1t. Minutes CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
IA/VU--4"2 ,
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 21, 1990
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson and Ladd Conrad
MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli , Jim Wildermuth and Joan Ahrens
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Director of Planning and Jo Ann Olsen, Senior
Planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL IN A PORTION OF A CLASS A WETLAND LOCATED
ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 7007 CHEYENNE TRAIL, CHARLES HIRT,
LOTUS LAKE BETTERMENT ASSOCIATION.
Public Present:
Name
Al & Carol Anderson
i
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public
hearing to order.
Al Anderson: Is this a hearing that you're proposing, I want to understand
this better. The City or the Council or this committee is proposing that
the only changes to be made out there is the enlargement of the restoration
of this area to marshland. That's the proposal?
Conrad: The proposal is to restore it back to what it originally was,
yeah. And then to allow a boardwalk through that that gives access to the
dock. Any other comments?
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart: Do you have any idea in terms of, in the first place, the 3 lot
owners, did they work together in filling this thing in? Is that the way
it was?
Olsen: I know that the 2 lot owners did and it appeared that the outlot,
the homeowner's association also when it was happening did it along with
that. I'm not exactly sure if they did it all together. It became
apparent that that had also been filled.
' Erhart: So there's 2 homes. On the beachlot, what was it? If that was a
marsh, how did they use it as a beachlot area?
11 Olsen: How they had access to the dock?
11
Planning Commission Meeting
February 21, 1990 - Page 2
' Erhart: The dock was out through the cattails so how did they get out
through it? Was there a boardwalk?
Olsen: There must have been some sort of dock. Again, what exactly
happened before that. . .
Erhart: Were the other 2 docks there before they built also? How did they
get out to those docks?
Olsen: It was after the fact when I went out there. I know in one of
those aerials it does show the one dock. I guess I should have brought. . .
down but it looks like on the aerial you can see that it looks like it was
this lot that had a dock out. It didn' t look like there were 2 other docks
here. That was an aerial from early 80' s.
Erhart: Is the applicant here?
Olsen: I don' t see them. I don' t see the other two either.
Erhart: Are you a neighbor?
Al Anderson: We live on the other side of the. . .
' Carol Anderson: Our lot is directly opposite, across the creek.
Erhart: Were the docks there before they filled?
Al Anderson: Not that we' re aware of.
Carol Anderson: Not that we' re aware of.
Erhart: So it's conceiveable that the docks were installed after they did
the fill .
' Conrad: This particular one, the homeowners of this
particular lot that
we' re looking at has always had a dock but it was not a very improved piece
of land and I think they were literally tagging onto the other owners,
' homeowners who were trying to "improve" their property and they went along
with the construction that, the homeowners association went along with the
construction but in the past, in my recollection is they always had a
' little back there but it was not a very major dock whatsoever .
Erhart: The dock actually could have gone up to the ordinary high water
' mark and probably was rebuilt after . . .
Conrad: That would be a good guess, yes.
' Olsen: The photos show, again you can see that those two did have. This
is the recreational beachlot, the furthest one over. Behind the. . .and then
this is the lot right next to it and it did go up through so yeah, they did
have like planks out to it.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 21, 1990 - Page 3
Erhart: Yeah. Do you have any idea in terms of volume how much dirt they I
moved in there?
Olsen: No I don' t.
Erhart: Do you know who the contractor was who moved the dirt?
Olsen: It's on the application. All these questions, I don't know the
answers to.
Elison: What are you getting at? I
Erhart: I'm just trying to get a feel for this. Did they haul it in with
trucks?
Olsen: Oh yeah. I mean there was a substantial amount of fill .
Erhart: Do you have any idea how many truckloads? I
Olsen: We could figure that out. Harland Johnson from Chaska was the
contractor.
Erhart: Do you think he' s been around?
Olsen: I would think that they would have known. I
Erhart: Yeah. Hauling dirt onto a lakeshore just isn' t , that' s just. . .
Conrad: And to jump onto Tim's comments, the last time we talked about
this we were talking about what does Chanhassen do to contractors who
theoretically know what the ordinances are but ignore them. In this case, I
and I know it' s your turn to talk Tim but what do we do? Do we just say
this contractor 's welcome back to Chanhassen? Do we have a way of
penalizing the contractor?
Krauss : We don't have any licensing of contractors that would allow us to I
penalize them. All we can do is watch them more closely in the future.
Olsen: Unless they get permits, we don' t even know they're there. ,
Conrad: Yeah, but we really don't have a way to restrict contractors?
Erhart: Well you could. You could take, we do now have a penalty clause I
in our wetlands filling.
Krauss: Well who you go after is the property onwer. '
Erhart: We could include the contractor in our ordinance too. I tell you,"
if one of them got fined, believe me all the rest of them would know.
That's just an idea.
Conrad : Normally the contractor seeks the permit. I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 21, 1990 - Page 4
Olsen: Right.
Krauss: Well typically communities license trade' s people. Plumbers,
electricians. Contractors? I haven't heard of communities that extended
that to grading contractors but it' s not improbable that you could do so.
Erhart: I was just thinking that you could write, correct me but we
' changed the ordinance recently to actually penalize someone who fills
wetlands right?
Olsen: That' s just the application fee is doubled and you can also go
further. you
Erhart: If you could somehow slap hands of contractors too. It's just an
idea. What we' re saying here, what the DNR recommended was they don't have
to take out all the volume of material that was put in.
' Olsen: They just go the ordinary high water mark.
Erhart: Yeah. And what we' re recommending is to take it all out. Other
' than is there any, other than pure academics that they shouldn't have done
it, therefore they should take it all out, is there any substitute reason
why they should be allowed to leave some in? Is that improving or having
no affect by leaving it? In other words, what's the difference between,
' other than philosophical, what's the difference between the DNR's
recommendation and our recommendation?
' Olsen: Well our recommendation restores more wetland. And it's less
manicured lawn, fertilizer .
Krauss : The DNR is regulated, well what they' re allowed to deal with is
regulated by state law and they can only deal with it to the OHW. That
doesn' t mean they necessarily would oppose our going further.
' Erhart: And so they wouldn' t even go beyond recommending that simply
because.
' Krauss : They can' t.
Olsen: They can't.
Erhart: Okay. I've got one last question then. Allowing the boardwalk,
that's basically consistent with what we'd do to anybody in the same
circumstances? anybody
' Olsen: Correct.
Erhart: On number 4, do we have anything now that requires people to
remove purple loosestrife?
Olsen: It' s a noxious weed and again State law really, it' s your
' responsibility to remove them.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 21, 1990 - Page 5
Erhart: The weed inspector is suppose to, who I think was Tom Hamilton.
Olsen: He used to be. I think it' s Scott Harr now isn't it? The problem
is that there' s real no cure you know to remove it but this stuff will be
coming back young and that' s when you get it.
Erhart: The reason I ask, do we really want to include this item 4 in here
if it' s already another law? I think it just acts, not that I 'm pleased
with what these people did by any means but I think it puts us, the City a
little bit in the position of almost kind of kicking dirt at them and I
think if that' s already a law, that they have to remove it which cannot be
enforced, I almost wonder if we shouldn' t just stick to the first 3 points
and leave it at that so I ' ll pass it onto you Steve with those comments.
