Loading...
PC 1998 08 19CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 19, 1998 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7;05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, LuAnn Sidney, Matt Burton, Alison Blackowiak, and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Allyson Brooks and Kevin Joyce STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Oenerous, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Assistant 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 George & Patricia Dorsey Anne Rasmusson Jacqueline Schroeder 1551 Lyman Boulevard Minneapolis 7720 Frontier Trail Aanenson: Thank you. We held the original public hearing on this item back on June 17th. Planning Commission directed staff to set a joint meeting with the city council to discuss several issues. Those meetings were held on June 29th and August 3rd. What we would like to do at this time is kind of go through those outstanding issues. There was some minor changes that you did direct us to make in the plan which we can discuss but there were some issues that we have accommodated those. Those are some broader issues that we would like to go through and I think it might help for maybe people here on specific issues, we'll kind of pause at the end of each one and maybe you might want to take comments at that point so we don't get lost. But one of the first ones under the land use was to talk about a vision statement regarding, we did mention the Highway 5 corridor. Bluff Creek. Natural resource plans and the storm water management plan so what we're proposing is to amend that section and incorporate the vision statements. So you have each of those documents. They are a part of the comprehensive plan but they wouldn't be, if somebody just wanted a copy, this would be a good place to give a summary of those documents so I think that was a good comment. We did put those in. LuAnn spoke to me and some minor modifications which I think some of those grammatical word changes which will accommodate. I think those were good comments. So unless you had any comments, that we'll be making that change and that again would be on the land use section right at the beginning on page 3. I think I'll take the fiscal impacts last. That probably has the most discussion on it. The next section that Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 we were asked by the school district to look at is they presented a letter to you requesting that we look at two more elementary school sites and one middle school site. Elementary's requiring at least 40 acres each and the middle school looking at 80 acres. We proposed three sites. One being the Eckankar site. North of the current Eckankar. The Eckankar site, which probably more than likely would be an elementary. And then the northeast comer of TH 5 and TH 41 which we had already guided institutional and that would actually follow the southern, with south of the frontage road. The frontage road actually swings a little bit further to the north on that so there would be acreage there for a middle school site. And then the other property we looked at was south of Lyman, west of, excuse me, east of Bluff Creek and that included several property owners. Frank Fox, the Degler's and the Dorsey's who are here tonight. And what we're saying by these, and we met with the school district, this is putting people on notice. This will be... change that these are possible school sites. The city is not acquiring these properties. What we're saying is that if people were to go and develop next to them, they may know that that is a site that the school will be looking at. But it's up to the school district to make the acquisition happen or work with the city. But at this time there are no plans to acquire it. They're looking at schools at least 5 to 10 years out. So we kind of made that clear in our motion that we would amend that. On page 9 that we say District 112 is seeking three additional school sites. The following sites are being identified just as I mentioned and again, making it clear the city is not proposing to acquire any subject property at this time. The underlying land use is still in place. It does not change the proposed land use designation. If it's guided low density, it would still be low density. Medium, medium institutional so we're not changing that. And then again, I think clarification is made and LuAnn mentioned this too. That it would be encumbant upon the school district to acquire the property and that'd be a good thing to add too. So we're not changing land use. It's just really putting on notice that that's a potential school site for anybody else that lives in that area. Okay? I know the Dorseys are here. I don't know if they had any questions on that part. George Dorsey: My name is George Dorsey. We're one of the possible sites. I have several questions. One, is Chanhassen the only area that they're looking to build more schools? Aanenson: No. We are the largest city in the school district. Chanhassen is. The school district includes Victoria, Chaska and East Union but we would be the largest city in the district but they are asking Victoria to look another school site, which they are too. George Dorsey: So they're setting up other sites so you're just putting on three? Aanenson: Yes. George Dorsey: It seems we might be the biggest right now but the expansion's going west. The people seem to, would rather have the elementary school west of here instead of coming in here. The school district's one of the biggest in the state. It's 35 miles across and we have two grade schools, senior and junior high school. Yeah two, right here in the eastern part of the county. Eastern part of District 112. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 Aanenson: Yeah. That, the city has no jurisdiction over that. I understand what your issue is but what we did do is looked at enrollment projections for Minnetonka, Eden Prairie, and tried to compare how close and see if that seemed reasonable or realistic and the population, the ultimate Chanhassen population and the Chaska School District is going to be still, well part of the northern half goes, that's where the vacant property is south of Lyman and we still have quite a bit of property in the current MUSA that would be in the 112 district so there is still a significant population that would still be Chanhassen residents. Again that's, you're looking at ultimate development, and that's the year 2020 so none of this is going to happen within the next 5 years. They're looking long range. George Dorsey: I have another question. You know they say well we need 40 for a grade school and 80 for a junior school. Is this a magic number or something? The school I sent to had about 2 acres if that. The school I went to had about a block and a half. The school my kids went to had about 2 blocks and now all of a sudden somebody's got the idea about 30 years ago that we have to have a lot of grass and trees and all kinds of beautiful things to increase the cost and increase the maintenance and it certainly hasn't contributed to improvement of schooling, which is primarily what we're building the school for. So I just wondered if there's a magic number. They say look for 40. Did anybody ever think of saying why in the hell don't you take and put it on 5 acres or something? Aanenson: I think that's a good point and the school district and the city has worked cooperatively with the elementary school right here. We share a city rec area here. Organized activities at the Bluff Creek Elementary and we worked in partnerships and that is one of the goals that we state in here. That we try to do a partnership. I know Victoria's looking at the same thing. Combining some soccer fields. Looking at how we can partner so we're not.., exclusively for one use where we can make better use of the facility. But where that 40 acres comes from, that's kind of a national desired standard. George Dorsey: That's just crazy. You have people out east that don't even have anything but blacktop to build a school on but I just wondered. I mean they ask you to set aside these areas and granted it's 20 or 30 years ago but I began hearing this