Loading...
1989 11 01 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 1, 1989 e Chairman Conrad called the :P1eeting to order at 7: 45 p.ru.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tilll Erhart, Steve Erulltings, Ladd Conrad, Jiru Wildermuth and Brian Batzli MEMBERS ABSENT: Annette ElIson STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Director of Planning and Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 5.06 ACRES INTO 7 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND JUST SOUTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD, RICHARD ERSBO. Paul Krauss presented the staff report. Conrad: Are you the applicants? Richard Ersbo: As far as changing the name, we'll comply with North or South or whatever you want to call it. e Krauss: You can COIue up wi th whatever the nallle is as long as it's Arlington sOlllething. Conrad: Any othel~ COlllIllents based on the staff report that you have? Erhart llloved, Elltmi ngs seconded to close the publ ic hear ing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Wildermuth: After looking at this, I agree with the staff recoIl~endation with the impact on the wetland...double frontage issue...I have one question. Jo Ann how close is this flag lot driveway coming to the wetland? Olsen: The existing driveway and it's probably about anywhere from 50 feet to the edge. Krauss: Based on the aerial it might even have been at one time... Here's the existing driveway as it comes down. You can see the wetland vegetation comes quite close to where the driveway is but it's not going to encroach any further. Olsen: They're not doing anything to the existing conditions. Batzli: But they'll be grading on the east side of the driveway? ~ Olsen: Yes. Planning Cnl1'\mission Meeting November 1, 1989 - Page 2 - Krauss: The grading will take place in this vicinity. Olsen: There will be a holding pond also constructed. wildernluth: There won't be any new grading? It will be an upgrade of the existing driveway? Krauss: The driveway will remain exactly as it is. Wildermuth: Okay. So nothing will happen there? That's all I have. Batzli: The fi:rst time we looked at this, we had SOllIe so:t~t of skimmer device didn't we going into the holding pond? Olsen: Right. That was an added condition and what happens is that it's a DNR protected wetland so it also has to go through a pernlit process with that. We llsually when the plans and specs conle in, that's where they add that if it's necessary. If the DNR wants it. If the Watershed District wants it. The engineering department did not feel it was necessary at this time but it's sonlething that we usually add. Batzli: I guess I was wondering why we wanted it the fi:rst time and not this time I guess was my question. e Olsen: time. It seems like that was added at the Planning Con~ission level last Enlntings: Isn't it condition 4 under the prelintinary plat? Olsen: Yes. Batzli: Okay. I guess I was looking for it in the Wetland Alteration Permit. Sor:ry. Is it supposed to be in the prelimina:ry plat rather than the wetland alteration permit? Olsen: It's part of the drainage easement that's on the plat also. Krauss: The preliminary plat would have the developnlent agreement attached to it and that's the nleans by which we are sure that it's installed. Batzli: Do we normally or did we nor:mally kind of start a trend where approval of one was conditioned upon approval of the other and in conlpl iance wi th each other that we don't have those? Okay. My last question, and I agree p:retty much with what Jim said. The drainage easement. Is that to the wetland then? Krauss: Yes. The outlet pipe is supposed to outlet directly into the wetland. Batzli: Should it clarify then which property owner they need the drainage _ easement fronl? The adjacent property owner to the west? Krauss: To the west. Planning Cop~ission Meeting November 1, 1989 - Page 3 e Batzli: Okay. That's all I have. EIlIPlings: I'm wonder ing about the potential for developPlent of Block 2. What if they wanted to develop that later on into more lots than one? It's a big piece. Krauss: You're correct. It is quite a large piece and someday somebody may want to do just that. However, the house is quite large and there's also a large pool adjacent to it that fill up a lot of ground. There's a free standing garage. The driveway comes up there and what you have is relatively steep topography around it that eliminates much of the useable ground. This property's probably not subdivisable unless the home is renlOved which we believe there's a potential for it but right-of-ways in the future and if in fact that does happen, we could consider sharing the sa:me COIlIPlOn p)'~ivate'driveway upgrading it because the)'~e p)'~obably is not another means to access the top of the hill. Ep~ings: Let me ask, we've got this private driveway and the road is, that lot, there's 138 feet in there and then you get to the roadway. I can't renlenlber what we do on spacing of roads along the road like this. What's the standard we're looking for? e Olsen: It's more with the subdivision main drives itself rather than individual driveways. Krauss: You're looking at regulating the street intersections. ~~ings: We've also talked about driveways that... Krauss: One of the things that we did with this plat is we had it redrawn so that this street aligned with Arlington Court to the north. The original proposal had a skewed intersection. The separation, if that was another street going in there we'd have a problem with that. ~IPtings: I guess kind of putting those two things together, the fact that this is a big parcel back here. The fact that someone Play want to develop it someday whethe)'~ they want to now or not and the fact tha t you'd have streets so close together there, it just seenls to nte that the sensible thing to do is to have an access off that cul-de-sac. At least an easement. I think their entrance to their property ought to come off that cul-de-sac but if they prefer to keep the driveway they have, I would care as long as for the future there was sonle sort of easement Plaintained off the end of the cul-de-sac back to Block 2. I know that's going to screw up their lot pattern but I think it ought to be there. As far as, I'm just curious that it would actually be less confusing to have the name of that street be the same as the street to the north. That doesn't meet the common sense test here as I sit here but is that really true that it's easier for the enlergency people? e Krauss: Jo Ann and I were talking about this. I'm basing this on my working with the police and fire services in other cOD~unities over the years where they tell you that if they have a fire call in, oftentime~ they Planning COIlID\ission Meeting Novenlber 1, 1989 - Page 4 - might just hear the Arlington and not Court or Place and they want to go to that one place where that Arlington is and they want to know it's either north or south. What we have he:te is a comIllon intersection. It's a 4 way intersection. The confusion would be if it's Arlington to the north, Lake Lucy to the east/west and sonlething else to the south. There's a continuity rationale there to have one place that's called Arlington. EIlIIllings: Well I'll have to go with your professional experience but it seeIllS to me, if this is the only Eagle 'whatever it is in Chanhassen, that would make it very distinctive and real easy to find but I don't know. But that's my only con~ent is the access and then off that cul-de-sac to Block 2. Erhart: My understanding is that we're looking for a variance for a flag lot? You indicated at a previous meeting that you felt our ordinance, we ought to look at changing our ordinance to allow flag lots. Maybe you could give us 60 seconds on that. e Krauss: The older philosophy was that flag lots or neck lots were inappropriate. That the way to serve properties is to require that they have the full frontage on a public right-of-way. Generally that works very well if you're developing along a grid street systen\ in an area that's pretty flat. What we have in Chanhassen and what you have in a lot of your western suburbs is some very interesting topography that makes it difficult and often inappropriate to run public streets in every place. At the same time you've got a lot of ground that's inaccessible or relatively inaccessible through public rights-of-way that provides otherwise ideal honle sites. There is plenty of land. They're serviceable. They're secluded. You don't have, if you have a front yard right behind somebody's