Loading...
PC 1998 06 17CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 17, 1998 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7;05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Allyson Brooks, Alison Blackowiak, Kevin Joyce, Craig Peterson and LuAnn Sidney MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Burton STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous; Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO THE ENTIRE 2020 CHANHASSEN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, INCLUDING LAND USE, HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, PARK AND RECREATION, NATURAL RESOURCES, SEWER AND WATER. Public Present: Name Address Anne Rasmusson Mary Heiges Jill Shipley Carmen McMeen Kelly VonDeBur David H. Peterson, ISD 112 Vemelle Clayton Brad Johnson 500 Broadway St. NE, Minneapolis Carver County Library, 4 City Hall Plaza 261 Eastwood Court 9391 Foxford Road 1341 Lake Susan Hills Drive 110600 Village Road 422 Santa Fe Circle 7425 Frontier Trail Kate Aanenson and Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Bob, can I just interrupt just for a second? As we go through these, and as you've already mentioned, we went through these before. Were there any substantive changes to this one? Generous: Not in the housing element. There was very little discussion on that. We just refined the numbers based on additional GIS information and taking out the wetlands and things like that. Peterson: There wasn't anything statistically significant to change it? Generous: No. Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 Aanenson: The only areas that changed was the completion of the consultant's, SRF did the traffic study. And then the sewer and water, which reflect the changes in the capital investment. And then the only other significant change was the envisioning implementation of the Park and Rec. Those were the only significant changes. Peterson: And you'll highlight those... Aanenson: Yes. Generous: Well part of the sewer and water policy plan was that, the 1993 plan anticipated approximately 46,000 residents at build out. The city anticipates we will have 10,000 people less than that when we're fully developed so that goes to the sizing of the piping and so that has been a significant change from 1991. Bob Generous continued with the staff report at this point. Peterson: Have you assumed throughout this that, you're just using that 212 will be constructed by the year 2020? You're not... Generous: Well that's what they used in determining which roadway improvements would be done. Peterson: So all your assumptions you share are based upon the fact that. Generous: That would be with or without. The functional classification would need to be changed. There's a list of improvements that we would need to do within the plan with 212 being constructed by 2020 and without 212 being constructed and there are four additional projects that would be necessary within the community without 212 being done. Those are, one of them would be six laning Highway 5 east of Powers. Another would be four laning additional roadway on, four laning Pioneer from TH 41 to the city limits. Right now, without Highway 212 we'd have to four lane it from Galpin to the city limits but we have to extend that farther to the west if it's not constructed. This is all on page 11 of the transportation element. It's in the second column. We'd have to four lane Highway 101, County State Aid 101 all the way down to 212/169 without 212 being built. With 212, it's only down to Pioneer Trail and Audubon Road would need to be four lane all the way down to 212 also. So there are some significant impacts without 212 going in. Additionally, all the local road systems would carry additional traffic as people find other ways to get around the community. Part of our plan, we're showing collector systems to provide local residents with access throughout the community without getting on some of these larger roads. Like the Coulter Boulevard extension. The West 78th Street extension. And we believe that helps on Highway 5 for instance. It helps locally but as a region, it does little for the congestion that we see as Chanhassen and the communities to the west continue to develop. Aanenson: The other concern we would have is what happens when you have this function of classification of road, if212 isn't built and that it can divide neighborhoods and it's more difficult 2 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 to cross as pedestrians and bike riders. Speed and the volume and so it does subdivide a community and we do have that concern. Peterson: When you add up all these individual changes we have to do without 212, it's going to cost more than 212, right? Brooks: Well we're going to make Trunk Highway 5 six lanes and we're going to make the Trunk Highway 101 four lanes. Geometrically you're going to have quite the challenge going down those terraces. Is Trunk Highway 5 a principle arterial now? Generous: No. It's an A- now. Brooks: So it's the same as Lyman Boulevard? Generous: Yes. Aanenson: That's all we had. We'd be happy to answer any questions. Again, we'll be available to respond to anything that you would have and we are recommending adoption of the plan. As I stated earlier there is a comment period that is still open and it will be open until, the end of 60 days and the Council will hold their hearing and give input too but it will not be closed until the end of the 60 day comment period. Peterson: Generally speaking Kate, to look at the audience tonight being very small. Less than 10 people. It begs to question, do we pass this on without additional public input of some sort. Or do we have to beg, borrow and steal to get people here to do that? But you know clearly it does present a question. Is there anything we can do or could have done better to get the word out or do you feel as though that it was adequately addressed.., meetings, even though... attendance was small there. I hear stories of the '91 plan that it was hundreds versus less than 100 people in attendance. Aanenson: Well I think there was a lot different issues back then. We certainly, there's some people that have some strong feelings on certain issues. With again the MUSA expansion. We've done some things, as we've moved from '91, such as the Highway 5 corridor study which we've addressed some issues there and then when we did the Bluff Creek and we reguided a lot of that. People were brought into the process and some of those people may have followed their issues and they have been addressed. I share your concerns. I felt we got a lot of coverage from the Villager throughout the year covering all the Planning Commission meetings. Giving input on that. And we did advertise and got a lot of information out in city newsletter. There's a brochure that goes out quarterly. We had both of those during the time frame we were doing this. Again, about the town meeting and we also had articles in the paper on that .... the Rotary Club next week. Talking to the Chamber so I'm not sure what else. Peterson: I hear, I think you hear our frustration and I think we hear yours and it's a matter of what we can do, if anything, to continue sharing the process and have them be a part of this instead of being enemies as they come in and realize that this is not supposed to be like this. Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 Okay. Questions from commissioners. There's a lot of, culmination of a lot of effort from a lot of staff people and our time. And we didn't necessarily get a substantial amount of time to go through it in detail, but again most of it has, we've seen before. Questions for staff from anyone? Blackowiak: I have a question. Do we want to do this by section or how would you like to do this? Peterson: That's probably the most efficient. Why don't we take it by section and go through... With that, are there questions for staff regarding land use? Sidney: I have a comment. It was mentioned... Actually on the first page I noticed discussion on the Highway 5 corridor study. Well not really discussion, just the mention of it. The Bluff Creek watershed plan. I think some of those elements, the vision continues and those studies, we may want to have that more delineated in the plan. Peterson: In any one context, as far as a revision to... Sidney: The revisions and more explanation, what... Peterson: Any response to that Kate? Aanenson: I think certainly the storm water management plan as, because it's already been adopted, wasn't... It is an element of that and because... The Bluff Creek and Highway 5 are certainly important. The fact that that gave us input to guiding. We had the lwo studies... It gave us input to the guiding and vision. I think that would be appropriate to put those in as summaries. Sidney: I guess what I'm trying to impart is that as it goes to Met Council, we'd like to show that we... Aanenson: That's a valid request. Peterson: Other questions regarding land use? Blackowiak: I had a question. It's talked in here a little bit about the differences belween the assumptions of the city and the assumptions of Met Council and that forecast numbers were different. Finally, what numbers are we using? Aanenson: Ultimately we're at the same except for the, they just gave us the employment numbers which we had validated by our own survey. We just got those Monday. Ultimately we agree on the population. We're just getting there faster than their assumptions. We believe we'll be at 35,000. Blackowiak: Okay, specifically I guess yeah, the employment numbers. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 Aanenson: The employment numbers are low but we just got the revision on that so you'll see those changes. We're in concurrence now. Blackowiak: Okay. And then what about the MUSA expansion numbers? You talked about them being too low. You felt the Met Council, these numbers were too low as well. Aanenson: As far as our absorption rate. How fast we're growing and that's something that we will, as we meet with them as they review this document, we'll impress upon them... They concur that we'll be built out by the year 2020. It's just how fast. Blackowiak: Okay, so what impact then is there on us when the two numbers aren't meshed? I mean is there, do you have to come to concurrence before this can move forward or is kind of an evolving document with the Met Council or? Aanenson: Yes. We're going to sit down with them and demonstrate. We think that our numbers will demonstrate where we're coming from. Blackowiak: Okay. Peterson: Can I interrupt just for a second? Blackowiak: Certainly. Peterson: ... stopped midstream, or mid sentence when you talked about, you thought you'd be at 35 by the year. Aanenson: Right, 2020. That's our ultimate build out. We agree with them. Peterson: You thought we're going to be there sooner. Aanenson: No. We're growing faster. Generous: Intervening years we're higher. Aanenson: Intervening years we're higher, right. Generous: If you look atthe curve, we come together. Aanenson: Right. Most of our population, as you get towards the southern end, there's less density down there. If you look at that 2020 year, they've got the larger lot constraints and development patterns so we believe our growth is going to happen sooner where we've got development patterns and be able to provide.., and I think that's easy to explain and that's just a matter of educating. Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 Blackowiak: And actually just a comment, and I made this I think last time we saw land use. Under the community liabilities .... last time but I don't feel that large tracts of land being withheld from MUSA are a liability. Or the.., development within the existing MUSA and that's on page 4, top. Left hand. And it's under community liabilities and I just really beg to differ. I think that either we could move it down into the existing land use area. Into that paragraph. Let's talk about that as being a liability. I think part of what makes Chanhassen unique, is it's differences in land. Differences in how people live and where they live and to say that just because some people have large tracts of land not being developed is a liability, I don't think is fair. Aanenson: Okay. Maybe I could clarify that. Blackowiak: I understand you're talking about the financially, from a financial sewer and water since that. Aanenson: No. I'm talking about larger tracts that are being held out of, which is artificially inflating prices. Land prices. That's the intent of that. People that have the wherewithal. It can be viewed as a positive thing but in a negative side that it's holding out land that's currently has the ability because we provide sewer and water in that area, and we can't use that system so in order to provide additional sewer and water, we have to build another system. And these aren't people that are in large lot subdivisions. These are people that are sitting on tracts of... Blackowiak: Right, yeah. No, I totally understand but I still don't agree with the fact that it's a liability. Aanenson: The way I'm saying that is that, if we provided sewer and water for the entire area, and there's an assessment on that, and that would serve maybe 600 homes. In order to provide additional 600 homes we may have to build another infrastructure line to do that so there's a cost and you can't recoup. You've made an investment that you can't recoup your cost. I hear what you're saying but that was the point that we were trying to make. Blackowiak: Well then maybe it just needs to be clarified because as I read it it says that basically people holding large lots are a liability to the community and I don't think that's true and I don't think that's what you mean to say. Aanenson: I don't mean large lots, I mean large tracts. Blackowiak: Large tracts, right. Say 100 acres or whatever you might have. Yeah. Brooks: Maybe you could counter it in the community assets by putting in something about the asset of somebody holding a large lot is that it keeps that rural character and it keeps that view shed. So you at least have two views on it. Aanenson: Sure. