The URL can be used to link to this page

6. Official Adoption of Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Plan.I MEMORANDUM CITY OF L C-HANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director ' DATE: December 9 1996 SUBJ: Bluff Creek Natural Resources Plan *PLEASE BRING YOUR PLAN I BACKGROUND Just over a year ago Planning Staff proposed to the City Council a request for a Watershed Management Plan for the Bluff Creek Corridor. The project had a budget of $40,000, the DNR contributed $12,000, the Riley- Purgatory Watershed contributed $20,000 and the City's Surface Water Utility fund contributed the remaining funds. The purpose of the plan was to develop a vision for the corridor and provide a list of projects that funding could be sought. The Council appointed a steering committee and Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates was selected as the consultant to formalize the plan. The city agreed to complete the study by the end of 1996 (Attachment #1). I 1 The Bluff Creek Natural Resources Plan is the result of the visioning process of the steering committee and the input of the technical committee. The plan is a vision and the means to accomplish it through project implementation, education and financial support. The land use recommendation for the southern area of the city or that area currently not in the MUSA was completed as a part of the plan. The land use recommendations are a natural extension of the plan. The legislature has required that the comprehensive plan and the zoning map be in compliance by 1998. The city has a significant amount of property that is not in compliance. In addition, the comprehensive plan needs to be updated. This was last done by the city in 1991. A large portion of the city was guided "1995 Study Area" in the 1991 comprehensive plan update. The Hwy. 5 corridor guided a portion of the "1995 Study Area" (along Hwy 5. and the areas on Hwy. 41). This plan recommends land uses for the rest of the "1995 Study Area." Therefore, with the comprehensive plan text update, the city will be in compliance with the law. e Bluff Creek Natural Resources Plan December 16, 1996 Page 2 On November 20, 1996, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. The Commission recommended approval of the Plan and the land use recommendation. A question that was asked to the Commission was who would be responsible for maintenance of any ponds or wetlands restored or created at the recommendation of this plan. New ponds and wetlands would follow the same SWMP recommendations of new development. If this plan resulted in new ponds or wetlands, the city would have the same responsibility to maintain these ponds as if a developer built them. The Commission asked that the assessment amount that the watershed could levy be further explained. This has been covered in the analysis portion. It should be pointed out that the watershed district will levy assessments for projects in the future. In the past, the city of Chanhassen has been paying for water management projects in the cities of Minnetonka and Eden Prairie. The proposed land use recommendations are the result of a lot of study. Two meetings were held to allow input from property owners regarding the land use changes. Staff believes that the land use changes are well founded and has provided a more detailed analysis of the percentage of land use and population projections (Attachment #3). There is a group of property owners that have developed a proposal that reflects what they would like to see for land uses. The property owners have 460 acres south of Lyman Boulevard. Staff believes that the level of detail with their plan is for the next level of review and would not support their proposal (Attachment #3). ANALYSIS The Bluff Creek Natural Resources Plan is an element of the City's Comprehensive plan. It will be used as a guide for future development. In order to implement any of the recommendations of the plan, additional development tools (regulations) will have to be adopted. The plan is an element of the comprehensive plan but the text will have to be updated in 1997. What the "Plan" does • Identifies areas of important natural resources and wildlife and recommends ways to preserve them. • Provides a vision for the planning and development along the creek corridor. • Proposed land use recommendations for the southern portion of the city - -these changes will be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for their approval. The Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District The Watershed District includes most of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie and parts of Bloomington, Minnetonka, Deephaven and Shorewood. The basic purpose of the watershed district is to protect public health and natural resources. They accomplish this by planning and permitting, to I C s t s [ 1 1 I Bluff Creek Natural Resources Plan December 16, 1996 Page 3 provide flood control and conservation of natural resources. A map of the District can be found in Attachment #1. This management plan allows the city to petition the District for funding of projects identified in the plan. This petition would request the Riley - Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District to fund specific projects named in this report. The District is able to levy the district to fund projects following these funding parameters: 100% funding of water resource projects 50% related trials and recreation/educational facilities 25% land acquisition The District is also limited to allocating $400,000 towards all projects within the Watershed District. Currently, the Watershed District is in the final stages of the Staring Lake Outlet /Purgatory Creek Recreation Area water management project. The District's estimated tax on a $200,000 home is $20 for 1996 -97. With no projects funded, the tax would be $11.00, and if the District were to maximize their budget for 1997, the tax would be $22 a year. The financing schedule and administrative processes are described in Attachment #1. What the "Plan "does not do 1 n Require any additional development regulations at this time Petition the watershed for assessment money. A separate petition will be forwarded to the watershed district in March with the review and approval of the City Council (Attachment #1) • Extend the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. Next steps The next steps after adoption of the Bluff Creek Plan is to develop the tools to implement the vision of the plan. In addition, the comprehensive plan will need to be updated to be consistent with the zoning map as required by the law. Develop ordinances to implement the visions of the plan. Complete the comprehensive plan update for approval in 1998 by the Metropolitan Council. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending the City Council approve the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Plan. Bluff Creek Natural Resources Plan ' December 16, 1996 Page 4 ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Ray Haik dated June 19, 1996, Riley Purgatroy Watershed map and assessment process. 2. Bluff Creek land use changes, hearing notice and mailing list. 3. Land use recommendations percentages, populations projections, Land Use Characteristics of other Communities, ULI article "the Local Fiscal Effects of Growth and Commercial Development over Time January 1993 and Land Use Study List. 4. Bluff Creek Natural Resources Plan 1 1 r 1 .t 'Ann -s 1 1 1 1 1 rsa Mayor Donald J. Chmiel CITY OF CHANHASSEN P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 AV !l, hm 7 i - A- 1. Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District Engineering Advisor: Barr Engineering Co. 8300 Norman Center Drive Suite 300 RECEIVED Minneapolis, MN 55437 939- Mm Legal Advisor: Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 South Ninth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 333 -4800 RAYMOND A. HAIK, ESQ. DIRECT DIAL (612) 334 -2609 June 19, 1996 Re: Bluff Creek Basic Water Management Pro ject Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District Our File No. 03826.008 Dear Mayor Chmiel: JUN 2 0 RECD CITY OF CHANHASSEN At their last meeting, the Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District Managers reviewed the status of the Bluff Creek land and water resource plan. The Managers have been attending the planning meetings and are concerned that the City is not aware of the procedures to construct the basic water management portion of the Bluff Creek Resource plan. The agreement, confirmed by the City Council on June 12, 1995, requires Chanhassen to complete the Bluff Creek comprehensive land and water management plan no later than December 31, 1996. No later than March 1, 1997, the Council is to submit a petition for the basic water management portion of the comprehensive plan. In the case of a petition from a municipality, the District can fund 100 % of the basic water management features of the Bluff Creek comprehensive land and water resource plan. The District's water management plan identifies Bluff Creek as a basic water management project. Prior to entering into the contract with Chanhassen, City officials and staff were informed of the project procedures and the public hearings required by the 002/18101578 6/18/96 1969-1994 — Mayor Donald J. Chmiel June 19, 1996 Page 2 Watershed Act. The District/Chanhassen agreement requires the City to specifically identify the surface and ground water resources, including multi- purpose water storage detention sites, wetlands, water quality basins and other basic water management improvements portions of the comprehensive plan. The Managers expect that the City plan will identify other land uses and projects, such as refuge areas, natural areas and reforestation sites that would not be part of a basic water management project petition. Such projects could be undertaken in cooperation with the Department of Natural Resources or other State agencies. I reviewed the contract with the City Attorney, and the petition is part of the District/Chanhassen agreement. The Bluff Creek plan must include a section which specifically identifies the water management features of the plan to be the subject of the petition to the District. The District's $20,000 payment towards preparation of Bluff Creek is premised on a prompt undertaking and completion of the Bluff Creek water management portion of the plan. The Managers consider Bluff Creek to be a high priority project. I would be pleased to again review the Watershed Act procedures with your City Attorney, City Manager and City staff to ensure that the City takes full advantage of District funding. The Managers desire to promptly complete the water management portions of the plan, since continued urbanization may foreclose future options. q truly yours, 7 and A. Haik cc Mr. Donald Ashworth Board of Managers Ms. Diane Desotelle Paul R. Haik, Esq. Mr. Robert C. Obermeyer 002/18101578 6/18/96 I 1 Projects 1 I Following are projects pending or identified. The specific problems which necessitated this work are described in the water resources discussion of each lake or creek. (a) Staring Lake Outlet /Purgatory Creek Recreation Area Basic Water Management Project #1991 -1 —This project is to protect and enhance the last major water storage (1,000 acre feet) area along Purgatory Creek before the creek discharges to Staring Lake and then descends in a steeper channel to the Minnesota River. By limiting discharge flowing through the steep portions of the creek of the creek, erosion and the associated sediment and nutrient loading of the Minnesota River will be reduced. The project will restore a large wetland complex and create a water treatment and wildlife area. (b) Bank and vegetation stabilization along steep valley walls in the lower reach of Riley Creek. (c) Culvert outlet modification to avoid channel downcutting in the middle reach of Riley Creek. (d) Channel restoration and vegetation in the upper reach of Riley Creek. I (e) Riley Creek habitat improvements. ( Bank and vegetation stabilization along steep valley walls in the lower reach of Purgatory Creek. (g) Weir modification to avoid channel degradation in the middle reach of Purgatory Creek (h) Vegetation restriction in the upper reach of Purgatory Creek. (i) Channel restoration and vegetation in the upper reach of Purgatory Creek. (j) Purgatory Creek habitat improvements. I 2327053 \32775 -I/YMH Cop7r4U © 1996 Rile N,pi —y -Bluff C�k WinLvJ Diefrict 44 1 (k) Analysis of Cold Water Fishery Potential for Purgatory Creels. a) Bluff Creek habitat improvements. (m) Water Resource Inventory and Assessment of Round Lake, including investigation of degrading water quality trend. I (n) Water Resource Inventory and Assessment of Staring Lake, including investigation of water quality trend. (o) Water Resource Inventory and Assessment of Lake Ann, including investigation i of adverse fisheries habitat impacts of Lake Lucy discharges. (p) Water Resource Inventory Assessment of Duck Lake including uding lnvestlgatlon of deleterious land use impacts. (q) Water Resource Inventory and Assessment of Hyland Lake, including investigation of phosphorous reduction for fisheries improvement. , (r) Water Resource Inventory and Assessment of Lotus Lake, including investigation of phosphorous reduction for water recreation improvement. (s) Water Resource Inventory and Assessment of Lake Lucy, including investigation of improved fisheries habitat. (t) Water Resource Inventory d Assessment of Mitchell shell Lake, including investigation of improved fisheries habitat. (u) Water Resource Inventory and Assessment of Red Rock Lake, including investigation of oxygen depletion leading to winter fish kills. (v) Water Resource Inventory and Assessment of Rice Marsh Lake, including investigation of adverse impacts upon Lake Riley water quality. (w) Attainable Use Analysis of Lake Riley based upon completed Water Resource Inventory and Assessment Corot ® 1996 FU.y- P.q.