back yard. There are ways in which to do that. At the same time too, there are ways in which the ordinance can be amended to require a fairly high standard of service for those driveways. Particularly if more than one home is using it. We can guarantee that it's built properly. That it's maintainable. That it is maintained. That. it's plowed and that it can p:tovide adequate enle:r~gency vehicle service. All things being equal, it would be my recon~endation that the City looks at revising the ordinances to legi tind.ze the standing sonlewhat of neck lots in those si tuations sin\ply because we do believe that they're oftentimes the most sensitive way of serving a piece of ground. There is the existing complication that one part of the ordinance allows it at the present. The other part doesn't. Erhart: Minnetonka allowed them with restrictions? Krauss: Yeah. I'll get into that. It's quite a long discussion but yes, we did and it was a process that was refined over a period of years. upgrading the standards by which driveways were built. Erhart: You feel that this one would pass the Minnetonka standards? - Krauss: It certainly would with the one house. More issues would be raised if it was subdivided in the future but that could be dealt with as well. Planning COIl\I'tission Meeting November 1, 1989 - Page 5 e Erhart: In the past Chanhassen's negative position on flag lots have been based on what reasoning? Krauss: Jo Ann, maybe you could. Olsen: I'm sorry. Erhart: Why don't we like flag lots I'm trying to say? Olsen: Well SOllie of the reasons that Paul was pointing out or some of the controls he could add to the ordinance were some of the reasons because we didn't have that where the Public Safety, a lot of the flag lots do just have sIl\all dri veways that a:re not maintained that the fire trucks couldn't get into and things like that and that was the reasoning. If you had the 90 feet right up on the street, then there's access there. Somewav thev , .. .. would be able to get to it. El:hart: Another. reason would be the nUIlIber of access points along Lake Lucy Road. Essentially here you've got 2 access points at 137 feet whereas if this back lot was... EnII'lings: Then you'd have a third one at 117 feet. e Erhart: Yeah, another one so every 130 feet you've got an access on there whereas if the Lot 1, Block 2, is that what it is Block 2? Yeah. Was served with the cul-de-sac that would eliminate another access point. Krauss: Yeah, and I would disagree with that at all and nor.mally if it were poss ible. Well, if I thought it were easy to cOI'lbine the cur.b cuts, I would nor.I'lally recommend that that's the case. What you've got over here though is a fairly significant change in elevation. I'nl not saying it makes it impossible to do it but it makes it difficult to do it. That cul-de-sac is up, it's elevated up above the driveway. That driveway's coming off a hill and you can see through the grading over her.e that you'd actually have to come down the hill and then go back up it again at a fairly significant gr.ade to make the cul-de-sac. e Er.hart: I'll just give you my ideas because it's as much the developer as it is our.s. Again, I've only looked at this for 10 minutes and the developer or the owner. has looked over. this thing for months so maybe my ideas are naive but my in~ediate but r.eaction would be that br.inging the str.eet down slightly. Use this space to bring these lots down fur.ther. south and bring the cul-de-sac down maybe out in this area. I think he still has room for the 6 lots but you could access the driveway off the cul-de-sac which would end up down in this ar.ea and that does not require you to have a steep grade in the str.eet. It seems to me that would make these lots rllor.e valuable if you backed into these wetlands. Again, I'm just looking at a piece of paper. doesn't give you a whole lot of insight into that but I somewhat agr.ee with Steve in that for. the futur.e of all those homeowners and actually for yourself, not having to maintain the long dr.iveway, it would seem to be to ever.yone's advantage to have that come off the cul-de-sac if ther.e's a practical way to do that. Assuming there's no practical way, I guess I wouldn't and in light I guess of what your - Planning Conmtission Meeting Noverrlber 1, 1989 - Page 6 e experience is Paul and the fact that we're going to have a discussion on flag lots, I guess I'd probably go along with recorrmlending the variance but hesitantly. Going on, you've satisfied whereas in the past we were looking for access over to the east and you've satisfied we don't need that? That would not be useful? Krauss: Well, let me say that we think that access to serve the properties to the east is still an issue. We just don't think that this is the way to resolve it. The road as was proposed, the road extension really in our view is inappropriate. A 15 foot setback from sonlebody's front door for an existing home doesn't work very well unless you assume that honle's going to be renlOved. In creating a line of double frontage lots along Lake Lucy also raises sorrle significant reservations. Erhart: This pond, are we creating this pond on Lot 6? Krauss: Yes. Erhart: Okay. The applicant has been made aware of all the Fish and wi Idl i fe recorrlIllenda tions for the pond? Krauss: ...to a small retention pond. Erhart: It's just too small? I guess that's all I can think of right now. e Conrad: Steve, what were your COPmlents on serving the future developrrlent? Would yon go through that? ~~ings: I guess my notion was just that if there's potential for that land to develop. It's a big piece and it's within the MUSA and as land becoIlles Illore valuable, if you wind up doing any kind of a development back there and I think you can foresee that there's certainly a possibility, that would mean then that a road would have to take the place of that bi tuntinous dr i vway and you'd have, for one thi ng you'd have double frontage lots. You'd be creating double frontage lots in the existing developIllent that we're looking at tonight and you'd wind up with a road access, well if you could, you'd wind up with the accesses onto Lake Lucy that are very close together. Potentially one where the driveway is, Eagle Circle and then Illavbe even one iIlIIlIed ia tel v to the east there so it seerrlS to me that the rea;onable thing to do would be to preserve an ease~ent off the end of the cul-de-sac back to Block 2 at this time whether you use it or not but just in the event that there's development there in the future. Conrad: Paul, what's your reaction to that? e Krauss: I don't disagree with the theory behind that. The problem I see with it is right here you've got a 12 foot cut. Anything we do to lower this cul-de-sac is going to make the cut more severe and we've already had, there's not a lot of trees up there right now but we've had some language put in about tree preservation there. There's another 12 foot cut approximately over there. There's really no practical way to come right through here up the hill. If you were to go with sOIllething like that, the only way to do it would be soolething along the lines that Tim was Planning CO!ll!llission Meeting November 1, 1989 - Page 7 e suggesting which might be to roll off at SOIue point back onto that driveway because that driveway goes up a more gentle grade. Conrad: So that property to the rear Paul, how are we going to service that if it does get split up? Krauss: At this point with the way the ordinance is structured, you don't have to serve it. You are serving it with the existing driveway. You don't have to further subdivide it. It's somewhat difficult to guess at the future. I can show you this but unfortunately it just doesn't reproduce very well. If you want to come over and take a look at it. This was the COIllposite that we put together because it really was the only way to see it. What you've got is the hOIlle. Here's the top of the hill. Here's where they're excavating out the top of the hill to put in the cul-de-sac. Here's the grade and you can see how the driveway starts cOIlling l1p the grade right there and there's a pretty significant bluff overlooking the wetland. This whole area, this corner here is really not part of that hillside and is probably not developable. The home, the swiIl~ing pool and the garage are pretty centrally located and...against subdividing it unless they're all removed. Erhart: This is all high ground over here? Krauss: This is all high ground back here. ta Erhart: How would that be served? Krauss: The MUSA 1 ine cornes through here right now. What we were thinking, and we haven't had a chance to illustrate this is we were looking at if the MUSA line's expanded and if this property is subdivided bringing in another public street as a cul-de-sac or a thru street and coming back down through here. (The cOIlIDlissioners were carrying on separate coversations at this point during discussion.) Richard Ersbo: I sit up on a hill that would be almost impossible for the cul-de-sac to go there. If you look over the back there, I have a drop down a hole about 40 feet and I'm sitting up higher than that. To put a cul-de-sac fr.OIlI where that...I'm sitting on a big hill. It's not flat. We went over this whole thing about 10 tiIlles alr.eady and this was the most feasible way we could do the whole thing. This is the third time we wer.e going to have this approved. Krauss: Let me say this. If I thought development was it not eIlmlinent but real istic on that parcel, we would try to do sOIllething to access it possibly a different way at this point. what we would make that determination is that we respect...opinion but what's more important to us if you look at the ground as easily developable. In our opinion, this ground i sn' t up here for a var iety of reasons. The placeIllent of the home e and the grades being the IlIOSt significant. Richard Ersbo: It'd be easier to put a ski slope down this. Planning Con~ission Meeting November 1, 1989 - Page 8 e Conrad: My only contnlent is on the wetland alteration permit. It'sIllore the process than this particular application. Normally, are we still having the applicants fill out a form for a wetland alteration permit? Olsen: We have that when they're actually going to be affecting or altering the wetland itself. We do give that fornl out. A lot of tiIlles the applicants don't have the knowledge to fill it out. It gets pretty detailed. When it's a larger subdivision that they really are going to be putting ponds within it and they have the services, we do still have them fill that out. This one we did not. e Conrad: I guess just as a general point, I think we have to go through that process because Jo Ann you understand it but over the years I think it's been adapted to what kind of works and we don't know what that is. This particular application just triggered the thought again that I'm not seeing the real application. If it requires a permit, I guess I'm interested in seeing the application unless you persuade me, I understand what you're doing but I guess I'd like to go back through the nlechanics of that process and typically what we had been doing Paul is that we'd have technical doculuentation, whether it be DNR o}~ Fish and Wildlife or whatever, accoIllpany it or a report coming back froIlI one of those experts that made us feel good. They were really helping us interpret our ordinance is basically what they were doing. But I'nl not seeing that anYI\lOre so I'nt not sure what we should be doing and maybe Jo Ann, given all her tinle here, is pretty comfortable but I'm kind of lost again because my first reaction here was what are we doing to the wetland and how does it impact our ordinance and obviously not much but I don't know that. So I guess to our list of things to do, I kind of want to review the process. I don't know that we need to recreate anything but it's more the process sometime so at least I understand where we're going again. I have no other comments on this other than the street name. I guess I'm with Steve. I would think a special name called Eagle Circle would be clearer than a Court, Circle, Lane. That seenls harder for me. If I were driving a fire truck, I'd rather find the only Eagle Street in town than one that I might be confused on but again, that's not my area of expertise. Krauss: I used to drive the fire truck. In a con~unity like ours or others in which I've worked, when it's all said and done. The City's fully developed and YOll have 400 cul-de-sacs, it's hard to remember where they all are but if you prefer what we can do is just delete any reference to that condi tion now and we can consul t wi th the fire ma}~shall before it goes to the City Council and get a final reading on that. Conrad: Any more discussion? Is there a motion? Batzli: I move that the Planning Conmtission reconIDlends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit Request #88-7 as presented on the plat stantped Received October 11th? Mine doesn't say October 11th though. I don't think. Is there a different plan for the wetland? My plan's stamped like October e 26th or sonlething. Conrad: Yeah, mine too. Planning ComIllission Meeting November 1, 1989 - Page 9 e Batzli: Was there a separate set of plans? ErlIIlti ng s : It says as presented on the plat and it wouldn't be would it? Batzli: Okay, well October 26th I'll say for now, 1989 subject to the following conditions. Conditions 1 thru 4 with the following added to the end of condition 1. The words "to the west" and a new condition 5 which reads compliance with conditions of Subdivision #87-36. Erlmtings: Second. Batzli moved, EIlIIllings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit Request #88-7 as presented on the plat stamped October 26, 1989 and subject to the following conditions: 1. Acquisition of a drainage easement from the adjacent property owner to the west. 2. Approval of a permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 3. Creation of a storm water retention pond in the northwest corner of Lot 6, Block 1. e 4. Installation of Type 3 erosion control between the developIllent and the Class A wetland. 5. COIllpliance with the conditions of Subdivision #87-36. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Conrad: Is there a motion on the preliminary plat? Wildermuth: I move the Planning COIlmission approve Subdivision #87-36 as presented on the plat stamped October 11th with a variance to allow a 30 foot lot width on Lot 1, Block 2 and subject to the conditions 1 thru 6. Batzli: I'll second it. I think the plans are again October 26th, not October 11th. wildermuth: I'll make that October 26th. Batzli: And we don't want to say sOIllething like changing the naIlle of the street designated Eagle Circle to something approved by the Public Safety Departplent. Is that just going to be handled between... WilderIlluth: ...check with the Fire Chief. e Conrad: It's not here is it? Planning cOPlpdssion Meeting November 1, 1989 - Page 10 e Batzli: No. It would be something they'd do. Conrad: I'm just happy keeping it out of here unless you want to put it in. Batzli: That's fine as long as they, I replember seeing something actually from the Fire Chief or sornebody at the Public Safety saying that they didn't want the same names in different locations in the City but I don't recall thenl saying anything about this instance. Do we want a condi tion 7 indicating compliance with the wetland alteration permit? EIllfldngs: Yeah. Wildermuth: It'd probably be a good idea. Wildernluth ploved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Copmdssion recoPlfIlend approval of Subdivision Request #87-36 as presented on the plat stamped "Received October 26, 1989" with a variance to allow a 30 foot lot width on Lot 1, Block 2, subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide final detailed plans of the streets and utility iplproveInents. The plans should be modified as follows: e a. Increase the paved cul-de-sac radius to 42 feet. b. Replace the ex isting 6" sani tary sewer to Lake Lucy Road and utilize an 8" line exclusively to serve the plat. c. Extend water main service between Lots 2 and 3 with a stub ending at the east property line. d. The fire hydrant at the end of the cul-de-sac is to be provided with a 10 foot clear radius. 2. Lots 1 and 6, Block 1 are to gain access solely by driveway to Eagle Circle. Access to Lake Lucy Road is prohibited. A notice of this limitation should be placed in shared title of both lots. 3. Provide final erosion control plans acceptable to staff. Type III erosion control will be required along teh western perimeter of teh site adjacent to the wetland. Prior to the initiation of grading, staff will walk the site with the developer to mark out trees designated for preservation. Staff will modify the plans as required to inlprove tree preservation efforts. Drainage swales are to be provided around eafch of the honles. The beml located in the Lake Lucy Road right-of-way is to be relocated onto Lot 1, Block 1. 