1e. Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1996.1
L1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 20, 1996
Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Mancino, Alison Blackowiak, Bob Skubic, and Craig Peterson.
Ladd Conrad and Kevin Joyce arrived at the meeting after item 1.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Farmakes
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and
Philip Elkin, Water Resource Coordinator; Diane Desotelle and Ismael Martinez, City
Consultants.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST TO REPLAT/RECONFIGURE 3 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS INTO 3 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS LOCATED IN LOTUS LAKE WOODS ADDITION AND VACATION
OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS LOCATED IN LOTUS LAKE WOODS
AD DITION ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED EAST OF DEL RIO DRIVE
LOTUS LAKE WO(
Public Present:
V KLINGELHUTZ.
Name Address
1 Mark Weis
1
400 Del Rio
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this point from commissioners?
Peterson: Are any of the recommendations, as far as approvals, been changed since the original
one? 1 through 5, other than, like I say has any of then changed is my question I guess.
Aanenson: Not really, no. They're being consistent with, but because we ... original plat so really
all we need to do is just ... shift the lot lines.
Peterson: Okay.
Mancino: So it's the short hand form.
Skubic: Is the compliance table on page 4, is that supposed to be the lot size rather than the
home size? Home width? Home depth?
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996
Aanenson: Correct. It's the lot width.
Mancino: So on Lot 2, the ordinance 90 feet and Lot 2 is 52.23 feet? Is that a?
Aanenson: That's at the cul -de -sac line. It has to be 90 foot at the setback, which it does meet.
There should be an asterisk there that clarifies that...
Mancino: So if you could include that in so that City Council knows that. It's not a variance at
that point. Any other questions for staff at this point? Okay, is the applicant here and do they
wish to make a presentation? Okay, then let's go ahead and may I have a motion to open this for
a public hearing, followed by a second please.
Peterson moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning
Commission on this issue, please come forward and state your name and give your address.
Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing.
Peterson moved, Skubic seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Craig.
Peterson: Straight forward. No comments.
Mancino: Bob.
Skubic: Ditto.
Mancino: Alison.
Blackowiak: No comments.
Mancino: Okay. Good staff report. Thank you very much. May I have a motion?
Peterson: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary
Plat #93 -10 Subdivision to replat 3 lots into 3 lots, Lotus Lake Woods 2nd Addition as shown in
plans received October 23, 1996 with the conditions noted as 1 through 5.
Mancino: Thank you. Is there a second?
Skubic: Second.
Mancino: Any discussion?
2
I CJ
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996
t
Peterson moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Preliminary Plat #93 -10SUB to replat 3 lots into 3 lots, Lotus Lake Woods 2 " d Addition, as
shown in the plans received October 23, 1996, with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into an amended Development Contract.
2. The existing drainage and utility easements in Lotus Lake Woods, specifically Lots 1, 2 and
3 shall be vacated and replaced by those shown on the plat of Lotus Lake Woods 2
Addition.
1 3. Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of land in accordance with City Ordinances.
fJ
1
Id
1
t
1
4. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc -
mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the
City's (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or
greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket.
5. The front yard setback shall be reduced to 25 feet.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER THE BLUFF CREEK WATERSHED NATURAL RESOURCES PLAN FOR
OFFICIAL ADOPTION.
Public Present:
Name Address
John Malakowsky
Jeff Dypwick
Tom Zwiers
Carol Dunsmore
Charly Webber
Jim Struble
Jim Cook, Representing MA. Gedney Co.
Rick Dorsey
George & Patricia Dorsey
Karen Hasse
Kathy & Duane Eischers
Bill A.
Angie Wanless
Gayle Degler
10301 Great Plains Blvd.
10300 Great Plains Blvd.
Moon Valley
730 West 96 Street
1560 Bluff Creek Drive
1405 West Farm Road
2100 Stoughton Ave., Chaska
6414 Upton, Minneapolis
1551 Lyman Blvd.
630 West 96 Street
8460 Ibis Court
835 East Wayzata Blvd.
13471 Cambridge, Eden Prairie
1630 Lyman Blvd.
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996
Connie St. Martin
9231 Audubon
James Anderson
10300 Mandan Circle
Conrad Fiskness
8033 Cheyenne Avenue
Nancy Goetzinger
5937 Dupont Avenue So, Minneapolis
Kate Aanenson and Diane Desotelle presented the staff report on the Bluff Creek
Watershed Natural Resources Plan.
Mancino: Thank you. Any questions from commissioners? I have a couple. Diane. When, just
very generally, as I look through here and I look at the all the projects and what is high priority,
medium priority, low priority. So much is funding sources. Can everyone hear? Comes under
the watershed petition. Can you talk to me a little bit about that? Is that realistic? I mean there
are a lot of projects and I'm sure that the cost is fairly high. The inventory and assessment of
gullies and hillside slumps, etc., etc. What kind of, or Philip? Tell us a little bit about the
Watershed District. Who it is and what kind of funding sources that they have and could this
really happen?
Elkin: Yes.
Mancino: And soon.
Elkin: In fact there are several letters encouraging us to, in fact demanding us to petition for
money for these projects.
Mancino: Demanding us to petition?
Elkin: Well basically. They want their money back for the study so. But the watershed district
controls the entire, when we say watershed, the entire, you can think of it as a big bowl that ends
up in Bluff Creek so you're talking water, lands on the black line that the border of the creek, that
eventually ends up in the creek so. Because the watershed districts extended over several cities,
watershed districts were created to regulate the activities and make sure that cities weren't using
their own rather than the creek's interest in developing plans or involving regulations as far as
management of storm water runoff within the watersheds The watershed district, to get the
projects done as part of the Bluff Creek study, what we would do is we would present the study
and we would petition the watershed district so we benchmarked a series of ten projects here as
part of the Bluff Creek management or Natural Resources plan and we would like the watershed
district to fund these or assist in funding these projects. The funding, wetland restoration, the
projects that directly affect water quality, they will fund 100 %. Projects such as land acquisition
for parks and trails they will fund 50 %. And it goes on, depending on the type of project, they
have rules as far as funding. The watershed district would then take our petition and hire a
consultant to do a feasibility study. So then the numbers you see in the plan are rough estimates
but they would hire private consultants to develop a cost estimate feasibility study, just to get a
parameters on the feasibility and the importance of the project located in the area. Then what
watershed would do, they would develop a cost estimate and then they would vote on whether
they want to do the projects or not. Or whether to go ahead with that and then they would, I'm
L
1
1
u
1
November 20
Planning Commission Meeting - N o 1996
not familiar with the terms, levy a mil to fund the project. Then send out bids. You know once
that funding is there, then they send out bids and the only stipulation is that the bids have to come
in from the contractors within a certain percentage of the feasibility study and they would do the
projects.
Mancino: Okay.
Desotelle: I'd like to add to that a little. Chanhassen can manage their projects if they so choose.
Or they can say, you guys just manage it.
Mancino: Okay. Or they can work collaboratively.
Elkin: Right. It will be a cooperative effort.
Aanenson: Can I make one more statement on that? The City of Chanhassen has been levied for
projects in other cities and so we think it's a good opportunity for us to get from the watershed
district ... city of Chanhassen...
Desotelle: Yes, this watershed district goes out to Eden Prairie, up to Minnetonka, parts of
Bloomington and includes Riley, Purgatory and Bluff Creek. So it's quite large. That's why it's
nice to have a little larger taxing area.
Mancino: Good. Well Conrad is here too and he can maybe speak in a little bit. Other proposed
projects. Dave, can you tell me about Highway 5 improvements. When will Highway 5 be
widened to four lanes? Do we have any idea? I'm looking at the underpasses that are proposed
here, which are development dependent and I'm assuming that's with the Highway 5
improvements from Powers to TH 41.
Hempel: Certainly Madam Chair. It's my understanding that MnDOT will be letting bids for the
expansion, widening of Trunk Highway 5 from essentially Powers Boulevard out to TH 41,
which may also include a portion of TH 41 south of TH 5 in the Fall of 1998. Construction
proposed in 1999.
Mancino: And, just off the top of your head, do you think that's a 50150?
Aanenson: We met with MnDOT and we are on line to, for those, as a matter of fact we
will ... look at start of the acquisition and permitting for the wetlands so I believe we can
accomplish some of these projects with the Highway 5. They will be under construction, as Dave
indicated, in the spring of '99.