number about 30 years ago. You know they started, they tore down a wonderful school in Edina. The problem is I guess the kids went out of there and went onto college and graduated and went out and got jobs and worked so naturally tear it down. That'd be the best thing to do and build another one where you had to take a bus for about 40 minutes to get the kids there. They're going up this comer. So I just wonder when they ask a number, do we just automatically say oh yeah, 40 acres. That'd be nice. Aanenson: Well we're not acquiring anything. All we're doing is. George Dorsey: I know but just to take and toss it in. Because this started 40 years ago. I'm just hearing the same thing. This isn't something new what I'm hearing. When it's somebody from the government comes down, well 40. Next it will be 80. Junior high school needs 80 acres. So we can build more. I guess the other question I have is, how much land, this is not going but it's germane because the city looks to acquire more land for this, that and the other thing. How much land is actually set aside for parks and lakes and what percentage? You've got roads. You've got Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 all the government buildings. You've got churches. All these different things. What percent, all this land goes off the tax rolls and yet we keep taking more and more off and we're the third highest taxed I understand and if we keep taking more, the taxes naturally will keep going up I presume. If you set aside land or do whatever it is, what are you going to do? You want a highway corridor? You want all kinds of stufl2 There's no room to build stuff to take and increase the tax base. So I'm just wondering, what is the percentage? I don't know what it is. You've got the Arboretum. You've got Minnewashta. You've got the schools. You've got roads and government buildings, church buildings and everything else. That's all off the tax roll. Have you got 25%? 30% of the city that's non taxable with a taxable portion of TIF which I'll probably be dead before you get any money from that. Aanenson: Probably about 20%. George Dorsey: 20 counting the Arboretum and Minnewashta and all the lakes and all the parks that you've got here and all the schools. Aanenson: 25 maybe, yes. We have no jurisdiction over the Arboretum. George Dorsey: I know you don't but you can't tax it either. I know you can't do anything about, they think, it sounds like when you last entertained the comprehensive plan, they consultant didn't want to sign it because you can't keep the taxes the same or lower if everything you do is going to increase the spending. Peterson: One of the main things we talk about throughout, as we developed and drafted this plan was balancing the need to have lower taxes with how we were going to zone. I think what we've tried to do with the plan is to do a balancing it and we talked about that as recently as lwo weeks ago as far as do we have enough commercial property versus homes and not to be taking away commercial property that will hopefully increase the tax base and lower the individual taxes of the home, but what the plan that we've got, 100 and some pages is trying to find the answer to that. To keep taxes lower but provide the services to the... George Dorsey: Well it's not keeping the taxes lower. The taxes are going up. If you take more land out, you're going to provide tax base for you, taxes will go higher if you keep spending. If you keep, you're going to have the Bluff Creek corridor so that will be beautiful and you can walk along the creek and do all kinds of fancy things but it's not going to provide anything on the tax base way. You say well people will flock here because it's going to be so beautiful until they find out what it costs and then they say well I live across the county line or I'll live in the other school district or whatever. If you build another home on the senior high school, that's going to take some more land. That's going to raise the tax if you build all these others. Whether it's 10 years, 20 years, what does it matter? It's still going to raise the tax. You say well we'll have more people. Peterson: I hear your point but you also have to deal with the need to, we have to provide for a school somewhere, if the population grows proportionately. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 George Dorsey: I have no quibble that you have to provide schooling. I'm for schooling. I'm on one of the planning commissioners up here for schooling, but the idea that you need 120 acres for 800 people or 1,000 people is ridiculous. But if you accept that, which you start making your long range plans, it seems like it gets accepted because somebody, somewhere in Washington who may have air in his head, thinks that fresh air is good so we'll take and build these expensive schools and acquire the land and so on and so on and so on. I mean you can't do anything about that but if you go along with that, you're not keeping the taxes lower. The taxes are going up. You say well it didn't go up. No, they raised the assessment. We haven't gotten the next tax increase but we also don't know what taxes are for all the stuff that the comprehensive plan, the city, and the county and everybody else has set aside. It's the third highest. There must be some way to keep it down. I don't see it going down and it's just as part of the comprehensive plan you keep chopping out more land for some other use. You're going to want a highway corridor, schools. And now say well, as a part of the plan maybe you're in for school. Well what ifI want to do something else with it? You say well, yeah you can do it. I went through this when they set it up for going to make it a dump site. You could do anything you wanted except if they made it a dump site, you never got any reimbursement. They didn't make it a dump site. But 7 years they were playing around with it. You couldn't do anything. We went out of business. The business that we had because that's what they going to do. Maybe. And it went out after they $52 million trying to figure out where they're going to put all these dump sites and the money ran out and they made a decision right away. Perpich said Garberbring make a decision. She did. So it goes on and on. So when you say we're trying to balance, I'm not sure what you're trying to balance. I'm not saying you're not trying to do the right thing but I'm not sure what you want to balance. You say we're trying to keep the taxes, lower the tax. The taxes are going up. I think you said that or you said it's. Peterson: We're trying to maintain at a minimum, maintain if not lower the taxes. George Dorsey: Main to lower taxes. Peterson: That's not, I'm speaking on behalf of the council. On the planning commission side we're trying to guide the zone or provide zoning that provides for a variety. Whether that be park and recreation. Whether that be for all types of land uses. A variety of those and with this comprehensive plan is a great deal of variety and types of zoning so we try to provide for fiscal responsibility by not having too many of non-productive taxable areas. We realize as a city you have to have commercial supplied for a tax base... The balance between that and having no commercial, having a bedroom community, that's the balance I'm talking about. George Dorsey: Well we must not be balancing it too well if we're third highest in the state. Would you agree or wouldn't you agree? Peterson: Well I'm, again we are positioning to. George Dorsey: Well you say you're trying to do this. I'm saying well how hard are you trying or are you getting the wrong information or what? What kind of trying, if you're third highest in the state, we must be complying. We must be going along with whatever is tossed in there. Do Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 we never say no? Do we ever question anything? We're third highest. I mean obviously everybody out in their areas are trying to do some of the same things. I'm just asking. Peterson: All I'm saying is that we as a planning commission are doing, what we believe... Whether we're the third highest or not, I can't argue that point. I don't know whether we're the first