&, -BI.H C . L W.,(.. l D:.t,;.t 2327053 \32775 -VYMH 45 1 ' W Water Resource Inventory and Assessment for Lake Susan, including investigation of phosphorous reduction to improve water quality for fisheries. i �i r] f Capital Improvements There currently are no planned capital improvements. The Staring Lake Outlet/Purgatory Creek Recreation Area Basic Water Management Project is the final flood control capital improvement. Water quality capital improvements will be identified and prioritized through the inventory assessment and analysis of attainable uses. Financing Schedule (1) Impact on Local Government—An illustration of a levy upon a $100,000 home is shown on Table LEI. That table also shows the last two years of levy rates for other units of local government. The table shows that District financing does not disproportionately impact other units of local government. Actual levies could be significantly greater or less than shown amounts because of variations in applicable values and tax rates. (2) Ten Year Financing Schedule —The Financing Schedule (Table FS1) sets out the expected sources of revenue and expenditures to fulfill the purposes of the District and sets forth the estimated costs and scheduling of identified projects for the succeeding ten ' years. The financing schedule may be modified as needed to accommodate new priorities and emergencies. I Responsibilities The District is responsible for enforcing its regulations, inventorying and assessing water resources, conducting use attainability analyses and best management planning. The District is responsible for reviewing and approving local water management plans and monitoring their implementation. Municipalities are responsible for developing comprehensive wetland protection and management plans, assessing each item identified in Minnesota Rules Section 8410.0100 Subp. 5. With respect to wetlands, the District acts as the designated local unit of government for the cities of Deephaven, Eden Prairie and Shorewood. Municipalities designated as the local unit of government are responsible for enforcing the Wetlands Conservation Act. Ca m 1996 RJ- P- r -B1aff C-A W.&-W D:.c.:.t 2327053 \32775 -1/YMH 46 F All referenced publications are available through the District engineer or the District legal ' advisor. Schedule Within one and one -half years of adoption of the last organization plan in the local unit of government, and after consideration but before adoption by its governing body, each local unit shall submit its water management plan to the District for review for consistency with the adopted watershed plan. The District shall approve or disapprove the local plan or parts of it. The District shall have 60 days to complete its review. If the District fails to complete its review within the prescribed period, the local plan shall be deemed approved unless an extension is agreed to by the local unit. The District's advisory committee shall have thirty days following submission to advise and assist the managers in this review. After this period the Board of Managers may take action after hearing at a regular or special meeting. After approval by the District, the local government unit shall adopt and implement its plan within 120 days and shall amend its official controls accordingly within 180 days. The District plan shall continue in effect for ten (10) years from the date of approval and until the succeeding plan is approved and adopted. Administration Process Local plans shall be submitted within the required time for review and approval. Reviews may be conducted by the advisory committee and must be conducted by the Board of - Managers. In the event that approval is not granted, then in the three months immediately succeeding disapproval, the local plan may be revised and resubmitted for reconsideration of approval. Municipalities within the District may adopt by reference all or parts of this Plan. Com;At © 1996 RRI-y- P.. C.r..k W./ .nkel D:.64ce 2327053 \32775 -1/YMH 47 t m m m = m = = m m m m m m m m m = m = VEEPHAvEN t MINNETONKA o il - Mlrchell: 5000 Lake DEEPHAVEN 4 Scale in Feet low k CH4PJHASS DEEPHAVEN I :j .0NkA Map C-I EDEN I -A SHORE-WCY0D !! -ake GOVERNMENTAL BOUNDARIES PRAIRI BLOOMINGTON Riley Chnstynas �r' Lake J ilyer, Birch — — — — — Municipal Boundary L4ke JSl MINNETONKA — County Boundary Lake EDEN PRAIRIE - - - - - - - Watershed District L Legal Boundary Z I HarriSon L . "1 4 It tl Lake Lake 7 _ ic re ke Lake A EMPRAIRI r CHASKA Fr o il - Mlrchell: Lake low k CH4PJHASS Poc Roa EDEN I Ir !! -ake PRAIRI BLOOMINGTON Riley I �r' ^Net Creek ring A ol �a 7 • cHANHASM i &ENPRAIRIE Hv a yj LU I rid Grass ir > Z ike - - t Like _t z BLOADMiNGTON Uj U "),)LoUl C1,13tP EDEN PRAIRIE - Athc— k 1lw r'j j� L October 11, 1996 CITY OF CHANHASSrs 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 j Dear Property Owner: During the last several months Planning Staff has been working on the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan. Bluff Creek has been identified as a critical natural resource within the City of Chanhassen. A steering committee appointed by the City Council has worked with staff to provide a vision and a planning document that will guide development along the Bluff Creek Corridor. As a part of this process, future land use designations in the area have been proposed. When the 1991 Comprehensive plan was completed, the majority of the area south of Lyman Boulevard was designated as a "1995 Study Area." This study area, as well as the remainder of the land uses south of Lyman Boulevard, have been revisited. In some cases, alternative land use recommendations have been proposed. This plan does not propose to change the MUSA line (Metropolitan Urban Service Area) at this time, but rather provide for future land uses in this area. The Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing on the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Plan in November. The Planning Staff is holding neighborhood meetings to provide information and answer questions on the Management Plan and proposed land use recommendations. Prior to the public hearing, you are invited to attend the following meeting: Meeting: Monday, October 21, 1996 Time: 7 :00 p.m. Place: Senior Center Chanhassen City Hall (Lower Level) 690 Coulter Drive If you are unable to attend this meeting or have questions, please feel fee to contact the Planning Department at 937 -1900. Copies of the study and land use recommendations are available for your review during business hours at City hall from 8:00 -4:30 p.m. r T I - ease Oct Na � ii i �' Z3 IRRh Sign =n Add r�ess 7� 14- Ko� 7 r� 4- p leap V`Z• V1�_"_V IW \� ,, ✓•c,7Z� Jc n -• ��- - ,.moo �� e% k' s�gr� zn � I S Z / 2 ly 1 I Mr. John Pauley Ms. Kate Aanenson tanningDirector Mr. Jack Frost Metropolitan Council ity of Chan sen Mear Park Center Building 90 Cc t r Drive 230 East Fifth Street ,.Ch assen, MN 55317 St. Paul, MN 55101 Cllr. Steve Eggers Mr. Todd Hoffma U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Park and R ation Director � 90 5th Street East City of anhassen t. Paul, MN 55101 -1638 oulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 r. Charles Folch Ms. Celine Lyman irector of c Works MN Pollution Control Agency City o anhassen 520 Lafayette Road oulter Drive St. Paul, MN 55101 8113hanhassen, MN 55317 Bruce Sandstrom Mr. John Pauley F r. oard of Soil & Water Resources Planning Department One West Water Street MN Dept. of Natural Resources wte 200 500 Lafayette Road t. Paul, MN 55107 St. Paul, MN 55155 -4010 Mr. Bob Obermeyer Mr. Nick Rouse iley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek WSD U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 11910 Barr Engineering Twin City Field Office 8300 Norman Center Drive, Ste. 300 4101 East 80th Street ( inneapolis, MN 55437 -1026 Bloomington, MN 55425 -1665 s. Kathleen Wallace Mr. Peter Olin N Dept. of Natural Resources Minnesota Landscape Arboretum t etro Waters 3675 Arboretum Drive '2'00 Warner Road P.O. Box 39 St. Paul, MN 55106 Chanhassen, MN 55317 L s. Karen Christofferson Mr. Taylor Polomis Director of Municipal Affairs MN Dept. of Natural Resources uilders Association of the Twin Cities Southwest Metro Area Office ffi 325 East 79th Street, Suite 6 9925 Valley View Road inneapolis, MN 55425 -1196 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 h L! Mr. Dave Drealan Carver County Board 600 East 4th Street Chaska, MN 55318 Mr. Cyril B. Ess President Lower MN River WSD 151 West 126th Street Burnsville, MN 55337 Ms. Debra Karasov U of M School of Architecture 89 Church Street SE, Room 125 St. Paul, MN 55455 Ms. Diana Regenscheid MN Dept. of Natural Resources Shakopee Area Wildlife 118 South Fuller Street, #3 Shakopee, MN 55379 Ms. Ceil Strauss Metro Region Waters MN Dept. of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 Mr. Alan Olson District Forester DNR - Southwest Metro Office 9925 Valley View Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Owner Ownadr Owncty, Location DEAN & LOIS DEGLER 9111 AUDUBON RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9412 LAWRENCE C & ELIZABETH KLEIN 9170 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8606 GILBERT P & MARGARET C LAURENT TRUSTEES OF TRUST 24760 CEDAR POINT RD NEW PRAGUE, MN 56071 RICHARD J CHADWICK 9530 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8681 DENNIS M MILLS 9510 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8681 JEFFREY A & TERRI L FOX TRUSTEES OF LAKE RILEY WOODS HOMEOWNERS TRUST FUND 1660 HWY 100 S SUITE 428 5270 HOWARDS PT RD MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 8368 DOUGLAS BERGESON 9201 AUDUBON RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9412 WILLIAM J & PAMELA ANN O'NEILL 9550 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8681 DAVID R & MARY B BLANSKI 9350 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8606 ROBERT & MARGUERITE PETERSON 9250 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8606 GEORGE & C ST MARTIN 9231 AUDUBON RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9412 PATRICK A & LAURENE FARRELL 801 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BRUCE JEURISSEN 2500 PIONEER TRL CHASKA, MN 55318 1147 RICHARD A & JOANNE M LAMETTRY 9490 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 THOMAS M & CHERYL L JESSEN 9570 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DAVID P & KAREN L DAOUST 9470 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 WILLIAM S HENAK & KRISTIN ALLERS 280 EASTWOOD CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 WILLIAM L & LINDA C JANSEN 240 EASTWOOD CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEVEN F & KATHLEEN M BURKE 9591 MEADOWLARK LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8693 MICHAEL J & LISA A REILLY TRUSTEES TRUST 2305 INDIAN RIDGE DR GLENVIEW, IL 60025 DAVID 0 HANSEN 108 PIONEER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8659 , WILLIAM T & CAROL ANN GRAY , 50 PIONEER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PAUL M & DAWN M PEARSON 601 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEPHEN L WHITEHILL 6247 INDIAN MEADOW ' ORLANDO, FL 32819 RALPH E FREUDENBERG 631 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8602 MICHAEL T & TERESA A MONK 9671 MEADOWLARK LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8695 TIMOTHY A & DAWNE M ERHART 9611 MEADOWLARK LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8695 HAROLD L & VIRGINIA SIEVERS 9491 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8687 UANE D & SUSAN S HOFF 511 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 AUL J & MARY M MARTIN 610 FOXFORD RD IRHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8688 I WAYNE A & BONNIE J KINION 0451 FOXFORD RD j lANHA SSEN, MN 55317 L S & ARLENE J CHURCH 611 96TH ST W IF ANHA SSEN, MN 55317 8602 EPHEN J & COLEEN M WILKER 1 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 J WRENCE CHASE & CATHERINE KIRK CHASE WILLIAM L & LYNN H STOKKE 1 96TH ST W 241 EASTWOOD CT t'llANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8683 RICHARD A & BETTY A DERHAAG U1 ST W HASS SSEN, MN 55317 8603 I LLIAM F HEINLEIN 721 96TH ST W SSEN, MN 55317 8603 k l Y J & MARY LANE BENDZICK 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8603 KENNETH N POTTS & KAREN KING - POTTS RONALD R & LINDA M LANDIN 9431 FOXFORD RD 710 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8687 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8603 ROBERT G & SUSAN I MCCARGER 9450 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8686 ROLLIN & LINDA FAHNING 720 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8603 MATTHEW J & CHARLENE M THILL 9610 MEADOWLARK LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8694 STEVEN R & JILL L SHIPLEY 261 EASTWOOD CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEVEN R MCCLINTICK & JUANITA D MCCLINTICK 9551 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8682 ROGER A & KIMBERLY A LEE 600 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8601 WALTER & VIRGINIA R WARREN 610 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8601 KENNETH G & MARY R PUNG 620 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8601 WESLEY & CAROL DUNSMORE 730 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8603 PAUL H JEURISSEN 750 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHARLES E & SANDRA R WORM 760 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEVEN J & SANDRA R KADISAK 810 PIONEER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8673 KEVIN J & PATRICIA A ELLSWORTH 9601 FLINTLOCK TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT F ERLER & JULIE K MILLER -ERI 9600 FLINTLOCK TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BRAD D & BARBARA J BAKLUND 9650 FLINTLOCK TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 J HN W & KATHERINE ANDERSON 31 FOXFORD RD CRANHASSEN, MN 55317 8682 THEODORE B & KAREN K HASSE 630 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8601 JAMES L & JANET P BROWNELL 1190 HOMESTEAD WAY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8612 NEIL A KLINGELHUTZ 9731 MEADOWLARK LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DOUGLAS M & LORI A RYNDA 9411 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8687 DANIEL WHALEN 9650 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL P WISE & BRENDA K SCHIEFFERT-WISE 9571 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 WAYNE 0 & GAYLE D WENZLAFF 1181 HOMESTEAD LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8613 RANDY L & MARY E REDETZKE 9700 FLINTLOCK TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8605 LOREN & KAREN HENRICKSON 9651 FLINTLOCK TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8605 MICHAEL D & MONICA S WISTRAND 9670 MEADOWLARK LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TIMOTHY A & LINDA M BLOUDEK 1171 HOMESTEAD LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8613 DAVID R & BEVERLY C ERICKSON 520 PINEVIEW CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL P & HOLLY L HUNT 9701 FLINTLOCK TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DAVID A & SUSAN C GRAYSON 540 PINEVIEW CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 THOMAS J & PAMELA R F WARTMAN 9715 AUDUBON RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 9410 STEVEN P & CARMEN R MCMEEN 9391 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEVEN J ZUMBUSCH & CHARLOTTE M ZUMBUSCH 9700 MEADOWLARK LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROGER G NOVOTNY 560 PINEVIEW CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHNNIE J MEYERING & ELAINE A GERTKEN WILLIAM A & SHERYL M BARTHOLOW 1050 HOMESTEAD LN 1161 HOMESTEAD LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOEL N & KATHY R MEYER 9410 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARK J & STARLA J DANIELSON 9751 MEADOWLARK LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT W SCHOEWE 9611 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8689 DONALD B & CYNTHIA N DEAL 9390 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8684 JOSEPH M & ADRIENNE F CARRICA 900 HOMESTEAD LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8608 , KURT W PAPKE & SUSAN L ROGMAN PAPKI 1131 HOMESTEAD LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RONALD J & MARY E RAISLEGER 1151 HOMESTEAD LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN C & JACKIE J DANIELS 1111 HOMESTEAD LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8613 THOMAS E & BRENDA L ANDERSON 9371 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHARLOTTE E MORRISON 1051 HOMESTEAD LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8611 RICHARD J & PATRICIA A CARRUTH 1001 HOMESTEAD LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN E & CYNTHIA N HART 951 HOMESTEAD LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 VID D & STEPHANIE J VIEAU 01 HOMESTEAD LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8609 LIS L & MARGARET OLSON 70 FOXFORD RD l MiANHA SSEN, MN 55317 8684 I RICHARD S & KATHERINE S ASPLIN 1 PINEVIEW CT SSEN, MN 55317 l GDY A & JUNE L EBRAHIM 4617 GRAND AVE S I NNEAPOLIS, MN 55409 THUR B JOHNSON 23 BAVARIA RD CHASKA, MN 55318 9662 iJ WELL W PETERSON 900 HWY 169 EN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 RICHARD P VOGEL 5 PIONEER TRL l ANHkS SEN, MN 55317 8660 I VID J & SHARON K GATTO 9631 FOXFORD RD v SEN, MN 55317 I S D & JANET M DINGEL V51 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8685 L I DELL & JACQUELINE SCHOTT 4 RED CEDAR CV CELSIOR, MN 55331 7795 ANDREW P GINDER 9821 DEERBROOK DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8550 CARVER COUNTY 600 4TH ST E CHASKA, MN 55318 2102 BLUFF CREEK GOLF ASSOC 1905 CONCORDIA ST WAYZATA, MN 55391 DONALD J & ROSEMARIE DUDYCHA 9820 DEERBROOK DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8549 DENNIS J BARTHOLOW & CATHERINE S BARTHOLOW 9841 DEERBROOK DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8550 JOHN E & ANN LONSTEIN 9861 DEERBROOK DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GREGORY J LAWLER 9900 DEERBROOK DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8551 JOHN M & LINDA J REVIER 9881 DEERBROOK DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8550 GARY A KOCH 9901 DEERBROOK DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8552 JOHN S & JANE POULOS 9921 DEERBROOK DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8552 LEGRAN HOMES INC 1521 94TH LN NE BLAINE, MN 55449 JEFFREY R & BARBARA C MICHELL 9961 DEERBROOK DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8552 DENIS C & MARY E DUKER 9940 DEERBROOK DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8551 PAUL & DEBORAH GRAFFUNDER 10001 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHASKA, MN 55318 9466 DAVID HALLA 10095 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHASKA, MN 55318 9466 RICHARD W DENMAN 9960 DEERBROOK DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8551 PAUL S & LESLIE A YAGER 10071 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHASKA, MN 55318 9466 JIMMY M & MARY E ROANE 9981 DEERBROOK DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8552 PAUL TAUNTON 9950 DEERBROOK DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8551 JONATHAN T & GAYE L GUYTON 1385 81ST ST VICTORIA, MN 55386 9646 �J WALTER G & CHRIS A ARNDT GARY & DEBRA ANDERSON LOREN P WHEELER 10151 GREAT PLAINS BLVD 725 CREEKWOOD 445 LAKOTA LN CHASKA, MN 55318 9469 CHASKA, MN 55318 9621 CHASKA, MN 55318 9457 DALE & PEGGY GUNDERSON BRUCE & TINA PAUL DEVAL U & DATTA D MEDH 845 CREEKWOOD 10240 MANDAN CIR 535 LAKOTA LN CHASKA, MN 55318 9643 CHASKA, MN 55318 9401 CHASKA, MN 55318 9456 i DAVID & CLARE JOHNSON RENEE L STRICKLAND JOHN J & J PHILLIPS ETAL 821 CREEKWOOD DR CHASKA, MN 55318 9643 10251 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHASKA, MN 55318 9468 734 ASHLEY DR CHASKA, MN 55318 1539 ' DANIEL SCHAITBERGER & CATHERINE A JEFFREY & KATHLEEN DYPWICK NORMAN & KAROLINE L MONROE 10300 GREAT PLAINS BLVD SCHAITBERGER 565 LAKOTA LN PO BOX 115 10241 MANDAN CIR CHASKA, MN 55318 9467 CHASKA, MN 55318 9402 CHASKA, MN 55318 0115 -8,-p ANNE & CLARA VOGEL VERNE L & SUSAN SEVERSON , 815 CREEKWOOD DR 10240 MANDAN CIR 675 LAKOTA LN CHASKA, MN 55318 9643 �1 � � �( 0 SS 3(g l� CHASKA, MN 55318 9455 DONALD E HALLA & SANDRA J CWAYNA HALLA RICHARD T HALVER MAYNARD C HAPPE 10000 GREAT PLAINS BLVD 10271 GREAT PLAINS BLVD 495 LAKOTA LN CHASKA, MN 55318 9465 CHASKA, MN 55318 9468 CHASKA, MN 55318 9457 JAMES & JANET L SABINSKE GUY RONALD MUNDALE & MARIAN H MUNDALE RILEY PURGATORY BLF CRK WS C/O RAY 775 CREEKWOOD 460 MANDAN CIR HAIK CHASKA, MN 55318 9621 CHASKA, MN 55318 222 S 9TH ST #3300 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 , CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O CITY TREASURER JAMES E & GAIL E BECKER JAMES M & CHERYL A SULERUD 690 COULTER DR PO BOX 147 10291 MANDAN CIR 730 VOGELSBERG TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 0147 CHASKA, MN 55318 9402 CHASKA, MN 55318 9461 ' DAVID R TEICH JOHN & ELAINE Z MALAKOWSKY LOIS A RIESGRAF ' 1217 SOUTH MONROE 10301 GREAT PLAINS BLVD 720 VOGELSBERG TRL SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 CHASKA, MN 55318 9467 CHASKA, MN 55318 9461 SPENCER L & GLORIA A BOYNTON JAMES E & R SUSAN PEDERSEN DEBRA L WENDORF 777 CREEKWOOD DR 10300 MANDAN CIR 740 VOGELSBURG TRL CHASKA, MN 55318 9621 CHASKA, MN 55318 9401 _ CHASKA, MN 55318 9461 LEN R ROTHE 0 VOGELSBERG TRL CHASKA, MN 55318 9461 CY OIL CO INC k 650 COURTHOUSE BLVD E i ER GROVE HGTS, MN 55075 F LARRY HOPFENSPIRGER 00 FRANCE AVE S SUITE 450 NNEAPOLIS, MN 55435 t RALD PROPERTIES PO BOX 260 J ASKA, MN 55318 0260 BERT & AUDREY THOLEN 05 STOUGHTON AVE CHASKA, MN 55318 2215 RSEY & DORSEY 51 LYMAN BLVD SSEN, MN 55317 9403 F� �l Owner TIMOTHY K LEHNER & AMY A Ownadr MUNSON-LEHNER Owncty, Location 470 FLYING CLOUD DR CHASKA, MN 55318 9502 THOMAS W & BEATRICE I ZWIERS J MICHAEL SORENSON 11111 DEUCE RD RT 2 BOX 187K ELKO, MN 55020 BELLE PLAINE, MN 56011 9305 THOMAS W & BEAT I ZWIERS LE VERNE M VASSAR 11111 HCL� RD 285 FLYING CLOUD DR kjIK6, 55020 SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 THCMAS & BEATRICE ZWIERS TRACY OIL CO INC 9390 267TH ST 11650 COURTHOUSE BLVD E LAKEVILLE, MN 55044 INVER GROVE HGTS, MN 55075 LEON C MESENBRINK THOMAS & BEATRICE ZWIERS 250 FLYING CLOUD DR 9390 267TH ST CHASKA, MN 55318 9502 LAKEVILLE, MN 55044 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FISH & TRACY OIL CO INC WILDLIFE 11650 COURTHOUSE E FEDERAL BLDG FORT SNELLING ST PAUL, MN 55111 INVE E HGT MN 55075 CHARLES L & LISA M DAVIDSON JACK BRAMBILLA 240 FLYING CLOUD DR 550 VALLEY PARK DR CHASKA, MN 55318 9502 SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 DAN & VALERIE TESTER PATRICK BLOOD & NANCY LEE 230 FLYING CLOUD DR 718 3RD AVE W P0 8o( 9 4 CHASKA, MN 55318 9502 SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 THOMAS & BEATRICE ZWIERS HAROLD F HESSE 9390 267TH ST 1425 BLUFF CREEK DR LAKEVILLE, MN 55044 CHASKA, MN 55318 9515 TRACY K & HOLLIE D OLENE SKIP S COOK 450 FLYING CLOUD DR 15506 VILLAGE WOODS DR CHASKA, MN 55318 9502 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 ROBERT E DRURY 575 FLYING CLOUD DR PO BOX 193 SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 HAROLD F H 1425 R F CREEK D C KA, MN 55318 9515 ' SKIP S COOK 15506 V GE WOODS DR EDE RAIRIE, MN 55347 ' STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPT OF , TRANSPORTATION _ METRO SQUARE BLDG 3'15 � k y1 , ST PAUL, MN 55101 STATE OF MINNESOTA D T OF TRANSPORTAT ' METR ARE BLDG PAUL, MN 55101 CHANHASSEN SPRINGS CO C/O ARNOLD FEINBERG 4725 EXCELSIOR BLVD MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 , LOUISE E ZAMJAHN ETAL C/O DAVID ZAMJAHN 7506 77TH ST CHASKA, MN 55318 9600 ' EMERALD PROPERTIES PO BOX 260 CHASKA, MN 55318 0260 UBA PARTNERSHIP ' 7900 1ST AVE S BLOOMINGTON, MN 55420 STATE OF MN-DNR TAX SPECIALIST 1201 E HWY 2 ' s GRAND RAPIDS, MN 55744 EN SALDEN ETAL C/O ALFRED HESSE OTTO & DOROTHY KETTNER 0 KREEKWOOD RD 1791 STOUGHTON AVE CHASKA, MN 55318 9384 CHASKA, MN 55318 2213 CHANHASSEN SPRINGS CO C/O ARNOLD IRENE L PAHL NBERG 13056 JOHNSON MEMORIAL DR RT 3 5 EXCELSIOR BLVD SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 M NE APOLIS, MN 55416 STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPT OF STEVEN M FINK TRANSPORTATION 1915 STOUGHTON AVE I RO SQUARE BLDG CHASKA, MN 55318 2217 'S PAUL, MN 55101 GOY W DUNGEY & GARY L BROWN LLP M A GEDNEY COMPANY 275 79TH ST W BOX 8 CSSEN, MN 55317 CHASKA, MN 55318 0008 W ED H JR & KATHLEEN DAHLKE 1 5 FLYING CLOUD DR CHASKA, MN 55318 2432 1 SNTE OF MINNESOTA IN TRUST C CARVER COUNTY AUDITOR L 800 FLYING CLOUD DR 600 E. 4th Street Clska, MN 55318 GARY W DUNGEY & GARY L BROWN LLP 2 79TH ST W HASSEN, MN 55317 I S L SOWLE JR 4817 LARKSPUR LN 2 A, MN 55435 I L PAHL 1 6 JOHNSON MEMORIAL DR RT 3 SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 .7 PH R & KATHIE J MONNENS 1 STOUGHTON AVE C KA, MN 55318 2213 Al Kh r r � City of Chanhassen Proposed Land Use Acreages 2000 Comprehensive Plan 1995 Comprehensive Plan (BLUFF CREEK STUDY) LAND USE ACREAGE PERCENT ACREAGE PERCENT Com 218 1.4% Office /Industrial 1555 10.1% Office 1 83 1.2% Parks /Open Space 2,819 - 18.3% Public /Semi Public - 1,214 7.9% Residenti - Large Lot 2,262 14.7% Residential - Low Density 5,954 38.7% Resi - Me dium D 838 5.5% - Residential - High De 262 1.7% Mixed Use 65 0.4% Va cant 0 0.0% Undevejopable _ 0 0.0% Total 15,369 11/13/96 1991 Comprehensive Plan ACREAGE PERCENT 297 1.9% 273 1.8% 1,213 7.9% 1,110 - 7.2% 0 0.0% 13 0 2,628 17.1% 2,302 - 15.0% 1,099 7.2% 1,0 6.9% 2,325 15.1% 1,524 9.9% 4,874 31.7% 4,345 28.3% - - 371 2.4% 508 3.3% 168 1.1% 210 - 1.4% 65 - 0.4% 83 0.5% 617 4.0% 1,581 10.3% - 1,712 11.1% 2,363 15.4% 15,369 - _ 15,369 - MUSA 8,791 57.2% 8,791 57.2% 8,791 57.2% Water Bodies 1,590 10.3% 1,590 10.3% 1,590 10.3% Pro posed T. H. 212_ 114 - 0.7% - 114 0.7% 114 0.7% g:\plan\bg\landusel.wk4 i� f1• � � � � ill�l � f� f1f1• f1• flf� � f� it• � � r f� I City of Chanhassen DWELLING UNIT /POPULATION ESTIMATES LOW ESTIMATE Assumptions: ' 1. Dwellings per acre from 1991 Comprehensive Plan. 2. Dwellings = acres x dwellings per acre with allowances for undevelopable land (20% SF, 30% MF). 3. Population estimate = dwellings less five percent vacancy times 2.5 persons per dwelling. 11/2296 g:1plan\bg1Iandu se 1.wk4 BLUFF CREEK STUDY Acres Acres % of Dwelling Dwellings Percent POPULATION Residential Residential Per Acre Dwellings Dwellings ESTIMATE Residential - Large Lot 2,262 24.3% 0.2 362 2.6% 61.6% 860 20,363 Residential - Low Density 5,954 63.9% 1.8 6 8,574 3,520 25.3% 8,359 Residential - Medium Density 838 262 9.0% 2.8% 8 1,466 10.5% 3,481 Residential - High Density 3.2% 8 1,178 12.0% 2,798 TOTALS TOTALS 9315.6 9,812 13,921 23,303 33,062 HWY 5 STUDY Acres % of Dwelling Dwellings Percent POPULATION Residential Per Acre Dwellings ESTIMATE Residential - Large Lot 2,325 30.0% 0.2 372 3.8% 884 Residential - Low Density 4,874 63.0% 1.8 7,019 71.0% 16,669 3,701 Residential - Medium Density 371 4.8% 6 1,558 15.8% 2,234 Residential - High Density 168 2.2% 8 941 9.5% TOTALS 7,738 9,890 23,488 Assumptions: ' 1. Dwellings per acre from 1991 Comprehensive Plan. 2. Dwellings = acres x dwellings per acre with allowances for undevelopable land (20% SF, 30% MF). 3. Population estimate = dwellings less five percent vacancy times 2.5 persons per dwelling. 11/2296 g:1plan\bg1Iandu se 1.wk4 1991 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Acres % of Dwelling Dwellings Percent POPULATION Residential Per Acre Dwellings ESTIMATE Residential - Large Lot 1,524 23.1% 0.2 244 2.5% 579 Residential - Low Density 4,345 66.0% 1.8 6,257 63.8% 14,860 Residential - Medium Density 508 7.7% 6 2,133 21.7% 5,066 Residential - High Density 210 3.2% 8 1,178 12.0% 2,798 TOTALS 6,587 9,812 23,303 Assumptions: ' 1. Dwellings per acre from 1991 Comprehensive Plan. 2. Dwellings = acres x dwellings per acre with allowances for undevelopable land (20% SF, 30% MF). 3. Population estimate = dwellings less five percent vacancy times 2.5 persons per dwelling. 