4. Provide final drainage plans for approval by City Staff. Provide a skinlmer device on the sedinlentation pond. Redirect the pond outlet directly into the wetland providing the City with such easements that may be required to cross an adjacent property. Watershed District approval of the plat is required. e Planning COI'nmission Meeting November 1, 1989 - Page 11 e 5. EaseIl1ents to be prov ided: a. Right-of-way for Eagle Circle. b. Request the City Council vacate right-of-way for existing streets and easements approved under the original plat. c. utility easements are required for the proposed watermain and sani tary sewer alignrl1ents including the watermain stub between Lots 2 and 3 to the eastern property line. d. Drainage and utility eaSeIl1ents are required over the pond and stonn sewer pipes on Lot 6, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 2 and based upon final engineering design may be required over an adjacent parcel to the west. e. Standard utility easements around the perimeter of each lot. 6. EnteJ': into a developIllent contract wi th the Ci ty. 7. COIllpliance with the conditions of Wetland Alteration Permit #88-7. e All voted in favor except Erhart and EIlmlings who opposed and the Illotion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Conrad: And the reasons? EIllllling s: I think I set them forth enough. could be modified by moving that cul-de-sac I think it's short sighted to have the only rear COllie along that existing driveway. It seems to me that this plan along the contour or so:mething. access to that large lot in the Conrad: Tim, your feelings? Erhart: Pretty much the same reasons. I guess I don't strongly oppose it but I'd sure like us to try a little harder to find a way to avoid having that driveway between those lots. Lot 6, 5 and 4 and that wetland and also to avoid future pJ':obleIlls wi th access in the Lot 1, Block 2. Conrad: Paul, in terms of future use of that driveway that access the back lot, there's no way that the City has to restrict it's use. Krauss: You can't bind the actions of future Councils either. Wildermuth: The topography is going to pretty well restrict the use right? Conrad: Probably. _ Enmlings: Give me a bulldozer. Planning COIllmission Meeting November 1, 1989 - Page 12 e Krauss: At this point in time Mr. Chairman, the only way to get additional building back there is to COllie back and ask for additional variances. The way things are structured right now and that's certainly nothing that you have to autoIllatically have to approve. Conrad: I think it's imporant and obvious things change and Planning COIl~issions and Councils change but I think it has to be a real clear message that, at least as I voted in favor of this, it was pretty much with the assumption that that back parcel would not be changed. Now you may sell and that's obviously your right and that future developer or whatever could do whatever but I just don't, I would not be of mind to allow any increase traffic on the current one driveway going back but there's really no way to enforce that posture to my knowledge. Anyway, any other COIlIIllen ts? PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE WITH REGARD TO ESTABLISHING THE MAXIMUM LOT SIZE FOR CHURCH DEVELOPMENT AT 15 ACRES. Paul Krauss presented the staff report. Conrad: It's a public hearing. It was published. Peter Beck obviously knows that this is an item. I kind of thought he'd be here. e Wildermuth: It didn't give any reaction to it which I 'Ill surprised at. Conrad: And he is still under retainer? Olsen: I showed him the ordinance when Roger first had drafted it when it had 25 acres. When he was still involved with Eckankar, with the developIllent contract and such and that didn't concern them. Conrad: So the public notice was sent to Peter or was it sent to Eckankar or how? Krauss: I think it was sent to Peter. Conrad: And we would send it to him versus the property owners? Olsen: It just was given to him because he happened to be in the office the day I received it actually. Conr ad: Are we cOIllfortable tha t that's... Krauss: Legal notice is published in the official newspaper. Conrad: And there is no other policy stating that we individually identify those that are impacted by the Ordinance? e Olsen: We've done it in the past. Planning ConlPlission Meeting November 1, 1989 - Page 13 e Erhart: There's some other churches that own property in this city. There's the, what is it? Krauss: There's the church that owns the property down by the apartment building that's up for sale right now. Olsen: Lakeview. EpIPlings: And westside Baptist has that piece out on TH 41. Erhart: But that's not down here. Krauss: But there's no church building on there. Erhart: No, but they would be impacted by such an ordinance. Olsen: Westside Baptist already has approval. Well we could do that. We can noti fy thePI. Wildermuth: If we passed this, would we have to grant a variance to those people? e Krauss: Well it's a matter of conjucture. You don't have to. If you want to see the rest of the property develop, you Play. There's different ways of subdividing that property up and if there was an internal street built on their property to serve the church and to serve whatever develo~lent Plight be proposed, then the probability of it is that the site could be less than 15 acres. If they want to plat out a large enough piece of ground possibly for expansion or whatver but to get their site extended out to the street that exists now, we think it would be something in the order of about 25-26 acres. Erhart: Paul, would this have any iIlul1ediate tax iPlpact on the Eck property? Krauss: No. According to the information we've received from the City Attorney, it shouldn't have any at all. According to Roge~, churches are enti tIed to a tax exeIllption for property that they're using for church purposes. Erhart: I know but if we're defining that now to be 15 acres instead of 174, isn't that the intent of this ordinance? Krauss: I don't believe that it would have any impact on that. Olsen: The intent was that another church couldn't COIlle in and buy another 100 acres and possibly got that whole 100 acres tax exempt. I think we're finding that even if they have 100 acres, that that would not all become tax exempt anyway. e Erhart: But that's exactly what these guys have done. bought 174 acres. They've come in and Planning Commission Meeting November 1, 1989 - Page 14 e Olsen: It's not determined that that 174 acres will not be taxed. Erhart: Okay. So the object of the ordinance then is what? Krauss: Presumably to put an upper cap on the magnitude of the church development that you nlight see in the conlnluni ty. Conrad: To restrict the non-taxable. Krauss: That would be the net effect. If the church site was 15 acres, that would be what it would be taxed on. Erhart: Okay, you're saying if someone came in with just a huge church. wildermuth: Even a small church on a very large parcel...it says a church on church property. Erhart: What portion of the Eck property now is exempt from tax? Olsen: I don't know that that's been determined. Batzli: It's all being taxed right now. e Erhart: Wouldn't they corne in and apply for tax exemption for the whole thing? Wildermuth: Not until they get a structure built and start holding services. Olsen: They're going to try but it's not sure if they'll get it. Erhart: Then at least this would give us some basis to argue for not giving exemption for nlOre than 15 acres so it is, what we're trying to do. Olsen: Carver County the taxes. Krauss: It's also a question of, I don't think anything like this has ever been tested. Enmlings: Why wouldn't it be grandfathered? Why wouldn't they, or would that be their argument that they're grandfathered in because this ordinance was passed after their approval. Krauss: Well yeah but they wouldn't be grandfathered in because they're conling in for subdivision presunlably after this ordinance. Emntings: I see. When you came in for subdivision is when this would apply? Okay. Krauss: I mean if you had an existing church site that was 20 acres, you ~ would be grandfathered in, yes. Erhart: Are we still in the public hearing? Planning Commission Meeting November 1, 1989 - Page 15 e Conrad: We still are. Wildermuth: ...right now because when they do come in for building their structure, for a building permit. Olsen: It's already out. Krauss: It's already issued. Olsen: They're constructing. Wildermuth: They've already started? Olsen: Yes. Wildermuth: Steve, I think you're probably right. They probably will be grandfathered in. Elltntings: I don't