or the 20th. George Dorsey: Well I don't know, that's what came out in the paper, third highest. Maybe that's not correct. But even if we're l0th highest, I don't even know how many there are. Huh? Peterson: What we're trying to do in this one is build into the future that we aren't number one by any means. Our goal is not to raise the taxes. Our goal is to provide zoning that makes everybody that has to be satisfied that taxes aren't going up. That's for one. George Dorsey: Well there's no use going on because obviously we're not getting anywhere but they are going up. Aanenson: Not the city's. The school district is. The city's hasn't gone up in a number of years. Conrad: The city is doing it's job. Aanenson: The city has not raised their taxes. Conrad: Yeah, very much under control. Aanenson: They even went down last year so. George Dorsey: The appropriation, the assessments have gone up. So that's another way of raising tax. You've got a heck of a lot more money than when I first moved out here to play with and to spend and to provide... Conrad: The economics are probably pretty good. George Dorsey: Yeah well. Conrad: But just so you know, seriously the city is really controlling. George Dorsey: The percentage but the taxes are going up on everything they do here. Conrad: The other thing you should know is, in '91 the land use had 25% for park and open space and the one we're looking at right now takes it down to 20. So you know in terms of what you're looking for probably, we're trying to allocate a little bit more to productive revenue generating, and we're looking at those issues. We're concerned. You're not talking to deaf ears here. We've been beating this a little bit and probably will talk about it a little bit more. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 George Dorsey: I remember some of these same conversations going on when my taxes were lower and they're still going up even though everybody's trying to keep them down so I guess now I'll pass it on. But that's, and that's, you just take these things, 40 acres and 80 acres, this is nonsense. But we do it. And even though it's 20 years from now, maybe it will be 10. Maybe it will be 5. Maybe it will never be. Blackowiak: I'd like to make one comment Mr. Chair. You make a really good point. I mean there are a lot of assumptions I think that are out there that we may need to challenge. Is 40 acres the right amount? The school board is telling us yes. Common wisdom says yes but you know maybe they could do with 30 or 20. I mean that's maybe something we have to look at. When you talk about Highway 212, it's been on the books you know since 1956 or something. So what? Is that the right thing? I mean you're right. I think we have to challenge some of these assumptions that people have just accepted over the years. And when you say, I like your point about the school because I don't know that 40 acres is what you need for an elementary school. It sounds like a lot. George Dorsey: You say common knowledge or common wisdom or common whatever. Common from where? Blackowiak: Exactly. George Dorsey: You read it in the newspaper, which has got plenty of bias. Blackowiak: So I'm saying, I like your thinking. I like that. Challenge your assumptions because we. Burton: IfI could. The only thing that I hear is that the language that we're proposing to insert into the comprehensive plan is not stating an acreage. It's just stating these are possible sites. Now if they are picked with those thoughts in mind but the actual comprehensive plan is not going to say 40 acres or 80 acres. It's identifying potential sites. Aanenson: That's correct. George Dorsey: Well we got, yeah in the letter we sent, you're looking for 40 and then 80 right along side. That adds up. Aanenson: That's what we sent to you to identify that but the motion that, or what we're placing in the comp plan doesn't identify an acreage amount. Burton: The actual plan won't say anything about 40 or 80 acres. George Dorsey: Well let me ask you this. What if the school says we want 120 acres in town? Aanenson: It's up to them to acquire it. They'd have to secure a purchase agreement with you. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 George Dorsey: All right, and if you don't change the zone, or you leave it in that zoning, what is a person to do? If you zone it for school use and I don't sell it and they don't buy it, then what can you do with the land? Aanenson: As we indicated before, it still has the underlying land use. We are not changing that. It's been that way since we did the Bluff Creek overlay zone when we met before on that issue. George Dorsey: Yeah, okay. Aanenson: We're not changing that. I made that perfectly clear at the beginning. We're not changing the... George Dorsey: All right, is that different than when the city labeled it as a dump site? Is that different? Aanenson: I wasn't here when they did that. George Dorsey: I know but is that, I was here and I can tell you what it was and a lot of people in a lot of the counties got going if it's, you're telling me the same thing. I believe they accepted historically you go back and things weren't the way they seemed. Aanenson: What the future land use designation and what's currently zoned. It's currently zoned A2. There are some things that would be permitted in an A2 district so. George Dorsey: Okay I don't, but as the information obviously I do and when you built it, when the dump site was set up, the same thing was said and you went to the State and the counties, the seven county metropolitan district and they said that's right. You can do all these things but if we make it a dump site, you're screwed because you're not going to be reimbursed for anything that you do with that land. And so if you have a business, you either let the business go to pot. Keep it the size it is and not be able to compete with anybody, or go out so that's all. What I'm asking is to challenge some of the others and not accept it. Common wisdom. I don't know what common wisdom is and so, I'm done. Aanenson: Okay. Amphitheater. That was something that you asked us to look at. It was identified as a future vision or implementation. Something the Park and Recreation Commission wanted to look at. It is identified as a future facility in the Minnewashta Regional Park. I did speak to the director there and their only concern is that the access as proposed on the site right now may not be the greatest but if and when we get to that stage we said we'd probably be working with them. If we were out ahead or something that we wanted, that we would be working with them to make sure it's sited in such a way. Then the other site would be on the north side of TH 5. On the west side of TH 41. That also is already guided public so it would fit within that land use designation so that would not take a land use designation. So our recommendation on that would be to change the comprehensive plan and that would be under the parks and open space. Under the regional open space section on page 2 of the parks and open space and say that the city may support the use of an outdoor amphitheater on the Arboretum 8 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 property located north of Highway 5 and west of 41. The reason why we didn't change it on the other is it's already stated in their, the comprehensive plan of the regional park and it's already identified as a goal of the park and rec commission so we thought that would be redundant so we are also recommending.., and again it's two state highways so we thought that might be a good spot too. The next one would be community facilities and this is kind of based on the, regarding the cooperation between jurisdictions, including the school district and library, recreation facilities, public works. This is the one I was just talking about previously regarding schools and that would be, we'd amend the land use section which is the first section on page 12 to say the city would seek to work with other jurisdictions to combine resources, including city, county, Southwest Metro Transit, and the school districts to collaborate on mutual interests it should say. Not interpret. Mutual interest such as