Emmings: I don't really have much on this. I guess I don't, it seems that
the applicants have already agreed that they're going to do what the DNR
has said they have to do so we're really talking about an additional 9 feet
here and I guess I was a little bit torn between doing something that was II
just purely punitive for the sake of punishment and the fact that, which I
don' t want to do and on the other hand being faced with this situation over
and over again. We see this so often and if we don' t take a stand I think
whereby we will essentially always impose this type of penalty or our
wetlands ordinance is going to be a joke because it's going to put a
premium on ignoring the regulations and it can allow anybody who just goes
ahead on their own to get whatever they want so I guess I don't think we
have any choice but to have them remove it. Whether it' s 36 or 45 feet, I I
don't know what the right amount is but I go along with the staff
recommendation here. The only question I have is, I'm wondering what would"
happen, what happens to the fill that's removed? Do we have to be
concerned about what they're going to do with that?
Olsen: Yeah. It has to be removed. It can't be dumped on the other
wetland.
Emmings: I'm just scared that something like that will happen. ,
Olsen: Yeah, I was going to put that in. That we should probably make.
Emmings: Does it have to be removed from the site or can they dump it on I
the higher portions of this ground if they want to where it will all wash
back down?
Olsen: The fact that it' s got purple loosestrife in it means that again I
you can see that it's growing. There are certain State regulations of ways
that you have to remove that fill and where you can take it. ,
Emmings: Right. There are what regulations? State regulations?
Olsen: There' s recommendations of certain things that you can' t just dump II
it right next to where you're taking it out because it will just, like you
say wash back in and the purple loosestrife will go back in. We don' t
allow filling. To remove fill and then place that within another area of all
wetlands.
I
I/ Planning Commission Meeting -
February 21, 1990 - Page 6
1
Emmings: I just see that as a shortcoming in the recommendations. I think
we should have a recommendation that removed fill or fill that is removed.
Or they' ll submit a plan as to where the fill will be deposited to the City
' before removing any and it will be approved by the City. Or to be approved
by the City staff. Something like that.
Erhart: Yeah, including erosion control .
Emmings: They're doing things like that. Kind of a grading. Would you
call it a grading plan?
' Olsen: Yeah, technically they' ll have to get another grading plan.
i Emmings: So a grading plan. Erosion control and where the spoils will be
deposited. That's all I have.
' Conrad : Good Steve. Annette?
Ellson: I agree with the staff to extend it to the entire area versus just
the ordinary high water mark. I like the idea of adding what Steve did for
a number 5. It would just be our luck that we would have them just put it
higher up on the same soil so if we go to all the trouble to tell them
which manual , how to remove loosestrife is, the least we can do is refer
them to the State recommendation or permit process or how to make sure they
dispose of fill with purple loosestrife in it properly as well . But I
agree with staff's recommendation.
Conrad: There is not a date in our motion as to when it has to be removed
by.
' Olsen: Well the DNR' s date was May 1st. We might as well just have the
same date.
' Erhart : We can' t do that because they cannot move equipment until the
limits are off the roads.
Ellson: The what?
Erhart: Until the road restrictions, if they're going to haul equipment in
which they' re going to have to do here.
Conrad : Yeah, May 1st seems a little bit.
' Erhart: Usually that goes off May 15th. We have to give them 30 days.
June 15th would give them 30 days.
' Conrad: What date?
Erhart: June 15th would give them generally 30 days. Sometimes those
limits come off earlier depending on the weather. May 15th usually.
1
1
Plannin g Commission Meeting I/
February 21, 1990 - Page 7
Conrad: By the way, I think that' s a real good staff report. I really
liked how it was worded. My only other comment would be when we restore II
this Jo Ann, it simply means removing so as we remove, does that mean we' ll
have 35 feet of water taking the place, depending on water level and what
have you, and then we' ll have, or whatever the number is and 9 feet above
the water level which will be barren at this time. So what does it look
like? What we have done, we haven' t restored. We have removed.
Olsen: Right. There' s that cross section with the DNR that we' ll still
give it that. It won' t just be, it will have some grade to it and then it
will have the stone wall or whatever. I can't remember what they referred 11
to it as. You can, what we've done before with others is to work with
them, with the DNR and the Fish and Wildlife to come up with some
plantings. If you want them to go that far , we can do that.
Conrad: I just don't want it to look ugly or I don't want to restrict it I
to being nothing.
Olsen: It will come back pretty quick. I mean they do return to their
natural state.
Conrad: So the cattails will come back? I
Olsen: I 've been told, yeah. That 's what they always.
Conrad: They probably will in that area . 1
Erhart: In here they will.
Conrad : Yeah. Okay. I think we should have a date in there by which this
is restored and I like the comments on the plan that is submitted and some
erosion control procedures. I think that makes a lot of sense. That' s my II
only comment. Is there a motion?
Enmings: I ' ll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland
Alteration Permit #89-1 with the following conditions. Number 1 would be
as it is in the staff report with the addition in the first sentence that
the work will be done by June 15, 1990. Conditions 2, 3 and 4 will stay as
they are and there will be a fifth condition added saying that the
applicant, that prior to doing any work, the applicant shall submit grading
and erosion control plans and a plan as to the disposal of deposit of the
soil that' s removed. He' ll submit a plan to be approved by City staff. I
Erhart: I ' ll second it.
Emmings moved , Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-1 with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall remove 25' x 45' x 30' of fill measuring from the II
property line adjacent to Lotus Lake as shown on the final plat. The
fill will be removed by June 15, 1990 using the typical cross section II
provided by the DNR.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 21, 1990 - Page 8
2. The applicant shall be permitted one boardwalk through the restored
wetland to provide access to the dock.
11 3. The area of removed fill shall be allowed to restore to a natural
state.
4. Any purple loosestrife that returns shall be immediately removed as
recommended by the Fish and Wildlife Service manual , "Spread, Impact
and Control of Purple Loosestrife in North America Wetlands" .
' 5. Prior to any work being done on the site, the applicant shall submit
for City staff approval a grading and erosion control plan.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL TO INFORMALLY DISCUSS THE LAND USE PLAN
CHAPTER OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Conrad : Did you have the City Council waiting outside?
Krauss: Unfortunately not.
1 Ellson: They were expecting us to go a little late?
Krauss: I don't know. I was contacted by Bill Boyt and Tom Workman and
told they could not make it but I think this might fall into the realm of
what if we gave a meeting and nobody came.
Conrad: You would think they would be here by now.
Krauss: Yeah, I think that's the case. Without their presence, obviously
that takes a big chunk out of what we were going to tackle tonight. There
' are some other things, we might as well use the time effectively. There' s
some other things we can touch base on. The lack of presence of the
Council 's a little discouraging. I think that their input at this juncture
is real vital and possibly if Moses won' t come to the mountain we can go to
them. Everybody's been having some exceedingly long meetings lately and
may possibly that' s the result of it. We had hoped to give you, in
addition to the material that we gave you, we had hoped to give you the
' goals and policy section. We had drafted it up and put it into our word
processor. Unfortunately it ate it. Our word processor is old and it's
being replaced and hopefully we can replace it quicker now.
Emmings: That gives us another goal for the City.