Mancino: In the spring of '99. Okay, great. In these proposed projects, is there anything in here
that city fund. Can you explain a little bit about, which is the high priority. The Bluff Creek
overlay district using watershed zoning and cluster development in the amendment to the City's
comprehensive plan.
5
Mancino: When we get into ordinance, okay. Boy, any other questions from commissioners at
this point?
Peterson: Just one more Kate. What's up there now, the 2000 land use plan? Has that changed
at all since the original packet you gave us?
Aanenson: There's just was some clarity from the one that you see. I did make some corrections
from the meetings. The area that was shown, the larger area that's just wooded that we can't,
6
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996
Aanenson: Sure. That would be the next level that we're going to do right now. The actual
zoning ordinance. Now we did receive some money from the Met Council. We could use some
of them for paying for that. Also some of the city funds. As development occurs, this would
probably be in an area inside the MUSA. As you're aware a development is responsible for their
own storm water ... and wetland. Some of those projects, the construction of the—so we looked
at what projects would be happening in the near future that we could tie into, with these
improvement projects. Which one, there won't be development, if development's already
occurred by the watershed district. So we try to look at it that way.
Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Desotelle: There's also several other funding sources that will be available. Once you have a
plan, it's much easier to go and find monies from other agencies, and we also know better
possibilities for some of these projects as they come along. But we need to have the numbers and
we need to have the projects and things spelled out really clearly so this can be used for a lot of
grant applications.
Mancino: And I'm assuming the City really needs to have somebody pushing this forward. An
advocate with this. Is the McKnight Foundation mostly educational funding?
Desotelle: Throughout the year when we were doing the planning process, that's when we
thought we could tie a lot of possibilities through the Interpretative Center or some of the
curriculum development. That's where a lot of the contacts ... I think that's really where they gear
for it. Where the Board of Water and Soil Resources, the Watershed District and some of the,
maybe the DNR will have some of the funding for the water resource and trails matching funds
and sometimes more than that.
Mancino: Okay. I just have a couple other general questions. When Kate you have put a double
guiding of land use, you have put, or staff has put residential low density, or residential medium
density. What does that mean? One or the other or it's both or it's a mixture or?
Aanenson: We saw that as a mix opportunity with some transition, depending on how it was laid
out ... further after articulating in the comprehensive plan. How we see that being developed and
under what conditions it would work to do one or the other or the mix. Yes, we can ... but we
think that the threshold there depending on, we're not sure what those buffer setbacks will be yet
,
so we want some flexibility in there ... bring that up to the next level.
Mancino: When we get into ordinance, okay. Boy, any other questions from commissioners at
this point?
Peterson: Just one more Kate. What's up there now, the 2000 land use plan? Has that changed
at all since the original packet you gave us?
Aanenson: There's just was some clarity from the one that you see. I did make some corrections
from the meetings. The area that was shown, the larger area that's just wooded that we can't,
6
Planning ommission Meeting - November 20 1996
g g
unless we're prepared to buy it today. There's a couple of those areas. The office area around
the 212 interchange was proposed to follow it's property line. This is being done, drafted
somewhere else so it's hard sometimes to communicate all this over the phone. So as we fine
tune it, this is where we believe it is. I think there's just some minor changes.
r Peterson: Okay, thanks.
1 Mancino: On the trails. When will the trails be developed? Is that as development occurs?
Aanenson: That's generally how we propose to do it. As development occurs.
Mancino: So we are not going to go into private property and develop a trail system?
Aanenson: Not at this time. We don't have the funds.
Mancino: So as people. Any other questions? Could we please have a motion to open this for a
public hearing and a second?
Peterson moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
open.
Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Please come in front of the Planning Commission.
Come up to the podium. State your name and address and if you do own land in the area, could
you kind of please point and show us where you do and we'd love to hear your comments.
I
f
I
Michael Lamm: My name is Michael Lamm. I'm with Loucks and Associates, consulting firm.
I'm here representing six major land owners, as Ms. Aanenson has referred to them as the
Chanhassen Group. That's Frank Fox, Jeff Fox, Bruce Jeurrisen, Sever Peterson, Carol and Earl
Holasek, and who's the sixth? Anyway, hopefully all of you have got the package that we did
present to the Planning Commission, and I think it represents basically what you see here. What
we were trying to suggest, in terms of this process, is to take a look at potential uses for this
property, it's almost 500 acres. The idea that we're suggesting, at least with the property owners
that this could be a, we're calling it a mix of uses in the future. Obviously we don't know the
timing of 212 so that we're suggesting what we had shown in our packet. If development here is
proposed, this is a conceptual development which is exhibited through this handout you have, is
proposed without the 212 alignment on it. We believe ... we do understand that that's a very
important corridor issue and that the concentration of a mix of uses here seems to be a very
appropriate for future development. Some people might be of the opinion that this type of
development cannot occur unless 212 is built and that may possibly be the case. The only thing
we'd like to suggest is that, to take the approach that you do need to look at this in a little more
detail as we have. The landowners do support the watershed base. The planning process that
you've engaged has influenced this plan that you're seeing, or exhibited to here. We do take
some exception with assuming a uniform 300 foot corridor ... Open space and recreational
corridor should be a reflection of the existing conditions on site and I think the landowners
certainly support that... The only other thing we'd like to mention is, and maybe it's a question
7
Plannin g g Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996
that this be a mix of office and I guess medium density residential,
to you is, if you 're suggesting
that what we were suggesting in our proposal was that maybe those uses be pushed up a bit, and
if you do assume that the interchange of Powers and 212 does occur, then that seems like a more
likely opportunity and location for a mix of uses. Certainly uses that could be transit friendly or
pedestrian friendly here. The corridor, the Bluff Creek corridor. Primary and secondary '
corridors obviously offer edges and very defined edges to some future potential development.
What we're suggesting is maybe that some of this higher density or higher intensity use be
pushed up more towards the interchange, and that's the exhibit I think you've got there. Exhibit
3 or 4 that suggests our proposed land. Other than that I don't have any other questions. If you
have any questions, and maybe you might want to address that Kate. Exactly why this is in the
location that it is.
Aanenson: I think that we discussed it in a previous work session as far as that being in the
middle of the interchange. That you would be, and then we also talked about under our current
PUD, that it does allow for 25% of mixed and other uses so we believe that—and that's
something that we'll be certainly looking at. As this next layer or next evolution of an ordinance.
Of how we ... believe there will be some flexibility there.
Mancino: So you're saying that where, and I'm looking at your Figure 4 Michael, and I'm also
looking at what staff has suggested. In some of these areas where you have residential low
density, if it were a PUD. If it came in a PUD, 25% of that land could be also commercial.
Michael Lamm: What we're suggesting in that exhibit was that the purple area there you see sort
of has a rectangle, yes. Would be, would allow a mix of uses in that big area.
Mancino: And you're bringing in office industrial and medium density.
Michael Lamm: Yes. Essentially looking at this mix as the staff had proposed here and here,
and allowing that to be more centrally located in the property ownerships that we're representing.
Mancino: Going up a little higher, okay. I
Michael Lamm: Right. Which would correspond with the proposed alignment of the ingress and
egress ramp system so. You're going to get more out of the watershed corridor, the Bluff Creek
corridor, and away from Pioneer Trail.
Mancino: And you're also introducing more uses. I
Michael Lamm: Yes.
Mancino: In a contained area. I mean not only are you, because you've brought industrial where ,
staff has suggested just combining office and residential medium density.
A �
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996
Michael Lamm: Well in terms of, maybe in terms of the proposed land use, this suggestion here
was a mix of uses but in our development, conceptual development plan, Exhibit 2, we were
suggesting mostly office, a mix of densities with residential and some supporting commercial.
' Mancino: Okay, good. Thank you. Any other questions? At this time for Mr. Lamm. Thank
you. Anyone else wishing to come up and make comments. Ask questions or just give us your
viewpoint. Please.
Jeff Dypwick: I'm Jeff Dypwick. I've got about 13 acres just southeast of where Halla
Nursery's property is off of TH 101.
Mancino: Jeff, can you show us on the map.
I
1
f
1
I
I
Jeff Dypwick: My address is 10300 Great Plains Boulevard. Let's see.
Mancino: Maybe we'll have to help orient you.
Jeff Dypwick: Yeah, my piece is right in here.
Mancino: Your piece is right there, okay. And do you have a home there right now?