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 Blackowiak: That's all I have, thank you. Peterson: Other land use questions? Brooks: I have a quick one. I was a little confused where you have your, on the map where you've colored in parks and open space green and yet you have it designated office industrial. Does that mean that you want like.., office, like right over here? It looks like you want sort of parks and open space, it's like the Bluff Creek area but then you're overlaying it with industrial. So I'm not sure where you're going. Aanenson: Oh, in the Bluff Creek corridor? Brooks: Yeah. Aanenson: You have to provide another alternative unless you acquire it. If you don't guide it something, you've only guided it open space.., developing, basically you buy it. So you have to give another land use alternative. That's the same situation we have south of, in the wildlife refuge. It was guided... Brooks: So I'm looking at green, where it's park and open space but it's also like residential industrial. You've given me two types of use. Aanenson: Right, and we have to. Legally we have to. And that was something we corrected from the previous plan that did not provide that. Brooks: That makes sense. Conrad: Kate go through again on page 4. Tell me again why large lots, residential large lots is going from 11% to 15%. Aanenson: I'm not sure in the 1991 that they were all accounted for. The way the data was done. There was large tracts of land south of Lyman that were not included that were kind of given vacant but actually they were large lot developments but they were actually given the designation of vacant. Or undevelopable so if you notice, if you carry that out to the year 2020, really the only thing that's undevelopable is either a river or a lake. Previously in the '91 and the '80, the acreage that was in there was given anything that wasn't given a land use designation, we had a lot of white based on the map which isn't a land use designation. So it's kind of a holding zone so those numbers that you were looking at for large lot, even maybe parks or open space was not really a good number because they were balanced against all of the white which was vacant so now if you look at the year 2020, the only thing that is vacant or undevelopable is a wetland, a lake or a river. So it's a better reflection of really, and that's the big... So we're not encouraging or guiding additional large lots. Conrad: ...not a good number. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 Aanenson: The 15%? Conrad: Yeah. Aanenson: Right, and that's a fixed number one. We're not providing that in the future. That's what's out there today. Because it's our intent to provide municipal service to the remainder of the city. Conrad: And then on the map, the zone...the MUSA line is. The MUSA line is the dotted line. Aanenson: Correct, and that's the one today. That's, we're looking at a MUSA expansion as a part of this plan. We're looking at the 5 year incremental increase. How we see the city evolving. Again, as Bob had said too, that's based on sewer and water plans and infrastructure based on where we've got road capacity. Where we have the ability to provide sewer and water on a cost effective basis. That's how this was all based to get the future expansion. So what we are recommending for the next area to be brought in would be the intersection area of TH 5 and 41. Now you look at that entire area that we've shown on the map. Conrad: Kate, I'm confused. It says.., you're moving MUSA down but on that first map, it says 2020. Aanenson: Right, that's the ultimate land use. Not MUSA. That's the ultimate land use. Generous: We should really take that line. Aanenson: That's fine. Okay. Except that somewhere along the line we need to know if people, where it is today. Conrad: Then say it. Just say today. Aanenson: That's today's MUSA. Conrad: When I read this, it says that's it. Aanenson: That's the ultimate land use recommendation. Conrad: Land use but then, but you've got MUSA line and that tells me that's 2020 MUSA line. Well that's not true. Aanenson: Yeah. Well we can put down in parenthesis, 19, MUSA line in 1991... Joyce: Kate, I know we discussed this before but I just, I bring it up again. For the comprehensive plan 2020, we're doubling our population and we're reducing commercial acreage? 8 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 Aanenson: Again if you look at the acreage we have in commercial it's more but if you look at the percentage it's. Joyce: It's actually less. In 1991 you've got 295. Aanenson: What's skewed in some of that too is the mixed use. What we said before. Joyce: So the mixed use is yeah. Aanenson: Right, and you have to add in the mixed use also. Joyce: Well still then, if you add the two. Aanenson: But then you also have to add in, like as we did in Arboretum Business Park, we did allow some commercial in there which shows up in the office PUD so we do have, it's probably closer to three. And what we said in this is that, if you go back to the discussion we had before is that we believe in some areas that there's appropriate places to put additional commercial under the mixed use concept, similar to what we did at Gateway where we said you know, maybe a gas station. Maybe some of those uses make sense to support the amount of industrial. And we want to provide that opportunity in the future but what we're saying is we don't want to give it commercial zoning right now because then you've kind of skewed what we want to have happen there. We're saying, if it makes sense based on what comes in, we think it's appropriate and we put that in our goals but we don't want to just give blanket commercial because we know what happens when we do that. Then we're fending off things that may or may not be appropriate. So what we're saying is that this is a minimum but the goals stated, ifa mixed use project comes in and we identify some areas, then it may be appropriate... Joyce: The only other place commercial could go is mixed use then, right? Generous: No. Aanenson: There is additional commercial. Generous: It could be. Aanenson: As part of the industrial. Generous: Yeah, as part of the PUD. Or as part of a large residential development. The comp plan says you can have up to 25% of non-designated use within a project. And then it's up to the city to determine if that's appropriate in that instance. Joyce: Okay. All right. Conrad: Well I've got to take off on that because that's just a lead in. And again, I'm dangerous with numbers and it's hard to sort through some of this stuff but as I see it, in 1991 for revenue 9 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 producing acreage, we were using 1,215 acres. We could use...not what was zoned for or we applied. Those were active lists. In the year 2020 we're going up to 1,612 at max if it's all used. Now I don't know what the mixed use, our factor is there so that's why our numbers are not going to be real accurate. So today we've got 1,215 that are actively creating some revenue for the city. And those are probably... In 2020 we can take a look and without a mixed use component, we're up to 1,612. So that's a 400 acre increase. We're going to double our population. But we're only going to increase our acreage to revenue producing functions for the city by a third. We're going to double our population. So I asked Mark Koegler this and he really said there was no way to tell. And that's probably true. There's no way to factor this in but it makes me, just in simplistic terms from a lay person, it doesn't compute. If we really care about keeping taxes level, if we care. That doesn't work. Aanenson: But that's only one component. There's also the industrial component. Conrad: No, I added office, industrial, and commercial together. I had all three, based on the economics. I didn't add in mixed use. I took out, see what I saw, I took out what I saw in the report that were not being used today, I deducted that from what was zoned for those uses. Subtracted them. So if they got those today, it looks like we've got 1,215 acres being used so... looks like that. But I can see what we've forecasted for total usage and that's 1,612 without the mixed use. It doesn't, it doesn't make sense that we're going to keep our taxes in line. I like very much the land use. Aanenson: That was my question back to you is where would you put the additional commercial. Conrad: I like very much what we've done. We've spent a lot of time on it and I'm not knocking stafl~ I'm not, we helped you.., the way. It doesn't compute. Peterson: Which puts more pressure on our mixed use. Aanenson: Well I mean this is an argument, I've heard this. We're going to hear it again from someone else in the audience I'm sure. You have to go back to why people pick Chanhassen to live here and what we have in our downtown. What's kind of our core issues and some of our overriding, and what we do to maintain the integrity of that downtown area. We could put additional commercial somewhere else, acreage. You may have some other issues then. If you look at the land use as a sensibility and sustainability of some of the southern areas, we've said we've identified some areas that we think may be appropriate for a mixed use for industrial. Again you've got large lots that are already there that you're trying to work around. It gets tough trying to blend some of these transitional areas in. I guess we looked at the integrity of the downtown and trying to maintain that and what that does to this spread. We've got a lot of commercial still that I'm not sure we're going to be completely, how fast it's all going to build out even though we've got that population base. We've had a lot of commercial sitting there. Trying to move it along but it's moving, it's still the industrial. We don't see ourselves as a regional draw so we looked at what type of neighborhood business and what percentage you have. It's a different mix than you would if you were a regional draw. And what that changes to the character and what people value and that's when we went back and put some of that stuff when the park 10 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 group did their study. What's some of the values that they had in the community so. It's a core issue to. Conrad: I think it's real important. Aanenson: It is. I agree with you. I agree with you. Conrad: ... I'm elevating the issue. I like our plan. I've been a part of it. It's fine. But again I think I've also been the one who's saying hey. We don't have enough of these other areas. As the City Council has, they got elected the last time because of keeping taxes in line. This plan won't do it. I think it's their issue. I just want them to really make sure that you know, we've done some things that make some sense. There are parts and ways we can massage it a little bit and add a little bit here and there. I think, I'd sure like to challenge. I think we can't do this. In good faith and tell the taxpayers we've just done a 2020 deal and we're going to keep your taxes even. That'd be dishonest. Now maybe there's a way to do it but you've got to but then, and maybe it's okay. But I'm not confident that I can say this is the plan. It's a political issue. It's not a planning issue. It's a planning issue if we're wanting to keep our taxes in line with where they are today I believe. Peterson: It goes back to the simple quality of life. Why do people move to Chanhassen? Are they willing to pay for a residential style community? Aanenson: Exactly. Exactly, and it also makes some assumptions based on what the tax, how property is taxed today and how it's going to be taxed in the future. Peterson: Other land use questions? We'll move onto housing. Questions on housing. Joyce: I have a couple of minor questions. I had a problem following tables and figures on housing. So I mean I've got, I couldn't find one table. Table 2.5. Generous: It's actually, it's mislabeled. It's Table, labeled 2.6 on 224. And Table 2.6 is actually the next page. That's the table. Joyce: Okay. Well, I want you to... then you probably should just eliminate that or. In the middle of page 18 it says 2.5 and 2.6. Aanenson: We just need to correct the headings. Joyce: Yeah. And there was another one in here. Figure 10. Generous: Yeah, I found that today too. Joyce: So, it's gotto be frustrating. That's all I have. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 Brooks: I have a question about agricultural preservation. It seems like we're talking out of both sides of our mouth. On the other hand we're not zoning for any agriculture. On the other hand in housing we're talking about, well we really want to save it and we want to do something but it's really halfhearted and I'm wondering, this would be the question for you to talk about Ladd because you would like discuss it. You know, are we really going to save the agricultural land or should we just come in and say, it's going to come to an end and we're getting it over with because it's just, I feel like at some point we're trying to just fudge the issue. By saying well yeah, we really want to preserve it and that's nice. So what does that mean for me if I'm a farmer? Conrad: Well ultimately it's gone. It's not part of Chanhassen anymore. Ultimately you've just got to say, we're not. Ultimately it's residential or something like that. What you want to do is not force them out of here. Brooks: Right. Conrad: So that's what we, if they want to farm, let them farm. Don't force them out. Brooks: Right, which I agree with. I think it's going to be... farms but you know if that's what's really going to happen, I wonder if we shouldn't put it some other way. I mean the way it sounds now is that we're really going to attempt to keep them and I don't think we are. We're just going to let them go until they're done. So maybe.., not to get people's hopes up. Aanenson: We'll just clarify that. Brooks: I mean if it's really going to happen. If the farms are going away, let's just clarify it and get it over with and state it like it is in the plans for the public. Joyce: They're going to be phased out of Chanhassen. Brooks: Well it's sad but that's if that's the reality, let's say it. Conrad: We're not going to plan to keep farms here. Joyce: I understood that from the report. Brooks: Well I did and I do... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Blackowiak: Exactly. I mean it's just like, it's saying that we're going to do something but what if it changes so dramatically that we decide this is not something we can be involved in or we don't want to be involved in? I don't know. I just get so, I get worried. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 Aanenson: Well... in 1995 is in place, I think we could and that's what that says but I hear what you're saying. Is that if something else was mandated to do... Blackowiak: Yeah, I just worry about stating something so uncategorically. Aanenson: I think.., in 1995. Generous: You can change the policy and say the City will provide or promote the housing diversity. Aanenson: Yeah. We can look at that. I understand what you're saying. Blackowiak: Yeah, I don't know. I just, it just sounded very definitive and I just. Brooks: Why don't you just add a couple words in that says you know, we will participate as feasible? Blackowiak: Well, you don't even say that. I mean we plan to. I don't know. I just don't want us to lock us into something because overall like what is the policy? If we want to change the comprehensive plan. Aanenson: We amend it. Blackowiak: We amend it. Well what's the process? Aanenson: We hold a public hearing. Make a recommendation to City Council and forward it on to the Met Council. Blackowiak: So is this something I should even be worrying about or should I, I mean? Aanenson: Well I guess that's part of what I'm saying. Because as it was written in 1995 and we have... I don't see that as an issue but what I hear you saying is that if there was to be changes to it, we may not want to approve them. I think we can look at that language. You're having a problem with will. Blackowiak: Exactly. Aanenson: Okay. So I'll look at that. Blackowiak: And again, I guess if it's restricted to the... Aanenson: Or as policies are adopted by the plan, be more specific to what we've already done instead of something in the future. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 Blackowiak: Yeah. I just hate to lock us into doing something that we may not want to do and find it onerous to go and change in the future. Peterson: Other comments? Joyce: Kate, as anybody showed any, expressed an interest in the 25% bonus on the net density? Is that something, we just implemented that? Aanenson: We had it in there before. Generous: Yeah, there were no numbers in the comp plan that actually permitted that. We did discuss this with some of the developers and say you know, for multi-family, it might work for them but there's no projects going forward right now that we could really make it. Aanenson: The problem we had before the '91 plan.., density bonus but you still couldn't exceed the density range. So it really wasn't a bonus at that point so that's why we clarified it here. And you asked us to go back and say well would anybody even take that as a bonus though. Bob did follow up on that. And those people have said that it may work for them. Joyce: As hard to give you any feedback on that when you haven't at least seen something or. Aanenson: Right. We talked to three developers that have done work in this type of product and they seem to think that it was a reasonable thing to leave in there. The problem again where we had to forward it. You couldn't exceed the range. Well then it wasn't a bonus. Joyce: Okay. Conrad: ... Met Council to review... Aanenson: Well I think that's something that they want to... that we're looking at density bonuses. It was kind of before when we had someone come in we felt good if we got them down. We did our job if we knocked offa fourth of the units or something. What we're saying now is that we want to do quality development, sustainable that works. That meets the housing nitch and it is, if it does make sense and then there's an opportunity to maybe give some density bonuses. Conrad: We're asking questions now. Then we're going to have the public hearing and then we're going to go back through this. Peterson: With comments.., maybe just summarize your. As we go through with this... Conrad: The density bonuses is neat. So I'm making a, this probably should be for later on but I really like that. But I also watched, I've watched good projects and I see bad projects and you know a good project, wow. You want to give them a bonus and boy, I can take you to some. And I can also take you to some that are just awful and we don't want them here. And they would be affordable housing and we don't want them here so, so that's one of those, you've really 14 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 got to have the right standards and whatever but I think that's a neat way. If we care about affordable housing, that is the way to do it. If you care about land prices, that is the way to make affordable housing more affordable. If you care about reducing land prices per house, that's the way to do it. This is an action oriented deal to do but you've got to have control on it. And I'm not sure if the bonuses work very well for the high profile type. I don't know. Peterson: Natural resources. Questions? Comments? Conrad: It's really a, it's a great section. Peterson: Succinct and profound. Conrad: ... as good as it can get. Peterson: Move on to parks and open space. Kate, you mentioned that the.., referendum in 5 years? Aanenson: That was the Park and Rec Commission's view. They set that as... Peterson: Any idea as to what extent... Aanenson: Yeah, I think a lot of it has to do with the rate of growth now and what they are able to acquire. And if they feel like they need to get out ahead again, the rate of growth. Because their revenue stream as, is generated by building permit activity. As that wanes as we become a fully mature city, they're going to have to find another revenue stream.., so if you had a golf course or something else that's generating revenue, that's kind of what they're looking at long term. If they don't have those abilities with the permit, they may be exploring other things... Peterson: Other comments? Questions? Brooks: I really like the implementation section. I think it's very good. Particularly creating an Arts Council is a great idea. Although Ladd, your amphitheater isn't in here. But it's good. Peterson: Questions? ... Transportation. Bob went through that methodically. Tantalizing numbers. Any other comments on those? Brooks: I do. Amazingly enough. As I said quite vocally before, I am worried. I don't really understand why Trunk Highway 5 is an A minor arterial and not a principle arterial and every time I ask for an explanation, I never seem to get a good one. I would like a really good explanation. From my perspective, from the lay person's perspective, and not being a transportation planner, I see Trunk Highway 5 as our main artery. It is the main passageway where people come from the cities and go to Waconia and on and people talk about Trunk Highway 7 but it's, for Chanhassen it's such a small part. Trunk Highway 12 is such a small part and we're not getting new 212 until 2020. The new transportation bill, T-21 is going to bring in an extra $515 million into this state. However, whether that will be used at all for Trunk 15 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 Highway 212 is to be seen. So I think that the other problem that I find here that really red flagged me was the idea that Trunk Highway 5 could be turned back to the county. And I think that's pretty serious. You know, we get mm back funds and when I ask about that, I don't know if turn back funds are a one time deal to do improvements and we never get them again or we get, I don't know. We get them for a while but I would, it says in here not to mm, not to take it back. I think we should put it in like big letters. But I also think that we should really consider why Trunk Highway 5 isn't a principle arterial. And that would stop the whole mm back issue. Aanenson: Well there was a couple things on that. Maybe Bob might want to add some things but obviously the mm back would be a problem if they decide to go to six lanes because we didn't get 212. That would be a big... Then the other issue is funding sources. As long as we keep 212 as our principle collector system and we're going to... for additional funding, we wouldn't want to try to be competing with the Highway 5. That was one issue that we were thinking about... Brooks: But I would suggest that you worry about Highway 5 after you get 212. I mean if you want to fix old 212. Aanenson: No, I'm talking about new 212. Keep that as our opportunity to keep.., funding sources and direct it towards that as opposed to. Instead of six laning TH5. That would be our thought. That we focus it there instead of looking at the possibility of six laning TH5. Try to keep the energy down on acquisition and construction of 212. Brooks: But you're going to have to really keep pushing then because otherwise we're going to get a whole lot of nothing. Also, Figure 6. It says future capacity problems, assumes no 212. The way the graphic is done, there's no capacity problem between Powers Boulevard and TH41, which is a surprise to me. Because I drive that every day. I think that's just a graphic's issue. Generous: You mean on TH5? Brooks: Yeah. You see that where they have it bold and then it sort of isn't and then it's bold again. Is that just a mistake or do they think there's no... Generous: Yeah, that assumed four laning. Brooks: So I don't understand. It's four lanes all the way up to Powers, but that, they have this bolded as a potential capacity problem and then all of a sudden there's no cars and then there's cars again? I mean the graphic doesn't make sense to me. Aanenson: Well the distribution at Powers and at TH 41 would take some of that pressure off... Generous: That's what their traffic models show on there. That segment would be upgraded. Brooks: I don't know about anybody else but I find that very strange. Very, that all of a sudden you've got traffic problems again. You've got this little segment where the traffic problems go. Have you ever driven that? Ever tried to get out of Audubon Road? 16 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 Aanenson: Yeah, and a number of, in that Figure 5 there's the volume forecasting. Brooks: Well I have real trouble believing that on one small segment all of a sudden we're relieved of congestion, and it picks up again at Highway 41. But that's. Generous: Well that's because it's only two lane rest of TH41. Brooks: I still have conceptual problems. Also I did ask that SRF, the consultant take off their free advertising. I don't think our comp plan is the place for it. Oh and the, I had trouble reading the TAZ, the traffic analysis zone. That graphic was tough for me too. I hadn't, it's not very clear. It's a difficult read. Generous: The one on page 5? Brooks: The one on page 4. You can kind of see it but it's real tough. So if they could fix that, that'd be great. Peterson: Other comments? Blackowiak: I have a general question. This is probably stepping back a little bit from where Allyson was asking about. Talk to me about the road designations and what the significance is of a road designation to the city. And why they need to change some of the road designations. Why some of the suggestions to change from A to B or B to A were made and help me understand the whole. Generous: Part of it has to do with jurisdictional responsibility. The arterials are generally higher level. Higher design standards. Aanenson: Like the State would have maintenance and costs control. Then there's county. County roads. Generous: So principle arterials, those are all state. Highways and when they prioritized road projects, they get pushed back above minor arterials. Blackowiak: Okay. So Highway 5 now is State Highway 5. So how come it's not a principle arterial? Brooks: There you go. Blackowiak: But I mean seriously. It just doesn't make sense to me. And then I look and I was trying to read you know, so and such is going to change from A minor arterial to a B minor arterial and why do we care? I mean why is this happening and what impact does it have on the city? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 Aanenson: It's a fair question but you have to go way back to when 212 was put in place. That's what our comprehensive plan was built around and that was to serve as the main highway through the community. Ultimate to carry a lot of traffic so Highway 5 was not put at that function of classification. But as time has evolved, it's carried more and more traffic and because 212 hasn't been built, it's functioning different than the classification. Does that make sense? Blackowiak: Yes it does. Aanenson: Okay. Brooks: But the big issue is that the functional classification, and correct me if I'm wrong Dave, is related to funding. Blackowiak: Okay, so can we, who decides, can we say we want Highway 5 to be classified as a principle arterial? Aanenson: No. That's goes to what I was just saying before. You can do that but then what we're saying is that we're trying to put emphasis on getting money towards 212. Brooks: Well we can recommend that. Doesn't the Met Council have the ultimate decision on that? Aanenson: And MnDOT, correct. We'd just be a recommendation and that's something you want to do but again, the flip side of that would be, we want to make sure that we're not putting emphasis on making that a six lane and getting funding for that, but we're saying we want to put our emphasis on the 212 construction. We just want to make sure that's. Brooks: But if examine the cost of turning TH 5 into a six lane and if212 is going to cost I believe $200 million? What do you have a better chance of actually ending up with? Neither one are on the schedule anyway. Peterson: Or which one's better? I mean just because one is more expensive or is cheaper doesn't necessarily mean that it has.., value return. Brooks: No, but if you want to at least move the traffic better. I mean are you going to aim for something that may never happen whereas you could at least. Peterson: ... person's return. What are you placing your bets on? Brooks: Right. And you know Trunk Highway 5 is a principle arterial. It still gets federal money. And as you move away from that, you know like I say, now it's eligible for a mm back. We end up with a county road. Well then what happens if we never get 212 when we do want to upgrade it to six lanes? The cost is on us, Carver and Hennepin. Well Hennepin has the money but. Then we have to apply for ISTEA grants and then we're in competition with everybody else who wants to do the same thing. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 Aanenson: I think it's a good question that we should be. Peterson: Other questions of transportation? Brooks: You talk about commuter rail. The city supports the continuing investigation. Can you just define support a little bit? In the document. I think we should really say what we mean by supporting it. Because otherwise I went and sat through a talk today and it sounds like we could really disappear pretty quickly. Our line could be dropped because they're not, it doesn't sound like the group that's studying commuter rail is very excited about our line because there's a super fund problem in St. Louis Park so I would say, you know if we really support, if we really mean we support this, what does that entail? Peterson: Ladd, do you have a comment? Conrad: Yeah, just a question. Different places, and I can't find it. I thought the, I got real lost with transportation section. Stuff I saw over and over again and didn't know where I was at but there were two points on Highway 5 that interested me. One that said that the capacity is 45,000 cars a day. And another that said the demand at 2020 will be 47,000 cars a day. That doesn't look like a problem to me. A big issue. Generous: That's with 212. Brooks: It's our imaginary road. Conrad: That's the assumption with 2127 Aanenson: Yes. Conrad: Then just a, boy. The way it looks is, even though you said it, it's just not, it just doesn't scream at me that we have a Highway 5 problem. You said it. That we have a Highway 5 problem but it just doesn't seem like a big deal, you know which I got lost on that and I tried to read this carefully. Between words like has and other things and stuff but it just, I don't know. Brooks: Maybe what the consultant needs to do is bring out the fact that it's level of service F and really define more clearly what that means. In terms of wait times. What does level of service F mean for the public? Conrad: But it could be just as simple as Highway 5 is to the, you know.., some straight stuff and maybe it was there in graphs and charts but I couldn't sink them altogether. I just want to see that today the capacity is there and it's going to be exceeded by this. I don't care about 212. It's not going to happen. I don't want to factor 212 in because we've been told it's not going to happen for a while so there should be, I don't know where it takes us but I really want that to be so clear. That we're, it's not a highway that's going to service.., double our traffic. IF we double our 19 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 population, we'll double our traffic. And it just doesn't, it just seems like we're, I really want to make a major case before them on that highway. Blackowiak: And the thing is Ladd, it's not just the Chanhassen people who use Highway 5. I mean we're going to double our, you know what's going to happen in Victoria and what's going to happen in Waconia and what's going to happen west in terms of population increases and how is that going to impact us? I mean it could happen expediently. It's not going to just be, you know double. Conrad: You're absolutely right. You know what happens when you put stuff on paper, it's just all there and you're following a format and the key thing just doesn't fly out at you because now you've got to talk about other issues and I lose it. And maybe it doesn't count. Maybe it's not a big deal because we all know Highway 5 is a problem and we're going to solve it... Brooks: No, you have to bring it out because the Met Council's going to be reading this and it's a document for government use too so it's important. You know when you talk about doubling population, we talk about new 212 but that veers down towards Chaska and really if you look at the county projections, there's going to be a big density growth out by Waconia, which means that you know this goes back to my Trunk Highway 5 as a principle arterial argument. The growth centers and the traffic that's moving through Chan to get somewhere else is still going to stay on TH 5 even with new 212 because it's just where the housing is growing. I mean there's still going to be growth in other sections of the county but not like out to Waconia. So that, you know really sort of begs the question of is new 212 going to alleviate that much. Or should we be hedging our bets on TH 5. I have one more quick thing. You had a great section in your housing thing, page 22 where you showed action, responsibility and funding. I thought that was a really great table and I think it would be really nice to do a similar table for transportation for the projects you've listed. Aanenson: That was for the Livable Communities Act. That was specifically for that. Brooks: Where you had kind of... Aanenson: Yeah, that's our action plan for the Livable Communities Act. Brooks: Right, but I just like the idea that you have action and responsibility and funding, because like TH 101 responsibility is you know, Carver and Hennepin and you know what are the different funding sources. It's just a really nice table so you can see. Peterson: Other questions? Sewer and water. Questions, comments from the commissioners. Conrad: Good reading. Aanenson: Yeah, it's for the technical people. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 Peterson: One of the last meetings Bob you talked about how much we have available in waiting, for lack of a better adjective .... still apply to your. Generous: Availability? Peterson: Available land. That follows through 2020 5 years consistently as we build this... Generous: Yes. The 2000 expansion area, if you will, doesn't add that much. But there's a little more than 5 years built into the existing. Peterson: Is 5 years pretty much a standard across the metro area? If you say you went from 5 to 3, wouldn't that substantially change the capital investment involved? Or is it the same? Aanenson: That's a lot of what it's based on. The ability to, the city can only carry so much debt. That has a lot to do with it. We'll be bringing in the area that's got the, that we're recommending first. We've got the Arboretum that's in that area, that's in Hennepin County Regional Parks and if you look at the actual acreage, it's quite a bit smaller. But that is tied into the capital investment plan because the city, if we have to build a new lift station.., additional lines for another water reservoir or well, there is a much larger capital investment. So is there a magic in 5 years? If the economy stays strong and we were able to move faster and go back and petition and say we're out of land. It's artificially high. We'd like to bring it in faster. Could we do that and come back to you and make those recommendations? Sure. May it be slower than that? That's a possibility too. But again these are benchmarks based on what we felt was... Peterson: And part of the picture that I'm starting to see and be concerned about is, we're talking about transportation problems with that road. And the inherent cost of a transportation problem is enormous. Now moving onto the next section and talking about MUSA and having that a 5 year out, is that, are we thinking too far ahead and opening up... before the transportation system can handle it? Aanenson: That's a very, very good question and I think that's a legitimate question that I would hope that we would have gotten from the residents a long time ago. Is that maybe we don't know. Maybe we just wait. Part of that is, as Allyson pointed out, we have to look at where we are in the nation and we can say well we're not going to grow because the school district.., our property taxes, but then we have to look at the impact that we're going to be burdened.., but that's a very good question and that's certainly an option to say let's just slow down and see what happens. But then you have to look at the flip side on what it does to land prices. Peterson: That's the delicate balance... My concern is quality of life versus the quantity of people. I don't know ifI get that sense out of your natural... Aanenson: Well that's why I guess when we looked at, in the natural resources plan and again on our reflection of land use and I know.., commercial and what we are downtown, is how we see ourselves and certainly taxes is an important issue and we looked at in looking at development patterns. What we tried not to do is traditional larger, kind of what I would say more.., trying to 21 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 do clustering and saving those. A lot of moved here for natural resources and trying to be sensitive to that and again, trying to be fiscally responsible.., but that's what we tried to do. You know as we moved along, which we think we were on the right course with the 1991 plan. I think that was well founded. We've made changes and adopted things that were put in place and this is just a continuing evolution of the guided principles that we have. Peterson: Other questions and comments on this? Brooks: I think it was well written. For the public. For the most part I had an easy time reading it. I know.., transportation kind of, unless you're, you know it's written by engineers so I mean, no offense.., with that but. Aanenson: That part we did consult out. It is very technical. Brooks: It's very technical. Aanenson: I hear what you're saying. Maybe we need to look at trying to make it a little bit more user friendly. Conrad: ... I read that report and I couldn't figure out why I was reading, you know what are you telling me now? And then, a lot of read time trying to figure it out. Aanenson: And that's why the sewer and water, that part.., same sort of issue. It would have been very technical and we can work on that. Peterson: Capital improvements.., how did these numbers... Aanenson: I'll let Bob answer that... Generous: The majority was based on our phasing plan. The MUSA expansion and when the study that was done for the traffic, sewer and water and you just put them altogether. The only thing that was sort of put in there differently was a community facility and the city hall expansion and library and the City Manager put that number in there. Looking at trying to space things over time so the city could afford it. Peterson: ... 2002. Generous: $1.5 million. The $10 million was the community facility I believe for parks. Which could be... Peterson: On the park and rec side I see the community center for $10 million in 2002. Aanenson: That hasn't been defined exactly.., could be a lot of difl'erent things. When you're shooting that far out it's still a wish list. We have to look at this annually but we try to project out ultimately... 22 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 Joyce: What's the public works expansion... Generous: That would be the maintenance facility. Expanding that. Aanenson: Public works. Generous: For the trucks. The snowplows. Aanenson: Public works. Where they house all that equipment which is currently out on... Peterson: Why don't you speak to the library just a little bit.., changed from our last meeting. Aanenson: Yeah, it hasn't changed. Again it was put in the City Hall expansion that was done a few years ago. It was designed to be incorporated with that. It was pulled out by the City Council in a cost cutting effort... AT that time it was pulled out. The number wasn't arrived at by planning stafl~ It was really given from administration where that number would be put in play. Again, looking at... as far as all the other services and again, how much debt can you carry projecting those numbers out. Does that mean that it can't be shifted around? Ultimately it's going to be a decision by the City Council who adopt that. They did a long range plan but every year they're going to have to go back and re-evaluate. There may be something that becomes an urgent need where we projected that.., urgent need. A well goes out or something like that. But that's where it's put in place right now. Certainly the Council makes, ultimately make their decision on... Peterson: Other questions or comments... A lot of input. This is open for a public hearing. Can I have a motion to do the same and a second please. Joyce moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Mary Heiges: Good evening. My name is Mary Heiges. I'm the Director of the Carver County Library system. I live in Chaska. I have been the Director of the Carver County Library system for 20 years and August 1 I will be retiring from that position. When I came to Carver County in 1978 there was no Chanhassen library. For those of you who have been around that long. One of the first tasks that I was given was to get a Chanhassen library established in this city. We did that by convincing the Council to take over the old Village Hall and put in what I called a demonstration library. That demonstration library would be there until the city had a referendum which they had in 1981. And I think you know the history of that. We think, and we have been told also by the city staff and the community that it was the library that put that referendum over in 1981. That's we opened in '81 in this room right next door. We had asked for 3,000 square foot library, which in 1981 that would have been fine. We received 2,300 when some cutbacks had to 23 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 be made. So then we started working on trying to get a larger library for the community. For the city. But we also had other, four other cities in this county who are also growing. Also making the decision. Having planning commission meetings. Having City Council meetings. What would they do with their individual libraries? All of them were small and they were very small towns. I live in Chaska. So we tried to work with all of the cities and that was my job. Working with city stafl~ With Council and planning commissions. There were a lot of accomplishments made with those cities in that they really put some priorities onto their quality of life which they considered libraries to be primo. For instance the little town of Watertown. Very small, as you know Watertown. Indebted themselves and built a City Hall library about two years ago and it's bigger than the Chanhassen library is now. And that's even with the addition that we received in 1989 when we thought we would have the whole down, first floor. The senior center of course took part of it and we received 700 square feet. So that brought us up to where we should be in 1981. So we rearranged everything. Put in new carpeting. Tried to really make it as convenient and workable, both for the staff and for the community. And I think we did that pretty well. Even as the community was growing, people really made wonderful comments to our staff2 We tried to build the staff up with a lot of education and all this time the County's putting in thousands and thousands of dollars into that facility. Both in staff and materials and computers and intemet access and equipment. Last year we got another 200 square feet. So now we're almost up to the size of Watertown's new library but we're not quite there yet with Chanhassen. Chaska, the most our main library of course, built in the building in 1988. And had a 10 year plan that they would expand that library in 1998. And that's what they're doing this year. They will receive another 5,000 square feet onto that library next year. Or our plan's for next year. It will probably be... And then we've got Norwood-Young America. Used to be a little town, split town... Got an old bank building given to them. We remodeled it. That library is larger than Chanhassen. The library in Norwood-Young America is not that size of a community. And lately, the most recently was Waconia. Another small town but growing. A lot of growing pains. A lot of infrastructure pains, just like all of our other five cities. They're going to be building in a building or remodeling a new library next year, 1999. So that leaves us with Chanhassen again. And it leaves me leaving with a disappointment. I thought that when I left there would be a new Chanhassen library. I've worked with the staff2 In '92 we were so close to getting a separate building. We could almost taste it. And that didn't happen. And now I feel the comprehensive plan that you have before you tonight, that the city staff I understand put in a new library facility in 2005. 