the library. Where we talk about doing a recycling center. A public works. Where we can actually kind of partner like we do with Bluff Creek and we think that again is a good use of resources. So we would amend that section to reflect that. Transportation. I know you had a difficult time reading that and we wanted to make sure your comment that it was very technical reading, we concurred. That was one part we didn't write but the consultant so Bob did make a change and we wanted to show you that we did follow through on your comments and I'll just let him summarize some of the main points and the issues that you had raised. Generous: The primary issue that you had was it was difficult to read and there was a lot of redundancy so we tried to consolidate references where we're describing the roadway system up in one portion where it's first mentioned. We tried to consolidate as much as possible. Highlighting the Highway 5 problem. It's in there. What we're proposing is that we use some editing techniques to help bring it out to put it in bold so that it really stands out on... or underline it in certain instances. The substantive changes to the element were, we were ahead of the county in their traffic study and so it was necessary for us to add some of the roadway, arterial roadway systems into that. We did propose to change this by adding Lyman Boulevard from Highway 41 to Highway 101 as a minor arterial. That will be four laned in the future and will provide access to an interchange at Highway 101 and 212. We created two classes of connector roadways. The Class I was the more heavily traveled to provide intra-community links and to that we added an east/west roadway, south of Powers, or south of Lyman between Powers and 101. It shows up as the curved roadway west of Lake Riley. And as that area develops, it will provide a connection from the neighborhoods that grow near out to the primary roadways. We also added Lyman Boulevard from 101 to Eden Prairie. The easterly leg of Lyman. Eventually we envision that there will be a connection and upgrade and Eden Prairie to that roadway system right now is just a gravel road and so it will provide another east/west connection. And finally we're proposing to reclassify some of those collector 2's. Pleasant View Road, which is a substandard roadway. It doesn't have the sufficient width to bring it to urban standards but it is our only east/west connector between Powers and Highway 101 on the north side of the city and so it does serve a function as a collector. And then we would add the Longacres Drive which is a east/west connector between TH 41 and Galpin and Park Drive which is a collector in the industrial park between Audubon and Powers. As far as deficiencies, we pointed out some additional deficiencies in our roadway system. Intersection access was at Highway 5 and Minnewashta Parkway. There's some turning movement problems, especially during the rush hour. Now they'll probably be signalized in the future as traffic numbers warrant it. Trunk Highway 5 and 9 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 Audubon, there's turning movement problems there. That would.., warrant it. Capacity problems, we added existing Trunk Highway 212 which is a two way, through road facility and West 78th Street. It's not continued out to Highway 41. That's the north frontage road .... the jurisdiction of continuity we added Pioneer Trail. That is a significant east/west collector in the city and it connects Chaska and Eden Prairie and eventually you can get to Bloomington on that. And Trunk Highway 41. Roadway improvements. If212 is not constructed, we have to add four lane to the existing Trunk Highway 212. Highway 101 north of TH 5. Highway 5 west of TH 41 and Highway 7 west of TH 41 to County State Aid Highway 10. It's a little redundant but even with 212 we're still, due to growth in the region we would have to four lane Highway 101 north of TH 5 and we've been working with Hennepin County and Carver County on getting that as part of the programming. Powers Boulevard north of TH 5 up to Highway 7. And then Highway 7 west of TH 41. And there's also a section that was, we were working on... capacity by limiting access and so there's a three page addition on access management and corridor preservation that we're proposing be added to the transportation element. And then finally as part of that, the capital investment element is included at the end of that and we had to show that Powers Boulevard four lane up to Highway 7 and we're proposing that in 2003. It shows up both as a storm water project and as a road project because we'd make that at the same time. We deleted $2 million from the Lyman Boulevard water tower. The timing had shifted and one of the.., had been left in there inadvertently. And finally the east/west collector road south of Lyman Boulevard from Powers and 101. We'd propose that 2009 that $900,000.00 be added... That's all I have. We hope, when it's all cleaned up, it will be a lot easier to read and friendlier to laymen. Peterson: ... basically applied to council's meeting. Aanenson: We're trying to, when we type set it this way, it's a little bit more work... We might just type it and then submit it to them in that format and then retype set when we're ready to go to final. Okay? Last but not least. Fiscal impacts. Burton: Just a question. Aanenson: Sure. Burton: ... On the community facilities part. I'm just noticing it says, I think it might be a typo in there. It says collaborative... Aanenson: Interest. Yeah I stated that, yeah. Burton: Okay, I'm sorry. Aanenson: That's all right. Burton: Is that the only discussion of the library is that? 10 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 Aanenson: Capital improvements plan still. But my understanding is they would still like that moved up and that's something you stated that we will be carrying over to the Council that they consider that. I mean if this recommendation goes forward, there's still other things that we're not making changes to but forwarding your comments to Council to investigate and that was one of your comments to move forward. Fiscal impacts. What was included here, that the City Manager wrote was something that went to the city council which they're discussing. What I'd like to do is kind of just back up and look at fiscal impact analysis. Again, where we've been with this comp plan and what we're proposing tonight. As stated in the charts that we did in the comp plan, there was a significant area of the city that was vacant or left unguided. What we tried to accomplish with the Bluff Creek and the Highway 5 corridor study was to revisit those areas and make sure the appropriate guiding was in place. Again taking the consideration, the comments from the people that were on the task force and the vision that this community's had and taking that through the public process. So having those land uses we were able to compare, as we did in the land use section on page 4, where we were in 1980, what we had in 1991 and what we're ultimately going to end up with. And your concern was, is this going to pay for itself so the broad question is how does growth pay for itself? While you were discussing this, the city of Victoria undertook a broad study. Pretty lengthy in looking at the same question. How does growth pay for itself? And they're predominantly residential and they will always be predominantly be residential. They're only proposing 2% industrial/commercial for their ultimate land use. So what they came back and said is they're projected residential growth doesn't pay for itself. In the years to come. The new growth will not generate sufficient property taxes to ofl~et the associated costs so their taxes are going to go up. Which means one of two things. People may be wanting to pay that because they want to live in that type of community, or they're going to re-examine some of their impact fees or assessments and how they pay for that development, which is something that we do too. We have impact fees for park, storm water. There's those sort of fees that are associated with development. But the issue is more complex than that. In 1991 Lakeville and the City of