know. What they're talking about is when they COllie in... Wilderllluth: Until they subdivide. e Conrad: They're grandfathered in. If they ever subdivide. This is still a public hearing so any COlltnlents city council Illelllbers? CouncilPlan Boyt: I do have a comlllent. I 'Ill against this. I think this is, I said it at the Council meeting, I think this is a bad move for the City to make. I personally don't think the city should be in the business of telling churches how big they should be. The tax impact as I think you noticed during the Eckankar situation is actually a plus in terms of expenses. They have this land sitting vacant than to have individual homes go on it. But the bigger issue for me is I don't believe the City should be in the business of limiting the size of churches. Batzli: Can I ask one question Bill? How does that square with your argulllent of not allowing churches in the CBD and taking them off the tax roll in that case? Councilman Boyt: I think that's a good question. In the central business district we're talking about property that is definitely a revenue generator for the City. If you were talking, I think there's a good zoning reason to say that churches don't belong in the central business district. The land is simply too valueable but I wouldn't say that about the residential single family. Wildermuth: The same thing's going to apply to that property along TH 5 though or along the Boulevard. e Councilman Boyt: I don't disagree with that. I'm also not in favor of going in and relllOving churches that already in the central business district. I mean they're there. I wouldn't encourage more to be there. Planning Corlllllission Meeting November 1, 1989 - Page 16 e Wildermuth: wanted to. I don't think there'd be any legal way to do it even if you Councilman Boyt: I don't know. That's a good point to think through. Does it make a difference not having them in the zone at all versus controlling the size and I do think the City has the ability and should use it to determine where businesses should be with the zoning ordinance. I'm just not comfortable with limiting the size. I don't particularly want Chanhassen to be the first suburb in the country to do that. Certainly the first suburb in Minnesota. Conrad: How did you conclude Bill that it's saving us money? CouncilPlan Boyt: Well they're not putting any tax demand on the City. Conrad: So you Plake an assumption that there would be smaller, cheaper houses going in? CouncilPlan Boyt: my understanding that's possible. I just base mine churches how big If they build houses that are above the City average, it's that it would probably generate income for the City so The tax argument Play not hold a lot of water. I guess more on the concern that I don't want to be telling they can be. e Conrad: Don, any comments on this one? Mayor Chmiel: No. I guess I look at it froPI the aspect of looking at what we have in town presently such as St. Hubert's and the local churches. Neither of those exceed 15 acres. I think what I was looking at was that we not have that much acreage available such as the Temple of Eck is looking at. Them putting in their church and trying to have it totally exempt, that's not going to happen. At least...County Attorney's office but I think we should have some lintitations as to what can be within the cOIlIDluni ty as far as taking the total amount of tax off of the rolls for the properties. I think that's sOPlewhat of a concern that I have basically. what I see too is we have a lot of things within our city that are all tax exenlpt. Many of the things like the ArboretuPI. Parks. There's a lot of land that's...so my major concern is potential of having a restriction on . . . Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Tipl, we'll start down at your end. What do you think about what's proposed? Erhart: This was initiated in Council? How long ago was that or is it just that it came in conjunction with the public hearings for Eck? And the Attorney has, according to your report here, reviewed it all? e Olsen: He wrote the ordinance. Planning COIlmd.ssion Meeting Novernber 1, 1989 - Page 17 e Erhart: Yeah but he's satisfied that there's precedent? I have a hard time reading these things. There's two ways to look at this thing. One that's from the tax standpoint. The other one is from a standpoint, are we trying to prevent SOIlle church organization frorn conting in and doing a great big developnlent? For what reason would a church want to use nlOr~e than 15 acres for a church? Would it be a conference center then also? Krauss: Presumably a church with an affiliated school could take up that nluch proper ty. A church wi th sonle other fac i 1 i ty, be ita canlp or whatever~. I've worked on a number of churches over the years and I've never seen one bigger than 15 acres. Including one that relocated out of Hopkins into Minnetonka, that old Apostolic Lutheran which had a congregation of upwards to 1,100. They were on a considerably snlaller site than that. Conrad: We're really restr icting a caPlpus type of environnlent. The question is, do you want to extract that or do you want to... - Erhart: There's two questions I think. It's an offsetting question. I think what we're trying to do is strengthen our tax position with this ordinance. The offset, what does it do if sonleone conies in and says I want to build a church campus, a legitimate church campus. I guess my reaction is, they come along and we can always review the ordinance at that ~ime so I guess if we're strengthening our position with regard to taxes, I have no problem with the ordinance and it seems to me that if 15 acres makes sense, gi ve thenl what we have here today. Lastly, I guess we probably ought to go out and give this to the existing church owners in the City that have more than 15 acres. I know they're going to tell us, they're all going to tell you, even the church I go to, they're going to say we don't want any restrictions we don't need but we ought to probably do that but I guess I'd support the ordinance. This issue is a big one. Conrad: Steve, you've got to have some interesting opinions. Emmings: I don't have any opinions. I agree with the general notion that we don't want a lot of land off the tax rolls for churches and I think we want to allow people to build their churches and 15 acres seems like a lot to Pie. I probably would have picked a snlaller number but I just wonder if let's say that you have sonle clever church person corlle in and they buy a 45 acre parcel and they subdivide it into 3 15 acre lots and they put their church on one. They put their church school on the next one and they put a church camp on the next one. Aren't they now all exempt? All three of thenl. Wildermuth: No. Erlmli ng: Why? Wildermuth: Because if they meet the State requirements for the test, at least one of the factors for the test, they have to conduct church services on the site. - Epmtings: I don't think so. Planning ComIllission Meeting November 1, 1989 - Page 18 . Olsen: Church purposes. Krauss: Church purposes and one of the questions... ~~ings: Now wait a minute. I don't get the exemption just because I'm a church. I get it because 1'111 for a whole bunch of reasons. There are a whole bunch of non-profit organizations that get tax exeIllption for the various reasons. I think that it wouldn't be too hard to get around this. Now I don't know if that's...by Roger. This only deals with churches. It doesn't deal with the other activities of religious organizations and I think I could put together 45 acres like I said and I don't think you could tax me. I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong or maybe if we thought about it Il\Ore, we could think of a better exaIllple that would do what 1'111 suggesting could be done but like Tim, I'm in favor of attempting to limit this. I don't think this does it and I wish maybe you'd get SOllie COIl~ents froIlI Roger on that before it gets to City Council. I'm going to vote for it hoping that it will do something but I don't see how it will work. Erhart: If I could cOIllment. I think in your exaIllple there, it seePled to understand that we have an ordinance that says that two pieces of property that are under the same owner, two, contiguous pieces of property under the same ownership is treated as one parcel in the city which I don't agree with that but that's the ordinance. I don't agree with it but that is the ordinance. It may apply there. e ~Imings: Bnt I guess the p'oint is, if I have a 15 acre lintit on one acti