11/2296 g:1plan\bg1Iandu se 1.wk4 City of Chanhassen DWELLING UNIT /POPULATION ESTIMATES MEDIUM ESTIMATE' Assumptions: 1. Dwellings per acre from 1991 Comprehensive Plan. 2. Dwellings = acres x dwellings per acre with no allowances for undevelopable land.. 3. Population estimate = dwellings less five percent vacancy times 2.5 persons per dwelling. g: \plan \bg\land use 1.wk4 1 1, 22 ' BLUFF CREEK STUDY Acres % of Dwelling Dwellings Percent POPULATION Residential Per Acre Dwellings ESTIMATE Residential - Large Lot 2,262 24.3% 0.2 452 2.5% 1,074 Residential - Low Density 5,954 63.9% 1.8 10,717 58.6% 25,453 Residential - Medium Density 838 9.0% 6 5,028 27.5% 11,942 Residential - High Density 262 2.8% 8 2,094 11.4% 4,972 TOTALS 9315.6 18,291 43,442 HWY 5 STUDY Acres % of Dwelling Dwellings Percent POPULATION Residential Per Acre Dwellings ESTIMATE Residential - Large Lot 2,325 30.0% 0.2 465 3.6% 1,104 Residential - Low Density 4,874 63.0% 1.8 8,773 68.5% 20,836 Residential - Medium Density 371 4.8% 6 2,226 17.4% 5,287 Residential - High Density 168 2.2% 8 1,344 10.5% 3,192 TOTALS 7,738 12,808 30,419 1991 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Acres % of Dwelling Dwellings Percent POPULATION Residential Per Acre Dwellings ESTIMATE Residential - Large Lot 1,524 23.1% 0.2 305 2.4% 724 Residential - Low Density 4,345 66.0% 1.8 7,821 60.8% 18,574 Residential - Medium Density 508 7.7% 6 3,047 23.7% 7,238 Residential - High Density 210 3.2% 8 1,683 13.1% 3,998 TOTALS 6,587 12,856 30,534 Assumptions: 1. Dwellings per acre from 1991 Comprehensive Plan. 2. Dwellings = acres x dwellings per acre with no allowances for undevelopable land.. 3. Population estimate = dwellings less five percent vacancy times 2.5 persons per dwelling. g: \plan \bg\land use 1.wk4 1 1, 22 ' ' City of Chanhassen DWELLING UNIT /POPULATION ESTIMATES MEDIUM ESTIMATE BLUFF CREEK STUDY Acres % of Dwelling Dwellings Percent POPULATION Residential Per Acre Dwellings ESTIMATE ' Residential - Large Lot 2,262 24.3% 0.2 362 2.6% 1,004 Residential - Low Density 5,954 63.9% 1.8 8,574 61.6% 23,784 Residential - Medium Density 838 9.0% 6 3,520 25.3% 9,763 Residential - High Density 262 2.8% 8 1,466 10.5% 4,065 TOTALS 9315.6 13,921 38,616 ' HWY 5 STUDY Acres % of Dwelling Dwellings Percent POPULATION Residential Per Acre Dwellings ESTIMATE Residential - Large Lot 2,325 30.0% 0.2 372 3.8% 1,032 Residential - Low Density 4,874 63.0% 1.8 7,019 71.0% 19,469 Residential - Medium Density 371 4.8% 6 1,558 15.8% 4,322 Residential - High Density 168 2.2% 8 941 9.5% 2,610 ' TOTALS 7,738 9,890 27,434 1991 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ' Acres % of Dwelling Dwellings Percent POPULATION Residential Per Acre Dwellings ESTIMATE Residential - Large Lot 1,524 23.1% 0.2 244 2.5% 676 Residential - Low Density Residential - Medium Density 4,345 66.0% 508 7.7% 1.8 6 6,257 2,133 63.8% 21.7% 17,356 5,917 Residential - High Density 210 3.2% 8 1,178 12.0% 3,268 TOTALS 6,587 9,812 27,218 Assumptions: 1. Dwellings per acre from 1991 Comprehensive Plan. ' 2. Dwellings = acres x dwellings per acre with allowances for undevelopable land (20% SF, 30% MF). 3. Population estimate = dwellings less five percent vacancy times 2.92 persons per dwelling. g:\plan\bg\iandusel.wk4 11!22 %96 City of Chanhassen DWELLING UNIT /POPULATION ESTIMATES HIGH ESTIMATE' Assumptions: 1. Dwellings per acre from 1991 Comprehensive Plan. 2. Dwellings = acres x dwellings per acre with no allowances for undevelopable land. 3. Population estimate = dwellings less five percent vacancy times 2.92 persons per dwelling g: \plaMbg \landuse 1.wk4 11 X22'96 HWY 5 STUDY Acres % of BLUFF CREEK STUDY Dwellings Percent POPULATION Residential Acres % of Dwelling Dwellings Percent POPULATION 30.0% 0.2 465 Residential Per Acre Residential - Low Density Dwellings ESTIMATE 1.8 Residential - Large Lot 2,262 24.3% 0.2 452 2.5% 1,255 2,226 Residential - Low Density 5,954 63.9% 1.8 10,717 58.6% 29,730 10.5% Residential - Medium Density 838 9.0% 6 5,028 27.5% 13,948 35,530 Residential - High Density 262 2.8% 8 2,094 11.4% 5,808 % of Dwelling TOTALS 9315.6 POPULATION 18,291 Residential 50,740 Dwellings Assumptions: 1. Dwellings per acre from 1991 Comprehensive Plan. 2. Dwellings = acres x dwellings per acre with no allowances for undevelopable land. 3. Population estimate = dwellings less five percent vacancy times 2.92 persons per dwelling g: \plaMbg \landuse 1.wk4 11 X22'96 HWY 5 STUDY Acres % of Dwelling Dwellings Percent POPULATION Residential Per Acre Dwellings ESTIMATE Residential - Large Lot 2,325 30.0% 0.2 465 3.6% 1,290 Residential - Low Density 4,874 63.0% 1.8 8,773 68.5% 24,337 Residential - Medium Density 371 4.8% 6 2,226 17.4% 6,175 Residential - High Density 168 2.2% 8 1,344 10.5% 3,728 TOTALS 7,738 12,808 35,530 1991 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Acres % of Dwelling Dwellings Percent POPULATION Residential Per Acre Dwellings ESTIMATE Residential - Large Lot 1,524 23.1% 0.2 305 2.4% 846 Residential - Low Density 4,345 66.0% 1.8 7,821 60.8% 21,695 Residential - Medium Density 508 7.7% 6 3,047 23.7% 8,453 Residential - High Density 210 3.2% 8 1,683 13.1% 4,669 TOTALS 6,587 12,856 35,663 Assumptions: 1. Dwellings per acre from 1991 Comprehensive Plan. 2. Dwellings = acres x dwellings per acre with no allowances for undevelopable land. 3. Population estimate = dwellings less five percent vacancy times 2.92 persons per dwelling g: \plaMbg \landuse 1.wk4 11 X22'96 = ! M w 111111! M = M = M M = M M M M M ■■n M City of Chanhassen COMMERCIAL, OFFICE /INDUSTRIAL, OFFICE BUILDING AREA ESTIMATES ASSUMPTIONS: FAR: Commercial -.25, Office /Industrial -.15, Office - .3 *Within a PUD may have additional neighborhood commercial mixed use. # Possible increase in non - residential square footage of 44 percent. g: \plan \bg \landuse1.wk4 12/03/96 2000 Comprehensive Plan 1995 Comprehensive Plan 1991 Comprehensive Plan (BLUFF CREEK STUDY) (HWY 5 STUDY) LAND USE ACREAGE Bldg Area sq. ft. ACREAGE Bldg Area sq. ft. ACREAGE Bldg Area sq. ft. Commercial * 218 2,3 297 3,234,330 273 2,967,525 Office /Industria 1555 10,160,370 1,213 7,925,742 1,110 7,255,354 Office 183 2,391,444 0 0 13 176,157 TOT - # - 1,956 14,925,834 1,510 11,160,072 1,396 10,399,035 ASSUMPTIONS: FAR: Commercial -.25, Office /Industrial -.15, Office - .3 *Within a PUD may have additional neighborhood commercial mixed use. # Possible increase in non - residential square footage of 44 percent. g: \plan \bg \landuse1.wk4 12/03/96 61 3_75_ 1 G HLISINGTON {GOEGLER 304 FO Land Use Characteristics of Selected Communities -1990 Mitanetonka Land Use Am-'; Residential 9,757 54% Commercial 800 4.4% Industrial 704 3.9% Public 703 3.9% Recreation 955 5.3% Highway 634 3.5% Lakes 710 3.9% Wetlands 1,521 8.4% Vacant/Ac, 2,279 12.7 % St. Louis Park Land Use Acreg Residential 3,644 52.4% Commercial 568 8.2% Industrial 655 9.5% Public 354 5.1 C/v Recreation 712 10.3% Highway 304 4.4 % Lakes 149 2.2% Wetlands 178 2.6% Vacant/Ag 366 5.3% Burnsville Land I ,-,g IJ,-, Acres Residential 5,769 33.4% Coirunercial 638 5.5% Industrial 400 3.5% Public 867 7.5 %n Recreation 1,063 92% Highway 343 3% Lakes 371 3.2% Wetlands 647 5.6% Vacant/Ag 3,156 27.4% Sources Land Use Profiles ® Metropolitan Council H0 05, 99G. 1 1 1 1 i 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 61 , 35- 5160 HO I S I NGTOH KOEGLER 304 PL.. NOV 05 "96 15:29 Land Use Characteristics of Selected Conuntinities - 1990 Roseville Land s A cres Residential 4,194 47.4% Commercial 631 7.1 Industrial 1,109 12.5 Public 758 8.6% Recreation 738 8.3% Highway 401 4.5% Lakes 466 5.3% Wetlands 90 1 % Vacant/Ag 473 5.3 % Maplewood Land Us Acres Residential 4,055 35.1% Conunercial 638 5.5% Industrial 400 3.5% Public 867 7.5 % Recreation 1,063 9.2 %n Highway 343 3% Lakes 371 3.2% Wetlands 647 5.6% Vacant/Ag 3,156 27.4% Source: Land Use Profiles - Metropolitan Council 61 - 35 -316E HOISINGTON KOEGLER 304 PO4 HOV 05 '96 15-29 Land Use Characteristics of Selected Communities -1990 CiaskaO LLA. Use Ages Residential 1,217 18.7% Conunercial 104 1.6% Industrial 374 5.7% Public 146 2.2% Recreation 688 10.5% Lakes 338 5.2 %n Wetlands 489 7.5% Vacant/Ag 3,166 51.4 %+ a MUSA area only, Eden FrairieO Lan d 'Us Acres Residential 5,182 28.8% Commercial 812 4.5% Industrial 1,154 6.4% Public 485 2.7% Recreation 2,500 13,9 % Highway 460 2.6% Lakes 167 6.6% Wetlands 1,253 6.9 %u Vacant/Ag 4,948 27.6 % 0 MUSA area only. Source: Land Use Profiles - Metropolitan Council t 1 October 28, 1996 Frank J. Fox 27990 Smithtown Rd. Excelsior MN 55331 Dear Kate: On October 21st I attended the Chanhassen Planning Commission meeting to study the results of several months efforts to come up with the 2000 LANDUSE plan for the city of Chanhassen. I kept an open mind until I had ample time to study the proposal. In my travel of 1,800 miles on interotate highways and maybe one hundr or more interchanges, I question the 2000 LANDUSE Plan that was presented to us at the October 21st meeting. The cloverleafe present a natural convenient location for commercial, industrial or multiple housing. The 2000 LANDUSE plan showy no evidence of commercial or industrial planning. The proposed use of the area adjoining the cloverleaf certainly would afford a higher tax base. The city of Chaska is taking advantage of the interchanges with planning for commercial and industrial use. I urge you to consider zoning of the interchanges to incorporate c;onuttercial and industrial and take advantage of the natural convenience the interchanges afford. Sincerely, Frank J. Fox 1 1 n 7' C', : - �Ci H.-4 t, - : , - T U 41 a..- -1 ?n - VNJ I., IinT INa 1 s 1 Tj i.,n I� A LN `:.tit �. �;�1� rJ4r..� •fns � �� log November 6, 1996 MEMORANDUM ' To: City of Chanhassan Planning Commission and Staff From: Loucks & Associates on behalf of Frank Fox, Jeff Fox, Earl Holasek, Bruce Jeurissen, Gil Laurent, Sever Peterson Re: 2000 LandUse Plan, area south of Lyman Boulevard As property owners and citizens of the City of Chanhassan we are pleased to submit our concerns and thoughts regarding the 2000 Land Use Plan. We collectively own over 450 acres in the above mentioned study area and respectfully request that you incorporate our proposals for the future use of our land. And though most is actively cultivated, we realize the changing nature of our city. Development pressures are evident in all directions surrounding our location and it is our intention to be prepared to respond as market conditions and other factors allow. We are supportive of the watershed -based planning that the City has undertaken and see benefit to this process. The following points are most important to us and the future potential of our lands. 1. We are currently in the process of preparing a unified and specific development concept for the land in the study area. The plan is based on combining a mix of land uses that would be arranged to create a unique place with a diverse range of housing types, employment -based uses, parks /recreation spaces and supporting commercial with the goal of developing a pedestrian- oriented, transit - friendly neighborhood(s). Guiding this mix of uses to a more central location of our developable land would allow this plan to be implemented. Further, location contiguous to the Powers /212 interchange enhances this property relative to transit - related development. 2. We ask that you consider the attached land use graphic that suggests allowing a mix of uses as the alternative to the proposal by staff This would revise a portion of area shown on the City's proposed plan from Residential Medium Density to a mix of Residential Medium Density /Office /Industrial, accounting for approximately 57 acres. A portion of the area labeled for Residential Medium Density /Office would be sited in a more central area of the site north of Bluff Creek. A majority of the area as shown on the City's proposed plan would not change. 3. We would like you to consider using the existing onditions (wetlands, ste sl g p p , floodplain, soils, vegetation, and the creek bed) as the basis for defining an open space /recreation corridor through our property as the alternative to an somewhat arbitrary 300 foot wide zone The attached graphic indicates our vision of this corridor that responds to the existing conditions including topography. Thank you for this opportunity to participate in the lannin p rocess; we are g reatly interested P gP g Y in this plan and welcome the opportunity to discuss further our vision for our property. 1 72(X) I L \_\E. Surf_ 300, �Lv�rl. GrtAE, MINNrsc;r.� 55369 -5502 l FA_: (6 12) 424 -5505 F.\x: (G) 12) 421 -5822 PLANxr16 e r as O � S13W �t rt��r:vOati U' V /)s0('111It'S, ✓ItC .1r t(:11AF()L0(_11S1S November 6, 1996 MEMORANDUM ' To: City of Chanhassan Planning Commission and Staff From: Loucks & Associates on behalf of Frank Fox, Jeff Fox, Earl Holasek, Bruce Jeurissen, Gil Laurent, Sever Peterson Re: 2000 LandUse Plan, area south of Lyman Boulevard As property owners and citizens of the City of Chanhassan we are pleased to submit our concerns and thoughts regarding the 2000 Land Use Plan. We collectively own over 450 acres in the above mentioned study area and respectfully request that you incorporate our proposals for the future use of our land. And though most is actively cultivated, we realize the changing nature of our city. Development pressures are evident in all directions surrounding our location and it is our intention to be prepared to respond as market conditions and other factors allow. We are supportive of the watershed -based planning that the City has undertaken and see benefit to this process. The following points are most important to us and the future potential of our lands. 1. We are currently in the process of preparing a unified and specific development concept for the land in the study area. The plan is based on combining a mix of land uses that would be arranged to create a unique place with a diverse range of housing types, employment -based uses, parks /recreation spaces and supporting commercial with the goal of developing a pedestrian- oriented, transit - friendly neighborhood(s). Guiding this mix of uses to a more central location of our developable land would allow this plan to be implemented. Further, location contiguous to the Powers /212 interchange enhances this property relative to transit - related development. 2. We ask that you consider the attached land use graphic that suggests allowing a mix of uses as the alternative to the proposal by staff This would revise a portion of area shown on the City's proposed plan from Residential Medium Density to a mix of Residential Medium Density /Office /Industrial, accounting for approximately 57 acres. A portion of the area labeled for Residential Medium Density /Office would be sited in a more central area of the site north of Bluff Creek. A majority of the area as shown on the City's proposed plan would not change. 3. We would like you to consider using the existing onditions (wetlands, ste sl g p p , floodplain, soils, vegetation, and the creek bed) as the basis for defining an open space /recreation corridor through our property as the alternative to an somewhat arbitrary 300 foot wide zone The attached graphic indicates our vision of this corridor that responds to the existing conditions including topography. Thank you for this opportunity to participate in the lannin p rocess; we are g reatly interested P gP g Y in this plan and welcome the opportunity to discuss further our vision for our property. 1 72(X) I L \_\E. Surf_ 300, �Lv�rl. GrtAE, MINNrsc;r.� 55369 -5502 l FA_: (6 12) 424 -5505 F.