Krauss: We've got them, we just don' t know how to use them yet. . .the plan
but we had to go to some extreme methods to do it and ship it out to
another firm to rescue the magnetic tape. We have it back now and we' re
working on it. Since the last time we met on the comprehensive plan we've
done a number of things. Mark and I have been working extensively and Jo
Ann has been working with us too, to actually give you the plan elements
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 21, 1990 - Page 9 1
that back up everything we've been talking about to date. We do have a
very ambitious schedule for you and as time goes on it gets more and more
ambitious . We do have a lot of work planned for that time period. We had
a meeting with the park board several weeks ago to review the plan with
them. Of course their position was not one in which they commented
specifically on the recommendations of the land use plan itself except as
they related to recreation activities. They had some suggestions for some
additional park areas. Some trail corridors. Most of which seemed to make"
emminent sense to Mark and myself and Jo Ann. We would propose to
incorporate that. One of the things they suggested that may fit into the
work that you'd been thinking about is the Park Board had a request that well
look at efforts to preserve the Minnesota River bluff line. We have the
ongoing discussions on the BF district and I think it plays in rather well .
We also have the issue with Moon Valley which of course is eating into the
bluff line so it is being tackled from a number of standpoints but it was all
point well taken. We also had a meeting with, we've had several meetings.
We're involved in the Eastern Carver County transportation study and that' s
really going to be the lynchpin of our transportation element. What
they're doing is we've worked with other communities in Carver County and all
consultant to develop a transportation model for this part of the County.
The results are fairly dramatic and fairly startling. We've updated the
plan several times to make sure that it reflects our land use expectations
as they sit in your current plan. Chaska' s gone through the same routine
where they' re updated their productions where both communities, in fact
Victoria as well , have expectations for development that far exceed the . II
Metro Council . I think we've known that for a long time. The Metro
Council ' s transportation program, modeling program in our neck of the woods
is worse than worthless. It's outright misleading. We think the best data ll
available for what the transportation needs will be are going to be
generated by this study and we' ll roll that into the transportation element
for you to review hopefully within the next 4 to 6 weeks.
Erhart: County funded study?
Krauss : We've all participated in it. The City has with the County. It' s 11
got a number of uses for us. It continues to support the timely
construction of 212. It' s very good ammunition to have to go to MnDot to
try and get them to schedule the final completion of TH 5 out to TH 41.
We' re going to need this in our comprehensive plan to determine where
collector streets should be. We're going to, you know you can't put all
this traffic on the main line highway system and expect that system to
work. We've got to provide alternative routings, particularly for local
trips, and that will be explained more fully in the transportation plan.
We also had a meeting with the Highway 5 Development Coalition. I always
get the name wrong but what's the official name. 1
John Shardlow: I think that' s close.
Krauss: The group has prepared land use plan illustrating their desired 1
intent for development in the corridor. We've discussed this occasionally
in the past. I guess it's no surprise but it' s very similar to the
alternative 1 plan that we originally looked at. The plan is very well
thought out. Very professionally prepared and provides assessment or inputll
11
' Planning Commission Meeting
February 21, 1990 - Page 10
into issues in a very pogent way. After discussions with Chairman Conrad
we've agreed that we would schedule them, the group to make a presentation
to you at your next meeting. In all fairness , most of the issues that were
raised are issues that you discussed in one form or another but you can
' make your own decision when this is presented to you in their format. With
that I guess, we have Don present tonight. Don, you've been at some of our
meetings and have had some overview of how the plan developed to date.
I We're seeking Council input at this point before we really go public with
the plan. As you can see there are people here tonight who have been in
attendance at various meetings. Basically staff has tried to in essence
run interference with the Planning Commission. Let the Planning Commission
' develop the plan based on their own good judgment with public input and
hearings but to come in the future. We've encouraged people to come talk
with us and to give us their input and changes have been made to the plan
based on that but we really haven' t actively sought the kind of public
input that we will be in the next few months and we wanted to have some
input from the Council . . . Tom Workman and Bill Boyt had called me to tell
me that they could not be here tonight. Tom has been in my office several
times and has looked at the plan and I really don' t have a feel for his
input and wouldn' t care to really try to put words in his mouth and speak
for him. I think he's generally supportive of the concepts and we didn' t
' get to be talking in detail. Bill Boyt has also been in attendance in
several of our meetings and Tom Workman was at one of our early meetings I
believe. Bill was at our last meeting and expressed concern over the
' volume of high density housing that we are illustrating on the plan and the
impacts that that might have on the community and the locations that were
shown for that. A couple of other things you should be aware of too is
that we've been talking to several property owners in the corridor who have
Iconceptually spoken to us about very major developments. Industrial office
headquarters type developments some of which are not really consistent with
the current alternative that you're looking at. We have told them
' basically that at this point we' re certain that the door is open. The
Planning Commission is willing to take a look and see what' s being proposed
but unless something's really proposed, there's nothing really hard and
' fast for us to bring to you. We have tried to make the point though that
our door is open and that we'd be happy to bring these things before you as
time permits . With that I guess I 'd like to pass the meeting over to Mark.
Mark and I have worked quite a bit to take the land use plan that we've
I developed and try to give you an idea of what it actually will result in in
terms of population and employment and land consumption trends. Mark, if
you could give that information.
' Koegler : I' ll be fairly brief because I think most of the individuals here
have heard most of this before. You recall at the last meeting we told
you that we were breaking out some of the land use inventory information
and the land use plan in a different format and that's what came back to
you in the charts with the TAZ zones. Those give you a really, I think
tight overview of exactly the amount of land in the various categories that
' not only remains to be developed but we' re showing on the Comprehensive
Plan as well. To summarize briefly what that means, we show an available
single family land supply of just in excess of 500 acres. Commercial and
industrial are about the same number at 113 apiece and as I pointed out in
the material , the industrial is deceiving because when you factor out the
r
11
Planning Commission Meeting
February 21, 1990 - Page 11 1
DataSery Phase II and the McGlynn Phase II and those kinds of areas that II
are vacant in the field right now, that number drops to I think in excess
of 65 acres or so. So the supply is very, very tight. The entire land use
plan identifies an expanded MUSA line of about 2,000 acres. Slightly over
2,000 acres. Of that land total , we' re looking at a net developable single`
family component or low density component I should say of about 860 acres .
An expansion of the industrial category of about 462 acres and again the
specific breakdowns are provided in the material that you've got there.
We've come about reaching that number in a couple of ways . We have looked II
at the population projections and kind of backed that into lane densities
and then in turn done some calculations on the amount of land that would bell
required to support that population in that household growth level. We
also kind of came at it from the other way which was to take the land use
plan that the Commission had identified thus 'far and basically work through"
that and see what kind of land requirement and population that gives us.
They match very well . Coincidentally I will be probably the first to admit
they do. What we end up with was we're calling for a population of about
17,000 in the year 2000 and the land supply that' s shown on the plan would II
accommodate a population somewhere in the neighborhood of about 23,000.
Met Council typically deals with a 50% overage so we' re reasonably close.
