like to see a target date for when we're going to discuss some of these and if you give them to Mark, indicate that they're in Mark's lap and get a tentative date for when we're going to see them because I'd rather see some progress than just ongoing, although ongoing is better than nothing. It doesn't say to me which ones we're really concentrating on and when we're going to see them. Headla: All we're really asking the Council gets an interim city planner until they get one assigned. Emmings: Someone to fill the function maybe. e Conrad: What issues are we real concerned with here? We've been working on the Comprehensive Plan for 2 years and I think that's a major issue. I think that's kind of embarrassing. How can you be working on a plan for 2 years? By the time you get it done, it's time for a new plan. I think if people were paying attention, they'd say what are we doing? How can you be working on that for a couple years? But as I go through the rest of these, I don't see anything, they're all important. We put them there. City Council has reacted to some of them and Jo Ann is going to summarize their comments but I don't see anything that is just really urgent that I would assign Mark Koegler that he's not already working on. So I guess Tim, your comments are real valid. I think it's really tough working with a one person planning department but the fact is there's nobody else right now and I think the message is going to go up and they're going to say well, we are working on it. To make it more urgent, I would say are there things Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 22 e that are really critical that have to be reacted to within the next 2 months? Erhart: I've always felt the blending ordinance was pretty important to do something and I think it was reflected in the Council's opinion of what we ought to be working on with our priorities. That was one that they listed. We've been talking about that one I think since the last election which was what, a year and a half ago. A year ago. Also I think this number 15, the standards for parking and garages. I realize that's fairly recent but in my mind I'd like to see that put to the forefront. Batzli: Ladd, what you're saying is Mark has currently got some of these in his lap already and you're saying those, you think are the important ones. You don't know which other ones you would give him? Conrad: I don't see, given a typical lead time, I don't see anything that I'd elevate from a normal priority of Mark working on or staff working on. I have a hard time saying yes, let's go out and hire somebody to do one of these. Personally. I think the Comprehensive Plan is just really important to wrap that up and get it done with. I can't wait for 2 months or whatever to wrap that up because we've been working on it for 2 years but Mark is working on it and I heard him give us some dates so I'm kind of comfortable that that one's progressing and how it impacts the MUSA line. I think that's really significant. Those are real important. Beyond that, in my mind, I'm not sure that I would elevate any here to say let's hire somebody, and I don't care if it's Mark or somebody else. e Erhart: I'm not suggesting that. I guess what bothers me is we come in here and we're going to leave here at 9:00 and not have worked on one of these issues. That's what kind of bothering me. Conrad: It's a real good point in that Jo Ann will work on the developers who come in which takes precedent on everything on this list. Absolutely guaranteed so that's the real valid concern that I have in that the things that we want, the planning stuff that we want to work on, that we can really add value to, we don't get to because the developers take priority. But the staff has an obligation to, in a timely manner, address the issues. Sometimes we also tell her to come back in 2 weeks because we table something or whatever so we set her calendar a little also but I think what you just said, to put some dates, or Brian, to put dates on here when they have to be back, that may help prioritize and allow Jo Ann to say, no we can't get it on next week's agenda because we are reviewing some other things. But what I don't want to do is fill our meeting up until 12:00 midnight. I'm not going to do that. It's lousy management to come in here and work until 12:00. e Emmings: But Brian's point is well taken. Under status it shouldn't say ongoing. It should say, if for example, I said maybe Koegler could be working on these and then I find out he's working on 3 or 4 of them. I knew he was working on the Comprehensive Plan of course but I didn't know he was working on the blending ordinance. I did know about the convenience store moratorium but forgot but let's change that. Let's make that status column more meaningful. The other thing is the Comprehensive Plan, really 1, 2 e e . Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 23 and 3 are really all kind of comprehensive plan issues in a way. We're going to be discussing all of those and then number 7, under B will kind of follow from what happens on the Comprehensive Plan so really there's 4 things being worked on on one there I think. And there's some things when I look down here now I'm not even sure why they're, like the noise ordinance. I'm not sure why that's down on our list. I can't remember. It says over here, public safety proposed an ordinance. That does make some sense that it would come from there rather than here maybe. I don't know what it's all about but I don't know, does that belong in ours? Batzli: I think it was raised when we were talking about the lumber yard and things like that. I think it got on our list when we were talking about the conditional use permits, hours of operation things and it got on our agenda and public safety. We were the ones that did something with it. Conrad: Anyway, if we started putting down dates Jo Ann. Olsen: I can say that... Conrad: And I don't think you need to do that right now. Olsen: I can't put dates on a lot of them. Blending ordinance, I could put that Mark Koegler is working on it but