\x: (G) 12) 421 -5822 L r h A H bO 0 L F , VA P-D c'a v N - T Y CHANHASSEN GROUP Fox - Fox - HOLASEK — JEURISSEN — LAURENT — PETERSON vi X.011d 0eJOOOFI Ftigi—em Ph—sers, Sur-yory. D, ig--C Archne,dogivis 720011 .... /,,,A L.,,,. S,,;Ie 300. G,,,,-e, AfN 55369 6121421.1.50.1 m m m � m = m w m I Ij 1-1 RESIDENTIAL - LOW DENSITY (NET DENSITY RANGE 1.2 - 4 DU/AC) RESIDENTIAL - MEDIUM DENSITY (NET DENSITY RANGE 4 -8 DU/AC) RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY OFFICE RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY OFFICE / INDUSTRIAL PARKS / OPEN SPACE CHANHASSEN GROUP Plungers, Surveyors, D-ig,,— A A,,h.e.1,,giis 7200 lfritdocA Latte, Smile 300,Afaple Crane, AfN SS369 Tcleph-e: 6121424-5505 Tel ..pier: 6121424-5822 -- -- -- -- - -.... .b... ..d.,..� 9 101:, ?/ 3 study from OU finds that M* enables local 9 overn- G ' oft to spend snore on resident rvices without incmasino tax Com ' dens. Overrime J. THOMAS BLACK AND RITA CURTIS perennial concern—the community ittmpacts of growth and development — became a major issue in the 1970s and 1980s in the United States as metro- politan areas experienced mmnprecedented growth. One - the key questions has been whether or not growth pays for itself in local government fiscal terms: Do the taxes, fees, and other revenues it gen- erates exceed or fall short of the costs of servicing growth? Evidence of Concern about grow -th's net fis- cal impact can be found in the spreading movement to adopt development impact fees, particularly in high - growth areas.' While economic recession has put concerns shout the fiscal effects of Fowth on the back burner in many communities, questions about the effects of growth on local revenue capacity, service costs, and tax burdems will return u) prominence as demographic forces and an economic recovery spur new growth. A review of fiscal impact studies by Robert Burchell and David Listokin' indicates generally sig- nificant variation in the cost- revenue effects of dif- ferent types of land uses. Uses thhat place below - averagre demands on time school system and hnuaing assistance, health care systems, and other social serv- ices tend to generate a net fiscal surplus. Uses that place above - average demands on education and so- cial servicc:.s tend to produce a fiscal deficit. Thus, office, industrial, warehouse, retail, and small unit one-and two- bedroom high -rent multifamily hous- icig uses typically ;how up on tlme net positive side of the ledger. On the other hand, lower - rent apartments and larger (three- and four- bedroom) }mousing units tend to result in a net fisc -1 deficit. This is under - standab(e: education and social service expenditures together constitute on average approximately SO percent of U.S. Inca( g overnment expenditures. tures per some parameter — residents, students, em- ployees, rooms, trips generated, square footage that can he related to the design and use characteristics of the new development. Revenues typically are estimated by projecting the contribution of the development to the various bases used for calculating taxes and fees and then ap- plying projected tax rates. Fiscal impact analysts typically have been hypo- thetical, usually undertaken during rezoning or de- velopment permit approval processes. Rarely has re- search sought to measure the effects of various types of development by examining actual service demands, the marginal cost.% of meeting thost: demands, umd actual revenue generation. The validity of die con- clusions of most fiscal impact studies, therefore, de- pcn&-, on the validity of their assumptions. The pmhlenm with standard fiscal impact analysis is that it does not capture the complex interactions among various types of land uses as gum-t1i occurs. For instance, a residential development may pmv- duee a net direct cost.. But it also provides custnnm- ers for businesses in the area, and thus can increase business sales (and sales and gross reccipts taxes) and underlying commercial property values (and de- rived property taxes). Tlmis exparLsion of tax revenues does not necessarily add offsetting cost~ to the com- munity. Conversely, an industrial park may in itself generate a net fiscal snr phis. But it may also increase the demard f%, low moderate income homm-s in the community and thus, interactively, result in a net fiscal burden. Various land uses are interdepend- ent. The overall fiscal impact of one kind of devel- opment depends on the interaction of industrial, commnmcn lal, and residential land uses over time.. A More interactive Approach The Problem with Traditional Impact Studies As typically applied, fiscal impact analysis involves an cstiivation of time service requirements associated with various types of land uses or developments— commercial, industrial, single - family residential, multifamily residential—and a costing out of thosc requirements. Costs are calculated, for the Inost part, on the basis of recent experience with expendi- A few researchers have explored the use of statistical terhmmiques to examine the relationships between growth (measured by li,opulation size or growth, commer- cial activity, or cc►nstruction activity) and local gov- ernment revenues anti expenditure., across a set of a) urban jurisdictions witlm variable growth attributes. If one can sort out time effects of growth factors from other factrors that may influence local govern- Urbint Land - Yxtum 1993 1 i SFNT 8Y : L'L 1 11 -27 -96 :11:52x11 :LRBAN LAND INSTiTUTE- 3/ I ent costs and revenues, this approach can capture e cumulative effc'ct,S of growth as they work their way through the economy. The few extant studies lf this type have examined per - capita local spending is as the key variable affected by growth. The WI clear finding common to these studies is that ttegrowth r- capita spending by local governments increases popuJation increases. Whether the study looked or at ah-nlute size, the result of increased spending for larger populations holds. l CrossJunsdictional fiscal impact studies have or, however, explored growth's effects on service evels or tax burdens, because comparable treasures 1 f these variables are elusive. Thus, these studies ave not determined whether growth simply drives ], tine costs of services or whether it increases the tax base per capita and therelry the revenue capacity Fr capita. They have failed to address the effect of ,wth on tax burdens. i s My I's research division recently completed a study of the fiscal effects of gmwth that, unlike other stud - o rc of this genre, weals some consequeruxs of growth r local revenue capacity and rax burdens as well as frsr expenditures. This analysis was made possibic by 1e availability of data of both revenue capacity anti xpenditure levels for jurisdictions in the state of rrginia. 1 Cities and counties in Virginia are independent, ovide comparable services, and possess similar tax - Y- l; }towers. Cross - jurisdictional analyses need not sort out the effects of variatiorv; in fitnctions and (ents rvices among jurisdictions. Also, local govern - are required to submit standardized reports revenues and expenditures for inclusion in a state report comparing local government finances. Titus, s tandardized data are available for a large number nd variety of local governments that provide simi- lar services but represent a variety of size and ( ath characteristics. 1'he key factor explaining variatiow; in levels of L " ' ilgavernment expenditures is likely to be the relative capacity of the private economy in the juris- F iction tr► generate revenues. Virginia has devel- ipeol a mc:tsure of per - capita revenue capacity for local jur•i-diction", hasud on a Combination of total trn .)perty value, total adjusted gr(r.;s income of resi- ents, the aggregate amount of taxable retail sales, ankl the nuirther of automobiles (fur personal prop- erty taxes and tnotor vehicle registration fees). UT-1 conducted two analyses to examine the relationship between population and economic growth and revenue capacity: .4f 5ize,vleasures. The relation between pupulati n ize and jobs per resident and revenue capacity per capita ivory analyzed for the 59 cities and counties with population densities of more than 100 people Demand and Supply Expenditures Tttearetir*, the tttejor deterrm hats of vanfe = in demand for local.gevemmed senka indtrds; • Edueatloa and Worm l vets, which tend to be highly correlated. Past research indicates that the demand for public services is income elastic, which means that as Incomes increase, the demand for public services Increases at a lmtotdy greater rate. • Nor rAk which is obviously important As the proportion of Im population represented by school ape children Increases, the demand ter edrsesdonal services intros 6. An itcres in the proportion of senior crtimns will inmese demand for Imp povw meat services aimed at assisting those dltreas. Deaft because typicaly to hiptwr the deg - * the greater the demand for such public atrv- ices as parlor and recreation facilities, traffic management, and SmArminerdal 111a0apometd. Several factors tharxegtaly play some role in damnawre the local govemmeni costs of Pro- viding various levels of service, ANUM h iN net C IBM 01 Sen6 Of MINE bCWM is x01114 M& • Wnantles for diseearoraw of Sala. The pmaW% view is Oral utility -type services (tenter, sewer, and transportation) and emiral- tied administrative hnetions. such as planwrg MW Inertial adrdnistratimt, display economies of stale over a torpe sae range, wliie other nr palant mudcipal ttrnetionc- edueatiort, police. Are, and solid waste collection -* rot appear to et loy ownamms of scale, above a fairly low population I&A Some scale economies may be impossible to measure beesta they are maskW by differentials in Wily of service. The bollmm tine is that the net easel of 6cale acme - om rermins ulndear. • Density. While hypothetical comparative an elyma have strewn that capilal casts for roads and rrWas go down as ssnW& erd pat- terns become mare compact, most studes of rend puh:e senicu cots ha* bola not tta density produces loiter public service costs but in Local Mal. to the contrary, deeaty Is posWftly corre- lated wlft axir o ta'es per capita. This May be explained by the effect of denarty an demand for amvkes (gee above). Mother o0snation is Owl increased operation and maintrsrrena► costs may more than offset airy cod savinps on Odra - struMre constructlom • the lea r4ft of servius. The com• Knerd coats -tor tabor, land. services, and ma- brials--of povemnent services Mxkdon wy sgtileari y tram place lo place. In t 990. v-1 for residential land varied from $10AW an a= to 5200,000 an am across 30 U.S. mal opoli- ran area& labor costa very coWdersbly tens because people can easily move to take advan- tage: of wage differendals, but dstietaus do ex- ist. In logo, the state avenges for an teachers' Wades ranged icon 521,000 in South Ddwta to $43.000 in Alaska. according to the Us. I7o- partment of Education's Nations! Center for Edu• C811m staftbm Among metrvpolhan Nam. ire wet of Wing verios imm plus or minas 35 per- cent of the n9orrtal average Croat of h ng. vad- ance in clmate or soli taxiti s may lead to a variance In Willy construction costa or operat- ing costs. In some dry areas, for example, the tuck costs of suppift a gallon of vwler are atbstartu y elevated because the water must be imported. • Ramok transfers rod debt burdens_ The =a" O f reversnes Iran tied from federal and state gevmmrrtetdS and the extend to which past capital casts have ban debt financed wbh pay - meiris amWdmd over Wm years can substan- tially aged Rte "price" of government services wb aly paid by rasidents. hilereavarrowntel revenuffS vary COFMiderably torn area to area. In 1087, 38 pervert of total local government reymues in the UnM sta48 Caine from the federal and state govar ww ts. In tits 50 larg- est U.S. dries. Der - capita inhr9ovwm'ser+tal reruns ranged tom $62 (Tulsa) to $1,31;0 per square mile. Population growth increases the overall size of jurisdictions, and commercial and in- dustrial development increase-, the proportion of jabs per capira. Therefore, wing weasures of 1>npu- latinn size and jolts per resident should give some in- dication of how growth affects the basic capacity of jurisdictions to pay for public services. • Growth Measures. For these s,mc jurisdictions, the analysis looked at die relation becwcut the rate of poptelation growKh, the change in jobs per capira, the value of constriction per capita, and the change in revenue opacity per capita. The period covered was 1984 to 1999. ,jruniu7ry 1993 • Urban Land is i r 59 t4@3 end Ceundee b r square MM. um Uu. Sire meas- ures indicate that both popu- Iation and job% are positively related to reve- nue. capacity. As shown in Figure 1, an increase in the 21Q,000 110,000 level of jobs per gtm of PMAlft capita by 50 results in an aciclitional $237 in revestue ca- Iracity per cap - i to while each additional 50,000 in population adds $35 toteve- ❑Lle clpodty per capita. 110 An 160 An a naly- Join W Cob sLs of growth measures finds {kdnis with pepWWM dMeiee of nen *en 100 people that cltange in jobs per capita (a measure of commercial and industrial expansion), change in the amount of construction per capita, and the popuh- tion growdt rate are all significantly and positively related to changes in revenue capacity over the five- year period (see Figure 2). Population growth is the str ongest factor with each additional 10 percentage points in. the population growth rate associated with a 4.6 percent increase in per capita revenue capac- ity. A $1,000 per - capita increase in the volume of construction accounts for an increase of 4.86 per- cent in per- capita revenue capacity. An increase in jobs per capita by ten accounts for an increase of 4.3 percent in revenue capacity per capita. The clear conclusion of this empirical data is that population growth an economic growth gener- - 41 ally result in increased local government revenue ca- pacity. It follows that the more growth that occurs, the trlore local governments will spend per capita because the per - resident revenue capacity is higher. It is not surprising that growth tends to be related ` to increases in local government expenditures per capita. But these higher expenditures derive from Elie greater revenue- generating capacity of the private economy in high- &n-owth areas, not from higher per - unit service cows. Growth enables local govern- ments to spend more without increasing tax rates. LTU's analysis tested whether or not other fac- tors are more or less impor than variations in revenue - generating capacity in explaining variations in local government expenditure levels. It did so by exploring the relationship of total general fund ex- penditures per Capita to various demandlnecd and Supply Factors (including revenue capacity), tinder file assumption that expenditure levels reflect a rough balance between need factclrs and factors that affect tic costs of providing services (see feature box). A multiple - variable (4LS regression) statistical analysis of expenditure levels per capita for the sane 59 counties and cities was performed for the following variables: dollar revenue capacity per capita, population size, brass density, share of population in p(werty, share of lxipularion under age 16, share of popula- tion over age 65, and the level of intergovernmental transfers from federal and state governments. These seven variables all turn out to be signifi- cantly (at a 9 percent confidence level) and strongly related to expenditure levels per capita (see Figure .t for selected results). As a group, they explain 78 per- cent of the variation in expenditure levels among the 59 jurisdictions. As expected, revenue capacity shows up as the strongest factor. For each dollar of increase in reve- nue capacity, local government expenditures per capita go up by $(1.87. This result supports the die- cry that growth tends co increase expenditure levels by increasing revenue capacity. Among the other factors strongly affecting ex- penditure levels, each additional $1 front the federal 'LIRE 1: CHANCF IN fIEVk,11Uf. CAPACITY ANDAMS Cft.ANGC/PI1I IRMI TN CHAPJLt1CANS AMMIT VAHIAIIII S' � 35 25 �' l6 1g 6 Change In rah, per CAPM 30 PopgMen Qrawth Rate (Fereeatl )r 59 oUn and CaM4N In Mrgiaio Wil PWkdm d-SM" at mole then 104 peopb pef agrs W* over en pafad at IM4 9e IUD. m= ULL Urban T,vnd • January 1993 , 5 Za ZQ 15 16� 6 _."