We' re getting close to what we' re comfortable with. What we have done as all
part of this is we have factored out a couple of parcels which are under
private ownership, single owner and I think you know the parcels, we've
talked about before. Out of this total calculation we've assumed that
those are going to be vacant for a while. Again, that' s the whims of the
individual property owner so those numbers are not reflected in the single
family category or the industrial categories I 've just referenced . They're
in the vacant ag category which is one of the other ones. Similarly, I
guess I mentioned there were the two, at least a couple of those that we
have pulled out of there. Similarly we also have not included in these
numbers right now the 1995 study areas. I think the one that' s most II noteworthy in that regard is the one at TH 41 and TH 5 because the one is
much more detached. That one becomes kind of a donut hole to a certain
degree with development coming in around it so those numbers are not in ours
2000 numbers at the present time either . Again, pending a decision that
this body will make and the City Council will make as we approach 1995,
that may be added in. It may be held out longer . That' s yet to be
determined. So that's a very quick run through of some of the land use
information. As Paul said in his introduction, what we're kind of after
was concurrence this evening from the City Council that at least the thing
is progressing the right direction. We have, and I think Paul eluded to a
schedule that' s in your packet. I believe it calls for the next meeting to
be about March 14th at this body. At that time we would anticipate having
the drafted text available for you for the land use section, the natural
resources section and the housing chapter . The housing is essentially
something you've seen before. We need to make some slight revisions and
conformance with new land use information. So with that as a quick
overview, I 'd be available to answer any questions. I don't think really II
to go into it in any more detail tonight is probably a benefit.
Conrad: That's fine Mark, thanks. Paul, when were you thinking of
inviting the Highway 5 corridor folks to talk to us?
I
I/ Planning Commission Meeting
February 21, 1990 - Page 12
' Krauss : Well that' s really contingent on John Shardlow' s schedule but we
talked about the March 14th meeting. Now it's turning out that our March
7th meeting I guess it is, our regular scheduled meeting is an extremely
light agenda and possibly if it worked out.
1 John Shardlow: I've got a conflict with that evening unfortunately.
Krauss: Well we may try and get something else on the agenda from the
guide plan at that point but we' ll discuss that.
Conrad: Okay. Don, we were really, before we start airing all this in
front of the public and holding the public hearings as you heard , we really
wanted to share what we're doing with staff, with the City Council to get,
just so the Council ' s informed and we have their input too just as aware
individuals in the community. You' re here tonight which we appreciate but
we' re missing 4 so I think what I 'd like to do is, I still find it a real
valid exercise even though the Council 's real busy, to have the input. To
hear what you have to say before we start. There are a couple different
directions in some areas that we can go in and it's kind of good to hear
Council input . It may influence what we start presenting to the public so
my druthers is rather than going through with you tonight, is to hopefully
have a convenient time when most of the City Council members could be in
attendance and again do what we were attempting to do tonight and that may
be March 14th. If that' s a special meeting or March 7th. We'd sure like
' to have your, it just makes sense to have your input at this stage of the
game.
Mayor Chmiel : Yeah, and I appreciate that as well . I don' t know why the
other Council members aren' t here, other than the two had something had
going on and I apologize for being a little late because I had to attend
the Firemen's Association Relief Portion tonight which I 'm required to be
at that meeting and it didn' t end as quickly as they thought. But what I 'd
like to do is with the information that we've gotten from Paul and some of
the data, hopefully the Council has had an opportunity to review that and
I to come up with a little better handle on what's being proposed as to the
Planning Commission' s suggestions. I would suggest yes, that you probably
should try to come before or back for the Planning Commission either the
7th of 14th.
Conrad: Good. Paul , anything else on this whole issue? I g uess we' re
just going to move off.
Krauss : We don' t really have a lot of new information to give you since
the last time we met on the land use plan. As Mark and I have indicated,
' we've spent quite a bit of time basically working out the numbers of what
we're talking about here and it was really an exacting process. You' re
making a lot of assumptions and then assumptions on assumptions and we
found, what we tried to do and what those numbers are based on very briefly
' is we projected forward based on land use trends that we've seen. We
reviewed subdivisions that we've had in recent years and tried to assess
the density that we' re working with. We looked at our existing industrial
' office development and tried to figure out how many employees we have and
carry those forward so the numbers are our best attempt. They're not
Commission Meeting
Planning Coman�.s g
February 21, 1990 - Page 13
perfect. These things never are but we think they' re reasonable and that II
we feel is the important thing.
Conrad : So the next meeting we' ll get as many City Council members as we
can here. We will present to them what we've come up with at this point in
time and some of our rationale and then we will have the Highway 5 Corridor
people present their, maybe it could be a counter opinion or an alternative
during the same meeting. I
Krauss : If that' s your wish, certainly.
Conrad: We might as well, I 'd really rather, that wasn't the way I wanted '
to do it but. . .
Krauss : I don' t believe that works out with John' s schedule. Our next
meeting is on the 7th.
Conrad : So he can' t be, okay. 1
Krauss : Possibly if that worked for the Council , that might work basically
to replace what we were going to do tonight and then John you' re scheduled
for that next one.
Conrad : So you could be in on the 14th John? Okay, that works . Should we
keep all the material that we've got here tonight? We might as well rather,
than forcing you to distribute it again. Paul, we having talked about the
Planning goals and policies item. We' ll do that the next time?
Krauss: Right. i
Conrad: That's the regular agenda for tonight.
Ellson: We have Minutes.
Krauss : Mr . Chairman, we did schedule a discussion of our ongoing issues
list.
Conrad : Let's go through the Minutes first and then we can get to that.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved, Conrad seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 7, 1990 as presented .
All voted in favor except Erhart and Elison who abstained and the motion
carried.
I
ONGOING ITEMS.
Conrad : What should we do Paul? Should we go through those one by one?
We might as well. Let's just start at the top.
Emmings: One by one with what in mind? ,
I
I/ Planning Commission Meeting
February 21, 1990 - Page 14
11 ,
Conrad : To delete or get rid of them. We could also prioritize them. I
guess one, I want to make sure that they're the ones, they're worthy of
being on this list. Two, I would like to know where they are and if we
believe they're high priority or low priority so maybe we can rate them
high, medium or low. That would be the other thing that I 'd look at. This
is not really a fair review because there's only 3 of us here, but that's
the way it is in the big city.
Emmings: We could have 4 if the Chairman would bring him in or call a
brief recess to get a can of pop.
Ellson: No, he' s ready.
Conrad : We're going to get this meeting. I have a potential for
11 completing the meeting earlier than ever before in 10 years. It's never
happened like this.
Krauss : Mr. Chairman, if I could, this ongoing list is kind of ongoing for
all of us. We keep continually thinking of things that we'd like to see on
it as well as you do and the Council gives us some direction. One thing
I 'd like to see, if we can add to the list, is a discussion of our
' regulations relative to group homes . There' s been some federal law changes
and state law changes with the regulation of group homes that may
invalidate what regulations we have and I think it would behoove us before
1 we're confronted with an issue ideally, to have the City Attorney go
through and tell us how the law has changed. Tell us what can be
regulated. Tell us what can' t and hopefully update our standards a little
bit in how we handle these things because it' s inevitable that sooner or
later we' ll have a proposal.
Emmings: That raises an issue right off the bat. Is this a work list of
1 things that we're interested in or is this a work list of things that
anybody's interested in?
Ellson: He just said ongoing planning issues.
Emmings: Or do they have their own list and we have our list?
1 Ellson: They all affect us.
Emmings: I 'm not arguing for a position. I'm just saying, is this a
' combined list?
Ellson: Yes.
1 _ Conrad: It should be a combined list and it should be a way we have of
allocating their time to priority items.
Emmings: Okay. That' s fine with me.