I wouldn't be able to give you a date. Conrad: We need to know if it's, other than the word ongoing, we need to know if it's in progress and then I think there has to be under status, the words are not assigned, consultant, staff to review or something that says what's going on but then I also think there should be a column out there that says date when we would expect to see it. Batzli: And if you have to say to be determined, I suppose you have to say it but I'd like to see a target date on some of these. At least for a draft. It doesn't have to be the final thing but a draft or kick around some ideas or a status report on some of these would be nice. Erhart: But this is a great improvement over having nothing. I agree with all that. You would really make me feel good if you took item 1, contractor's yards off now. Olsen: It's got the status. It's been approved. It's finished. Erhart: Yes, once it's approved, you can take it off. Olsen: Then you wouldn't feel we're making progress. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 21, 1989 as amended on page 46 by Steve Ernmings to change the word "liberal" to "literal". All voted in favor and the motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 24 e OPEN DISCUSSION. Conrad: This is open discussion right now. Just as the staff was asking for our comments on a variety of items before they're announced for the public to come in and talk to us about these amendments. Dave, 1111 start down at your end. On all the different amendments, anything? You had one thing in particular. Headla: Let me go to Section 3. 20-441. Violation shall be a misdemeanor punishable by 90 days in jail and a $700.00 fine. I'd like to see that and/or. I just don't think we're going to get anybody to go to jail and pay the fine. Emmings: All misdemeanors, that's what defines a misdemeanor. All mis demeanors are punishable by a maximum of 90 days in jail and a maximum of $700.00 fine. They're just stating the law here. Erhart: Should we say maximum? Emmings: No, that's what the law is. Headla: When they put it into practice, does it have to be both or can it be an almost either? e Emmings: A person that violates something like this for the first time will get treated like all others. They're essentially never get jail time. It just doesn't happen but that's what defines a misdemeanor in all criminal law so I think they're just stating what the law is. Headla: Fine. I didn't know that. Then the other one is, in Section 5 we talk about swimming pools. If they approve this in November, I don't think we can expect people to put fences in in 3 months so I'd like to see within 100 days of such date or as negotiated with the City. Emmings: within 180 days or as negotiated with the City. If somebody has a special reason they need more than 6 months. Erhart: Do you think there's anybody in the City that's got a swimming pool without a fence today? Olsen: There are some out in Hesse Farm I know there are. Batzli: I don't understand that. Of such date. What date are they referring to? Such date refers to February 19, 1987. Conrad: No. As soon as notified. Batzli: Wasnlt this done retroactively so that's why the such date is in there in the first place? Or is it of the date of enactment of this ordinance? e Ernmings: That's what I assume it meant but it isn't clear. Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 25 e Headla: Shall comply with this chapter within 180 days of such date. Batzli: So are we talking the effective date of the ordinance there? Emmings: Yes. Batzli: Then that should be clarified and I don't know if it should be negotiable with the City. Conrad: Well you can't build in the winter time. Dave's point is you can't put the fence up in the winter time so that's why he wants to make sure that it's a reasonable expectation. So anything that's gone up before 1987, they have to comply with the ordinance but the date of compliance may not be the 180 days because you may not be able to put that up in January or February. Batzli: sentence? Is the only thing we're adding to this section 5 is the second Are we adding anything to this one? Olsen: We're taking out where if you were on a cliff or whatever, you wouldn't have to put a fence where it was inaccessible. I don't remember the exact wordage but we were finding that even then people were saying, well you can't reach my pool from that area and you still need a fence. - Batzli: My question is, the people who this sentence covers have already had to deal with this. Olsen: Right. We're just removing the option that if pools are inaccessible from adjacent properties, that they do not have to have the swimming pool fenced but we're finding... Batzli: But have you applied this ordinance to everybody who's pool was installed prior to February 19, 1987? So do we even need the later part of this sentence in there anymore? Do we need that part in there? Are there any pools that haven't complied with that? Olsen: Not since this ordinance, no. Conrad: But before? Pools put in before. Olsen: There still may be some out there. Conrad: But before. Pools put in before have not had to have a fence. Batzli: Yes, she just said this is already in the ordinance. They're not changing that. e Emmings: This is one of those deals where it would have been nice if they would have underlined what was being added to show us the old one and lined out what was being deleted so we know what's going on. I assumed this was new language. I didn't look at the ordinance section. Conrad: I did too. So what's new? Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 28 e dog kennels? Again, this includes, I guess what I'm getting at, this includes a lot of things that I wouldn't consider a structure such as portable dog kennels. Batzli: We could say portable dog kennel structures if that would help you. Erhart: And we don't have to get into a big discussion here but. Olsen: The reason for this is because we've been having a lot of trouble with my interpretting the zoning ordinance where we have specific setbacks for those types of structures. The Building Code does not consider them to be structures. We have not been regulating dog kennels with the cement. Erhart: Yes. To me that's a structure. If you've got a concrete slab, then it's a structure. Olsen: That's where we define it. Batzli: Well you could say, instead of portable structure, do your big long list and then say where any of the foregoing are permanent or portable because people can always corne up with the argument regarding portability. Well I can bring in my forklift and hoist it so it's not a structure. In fact I've heard people use that brick barbeque's. It's portable so it's not a structure so I don't need any setbacks. Good argument by the way. Get a forklift and it's portable. e Erhart: I don't really want to get into every word on this tonight but I'm just pointing out where I see some problems. The last one is a hard surface parking area versus a driveway and I define that. Conrad: Good point. I don't understand that. Olsen: Hard surface parking area, we usually see those coming through site plans, etc. but with driveways and sidewalks. Driveways, somebody can just put those in. They do not have to get a building permit. Erhart: I can understand that. There's really no difference between a hard surface parking area and a driveway and in fact as compared to a dog kennel, a driveway is a major structure that it would seem to me that you would include driveways in this definition of a structure as opposed to excluding it. Olsen: I agree but it's just what the building code requires them to come in for permits and what so we're having some conflicts. Conrad: Too bad you brought these up because they really are, I'm with you. stockpile doesn't, I don't know what that is. e Olsen: I think that already was in there. Batzli: Yes, a lot of these were in there. A lot of these are in there. e e e Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 27 Batzli: Okay, that's the one place I didn't look. So we want it to read net density because that's tougher? Olsen: That's what we've always been enforcing and the developers will say well where is it? Where does it say that? It doesn't say gross. It doesn't say net so it's always been, staff is kind of at a tightrope. Conrad: It's got to be net. Erhart: It would have been much easier to just use the term net density everything. Conrad: This terminology has just got to be in there. Batzli: So that way if you had a site covered by a big wetland, you can't count the wetland for purposes of density? Conrad: Right. You've got to take it out like you take streets out. Batzli: I like that. Erhart: Are we discussing the first group here right now Ladd or are we going through the whole thing? Conrad: Anything. Erhart: You want to just jump into this whole thing? Conrad: Yes. Erhart: Okay, page 2, first paragraph. You're trying to define structure and then under definition you use structure which is, I don't think that's correct. Olsen: Which means any of the following. Erhart: I'll talking about portable structure. It seems to me that needs different words. If you're trying to define the word structure, you can't define it by using that word again in the definition. Correct or incorrect? Conrad: That makes sense. Erhart: So is it a portable building or something to that effect Jo Ann? It's like opening up a dictionary and looking for the word book and saying well a book is a book. Everybody knows what a book is. I guess that's just, do you understand what I'm saying? Conrad: That's good. You're right on. Erhart: A dog kennel. Are you referring to a dog kennel like you buy a chainlink kind of a dog kennel with a concrete slab? What about portable e e e Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 26 Olsen: I'm taking out the section that says that if you're inaccessible, you do not have to have a fence. Batzli: I looked at all of these as if they were new. Olsen: No. Erhart: How are you inaccessible? By another fence? Olsen: Again, we'll use Hesse Farms where there's a cliff on some portions. I just think, when we were going through it, we were saying... Erhart: You're still accessible by the side yards though. Olsen: Right. Exactly and the people were saying... Headla: I don't even know why you need that last sentence. Conrad: We don't need the last sentence? Emmings: Because the such date applies to the February 19, 1987 and we're already... Batzli: We're way past that so my question is, do we still need that? Olsen: We probably still need something in there that all inground pools installed prior still need to but I'll check on it. Emmings: You can say shall comply with this chapter. No, because it already says all swimming pools. Batzli: It should now read, shall have already complied by November 1987. Olsen: Okay, I'll work on that. Batzli: Why don't you at least check on that one. What's the difference between net density and gross density? Is that what you're adding? Olsen: Right. Right now we've got the definitions but there's nothing in there that says which one we use. Batzli: So we've already got the net and gross density defined? Olsen: Defined. Batzli: Where's that defined? Olsen: Under definitions. Batzli: Is it under density? Olsen: I think so. Yes. Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 29 e Conrad: A stockpile is a structure. How can a stockpile be a structure? Batzli: If you have a 2,000 feet of pipe stacked up, you've got a big structure. Conrad: A structure seems to me to be manufactured. Olsen: Just the ones you want to have the setback applied to. That's essentially what this is. Emmings: I was shocked here a while ago to find for example that somebody putting in a road could put it, that's come up twice now, could put it right up to the lot line. Not setback requirement. Now that's not a driveway. Those are going to be public streets and there's no setback for that and that's not a structure. No setback requirements and I think that's outrageous. There was that one and then there was the one that was up on Lake Lucy Road where we talked about the same thing. I remember that because that's where I learned that you can go right up to the lot line. Batzli: But I must not have learned it that time because I just learned it last time. Olsen: I can look into that and see if roads. e Erhart: The natural way to look at it is the driveway should maintain the setback just like everything else. Emmings: Unless they want to share. Olsen: It's just I have no way of knowing when they come in. That's why I'm having difficulty with patios was that they don't have to get a building permit for that. If it's at ground. Batzli: You mean if I pour a cement slab underneath my deck, I don't have to do that? Olsen: You don't have to get a building permit.. And that's why I've been trying to do this is because people can put patios right up to wetlands. Emmings: You can put wall to wall indoor/outdoor carpeting in your backyard and never have to mow. Go right up to the lot line. Concrete. Batzli: Let's include public roadway on this list. Emmings: public or private. Batzli: Yes. e Emmings: I know this is a very elusive definition because I once, when I was first an attorney I got involved in a lawsuit that involved the question of whether something a guy erected was a structure or not. We went around with that for several years and no one ever really came up with a good answer. It's just very, very difficult. e e e Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - page 30 Batzli: The difficult thing about a roadway I'm sure is if you're going to put it on the lot line. Then at that point do you just needing a variance? Where both sides are contributing to the road? That's going to be the big problem. Emmings: If it's to be a mutual driveway which often happens but you could say that. It's sort of like fences. You can put a fence on the lot line if both neighbors agree. Otherwise you've got to set it back. Batzli: But this is the definition section. Should we be getting into that in the definitions or do we need a separate ordinance to cover that? Olsen: You'd have to get it in the definition but I think it's something, it will have to be applied to farther into the ordinance too. Do you still want it to be just at a 10 foot sideyard setback? Front yard? Emmings: It's got to go on the list of things to do. Conrad: What is 20-l? What is Section 2l? Definition of structure? Olsen: Definitions. The first section? Conrad: So have we changed anything in this? Olsen: Yes, we've added dog kennels, hard surface parking, fence. Then the Building Department want some of it taken out. I can go back, I didn't have time to do the xing out and then underlining. I can do that. Headla: That would help. Emmings: I think this structure thing needs a lot of work because I'll tell you, I think what you need is a general definition that would say, which would include but not be limited to the following because otherwise somebody's going to come up with something. They're going to call it something else. I'm going to build a flumdible and it's concrete and glass but it's not, well it does say a building. But somebody's going to come up with something that's not going to be one of these things and you're going to have your hands tied so I think you need a general definition with these specific examples. Olsen: That number 2 though which hasn't changed, that's general. Emmings: Maybe you want to combine those and just say... Olsen: Which can include. Emmings: Yes. 01 sen: Okay. Batzli: Includes but is not limited to the following. Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 31 e Emmings: So put number 2 first and then list those things as examples. And you know I think to me the idea of a structure is that it's somehow tied to the ground. It's something that if I move away from here, it's not something that's going to go with me. It's like the definition of a fixture which is equally difficult but you just kind of use a common sense test as to whether or not it's something, is it on a slab or is it on footings? Footings is probably a pretty good test isn't it? Batzli: Not for something like a stockpile. Emmings: What is a stockpile? Like firewood? Is that a stockpile? Batzli: I think firewood might be considered a stockpile if you get a lot of it. A bunch of dock sections piled up. Pipe that you're going to use. It's something that you don't want sitting right next to your property line if you're the next door neighbor. Conrad: Any other comments on this? On just this particular, structure. Tim, did you have other? e Erhart: Yes. Page R06/2l/89. Next section, second page. On the bottom where it says Section 20-232, General Issuance Standards. Item 4 where it says the date of the event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainity. I'm concerned that that implies that the date is identified when the permit is issued. Therefore, I suggest we change that to say the time of the event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainity or something. Batzli: I think that's a typo. I think it should read, date or event. Erhart: That would solve it. You understand my problem with that? Batzli: I think the case that came down said it had to be, there had to be a date or an event which could be. Erhart: Okay, then that would solve that. Is that okay Jo Ann? Number 5, the use will not impose additional cost on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future. Well how do you know when you're issuing this temporary permit that a year later the public will want to come in and buy this property? It seems to me that this condition, this standard here, maybe I don't understand it but it seems not to make a lot of sense. How do you know, how can you ever know that a year later? Emmings: I assumed that that was there for something like if the City had in it's plans that eventually a road would be going through there or something like that and you knew that this person wanted to put it to was going to make it more difficult or more expensive to acquire it or clear it later on, that's what I thought it was about. e Erhart: That example's clear but take the example that you issue a temporary permit for something and then all of a sudden, then the City 6 months