� 1.600 ' 2.1100 3,000 4.000 $,000 emoge IM CM31nde ld per Cepfta (S1 jl : I �l r SENT RY:LLi :11 -27 -96 :11:514,11 :URBAN' LAND INSTITUTE- 916128357008-210t:# 5! 5 2,000 1,600 - 1.200 800 650 1A'f0 1 5D 1 ,x50 2.250 Revenue Capacity P per rApita r I d i ror tag tltlee end CaMw In Arglyde with pep+det o drawMm of mots Ihen iCe p�4pi1 per �9dM0 rttiN Sovme: ULL or state government increases expenditure levels by $1.37. An increase in density of 500 people per square mile translates into a $49.50 increase in per - capita expenditure levels. Apparently, any econo- rnies associated with higher densities yin the service supply side arc more than offset by higher ser6ce demands associated with the higher densities. l.,ess strong effects on expenditures are exerted by the proportion of the population that is dependent (under age 16 or over age 65) and by poverty rdte3. A two percentage point increase in dependency in- creases per-capita expendittres by $28, while a sitni- lar increase in poverty increases expenditures by $24. population size was included in die analysis to b est whether or noc the etfects of cconcotnies of scales were evident. The results indicate a positive relationship between populadon size and expendi- ture levels. They do not reflect either income ter land price effects because these are controlled for in the revenue capacity variable or density effects. Tile likely explanation for the positive relationship is the tendency to add services as a community increases in size, and scale economies make more marginal services more affordable. Larger communities tend to offer a broader range of services. Overcall, the variation in population size exerts a smaller effect than the other factors. An increase i n population of 10,U()() is a55,>ciateci with only a $4.17 r incase in ex- penditttrc levels. The bottom line of ULI's analysis of the effects of growth on fiscal capacity anti expenditure levels is that lwt.h population growth and economic 00bs) growth increase revenue- gcneratittg rapacity, and revcntie capacity is the primary determinant of LocaL government exIienciiture levels. Etthauccci revcoue capacity makes it possible to increase expejulitures without raising the tax rate- or the relative tax bur- dens on the residents. Other factors such as increases in density and size of population, in the proportion W dependent population, and in federal and state transfers tend to raise per - capita expenditure levels to a lesser degree, independent of the effects of in- creases in per - capita revenue capacity. v Notes 'In the last 15 years, growing 1 DepeedptYerietil� lWrinae CapadlYPU �1� communities B Come" have become in- rime .718 cre2singly con- Popwasim 4.741 cerned about the Jobs W Ca* funding of front- W-14 end capital hieili- L Depewent VetiAW, Chimp in ReMLM type* ties --such as a Ca~ off - Site reads Valkwe and sewage treat - anp g ae In .lobs Per Cepile .436 As nient facilities" Chmp in CaOucbf Pw CaPih assnciared with Populeppn GtoNM Rata 464 new develop- H� — A8 menu Ta provide � � Varhhle: E"UMM ee per CA* Support for the 11 COOPWertt collection of im_ Vadewil pact fees at the 11"Itue Capacity per Cwb 0.969 O.al7 front end of the Populaw 098 dcvelopnient DM4 14.729 11roicct, they Proportion under 16 years 14.170 have undertaken �P� °w G5 Years 1368 to essdlnatc the b*rammrnwWTrarMW% infractructurc Poverty R81e 12.596 casts of new dc: A = .19 velopment. How- - ever, iltost such sauna. Uu. studies coke nn efforr to assees the effects of net a)cis and revenues over tinie- Over t.itne, net revenues from the new <levelopoient may easily cover the annualized capital costs of ?ff -site in- frastniccure. 'There is nn douht about the fiscal impact of a recession, egoecially when property values de cline in the. process: revenues recede cluickly while costs do not, producing large tleficitz; an(( cutbacks in cervices even though needs arc not declining. i See Robert W. Btu•chell and David Listokin, fiscal Impact procedure- -Statt of the Art (New Brunswick, New Jersey: C..enter tar Uiban policy R.ese2m.6, Rutgem -the State University, 1!)92). J. Thomas Black is IILIS staff'vice president fir restarcb and Rita Cures is as associate in ULI's remt►srb departwn" T Vatiodc 2.343 4.069 per (iWU T ZWft 2.344 4.338 4.970 T �tietle 9.616 2.435 1.0G 2.536 3.170 6.969 Z.968 _ ...... I 1 r T _ ] lntsrpovarttat vW ImalM [$ per Gepibl 0asklr thepil Per saws MW Study List Douglas Bergeson 9201 Audubon Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 PID 25.0220400 Section 22 Southwest Quarter 1.66 Acres Existing use: house Proposed Land Use: Office /Industrial, Parks & Open Space Utilities: Sewer BC -3, Water 16" trunk, Storm BC -A5.3 Access is via Audubon Rd., CSA Hwy. 17 This property is located directly across the street from Lakeview Drive, the roadway into the industrial park. Site is a plateau area that slopes away to east. Site is heavily wooded. Site is potential access point for land to east, north, and south. Due to the size of the parcel, the property should be assembled with adjacent properties for development. George & C St Martin 9231 Audubon Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 PID 25.0220300 Section 22 Southwest Quarter 6.13 Acres Existing Use: homestead located near northern property line. Proposed Land Use: Office/Industrial, Parks & Open Space 1 1 I � u fl Property is in a transition area between industrial and residential development to west. Site slopes steeply to east near eastern property line where a wetland is located. Access via Audubon Rd., CSA Hwy 17 Utilities: Sewer BC -3, Water 16" trunk, Storm BC -A5.3 Minimal of developable land between the wetland and Audubon Rd. Dean & Lois Degler 9111 Audubon Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 PID: 25.0220800 Section 22, Southeast Quarter 67.3 Acres Existing Use: Farmstead, agriculture Proposed Land Use: Parks & Open Space, Office /Industrial Access via Audubon Rd., CSA Hwy. 17 and Lyman Blvd., CSA Hwy. 18 Utilities: Sewer BC -3, Water 16" trunk, Storm BC -A5.1, A5.3, A5.6 Property is bounded to the north by planned industrial land and to the west by existing industrial development. A low point, planned waterbody, is located in the central part of the site and a wetland, planned waterbody, is located in the southern portion of the site. The site is heavily wooded in the southern portion of the parcel. Bluff Creek skirts the property to the east. The wooded area and Bluff Creek are desirable features for preservation. Due to the open nature of the site, it is possible to develop parts of the site for large, level building pads or playing fields. 2 Chaska Investment Co. Wallingford Properties 5201 73rd Street W. Edina, MN 55317 PID 25.0221300 Section 22 Southeast Quarter Section 27 Northeast Quarter 87.42 Acres Existing Use: agriculture and open space Proposed Land Use: Parks & Open Space, Office /Industrial, residential - medium density Access via Audubon Rd., CSA Hwy. 17 Utilities: Sewer BC -3, Water 16" trunk, Storm BC -A5.6, A5.7, A6.3, A6.7 Property is bounded to the north by planned industrial land and to the west by existing residential development. Several wetland complexes, some extending beyond the site, are located on the parcel. The site is heavily wooded in the southern portion of the parcel. Bluff Creek skirts the property to the east. The wooded area and Bluff Creek are desirable features for preservation. Gayle & Lois Degler 1630 Lyman Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 PID 25.0221400 Section 22 Northeast and Southeast Quarter 80 Acres Existing Land Use: home, agriculture, sanitary lift station. Proposed Land Use: parks & open space, residential - low density, residential - medium density Bluff Creek runs across the northwest corner, the western property line and the southwest corner of the property. 3 7 L r� L I L 11 Scattered wooded areas are throughout the site, especially along the Bluff Creek corridor. The site consists of rolling topography. Areas of steep slopes, in excess of 20 %, are located on the parcel. Due to the topography and natural features, this site lends itself to a mixture of housing types and densities. Special consideration should be given to protecting the creek corridor. Wetlands are located on site. Access via Lyman Blvd., CSA Hwy. 18, and possibly through looped road to east. Utilities: Sewer BC -2, Water 16" trunk, Storm BC -A5.2, A5.6, A5.7. Dorsey & Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 PID 25.0230400 Section 23 Southwest Quarter 40 Acres Existing Land Use: homestead and agricultural. Proposed Land Use: Residential - low density, residential - medium density. Due to the topography and natural features, this site lends itself to a mixture of housing types and densities. Special consideration should be given to protecting the creek corridor. Access via Lyman Blvd, CSA Hwy 18, and possibly through looped road to east. Utilities: Sewer BC -2, Water 16" trunk, Storm BC -A5.2, A5.6, A5.7. A 1.5 M.G. elevated storage tank is proposed for this property. Wetlands are located on the site with a wetland complex extending to the property to the east. (PRI) Jeffrey A & Terri L Fox Trustees of Trust Fund 5270 Howards Point Road Excelsior, MN 55331 (Cont) Rodney L & Martha Hjelm & Lyle W & Barbara J Franke 4248 31st Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55406 PID 25.0230500 Section 23 Southwest Quarter 40 Acres Existing Land Use: agricultural Proposed Land Use: Residential - low density, residential - medium density Due to the topography and natural features, this site lends itself to a mixture of housing types and densities. Access via Lyman Blvd., CSA Hwy. 18, and Powers Blvd. extension. The Hwy. 212 corridor ROW takes approximately the eastern 1/3 of site. Utilities: Sewer BC -2, Water 16" trunk, Storm LS -A2.1, A2.2, A2.3 and BC -A5.2 Wetlands are located on the site with a wetland complex extending across the property from west to east. Deloris B Holasek 8610 Galpin Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 PID 25.0230200 Section 23 Southeast Quarter 61 Acres Existing Land Use: agricultural and open space Proposed Land Use: Residential - low density Access via Lyman Blvd., CSA Hwy, 18. The Hwy. 212 corridor ROW takes the majority of the site. 61 I F L 1 r] 1 t Utilities: Sewer BC -2 and LB -1, Water 16" trunk, Storm LS -A2.2, A2.3 and BC -A5.10 A major wetland complex extends diagonally across the eastern part of the property. This wetland eliminates the possibility of connection this property with the properties to the east. Wooded areas are concentrated in the northwest corner of the site and adjacent to the major wetland complex. Wayne B & Cynthia A Miller 891 Lyman Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 PID 25.8470010 Section 23 Southeast Quarter 5 Acres Existing Land Use: homestead Proposed Land Use: Residential - low density The southern 1/2 of the property is in a major wetland complex. Utilities: Sewer 1-13-1, water 16 ", storm BC- A5.10, LR -A1.1 There is very little redevelopment potential for these properties. Frank T & Mary Lou Wholly 851 Lyman Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 PID 25.8470020 Section 23 Southeast Quarter 2.5 Acres Existing Land Use: homestead Proposed Land Use: Residential - low density The southern 1/2 of the property is in a major wetland complex. no Utilities: Sewer LB -1, water 16 ", storm BC- A5.10, LR -A1.1 There is very little redevelopment potential for these properties. Patrick A. & Lauren Farrell 801 Lyman Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 PID 25.8470030 Section 23 Southeast Quarter 2.5 Acres Existing Land Use: homestead Proposed Land Use: Residential - low density The southern 1/2 of the property is in a major wetland complex. Utilities: Sewer LB -1, water 16 ", storm BC- A5.10, LR -A1.1 There is very little redevelopment potential for these properties. Frank Fox Trustee of Trust 27990 Smithtown Road Excelsior, MN 55331 PID 25.0230300 Section 23 Southeast and Southwest Quarters 139.98 Acres Existing use: agriculture Proposed Land Use: S 1/2 of SW 1/4 Residential - medium density and residential - low density, S 1/2 of SE 1/4 Residential - low density Access to the western half of the parcel will be via future Powers Blvd. extension. Additional access may be via future roads within adjacent parcels when they develop. The property is divided by the Hwy. 212 corridor. Access to the eastern portion of the property will be via 7 1 1 1 s J 1 extension of local roads from adjacent properties which tie into Powers Blvd., Great Plains Blvd., and Pioneer Trail. Utilities: Sewer BC -2 and LB -1, water 16" main, storm BC -A5.7, A5.10, A5.11, A5.12; LS- A2.1, A2.2, LR -A3.3, A3.4 There is a significant area of hardwood forest located in the southwest corner of the property. This area borders the bluff creek