vi ty and it Play be that I have a 15 acre 1 imi t on IllY church and have all IllY other activities on a 30 acre parcel next door and since it isn't specifically a church, maybe my non-profit charitable status will get me tax exeIllption on the 30 acre parcel. Wildermuth: Well yeah it will. Under the State Subdivision...exempt property, all acadamies, colleges, universities... ~~ings: So it seems very easy to get around to me. It does not seem effective to me but Roger's probably thought this through and would know better than I for sure but that's the only COIl~ent I've got. Oh, I've got one other cop~ent. Sorry. I'm not concerned about what Bill's concerned about. About telling churches how big they can be because I think nUPlber one, it's hard to imagine a church wanting more than 15 acres. with 70% coverage, that means a church that's 10 acres. That's a big church. That's aln\Ost a Cub or a Fleet Farm so I'nl not concerned about it and if this would work, you still wouldn't be limiting their size. You'd say, but you're only going to get exemption on 15 acres and the rest are going to have to pay taxes on. That doesn't bother me at all. - Batzli: I don't like this ordinance. I don't like it before or after the aIllendnlent. They've deleted one portion of the ord inance which appeared to determine whether this section applied to churches both within and outside of the MUSA line and I would clarify that by adding something to the start of this such as the following applies to all churches since the next section applies to those churches outside the MUSA line. I don't think Planning Comrnission Meeting Nove:ClIber 1, 1989 - Page 19 e residential concent:r~ation is defined anywhere. The structure IlIUSt be set back 50 feet. Well, what structure are we talking about? Are we talking about the church which is a defined definition or what are we talking about when we say structure? Are we talking about developed or undeveloped non- residential p:r~operty? Are we tal king about net or gross Ilia x iIlIUIlI lot si ze? If we're going to change the ordinance, I'd like to see us change the whole ordinance and make it a working ordinance. I don't think this is it. I don't even like the principle of limiting the maxiIl'lulll lot size of churches. So I'm going to vote against it. Wildermuth: I don't see that this ordinance really...so basically I'm in favor of it al though I think Br ian's COIllIllents and the ordinance itself are very worth whi Ie. It see:ms 1 ike there should be II'lOre... Better definitions to put SOllie teeth into it. Conrad: I don't have too much of a concern with the ordinance. The things that I think it would restrict are the campus uses. I guess I'm not real interested in encouraging, I don't see a net benefit for those campus uses. The trade off is being more acreage closer to town possibly or for development and for taxes. I do have a question though. Do we want this to be a blanket, across the board restriction by all zoning districts or are there exceptions? Wildermuth: That's a good point. e Conrad: Supposed agricul ture. Is there a case to be lllade out in the agricultural district to put a church out there or would we never, well we did allow a church outside the MUSA line. Batzli: On TH 41 there? Conrad: On 41. Erhart: Even there it's less desireable to have bigger churches. You just don't have the services. Conrad: So is that a case where it would never happen? I can make a real good case for the Eckankar property. It really is taking out some land that I think should be used for other things in the long run and I think it's real unfortunate that, it's going to force us to develop other lands earlier than they should. Therefore, I think it's really unfortunate that that's happening yet if there's an agricultural area that a church wants to move out on, I'm not sure that I care. Batzli: I don't think that owning a lot of property necessarily means that the church is big either. I think that's a II'dstaken assumption. A church may want to build on 200 acres and only have a 5 acre spot that's really landscaped and developed and has a church on it. They may want to be isolated. - Erhart: Yeah, but that's zoned. Planning ComIllission Meeting Novernber 1, 1989 - Page 20 e Conrad: It's still not taxable but the agricultural taxes are significantly lower. wildermuth: They can still own the property... Conrad: Yeah, if they subdivided it. I don't know. CouncilIllan Boyt: discussion about so why isn't the we signaling out The question I'd like to ask, in why you support this, it seems as ordinance aimed at all tax exempt churches? listening to your though it's tax related organizations? Why are EIUIU i ng s : Council? Wait now. Didn't the impulse for this thing come from the City Maybe you could fill us in? Councilman Boyt: No I can't. EnlPtings: I can't either. My initial reaction to this was that this was retaliatory because members of the City Council who, it had that appearance at least that it was retaliatory in some ways because people on City Council were opposed to that church for whatever reason. This came out in~ediately thereafter and just the timing of it made it look that way and I didn't like it for that reason but nevertheless it fits with my own instincts that tell me that that churches shouldn't own big pieces of land that are tax exempt. So I agree with you to some extent. That would be better to have it broader. e Erhart: The difference I think though is that the other exempt parcels, arboretums, universities, parks are public owned land where this is private owned property. I think that's the difference. That's why you wouldn't apply this to those. En~ings: But are there other privately owned tax exempt? Batzli: Canlp Tanadoona. Enlntings: The canlpfire girls. Conrad: They're not tax exempt are they? Enmtings: Oh yeah. Batzli: They're non-profit. Enmlings: Sure. They're tax exempt. They couldn't survive there. They can't survive as it is. Erhart: The other question I had is why are we writing this Section 2 that says this ordinance shall be effective in~ediately upon it's passage and publication but shall not apply to churches which have applied for building pernlit or which have received City Council approval before it's effective date? Why does that have to be in there at all? - Planning Com1'tission Meeting Nove~ber 1, 1989 - Page 21 -- Olsen: To grandfather in existing uses. To grandfather in the Eckankar. Erhart: Why do we want to do that? If we have to do that, why have the ordinance? The probability of having another church coming in with 200 acres. Krauss: Any tinle you adopt an ordinance that has a standard different than sonlething that's in the ground, it's automatically grandfathered in. Erhart: Yeah, so I'm just saying why do we have to make it... Olsen: We probably don't because they already have their building permit now. Enmlings: Are we really talking about churches or are we really talking about maybe privately owned tax exempt activities? Batzli: I'd feel much better about it if it was that rather than just churches. Conrad: You feel we're treating churches unfairly? Signaling them out? Emnlings: Yeah. e Batzli: broade,: . If you're really doing it for the tax base, I would make it Enmtings: That would be consistent. Wildermuth: Cover all the tax exempt organizations. Erhart: Privately owned tax exempt uses. Conrad: I'll go back to my opinion. I feel that the it's proximity to downtown Chan is a real problem. I problem if it was loca ted 2 1'li les west. Then I don't though I'm putting maybe off a problem to the future. is inappropriate use close to where we're encouraging Eckankar, because of don't have the same really care even I think my concern developIlIent. Erhart: The way to look at it Ladd, if it's outside the MUSA line they're probably not paying that much tax for farmland anyway. with green acres it's pretty reasonable. Then at that point when that land gets in the MUSA line and that area gets developed and the tax rate goes up, then in fact we want this kind of ordinance to sort of automatically take effect, which it will. Wildermuth: I guess I would be in favor of giving this back to Roger and having hinl look at extending this.. .inlpact on propertty. We're talking abdut...rather than just single family churches. - Conrad: What kind of impact on Roger's time would that be, and staff time? Krauss: I don't think it's terribly significant. Planning cOP~ission Meeting NoveIllber 1, 1989 - Page 22 e Conrad: This is not a real high priority for me right now but if it's not