later says, gee well we want to put a road in there. Now, this really provides a basis not to reimburse them for the expense of whatever e e e Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 32 improvement he did and to me it's a fairness thing. Emmings: I don't think you could ever do that. judged at the time you issue the permit. I think that's going to be Olsen: I was just going to say that some of these and I don't have Roger's first letter but some of these were specifically a part of the case that was passed down. I think that this one was one of those. Erhart: Okay, that's kind of a legal thing anyway and if you attorneys feel comfortable with it. Batzli: Yes, it's right out of the law. permission of the use will not impose additional cost on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future. So it's right out of the Statute. Erhart: So then going along, on page 2. I'm wondering, in the first place, churches. Why are churches an interim use? Olsen: We've had that with Westside Baptist where they couldn't build their church and they've been in the industrial office park right now. A lot of times they don't have the money to build their church right away and they need an interim place. Erhart: Okay, let me narrow the question. Why would a church be an interim use in the A-2 district when in the past it's always been a straight permitted use? Olsen: This is temporary. This is for a church to use somebody's farmhouse before they can go through and do the proposal. Erhart: I guess my interpretation of this is that we were going to replace, for example in A-2, churches aren't listed at all are they? I thought they were. Olsen: They're probably under the conditional use. Erhart: I thought we changed that ordinance to include churches in the A-2 district? Olsen: Right, it might not be in the... Erhart: So if it's a permitted use or a conditional use, are we suggesting we're going to remove it from that and then put it in a new category? Olsen: No. Erhart: So this is in addition to that? Olsen: Right. This is allowing them to be a temporary use. Erhart: So we would decide at the time that the permit came in whether it can be a permitted, which would be the ordinance, a conditional or a Planni ng Commiss ion Meeti ng July 5, 1989 - Page 33 e temporary? Olsen: Right. If they have some reasons that they need to do something temporary. What we had before was real general. We just allowed an interim use. It was a temporary conditional use and what Roger has done is tried to name specific ones and I don't know if we really want to do that. That's why I wanted to get comments back from the Planning Commission or did we just want to leave it open because we'll list these but then we'll get another one. Erhart: I see. This gets into a broad discussion of whether you want to list them at all. That's what you're looking for direction. Olsen: Allor none. Erhart: You're looking for direction from us then. I guess I was a little bit confused by this. What I was leading to here was if you're going to list them, then you ought to list what the event would be maybe. For example, mobile home. Right now you're looking at the ordinance, temporary and mobile home. How do you define, how did we in the past, even without these, how did we define what temporary was on that mobile home in the A-I and A-2 district? e Olsen: It would have to meet all the requirements of a single family residence that's permanent. It has to have the foundation. Erhart: Here we say temporary and mobile home. In the existing ordinance Jo Ann. Olsen: It could be mobile home. We allow those at like for the real estate homes. Their offices. Erhart: That's another item here. Olsen: And we also allow temporary trailers. If someone is building their house but they need to live on the site until the house is built. Are you looking in the A-2 district? Erhart: For example the A-2, your temporary real estate office. That's listed as a separate thing. Emmings: As a permitted use. Erhart: As a permitted use. I'm assuming in the A-2 district that under existing ordinance, that if you have a 2 1/2 acre lot, you can put a mobile home there because of the way it's written. Is there anyplace in the ordinance that says that temporary is until you build a permanent house? Olsen: No. e Erhart: So really if somebody wanted to push the issue, they could come in here and set up a mobile home on one of these 2 1/2 acre lots. Do you read it that way? Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 34 e Olsen: They have to go through the conditional use permit. Erhart: Oh, it does say temporary. Well, anyway the solution is, of course with our new thing and I'm just saying, I guess what I'm leading to is if we're going to list these, then we ought to say okay, a mobile home is an interim use for the purpose of building a temporary living space until the permanent home is built up to a period of 18 months or something like that. I guess that's where I'm corning from. Olsen: Specific conditions? Erhart: Yes, actually suggest the condition in this. I don't know if we want to take this far. you're suggesting that one possibility is not to list anything? Olsen: Right. That's the way it was before and really it works the best because you never know what's going to happen and it's always nice and everyone gives a good reason for that and sometimes you wish that you did have that you could do that. Conrad: Yes but the planning, the general. It's a real good point. To kind of define a general context under which interim might be granted. e Olsen: These would still be there. We just wouldn't specify which ones would be... Batzli: Can you phrase it so that you're specifying but not limiting yourself to that? Does that help you at all? Then the one that you are specifying, setting it in the context of conditions under which you'd allow it? Put that much time and work into it. In advance. Be proactive. Conrad: It's hard to read how this fits with the other ordinances because this is if we want to grant a temporary use. That we do have the control of not granting it period but I