Jeff Dypwick: Yes. And I've discussed it with Kate and I'm fine as far as the density proposed
and everything. The one concern I have is the possible setbacks from the bluff itself. I
understand it's 30 feet right now, and that's fine but if it gets any farther than that, my property
would be undevelopable. And because of section land and so forth, it's just the way it's laid out.
And basically everything else around there probably would be too. If you go around, the way this
is laid out, with the bluff here and mine, that's just the way Mother Nature laid it out. So I'm just
concerned that you know, if they made it more than 30 feet.
Mancino: We're not proposing to at this time.
Jeff Dypwick: No, I understand that. I'm just expressing a concern as the process goes along.
Mancino: Okay, good. Thank you. Please come forward.
Conrad Fiskness: I'm Conrad Fiskness. I reside at 8033 Cheyenne Avenue here in Chanhassen.
I also represent this area in the Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, and you did raise
some questions earlier that I might be able to provide a little bit of further explanation on. And if
you've got an overhead projector that's working, I whipped up a couple of slides at work today,
just in anticipation of such a question that's being asked might arise.
Mancino: Oh good. And we didn't even talk.
Conrad Fiskness: No, we didn't. The watershed district is very interested in this project. In fact
it's been on our agenda for the last 6 years, and it's been a personal goal of mine while I've been
0
Mancino: We're paying on others that are being used in other communities.
Conrad Fiskness: ...that are ending so.
Mancino: So they'll be ending so it may not increase. It's our turn, okay. So we're getting,
we're receiving what we've already paid in kind of Could be.
Conrad Fiskness: Well you might say you helped Minnetonka and you helped Eden Prairie so
now it's Chanhassen's turn. What this is called is a Basic Water Management Project. It's
established by the legislature. It's a Chapter 103B is what authorizes it, and the way that this
works is any project that is, any of the activities that are water resource related, and that's either
water quality or water quantity, this project can fund that 100 %. If you want to create a lake out
10
'
Meeting - November 20 1996
Planning Commission g ,
,
t we were hoping that we could et accomplished
on the Board. This is one of the things that p g lished so g P
we're very pleased that Chanhassen has gotten to this point. For anything to happen with the
watershed involvement, it has to be included in the 509 plan. If there's a project that comes up
that isn't included in that overall 509, which is a legislative designation for metro area water
resource planning. If it isn't included in there, we really aren't authorized to spend money, and
until we had an approved plan, we weren't, you weren't able to get any money from us to spend
'
either, as this city well knows. While we did get our 509 plan approved here in August, about
August 25 or 26 th , and we are actually the first district to get a second generation plan approved.
So we are now full steam ahead. And so I just would like to show a couple slides here that give a
little bit of an explanation and further elucidate on what Phil said with regards to how this
funding works. It is totally feasible. I mean those numbers really aren't any problem I guess
would be a fair way to say it. But it isn't funding. We aren't giving anybody any gift at all. That
isn't the way it works. What we do provide is the mechanism by which the funds can be raised
and the advantage of this is that it's spread over the whole watershed district. Not just the Bluff
Creek area or not even just Chanhassen. It's over the whole 60 some square miles that represents
Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District. And as such, there's a rather incredibly large
tax base that becomes involved and the burden on any one individual is very, very small. So I'll
show these two slides.
Mancino: So are you saying this is not going to increase my taxes?
Conrad Fiskness: Not so that you'll notice. I would like to have had, and I asked for the
'97
numbers but we're having trouble getting the new numbers for out of Carver County. We've
got them for Hennepin County and we're going to, I hope to be able to bring a slide that will
show what impact our whole budget has on a resident, on a typical size house, and what this
project might have. But it is something under $10.00 per, say $100,000.00 value house. And I
don't know how far under $10.00 but, and that's the whole watershed thing too. Not just this.
It's, I just don't know what the numbers are going to be.
Mancino: So we are already paying into this?
Conrad Fiskness: No, not on this project. But you are paying on others.
Mancino: We're paying on others that are being used in other communities.
Conrad Fiskness: ...that are ending so.
Mancino: So they'll be ending so it may not increase. It's our turn, okay. So we're getting,
we're receiving what we've already paid in kind of Could be.
Conrad Fiskness: Well you might say you helped Minnetonka and you helped Eden Prairie so
now it's Chanhassen's turn. What this is called is a Basic Water Management Project. It's
established by the legislature. It's a Chapter 103B is what authorizes it, and the way that this
works is any project that is, any of the activities that are water resource related, and that's either
water quality or water quantity, this project can fund that 100 %. If you want to create a lake out
10
J
1
1
Lei
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996
there somewhere along Bluff Creek, if that's what this project is going to be, the entire cost of
that would come under this basic water management project. Related items like trails,
recreational and educational facilities. Any amenity that is related to that water resource and to
this project, can be funded 50% of the cost. So if you come up with a million dollars worth of
trails, educational interpretative center, whatever, this can fund $500,000.00 of that money. Of
that set. Then if there's any land acquisition, so long as it's associated with the project, that we'll
cover 25% of that cost. So if there was a million dollars worth of land to be purchased, this
project could see $250,000.00 of that. And then you can use your other sources of funding to
make up those differences. And the project, the most recent one we have going, and I think it
might be the only one that's going off because it's already been paid off but the Purgatory Creek
recreation area, which is right behind the Flagship. That area. That's an Eden Prairie project that
has been approved about 3 years ago. That started out as a $4.3 million project. And I can't
remember the number of years that it was estimated at that time it would take to pay off. This
can take up to 15 years. When a levy like this is put in place, you can go 15 years and so
whatever, and there's a percentage, a certain levy limit that can be done each year which actually
it's a pretty substantial amount of money that can be generated over 15 years. And so using the
Eden Prairie project as an example, they came in with the original $4.3. We did kind of a nice
slide out show to kind of briefly summarize the steps. But it was approved. The project was
ordered. We started collecting the revenue. Then this spring about April, no maybe March or
even February, I can't remember exactly, they said that the project has been rescoped. It's been
down scaled a little bit. They eliminated some costs and they said it will now be $3.1 million.
We spent about 2 minutes in discussion and voted to approve the reduction. And that's it. When
we reached the $3.1, they levy ... over and it will be done. What has happened is that because
there's been an awful lot of planning required in getting that project going. We started collecting
the funds 2 or 3 years ago. We have got, being held in escrow for that project now just right
around $1 million and we have spent, I don't know, maybe $100,000.00- $200,000.00 in addition
to that. But the concept is that if you do the work and a lot of it's done up front and you don't
have the money yet, you sell the bonds on the basis of the income that can be generated by this
levy. Well we haven't had to sell any bonds. In fact we haven't had to sell any bonds on any of
the few projects because we start collecting the revenue right away and by the time that we
actually start getting the expenditures, the money is in the bank. And so that cuts out a lot of
interest costs and rather than paying interest, we are drawing interest on the fund. So it's a very
powerful tool that the legislature created and I guess then the next thing to do would be to just
walk you through the steps that, and this. I'm sure you might actually cringe seeing me put this
up here because I might have left something out and I did it in kind of a hurry this afternoon but
just some of the basic elements that, going through the previous ones that I've been through.
You've got a project. The City will petition the Watershed for the project. The Board will then
order a feasibility study. There will be some costs involved with the generating of that feasibility
study but we are required by law to do that. We have to do that. The other stipulation with that
is, if the project should happen to not be ordered, the City would have to pick up the cost. If it's
a project that turns out to be not feasible, the City would have to pick up the cost of that
feasibility study. That is the... of the Watershed. That keeps people from just throwing in
projects wily nily and hoping that one of them might fly. ...and the record is kept of the
proceedings. There's a period of time in which the record is held open so written comments can
be submitted by the public for a period of time. Then if the project is approved, the project is
11
I'd be happy to entertain them.
Mancino: Are there any questions from commissioners at this point? Okay. Anyone from.
Audience: So ou ou want us to ask for money so you can raise our taxes ... give us money
Y Y Y Y
back.
12
n
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20 , 1996
i
then ordered. And the district will prepare the necessary papers and submit it to the counties and
for the next taxing year, the established levy will be started to be collected. And that's basically
it. As far as the management of the project, it's been done in any one of a number of ways. The
first project was the opening of the channel on Purgatory Creek that ran from just north of
Highway 7 down past Excelsior Boulevard. If anybody's a long time resident here and
remembers the old aquarium shop that used to be on Excelsior Boulevard. That whole stream
,
went, that always used to be underground, and where Bluff Creek ran through there and that was,
the first project was fairly small and most of the work that was done in conjunction with the
,
Minnetonka work that they were doing up there now, or that east quadrant of 7 Hi, TH 101 area.