Conrad: And theoretically the Planning staff would not be working on
anything other than this list . Other than overviewing new projects and
subdivisions and what have you but in terms of objective of new areas to
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 21, 1990 - Page 15
get involved in, this is the work list.
Emmings: What if the City Council may direct them.
Conrad: If the City Council , they will get it onto this list. 1
Krauss: I think it' s important to realize we only have so much time to
work on new types of items. These are items that don' t normally come up in
the day to day routine and to that extent, it would be useful if you
understood what kind of direction we' re getting from not only yourselves
but from Council plus what kind of input we had so it all jelled down to a
single proposal .
Conrad : Okay, at the top. Comprehensive Plan update. 9/90. That seems
reasonable. Amendments to the MUSA boundary. That's seems reasonable and II
important. Future use for areas outside the MUSA boundary. The 1995 study
area.
Krauss : By it' s very nature, that' s not something you need to deal with.
Conrad: Yeah.
Emmings: Why does it say 1995 study areas under status?
Conrad: That' s probably true. I
Erhart: Does that mean that you' re going to study it in 1995?
Krauss: That's the way it' s outlined on the land use plan now. What we've"
said is at the present time we don' t even care to re-open the issue of what
should happen in those areas until 1995. In 1995 you could well decide
that it' s still inappropriate to do anything in there and just change it toll
the year 2000.
Emmings: Oh, okay. I guess I guess I didn' t understand that. So when you ll
say it' s 1995 study area, you mean you don't plan to look at that issue
until 1995? Oh boy, okay.
Elison: It will be on here for a long time won' t it?
Emmings: That certainly is a long range item.
Conrad: That' s okay. We could always tell them to start studying it right"
now but right now I have no need to do that so I'm happy that it' s there.
Erhart: I agree. Our agenda is filled this year but I think that' s kind II
of an ongoing debate here. Has been in the past on do we try to make plans
for areas beyond 10 years or don' t we? Being that basically, if we get
through with this MUSA line extension that we're talking about here because "
there's no little land left, it may be very reasonable to at least try to
identify some things we don't want on those lands.
I
11
Planning Commission Meeting
February 21, 1990 - Page 16
1
Krauss : Our land use plan frankly is different than many communities. Many
communities will have every square inch of land planned on a guide plan for
it's ultimate use whether or not it' s served now or not. That' s not an
invalid approach. In fact Eden Prairie was quite surprised when we told
1 them that we had not done that. They thought that we were, they
misconstrued our comprehensive plan amendment process here in that they
felt that we were converting a lot of low density residential land to
' industrial land and when it was made clear we' re converting something
that' s basically shown as nothing to a developed status, they felt more
comfortable with it.
Conrad: Okay, next one under Zoning Code Amendments. Update zoning map,
ongoing. That's nothing in my mind so I think let's get.
1 Emmings: Well does that mean that every time there' s a change made, that
we rezone something, you want to make sure that that gets transferred onto
the map?
' Krauss : It' s adminstrative procedure.
Emmings: It sounds like an adminstrative function and somehow shouldn' t be
on here.
Olsen: That item really started out as being updating the zoning code but
we' re doing that.
Ellson: Should it be on this list?
Conrad: No, it's going off.
Ellson: Okay. I thought you just meant it' s not important but it will be
' on there.
Conrad : Blending ordinance. We hit a brick wall on that one. It' s called
' inactive right now. Is anybody interested, do we owe the City Council any
reaction on that? The last time we talked about it, we really were
stymied.
Krauss : The last activity, I was not here when the initial flurry of
activity surrounded that thing was going on but Mark Koegler, prior to my
arrival here was asked to look into it and he was running into a brick wall
in terms of trying to figure out an approach that was reasonable. We've
talked about it on several occasions and I have some philosophical
questions with it. I also had some legal questions with it but I 've spoken
' to our City Attorney several times and he thought that if there was a way
you could legitimately establish that kind of requirement, he could
probably defend it.
' Conrad : Let' s do this. Let' s bring it back to the Planning Commission to
look at it to either kill it or to keep it out there.
Ellson: Tim, do you still have your formula?
Plannin g Commission Meeting
February 21, 1990 - Page 17
Conrad : One of these in the next couple months Paul . Within 2 months II let's say, let' s bring the item back and maybe basically restate what we
saw the last time and we' ll just decide whether we can even deal with the
concept. Rezoning BF district to A-2. I think that should be off the
list. I
Emmings: Absolutely. In fact anybody who would advocate such a thing
probably ought to be off the commission. ,
Conrad : Yeah, off the list and off the commission. I like, you know it
says inactive. We haven' t done much on it but I think based on what I said
the last meeting, and some of the implications down on 169/212, I think we '
should look at that I think we should make it a priority.
Emmings: It says staff and City Attorney drafting a proposal . I
Olsen: The inactive should have been taken off .
Emmings: Yeah, the inactive should be stricken. ,
Conrad: So staff and City drafting a proposal to do what?
Krauss: Well that' s actually a little optimistic but we've also gotten
some direction from the City Council on that. Don, you may want to chip in
but relative to the issues surrounding Moon Valley, members of the Council III
weren' t directly addressing that district but they echoed some of the same II
sentiments I 've heard at the Planning Commission. That something should be
done and possibly that district should be eliminated. I spoke to the City
Attorney and got his opinion on whether or not we could simply eliminate
that district, if that would constitute a taking. He didn' t believe it did
but you would have to make sure there was some legitimate use to replace
it. Whether or not A-2 fits that bill might be questionable. That land
was never farmed, most of it and presents some severe difficulties for
agriculture but that ' s an obstacle we can deal with at that time.
Erhart: There is some farming. As much farming goes on there as on my
property. My property is very hilly and a lot of it can' t be farmed . I
think that density of ag there is probably just as high as mine which is
less than 50% and there are single family homes there. 1
Emmings: But you don't have frontage on a highway. I mean if I was a
landowner there. I
Erhart: Yeah, I've got frontage on TH 101. No, but I mean the point of it
is, if they can't do anything with their land, they can do as much as I can "
do.
Conrad : So the attorney is drafting. . .
Krauss: No. We haven't asked him to draft an ordinance yet.
Conrad : Okay, so when you said that was optimistic. I think we should
review, I don't know if it' s the BF district. I guess that' s the only
11
Planning Commission Meeting
February 21, 1990 - Page 18
1 district, the only place we use that but I 'd sure like to review that
district quickly and that's not to, what do we want staff to do? Annette,
Steve, do you agree that we should pay attention to it right now?
II Emmings: Sure. Better now than later because something 's going to,
someone' s going to come in with a proposal .
Filson: Right, it'd be very proactive which is just what we need to be
because we know what' s going to end up happening. Something will come
through that's huge and it will be allowed.
' Emmings: Is there a way to find out? That' s such a desireable area to
preserve it seems to me. Is there any way, is there any chance that there
would be state or any other kind of money around where you could buy some
of that property?
Krauss : It's doubtful.
' Emmings: Get rid of some of the uses that are there?
Krauss: We could try and check into that. I know I worked in the upper
Mississippi River basin with the Great River road and for all the study
that was done there, there were only zero funds appropriated through
Congress for actual acquisition. What they tried to do is get the
' communities to enact laws that were protected without anybody having to buy
it which is probably the mode we' re going to have to be in.