a major review and cost. Olsen: We can do that. Conrad: And you'd want to just look to private ownership but what would you be telling them to do? To review it? To draft and ordinance that would encourage all of that and then if that went to City Council and they weren't happy, they could keep the part that they wanted couldn't they? Erhart: Addi tionally, just to find out if there's some problenl we don't perceive at this point with expanding this to privately owned non tax paying organizations. Maybe there's something we're not thinking about. Batzli: The more I think about it, I just don't like the idea at all. I mean I don't know that if Camp Tanadoona wasn't there and it came in tOIllorrow, I wouldn't be in favor of them setting up a camp on the lake. Erhart: How many acres do they have? Conrad: It must be over 15. Enllltings: Oh yeah. e Erhart: I bet it's more like 80. EllIDlings: Oh yeah, I'd say so. Erhart: Camp Tanadoona. How many acres do they own now? Olsen: I'd say almost 100. EnlIlling s: That's a big parcel. It goes all the way out to TH 5. Olsen: It's just like ZillIDlel:Plan's property almost. Batzli: So I guess my earlier statement that I'm not in favor of limiting churches and I don't know that that really does it for llle. Privately held non-profit. Enllllings: Or lllaybe we should ask Roger too if there is anything to the idea that if they're limited on one parcel, if they couldn't simply subdivide and have it on contiguous parcels. Krauss: We can get that clarified. e Conrad: I think for sure Steve's comment is, I think we've got to research tha t. I think Br ian brought up SOllie wordi ng and things that I think we might as well improve it or at least send it along to City Council with a little bit illlproved wording if we go with either a positive or negative recollllllendation. I guess the othe:r. question is to research the other parts that we've been talking about. 1'111 not sure if that will, by including Planning Con\nlission Meeting November 1, 1989 - Page 23 e more...coverage that may take my vote away from a positive vote on this one but I don't know. Enmlings: It's tough becanse what Brian says is right. What if the Campfire organization came in and said we want to put in a camp for kids here and a conference center that's going to be tax exempt. I think we'd be all for it. I really do. Wildermuth: But not on a site like 175 acres. Conrad: You wouldn't put it close to downtown. Enmlings: You wouldn't want it close to downtown but how do you ever define that? Conrad: I don't know. I don't know how to do that. En~ings: Eckankar, you're right. Eckankar is a simple example and there are a lot of hard ones. I think we should table it. Batzli: You know that old legal maxim. Hard facts don't make good law. Conr ad: Is there a motion? e Wildernluth moved, EI1'mlings seconded to table action on the Zoning Ordinance AmendIllent to an\end the Ci ty Code establ i shing IllaxiIllum lot si ze for church development to 15 acres and referring the item to the City Attorney. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Conmlission meeting dated October 18, 1989 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. OPEN DISCUSSION AND CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Erhart: What's Cenvesco going to do? What's their next move? Krauss: We're waiting for them to come back with a revised plan. The itenl was pulled at their request. Conrad: Pulled for what reason? Krauss: Cenvesco pulled it. If you read through the staff report, we raised a number of issues regarding the accuracy of the plan and various criteria. Apparently on the advice of Peter Beck who's been retained by the developer, they pulled for approxinlately 30 days. We asked for and received a letter stating that this delay is at their request. . ErhaJ'~t: This Peter Beck is the Attorney for Eck or is he Eck? Planning Conmlission Meeting NoveIlIber 1, 1989 - Page 24 e Krauss: He's with Larkin-Hoffman. Erhart: You mind if I have a question on your critique of the things. EmIltings: You're not going to go into this? Mr. ChairPlan. I have never. sought a ruling from the chair for the years I've been here but now I want you to shut him down until the I1leeting is adjourned and he can talk to theIll all he wants. I have had a belly full of Cenvesco. Erhart: This has nothing to do with Cenvesco. Ernmings: You're looking at a Cenvesco packet. Erhart: I know. YOll have a stateIllent, in addition there is a Class B wetland with a 75 foot setback and wooded area cannot be used towards the net density calculation. Where did we start excluding wooded areas now? Is this a mistype? 01 sen: Yes. Krauss: It's out of context. Erhart: You had me worried. I'm planting all these trees on my property so when I retire. e Krauss: That was one of the few items they raised at our meeting that we agreed wi th theIlI on. Olsen: We're going to be bringing that up to you because in the definition of net density, it's any area unbuildable. Well, we need to discuss what does that I1lean because sonletimes that's been iPlplied to mean steep slopes, vegetated areas. Conrad: Paul, just a real, you had some, or staff. You and Jo Ann had SOIlle good COIllIllents on Cenvesco. There was more substance in this analysis that gave us some numbers to shoot for. Numbers that they should shoot for. One that was missing however was the number of access drives. That was sort of left open but if it came back, I think it's really good and I think maybe YOll can negotiate that wetland but again it's really neat when you have SOllie I1lag ical fOrPlulas and say here's what you've got to hi t. So I really appreciated the staff report from that standpoint. However, you have so Illany good arguments against the poor design that I would have had a hard time going with your positive motion because there were so many good arguments that said hey, I don't know what it is. I don't see a site plan tha t reflects the good arguIllents. wi lderml1th: It seeIlled 1 i ke it should have been tabled aga in. Conrad: I think it should have been turned down based on that. e Krauss: There's a couple reasons for that and we can discuss some of them after the meeting closes but one thing that you need to be concerned with on this and on several other projects is that State law gives you a certain Planning Cop\mission Meeting November 1, 1989 - Page 25 e per iod of tiIlle on which to act on proj ects after which it's approved. And you're oftentimes in a stronger position laying out exactly what you're looking for and voting to affirm it with those conditions than you are to either let it drag on or to deny it. Erhart: If the guy keeps cOIlling up wi th the same plan and you keep denying it, after a while... Krauss: We haven't denied it. We've continued it. Erhart: But if you deny it, the clock is reset? Krauss: That's right and in fact we think we're going to resolve another one, Vineland Forest in the next few weeks but if we did not, we were going to bring recoIlIDlendation to the City Council that they deny it just to stop the clock. e Conrad: I guess if this comes back, even so, I would have a hard tiIlle going for, when you bring up all the valid points which basically means that they don't have that many restrictions up there. They just simply don't. They have a lot of acreage. Their only restriction is finances and to present what they continue to present is just not, it's not worth my diIlle to show up and give theIlI an hour of illY life every third night. I just want to clear them out. I really can't afford to talk to them anyPlOre until they start meeting the intent of our ordinances and they're not. I just offer that as my cOIl~ent. I certainly couldn't have gone for this one in the positive Illode after sOPle of the persuasive arguments that you've created in here. I don't know. I don't know what that tells you for the next time through. I guess we have to be prepped if we should pass it on through just to stop the clock but I really don't want to spend my life rev iewing Cenvesco anyP\ore. Erhart: I'd just support everything. I think you did a nice job of analyzing this thing and I also agree I'm getting tired of looking at it. My question is, we were given the opportunity I thought in the joint meeting we had with City Council to do some pre-emptive strikes here and to get some of these things quickly into the ordinance and make these guys comply to theIlI such as requireIllents for double car garages and... Is there any reason why we shouldn't be doing that? Krauss: No. Now in reviewing