The second project was creating a watershed you might say of four landlocked lakes in Eden
Prairie. And the City of Eden Prairie petitioned us, some people may recall that a few years ago
Round Lake was overflowing it's banks and they were pumping water and there was water being
pumped along Highway 4 there, and it was running along the road. It's a landlocked lake.
Round Lake's landlocked. Mitchell is landlocked. Red Rock is landlocked and McCoy is
landlocked. And so after some discussion, Eden Prairie petitioned the district to create a chain of
lakes. We went through the process. It was about a $700,000.00 project, and that's been
working now, I think it took us 2 and 3 /4 years, or 3 years. Something like that to pay off that
$700,000.00. It didn't take long and that was 10 years ago and the tax base has grown rather
substantially out here since then. The third project is the one I just had mentioned earlier, and
that's the one in Eden Prairie behind Flagship so I guess my encouragement to the City is, of
course to follow through because we are in a contract that requires, as going through this process,
that when it's all done, the Watershed District was interested enough to follow up on your
exchange with Mr. Elkin. There is a contract that says you are going to come to us and ask for
money.
Mancino: So you're ready?
Conrad Fiskness: We're ready. In fact we're waiting. And the other thing is that, anything that
fits into those three categories that I said, showed you there, I would encourage you to put them
in because if you come along later and said we should have done this, you got to go through this
whole process all over again. And I don't think you really want to do that. So be inclusive, and
obviously good common sense. I think that don't throw in any fluff or anything in there but do
include anything that the project has, or the task force has identified as being a worth while
effort. Put it in there. And because you've got 15 years to work on this thing and chances are the
dollar volume that you've got in there is going to come through in an awful lot less than 15 years
with the maximum number of dollars that I see. What you have there would be covered in 3, 4,
at the absolute most 5 but I think that you can, $1 million will probably be generated in 2 years.
And even so, the tax burden will be rather minimal. We're about the smallest line item on the
entire tax bill. So we're all, not quite out of sight but almost. If there are any questions I guess
I'd be happy to entertain them.
Mancino: Are there any questions from commissioners at this point? Okay. Anyone from.
Audience: So ou ou want us to ask for money so you can raise our taxes ... give us money
Y Y Y Y
back.
12
n
u
t
fl
I �
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996
Conrad Fiskness: That's kind of what it sounds like.
Audience: That's what it is.
Conrad Fiskness: That's what it sounds like but I guess I would encourage you to think about the
fact that the residents of this area have supported three projects like this in other communities.
My guess is the tax base of Chanhassen, as it's represented in our whole district, probably
represents about 20% and so in effect what you're doing is that every 25 cent piece that you're
throwing into the pot, someone else is throwing in triple. And it's Chanhassen's due frankly
within the district. This area out here has supported a lot of the activities that have gone on
obviously in the preceding years because development occurs, as the concentric rings of
development enlarge coming out from the city center and that period of time has now reached
Chanhassen. The district was very concerned that development pressures would get that Bluff
Creek area before either the City or the district or whatever entity involved was, really thought
things through and had a prepared plan. This similar type of project was done in Eden Prairie in
about 1973 or 4. We went through, did the whole study. Cooperated with ... and Eden Prairie and
quite frankly we really have not had any major problems with developers or other entities. They
all understood. They saw the plan. It was laid out. Developers knew and understood what was
involved. They worked around it. They donated the land according to whatever ordinances the
various municipalities had for the preservation of the very sensitive areas. And when it was all
done, and a lot of the Bluff Creek area is now done, we achieve the goals that were set up for
development without anybody having any hassles. We didn't really wind up in court fighting
with anybody and so yeah, you might pay a little bit in taxes now but if you go back and retrofit
20 years from now to correct some problems, it will be a lot more than any numbers ... here today.
Joyce: Conrad, excuse me. Does that mean that when this is levied, when we start a project like
this, it would be involved in the whole watershed district would be levied as well? For instance
Eden Prairie would.
Conrad Fiskness: The entire district. That's the power of this thing. It's that it is spread over, I
don't know, the last number I heard was $150 million tax base in this area, and I think it's maybe
double that by now. And so it really brings a lot of tax base to bear on the thing and that's why it
doesn't amount to much, for any one individual.
Joyce: That's what I mean. It's being allocated among not just us but.
Conrad Fiskness: The entire district. And that is the nature of Chapter 103B.
Mancino: Okay. Conrad, I think you have another question.
Audience: Yes, as these other areas have been completed, are you saying that the levies
disappeared and ... will be re- levied.
Conrad Fiskness: No, when a project is done, it's done.
13
Plannin g Commission Meeting November 20, 1996
g
Audience: So in fact the taxes should go down when those projects quit. Being brought back to
where they are...
Conrad Fiskness: That's about right. Obviously the Minnetonka one only lasted a year or so.
The chain of lakes lasted... years. That ended at least 3 or 4 years ago. We've been working on
the Eden Prairie recreation area. We've been levying for I think it's 3 years and we've got at
least a third of that done so that $4 million project will run probably another 6 years. 5 years.
Audience: So the taxes will go up before they go down? Because those levies aren't
disappearing for those other projects. They're not done yet?
Conrad Fiskness: No. The only thing that is happening is instead of at the time they were
started, initiated, there was a given amount of tax base. Now that tax, in the 3 years since that
was done, there's probably a 30% to 40% increase in the tax base so it's spread over a wider base
so the impact is actually less year by year as it goes along. If this project for example were to be
ordered in '97, it would probably hit with the '98 tax year. And it's conceivable that the,
depending on how large it is, it might go over...
Audience: Is the city responsible for maintenance, upkeep, after the initial project's done or is
the metropolitan water district?
Conrad Fiskness: No, no. It'd be the City. Any projects that are done are City. In fact we
provide the tools and mechanism for the planning and the funding. We can be involved with
either letting the bids. That's what we did in the chain of lakes project. We actually did the
specs. We let the bids. We supervised the construction. That doesn't have to be, that's what
Eden Prairie wanted. They wanted us to do the turn key job. The Eden Prairie recreation area,
that will be that way. We will maybe do parts of it. For example a new outlet structure had to
be, stabilizing the level of that area had to be put in and that was done here within the last year or
so and they asked us to manage that construction project. But they are managing the whole
project. The only requirement that will be involved is that the watershed, if there's a
management committee or a management unit in the City, overseeing it, that we would have a
technical person that could be included in that because we are required by law to ensure that the
taxpayer's money is being properly spent. ,
Audience: As you're talking to us here, what other areas are you talking to that are levies
monies... all of us?
Conrad Fiskness: We know of none.
Audience: What's your worst case scenario? Say for example you took your millions and put it
towards a school or something, as compared to watershed. I don't see the problem with lakes
overflowing and everything with this watershed. What is so important? I mean what do you see
the worst case happening down the road?
14
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996
Conrad Fiskness: What would happen to this area if nothing was done?
I Audience: Right, on the watershed.
Conrad Fiskness: Well you have a very, very sensitive area in the lower reach especially. If you,
if nothing was done and the area would be all built up with impervious surfaces, parking lots,
roofs, streets, whatever, the peak flow discharges that would hit that creek during heavy rainfall
events would grow rather significantly and you would see a very significant increase, in my
opinion at least, and we've got engineers here that could comment to that, but in my opinion
without proper planning, we've got very sensitive slopes. You've already got areas there that are
slipping away. You would see a lot of degradation of the stream bed itself. You would see
erosion taking place. Water quality would drop dramatically. We are under an obligation with
this contractual being put together by the Metropolitan Council about 10 years ago. We are
required by law to reduce the sediment load into the Minnesota River by 40% or 50% by, we
must just about be there. And so that was the outgrowth of an lawsuit by Wisconsin against
Minnesota for dumping all this stuff into the Minnesota River which runs into the Mississippi
and that was, that contract was the basis on which the Blue Lake Sanitary Sewer System, that
plant down there was allowed, they got their permit. So theoretically that permit that the, I mean
this is a rather long chain of things which...
Mancino: Could happen. Ismael, is there anything else you'd like to add to that? What could
happen if we leave it.
