Loading...
PC 1997 09 17CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION IlEGULAIl MEETING SEPTEMBEIl 17, 1997 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7; 10 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: LuAnn Sidney, Craig Peterson, Allyson Brooks, and Kevin Joyce MEMBEIlS ABSENT: Alison Blackowiak and Ladd Conrad STAFF PIlESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Oenerous, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEAIIlNG: IlEQUEST FOIl A CONDITIONAL USE PEIIMIT TO OPEIIATE AN AUTO SALE ESTABLISHMENT ON PROPERTY ZONED FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN AUTO SALES ESTABLISHMENT ON 0.53 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF HWY 169/212 AND EAST OF HWY. 101/169, SOUTHWEST AUTO BROKERS, JAMES OLSON. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions of staff from fellow commissioners? Brooks: With regards, can you state that one more time? The applicant shall. Generous: Comply with the conditions in the letter from Scott Peters to Robert Generous dated September 8, 1997. Peterson: Questions of staff anyone? The only thing I'd like to have you do Bob is just kind of walk us through the landscaping plan.., than what's really in the narrative. I was trying to picture really where, is it just trees that we're talking about? Generous: There are shrubs that will go along the Highway 169 frontage. More trees are shown in the right-of-way. They do have to be on the property for them to be relocated. We will... They are adding... The rest of this is natural vegetation right here... There is a rock swale in this location which drains the storm water to the comer and that's one of the conditions of the under drainage that we talk about in the staff report. Peterson: Wouldn't it be normal to request something around the building? Or is that overly detailed? Generous: Under new construction you would... Peterson: Other questions of staff'? Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 1997 Sidney: Well Bob, I had asked this before but I guess for the benefit of those here. I noticed in your staff report written that this area has a history of illegal dumping and wanted to talk a little bit about the dump sites. Do you feel that this properly needs a general clean-up and do you feel that that might be a condition that we should add? Generous: Well part of this, the use of the site, to use it...they will have to clean-up the junk that's lying on the paved area. Down in the wetlands that's off site, I don't know how we can really hold this properly owner responsible for that. Peterson: Okay. Other questions? Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? If so, please come forward. State your name and address please. James Olson: James Olson, 9636 Woodridge Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Mr. Generous had handed me this letter from Scott Peters. We've discussed this already. I've been down cleaning the properly up. It has been sitting for quite a while and we've taken a lot of debris and I've cleared a lot of the, oh there's weeds quite high and cleared a lot of that out and cleared, you know with Round-up killed a lot of it ofl~ There's like a small soffit overhang that we'll be painting and cleaning and I think it will do, it will be a lot better than what it would have down there, down on the highway. Yeah, I plan to do it. We had talked about quite a while ago about treeing and snubbing and landscaping and doing some things on there to make it, basically that's where, you know the reflection of myself so I wanted to make it look as nice as I could you know. We were talking about this quite a few months ago. I was going to try to blacktop it and make it one, look pretty nice but probably get it done by this spring so it will look a real nice building. And we don't have, I don't have any, everything else that is on here we already discussed with Mr. Generous earlier, about a month ago so I don't have any other things to say about it. Peterson: Any questions? Joyce: How many cars do you plan.., when it's all up and running, how many cars would you have? James Olson: Probably around 30. Joyce: 30? And they're used cars, right? James Olson: Yes, yes. Peterson: I mentioned earlier about the landscaping around the comer. Is there from your perspective anything you can do to soften, obviously it's a highly visible building. Anything we can do to soften that look from your perspective? James Olson: As far as, I'm sorry. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 1997 Peterson: As far as putting any kind of landscaping around the building itself. Something you're thinking about or could we possibly do it or is it cement all the way around the building. James Olson: It's like a cement pad. Kind of like when you walk to the SuperAmerica. Probably about a 3 foot pad around there and what my wife was going to do, we were going to get some planters and put flowers. She plants everything under the sun and it grows for her though. But she's going to be planting, we were going to put some flower boxes and planters up and around the front of the building also to give it a more of aesthetic look, you know. Welcoming. Feeling to come in. Peterson: Any other questions? Thank you. James Olson: Thank you. Peterson: This is open for a public hearing. May I have a motion to open to do the same and a second please. Sidney moved, Brooks 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. Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Sidney moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. Kevin, any thoughts? Joyce: I don't have any problem with it. It's going to improve the site from where it is right now to something that's constructive, useable. I know we had Paws and Claws, was that across the street and we had some concerns about, Craig you brought it up about the metal and I don't know if it's just, I'm certain we're much busier with other areas of the city as far as what we're going to plan for down there. You can't, I don't think you can gauge what's going to happen with that thoroughfare. It's not exactly what I'd want to see down there, let's put it that way but it is a use. It utilizes what's there right now so I guess I don't have any problems with it. Peterson: LuAnn. Sidney: I don't have any problems either. I went down and viewed the site. I think fixing it up will be a big improvement to what's there now and one thing too, you know we're not getting to the 2000 Land Use Plan goals of parks and open spaces and residential lots. Large lots. Still I think what is stated in staff report holds true. That the City must provide a reasonable use of property based on existing zoning. Certainly this is a use that makes sense for this property. Peterson: Allyson. Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 1997 Brooks: I agree with the other commissioners. I'd rather see the property used than an abandoned SuperAmerica. And I also.., illegal dumping because there's some... I think it's a good use. Peterson: Good, thanks. Well I have no further comments. I agree. Let's get it cleaned up and get some activity down there. With that may I have a motion and a second please. Sidney: I'll make the motion. Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #97-4 and Site Plan #97-13 for Southwest Auto Brokers at 615 Flying Cloud Drive, plans prepared by Curiskis Architects, Inc. dated 7/21/97, subject tot he following conditions 1 through 13. Condition 7 has been amended to include the sentence. The applicant shall comply with the conditions in the letter from Scott Peters to Bob Generous dated September 8, 1997. Joyce: I'll second that. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Sidney moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends approval of Conditional Use Permit #97-4 and Site Plan #97-13 for Southwest Auto Brokers at 615 Flying Cloud Drive, plans prepared by Curiskis Architects, Inc. dated 7/21/97, subject tot he following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with Section 20-291 of the City Code. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security as required by the agreement. The applicant shall install site landscaping as shown on Landscape plan prepared by Curiskis Architects, Inc. dated 8/14/97. Overstory species from the City's Approved Tree list be used. Shrubs shall also be chosen from the City's list. Revise site plans as follows: Narrow both driveway accesses onto Trunk Highway 169 to 30 feet wide. Reduce turnaround tabs 5 feet at each end of the parking lot. Add erosion control silt fence at the southwest and southeast comers of the parking lot approximately 10 feet from each comer. The applicant and/or property owner shall supply the City's Building Official with maintenance and pumping records of the septic system every two years. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with any and all permits from MnDOT for construction within Trunk Highway 169 right-of-way. The applicant shall comply with the conditions in the letter from Scott Peters to Bob Generous dated September 7, 1997. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 1997 10. 11. 12. The applicant shall restore the drainage pattern to previous conditions. This work includes re-grading and restoring the rock swale on the south edge of the properly, remove trash obstructions from comer drainage points and construct rip rap swale from parking lot to natural ditch. The applicant shall agree to establish a wetland buff'er zone along the south properly line. In creating the buff'er zone, the applicant will agree to allow natural vegetation to grow, agree to keep all business, storage and maintenance activities out of the buff'er area. Wetland buff'er areas shall be identified in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. Provide proof of septic tank pumping by a licensed pumper to the City. This must be done before the building is occupied. Provide ties for the septic tanks, pump tank and distribution box. This must be done before the building is occupied. Revise the proposed site plan to provide the correct accessible parking. This should be done before Council approval. 13. A separate sign permit shall be required for all signage to be installed on site. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION-RECREATION. Aanenson: We're up to the Parks Open Space. Recreation component of the comprehensive plan. This element is going to have some rewrite but it's mostly.., background checks. We want to update all the parks.., and again try to project into the future needs of the city. The goals that were put in place in 1991, we believe for the most part are really pretty accurate and would recommend to continue in the future. There may be a couple that we might want to look at... capital improvement plan and I think that's policy anyway.., so that's something that has not been done but certainly should be set as a goal. And some of the other goals, just to... again back in 1991... acquisition for the school district and Bluff Creek Elementary, but for the most part we're recommending the goals realistically should be... and remain the same. And unless, as we go through the process something sticks out, we may add it but otherwise we're going to recommend that the goals... Since 1991, while the goals address, that we have, open space, passive and active, up until probably the last few years, most of the park direction has been active because of having a young community. Most the parks have been trying to address neighborhood needs for soccer, community play fields and the like and there were 18 existing parks since 1991 with development of subdivisions brought on the Stone Creek Park, the Forest Meadows, the Roundhouse Park in Minnewashta. And also we did acquire the 50 acre park just south of Highway 5 and Galpin and TH 41, the O'Shaughnessy piece and the Arboretum Park. That will be a passive one but we did acquire quite a few. And our parks are all broken down, besides the Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 1997 neighborhood parks and community parks, including Bluff Creek Recreation programming is taking place probably more... Lake Ann which kind of serves.., ballfield program to a bigger scale. And then also Bandimere which.., little bit broader neighborhood programming. We also have some other regional facilities such as the Arboretum, a golf course and then Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. So our categories of open space and parks are broken down into neighborhood, community and regional. Also the Park Commission has been asking for.., trail connection and that will continue in the future.., based on the timing of development.., how do you make those connections.., other improvement projects. With the approval of the referendum of $4.9 million, there will be some other acquisition improvements to existing parks and the Park and Recreation Commission and the task force.., on how that money will be distributed and how it should be best used. So there will be some changes and we'll try to put those back into the comprehensive plan so. Again trying to project into the future, we wanted to try to look at what the needs are. The Park Director is planning a needs assessment.., for January to try to get at better handle. We did find out a lot of information as a part of the referendum. A lot of data. What needs are out there. What people are happy with. Some of the things that we're finding out, or that they're finding out is that a lot of the programming in the past has been for young kids...there's been some talk now...try to do some programming to meet other needs. The trails, it's a lot of... making sure that we're tapping into all those so that will be some of the information that comes out.., and again that will be programmed back. Before you see this again we're going to come back and inventory, put all the complete data in there. Again, I believe the goals are pretty much staying the same and even the philosophical intent.., open space is. The difference between.., and regional, I think again that stands. I think that stands the test of time and.., but we're going to let the Park and Recreation Commission see that and comment on it and bring that back. So it will be a few months before you see the document. Other than that, if you've got some concerns, questions of things that you want to make sure that we do look at, that's all I have. Peterson: Questions, comments, feedback? All of the above. As I read through it Kate, reinforcing the fact that what we've got here is sound. Hardly anything so I mean I'd like to be able to give you more feedback other than to say, it reinforces what we... originally. Aanenson: And with the referendum, how do you acquire property when the price goes up with development. That's something you.., the area south where we have the wildlife refuge that we've always kind of said we want to have open space, and I'm not sure that we can solve that but it seems like we're chasing those dollars.., trying to get the park planning out... We know that there's a couple other neighborhood parks slated but for the most part... Peterson: When is the referendum money available? When can they start? Aanenson: It will be bonded for this fall. Peterson: I assume they're looking now. Aanenson: Correct... And another component, not just for programming work but as they're looking now at... trust for public land. Other groups that are looking at just trying to preserve 6 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 1997 open space. That doesn't mean it has to be graded.., and that's something we'll be looking at with Bluff Creek... Brooks: ... time table for the trails... Aanenson: Some of those are accomplished through the referendum. That's something that we're planning on looking at. At how those dollars work out and some