corridor and should be preserved as part of future development. A major wetland complex is located in the eastern portion of the parcel. The wetland is surrounded by a significant hardwood forest, especially on the eastern side of the wetland. The site has rolling topography with areas of significant slopes, in excess of 20 %, in the eastern and western portions of the parcel. PRI) V. W. Land Holdings 9150 Great Plains Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (Cont) Lawrence C. & Elizabeth Klein 9170 Great Plains Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 PID 25.0232100 Section 23 Southeast Quarter 39.48 Acres Existing Land Use: Tree farm Proposed Land Use: Residential - low density Access will be via future roads from the east, south and west. Utilities: Sewer LB -1, water 16 ", storm BC- A5.10, LR -A3.4, A3.5 Wetland complexes are located in the northern and southern portions of the property Wooded areas are located in the southwest corner of the site, extending across the property to the west. The site has rolling topography. r Bruce Jeurissen 1500 Pioneer Trail Chaska, MN 55318 PID 25.0232300 Section 23 Southwest Quarter Section 26 Northwest Quarter 40.01 Acres Existing Land Use: Farmstead Proposed Land Use: Parks & Open Space, residential - medium density, residential - low density The Hwy. 212 corridor encompasses the southeast corner of the site. Access will be via a frontage road on the west side of Hwy. 212 from Pioneer Trail. Utilities: Sewer BC -2 and 3, water 12 ", storm BC -!5.7, A5.8, A5.11, A5.19 Bluff Creek bisects the southern 1/3 of the site with an accompanying wetland complex. Development of the southern and northern portions of the property would be separate. The southern area may be desirable for preservation/density transfer. Wooded areas are included along the creek corridor. The site has areas of significant topography in the northern portion of the parcel as well as adjacent to the Bluff Creek corridor. David R. & Mary B. Blanski 9350 Great Plains Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 PID 25.0240811 Section 24 Southwest Quarter 5 Acres Existing Land Use: single family home Proposed Land Use: residential - low density Utilities: sewer LR - 2; water 16" main; storm BC- A5.10, LR -A3.5 Access via Great Plains Blvd. through the parcel to the east. M a I 1 I 1 r_�I The site contains all or part of three wetlands. The site is wooded. Development of this parcel should be undertaken in conjunction with adjacent parcels for development efficiency. Robert & Marguerite Peterson 9250 Great Plains Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 PID 25.02420810 Section 24 Southwest Quarter 5 Acres Existing Land Use: single family home Proposed Land Use: residential - low density Utilities: sewer LR - 2; water 16" main; storm BC- A5.10, LR -A3.5 Access via Great Plains Blvd. Direct parcel access for individual lots from Great Plains Blvd. is prohibited. The site contains all or part of three wetlands. The site is wooded. Development of this parcel should be undertaken in conjunction with adjacent parcels for development efficiency. Lawrence & Elizabeth Klein 9170 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 PID 25.0242900 Section 24 Southwest Quarter 10.3 Acres Existing Land Use: single family home and agriculture Proposed Land Use: residential - low density Utilities: sewer LB -1 14" main; water 16" main; storm BC -A5.10 10 �I Access via Great Plains Blvd. or Lyman Blvd. Part of a significant wetland complex is located on the western portion of the parcel. Timothy A. & Dawne M. Erhart 775 96th Street W. Chanhassen, MN 55317 PID 25.0240820 Section 24 Southwest Quarter 10.26 Acres Existing land Use: vacant Proposed Land Use: residential - low density Utilities: sewer LR - 2; water 12" main; storm LRA -3.10 Access via future roads from the north and/or south due to the natural wetland. A large natural wetland is located on the eastern portion of the parcel. The site slopes from the west to the east to the wetland area. Development of this parcel is contingent on the development of adjacent properties. (PRI) Thomas & Beatrice Zwiers 11111 Deuce Road Elko, MN 55020 (Cont) Walter & JoAnn Griepentrog 100 Flying Cloud Drive Chaska, MN 55318 PID 25.0250900 Section 25 Southeast Quarter 45 Acres Existing Land Use: agricultural Proposed Land Use: residential - low density 11 I � 1 Utilities: sewer LB -3; water lateral only; storm BC -A7.4, A7.6, A8.1 ' Access via Eden Prairie The site is significantly wooded and contains areas of steep slopes and bluffs. The parcel is ' physically separated from the rest of the city of Chanhassen by the regional trail corridor and topography. ' Development of this site may be most feasible through the extension of utility services from the city of Eden Prairie. In addition, access to the parcel may be necessary from Eden Prairie. t 0 Proposed Land Use: residential - large lot Utilities: sewer LB -4, water lateral only; storm BC - A7.5 The site has rolling topography without any significant natural features. Jeffrey & Kathleen Dypwick 10300 Great Plains Blvd. Chaska, MN 55318- 9467 PID 25.0253000 Section 25 Southwest Quarter 12.9 Acres Existing Land Use: single family home Proposed Land Use: residential - low density Utilities: sewer LB -2; water 12' main; storm BC -A7.3 Access via Great Plains Blvd. 12 11 Robert J. & Emily J. Tischleder ' 185 Pioneer Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' PID 25.0250800 Section 25 Southeast Quarter 7.4 Acres Existing Land Use: single family home t 0 Proposed Land Use: residential - large lot Utilities: sewer LB -4, water lateral only; storm BC - A7.5 The site has rolling topography without any significant natural features. Jeffrey & Kathleen Dypwick 10300 Great Plains Blvd. Chaska, MN 55318- 9467 PID 25.0253000 Section 25 Southwest Quarter 12.9 Acres Existing Land Use: single family home Proposed Land Use: residential - low density Utilities: sewer LB -2; water 12' main; storm BC -A7.3 Access via Great Plains Blvd. 12 11 There is an extensive ravine system within the parcel with areas of bluffs and severe slopes. This areas is heavily wooded. There is a minimal of land area appropriate for development. David R. Teich 1217 South Monroe Shakopee, MN 55379 PID 25.0253900 Section 25 Southwest Quarter 14.05 Acres Existing Land Use: vacant Proposed Land Use: residential - large lot Utilities: sewer LB -2; water 12" main; storm BCA -7.3 A ravine system with bluffs and approximately a 60 foot elevation change bisects the property from northwest to southeast. An open water channel is shown as part of the SWMP plan. Development of the site would be divided by this system. Gilbert P. & Margaret C. Laurent Trustees of Trust 24760 Cedar Point Road New Prague, MN 56071 PID 25.0260600 Section 26 Northwest Quarter 68.45 Acres Existing Land Use: Farmstead, agricultural, open space Proposed Land Use: Office, except the northwest corner which includes residential - low & medium density. Access is via Pioneer Trail and future Powers Blvd. extension. The site is bisected in the northwest corner by the Hwy. 212 corridor. Powers Blvd. extension is along the eastern property line. 13 7 1 f I_ �1 J Utilities: Sewer LB -1, BC -2, water 16" trunk, storm BC -A5.8, A5.11, A5.19 Bluff Creek cuts across the property from the west central to the south central portions of the property. A large wetland complex is adjacent to the Bluff Creek corridor. Future development of the site will be separated into areas by Bluff Creek and the wetland complex with separate access points (north from Powers and south via Pioneer). Development of the site should take advantage of the overlooks of the wetland complex/Bluff Creek corridor. The site will have close access to ramps to Hwy. 212. The site has rolling topography with areas of steep slopes adjacent to the eastern property line. Arthur B. Johnson 3323 Bavaria Road Chaska, MN 55318 PID 25.0260610 Section 26 Northwest Quarter 11.05 Acres Existing Land Use: Agriculture and open space Proposed Land Use: Parks & Open Space, Public /Semi - public, residential - low density Access via Pioneer Trail. This site is south of Pioneer Trail. Utilities: Sewer LB -2, water 12" main, storm BC- A5.18, A6.8 The site is bisected by Bluff Creek with 6 acres east and 5 acres west of Bluff Creek. Bluff Creek is contained within a steep ravine system that begins south of Pioneer Trail. The parcel slopes steeply from south to north with a 60+ foot elevation change. The eastern tract has slopes in excess of 30% and is a bluff as defined by city ordinance. The site is partially farmed, with the majority of the area heavily wooded. Development of this parcel will be problematic, requiring great environmental sensitivity and possibly a variance from city ordinance. This site may be a candidate for transfer and/or purchase of development rights. 14 Timothy A. & Dawne M. Erhart 775 96th Street W. Chanhassen, MN 55317 PID 25.0260700 Section 26 Northeast Quarter 80 Acres Existing Land Use: single family home site on 2 1/2 acre surrounded by a tree farm. (Platted as Butternut Ridge in 1995) Proposed Land Use: Residential - low density Access via W. 96th St., Homestead Lane, Flintlock Trail, and Powers Boulevard extension. Utilities: Sewer LB -1 with proposed lift station, LR -2, water 12" and 16 ", storm BC- A5.12; LR- A3.1, A3.2, A3.3, A3.4, A3.8, A3.9, A3.10 Site contains several wetland complexes. The site contains rolling topography with areas of steep slopes, in excess of 20 %, located in the western portion of the property and north of the existing house. Charles R. & Patricia R. Webber 1560 Bluff Creek Road Chaska, MN 55318 PID 25.0262100 Section 26 Southwest Quarter Section 27 Southeast Quarter 109.73 Acres Existing Land Use: single family, hobby farm Proposed Land Use: Residential - low density and parks and open space Access via Pioneer Trail and Bluff Creek Drive. The Hwy. 212 corridor encompasses the western portion of the property. Utilities: Sewer LB -1, LB -2, water 12 ", storm BC -A6.4, A6.6, A6.7, A6.8, A6.9; LOM -A1.1 15 J 1 I I J The site is bisected by Bluff Creek and a tributary. These areas consist of sever slopes and bluffs. Wooded areas are located adjacent to and within the Bluff Creek corridor. Parts of the site are actively farmed or used for pasture lands. Development of the site should be limited to areas outside of the Bluff Creek corridor. Special protection should be provided to the tops of the bluff. Charles R. & Patricia R. Webber 1560 Bluff Creek Road Chaska, MN 55318 PID 25.0261800 Section 26 Southwest Quarter 9.68 Acres Existing Land Use: hobby farm Proposed Land Use: Residential - low density and parks and open space Access via Bluff Creek Drive. Utilities: Sewer LB -1, water 12 ", storm LOM -Al.l The site is actively farmed or used for pasture lands. This area is partially farmed and partially wooded. Rodney G. & Diane S. Beuch 1180 Pioneer Trail Chaska, MN 55318 PID 25.0262000 Section 26 Northwest Quarter Section 27 Northeast Quarter 120 Acres Existing Land Use: agricultural Proposed Land Use: Office (southeast corner), office /industrial, residential - medium density, parks and open space L[. 7 Access via Pioneer Trail and potentially from future development to the west. The Hwy. 212 ' corridor encompasses the southeast portion of the parcel. Utilities: sewer BC -3, LB -1; water 16 and 12'; storm BC -A5.7, A5.8, A6.5, A6.7 ' Bluff Creek and its wetland areas cross the northern part of the parcel. Wooded pockets are ' located adjacent to Bluff Creek and in the southwest corner of the site. The majority of the site is cultivated. The site has rolling topography, with areas of steeper slopes adjacent to the Bluff Creek corridor. This parcel has the potential for development as a PUD. I Bluff Creek Golf Association ' 1905 Concordia Street Wayzata, MN 55391 PID 25.0260800 Section 26 Southwest and Southeast Quarter I 198.98 Acres Bluff Creek Golf Association 1905 Concordia Street Wayzata, MN 55391 ' PID 25.0261400 Section 26 Southeast Quarter ' 30 Acres Existing Land Use: Golf Course Proposed Land Use: public /semi - public, residential - low density, parks and open space Access from Great Plains Blvd. via Creekwood, Pioneer Trail Utilities: sewer LB -2; water 12 "; storm BC- A5.15, A5.16, A5.18, A6.9, A6.10, A6.12, A6.13, A6.13, A6.15, A6.16, A6.17, A6.18, A6.19, A7.1 The site contains rolling terrain except adjacent to the Bluff Creek corridor where bluff condition ' exist. 17 Thomas & Pamela R F Wartman 9715 Audubon Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 PID 25.0270100 Section 27 Northeast Quarter 2.5 Acres Existing Land Use: single family home Proposed Land Use: residential - medium density, office /industrial, parks and open space Access via Audubon Road Utilities: sewer BC -3; water 16"; storm BC -A6.6 The site is wooded with a finger of a wetland in the eastern part of the site. Development of this site should be done in conjunction with the adjacent parcel. Albert & Karen Dorweiler 1565 Bluff Creek Dr. Chaska, MN 55318 -9519 PID 25.0270200 Section 27 Southeast Quarter 0.97 Acres Existing Land Use: single family home Proposed Land Use: residential - large lot Access via Bluff Creek Drive Utilities: sewer LB -5; water 12"; storm LOM -A1.1 The site is wooded. J Charles S. Wagner 9401 Audubon Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 PID 25.0270300 Section 27 Northeast Quarter 3.44 Acres Existing Land Use: single family home Proposed Land Use: residential - medium density, office /industrial, parks and open space Access via Audubon Road Utilities: sewer BC -3; water 16 "; storm BC -A5.6 The site is a small sliver of land adjacent to Audubon Rd. The site is heavily wooded. Development of this site should be done in conjunction with the adjacent parcel. Emerald Properties P. O. Box 260 Chaska, MN 55318 PID 25.0340400 Section 34 Southeast Quarter 39.06 Acres Existing Land Use: agricultural, single family home Proposed Land Use: Office /Industrial Access via Hwy. 212. Utilities: sewer L13-3; water lateral from 12 "; storm LOM -A1.9, A1.10 The site is partially cultivated and partially wooded. A portion of the seminary fen is located on the northern portion of the site. An open water channel bisects the property from west to east. The majority of the trees are located around this channel. Development of the property should respect the integrity of the fen as well as the wooded area around the stream. 