6 1/2 years from now. 6 1/2 years. The library that we have, that we've added hours to. That we've added staff to. Is going to be in the same place for 6 1/2 more years. Same space. Libraries are not going to go out of business. The materials are not going to go away. People are not going to give up reading books. Every study that you read, it's saying the same thing. Every book store that goes up and is doing millions of dollars of business, is saying the intemet and the computers are generating more people, more reading, more books. So the books are not going to go away. And yet we have no place to house them. Particularly in this town. So I'm here before you tonight as my swan song, and my last shot at it shall we say, to ask you to recommend to the Council that you change the 2005 year downward to at least planning in 2000 with construction and completion in 2001. That this library in Chanhassen now be an adequate library for the city of this size. For the people who are moving in. That are demanding service from us next door of 15,000 square feet. That will take us into the millennium and we won't be back here every council meeting. Every planning, begging and trying to get whatever is left over or a couple 24 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 hundred more feet, whatever the city or the senior center for some congregate dining. The Chanhassen library is now the smallest library next to Waconia. Waconia's going next year. And then Chanhassen will be the smallest library in this county. So I ask you to make that recommendation to the City Council. It's kind of an impassioned plea I might say because I've spent my life in libraries. And I'm going to continue living in Carver County and I would like to come over once in a while and use this library, even though I live in Chaska. I think it's a good library and the stafl~ I can only say has worked their bodies off to try and give good service, and I'm saying that... They've done their very best but you're really hampering them by having such a small facility. A facility that's no longer accessible for some people. That you can't do the programs. The children's programs. The various book clubs that we've got going on. There's no room for it. We have no room to put one more item in there. We've rearranged several times. We have tried to keep up with the American's with Disability Act requirements. We can't put anything more in there. What you see is what you're going to get for 6 1/2 more years. So that's my comments tonight. I'll be watching after I retire and hope that your recommendations to the Council are positive and favorable and that the last library, the first library that I started will have a new expansion or new building sooner than 2005. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Carmen McMeen: Good evening. My name is Carmen McMeen. I live at 9391 Foxford Road. I have been a resident of Chanhassen for the past 5 years and I applaud you. I think you've done a wonderful job. I think you've really captured a lot of the residents' feelings about this city and a major reason why we moved out here. I've had friends come and visit and they comment on the peaceful nature and the calming effect that it has on them and I attribute that a lot to the natural resources and the park and recreation and the wonderful job we've done with that but, I'm here tonight, I'm implore you for some balance. When I look at this plan and I'm fully supportive of the park and recreation. I've got two children playing ball right now. But $24 million being allocated towards park and recreation between now and the year 2005 and $1.5 million allocated towards a new library. We need balance. Human beings need balance. You have a physical side, an intellectual side, a spiritual side. And I can't address spiritual side. I think you've done a fabulous job of addressing the physical side. But we're not making the commitment to life long learning with this plan. It's not in there. I have written letters to the City Council. I came on a very cold night in December in support of the Library committee because I think this is a really critical issue to our community. Being a young community. A growing community. I was embarrassed for us. My first grader wanted to do a report on jaguars. One article. That's embarrassing. I have a child going into middle school. I spent many, many days and nights and weekends in the Southdale library chasing after my education and to make the best out of my projects when I was in middle school and high school. I have a child going into third grade. That young reader back there. You probably heard her playing, but we are a growing community and our needs are growing and we definitely need to support our people with life long education. I'm glad to see Kelly VonDeBur in the audience as well because she's responsible for our school district. I can guarantee you there was not a single concerned parent that didn't rip open their paper this past week to take a look at how District 112 compared to the rest of our neighbors in education. We demand the highest of our schools and our teachers. We demand it. Where's the support from the community. Our library is completely, it's not effective. How can we sit there 25 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 and demand all these things from our school board and our teachers and our education system when we are unwilling to make the most basic investment in lifelong learning, and that's an adequate library system. I've been following this for one year and we're where we were at with the $1.5 million dollars. I implore you to make this a critical issue. I would like to see us perhaps step out of the box a little bit. We've got some wonderful, wonderful attributes in this community with the revitalization of the downtown area. With the Arboretum. I have paid attention to some different libraries and different systems. I've been to the Roseville library and seen what they've been able to do with the private industry and putting a big Starbucks in. I think that there's so many things that we can do to really make this a premiere attraction and a beneficial part of our community, but we need the support. We need the support of the planning committee to suggest it to our city council. I thank you very much for your time. Jill Shipley: I'm Jill Shipley, 261 Eastwood Court in Chanhassen. Representative for the Carver County Library Board. You talked, Kate you opened up the session talking about the '91 comprehensive plan. The library was addressed in that comprehensive plan, and it's one of the view few things that we've not resolved yet. In the plan it says, Chanhassen would continue to cooperate with the Carver County Library system to give library services to the community. The city will work with the county to provide a new library location in Chanhassen when space needs exceed availability of room in the City Hall expansion. We reached that point in 1991. You know when we got started we hired a consultant who evaluated five different sites in the city. He put together you know what would be the best spot. The best spot has a wonderful grocery store sitting on it right now. And we're not going to be able to use that site. We did drawings. We projected what this place would look like. We've got a library here of 20,000 square feet in this drawing. And this one's 19,600 square feet. That was in '92-93. It just saddens me. It just amazes me. It frustrates me that we've gone so far backwards in these years. Now I've met with you before. I presented a lot of statistics and data to you. I've shown you graphs about the usage of the library and how that has grown over the years. I've given you information about how our citizens view the library. You have information in your comp plan about how our citizens love t the park and recreation. 80% of them approve and love what we're giving them in park and recreation. Well only 30% of our residents approve of what we're offering in library services. That's a huge majority that we are not pleasing or reaching. And as I mentioned before historically, the library is the most revered, most trusted, most respected government institution there is. We're missing a tremendous opportunity to generate good support, good will, positive feelings about our city in this regard. I would like to know if any of you have any questions of me or any other data or information that you need before you seriously consider this issue. And you know that I'm asking you to make a strong recommendation to Council that we move this up to the year 2000 in the plan. And budget it at about $2.5 million. The $1.5 million that it shows now is not just the library expansion. That's City Hall expansion. That's the new Council chambers. I'm scared to figure out how much of it would go to the library. We don't know. It might be $500,000.00 and that's very, very inadequate. Are there any questions for me as your representative or anything that you need answered. Peterson: You mentioned the $2.5 million. That equates to how many square feet? 15,0007 26 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 Jill Shipley: That would be about 15,000 square foot library and would also allow for about 2,000 square feet for administrative purposes. It's the goal of the library board to move administration into Chanhassen and make this more of our regional center instead of Chaska. And we pulled the figures from the Savage library that just opened up in September of this year. That's how much it cost them and they did exactly the same thing. Again, this is a minimum. A minimum standard of what we need. There is a lot of opportunity available there to build more of a regional center, although I heard you say tonight that you don't anticipate this really being a regional center or area. I felt with the Byerly's and the Target that we were drawing people in from all over the county. For that reason we could really justify doing an even larger regional library here. But it's premature to discuss what we're going to build. We have to make the decision to start planning to build. Brooks: Do you have any proposed sites? Is there anywhere left in Chanhassen to build? Jill Shipley: There's one site, the old Pauly's site. It's only 1.2 acres. It was, there were some negatives to that site when the consultants evaluated it in '92 and that said it would probably only accommodate about a 12,000 square foot facility. With no room for expansion. I'm not sure, another site that was looked at is called Bowling Alley Drive between West 78th and Great Plains Boulevard. Now is that the Frontier Building that's being redone now? Aanenson: ... additional property. Jill Shipley: That was looked at as well. West 79th Street. I don't know if that that's little plot of land between Applebee's and the bank. Again, that's a real small site. It's 1.2 acres and it will not allow accessibility. These drawings show the library being extended out over Coulter into the City Center Park. Again this is something that would need to be addressed by planning commission or a task force. You know what do we build and where do we build it? But we've got to get to that process first and that's where I urge you to strongly recommend that we start addressing the process. Peterson: Thank you. Kelly VonDeBur: Good evening. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you. My name is Kelly VonDeBur and I'm the School Board chair for District 112. Our district has had a brief time to review the comprehensive plan and of course our concern is with the growth that you are projecting. A majority of that is residential homes and with those homes of course comes children. Our district is planning in the future already that we need more schools. We do work with four other cities, Carver, Victoria, Chaska and of course Chanhassen and in our part of the school district.., is planning on doubling. Our concern of course is in your plan there is no land that is identified for school use. In working with the City of Chaska, they also are planning on doubling and we are trying to work with them in looking for possibilities for land that will be identified for schools. Our district's philosophy has been a neighborhood elementary school and as you know that the two elementary schools in Chan currently are to capacity. We are working with the City of Victoria. We tried to acquire land out there. Hopefully we can secure something 27 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 along those lines to guarantee a neighborhood school for Victoria. In your land use we kind of looked at south of 212 might be an ideal spot. Aanenson: Can I get clarification? We called your very early in the process, the school district office to see if additional school sites were needed and we were told that another elementary school.., would not be built in Chanhassen. We were given that direction so that's why we did not include it so. Kelly VonDeBur: It was a surprise to us when we read it in the comprehensive plan. Aanenson: Well because we called very early in the process and it clearly we stated our comprehensive plan that another would not be built so that's the intent. Because we called right away to see.., and we were told that the next school would only take place in Victoria. There would never be another one built in Chanhassen. We can get to who we talked to. Kelly VonDeBur: Yeah, and we would like to work with, because in the letter that I'm going to present to the commissioners, in addition to an elementary school, we foresee an additional for a secondary schools, middle schools and high schools. As our community continues to grow, we as a district have to decide on whether or not we're going to double the high school to put more kids in there or do we want to have a two high school district and that's part of our big plan. And probably if you had talked to the school district, you know we kind of go in little bits of plans. We've tried to address the growth as it comes, just to be responsible to our taxpayers and perhaps because your plan goes out to 2020, that's what... Aanenson: Yeah, well I guess that's why we called because in 1991 we made a decision to provide some land to... and we gave the ultimate population... Kelly VonDeBur: Yeah, and I don't think our district plans on this growth either. I think Bluff Creek we kind of said would take care of a lot of that, those needs too but as we see you going south, and that's still in our school district, and Chaska's coming over, there's an opportunity. We just wanted to be able to keep those options open. I know in Victoria, you know as the clock ticks we lose land opportunities. Chaska has a majority of our buildings in their cities and they're losing lots also. And of course our concern also is with the commercial opportunities for the tax burdens too. As we grow and build buildings, we need for the taxpayers and ask them to increase their property taxes and with the portion of commercial base in Chanhassen... the homeowners and their property taxes, even though the city is planning on keeping theirs steady, the only way we can build is by going to the taxpayers and of course the tax total property tax will keep going up even though it's not the city's part. But so that's a concern that we have also. It's in my letter, summarized and basically the two comments that I'd like to make is that we recommend that somehow find some land use for schools. We can't identify of course I'm sorry you know what they're going to be and we also recommend that future commercial and industrial land use is planned to help increase the burden on the homeowners. We do have a collaborative government collaborative that we have been meeting regularly. It's with