Plymouth both undertook this issue as they were looking at comprehensive plan and what Lakeville found is that, looking at density and the value, it does affect the assessable, which we know. The price of housing. If it's higher density or higher value, there is different financial benefits. And in Plymouth they found, based on theirs that they felt that there was no net property tax burden that exists to the typical resident. They felt like it came out even at the end so, is this telling us anything? Well, what I'd like to do is just kind of talk about how generally the planning pattern works. We have jobs that are being created in an area, and with jobs people need housing. And with housing people want services. They want their streets plowed. They want to be able to get lunch, buy groceries. That sort of thing. So there is a relationship between the different uses. So all forms of development use add to the demand for public service and the service population and the potential need for police and fire and streets all tend to grow. As with that, the administrative expense is also increased as the residents demand services. So looking at that, we could say that guiding development can't be reduced necessarily to the top benefit because you have to look at, if we said okay we're going to take all of our.., and turn them into commercial, what's the benefit of that type of community and where people want to live. So what we're saying, and again looking back and looking at our vision of where we want to be, numbers alone would say that the entire city should be commercial industrial. I mean that's pretty obvious. But we're saying while that's not really the kind of community we want to live in, we said that we're always wanting to be going back to the original comprehensive plan. That this community wants 11 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 to be predominantly residential. But we also want it to be economically stable and fiscally responsible. So how do we find that mix? Again, looking at them individually they may make sense but economics is only a part of shaping what a livable community is and herein lies the problem. This is what we said from the beginning. We believe that the land use that's proposed here has more industrial/commercial and what we said under the PUD, we would examine where we have some opportunities to provide additional commercial, but we don't want to put those on now because that may not be appropriate. We also have the fact that there's certain.., landforms that we don't want to destroy the integrity that are also adding to making this a sustainable livable community. So we stand on what we said previously and what we've always come back to and that's land uses are interdependent on each other. And to have a sustainable community, a livable community we said we want to life cycle. We want to livable. If we have only jobs and nobody's living here to service those jobs. If we have only houses, our taxes are going to be very high so we believe that this is a well conceived plan. Is there going to be changes to it over time? We're going to get requests and we may re-examine those and we put in here that we want to re- examine it every 5 years and we think that that makes sense. Go back and as we learn more or different techniques, we should examine that but we stand by what was done with the Bluff Creek study and as we move this document, we think it is responsible. Again we've been going back to the school sites. We put those on property that was already residential. Then held fast on the rezoning industrial in the past. We've recommended denial on those where we felt that's not the rightthing to do. So withthat, we're recommending approval ofthe comprehensive plan withthe four or five changes recommended in the report. And I'd be happy to answer any other questions that you may have. Peterson: Questions of staff from fellow commissioners? Conrad: Mr. Chairman, yeah I'll bring this up right now rather than waiting. A lot of really probably good things and I think that things are moving in the right direction. I made a comment about the fiscal responsibilities and I really didn't understand anything that Don Ashworth said. It's way over my head. So it didn't help. And he didn't hear my point and there's a great distance between what I say or staff hears and what city council asks for. But I have to restate what my point was because it wasn't answered. The way I look at the land use, we were going to increase our revenue generating lands by about 30 some percent. Industrial, office, whatever. We were going to increase our population by 80%. 70 something or whatever the final numbers are. My point was, not what the quality of life is here. That's why I'm on the planning commission. My point was, I saw one number saying we're going to add 30% more land, revenue generating land. Yet so ifI saw our population was going to increase by that same amount, I'd be pretty happy. Unfortunately, and I'm very naive as to how I interpret our numbers. That's why I asked the staff and the consultant and Mr. Ashworth, or somebody to advise me on this seemingly unsolvable problem. And it's still not solved. I couldn't understand this. It really didn't address my issue. So I still have, so I'm making a statement. You know you said do we have any questions for staff and Kate, I don't know what you want to do with that but Don didn't answer my question. And again, it's my point is this is buildout. This is the end of the line. This is where we don't have too many more choices and yeah we can guide, we guide land use. A little bit here and there. Put a little bit more in. I just had this one simple question and it's still not 12 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 answered. So and I don't even know ifI want you to answer it Kate. I really, you know if you've got an answer for me, maybe you can do that. Aanenson: I think I answered it with the first work session, if you look at my numbers. I think that was when Mr. Johnson was here throwing out the.., households and population and I did recalculate a few numbers and I know what you were going for and I thought we discussed that in the first meeting but your concern was the amount of, the ratio of population that we're increasing as opposed to a ratio and I believe I stayed consistent. What I did is I put down in a report that went out and it may be in the back of, we compared with Eden Prairie and Minnetonka, Plymouth, a comparison of their ultimate population in the year 2020 and a good comparison would be households and employment. And looking at that, we felt again we were being responsible. Again you look at, we'll throw Victoria out because their percentage is real small. We thought we have a very comparable to Chaska... Conrad: ... percent of land dedicated to those. Aanenson: Correct. Yes. Conrad: Well by that I hear you. Okay, that's fine. We're not out of the ballpark but I said go back and say how do we, if we're really, I'll throw the other element in. We're probably looking for more affordable housing and maybe some land uses that don't generate revenue. And maybe Don's factored that somehow into his analysis but still, you know the percent that other communities use, all I see is that we've got 1,200 acres right now in productive revenue generating stuff and we're going to go up to 1,600 and our population's going from 19 to 30 some. So it just doesn't seem like we're adding the revenue generating land in the same ratio. It doesn't matter what our final, I don't care if it's 1% or 3% for IO or for any, I don't care. Because I think, well as I told everybody, I think we've done a pretty good job. I like how our land looks. I like what we're doing but I'm real nervous about the fact, the issue that I just raised. And to say that we've got enough in there, it just, it still doesn't rationally, it's hard for me to accept that it's going to do it. Aanenson: I understand that. Again, what we said, which was demonstrated in the report... density does affect value and the price of home affects value. Are we going to have some looking at providing low and moderate? Yes. But we're also looking at densities and one way to make sure you have a... investment is the intensities that you're developing at. Whether that's industrial, floor area ratio or whether that's the densities of residential and that's one of the things and we suggested we come back at is looking at the PUD that allows some of these sort of things. We're seeing some of our old development patterns are going to. That was one of our recommendations with a follow-up to this document. Conrad: Tell me what's wrong with my logic. You've just got to help me on this one because. Aanenson: I don't think your percentages are right compared to the other communities. I think we're in very good standing compared to other communities. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 Blackowiak: Can I take a stab at it? There's not a one to one ratio between the taxing, tax generated by commercial/industrial and the tax generated by residential .... take the assumption that commercial/industrial is 2 to 3 times what the residential does. So if commercial/industrial is going to go up 33%, it's 33% but the bang for the buck so to speak has a multiplier affect. Whereas residential is kind of a one, almost a one to one except for high density residential which is going to give you more people... It's not. Aanenson: Except that you have to be careful when you say high density. It does not generate more children per unit so that's not affecting the schools and we've got studies. Blackowiak: I'm not talking schools. I'm just talking about people. You're going to be having types of housing that we haven't done predominant in Chanhassen. Correct? High density residential is not, we don't have a lot. There are areas that are zoned so that might add a lot of people to our final number.., talking myself into a circle here. But it's also going to add a higher percentage in a tax. On a property tax basis. I mean.., what you're saying? Conrad: Let me, I'm not sure. Let me rephrase what I said and see whether somebody, either one of us can understand this. If I need a hundred acres of industrial office to kind of subsidize our current population. How much revenue is generated? But it's subsidizing us. 100 acres. IfI double my population, add another 19,000 people. That's not the right number but ifI did, wouldn't I need another 100 acres to subsidize them? Aanenson: No. Peterson: I think the infrastructure is one point. You already have the infrastructure that proportionately won't be needed with the services, i.e. the MUSA line is... and you've also got, one thing I did understand.., consider the average tax capacity of the home will take care of, because it's not one to one, it will take care of that growth by itself. That's what I got out of Don's memo is that the tax capacity within the housing growth will take care of the majority of the ancillary services that the city provides. It's hard for me to believe but that was... Aanenson: But that's a true statement though. That's a true statement though. That's what he's saying, and that's why the Park and Rec Commission is looking long term and saying we need other revenue generating down the road where we can generate revenue to run our programs when we don't have that new development coming in so that's was part of their statement. That they need to be looking long term. Peterson: I mean that's the only way that I can accept this issue because I know council also said the same thing last meeting that they're not satisfied that the cushion there for growth. But I think Kate made an excellent point in that we are going to review this every 5 years or sooner, to have a reality check of the, do we need more? Do we need less? Or are we right on? But you've got to believe some of the assumptions. If you believe the assumption that tax capacity of the additional homes that are going to go up in the next 10 years or 15 years, will subsidize basically the growth, then you're okay. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 Conrad: And so whatever gets put into commercial, office, industrial is pure gravy? Peterson: Exactly. That's my interpretation of what Don was trying to say. Maybe... So that's really, you've got to get over that. Conrad: Yeah. That's important for me to know and it sure didn't jump out based on what Mr. Ashworth said. That becomes real important because if we do allot some of the, you know we can't just say we want a quality city without generating the revenue to create a quality city and we're pretty lean right now. We really, we're not, we're pretty lean. Aanenson: One comment I have on that is, we went through those Bluff Creek hearings. If you want to go down and try to find some areas that doesn't have wetlands or slope on it and try to put some industrial, we'd be happy to do that. I'm not sure you'd be pleased with that but we can go back and examine that. We spent a lot of time looking at those during the Bluff Creek overlay district. That doesn't mean that down the road you know as we indicated, we should be examining those every 5 years. If someone comes in for a request and they think they can make it work, we'll look at it but we did put a lot of time into that with that task force to try to look at that. Peterson: At ease? Conrad: No. No. But I really. Peterson: You're satisfied with the answers so that we can move on? Conrad: ...we can move. Peterson: I agree with that. Other questions of staff'? Okay, this is a public hearing. May I have a motion and a second to open to the same please. Blackowiak moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. George Dorsey: George Dorsey. The only reason that you've been able to do what you've been able to do is because.., because the assessment of your houses have all gone up. This... enough tax to provide for all the schools and infrastructure and all that. The population didn't grow fast enough. So the people ended up getting stuck with more assessments on their homes and then the state jacked it around when they said business didn't have to pay so much tax as you counted on and so then the homes had to pay more. I've got farmland and my assessment on my farmland has gone up so that no farmer can make money on crops with the assessments that was just placed on my land this year. You can't do it. In fact you'd go broke like they're going broke in northwestern Minnesota. Because the price for the crops has gone down. Degler has told me the 15 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 same thing. He isn't going to make money on those crops.., but it hasn't. And that's why it's gone up. You can't have affordable housing if property goes up. If the infrastructure costs all go up and if business provides jobs that don't pay enough money so that your people can buy the house in the area, and they can't buy a house in the area because everything has gone up. And it will keep going up if you keep spending more money. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Jacqueline Schroeder: Good evening. My name is Jacqueline Schroeder and I live at 7720 Frontier Trail and I have a question about some of the land use maps. We've been talking with the Mayor and with the City Attorney on a few occasions. The current folks that did the land use map for the existing land use for the city and for the future land use for the city have made some mistakes in the map. Those mistakes have been pointed out to both staff and to council members and yet you haven't seen some of those changes. Part of it happens to deal with the property that my parents own. Currently we live right behind the old St. Hubert's... And currently that says we're office institutional... My family's concern is this map has knowingly been wrong and it gets adopted for a future land use as office institutional, if something would happen, you know heaven forbid. A tornado comes through the town and my parents want to rebuild, if the house is damaged they can't because it's no longer zoned, or designated as a land use for residential purposes and that does have a severe impact upon my family. And I guess before this plan is adopted we would like to see those changes made. We've been asking since March. I don't think that's unreasonable. Aanenson: Yes, we're aware of it. Yes. The zoning map and the comprehensive plan are in conflict. There's 3 or 4 of them which we said that that's the first thing we'll do is take it through the process. We told the Council that. They're aware of that one too. Peterson: But the map isn't the guiding principle. It's the phase and. Jacqueline Schroeder: No, the land use map is the guiding, that's what guides the comp plan. Aanenson: Yeah, well but state law says they have to be the same. The zoning map and the comprehensive plan. We brought you this same issue last, 2 weeks ago on TH 7 and 41, yeah. Peterson: So it is something we are going to fix. Aanenson: By the end of the year, yes. Jacqueline Schroeder: There will be public hearings or how is that going to be handled? Aanenson: Yeah, there has to be public hearings, yeah. There's four of them that we're aware of that we have to fix. Yeah, that's a good point. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the commission? Seeing one, may I have a motion and a second please to close the public hearing. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 Conrad moved, Burton seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Ladd you're on a roll. Do you have anything additional to say to? Conrad: No. We're moving, you know we're really moving in the right direction. I think the transportation was a big deal. I think what Bob was talking about made me feel real comfortable with where we're going there. Nothing. I think library still is an issue. I don't know you've analyzed. There's some words in there that I don't know where, somebody may want to take that one up. Amphitheater. Best location for the amphitheater is close to downtown. That's not been identified. Aanenson: Well the Eckankar site was discussed but. Conrad: I'm just making my point. Best location for the amphitheater is downtown. If we learned anything, and I said this before when Village on the Ponds came in. It's the community that's close and you go there. You go downtown. You make it vital and live. Best location for the amphitheater is close to downtown. Everything else looks good except for the economics feasibility. I'm going to have a tough time, I'm not sure how I'm going to vote on that. I really do need just closure on it and maybe the information is there. I want to challenge the City Council on that. Underlining the fact that my point is not really trying to change the direction of the community but making sure that they really have allocated the right amount of resource to, to make sure we can afford the things that we'd like to do. And that's real important. We really do have to not always skimp, which I think we do sometimes. You've got to have the right resource to make us money. Peterson: Good, thanks. Alison. Blackowiak: Well I think it's very good. The transportation was much more clear. I still do have a little problem with the Highway 5 classification. I don't know ifI can change anything but I worry that we're going to get stuck with something we may not want. I don't know what that is. ... I don't know exactly what the worse case scenario is but I wonder about the classification. I wonder if Highway 5's going to be turned back. I mean all these things could happen I think and I'm curious. On 212. I think it's going to be built. As much as I hate to say that. I think that it's going to be built sooner.., they're talking about letting bids in the next couple years for Phase 2. Things seem very positive despite what we may hear from other sources so I just would.., going to happen in this area. I think that we really have to just keep a close watch on what's going to happen with 212 because that's going to affect our community. Potentially really divide us and we have to keep that in mind and annually or bi-annually or something just keep an eye on what's happening because things are going to have to change to accommodate 212. But overall I like the plan. Regarding adding the vision statement and talking specifically about the Highway 5 corridor study being the Bluff Creek watershed because I really feel that those are two very important components and that we need to tie them into our comp plan. Other than that, I think it's good. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 Peterson: Okay, Matt. Burton: I'd like to first thank the staff for the time and attention they've put into this and they've been good at answering questions and spending time with us and they've been very helpful. I agree with Ladd. I think the amphitheater is nice. I too believe that the best place would be to have it close to downtown. I think if it's further out that it's less likely that people would attend events there. And I think having it somewhere near the center of town here would be ideal. I'm a big advocate of the library and my recollection was that the planning commission as a whole was an advocate of including the library and I guess we don't really, my understanding is that there's going to be some comments about to the city council what we said earlier and I just want to re- emphasize that that my recollection was that the entire planning commission was a strong advocate of the library. That we'd like to see that receive a lot of attention. Otherwise, I think everything looks fine. It's hard to get your arms around the whole thing but in general I feel pretty comfortable with it. I did have a question real quick. I was looking at the proposed motion for this evening and every time I bring up something like this I'm always missing something but the four recommendations. I'm just wondering if the community facility one was left out or if that should be added in. Aanenson: The reason we left that out is that, let's see. Oh, you're right. That should be in the motion. You're right, on page 12. Correct. Yes, thank you. That should be number 5 then. Burton: I got one. Aanenson: Good job. Peterson: LuAnn. Sidney: I'd like to echo the comments of the commissioners and really appreciate the amount of work. It's an incredible amount of work to put together a document like this. Appreciate the comments from the residents and also from staff and their guidance. About the fiscal impact. I guess I was thinking, I'm wondering if there aren't some simplified fiscal models that might be available and published. I keep thinking that this might be somebody's senior project or thesis from school somewhere that might shed some light about the economic impacts. Aanenson: We've got a simple model that doesn't work again because what it doesn't show you, the interdependence on these land uses and how connected they are. It's like you're struggling with, that's what it doesn't show. I can show you a summary of Victoria's but again they're predominantly residential. Every community is so unique and a lot of them are measuring their own impacts and their own services and a lot of our burden is the school district and the growth impacts from that so it's. Sidney: So everybody's difl'erent then in terms of. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 Aanenson: It's so complex, right. So we did summarize, we looked through 3 or 4 other communities and we'd be happy to share that with you if you would like to include it in the packet. Again, we did a summary of the last showing our land uses compared to other communities. Comparing to Plymouth. Comparing to, does that mean we're developing at the same intensities in every land use? Residential compared to the same, you know, what those mixes are. That's why it gets a little bit hard to do that because we are dependent. Sidney: I guess I'd be curious to know, understand more about the other communities. How they approached it. If it isn't a burden I guess. And I do think we need to beef up the library discussion a bit. I didn't pick that out to look at it tonight but I do think that's an important thing we need to look at. So I was talking with Kate about the discussion about school sites. Whether or not we need to be clear about.., responsibility of financing and purchase or figuring out some type of purchase with that. It would be something that we'd want to include in the motion tonight. I guess I'd be interested in the commissioners. Peterson: Okay. I, clearly it's been a long and winding road. I guess I can't empathize being pregnant for 9 months but it's been longer than 9 months of giving birth to what I think is a good.., for Chanhassen over the ensuing 10 plus years. And I think the key issues for me are the library. We still need to reinforce the importance of that. And to have reality checks, not necessarily 5 years but every year that we're making the right decisions fiscally as it relates to the tax base and I think that we as a commission have to consciously make that.., in the forefront in all our decisions, which I think we have done pretty successfully over the years. And Ladd has been.., really has been the leader in that and I certainly feel that all of us how important that is and I think that we will continue to keep that... Certainly endeavor to do that. With that, I would ask for a motion. Burton: ... proposing that we add some language with the land that's going to be acquired by the school district? ... after the discussion? Peterson: Well yeah. Kate, can we... Aanenson: Yeah, you know we did work together with the Bluff Creek so I want to make sure that is we say it's encumbant upon the school district to acquire the property, because we have done joint partners. That's why I kind of left it the city's not proposing to do it at this time. The only reason I'm saying, what if they partner up with somebody else, a school, a library and the county works together. Just to make sure that if we put it's encumbant upon the school district to acquire the property, it may not be... some other partner. I guess was my only concern... Yeah, so I guess that's why I left it that the city's not proposing at this time to do it but it may if it becomes a partner in something. Sidney: So you're suggesting leaving it. Aanenson: Yeah. I guess I hear what you're saying, to make sure it's clear that the school district will be doing that but what if we did a recreational, amphitheater or we tied something with it. It 19 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 may be a possibility that we'd be a partner. This may say well it's against your goals or something. Burton: I move that the Planning Commission adopt the comprehensive plan with the changes 1 through 4 in the staff report and adding number 5 which is the recommendation from the land use.., section on page 4 of the staff report and do I need to read that? Aanenson: That's fine. Peterson: Is there a second? Blackowiak: Second. Peterson: All those in favor. Discussion points? Burton moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission reconunend approval of the comprehensive plan with the following changes: Change in the parks and open space section of the comprehensive plan under Regional Open Space Arboretum (page 2), "The city may support the use of an outdoor amphitheater on the Arboretum property located north of Highway 5 and west of Highway 41 ." Amend the Land Use, Office Institutional, (page 9), "District 112 is seeking three additional school sites. The following sites have been identified as potential school sites: 1) the Eckankar site, 2) northwest comer of Highways 5 and 41, and 3) south of Lyman and east of Bluff Creek. The city is not proposing to acquire the subject property at this time. The underlying land use is still in place. Amend the Land Use Introduction on (page 1), "the proposed vision statement of the Highway 5 Corridor Study, Storm Water Management Plan and the Bluff Creek Watershed Management Plan." 4. Amend the Transportation element to reflect the changes as proposed by staff in this report. Based on the discussion regarding cooperation with other jurisdictions including school districts, library, recreation facilitates, public works expansion, staff is recommending a new policy be added to the land use section (page 12), "The city will seek to work with other jurisdictions to combine resources including city, county, Southwest Metro Transit, and the school districts: to coordinate and collaborate on mutual interpret such as a library, public work/collective waste, arts council, transit site, school, recreation, etc." All voted in favor, except Ladd Conrad who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4to1. Peterson: Explanation please. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 Conrad: As I said before, I'm still not convinced that we've examined the fiscal impact of the land use plan on the year 2020 and I want to make sure that the City Council examines that to the point where, I wonder where the City of Chanhassen can be able to afford those quality items that we all moved here for. Peterson: Okay, thanks. Good work stafl~ APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Burton noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 5, 1998 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS: Aanenson: On the September 5th we've got the Lynmore may be back on. They're not in concurrence with the parks and open space. I think that they have intents to subdivide that property in the future that we requested the open space and that was part of the reasoning for the PUD and the flexibility to preserve that slope area. Blackowiak: I'm sorry, could you clarify which property? Aanenson: I'm sorry, that's off of Galpin. The one you saw last week. Just north of Stone Creek. Blackowiak: Oh, that one okay. Aanenson: We took the density and pushed it up and I think they were hoping to subdivide. We'll be seeing the final CSM piece out on TH 5 and Dell Road. That will complete that industrial area out there. Brenden Pond, the connection of Lake Lucy Road. And then under open discussion, the Westwood Church is looking at a site and they want to come talk to you about it. They're in their planning and they just want to kind of introduce themselves and what they're looking at and get some feedback for you so that will just be a discussion item. I don't think they'll be bringing you, they want to talk about ideas and get some feedback. And then on September 6th we do not, September 16th we do not have any scheduled items. The deadline passed for that. On October 7th we had scheduled a work session so we're thinking of maybe moving that to the 16th to maybe get a little bit more daylight. Have a field trip, have dinner. Field trip some projects. We've got a few ideas. If there's something that you'd like to look at or want us to discuss, let me know. Otherwise we'll kind of share a little bit more with you on the 5th of what we're planning on that 16th. So we looked at... Blackowiak: ... the 2nd? Aanenson: The 2nd, you're right. So then and again, the work session on the 16th. We'll move that up a week, or two weeks. That's all I had. Peterson: Other discussion points? 21 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 1998 Conrad: What's the sequence of the comp plan right now? What happens? Aanenson: Well, it goes to the City Council on the 14th. I mean they can put it on. I know they're still struggling with the fiscal impact. Legally we have to have it done by the end of the year. I'm not sure if we want to, and we've got some rezonings to do. To get into compliance. There's some areas that we indicated and then we also want to come back and re-examine the PUD ordinance to look at that because right now the only place you could do the flexibility in land use is under the medium or high density so we're saying in low density we want to do some cluster. Reduce infrastructure. Those are other areas we want to look at. And we also want to... where we set some mixed use. A little bit more mixed uses in those area where we can put some support commercial so we want to look at that. So Bob's got that written. We're ready to roll on that. We're just waiting to get through this process. Conrad: So it's really in their court. Aanenson: Right, and I have a feeling it's probably going to, with budgets it's probably going to take towards the rest of the year. But we'll come back with the rezonings to you while they're waiting up there and then we'll also look at the PUD and just get your feedback so we're ready to roll. Peterson: Okay, do I hear a motion to adjourn? Conrad moved to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 22