Ismael Martinez: Yes. Ismael Martinez. I work with Bonestroo and Associates. I was the
project manager for the Bluff Creek watershed. And the only thing I can add to that is
that ... efforts to control peak flows and even try to mimic existing conditions after... conditions.
The reality of it is, we are increasing the amount of volume of water that eventually reaches the
Bluff Creek. In this case when we did a preliminary or the initial field work we noticed that the
Bluff Creek has already experienced a lot of erosion and a lot of problems with the steep slopes.
And right now the amount of development that the watershed has experienced, in our estimate
are around 50 %. So the areas that are sensitive, if you wouldn't do some of these projects or
some of the things that are identified in the plan, you will end up spending a lot of money just
stabilizing the banks because you can ... waters coming down rushing at very high velocities
' erodes the banks. ...the banks of the stream would get widened and widened and eventually
would have to be so... setback of 30 feet, then somebody will eventually... eventually your house
would be pretty much sitting on a cliff because you'd have... So definitely that area is very
important. And you would end up spending a lot more money.
Audience: In relation also to that, sometimes development can be a positive factor? Because
' when you take agricultural and that runoff, and that will cause erosion for development. I know I
built my house on, right before you passed the Bluff Creek ordinance and I stabilized my whole
bank with drain tile as a responsible citizen. I have 120 acres and I have put in prairie grasses
and pastures to stop it and I think we have to give some credit to the citizens that we care about it
too and to allow somebody to come in and spend more tax dollars to do it their way is an
infringement and now let's restrict them from what they can do and not do on their land, is kind
15
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996
of a dog chasing it's tail. And that's why I think that sometimes you really have to be, I guess
where I'm coming from too is that I have a process of even trying to sell some of my land and
there's reputations in dealing with for example the City that, even though I bought a track of
land, developers don't want to come in because of all the restrictions already in place, and all of a
sudden on top of, on top of, it's like holy moly. Right now we can't come close to it anyway and
that's, you know I'm not saying this out of frustration but I think that you know, where we're
looking at all the ... and I saw in the reports all the clarity in the water and I guess it's called
fishery, where it's runoff. And that's where, I think there's an illusion that there's this beautiful
aquatic system out there in these swamps that run into creeks that run into a river and that's why
you know it's like we're protecting something sacred out there it's, I heard what you're saying
about the bluffs but if the watershed was spending this money for all the ponding, is it that big of
an issue. Or is it the trails that we want and stopping development.
Ismael Martinez: Well ... very good base management practices that would minimize the impact
of the conservation from agricultural practices to urban practices. And the reality is, it would be
very tough to think that it's possible to ... single family development where everybody would do a
little bit to reduce... We cannot just assume that we can ... and even some of those steep slopes
we've been able to sort of berm around the property boundaries and so forth to be able to... some
of the water so we have to come up with some alternatives that are applied to the entire
watershed. Definitely there are some friendly designs I believe ... to credit some of the developers
who are coming up with some of these, let's say, I wouldn't say friendly designs but more... this
pollution problem. ...primarily those improvements that have been identified in the plan is just
to maintain the stability of the stream and the existing conditions so we're not going...
Mancino: Thank you, Anybody else wishing to come.
Conrad Fiskness: I'd just like to add one comment. I don't want to give the impression we're
encouraging wily nily spending, because we're really a pretty conservative group. But by the
same token this is kind of the one chance that you've got and so figure out what is, when you
come to us, know what's important and what's needed because we are committed to try to help
and make it happen.
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come in front of the Planning Commission? Give
your comments. Questions. Yes. State your name and address please.
Erik Roth: Yes, my name is Erik Roth and I live in Minneapolis at 225 West 15` Street, by
Loring Park and I grew up in Deephaven. I've never lived in Chanhassen but I've been a
frequenter of Bluff Creek since 1961. I've been interested in preserving it and I'm not exactly
sure where I should begin with some remarks here but one of the concerns I have is that this
effort not be considered purely an engineering point of view for water quality. Nor from an
economic point of view, or for a ... land values. But literally for a point of view whereby this
system, and it literally is swamps flowing into creeks flowing into rivers, and I do believe it is
sacred. But that we consider this system from a point of view of 50 to 70 years, 100 years from
now when all of us will have lived a bountiful life and be resting in peace hopefully. But at that
time if what we do now is not enacted on in the interest of this ecosystem, it will not be
16
L
ii
J
1
ii
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996
economically possible if it is indeed at all feasible in any kind of a way to get back. This is a
once in a lifetime opportunity. It should have been a long time ago frankly. However, we're at,
we're poised now I believe, you're poised I should probably say since it's your decision to make
and anyway, you have that chance to do something about it now. You should think of it as many
ways as possible, and involve both developers as well as land owners who are doing the right
thing by their property. To consider this in a greater way. Not just what does it mean for me.
Would I have to pay an extra $10.00 every year in taxes or whatever it may be. This is
something where the whole is much greater than some of the parts, and the burden is minuscule
compared to anything that can be achieved. But truly think of it not in terms of pollution into the
Minnesota River, although that's important. Or any one issue, but think of it literally in terms of
the ecosystem. The wildlife. We have to, I believe exist together with a lot of other living things
and our well being is not measured by how much we can either exploit or even enjoy. Simply
these things have rights and we need to recognize that. I think this plan has a lot to say for that,
and hopefully the decision you make will not be a political one in the sense of what will your
constituents say immediately. But think about what the next generation will say... Thank you.
Mancino: Thank you.
Angie Wanless: My name is Angie Wanless. I live at 13471 Cambridge Lane in Eden Prairie.
spend probably over 200 days of my time at Bluff Creek Elementary. I'm a 5ch grade teacher
there and I teach mostly science and math and my concern, my voice I guess comes from the
students or for the students in that I've been a member on this committee in helping realize the
vision, particularly in the area of education. And I guess foremost, obviously you have the leaf
on the wall. Chanhassen is the sugar maple so it shows, it reflects you know a growing concern
for our heritage. I remember when Chan didn't have a Target. We didn't have a Byerly's and
how pristine and quiet it was. I'm not saying that it's bad but the original lands before farmers
came in were wetland areas and huge populations of maples and other trees, and I guess I took
the kids out last year, right out our front door of the school, and there's this narrow strip of land
on the south side of Bluff Creek, and there were some forests and there hadn't been any leaves.
It was in the spring. The leaves were still off the trees and we did a scavenger hunt. And the
kids found animal pellets and fox tracks and mouse homes and bird nests and they were just in
love with the whole activity and they were well behaved and excited about what they were
learning and I found out that we were on private property so we don't use that lesson anymore.
But you know, it would be nice to have different ecosystems for them to explore and right now
outside of Bluff Creek there isn't much but you know groomed green space. We're working on
growing a prairie in the front. If we extended our trail out, we could see the creek. Rarely do
kids even know there's a creek there. The teachers that I work with, oh! There is a Bluff Creek.
Yes, there really is a creek. They don't even know. So I take the kids to look at the creek, albeit
small it is but, and there's a wetland area there and this corridor would at least provide some
areas for us to explore and teach and learn as a community instead of being on somebody's
private property. So I strongly advocate that you support the plan for future generations. Those
that grew up with it and would continue to grow up with it and realize that suburbia and
ecosystems can live together. Thanks.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Last time. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning
Commission. Whether it be on land use. Whether it be on policies, goals of the plan. Okay,
seeing none. May I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second.
Conrad moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Mancino: Okay. Before we begin, are there any questions? Anybody, commissioners have any
questions of any?
Peterson: The only question I have was for you Kate. When you look at the proposed land use
acreages and percentages. You go down there and we've got 0% is undevelopable. I'm having a
hard time understanding that one.
Aanenson: Well, the previous comprehensive plan ... land that was left designated
undevelopable. So right now we're...
Peterson: Okay, understand.
Joyce: I had a question for Phil. Phil, that project that's right, just east of the Bluff Creek
Elementary. Is that a watershed project?
Elkin: No. That's a city project. We were able to tie that into the wetland mitigation project as
part of Coulter Boulevard. So that was, we were able to implement ideas of the Bluff Creek
management plan by, they would, the growth project would have had to mitigate that area in
some way.
Joyce: But that won't be anything to do with the watershed? Will that be kind of a continuing
type of, it's done now I guess, right?