of them make sense.., tie them in with development. Better stage with road improvements... Generous: I believe Todd is looking at spending the money in '98-99. Aanenson: You're talking about for the referendum. Brooks: I'm just talking aboutlike... Aanenson: That's longer tenn. That's why I said... Generous: Yeah, they'll be tied into, try to tie them in with utility improvements. Putting in with corridor and roadway improvements. Aanenson: So that will tie back to our transportation plan. What we're looking for as far as upgrading.., tying into subdivisions, so some of them are internal and some of them are street... Peterson: Other questions or comments? Okay. Move ahead. BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT DISCUSSION. Mark Koegler: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I want to take a little bit of agenda time tonight to continue the discussion of the ordinance to regulate lands within the Bluff Creek watershed corridor. The boundaries of the corridor I think you're aware were established by the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan. That's the graphic that's on the display right now. The areas within the Bluff Creek is the area that's kind in the soft yellow. Then you can pick out hopefully some other colors here. There's kind of a green which is identified as a primary corridor area. Kind of a brown pattern, the secondary corridor area. The differential essentially being belween those is the sensitivity that each of those areas have based on natural resources primarily. The creek itself, tributaries, wetlands, wildlife habitat and so forth and I think all of you are pretty familiar with that report. The purpose of the ordinance and what I've given you tonight is just kind of a quick shot. It's not meant to be an all encompassing statement. We'll actually have it modified when the ordinance draft comes back to you but just to give you some idea, the intent of the ordinance, the purpose of the ordinance is to protect the environment. To encourage the development pattern that allows land development and people to come into this area and co-exist with the natural resource space that's there. And then certainly one of the vision aspects that was identified in the plan was to foster the use of the corridor as a recreation and educational resource, and that has some pretty broad base implications. Everything from trail 7 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 1997 connections that meander some 5 miles up through the city of Chanhassen and really become an integral spine to the trail system overall that you were just talking about, to some educational tie ins that can work with the schools and some of the other educational institutions in the area. The ordinance will address a number of issues. One of them certainly is land uses. And land uses as the ordinance will look at those, again is something that you have seen. It dates back to what has been put forward thus far as Chanhassen's 2000 Land Use Plan. That land use plan being one that's been before this body before and is basically part of the comprehensive plan update process that you're involved in. So the uses that are depicted there are the uses that we are looking at accommodating within those areas, within the restrictions that are necessary in order to protect the environment that's there. The ordinance will include environmental protection measures. If you recall on the plan there were a number of specifics mentioned and we're factoring those in as they fit. Specifically for example there's a reference in bluff areas or buff'er strips. The plan recommended 50 to 100 feet from the edge of a bluff area in undeveloped areas. About 30 feet in developed areas. We'll be looking at those kinds of standards and those will be included within the ordinance draft that will come back to you. There's a number of tools out there that we've talked about before in a couple of different sessions. Primarily being, looking at things like conservation easements. Restrictions on impervious cover that we're looking at now, as well as density transfers, and I want to come back to that in a few minutes and let that be kind of a focal point of part of the discussion this evening. One of the things that we're learning too as we get further into this is the ordinance probably is going to have to have some supporting actions along with it. As you'll see there may be cases where there are properties that simply the existence of that primary and that secondary corridor take so much of the land and given ownership patterns and things, that it may preclude development of that property and we'll have to look at those on a case by case basis but there may be some supporting actions that are required too in terms of implementation money. Similar to what the City does with it's storm water management program in terms of acquisition of lands and we'll have more on that when we come back with it next month. I think maybe to kind of illustrate the impact of this primary and secondary corridor, let me refer to a quick graphic. What's on the screen now in front of you is a graphic that shows some of the properties that are, we've labeled basically as undeveloped but impacted by this and they occur obviously within the Bluff Creek