don't know under what conditions we would grant and would not grant. That's what Tim is saying. Let's define those conditions which is a lot of work when you get real specific because you've got to try to, it's nice to be general to give us some leeway because we can't, as Jo Ann said, we can't be that smart to figure out all the conditions yet if you don't lay it out, then we have no guidelines whatsoever. Erhart: Any amount of time or what the event is? Batzli: It would be under the conditional use permit test standards. What you'd base it on. Olsen: We would have the general standards here. e Erhart: An example of the church in the industrial park, there is no conditional use. Olsen: We gave it to them. e e e Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 35 Erhart: But is church listed in the industrial area at all? Olsen: It is. Erhart: Maybe you're right then. Olsen: If you do it this way, these are the uses that you would feel comfortable with having interim. All others you wouldn't allow at all. Erhart: I'm not comfortable with the list either. What we've got yet. Olsen: But I agree, if we have a specific list you should have specific conditions...all the time with conditional uses and it's very helpful to have that. So I think the decision tonight is whether or not you want to keep it real general or do you want to go specific. Batzli: I personally think on a temporary use it should be general. You don't know what's going to come in. Erhart: If it starts being a problem we can get more specific with it. Conrad: So it's totally at our whim? Batzli: Yes. Are we in accordance with 232 guidelines for general standards for conditional use permits. Erhart: Do we at least want to list the uses that we would consider as interim uses, like Jo Ann's got down now? Batzli: You mean like the following are examples? Erhart: Interim uses. Churches. Mineral extraction. Mobile homes. Olsen: That might make it harder though too. I odn't know. I can talk to Roger but if you had churches down but you didn't agree that this was what you wanted to give interim use to...I don't know if that would make it more difficult. Emmings: What would make somebody want a temporary one? A temporary conditional use permit rather than just a conditional use permit? One reason would be because in the area you're in, you can't get a conditional use permi t. Batzli: It's not a permitted or a conditional use. Emmings: Another reason would be we want to be in this area but we're going to be using, like a church, where we're using a different building. We could have a church in this area but we're going to be using another building because in 5 years we know we're going to have a church out here so we say okay you can do this for 5 years. It's limited by the person themselves. Mineral extraction is different. A guy who's got a gravel pit probably knows how many years of production are there and it's sort of self Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 36 e limiting anyway. Once he takes all the gravel, it's done. There's a whole bunch of different reasons. I think you want to keep it real general because the person is going to come in asking for the temporary. We're not going to decide whether it's going to be a temporary permit. Batzli: Staff might. Emmings: Whatever. When he sees the staff but if he's looking to put in a permanent conditional use. If he's just asking straight for a conditional use permit, he has to meet the Code. So it's only when he's going to come in and ask for, Jo Ann's going to say to them well maybe you could get a temporary. He's going to suggest it or they're going to ask for it or it's going to be something that's self limiting so I don't think we have to try and anticipate who's going to be asking for these. They're going to come and ask for them. We've had them in the past. There was a woman who wanted to have a book store in her house until she found another place and it wasn't permitted in that area. Remember? That's an example. The church in the lOP is another example. They just wanted to do that on a temporary basis. I think the cases will be clear when they come and I think they're absolutely impossible to anticipate. e Conrad: But let's take that bookstore. It conforms to the zoning regulations which is one of the standards. That one would not fit. Olsen: They wouldn't be, I think it was more of the setbacks if they were going to build a temporary road or something...they would be meeting the zoning. This is the other one like setbacks. Conrad: Do we need to be clearer on that? Olsen: Yes but I can check. Batzli: Well that's part of the law. The governing body may grant permission for an interim use of property if the use conforms to the zoning regulations, whatever that means. Erhart: Here's the problem without listing it is as an interim use. I want to build a hotel on my property and I come in here and I come in with just a wonderful proposal to build a 37 floor hotel and bring billions of dollars into the City of Chanhassen. The Planning Commission can look at that and say it's not in our Code but we can make it an interim use. Now that's really far out but it really, without listing those things that could be allowed as interim uses, it really opens up to Planning Commission almost allowing anything. Emmings: But if you list them and somebody wants one where it's prefectly reasonable Tim, then can you deny them? e Erhart: Yes, because here's the problem I have. We just spent a lot of effort eliminating contractor's yards and I think we all agreed that was a good zoning change. I think Jo Ann would like to have us eliminate mineral extraction, which I agree 100%. As soon as we don't list them, somebody can walk in here and say well gee I want a contractor's yard and I'm only Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 37 e going to have it for 10 years so I'd like to have an interim use for a contractor's yard. All the work we've done is just been thrown out the door. It might come in and look like a reasonable proposal so we give him an interim use for a contractor's yard and