the county, the four cities within our school district. It's with the Arboretum and we have put together some wonderful opportunities to collaborate on different governmental bodies. I don't know if you've read anything about the 28 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 Victoria project but we first saw a county, city and a school district kind of collaborative so we're taking all.., opportunities here too that we can all get together and do some really wonderful things and the library's been part of that discussion too and it'd be a wonderful opportunity to combine a school and you know a library or something like that so. I can give you those letters and I encourage you, if there's any more information that you would need of us, we have all our population projections and stuff like that that we'd be happy to provide that with you or meet with you even further and kind of go over some of the issues too. So thank you for the opportunity. I also included our district map because.., where our buildings are. Vemelle Clayton: Good evening. I'm Vemelle Clayton. I live here in Chanhassen and I just want to make a couple of points. I came here to make only one and as always you get caught up in things and you think of other things to say. I kind of want to tie everything that I'm going to say with a sort of theme song that I have, that I express from time to time but I think probably not often enough and that is that I believe that the City needs a policy that is strictly adhered to that states that whenever anything is done that affects land use, it must be accompanied by an economic impact study. That will take some time. I think we have the folks that can do it. It's not easy but I think there are some formats that can be put together so that we can get a really, realistic evaluation of what the impact is. Whether it's measuring taxes or whatever but every change in land use impacts our economy. We're planning something here and there are a lot of comments that you're gearing it towards and I don't mean to sound that this is the only thing you're thinking of but we are definitely thinking in this document of it's approval by the Met Council. Various other governmental units. But guess what? We're going to be living under it so I think everything needs to be looked at from the Chanhassen community's perspective. The residents, how it affects our quality of life. There is something, although I have to say that although I have, feel that I can take the opportunity to talk to you about this, I have not read all of it. I do wonder though if there is a repeat of something that I think is very important that was continued in the 1991 comp plan which was, as I think you all agree at that time, very well thought out. Many of the things that they predicted and projected came through right on target. In that comp plan it says the comprehensive plan goal is to provide a mixture of developments assuring a high quality of life and a reliable tax base. I don't see, I haven't seen in what I've looked at, much in this on a passion for a reliable tax base. We have in Chanhassen as passion for parks. We have a commitment to parks. We have a passion for open space. A passion for wetlands. In the process though of putting together all of that, we have not accompanied our studies and our decisions with how it impacts our city economically. Now we're doing a comprehensive plan and I want to go back to a reference that was contained in the staff report when we did, I forget what the actual motion. We were speaking from the Council but it was a change in the guide of use. We had to come in for a change in the comp plan and what staff report said at that time was, based on staff review of other communities, it appears that the comprehensive plan has an insufficient amount of commercial land at the current rate of approximately 2% of the land area. A reasonable goal may be to provide between 3% and 5% commercial land area at build out, which represents approximately 400 to 600 acres of commercial land. Based on the discussions that I've heard tonight, we are barely at the low end of that at 3%. At the same time as that, those meetings were going on, we, in preparing for those meetings, obtained information from both the urban land institute and the American Planners Association, both of which recommended 7.8%. Attached to the same report by staff was a 29 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 survey of communities under 100,000 and in that the average for those communities on the page that listed them was 7%. I think we have a very serious problem here. We are, we cannot be, a few years ago, let me just say, there were those among us who said well gee, we really like our little downtown and we do. And there are a lot of people who have worked to make sure that we have a nice downtown. One of those people is in this room tonight. But there were probably only a half dozen people that really made it come about. We do want to protect it but we need to expand it. We must expand it. As a part of the building it and moving people in, people that we like to see, shopkeepers, we have gone from a regional draw that was only the Dinner Theater to, and let me interrupt myself. I started to say a few years ago we started.., community but we didn't want to be a regional draw. But we have become, the same people that say we don't want to be a regional draw say gee guys, they know that we work with you guys. Couldn't you work on getting a Gap or somebody out here. We really need a Gap or something like that out here. The same people say that. They want to be a regional draw. We can't become a 34,000 person community, have the amount of commercial that we need to keep our tax base reasonable without being some type of regional draw. It just can't be done. There's only so many, there are only so many little dry cleaners and little pizza places and little things that are strip center oriented, that you can have and it will not, you can't have 7% of those. Since the Dinner Theater was here and since we've had this dialogue that we really don't want to be a regional draw, we have brought in Byerly's, Target, major medical facilities, the Atrium... hotels, Applebee's and Houlihan's. All of whom cannot succeed without a regional draw. We are a regional trade area. We're a nice regional trade area. And we need to have a plan so we can continue to collect the taxes that will support the library and support the new schools. Support the, pay for the parks. Pay for the maintenance. Pay for the maintenance of the wetlands. Or we will not have a very good quality of life in Chanhassen. So it speaks the quality of life and I think we need to take a good hard look at where we're going. I thank you for your time. Brad Johnson: I'm Brad Johnson. I live at 7425 Frontier Trail. I'm here tonight because I... I appreciate the efforts of... comprehensive plan.., and for your information I'm part of the Southwest Coalition and Transportation. On the 212, on the Board of Directors of the 212... I'm on the School Board. I'm a member of the... I'm a resident and we have so far developed, or are in the process of developing for your community well over $100 million in property that's paid by the.., for what's probably going to happen. I think the school district pointed out to you that if we do in fact plan on doubling our population, chances are, especially the single family homes, we're going to double the number of kids that we have. Most of us have kids that are out here. I'm here because the schools.., that's why we live here. The kids can walk to school.., the balance goes for transportation, core services and.., and that is to shift the tax burden from industries to single family homes. If you realize it, or if you don't realize it, recently all of your previous... referendums were based on tax capacity and the typical tax capacity at that time, in 1992, the tax capacity of an industrial, retail, commercial was, say in a round number, three times and four times the tax capacity of the single family home. So the voters said let's tax you know industry and all the referendum.., do that kind of stuff based upon tax capacity. The legislature over the last 5 years has shifted all that to market value, which means that industrial properties is a 1:1 ratio instead of a 3:1 ratio. The second thing that happens then is that as you go out, most of the costs of growth of schools, and human resources is going to be bom by the single family house unless you have a large commercial tax base. When you talk about quality of life, you can talk 30 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 about farms and what we see and not the... I'm just saying put this all in perspective... The thing that, if you look at a community that has a low tax base and high, low tax base and good schools, generally has a high commercial tax base. Okay... In Edina, people are happy living on a 50 x 150 lot. It's a very nice neighborhood down there and the homes sell for, on those kind of lots, for about $500,000.00. Because they have good schools, low taxes. If any of you have ever bought a house and compared the taxes... Edina... Bloomington. Now Dave Peterson was going to mention that we are, at the school district, a poor district... We're a poor district. We have to import money from outside the city of Chanhassen to support our schools. And you're going to hear a lot over time that we spend $1,000.00 to $2,000.00 less, if you can believe it, than Hopkins, Edina, and Minnetonka. The reason we do that is we can't raise the money. I wouldn't pay the taxes. My taxes are high. So as I said, as you look at the plan, I think Vemelle was kind of saying that you have to look at the economic impact of what you do. You have to look out in the future and ask what will this tax base.., as we development some, the only resource we have as a city to increase our tax base is to develop the land... A new thought is that 30% of the tax base is the industrial. 30% of, that's just tax base. That doesn't mean land too. There's a difference between tax base, so that's where the state is leading the whole new state policy of 30% for the single family homes that lowers your tax base and 30% multi-family. Now that's where they're going by all these shifts that they've done and what they're doing, as I've said, right or wrong. They're shifting your tax base to the single family homes. Industry wants it there because if you raise taxes, they don't want to have to pay for schools. They don't want to have to necessarily pay for all the parks and things they don't ever use... Currently in your current plan, now you have 1% commercial, as Vemelle said. 3, 4, 5, which we recommended. You've got 1% for multi-family, high density. 1%. The most efficient housing you have is high density, multi-family. It uses less of your resources. Uses less roads. It uses less of everything when it comes to the dollar. So we're saying that.., aren't they Dave, is lateral. The cost for roads, sewer, water. They run in lengths. The longer they are, the more they cost. Your density allowance to... The density in those two units is... 29 units per acre, as far as I know, and I believe our Heritage is at 22 or 23 units per acre. So if you look at high density, the common high density, realistic, upscale apartment complex is about 20 units per acre. And we've looked at a number of them. And I'm not saying, these are not, by the way I'm not saying what to do. I'm just giving you some.., and I plan to write all this stuff down. The other thing is that as a rule, Eden Prairie has 35,000 employees. 35,000 people. Chaska's goal is 9,000 households, 5,000 employees. About a 1 to 2 ratio. Our target is about a third of that. In other words we're looking for 10,000 jobs, 25,000 people. I don't, what you could say is let's have 20,000 jobs, but that's not what is in your plan. And to get 20,000 jobs you're going to have to be proactive. You have to have a plan. We have a corridor called 212 that I personally think will happen because there's a ton of people working on it. I've been at it for 10 years myself so, but I personally think it will happen. If it doesn't happen, and you're right about Highway 5. With, we just had a meeting. The County, as you prepare your transportation plan, I would certainly integrate it with the County but they're not ready. They'll be ready in two months. They have a whole new, comprehensive plan which simply says Highway 5 will always be clogged. Okay, you know. That's part of life. If you look at Chanhassen, how do you get out of Chanhassen? You either go by Highway 7 or you come down Highway 5 or that corridor, and we realize Highway 212... What would that cost us, the County to upgrade that to four lane? It'd be expensive, right? And that's the only way out so we have to kind of deal with those kind of issues. Highway 212 31 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 currently, I visited with MnDOT lately. The current theory behind the development of corridors like that, which they're redoing in Richfield. There was a good article in the paper the other day. They had ring road concept. You don't necessarily have a lot of access points on a major highway. You have 1 or 2 and then you ring that with a high service road like they're doing in Richfield. Now to do what Richfield and Bloomington is talking would cost you a fortune, because they have to go back and recoup, and that corridor could be an ideal location for office... To get our industrial built out there, which we have sufficient land today.., because we don't have any transportation. People just don't want to come out here. Because they can't get their employees to drive on Highway 5 and it's a real interesting problem. With the new addition of Highway 5, we're going to eliminate three stop lights. So we don't have to stop now until you get to Highway 4, but that's going to be very painful for the next 3 to 4 years. So I would say if you look at your corridor of the Highway 212 corridor, those.., think tank and MnDOT is saying about that, that is your highest and best use value land. And I would set aside.., for office. That's where your commercial can be. I'm not talking retail. I'm just talking retail. Brooks: 212 isn't on mandate's plans for 20 years. Brad Johnson: Then don't use the land until then. Just zone it... Okay, because that's your highest and best use land. Now you don't have to listen to me. Okay. Right now there's a movement afoot to see that Highway 5 happens in the year 2005 so the completion of Highway 5 to Highway 4 is going to create a tremendous problem... And we'll be back with... But all I'm saying is those are ideas. You've heard about the library. Things that probably are not proactive. I have no use, no interest other than I'm on the Highway 212. I am concerned about your tax base. I am concerned about your schools. And I know you're all.., but there's some magic numbers...jobs per household. Tax base issues. What is your future tax base? What is the reaction? Victoria has stopped all growth until they understand totally every move they make from an economic point of view. Because they're so frighten.., all that kind of stuff that they don't have... Thank you for your time. I'll write this down... Peterson: Thank you. Other questions, comments? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second please? Conrad moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Well. I think we've, as I stated earlier, I think we've taken each of these sections and probably summarized most of the thoughts that we had individually. I'll go around now and ask for any other summary comments that each of you may have and... LuAnn, anything you would like to add or... discussed already or brought up in the public hearing? Sidney: Well I think I'd like to make a comment about the request for improving the Chanhassen library.., asset to this community and I'd like to see something done, and I don't know what formula it would be... library. I don't know what that means. Possibly building a primary location.., but I do agree that it's an important asset for the community. It's an important... Villages on the Pond. A place for people to get together.., amphitheater but something where people can talk and get to know each other. So I guess I'11... 32 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 Peterson: Kevin. Joyce: Discussing the library aspect, you know I tried to find a down side to all of it... library would be a good idea. I learned the word cohort in the demographics. The two demographics as far as that, the largest is at 39 to 44. The second largest is 0 to 5 so there's a lot of kids that are in our community right now. Libraries and kids I think are a good combination. So I think, what I'd like to direct the City Council to do is to make a stand on this. Either say this is, we're going to plan this out and we're going to do it or not .... why not they plan to do it. But I think it's an issue. I think they have to, I think right now we're kind of in a gray area where we have I guess an allocation of funds six years from now and why is it six years from now? And I don't think anybody really knows. So they either have to decide to reallocate funds and explain, and do that or explain why they won't so I think I'm sure they will, because people, if they're interested in the library, they're going to come out full force and make them come up with some answers. So yeah, I think a library would be nice.., but as far as the comprehensive plan. You know we got 7, 8, yeah 7 sections and the only one that I, the only part that I was nervous about, or kind of concerned about is what Brad and Vemelle was talking about. Was that commercial aspect and I just think it's something that has to be addressed. I don't think that we have to go through, I think 1% is one extreme and 7% is the other extreme on commercial. I think there could be a median there so I think we're going to delegate some sort of land for that. I want to preserve the downtown. I really don't want to live in Eden Prairie. I don't want to live in Bloomington. You know I live in Chanhassen. I kind of like what Chanhassen has, but we have to pay for it and I'm willing to pay for it to a point but yeah. I think commercial, I think we're.., what we've got and I don't know if we can push this comprehensive plan draft forward without it. I'd like to hear what the other commissioners say. I've got to leave in 5 minutes.., but that's my discussion on it. I think that's, if there's a burning issue in this, I think that that's really something that the City Council has to, before they pass this through, they've got to get their arms around that and be comfortable with it. That's all. I mean I could see tabling this for, step back for a second just on that issue but I could present this forward to City Council if everyone else felt comfortable with it. Peterson: Alison. Blackowiak: Yeah, look at those three issues that we heard about in the public hearing. The library. I certainly agree that something has to be done. I think that the City Council does need to take a stand, like Kevin said. They have to decide what's going to happen and when it can happen. I don't think that right now, I mean we're looking at combining it with City Hall, that we're getting the best possible use. I think we're cutting offa lot of potential opportunities. I think the library could be looked at, viewed as a stand alone issue. A building that stands alone. Not necessarily as a part of City Hall. I had conversations with Jill and I said I think a lot of people have a problem with seeing City Hall expansion. I think a lot of people would have less problem with building a library. I think when you combine the two that you get some resistance. I think by itself it might have a better chance of moving forward and that's my personal opinion. But I do think it has to be a separate issue. There could be some juggling but again that's City Council's job. It's not our job to juggle funds. I think they need to take a look, hard look at it and decide where the money can come from. You know could it be part of the community 33 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 center? You know could it be a stand alone building? Could some of the capital improvement items, line items that are in there now be pushed out and the library moved forward? I don't know, and again that's City Council's job. So I hope they take a good look at that. After District 112, I was surprised to hear that they might want a school within our boundaries. I thought you chin was on the floor Kate. Aanenson: We had communication with them several times. I'm shocked. I didn't... Blackowiak: Yeah, so that was a real surprise to me because it was always my opinion that Chanhassen has it's two elementary schools. There was never going to be second high school and that's just kind of how it was. So it was rather interesting to hear that. I don't know if you want to, if we need to see it again. I mean this.., issue now and I'll talk a little bit about commercial but, there are opportunities I think for public space down south. By 212 or the potential 212 that maybe it's appropriate for a school so I don't know if we need to see it again at the Planning Commission but it certainly needs to be... needs to be addressed in the comprehensive plan in order to take care of that. Finally about the commercial base. It is a big issue. We certainly need to take a... go ahead and do it now. One idea that came to me when I was listening to comments was, some type of a staging of commercial, similar to what we do in the MUSA. For example, we have a downtown. I think the downtown needs to be preserved. I think we have to make sure that that is a vibrant, going concern. We've got Villages which has another retail area. Okay, fine. Fill that up. Build that out. Then come and talk to me. Show me that you've got another area that might be a potential. You know and I'll look at area by area but I don't think, I think it would be premature for us to open everything up to commercial, just like it would be premature to totally open up the whole city to MUSA. We have to do it slowly, in stages. Making sure things are taken care of in an orderly fashion. I guess that's, those are my comments about the public hearing portion and overall I don't know if we need to see it again. I would be comfortable sending it forward with comments. I don't know what would come from two more weeks of review by us. So I will go either way. Peterson: Allyson. Brooks: Well I support the idea that Chanhassen needs a library. I mean I said it before. We spend a lot of time worrying about being able to exercise on trails and then we don't worry about our minds. It's a balance issue that was talked about. I would recommend that we think about possibly putting forward a motion to a minimum ask the City Council to put forward a task force to look into the issue. And do things that way. I don't know if any of you are interested in doing that tonight but that maybe would force their hand a little bit. I mean they may, that's what may be needed right now is a task force to get going to look at building a new library, and I agree with Alison. It would probably be best as it's own space. But if we want to have a premiere school system, then we'd better have a premiere library to go with it. The commercial issue. I understand the need for more commercial zoning. On the other hand my quandary is if we rezone, then we may have to rezone areas that are going to take away from our downtown and I think everyone has worked really hard to get a downtown for Chanhassen. The 212 corridor, until I see a program, I don't believe it. I mean I think that's great that we want to, I don't think zoning commercial down at 212 is going to force anybody's hand to do 212 and all you're going to do is 34 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 take away from the commercial area that we have here. So I don't, you know I guess my issue on the commercial is, I think the way we have things zoned should be fine. And for transportation, again as I said before, I really think we should consider Trunk Highway 5 as a principle arterial and force the issue. I mean maybe by going and saying look, we want six lanes on Trunk Highway 5 and that's the end of the story, it will force people to come out here and revisit and sort of come at it sort of reverse psychology. Other than that I thought the comprehensive plan was well written, except I agree with Ladd. The transportation part probably needs to be less technical and the advertisements need to go away. But I agree with Alison. I don't think we need to table it. I think we could put it forward with comments. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: Here we go. Well this is a big deal. I've gone through these before. This is sort of final. In other years you do it, we say well, we'll do it in 10 years because we haven't filled up. So the important thing that we do here, this is more important than any of the previous 23 meetings. Combined. Because what you're doing is you're forecasting where you're going. It's the most important thing you can tell future people that are moving here. Future companies that are considering coming here. It's not let's wait and do something later on. That's what makes them mad. So the plan is really the forecast and once, right or wrong, it's the thing that we're doing right. It's telling people what we are doing and if they don't want to move here, fine. We told them what we're doing. But this seems sort of final. And we can revise it, but it's hard to revise. It's extremely difficult to revise. I'm real disappointed. I'm extremely pleased with the comments we got tonight. Good comments. Just great. ON the other hand, the publicity we got from the Villager for this is non-existent and they did do some things before but unfortunately this is the lowest turnout I've ever seen by a significant amount and we're filling up Chanhassen. This is our plan to build out the city. It's done. It's over folks. And again that's sort of an over statement but it's 2020. IfI saw 2010 on here, we could pass this thing through because we've had 10 years to make up for any mistakes.., forecast not that far. You can't do it in private industry. I don't know how we can do it here but it does say 2020 plan. So again I'm real disappointed in our community participation. It's like they don't care. But we also didn't do a very good job getting the word out through the Villager. I think we should have made a, there's something we should be doing and I'm not exactly sure what I want to do. One it's easier without people here. It's easier to make things happen the way we want it. But on the other hand, this is their chance to participate in the community and that's so important. I'm rambling a little bit but one, that was important. The transportation section is redundant. We said that. I think we should take a good look at the library. I don't know how it's funded. I don't know where the money's coming from. I don't know if it's all city support or county. I think we should look at that. I think a case was made pretty well. The point is not whether, a part of the land use plan, I like how it looks. It makes a lot of sense. Yet it doesn't look to me like it's generating the revenue that we thought, that it probably should and I have said that a long so I don't think I'm saying a new signal here. I couldn't let this go. I think the City Council has to make a decision and I don't think I need to send up the whole comprehensive plan to them right now. I think there should be a special meeting where we go in with them and we say folks. Here's what it looks like to us. And maybe the staff makes some, you know I made some global statements that are obviously wrong tonight but I certainly think, I need to know what the implications are in terms of our tax base. I 35 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 just need to know that. Otherwise I don't, I couldn't approve this at all. To say it looks good. It's pretty on paper and we put the right things next to each other. That's great and we did yet on the other hand, I don't have a clue if it can support double the population. I just don't and I think somebody's got to buy off on that, that we don't care. Or we're willing to say, residents are going to pay for it. The urgency in the transportation, the urgency for Highway 5 I think is a big deal. It's got to be promoted. But I'11, not only promoted but highlighted in this. It's just got to be make or break. It's a big, it's a major issue in there. Now I'm going to give you two zingers here. Number one, I won't vote for it if somebody makes a motion tonight. I think we should really work with the City Council simply on the tax implications on this so if they feel that they're comfortable with it and city staff can give a good reason that it will be kind of close to generating the revenue that we may need for 34,000 people, then that's okay. I'll go with it. Number two. We're really bad in terms of developing sense of community in this city. Take a look around us and this is my pet little deal. You know where I'm going on this. Excelsior for as impoverished a city as they are, at least they have a downtown park with an amphitheater. You go to Chaska. At least they have a downtown park with a community center. You go to Eden Prairie. At least they have an amphitheater built into the side of the hill where they can do more than play sports. We don't have a public library that's really up to speed. We really don't, we're really not looking at what the community is, this is a build out we're talking about. This is, we're done. We did, we're allocating land and we haven't allocated land for some of these things so what we're going to have is a lot of nice baseball fields here but what really, we really haven't looked at what the community needs in the year 2020 in terms of how the community gets along. So that is a specific issue of me and maybe it's