I Conrad: Well let's bring this issue back for us to look at it. Maybe what
we need the staff to do is say, here' s what it is today. It runs from here
to there. These are the uses and just present what it is today and then
let the Planning Commission sort of brainstorm where we should take it and
give you some direction after that. So I'm not asking staff to do any
research or any proposals or whatever . I think staff should come back and
in 2 minutes say, here's what it is and then we should take a crack at what
we think it should be.
Emmings: And then what?
Conrad : And then get staff to do some research for us. If we decide it
should be a commercial use, how would it look. What do we need to do if we
decide it would be a farming use. The implications of that.
' Emmings: And this would be a high priority item ,where the blending
ordinance would not be I take it?
Conrad : In my mind right now, because I think we' re at a dead end with the
blending, I just don't know that we can accomplish anything there. This
one I think we can accomplish something on that might do the community some
good.
Emmings : Okay, I agree.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 21, 1990 - Page 19
Conrad: Sign ordinance. Inactive. Is there something to the sign, were 11 we going to review the whole ordinance? Was that what the idea was?
Olsen: Yeah.
Conrad: Is there anybody pressuring to do that?
Olsen: It really occurred with the downtown redevelopment so we'd not have
pylon signs on each lot. We were working with a consultant on drafting a
new sign ordinance but that really kind of died.
Conrad : My impression is, it's restrictive but it' s not, it' s still
workable.
Krauss : Well our sign ordinance is pretty archaic but most communities. . . '
Ellson: It also came up when DataSery came in.
Erhart: Is this the one you wrote Ladd? I
Conrad: I had nothing to do with this. I can give you names. Not that I
disagree with what the intent is however . I
Krauss: They' re really extraordinarily involved when you get into the
writing of one and there' s a lot of design input and philosophy that goes
into them. Your business community becomes highly involved typically in
those sorts of things. If you rent those billboards, Naegele comes in with
their Larkin Hoffman attorneys.
Conrad : But we've got a lot of people coming in right now and they' re
working within the ordinance. All the centers are working with it.
Elison: SuperAmerica had a problem with our sign ordinance. DataSery had I
a problem with our sign ordinance.
Conrad: But those were acceptable problems in my mind . '
Elison: I'm just saying, I can name 2 within a month.
(Everyone was talking at the same time at this point.)
Krauss: . . .series of 5 or 6 pylons which we felt was highly inappropriate II
the fact that it was a PUD and it was supposed to work together as a
unit. We said under the PUD we were going to do sign covenants. Throw out
the ordinance, we' ll write a new one basically.
Erhart: Are you saying that our sign ordinance is very liberal relative to
say like Minnetonka, Eden Prairie? Is that what you' re saying?
Krauss: I don't know Eden Prairie's very well. Minnetonka just spent 2 oil
3 years redrafting theirs.
Emmings: Why not adopt that one? I
I
I/ Planning Commission Meeting
February 21, 1990 - Page 20
' Krauss : Well yeah, a friend of mine wrote it so maybe. . .
Emmings: Save a lot of money and time.
' Krauss : What you found in Minnetonka, unfortunately what you would find
here, as time goes on it' s going to get more and more difficult to draft
I one because the business community is going to rapidly expand it looks like
in the next few years in terms of the commercial types of operations we
have.
Emmings: Are you familiar with the one in Minnetonka? Would it be a
reasonable model to follow?
IKrauss: I don' t know.
Ellson: Haven' t we found that we've been more conservative than people
have wanted?
Erhart: But you made the statement it was archaic so you must be comparing
it with something.
IKrauss : Yeah, well I know what they were doing in Minnetonka basically.
The outlines of it. I wasn't involved directly with it but Minnetonka's is
I a somewhat different approach in that sort of thing. I mean they stress
uniformity and no neon signs. I mean a lot of things that you may or may
not disagree with. They had architects come in and give design philosophy.
There are books that have been written about how wonderful Las Vegas strip
is and how American it is and people talked about well , why don' t we
replicate that on Hwy 12. I don't know that that 's really germane to our
discussion. On the other hand , it's functioned well enough until now.
' We'd clearly like to tinker with some of the things but it's a can of
worms.
. Conrad : Once you get into it, it' s a real beast. You don' t want to be
here when it comes for public hearing. You just don't. And I don't know
that many things, I just have this feeling.
Ellson: We' re more conservative so I 'd rather be erring on that side.
Conrad : You know we can leave it there. I sure wouldn' t put any kind of a
priority on that and I 'd sure want to know, it just seems there are more
important things for staff to be working on at this time than that
particular deal. I think about the signs, the problems that Annette have
' just clued me into on signage ordinances that we've had. The signs on
canopies at SuperAmerica. The DataSery issue where they needed more signs
but generally I 'm just not hearing, and maybe you're negotiating it before
it gets to us but people are living with the ordinance and I don' t know
' that it' s a big priority. And Paul your point is, let' s update it right
now before we have, let's update it is really what. Are you saying update
it or totally tear it apart?
Planning Commission Meeting
February 21, 1990 - Page 21
Krauss : I suspect that you would wind up tearing it apart. I think what
would be useful is if we thought about it in a timeframe, after the I
Comprehensive Plan is done, to come up with some sort of a position paper
giving you an analysis of the pros and cons of the current ordinance.
Conrad: And I think that' s wise. t
Ellson: But after the main issues are handled, yeah.
Conrad: So we' ll rate that as a low priority? Is that a low priority
right now? And then the status will be for staff to make recommendation?
Elison: Review?
Conrad: Review. I don' t know, whatever Let' s get an active comment in
there as to what staff is going to do.
Emming : Staff review after 9/90.
Conrad: Okay. Next item. Update zoning code.
Emmings: It seems like that' s what we' re doing all the time. ,
Conrad: Yeah, I would delete that unless there's a specific .
Ellson: You know I bet these guys are looking at this going , but this is II
really what we do day to day. We'd better at least put it on there so that
they know that we' re doing other things.
•
Conrad: Trees. Number 6. Mapping of significant vegetative areas.
Elison: Aren' t we in the middle of doing that? I
Krauss: No. I mean theoretically.
Olsen: We' re waiting for the DNR. They keep saying that it will be
coming. The mapping.
Ellson: I thought when Cenvesco was here we were just like a few weeks ,
away.
Krauss : Well we've got a very well meaning and dedicated individual
working for the DNR in this department. The problem is is that he has to II
handle the entire metropolitan area and the amount of time that he can
devote to Chanhassen and our needs is really very limited. I think we're
getting our best input from him when we bring him out to a site and ask him ,
some specific questions but placing the expectation on him to produce this
plan. I think he'd like to. He' s spoken to us about that and he'd
certainly like to. I just don't think it's realistic to expect that he call
do it.
Ellson: Does it have to be the DNR that does it?
Planning Commission Meeting
February 21, 1990 - Page 22
Olsen: Hire a consultant. We don' t have the money or the staff.
' Erhart: Are you trying to do it in just the undeveloped areas or the whole
city?
' Olsen : So when subdivisions came in that we would be able to say, that' s a
virgin forest and we should protect it. Kind of like the wetland
ordinance. Have areas, significant areas that we could try to preserve
with this .
Ellson: If we don' t do it, then like you said, it' s like the wetlands.
Erhart: Yeah, but potentially you can tell looking at the aerial
photograph .
Ellson : But the fact that we have an official thing .
Olsen: They' re real close to being, the last time I talked to him he had
the maps pretty much completed. It' s just kind of inventory.