Elkin: Yeah, it's done. The projects are going to, as areas become developed, it's an opportunity
for the City to do projects in order to use the management plan to influence how areas are
developed. As a new development comes in, they'll have certain obligations as far as park and
recreation can use ... this area. That we would like to see more parking up for trails, picnic
areas ... to see the vision of this plan. The projects that we petitioned the watershed district may
or may not be involved with other projects.
Joyce: But that would be an example of a project that could have been involved in the watershed
plan. I guess that's what I'm trying to allude to.
Aanenson: It could have been. I guess we're out ahead of the watershed.
Joyce: I understand that. But that's kind of a visible thing. I go down Highway 5.
Elkin: Well down to the impact on the creek there, the wetland, we wouldn't have thought of
mitigating...
IR
II
L
J
L
L
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20 1996
P1 a gCo g ,
Mancino: Any other questions? Okay. Comments. Alison.
Blackowiak: Well I'm coming into this process rather late in the game so I really don't know if
I've got an awful lot to say. What I've read from city staff, I'm very impressed by the work that
everybody has put into this. It seems like the vision and the plan itself is well thought out. I
really did read everything. I didn't understand it all but I did read it all. I really feel that the plan
that the city staff is proposing is a good one and I am really going to say I will hopefully approve
it. I approve it and I don't have anything much to add because I did come in kind of late in the
process.
Mancino: Okay. No changes?
1
t
t
I�
it
1
Blackowiak: No.
Mancino: Okay. Ladd.
Conrad: I really like the Bluff Creek aspect of this and I think it is a great opportunity for
Chanhassen. It's one of the things that most of the neighbors who move out here, we moved out
here for the natural part of it and as you can see on the map it's all going. It's all, this is it. This
is the last part of Chanhassen so this is the time to preserve those few natural amenities that are
left. Bluff Creek is one of them. The return on investment I think is outstanding. Then when
you combine the educational aspects and the recreational aspects and the habitat aspects, and the
watershed aspects to it, it becomes for me really a no brainer. It's just something that has to
happen. It's very important. In terms of the other parts of the zoning. What was recommended
by the Chanhassen Group, I really don't have a whole lot of problems with what they presented.
Zoning wise, or guide plan wise, whatever. I'm not sure how I resolve that. I guess I like how
we're dealing with the large. I like the rest of, we don't have a great deal of flexibility. There's
some just really logical things that I think staff has done that work. I'm comfortable with the 169
corridor and the residential aspect of this but again the only areas that I do have concerns. Not
concerns with but maybe not totally confident is along the 212 corridor. In terms of how dense
we would like to make that and I'm not committed to making it all residential. I think what I see
on the staff's plans are fine but I guess what I'm saying is, I don't have a real problems with what
the Chanhassen Group has proposed. That's all.
Mancino: Okay. What is the 212 update? Not that it's changed at all but is there any new
update? Okay.
Conrad: Can I ask one of staff? Why didn't we all along the corridor, if it gets built, why didn't
we make that a higher density corridor Kate?
Aanenson: I believe that we can still accomplish that when we come back with the next tool.
How we go through that and provide that with a PUD ordinance or there's some flexibility to say
even with these certain preservations ... I think again going back to the city's goal of having a
downtown as our commercial corridor but I think as we've done with the Villages, there's
19
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996
certainly an opportunity to get some support. This is going to be a major off, we see that as an
opportunity. And I think what we want to handle that through is performance standards. So we
want to put that in the next level of the ordinance. If these proponents can withstand... then we
will be allowed this additional flexibility... support commercial or higher density.
Conrad: Okay, I buy that. A vision that I had though, and this is no great revelation but you
know we've done, people have done a real nice job with Highway 5. And we've got the
standards there and we are putting in an integrated mix of stuff. And we can do the same thing
here. And you can, what we've been talking about is integrating the community in all the
different, what you find out is as you put zones into the community, you start separating things
and you don't integrate things so it makes things further away from you and what we're probably
trying to do is see if there is some form of integration and still keep people protected to the
degree that they would like to be. But it just all of a sudden, it clicked that the 212 corridor
should have the same kind of vision that we had on Highway 5 because that's a really well,
nicely done, at least planned corridor right now. So I have a hard time taking our colors and
seeing how that works in terms of implementation.
Aanenson: Right, I agree with you. And again, this is the land use that we will implement into
the performance standards because it's a zoning tool. Okay, we don't want to have strict
commercial but we want it under our performance standards, and again because this is going to
be different as far as the sensitivity to the land as having development and that's how we want
to... And again, that will be the zoning tool.
Conrad: That might be okay. The only other comment that I had, that other commissioners
should think about which, and there's probably no solution so I'll bring up something that you
really can't react to. As you look at our acreage, the commercial is way under everybody else in
the world. Way, way, way under. So as we adopt this final zoning, land use plan, but it really
relates to zoning. You can say it's guided but it's zoning. We are basically saying there's no,
there's very little other commercial activity that's going to take place in Chanhassen. So any
future use has to come back in and we have to retrofit what we have.
Mancino: But we can still pick that up with a PUD.
Aanenson: I'd be happy to respond to that.
Conrad: Go ahead, yeah.
Aanenson: We're comparing ourselves to regional draws. I think the City has taken a position
that we're not going to be a regional draw.
Audience: Excuse me, could you speak louder? Speak into the microphone please.
Aanenson: Sure. That we don't see ourselves as a regional draw. The comparisons I gave you
are Minnetonka, which has a more regional center. St. Louis Park, which has a more regional
center. Again this city isn't, at this point hasn't seen itself as that regional draw that's why when
20
I
1
f
u
L
1
11
I�
�
h
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996
you're comparing 2% to 4 %, when you've got a large such as retail in Eden Prairie Center, it
makes a big difference. And that's why ours is 2% as opposed to 4% or 5 %.
Conrad: It just points out Kate that we don't have any more commercial land to develop
basically. There's very little left. And so if anybody has a feeling that we should have some,
we're.
Mancino: Speak now or forever hold your.
Conrad: This is it.
Aanenson: Well you can find it on the north side of the city. Rezone something else that's
already closer to the current downtown commercial corridor.
Conrad: And where would that be?
Aanenson: We get requests all the time along Highway 5 adjacent to downtown. It doesn't mean
it has to be in...
Mancino: But we still could have neighborhood commercial in this area for servicing?
Aanenson: Certainly. Right, and I guess what I'm saying is again, under the performance
standards is where we...
Conrad: Well we'll never have a development like we see going in, the Gayalans development
that's on 394 and.
Mancino: County Road 73.
Conrad: And 73. We will not have that in Chanhassen. Whether we want that or not, that's a
different deal but that's one of those well planned commercial developments that is something
that, I'm not sure that the market would justify that kind of development out here.
I Mancino: It will on 394 but.
Conrad: Yeah, we will not have that here because we don't have the acreage for that.
I Mancino: Bob.
Skubic: I'd like to commend staff for taking the initiative and doing such a good job on all this.
I think this was areal nice piece of work. And first off on the land use a little bit. I don't, neither
staff nor the Chanhassen Group has made a big impression on me as to which plan is preferred.
They seem to have much in common. We're talking about 57 acres out of a land use here of over
6,000 acres. We're not talking about a great deal of area that's a point of discussion here but I.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996
Mancino: The Chanhassen Group's acreage is like 450 acres.
Skubic: Okay, thank you. I don't see a great deal of difference, and maybe I haven't absorbed
what was being said here but I don't see a great deal of difference between the plans. And I like
the land use along the proposed 212 corridor and as Ladd was saying, it's not going to be a big
commercial strip along there the way it's being laid out here. It's my impression that's not what
we want. That would detract from downtown and that isn't part of our comprehensive plan so.
And I can't argue with the Purgatory-Riley -Bluff Creek District matching the funds on that 3 to 1
ratio. I think that is hard to turn down. By -pass something like that. What I do wonder is what
the additional costs are. As was pointed out, that might account for, well we are paying $10.00
for $10,000.00 per $100,000.00 house currently, and if we did not pursue this plan, that would
probably be reduced because of the termination or expiration of some other plans. So I'm
comfortable that, I understand what the financial obligation is there in terms of our taxes but I'm
not sure what the additional obligations are for things like maintenance for the portions that
aren't covered. I understand there are a number of other agencies that could be supportive of this
but I'm not sure how much of it they would support and what the ultimate tax obligation might
be for this. That's all.
Mancino: Is that something that you want to find out, before it goes to the City Council? Or an
estimate of that.