we've got to sit here and go through that discussion with that guy and argue in front of him and his family. He'll bring in all the kids and show why we shouldn't give him an interim use for a contractor's yard. Olsen: it would concrete be... Where's that's applying right now like Dave Stockdale's case where be a temporary conditional use so he wouldn't have to put in the curb and gutter and make certain improvements where it's going to Emmings: But he's in the IOP. Tim is concerned with somebody coming in the A-2 but there they wouldn't conform to the zoning regulations then. Erhart: If you don't have any regulations on this interim use, what zoning ordinances are you referring to? Olsen: I'll have to check into that. Is there a number 3 in there too? Erhart: Right now today, there is nothing. e Olsen: Number 3, the use is allowed as an interim use in the zoning district. Is that in there too? Conrad: Yes. Batzli: It reads, the governing body may grant permission for an interim use of property if: then the first phrase is if the use conforms to the zoning regulations. I don't know what that means in the Statute. Olsen: Number 3 where it makes it sound like when we do have to be specific. Batzli: Yes it does. Number 3, upon change which renders the use non-conforming, that one? Olsen: Number 3 on ours where it says, the use is allowed as an interim use in the zoning district. Batzli: No. Erhart: Why don't we just start out with a real short list that we're comfortable with. Conrad: A list of what? Erhart: Interim uses in every zone. e Conrad: By zone? Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 38 e Erhart: Yes. Just start out with a real short list and then as we get experienced with it, you'll have to say okay, that's a good idea. Batzli: But the problem is people are going to come in and ask for it and it won't be on the list so they can't possibly get it. Emmings: Then they'll have to do a zoning amendment. Erhart: At least we start conservatively. I'm afraid we're just going to open this thing up. Olsen: We really only have a few. Emmings: But Tim is right. Here's the thing. You've got a rat in the maze and you're opening another door. You've giving him another thing to run down. The contractor's yards, his notion about contractor's yards, the guy coming in in the A-2 and saying I just want to do this for 10 years is really likely to happen. He knows he can't get one there as a permitted or conditional use so why not try for an interim conditional use. At least he knows he can operate for 10 years. Batzli: Did you just subtly shift your position from what you just said 5 minute ago? e Emmings: Probably. I think it's a real concern. Batzli: You've gone from general to specific now right? Emmings: No. Batzli: You've changed your mind. Emmings: No. I think it should be kept general. I guess I'm still along that line but I guess there's something more to defining when you're going to use this or what kind of things it's going to be used for without naming them. I'm trying to get at it in a more general sense of why do we want to have an interim use at all. I can't put my finger on it but I think maybe there should be a sentence in there that states that this may not be used to circumvent general zoning policies by, I don't know. Batzli: A policy statement of what this should be used for in the positive sense. Conrad: What we're missing in this whole document is an intent section and that's really clear that we're missing that. All of this would be resolved if we showed the intent of what we're trying to do here. That would discuss impact on neighbors. Impact on this so sometimes we might allow something that we might normally do provided that we see that there would not be a major, significant impact on this and that. That we're not trying to. I think we need that statement or statements. e Emmings: specific. Then you can keep it general. Then you don't have to be Plus you've got this down here, conforms to the zoning e e e Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 39 regulations so I think when the guy comes in the A-2 and says he wants one for a contractor's yard, you say hey we banned them in everything but the lOP, you can't do it. Erhart: But if he makes a good presentation, he's got the kids up here and you've got 4 guys or girls to say in the report it's positive because the guy's nice and he's worked with staff. You're going to end up with a contractor's yard because you had the hole to do it. Then as soon as you get one, then you can't deny the next guy. It becomes difficult. I'm just more comfortable that we list them but we start with a short list. Batzli: Or you could just start with a list of things that absolutely aren't allowed. Contractor's yard, mineral extraction. Erhart: See I think you start out with, in the first place you already have one. That's mobile homes that's listed as a temporary use but it's not very well defined because you used the word temporary. Now we can move that one out of the conditional use and move it into this interim use. The second thing is this mineral extraction. I think you've got, have we seen your proposal to eliminate mineral extraction or is that coming or what? Olsen: It's ongoing. Erhart: Well maybe we can't quite all get an agreement to say we should eliminate mineral extraction but maybe what we can get an agreement is that we move it into the interim use category. I think it gives us one more tool to work with in trying to come to a ground where we have a consensus. I think that category give us that. That's two arguments why I think it ought to be listed. One is to prevent us getting into this emotional discussion in a group here in front of the public on just deciding based on how nice the guy is. Whether we provide an interim use. The second thing, it allows us to move some things out of the conditional use area where we can't get a consensus to eliminate it completely but at least we can put more control on it. Olsen: I'll work on an intent section and check out some of these that we have questions on and see how we deny them. Batzli: Could you also check on exactly what that means about conforming to the zoning regulations? Check with Roger. Olsen: Yes. Batzli: Because obviously it's not going to get us very far if all that's allowed are things that would be permitted uses in that zoning area. Then this whole thing is... Conrad: Yes, then it's a waste. Erhart: Which one are you looking at? Olsen: 2. Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 40 e Erhart: Conforms to the zoning. Well, I interpret that to mean that it conforms to the zoning regulations as defined for that particular use. To me that's what that item 2 says. So for an example, contractor's yards is still listed in the lOP and it's got all these conditions in it so if you give it a temporary use in the A-2, it has to conform to those things listed in the lOP. That's what item 2 says. Conrad: No, I couldn't accept that. Emmings: Well it's ambiguous. conforms to the regulations... It could mean that or it could mean that it Conrad: You'd have to apply the zoning requirements of that zone to it. Not of another zone. You couldn't extract it from another. It would have to meet. It's a use not contemplated for that district but we'll grant it temporarily provided it meets the other standards in that district of the zone. Batzli: Well there must be some legislative history for what that means. I think Roger probably has a handle on it. Erhart: At the same time look at item 3 too. It says what does it mean the use is allowed as an interim use in the zoning district. e Conrad: I guess I don't want to see uses defined. The different types because it's almost like, I don't know. I have a real problem with defining some of these things. It's like advertising for them and although you're trying to put a constraint on, I'm more interested in the intent. Batzli: Yes, I'd rather see 5 different intent statements, one for each district and avoid doing a laundry list of things that we permit and wouldn't permit necessarily. Conr ad : these. So if we can be real good in the intent, I think we can get rid of My only other comments, do you have more comments Tim? Erhart: Let's see. Just do me a favor, leave contractor's yards out of any list. That's it. Batzli: In Section 20-381. Number 1. Do we want to say the date or event stated in the permit? Olsen: Sure. Conrad: Under that same one, 20-381 it says it will terminate upon a violation. Point number 2. It sounds like there's not a process. It is automatically terminated without a review. Is there a review process? That's the other thing that I didn't see here was a re-application process or a due process for termination and I assume we can't just say you violated it. It's gone. e Batzli: Well it's the difference between it being void and voidable. Does it happen automatically upon violation? Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 41 e Conrad: I don't think we can do that. Saying you violated it, your permit is gone. I wouldn't feel good about the process. Would you? You've got a major contractor's yard sitting there and you're just going to zap it? I think there's got to be a process. Okay, anything else? Ernmings: There's 20-381. When Brian first said that, I looked over on the other page. There's a 20-381 on each page. Do you have them all right? Is there something misnumbered there? Olsen: You lost me. Emmings: Go to the page where they're talking about 20-381, termination. Then the other page there's a 20-382, application. And I'm for keeping it general also. Conrad: Okay, anything else tonight? Ernmings: You suggested something, somebody did about specifically saying in there that, and it might go right in the intent section that an example of an interim use which would not be allowed is a contractor's yard in anything other than the lOP. You might use that as a specific example to satisfy Tim and to gives folks an idea of what we're doing. e Erhart: It's not just contractor's yards. Maybe you want to put a gas station down on pioneer Road and TH 101 and all the neighbors came up here and said yes, we'd really like a gas station there. Emmings: No, it doesn't conform to the zoning though. I think that's what that number 3 is getting to. Number 2 is going to get us around that. Olsen: I'll get clarification on that. Batzli: My only question was, why did everything get deleted from the agenda tonight? Olsen: Kurt Laughinghouse, they couldn't make up their mind whether or not they wanted to do it. Now I don't think that they're going to. Vinland, because they did not get us revised plans in time. For them to come back onto the agenda after being tabled, they would have needed the plans that day essentially. Anyway so vinland didn't get it in until last week. Oak View Heights, the Park and Rec Commission required 4 acres of parkland so we're back to square one with that. They're going back to the Park Commission to see what they can work out. Ernmings: It all comes down to the same thi.ng. It's just too much. Batzli: And that's in part, correct me if I'm wrong on the density on that one, did they still count that wetlands on that particular one? Would the net versus gross density have an effect on that particular application? e Olsen: Yes. Argue Development, the plan were just incomplete. So the 19th we were shooting for to have, it was going to be empty for the Comp e e - Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 - Page 42 plan but now it's booked again. Conrad: Well don't keep us too late because we only had 3 items tonight and it's already 10:00. But sometimes we do get to thinking and we actually do pay attention to issues. Batzli: It's nicer to consider these types of things at 9:30 rather than 11:30. Olsen: That's why I threw it on. I'll get the City Council update to you. Conrad: Mail it out will you? Olsen: They did approve Stockdale though, I'll tell you that one. The variance. They did give him the variance to curb and gutter. That was really the only thing. Erhart moved, Batzli seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.. Submitted by Jo Ann Olsen Asst. City Planner prepared by Nann Opheim