Conrad: Can we get an update from him as to when he expects to get it
done? So that' s what we'd like there and then we' ll take a look and if we
feel it should be expedited and staff should have it a priority, we' ll do
that but let' s just get back, let' s talk to the forester and find out when
he expects it to happen. Rezoning of 2 1/2 acre lots for RR district.
Ellson: I don' t remember this one.
IEmmings: I don' t either .
Conrad : I don' t know what that is.
' Erhart: Well what we have now, we have a district called A-2 which is
essential agricultural estate which covered most of southern Chanhassen
' until the last 3 years and so now in A-2 we have a whole bunch of really 2
1/2 acre subdivisions. They' re not ag at all . They' re large lot
subdivisions and the idea here was to protect those subdivisions and the
people living in that area as to since we already have a district
I designated for that kind of development called RR, just apply it to those
areas so they have the protection that was meant for in our ordinance. So
that' s really pretty straight forward.
11 Emmings: Why can' t that be part of doing our map right now? Part of doing
our land use map and part of our. . .
' Krauss: Well you'd also have to go through a rezoning action. Public
hearing to do it.
Emmings: Could we do it at the same time? Kill 2 birds with 1 stone?
• Krauss: If your desire, and this is something we haven' t discussed, is to
go through a comprehensive rezoning, based upon the land use plan, we could
do it then.
Planning Commission Meeting
February 21, 1990 - Page 23
Erhart: I know but we do a, somebody comes in and wants to build something'
on a lot and we rezone that. . .
Emmings: Yeah. Any A-2, 2 1/2 acre. . . '
Elison: But those people bought it knowing that also.
Emmings: Development will be rezoned RR. 1
Krauss: We've got a district now, in fact we've got several of them but
we' re not using it. Either we should use it for something I suppose or
eliminate the district.
Erhart: It' s not a big deal .
Emmings: I can' t see why it can' t be combined with the process that we' re
doing now on the comprehensive plan and the land use map that will be •
generated from it.
Krauss: The land use map doesn' t dictate your zoning . It' s a guide for
what your zoning would be. You still have to go through a rezoning action I
to bring that into. . .
Erhart: I think it' s a separate issue but if it' s not a big job.
Krauss: No. We'd have to notify all the people with affected properties
and it'd be a city initiated action. 11 Conrad: So when do we want to do this?
Ellson: I don' t think that this is, I don' t know. I think that this is
something that should be brought up by the people. Are they all of a
sudden concerned about this? It seems like we' re. . .making trouble.
Emmings: Why didn't we leave it zoned A-2? 1
Erhart: It was zoned A-2 and then all these. . . 11 Elison: All these people want it when it was A-2.
Erhart: No , they didn' t buy it. They developed it. These areas were
developed so it was converted from agricultural to a residential area.
Emmings: Right.
Erhart: Now it ought to be up to us, in our zoning ordinance, to reflect
the reality of what's there because it' s not agriculture anymore. Purely
it' s almost adminstrative. It really is. '
Emmings: Yeah. I guess that's what' s confusing me. I would think that if
you' re going to take a chunk of the A-2 land and put it into 2 1/2 acre
lots, you ought to rezone that land RR while you' re doing it.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 21, 1990 - Page 24
Erhart: Yeah, it's been done so let' s just do it.
Emmings: It doesn't make sense to keep calling it A-2.
Erhart : I can' t imagine it' s going to take more than a couple hours total
in a Planning Commission meeting because most of this is purely
' adminstrative.
Ellson: This isn' t going to change how these people are taxed once they
' become residential?
Conrad: Can we review this item within the next 2 months?
' Olsen: It all came about as part of the contractor 's yards. Reviewing
that and we just wanted to look at. . .
Erhart : I mean let' s give these people some protection that they don' t get
in an A-2 district.
Conrad: Let' s say we' ll review this item by 4/30. Bringing it back by
April 30th? Okay. That doesn' t mean.
Ellson: Not at the expense of the comprehensive plan or anything like that
though.
Conrad : Next item. Computerize land use files.
Krauss: That's something that you need to be aware of that is going to
occupy a significant amount of our time. We're trying to enter the 20th
century.
Ellson: This isn' t done on that word processor one is it?
' Krauss: It's related to that, yeah. And we have a learning process to go
through. There' s a lot we could use these machines for. We've spent a
considerable sum of money to get what we have now and there' s more in the
' pipeline. One of the things we've been grappling with in my time here is
adminstrative procedures to guarantee that conditions you've applied
actually are what goes into the ground. We've done a lot of hand holding
and changing written reports and what not to embody those improvements.
Make sure they occur. Computerization is the ideal way to go with permit
tracking and routing these things through and we could provide better data
resources to people. Developers and individuals. It's clearly the thing
' that we want to do. We don' t have a time frame for it because we' re
learning as we' re going along.
Conrad: Okay. Items 2 thru 6 all look reasonable to me. Anybody, they' re
relatively quick.
Emmings: On shoreland ordinance number 4. Don' t we just adopt the DNR's?
1
Plannin g Commission Meeting
February 21, 1990 - Page 25
Olsen: Actually we've got 2 years for that and no. It' s like 60 pages and"
a lot of it doesn't apply to us.
Emmings: But what does this item mean? When it says shoreland ordinance,
what does it mean? I
Olsen: Well we are getting a notice, we're one of the priority cities and
we should be getting it in the next month or 2 that says that we have to
adopt this within 2 years .
Emmings: Right now haven' t we already adopted the DNR' s shoreland zoning 1
ordinance?
Olsen: The new one we have to adopt.
Emmings: Oh, okay. So are we going to write our own or adopt portions of II
theirs that apply?
Olsen: Adopt portions . '
Krauss : They wrote an ordinance that was theoretically utilizable anywhere
in the State. It just isn't germane to our particular needs.
Olsen: A lot of it is.
Emmings: I 've looked at it. 1
Krauss : Parts of it is.
Conrad : And I think as long as it' s there, we might as well adopt it.
Emmings: Oh I think we should. I
Conrad : We have to within 2 years. My point is , why don' t we adopt it as
early as we can? '
Olsen: And that' s what we' re going to try and do. You can get a grant.
Up to $5,000.00 to, if you need to hire a consultant to help.
Erhart: Each one of us?
Emmings: Go get the money. I think we should study this in Cancun. I
Olsen: The flood zone is another one that we're required to adopt that and
actually we've run out of time on that one but we' ll try to get it
extended.
Krauss : If we can touch on the wetlands ordinance for a moment. Number 2
going back up. That is something that's going to be fairly time intensive. I
Probably involve a significant expenditure that the City Council would have
to authorize. The City Engineer and I have had a number of discussions
about it. The City is looking into the possibility of establishing a storm "
water utility fund. It hasn't been authorized by the Council . We talked
I
11 Planning Commission Meeting
February 21, 1990 - Page 26
II
about it informally and the Council has authorized some studies on it. We
do not have a storm water management plan in Chanhassen and it's a really
major deficiency for us. We deal with storm water management on a catch as
catch can basis. When somebody comes in with a lot, we look at controlling
'
their particular problem on that particular lot. There is no overall
system in this City and that's a real major deficiency and I think it' s
going to come back to haunt us frankly with the Metro Council when they' re
' looking at our comprehensive plan. That's their thing this year is storm
water management and protection of lakes.