Skubic: Yeah, I think that's something that probably Council would be interested in knowing
more about and certainly the citizens here are interested.
Mancino: That might be then part of the motion as it goes to City Council. Okay. Kevin.
Joyce: There's obviously a need for a plan. Just for the direction here but also for the funding.
We're coming on a deadline so I think as the other commissioners have stated it's, I think it's a
win/win proposition to get this funding for this particular project. Tonight's meeting was good
because I really get a better feel for the flexibility of the plan. I think we will be able to make
some changes when needed. There are a lot of variables obviously in the future that we can't
foresee right now and I feel a little more comfortable with that flexibility. Ladd brought up the
performance standards and I think we talked about that a little in the work sessions and I think
that's really important. I think it's a very good part of the plan. Obviously protects a sensitive
area that we want to preserve and it's a plan that really looks forward. That's what the planning
staff's all about and what our commission here is all about so I think it's truly a win/win
proposition and I'm in favor of it.
Mancino: Thank you. Craig.
Peterson: For as much work, time and total effort as has been put into this plan, I wish I had
more comments. I think it's applauding the individuals that have been involved in it but I don't,
I think it's been presented well. Very well. And the lack of my comments certainly note that I
think. As it relates to the land use issue, I don't think there's any substantial recommendations
that I could make that would differ. I think as Kate mentioned earlier, I think we have an
22
L
J
I LI
[
i]
1�
L
1
J i
L
r
L�
�7
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996
opportunity through PUD's and the challenge is going to be that if the future zoning issues that
will come before us. I'd also like to commend the residents and non - residents comments that we
heard this evening. I think they were very salient to the issues at hand, and I'm in full support of
proceeding and bringing it to Council as soon as possible.
Mancino: Thank you. And my comments are that I was on the steering committee so I'll keep
mine kind of short. I just think it's terrific that everyone that was involved in this plan, and that
we did have the wherewithal to look at it now and plan out 40 to 50 years and so that we're not
going to say back then I wish we would have done that 50 years from now. As it, in land use, my
comments are that I would like to proceed with staff's recommendations. I do believe that the
Chanhassen Group's conceptually is very much in accordance with staff's and when we get to the
zoning and ordinance stage, I do like the idea, and we have been using lately, the mixed use
concept and continue with that. So those are all my comments. May I have a motion please?
Peterson: Madam Chair, I'd recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan that was presented this evening
with attachments I through 4.
Mancino: Is there a second?
Blackowiak: I second.
Mancino: Any discussion? Bob, did you want to add a friendly amendment?
Skubic: I'd like to. I would like staff to clarify what the per person costs would be for the plan,
including...
Skubic: Yes.
Mancino: Soper capita? Fiscal impact.
Mancino: Okay. Is the friendly amendment accepted?
Peterson: So noted.
Mancino: Thank you.
Peterson moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan, and direct staff to
clarify the per capita fiscal impact of the plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mancino: The motion carries and it goes in front of the City Council?
Aanenson: December 9t"
23
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996
Mancino: December 9' ". Thank you for coming tonight.
OLD BUSINESS:
Aanenson: I don't have old business but I have City Council update.
Mancino: You know what we do have for old business is the housing goal update from last
week. We never reviewed it. Can we?
Aanenson: ...meet our goals and I just want to show you where we're at... About 60% multi-
family. 30% single family detached. This year we've only done 10% to 15% multi - family. The
rest are single family, although our building permits are down about 50 %. What ... is kind of
projected what projects we've approved or will be coming on line next year and actually we'll
probably swing the other way. Our permits will be up again next year. Probably up again about
50% and in addition to that we'll see, we've got Autumn Ridge on line. We've got North Bay,
which will be meeting our housing goals and ... so I just wanted you to see where we're at. We
are still working on the ... so just again, that's really just for your edification to kind of show
you...
Mancino: My only comment was that I still feel, which is I feel it's rather unrealistic to think
that we're going to have affordable ownership at 50% as a goal. I mean we're at 37% now, and
we're going to get to 50 %? For the whole city?
Aanenson: Look at what we're trying to do with the Villages and hopefully the southern end.
Again we've got 15 years.
Mancino: Okay.
Joyce: What do you do with the comprehensive plan?
Aanenson: Well, what we need to do is make our best...
Joyce: No, I'm sorry. I was just saying when we revisit the comprehensive plan, is that going to
tighten things up as far as what.
Aanenson: Every year we have an opportunity, when we adopt those goals ... but you're right, it's
going to be an issue. I'm putting an article in the next packet on some other opportunities that
some of...rental in the affordability range. A lot of the things, and again the Met Council... The
senior housing project, just for your information, is fully rented.
Mancino: And that's in advance. I mean that's like a year in advance of the projections. Their
projections.
Aanenson: Way in advance. So that's 65 units.
24
1
1
u
' Planning ommission Meeting - November 20 1996
g g
' Conrad: Has the City Council, Kate adopted the housing goals?
Aanenson: Yes.
' Conrad: Because there's just no way we're going to get that, in my perspective.
' Aanenson: The 50% rental?
Conrad: Yeah. In fact a lot of the numbers there, I'm just not sure about. It's like I don't have a
strategy to accomplish that so, in my perspective we're playing a game.
Aanenson: Well what I did is I went through.
Conrad: Actually, I'm not committed to carrying that out. I guess that's really what it boils
down to.
Joyce: The Pioneer Press has a series this week, front page series on the Metropolitan Council.
First part of the series was explaining communities like ours trying to get to these goals. A
couple communities just throw up their arms and say we're doing the best we can but you can't,
you know and what the Metropolitan Council's going to do as far as using the hammer to get
them to do it, and they're saying we really, if it came to a lawsuit, you'd probably lose. If we do
lose, the whole thing would go out the window so we probably wouldn't sue them in the first
place. But it's an interesting article.
Mancino: And some cities have opted out too.
Aanenson: I guess what we're saying is we're trying. I mean realistic, we did not sign up for the
goals that they projected us to be. We said there's no way we can meet those goals. What we did
is we went through what have been the trends in the last few years. A pretty detailed analysis as
far as thresholds and are we trying ... effort to get to that point. That's, to me the objective that
we're trying to get. Are we trying to get to that point? ...I think we demonstrated that we have.
I hear words like there's not a commitment. We worked with Met Council...
' Conrad: It's like the numbers Kate. And I don't know what the community is that those
numbers represent. They're numbers that you're feeling comfortable that will make them feel
comfortable.
Aanenson: No, no, no.
' Conrad: But I don't know what we're, I really don't know what we're doing on those numbers,
to be real honest. I don't know that they're good. I don't know that they're bad. I don't know
how we're going to implement that to make it happen. And if we did, I'm really foggy about the
type of community that we end up with.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996
Aanenson: Then I think we'd better do a better job in explaining that to you because those
numbers are well founded...
Conrad: That's what I'd like to do. Is go back and see how we got there and then see how we're
going to carry it out because it should be more than our game of pacifying them. There should be
some.
Aanenson: I certainly didn't take that approach. I wouldn't put my, I wouldn't give my
professional recommendation with that kind of approach. I want you to know that and I'm
committed to that. When I told the Council these are numbers, that's my professional reputation.
I wouldn't do something like that... Obviously there's some things we're going to have a harder
time getting unless there's some additional funding but I think based on the density that we have,
and the problems we found when someone comes in underneath the density. That's one of the
things, if we've got something zoned and it comes underneath the density, and you brought this
point up before. Then where do we replace it? Those are some of the issues that we're
struggling with. But we do have high ... Now we have opportunities to do some other things such
as North Bay. I believe that there was some rationale behind it. Are we going to be able to
achieve it? Yeah, there's market forces. This year we did more detached. Last year we did more
attached. But we've got 15 years to get there. And I'm saying that we're trying to make our
best...
Mancino: It certainly keeps it to top of mind.
Conrad: Well I'd like to, Madam Chair, I'd like to certainly take some time some evening to,
and Kate has done that but I need to feel myself that they're numbers that make sense to me.
And that I can see where we're going to go. And if I can't see where, most of this is low density,
large lot as I look at that. Isn't it?
Aanenson: Yeah. That was something that was approved prior to 1997 that we're not changing
We think we're getting...
Conrad: So it's just, I see that and I tell you, then it's a quantum jump to look at the housing
styles and say, boy we've got it made. Or we're doing it, so that's my problem and I think we
should, as a commission, figure that out knowing what we're going to do.