not an amphitheater. But it is a place where people can meet and greet and it's not, it's not a place out in front of City Hall with a little water fountain. And it's not a ball playing field with some bleachers in it. That's not it. We're missing the point. We're missing, pretty soon what we moved here for we'll start looking for something else and we're not going to have it. I'm willing to stop growth in Chanhassen. I think it's stupid that we're sitting here saying we're going to flood the highways and just do it as planning commissioners. You're planning? You're not planning. You're flooding the school system. You're increasing taxes. You know the highways are going to be bad and we're going to say, well let's just do it. Huh. That doesn't make sense. Brooks: It's called sprawl. Conrad: Stop it. You can. You can stop it. Brad said, you can stop some of this stuff2 You can, you don't have to do it tonight. You don't have to send it on. I won't vote for this. The park and rec is obviously very concerned with athletic stuff2 I've talked to people and I've talked to people for 5-6 years about getting some place where they can meet and greet and it's not there. And it's, I talk to City Council people and they've got other things to do. They're doing other things. It's not an important issue. Park and rec, it's not a high priority for them. I think that's a major mistake. We're putting all this money into ballfields and I do like some of the stuff that we're doing by the way in our parks. The passive parks. There's some really nice stuff that we're doing. You know I'm real pleased with but in terms of how we're support our needs in a few years, it's not there. It's all one sided. So I won't vote for this at all. I think there's major issues in front of you and you've just got to look at them and if you say hey, we can tweak it here and we can find a spot for a school. Yeah you can but I think, on the other hand, we, I think we need 36 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 another piece of information coming back. At bare minimum I'll fight my own little deal on the amphitheater. But at bare minimum we'd better find out if we're a self supporting, self sustaining community with the way we've allocated our resources. You've just go to know. We've got to force staff to give it their best shot at least. And we've got to know what that's going to do to the schools and we've got to find a place for those schools. So anyway, what am I saying? I'm saying right now we should table this. I'm saying right now we should meet at bare minimum with the City Council in a meeting to have staff and us present to them the land use plan and then maybe have staff pull together some numbers and maybe it's not as bad as I say, but at least we'll all know it's not as bad as what I'm forecasting in terms of the implications of the lack of tax support for 34,000 population. So that's what I suggest we do. There are other issues that staff can be working on in the meantime. I think we heard several of them tonight so I don't think that's going to slow down working on some of the parts of the comprehensive plan. Brooks: How soon would we be able to have a work session with the City Council? Aanenson: Just ifI could add one thing. 75% of the population will be in the current MUSA line. 75%. I think people have this notion that there's a vast amount of vacant land south of Lyman. It is not there. We put the Bluff Creek overlay and saw how many wetlands and slopes. The majority of the population, the majority of the growth is in the current MUSA. And when we looked at the land use, when we did Highway 5 we had a series, we had the task force. We considered the land use designation for everything south of Lyman. We met individually with all the property owners south of Highway 5. A lot of those people have had their issues addressed because the comprehensive plan, the land use designation was done a couple years ago. So a lot of those people aren't here because they have been met with, understood when we adopted that map during the Bluff Creek process. I think some of those people have fallen ofl~ I understand what you're saying about the tax implications. I just want to make sure that that was understood. That the land use component was handled in two different processes. A lot of that has been addressed by the underlying property owners. Some of them are concerned about when they'll be brought into the MUSA, which is a separate issue. As far as the designation, I don't think that there's a lot of issues with property owners out there. What their property's guided. Certainly they have a issue with the use as far as tax base but we can go round and round and round on the Council's discussion. I'm not sure we could ever resolve that but I'm sure we can look at that. We'll just try to get a work session done. It goes back to quality of life issue. And projecting when you want to put commercial down there. Whether a car dealership goes down there tomorrow or, it's a complex issue. Peterson: My comments are not dissimilar to the ones I made earlier. I have a... concern about moving too fast with the growth. That the transportation will not keep up with it. That unfortunately though we say stop the growth until we can figure out what we're doing, people west of us may not necessarily feel that way and the traffic will in itself become worse. I too heard your comments early on Kate and Bob about, gee you know we're kind of stabbing in the dark about where these commercial numbers and tax base numbers are going to come from and that bothers me. And I just heard your comments that you probably can't get any more succinct than you are. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 Aanenson: No, what I'm saying is that there are people that are willing, people that choose to live in certain communities that want that lifestyle. People choose to live in Edina for that lifestyle. People have chosen to live in Chanhassen. I think what we're hearing is, do people understand what that implication of choosing that lifestyle means. That's what I'm hearing. But there are people that want to make that choice to live here. People move here from Edina. People moved here from Bloomington specifically for a certain lifestyle. Those are the residents that we, as a part of the hearing process that come to you and say we don't want this sort of neighborhood. We want this certain thing. What I'm hearing is that there's people that say, they need to be educated on what those implications are. There will always be people that are willing to pay that price that live in a, that will live in a community.., and say we don't want those things in our neighborhood. We're willing to pay a little bit more. And that's what I'm hearing you say. You want to make sure the Council and you understand what those.., are. Conrad: Just ask for it up front. Kate like I said before, I like how we've put the land there and I think we did a, I like where the different colors went. Aanenson: Right, yeah. But do people understand the implications? Conrad: And I think we did a good job in bringing people in and we heard them. We did a nice job. It's as good a job as we've ever done. The problem is, I want to make sure that everybody, I don't want to, I want to address this right now. So when this moves up to City Council, and they're talking about all the other things, I want them to really understand that they've decided that they've given us the go ahead that they're comfortable tax wise with what we just did. Not color wise but tax wise and they should make that, they got elected, 2 or 3 of them got elected on a, they were running on no tax increase. Peterson: And over the years we have been asked to rezone taking away commercial tax base. And that's probably been the biggest struggle that we've made. Where are we going to replace it? I think Kate, if we can get, and I think I'm going with the idea that Ladd brought up. If we can get together.., for a reasonably brief period of time. Just talk through some of the major issues we talked about tonight and how they affect the quality of life within Chanhassen so that we as a commission and they as a council are on the same page. I think it'd be a great advantage. I think there are many things that were brought up... by fellow commissioners and by some of the public speakers tonight.., that I think can be integrated into the plan and make it a better plan. I don't think that's going to hold it back. What I think in my mind is really holding it back is that, it just doesn't paint the picture that I want it to paint. That we have a clear and succinct view of how we want to go. Now maybe we weren't listening well enough when you made your presentation. Maybe we didn't read it in the same manner as it was intended to be written. But I think, I think the picture's foggy and I think we have the opportunity to clear it up. And as important as this is, I agree. Let's try to get a work session on it. Brooks: Should we make a motion that regard then? Peterson: Yeah, I think... In closing though, the library too I think is a critical thing that I don't believe Council has given the proper attention. I think it's... I think we're thinking inside the box. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 Whether that's with just a library and/or a community gathering spot. I've always concurred with Ladd. Whether it's an amphitheater or something, we have not thought outside the box. And this is our opportunity to do so and I won't let it go. So anyway, I think we should make a motion that we, we're done with the public hearing. Let's get through with this and then. Brooks: Yeah, and then I'll make a motion on the library when I'm done with this. So I don't know ifI can do it this way. I move the Planning Commission table approving the comprehensive plan until such time we meet with the City Council to review issues. To review the plan. Conrad: I second that. Peterson: There's a motion and a second. Any discussion? Brooks moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the 2020 comprehensive plan until such time as the Planning Commission and City Council get meet to review the issues. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Brooks: Okay I'd like to make another motion on the library. I'd like to move that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they immediately establish a task force to revisit the issue of the library. Conrad: Yeah, I'd second that. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any more discussion? Brooks moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission reconunend that the City Council take inunediately action to establish a task force to revisit the issue of a library in the city of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Peterson: You wanted to say something or did we answer your question? Jill Shipley: Thank you for making the motion to establish a task force and I think that's a good first step. I think you need to take stronger action though and I hope that you will do that. The By-laws of the Planning Commission state that you shall prepare a comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan doesn't cover a task force. It lists items that need to be done in a time frame in which they need to be done. If the comprehensive plan goes forward with the library in 2005, the task force can be given the charge to determine what's going to be built in the year 2005. I just, I want to make sure we cover all our bases and that we are addressing this immediately. We have a very great sense of urgency on this issue so I want to make sure that we do everything in our power to make a strong recommendation as possible. Brooks: Without, I guess what.., we don't even have a site for a library and a task force is sort of the people that can look for a site and the needs and what size we want and how much it's really going to cost and then push it through. I hate to, personally I hate to make a recommendation for a few million, unless something must be done now, when we don't have an exact idea of what we 39 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 want. I know that's what we've done before and it didn't work but I still think if you go to the City Council without a good conceptual plan and a place, it gets very nebulous. Jill Shipley: I agree but is not the comprehensive plan, the goal of that more to set our vision and not determine the monies involved in this? The vision's the route we want to take in providing for this? Blackowiak: It's both. Peterson: There's a delicate balance between how much we as commissioners, do we actively help staff develop the library? Do we actively help place the next lift station to the point where we have the, where we draw the line and take steps... Jill Shipley: Yeah, the Council will have a new election again this year. So if we establish a task force who determines what we want to build and where we want to build, and the approximate size but we get new members on Council who come in and look at a comprehensive plan that says we're not going to do this until 2005. I think we can shoot ourselves in the foot on that one. So I think we can do it together. Brooks: I don't think the plan, I don't read the plan as saying that we can't have a library until 2005. I just see it, it's programmed for 2005 but it could be kicked up earlier. I'm not sure that, how set in stone that really is. Jill Shipley: I heard say that it's so final. And that we've got to do the right thing here today. Aanenson: No, it's tabled. Conrad: At least, yeah we tabled it. At least you're on the board. My project's not even on the board. And you only need a, I think a lot of acres but this is, big acre deal with big parking. You're the only one that was individualized here as a separate motion. I think you should be kind of happy. Jill Shipley: Oh I'm very thankful and I said that. The first thing I came up here but when you go back and untable it and relook at this, please consider getting more specific. Brooks: Well I think we can bring it up to the City Council. I think it's probably in our work session something that should be brought up. Peterson: Of any item on the comprehensive plan, the capital budget is looked at annually. It is truly looked at annually and adjusted annually so I think you have... Brooks: Make it an election issue. Jill Shipley: Thank you for your support. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 1998 OLD BUSINESS: Aanenson: We have a meeting on the golf course the first Wednesday of July. So that will be back on. As soon as they get everything in. We... a meeting that week but I need to keep them within the 120 days of their review so that will be on July 1st. We did have a productive meeting. They're still trying to resolve some issues. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Conrad noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 3, 1998 as presented. Conrad moved, Brooks seconded to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 41