Cenvesco, we looked at the existing ordinances and interpretted them the way we felt we could and found some latitude in those ordinances that wasn't exercised before but to more direclty answer your question, we scheduled public hearings on a number of ordinance amendIllents at the next Illeeting. In particular we've redrafted the entire parking and loading section in the entire site plan review section. Filling in what I perceive to be a lot of significant holes. Now we've also discussed that two car parking requireIllent but rather than just COllIe up wi th a one sentence ordinance change we've changed the whole thing because we felt it was just a deficient section. e Erhart: I was referring to the two car garage. Planning Commission Meeting November 1, 1989 - Page 26 . Krauss: Yes, that's in there but it's in there with a lot of other things. Erhart: You're going to make us think? Conrad: One other thought and then we're ready to either move on or go home. As they bought the 5 acres to the north, I'm interested in what those 5 acres do to the property to the north in terms of densities. In other words, did we approve anything to the north? Olsen: That was already separated as an outlot. Conrad: It was an outlot but would it have been used to calculate densities that we granted to Saddlebrook? It wouldn't have? Olsen: And even then it was single fanlily and they wouldn't have exceeded in densities. Krauss: Cenvesco is not pushing the density cap in terms of the number of uni ts Itllll tipl ied over x nuItlber of acres. Olsen: But what you're asking, it doesn't... Conrad: See I'm not worried about Cenvesco. I'm saying well I want to go back, if they're giving that land, I don't want our decision for density on the lot to the north may have included. e Olsen: It didn't. It was already a separate R-l2 piece. Separated as a part of the Saddlebrook subdivision so that was never included. Conrad: But it would have been bundled into the overall net density though right? Olsen: No. EItlnJings: It's R-l2? Olsen: R-l2. It was zoned to R-l2. They have the R-4 strip and RSF and then Emrtlings: Of course it's R-l2 on the other side of it too isn't it? The one that's existing, is that R-12 or is it R-8? Olsen: That's R-l2 and that's why Saddlebrook became R-l2 is because it's pretty much all up on the same hill. Conrad: Any other thing for discussion other than Planning Conmlission interviews. Do we have anybody? Olsen: We've got a couple but could you I"leet like a half an hour eariler next time to interview thern or how do you want to do that? . Conrad: What kind of agenda do we have next time? tabled here? The ones that are Planning COIl:lrnission Meeting November 1, 1989 - Page 27 . Olsen: Long. There's a lot of those zoning ordinances. Krauss: There's only 2 planni ng i telllS but there's 4 ord inances. Erhart: Only 2 applicants so far? Olsen: I've only seen 2. Krauss: I've only seen 1. In fact tomorrow morning Jo Ann and I are going to put, I think the closing date was today. I want to see that if we got a significant nllrnber. If we didn't... Erhart: Would it be worthwhile going back to previous applicants? Krauss: We did that. If we didn't, what we may want to do is talk to the newspapers and ask thelll to put in an article about it. Conrad: Yeah, I'm not cOlllfortable interviewing two people. We need to interview more than 2. Not that those 2 are bad. I don't have a clue but it's just, we need 5 to pick from and I don't now if that's the magic number. I guess I'd prefer to wait until we had SOllle choices out there. I can't bel ieve it. Sometimes nobody wants to be on and then other tillles, we get 15. . Erhart: Wasn't last time during an election time or something that it brought so much interest in perhaps? Elllmings: How ruany did we have last time? It was 15 to 20'. Krauss: Do you interview all of them? Conrad: Yeah. It was a lot. Olsen: I'll check. Maybe today wasn't the deadline but it seemed like we tr i ed to. Erhart: I'd like us to continue to put out that list of projects. Status of projects with each meeting. Olsen: The ongoing list. Erhart: Jo Ann you know what I'm talking about? Olsen: Yeah. You always ask where is that? Erhart: We kind of like to review whether we're lllOving on any of these things. e Conrad: On another subject is priorities for this year. Goals. We started and if you recall one Planning Commission llleeting we kind of laid out SOllie things we wanted to do. We got Ci ty Council input but we never Plerged the two together and if you took a look at the City Council input, Planning CO!l:IIllission Meeting November 1, 1989 - Page 28 e there was SOllie consistency in what they were saying we should do. So far some of those things we've really not addressed. I think we should take a good look again even though, well, I think we should take a good look at what we're around here to do. Krauss: I do have one addition thing too. We need to schedule another meeting on the Land Use Plan. I'd like to distribute a map to everybody that's involved highlighting those areas that we had some questions about so hopefully people can go walk the site and get a feel for it and Mark and I can develop whatever additional information you need but we should set a meeting date 2 to 3 weeks hence. Ep~ings: Our next agenda you said only has 2 planning items. Krauss: And 4 ordinances. Emmings: Do you think that's too Pluch to put it on? Conrad: Yeah. Olsen: It deals with the parking and the site plan. Conrad: Let's talk about the week after that then. Do we have one week we're off. Oh yeah that's right. e Krauss: Could we do it possibly on a Tuesday that week? Tuesday the 21st? EIllmings: I don't know wi thout my calendar. Olsen: We can have vicky call. Conrad: We've got to Illove it on. We can't sit on it. Let's try that week. Let's try Tuesday. I don't want to do it next week. Krauss: No, and qui te clearly when we have enough tillle to prepare signi ficant amounts of informa tion, more is accoPlpl i shed. Conrad: I went out and took a look at the land that we're playing around with. The residential little pocket out there and looking at creeks. What's funny about barriers or things that divide, in the wintertillle they're not as strong as they might be so the tree line that would divide the houses from the industrial, it ain't there in the wintertime. It basically has a real nice elevation to look down over the industrial park. You've got to get out there and take a look. I don't know if there's any magic. I got really confused. I don't have a clue is what it boiled down to down there but I do know that the residents would have a real good gripe for the 5-6 winter Illonths that we have here. And the trees to the west are intriguing but there's a lot of residential tucked in here and there. Interesting. . Olsen: This is moving ahead a lot faster than originally thought too. When those people moved in there, I think they were being told, at least the year 2000, 2010. Planning COll\Il\ission Meeting November 1, 1989 - Page 29 e EllIDlings: Why do we ever tell people stuff like that? Why don't we just say there are, no one has submi tted any plans but when they'll corrie we really don't know. Olsen: Well we tell them that the soonest that it can be and we always say that it can happen sooner. It can happen later. Krauss: You've got to hedge it a little bit but the unfortunate thing is, people buying real estate hear what they want to hear. Olsen: So they see that there's a year 2000 on that map. Conrad: I don't mind you giving out opinions. Geez, I would want. Who else are they going to tal k to to get SOllie kind of feel about development? They can't talk to a developer or other honleowners around. They don't have a clue. City staff has got, as long as it's not given in the form of a pronti se. As long as it's saying our best guess is and I'm sllre, I have the utmost confidence that staff wouldn't be promising something. I think they have to give a feeling to these people. Olsen: And actually that time is when we discussed whether or not we should be pushing for the MUSA line to be amended and that's when the Planning Comntission was saying, no let's wai t. Are we ready for that yet and I think that's where it's... - Krauss: Does Wednesday the 29th work for a meeting? Batzli: Yeah. Conrad: That's not bad. Krauss: Why don't we shoot for that then and we'll get you some inforll\ation and sonle nlaps. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.. Subnd. tted by Paul Krauss Director of Planning Prepared by Nann Opheim -