Aanenson: We have a work session in February. That'd be a great topic to take up... First
meeting in February we'll have that a work session. I'd be happy to put that on.
Conrad: Okay, good.
Mancino: Any other old business? Okay, new business?
Aanenson: Oh, I'm sorry. John's no longer with us ... and we have advertised for a Planner I.
Hopefully by the first of the year we'll have somebody...
26
1
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996
NEW BUSINESS.
' Mancino: Okay. New business, I had suggested to Kate earlier this week to review the existing
ordinances that we have on IO's, Industrial Office Parks, and where loading docks can go on the
buildings. Especially those that are adjacent to single family. What's the distance and where
they should go so we can address that a little bit in our ordinance.
Aanenson: ...we did get that copy from Plymouth's that in a draft right now... It wouldn't work
at Byerly's. It wouldn't work in the Villages. You couldn't have any loading docks. So if
you're trying to do a mixed use, it doesn't work. But we are going to put it on for discussion.
Some pros and cons and some other approaches we thought might make it work. So it's a good
discussion item.
Mancino: Good, good. And it could be closer. I know that Plymouth's is like 350 feet away.
Yeah, it's down to getting an acoustics specialist to come in and say, how does it work closer.
Plymouth just went through an ordinance revision because they were very concerned. In fact
' they put a moratorium on and I don't know what the particular business was, but they were
coming in next to single family and they had loading docks abutting single family. Or that's
what they wanted to do and the Plymouth City Council put a moratorium on it and then
developed an ordinance as to where loading docks could go next to single family. And Roger
Knutson, who is our City Attorney, worked with them on that.
Aanenson: Yes, it's in a draft form. I think it's...
1
Mancino: Good. And obviously that came up with the post office debacle that just happened.
The other new business I brought up, and I don't know if anyone else has seen these but there is
on Galpin and on Lake Lucy new little, I call them bus stop shelters that homeowners are putting
up for kids. Very functional. Very great. You know the kids will have this little shed next to the
road, and I don't know if they're in the right -of -way. They kind of look like it. But we could
have a lot of those all along our streets and so I was just wondering if we should be looking at
that. I think they're a good idea. They're functional. Help kids that are waiting outside when
their homes are pretty far away from where the bus stops. But if any of you are out driving
around, there is one on Galpin, just north of Crestview. And there's also one on Lake Lucy Road
so you just get an idea of what I'm talking about.
Peterson: Are they wood?
Mancino: They're all wood.
Joyce: It looks like a fish house.
Mancino: That's true. They look like a fish house. So we might want to discuss that. Talk
about what should be, if anything, we should do about that. Any other new business?
Aanenson: I was just going to mention that on your next meeting...
27
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996
Skubic: The senior center is right over there?
Mancino: You know nobody has gotten slips, at least I haven't gotten my slip on my house. You
know what's the new assessed value so I don't know how they're going to do it December 4
Aanenson: Carver County...
Mancino: Has anybody else received theirs?
Blackowiak: I live in Hennepin County too so I've gotten that one but not Carver.
Mancino: They're supposed to be mailed on November 5` Okay.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Peterson moved to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 6,
1996 as presented.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Aanenson: Thank you. The tower ordinance, antenna and towers, that one was given it's second
reading of approval. We have been speaking to quite a few people about the applications... so I
suspect within the next couple months you're going to see... There's one or two that we thought
were going to go ... but the lease structures didn't work out so... The other update was the post
office. Just to let you know where we are. We did send a letter to the post office. We had the
City Attorney draft ... not compliance with the EA document. A letter was sent from the Mayor to
the Congressional delegation. A new landscaping plan has been worked out. Trying to
concurrence now with the neighbors and the post office. And then also we did get information
from the post office... impacts of the post office and the loading docks to make sure that we've
got a plan that matches. So hopefully we'll have all that information this week so we're moving
along...
Peterson: The building is still progressing I assume?
Aanenson: To the best of my knowledge it is.
Mancino: They said they would not stop work.
Aanenson: They will not stop, that's the bottom line ... so there was dirt stockpiled on, there was
a stockpile and they moved it onto the buffer area so they've got that in place for the berm.
We're just trying to work out what the appropriate landscaping and height of the berm to
hopefully address the noise issue...
t
r�
u
r
1
I LJ
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996
Conrad: The paper said that the post office wasn't really going to start operation at 3:00 a.m.
Like it was going to be normal day.
Aanenson: Well the EA that we received, that we only commented on the architectural part
because the hours they gave us ... 7:00 to 5:00. 6:00 to 5:00 for trucks so what we were trying to
address is, of the 60 vehicles that would be coming in and out during the day... Sharmin was
working with the architect and unbeknownst to us, that they'd be coming in at night with
trucks...
Mancino: In fact we would not have known it if it had not been at the neighborhood meeting that
the question was asked.
Aanenson: ... the one that BRW wrote.
Mancino: For them. That they hired to do it. So the EA document had misinformation in it so
that if you were staff and read the EA document, you would have thought that nothing was going
to start until 7:00 in the morning, when in fact the operations person answered that question. Oh
no, we start at 3:00 in the morning having our semi's come in. And they come in at 3:00, 3:30,
4:00, 4:30.
Conrad: Can you really mitigate the sound Kate?
Aanenson: That's what we're hoping that ... most effective landscaping...
Conrad: What's the distance?
Aanenson: Between the loading docks and the homes?
Conrad: Yeah.
Aanenson: The back of the homes are anywhere up to 200 feet.
Conrad: That's still not very much. So that back -up beep is just going to be.
Aanenson: Well that was the other issue that they were saying. That those semi's...
Blackowiak: You know, it's not the back -up beep. It's the fact that these truckers, they are not
going to turn their engines off. Those diesels run constantly.
Mancino: And air brakes.
Blackowiak: You know, and it's not just the back beep. So they have a back -up beep. I mean
that's just minor in my mind. It's the constant running of the engine and what's to stop them, or
the first load at 3:00 or something, what's to stop them from getting there at say 1:00? They're
early. They go and sit there. I mean it's just.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996
Conrad: It's just a horrendous situation. Yeah, I tell you I wouldn't want to be a neighbor.
Mancino: Well and the sound, the acoustical specialist did say, I mean you know, that the sound
will bounce. So you may not be able to construct a berm and a wall high enough so that it just
won't go right over. Or it might go over and maybe not hit the first row of houses, but maybe
even the second. But I think it's also good when we widen streets in the city, etc., to have
someone like that to review what we can do because you know we put landscaping up and
berming up, and it feels good. We don't really know if it's working at all and especially when
it's by residential, I think it's important to have that reviewed as part of the process. Because
maybe if we put the berm a foot higher, it would have made a difference. I don't know.
Anyway. Any other City Council update? Ongoing items.
ONGOING ITEMS:
Aanenson: I was just going to mention that Americinn, things are, as of about 5:00 tonight ... as
far as some changes that they were willing to accept so we think we're moving in the right
direction. And Sharmin's working really hard to push them and we're pretty excited about the
direction they're going ... when it comes back. And then also you have two other items on the 4
Lotus Lawn & Garden. Review of a site plan. And then Jill's been working with the
Environmental Commission on an ordinance regarding chemical... storm water ponds. A lot of
people want to treat the ponds. So those three items will be on for that meeting.
OPEN DISCUSSION:
Blackowiak: I have one quick request. Kate, when I was there today I didn't, I forgot to take a
copy of next years schedule. Do we have some, at least for the first couple of months an idea of
the work sessions and what is ... beyond the regular meetings.
Aanenson: ...make you copies.
Mancino: Okay. We have advertised for a vacancy for Planning Commission and when will we
be doing interviews?
Aanenson: We probably won't be able to do one until the first meeting in January.
Joyce: When are you, is it an installation when you become Mayor?
Conrad: Yeah, when are you installed?
Joyce: Is that the term? I don't know. That's the right term isn't it?
Mancino: Christened.
Aanenson: I believe it's the first meeting in January. January 13` ".
30
77 1
u
F1
Fi
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996
Peterson: That's not a Friday is it?
Mancino: And we also, next time on the Board, I think we should elect a new Chair and Vice
Chair and have that going into start up right away. So everybody can be thinking about that for
the 4th of December. Any other discussion items? Okay with that, a motion to adjourn.
Conrad moved, Joyce seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
31