19 n 7 1 State of Minnesota in Trust ' c/o Carver County Auditor PID 25.0340200 ' Section 34 Southeast Quarter 1.1 Acres I Existing Land Use: single family home Proposed Land Use: Office /Industrial Access via Hwy. 212. I Utilities: sewer L13-3; water lateral from 12 ", storm LOM -A1.9 I Development of the site should be done in conjunction with adjacent properties. Chanhassen Springs Co. c/o Elliot Feinberg 4725 Excelsior Boulevard r Minneapolis, MN 55416 PID 25.0350110 Section 35 Southwest Quarter 99.87 Acres Existing Land Use: Abandoned seminary building, two single family homes Proposed Land Use: parks and open space, office ' Access via Hwy. 212. The site is split b Hwy. 212. Y p Y wY ' Utilities: sewer L13-3; water lateral from 12 "; storm LOM -A1.10 The majority of the northern part of the site is covered by a fen. A stream runs west to east across the property separating the upland area from the wetland. South of Hwy. 212 is all wetland and flood plain. An area of cultivated field is located in the eastern portion of the site. ' Development of the site should be limited to the farmed areas as well as the upland south of the stream and north of Hwy. 212. 20 Anne E Karels 1161 Bluff Creek Drive Chaska, MN 55318 PID 25.0350800 Section 35 Northeast Quarter 1.0 Acres Existing Land Use: single family home Proposed land Use: residential - large lot Access via Bluff Creek Drive Utilities: sewer LB -3; water 12 ", storm LOM -AL10 The site is wooded and slopes gradually from north to south. Louise E Zamjahn, et al c/o David Zamjahn 7506 77th Street Chaska, MN 55318 PID 25.0351000 Section 35 Southeast Quarter 4.19 Acres Existing Land Use: wooded lot Proposed Land Use: parks and open space, office Access via Hwy. 212 Utilities: sewer LB -3 (potential lift station site); water lateral from 12 "; storm LOM -A1.10 The site is wooded and contains part of the seminary fen wetland complex. There is minimal development potential for the site due to wetlands. 21 I 1 1 1 1 n i Helen Salden, et al c/o Alfred Hesse 5100 Creekwood Road Chaska, MN 55318 PID 25.0351100 Section 35 Southeast Quarter 1.81 Acres Existing Land Use: wooded lot Proposed Land Use: parks and open space, office Access via Hwy. 212 Utilities: sewer LB -3; water lateral from 12 "; storm LOM -A1.10 The site is wooded and contains part of the seminary fen wetland complex. There is minimal development potential for the site due to wetlands. Skip S. Cook 15506 Village Woods Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55347 PID 25.0351700 Section 35 Northeast Quarter 10.9 Acres Existing Land Use: landscape nursery Proposed Land Use: office, residential - medium density, residential - high density Access via Hwy. 101 Utilities: sewer LB -5; water 12 "; storm LOM -A1.12 The site has an existing business located on it. The site is partially wooded and partially cultivated. The northern portion of the site has steep slopes. The southern portion of the site slopes gradually from north to south. This southern area has redevelopment potential as either an office complex or a mixed use development. 1 1 r Harold F. Hesse 1425 Bluff Creek Drive Chaska, MN 55318 PID 25.0350500 Section 35 Northeast Quarter 22 Acres Existing Land Use: agriculture I Proposed Land Use: residential - large lot (west of Bluff Creek Dr.), office, residential - medium density, residential - high density (east of Bluff Creek Dr.) Access via Bluff Creek Drive. The easterly parcel has frontage on Hwy. 212. "; Utilities: sewer LB -3; water 12 storm LOM -A1.8, A1.10, A1.12 A potential water body is shown in the city's SWMP in the southern portion of the site. The site is partially farmed and partially wooded. The easterly parcel has steep slopes from north to south on the northern portion of the parcel with more gradual slopes over the southern half which is cultivated. The westerly parcel slopes from north to south with less steep grades. Development of the easterly parcel must accommodate the bluff area on the northern portion of ' the parcel. r John & Dolores Malzahn 10551 Great Plains Boulevard Chaska, MN 55318 PID 25.0351800 Section 35 Northeast Quarter 1.2 Acres Existing Land Use: single family home Proposed Land Use: office, residential - medium density, residential - high density. Access via Hwy. 101 Utilities: sewer LB -3; water 12 "; storm BC -A6.21 23 �� I 1] The site contains a home and numerous outbuildings. The easterly portion of the property is wooded. Bluff Creek runs through the eastern part of the site. Development of the property must preserve the Bluff Creek corridor. The property should be assembled with the property to the west for efficiency of development. Diane Gilbertson 1190 Bluff Creek Drive Chaska, MN 55318 PID 25.0350700 Section 35 Northeast Quarter 4.08 Acres Existing Land Use: single family home Proposed Land Use: office, residential - medium density, residential - high density Access via Bluff Creek Dr. Utilities: sewer LB -3; water 12 "; storm LOM -A1.12 The site slopes steeply from north to south. A bluff area is located south of the existing structures on site. The site is heavily wooded. Development of the site must preserve the bluff area. A limited buildable area is located on the northern portion of the property. Chanhassen Springs Co. c/o Arnold Feinberg 4275 Excelsior Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55416 PID 25.0350100 Section 35 Southeast Quarter 20 Acres Existing Land Use: vacant, partially wooded, portions within DNR protected wetland, portions under agricultural use. 24 I Proposed Land Use: North of Hwy. 212: Parks and open space, office; South of Hwy. 212: Parks and open space, residential - large lot. Utilities: sewer L13-3; water lateral only; storm LOM- A1.10, A1.13, A1.15 Access: Via Hwy. 212. This property is bisected by the existing Hwy. 212 corridor. The land south of Hwy. 212 is primarily wetland with limited upland area. An open channel stream originates on the parcel. Very minimal development potential. The land north of Hwy. 212 is partially farmed. This area, if combined with adjacent properties does have development potential for an office site. (PRI) Thomas & Beatrice Zwiers 11111 Deuce Road Elko, MN 55070 (Cont) Walter & JoAnn Griepentrog 100 Flying Cloud Drive Chaska, MN 55318 PID 25.0360200 Section 36 Northeast Quarter 39.18 Acres Existing Land Use: Mining operation, gun range Proposed Land Use: Residential - medium and high density Utilities: sewer L13-3; water lateral only; storm BC -A8.2 Access: via Hwy. 169/212 This site has significant slope areas including bluffs. Scattered wooded areas are located throughout the site and at the top of the excavated areas. Development of the site must account for the bluff areas and bluff impact zones. 25 1 � 1 'I 1 U LJ (PRI) Thomas & Beatrice Zwiers 9390 267th Street Lakeville, MN 55044 (Cont) Vernon H. Teich 220 Flying Cloud Drive Chaska, MN 55318 PID 25.0360700 Section 36 Northeast Quarter 33.06 Acres Existing Land Use: vacant Proposed Land Use: Residential - medium and high density Utilities: sewer LB - 3, 12" trunk; water 12" main; storm BC -A7.7, A7.8 Access: via Hwy. 169/212 This site surrounds an existing four lot, large lot subdivision. The site contains significant sloped areas including bluffs. Areas of dense woodlands are located throughout the parcel. An open water channel is located within the parcel. Development of the parcel must accommodate the significant environmental features including slopes and woodlands. Bluff protection may limit the range of development on the parcel. David R. Teich 1217 South Monroe Shakopee, MN 55379 PID 25.0362000 Section 36 Northwest Quarter 19.68 Acres Existing Land Use: agricultural field. Proposed Land Use: residential - low density Utilities: sewer LB -5 ; water 12" main; storm BC- A6.20, A7.3, A7.7 Access via Lakota Lane 26 1 The site contains rolling topography and has minimal environmental features. Development of the site as a standard residential subdivision should be possible. Russell & Yvonne Barto 400 Lakota Lane Chaska, MN 55318 PID 25.0362020 Section 36 Northwest Quarter 1 acre Existing Land Use: single family home on adjacent property. This parcel is 61 feet wide by 715 feet deep and is located in the middle of a farm field. Proposed Land Use: residential - low density Utilities: sewer LB -5, water lateral only; storm BC -A7.3, A7.7 Access via Lakota Lane The site is very narrow and deep. This parcel, if redeveloped, should be combined with the property to the east and west for greatest efficiency. Russell & Yvonne Barto 400 Lakota Lane Chaska, MN 55318 PID 25.0362010 Section 36 Northwest Quarter 5 Acres Existing Land Use: single family home. Proposed Land Use: residential - low density Utilities: sewer LB -5, water lateral only; storm BC -A7.5, A7.7 Access via Lakota Lane This parcel appears to be combined with the parcel to the west (PID 25.0362020). 27 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A 1 1 1 1 Russell & Yvonne Barto 400 Lakota Lane Chaska, MN 55318 PID 25.0362400 Section 36 Northwest Quarter 4.03 Acres Existing Land Use: single family home. Proposed Land Use: residential - low density Utilities: sewer LB -5, water lateral only; storm BC -A7.5, A7.7 Access via Lakota Lane This parcel appears to be combined with the parcel to the west (PID 25.0362010). This site is significantly wooded and contains areas of steep slopes including bluffs. Development of this area should be done in conjunction with adjacent properties for greatest efficiency. John B. & Jane A. Paul, Trust 17541 Manchester Avenue Irvine, CA 92714 PID 25.0362500 Section 36 Northwest Quarter 2.2 Acres Existing Land Use: single family home. Proposed Land Use: residential - low density Utilities: sewer LB -5, water lateral only; storm BC - A7.7 Access via Lakota Lane Lowell & Claudia Campbell 415 Lakota Lane Chaska, MN 55318 PID 25.0363800 Section 36 Northwest Quarter 1.95 Acres Existing Land Use: single family home. Proposed Land Use: residential - low density Utilities: sewer LB -5, water lateral only; storm BC - A7.7 Access via Lakota Lane 29 1 1 I 7I Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996 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 2nd Addition. 3. Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of land in accordance with City Ordinances. 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 10301 Great Plains Blvd. Jeff Dypwick 10300 Great Plains Blvd. Tom Zwiers Moon Valley Carol Dunsmore 730 West 96` Street Charly Webber 1560 Bluff Creek Drive Jim Struble 1405 West Farm Road Jim Cook, Representing MA. Gedney Co. 2100 Stoughton Ave., Chaska Rick Dorsey 6414 Upton, Minneapolis George & Patricia Dorsey 1551 Lyman Blvd. Karen Hasse 630 West 96` Street Kathy & Duane Eischers 8460 Ibis Court Bill A. 835 East Wayzata Blvd. Angie Wanless 13471 Cambridge, Eden Prairie Gayle Degler 1630 Lyman Blvd. 3 Planning Commission Meeting m 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 watershed. 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 4 1 r Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 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 proj ects. 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. w 1 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. 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, 0 1 1 F 1 1 5 J Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996 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. Peterson: Okay, thanks. 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. 1 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 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996 to you is, if you're suggesting that this be a mix of office and I guess medium density residential, 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. 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. 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. 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996 1 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. 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 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996 on the Board. This is one of the things that we were hoping that we could get accomplished so 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 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? I Conrad Fiskness: Not so that you'll notice. I would like to have had, and I asked for the numbers but we're having trouble getting the new numbers for '97 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 1 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 L F1 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 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996 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 % 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 want us to ask you for money so you can raise our taxes... give us money ' Y Y Y Y g Y back. 12 , 0 C' u 1 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 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996 Audience: So in fact the taxes should go down when those projects quit. Being brought back to I 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 keyjob. 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? ' 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 1 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 1 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. I 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 ,'I 1 r� 1 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 5` 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 I 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 I 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. I 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 p g mitigating... 18 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 1996 ' 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? i 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 1 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 L L 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. 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 a real 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. 1 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 J Ll r J 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 1 through 4. L 1 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... Mancino: So per capita? Fiscal impact. Skubic: Yes. 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. Aanenson: December 91h Mancino: The motion carries and it goes in front of the City Council? 23