' Emmings: What is the issue? Making sure that runoff or storm water
somehow is handled before it gets into the lakes or is kept separate from?
Krauss: Yes with retention providing settlement of solids and demunition
' of phospherous loading and then on. That' s what they' re looking at. Our
wetlands programs is something I think we've touched on a couple of times
in the past . The City had a very innovative program that took a stab at
' controlling these things in advance of when most other communities tackled
it. We've now worked with it for a number of years and there' s a lot of
good points to it and there's a lot of problems in terms of administering
' it. We'd like to have somebody go through who' s real knowledgeable and
give us their advice. I mean there's a lot of new approaches that have
been used in recent years. The City of Wayzata I understand has gone
through a program where they not only said an area's a wetland but they
' evaluated the importance of the wildlife habitat there and the wetland
values to give you better input as to whether or not it was preserveable.
Whether or not you should exchange that one for another one and how you
I achieve these things. It's an innovative approach. One that we ought to
look at. One of the biggest problems we have, and why it goes hand in hand
with the storm water management plan is we don't have a wetlands map worthy
of the name. We have a wetlands map that shows in a very gross way only
the largest wetlands in the city and misses a lot of them and in terms of
the smaller water bodies, completely ignores them. The only way really to
get at that in point of fact is through coupling the new aerials that we
' have with field surveys and going out and sending a wildlife biologist or
botonist who' s knowledgeable or an intern if we can train somebody, out
there is really the way to go and that's a very involved process. We' re
going to be needing some consultants assistance on that. We' ll need to go
back to the Council and start to work on that but it' s something that we'd
like to stress because this is, it's a timely matter. We' re looking at
greatly expanding development in the city. We really want to have this
under control before the dam bursts.
Conrad : I like what you're saying obviously. Nobody has to persuade me on
' this issue but the coupling of the wetlands and the storm water. Why did
we do that?
Krauss : Well there' s a lot of economies of scale. Every wetland is a
storm water management pond. Not every storm water management type pond is
a wetland and that 's a philosophical argument but the reverse is true. We
will have to go out and survey the elevations and overflow elevations of
' every storm water management pond in the city. At that time it would be
the ideal time to go out and likewise have the same crew go out there and
I
Planning Commission Meeting .
February 21, 1990 - Page 27 .. ,
survey the edge of the wetland so you can officially map it. It gets very
difficult for a developer or homeowner in Chanhassen to know exactly what
they're dealing with. We have things that are, you know we have
subdivisions that are approved that say edge of wetland and a surveyor
comes to us to get a building permit and says well how far back should the II
house be and we can't tell them. We can sort of tell them where we think
it is but there' s no point they can survey back from with any certainty and
wetlands change. One of the things we all know is wetlands are somewhat
transient. Some expand. Some contract and over periods of time they
change. We really need that map. Now the problem in coupling the two Ladd
is that realistically the timeframe for the storm water management plan is
a couple years down the road. Given the complexities of setting up this
utility district, if that flies which would be the money by which we would II
generate the money by which we'd do the study, you' re looking at a 2 to 3
year timeframe. We've taken the liberty of talking to a couple of
consultants about preparing proposals to right now look at updating the
ordinance. Give us some input so at least we can do that part. Also, if
there's a mechanism whereby we can develop an interim map to carry us
through to that point 2 or 3 years down in the future where we get the more'
specific one, but give us a better handle on it than we have now, at a
reasonable cost, that' s something we might want to look at and with your
approval and the City Council 's approval , see if we can do that ideally yeti
this year .
Conrad: Could you break those activities down for this report. So if
there are 2 or 3 steps. Let's just separate them and I hear what you' re
saying Paul in terms of how they' re all working together but in terms of
the individual activities, I 'd like to see what they are and we can sort of
monitor your progress . An other comments on this side? Flipping over. ,
Ellson: What's the grading and mineral extraction?
Conrad: That' s Moon Valley. '
Krauss: Basically the Moon Valley. Well , it comes along at a good time
frankly. Every time we get into an ordinance section we find out some
other things we'd like to change. Right now in Chanhassen theoretically
you could not move a truckload of dirt in your back yard without getting II approval by the City Council . The way in which we handle grading permits
is pretty clunky and the result is that most things are unregulated because
it' s just too cumbersome. People try to avoid the process. What we' re
going to be proposing is not only a very comprehensive set of regulations II
for operations such as Moon Valley and there is another one by the way on
the Jeurissen farm that has some similarities. We're going to be proposing
those conditions but we' re also proposing methods by which we can II adminstratively handle grading permits up to a point at which point those
grading permits need to be reviewed by the City Council and yourselves in
public hearing. And the City Attorney is drafting that right now. It
should be on your next meeting. '
Mayor Chmiel: Restoration. . .
I
I
11 Planning Commission Meeting
February 21, 1990 - Page 28
I
Krauss : Sure. Restoration. Environmental impact. Making sure that the
land is legitimately utilizable for something after they' re done with it. . .
Conrad : 7 & 8. 8 we took a look at.
Emmings: I don' t remember .
' Ellson: What happened?
Conrad : It was quick. I was leading that one too.
Olsen: Is there something on the back of your page?
Emmings: Yeah. 7, 8 and 9.
Olsen: Is that where group homes is?
' Conrad : Yeah.
Olsen: Ours doesn' t have it.
' Conrad : Paul' s got his group home on the back. Anything else on the
list? For the list? By the list?
'
Emmings: I thought of an issue that we looked at in the past. It' s not
for the list but while we' re talking about this I thought about that
nursery down on TH 101. The folks across the street were having all that
runoff from that nursery. Whatever happened to that issue?
' Olsen : It 's still coming through. One of the conditions is that they had
to go back through the conditional use permit again and he is making that
' application so you will be seeing it again for his expansion that he did
without getting a conditional use permit.
' Emmings: But is the water still through the neighbors?
Olsen: They put in a, I just went blank on what it is.
' Erhart: Like a berm there.
Conrad : Well no they put in the plastic with, they've got a plastic
' barrier.
Olsen: They put in a trench or whatever you call it along TH 101 within
the highway' s right-of-way so the water . . .
' Emmings: On which side of the road?
Olsen: On their side. On the nursery side.
Emmings: Oh, okay.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 21, 1990 - Page 29
Olsen: And then they also bermed up where most the water was coming and II
then they put. . .
Emmings: So they've taken some steps?
Olsen: Oh yeah. But I still see water going across. It wasn't all from
them though. It's just that' s the natural way it drains .
Erhart: The way the road contours there is the real problem. '
Conrad: Anybody, any comments on the report from the Planning Director and
the last City Council?
Emmings: Nice report. Nice to have the report.
Conrad: Yeah. Fun to get these Paul and what happened at City Council .
It' s worth your time. Anything else in our packet that we want to
discuss? '
Emmings: There' s a new article that just came out in the Minnesota Law
Review on zoning that looks like it might be kind of interesting and if
after I read it I think it is, I ' ll get it to you and you can decide if it II
will go around. But it looked like it was kind of basic and interesting .
Conrad : Next meeting is going to be, let' s see the next meeting is the
7th? It's a light meeting Paul?
Krauss: The 14th would be a special meeting for the Comprehensive Plan. II
Emmings moved, Elison seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor I
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m. .
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Director of Planning
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
I
11