watershed. They consist of really two categorizations. One is kind of this brown color, which are properties within it but within it there are the hatched areas that shows up and a darker brown that's actually part of the primary and the secondary pieces of those parcels as defined by the watershed plan itself. So those properties, what we've attempted to do there is to pull out or begin to pull out some of the properties that aren't likely to be impacted or certainly not significantly by a set of regulations that we'll be putting forward for this area. Specifically that includes things like obviously existing Park and Recreation open space areas. You had a discussion a few minutes ago on the referendum and there was a component of the referendum that was for acquisition of land. Depending upon what properties are ultimately selected and what kind of negotiations take place, it's estimated there will be about a 40 to 100 additional acres that will come out of that, in essence and be permanent open space. A lot of that is likely to be within this corridor. You've probably seen some maps that show some very blanket kinds of things and I think that's all that's available to this point in time. Wetlands, flood plains, some of the other areas obviously will not be developed and are out of there and that's some of the darker, some of the.., you see in some of these areas are actually existing wetland complexes are there. There's quite a difference in properties as we begin to look 8 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 1997 at these in more detail from essentially north to south. If you look in the northern reaches you'll find properties that while they're within the overall Bluff Creek area, they're not necessarily heavily impacted by it, at least from a standpoint of not being directly in the primary or secondary corridor areas. It's easy enough though just by where the mapping of the dark areas are, for example south of Lyman, and what's generally I think probably called the Degler and Fox properties. This is a different world right there. A lot of things come together. You've got tributaries. You've got the main creek and it really creates a very large primary and secondary area and we're trying to refine now how an ordinance can work and really kind of appeal to both of these, and it's an interesting challenge and one that I'm sure you'll get into as well when we get into this next month. Density transfer is likely to be one of the significant tools and it's one that you have used before, and I want to spend a few minutes on that. I'm particularly interested in your observations. There have been a couple of development proposals that you've reviewed in recent past that due to the fortunes of your staff being able to work effectively with the developers and let's face it, having a fairly willing developer, you begin to achieve really quite a bit of the intent of this ordinance without yet having the ordinance in place. Obviously you can't have that happen every time so the intent of the city is to look at putting the regulations in place that require that, but what I'd like to do is spend just a couple of minutes reviewing the townhomes at Creekside and the Walnut Grove subdivisions because they are good examples of this and ifI can stick these on the overhead. The first of the two subdivisions is the townhomes at Creekside. I think these are good graphic examples of the concept that's being employed here, and what I guess I'm most interested in getting back in terms of feedback from the Commission this evening is you went through these projects. You were in negotiation with the developers you were reviewing the plan. I'm kind of interested from your perspective how that experience went. Were there process items that you would call to our attention? Were there outcomes that you would like to talk about that maybe have implications as to how the ordinance ultimately is set up? Now in this particular case, looking at this first project, this one is relatively small. It's only about a 7 acre site but it's interesting because about 42% of it falls within what I'd label as corridor land which is that primary and secondary corridor area again and that's the area that's cross hatched on the map. The lower area, the speckled area being the primary. The line pattern being the secondary. Within those areas, in the primary there's about 12% impervious cover in this particular one. In the secondary area, secondary corridor there's about 14%. That really reflects streets and street and housing units. You can see quite clearly that the housing units have been essentially pushed off to the northeast, away from as much as practical the limits of the corridor and obviously effectively has limited the amount of impervious cover within the zone. If you look quickly at the second of the examples, the Walnut Grove, this is probably a better comprehensive example simply because of the land size and the mix of units that we're involved with here. This property is about 50 acres in size. About 19% of it or just under 10 acres is within the primary and secondary corridor. This one has a net density of about 5.77 units per acre. But if you look at the amount of land that's in each classification, in the primary we're dealing with about 18% impervious cover out of 6 1/2 acres, being streets and housing. In the secondary we've got 2.9 acres, of which about 25% of that, or I'm sorry. That represents about 25% of the land area within that category so again you've got percentage ranges that run from 18 to 25 here. In this particular case there was obviously a lot more flexibility with the development pattern. If your intent is, if your ordinance is to accommodate x number of units per acre and you've got more acres, you can begin to push these around a little bit. I think that probably happened here. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 1997 Obviously there's a concentration of the higher density, kind of to the south. There's a band of homes in the middle that I understand are going to probably be some kind of bungalow type configuration and then you've got more traditional single family detached to the extreme north. And I'm sure there was trading of densities as this thing went through the process. I'm not sure how all of that unfolded. But I guess I am interested, as I said before, with experiences that you might have taken from these because these are very good, real world examples of the concept that we're looking at in density transfer and trying to effectuate this ultimately over some larger land parcels in the future. With that, I don't have any more presentation comments. As I said, I'm very interested in hearing first hand experiences that you have or thoughts or concerns that you may have encountered while these projects were going through their review cycle so we can make sure that we address those as we begin to put the finishing touches on the ordinance. I'll come back after that and we can talk for a minute about schedule. The intent is to be back here in essence in a month with a draft that you'll be reviewing. With that, I would welcome any comments or thoughts you might have. Joyce: Say Kate, on the Walnut Grove situation. See this is a good idea doing what you're doing right here. Showing us the actual projects, but we had a different graphic. We didn't have the primary and secondary and ifI remember correctly, weren't they, didn't they give us the buff'er? Aanenson: If you recall in the draft document there was a 300 foot requirement. That really has no standing on the ordinance... Joyce: I understand that. Aanenson: So, this goes beyond or it averages the 300. Joyce: That was it. They averaged 300 feet. Aanenson: Right. As Mark was saying, because we pushed the density south, I think we may have been able to keep it out of that secondary corridor but the objective, we had some competing objective that we were trying to balance. Joyce: Right, right. Aanenson: Right. But that was the average was the 300. Joyce: I guess that's what I'm bringing up is that we did get that average. Aanenson: Yes. Joyce: Okay. Mark Koegler: I should indicate too that these were assembled by taking obviously very large kind of gross map scales and applying them to site specific scales so take this with a grain of salt but it's pretty close in terms of at least showing relationships between the parcels. And I think it 10 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 1997 was a pretty good graphic example in both cases that the efforts resulted in the units being pushed out of these sensitive areas. Joyce: What else did we do with them on that? There was something else that the City gave them. Aanenson: The right-of-way. Joyce: The right-of-way, right. Aanenson: Yeah. Some of the discussion that Mark and I were having was, obviously the primary corridor is something that we definitely wanted to try to keep development out of. In some cases it becomes a finger that may be difficult because it's an anomaly that's hard to work around. And the secondary corridor, while it's significant from a vegetation and wildlife mode, we're trying to figure out what exactly the implications are when you have that additional corridor setback. Will density transfer work? There's going to be some sticky ones, that we've been discussing. When you've got industrial you don't have as much to say, that's one thing that... But we wanted to see you know, if we're going to do density transfers, everybody's got to recognize that we're pushing to get the preservation area.., compressing some of these areas... We tried to go out and look at a couple of different... Peterson: I think in many ways both of these examples, I don't as I recall, the Bluff Creek corridor was not the primary driving force behind this moving the setback back and, the flow in transition from one type of housing to another in many ways so I'm thinking part of it was the Bluff Creek and part of it was just flow.., developer. Aanenson: Well Walnut Grove, we definitely wanted when you came in to give it a look of open space and go back to the big woods because that in the corridor plan, that was identified as an area to go back and have the underpass there. You want to go back with woods in there and have some sort of a habitat.., and everybody can enjoy that, which we tried to accomplish. Joyce: But it fit into the plan though, that was the thing. I mean it, where you would expect it to be. It wasn't right down the center of the plan where you had to separate everything. Aanenson: Right, although sometimes developers do like to put them on that side of the road to maximize the use, which you have on Creekside. You're right.., but the Creekside one as you recall, when this first came into stafl} we recommended we wanted the density to go up. We wanted a different configuration because there was an area that we felt the topography, topographically it was separated. We thought we could have density, but the developer wanted this type of more traditional townhomes kind of product and... But I think you're right on this one Craig. There probably wasn't as much.., and we did allow the NURP pond to go into the flood plain. Peterson: ... Walnut Grove is a PUD. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 1997 Aanenson: Yeah, they both were. Peterson: But with that we have more anonymity but it is critical timing because they're going to come fast and we need in the specs and... Joyce: Are there any areas that you see problems.., on the Bluff Creek where you can see maybe industrial. You had mentioned industrial. Where? Aanenson: That was the Degler piece I think Mark... Joyce: Maybe we can look at that for a second. Brooks: Is that the piece.., by where I live where the Bluff Creek follows the wetlands... Aanenson: South of Lyman. Brooks: This would be north. Generous: Along the west edge. Brooks: There's a real nice wetland. There's a huge wetland right there. Aanenson: That's Bluff Creek. Mark Koegler: The area that we're talking about, if you recall the land use aspect of the Comp Plan in some cases they're... That area that we're talking about is right here south of Lyman. We've shown the underlying color as gray and the potential.., you're correct. That one... Brooks: There's a section right north of Lyman also is a wetlands .... right next to it in front of that... I think when a townhouse developer came in... real sensitive area. Beautiful wetland area... Mark Koegler: That industrial piece is just guessing, probably 20% within the primary corridor and 80% within the secondary corridor. It is wholly within it, and that's going to be a very interesting challenge and I don't have an answer yet tonight as to how we're going to address that detail. When we've talked about development to date with this, I think we've focused more on the residential side and yes, we can shift units around but what are we doing when you have an intensive use like that that is wholly within designated corridors. Joyce: What will the watershed ordinance, well let's take that piece for example. We put in the watershed ordinance. Now they come in and they want to put in industrial. What do you do? Aanenson: One of the things we talked about is the requirement for impervious surface so we're making them.., that's an option too because they're preserving more over a larger segment that would have a no build and then you would.., still would average it all out. The parking lot, but still, you're taking away... That's critical. One of the other issues we're talking about, we're 12 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 1997 really focusing in on the primary and the secondary corridor. You brought that up before. I think we need to look carefully at it. That line was drawn based on information that we had. Vegetation. Wildlife. And we had to look carefully at where exactly that line falls and maybe in some places it might depend on some of the corridor. That's something we may have to give in order to get something. Put that flexibility in it. Maybe, you try to have an ordinance that's flexible and Mark and I discussed that maybe as details come in, the plans come in and we say well you know what, that line, you know just like a wetland. It's kind of... a wetland but when we get better information, we've got to build some flexibility into it to say maybe this is an area that.., but we'll let that slide but we'll try to stick it up here because we can enhance this area. Somehow we've got to build that flexibility into the ordinance. That's going to be a challenge. Mark Koegler: That would be my comment too is we have considered it would be like a wetland delineation. Whereby you take a better look at it and see if truly this.., really works or whether it's more refined than that. I think there's another aspect that the plan speaks to also and that is that while we're focusing on the primary and secondaries, we're not losing track of the entire watershed and the plan talks about, I think realizes that in some cases compromises will have to be made over the course of time. So it advocates looking at the watershed as a whole and you know, maybe you make up for it. You don't do that maybe totally but at least in some context you make up for it elsewhere in the corridor. It's maybe not quite in such a sensitive area but it helps balance it overall, and I think those are the kinds of trade-ofl~ we're going to have to look at and see what fits. It's not going to be easy on that, that's probably the most extreme example that you can identify out of any of them. That one's at least a little easier to deal with because it's a sizable parcel. You know of equal concern is the smaller parcel that's in the middle of these that has no opportunity to acquire something else and how do we deal with that if it's totally encumbered and that's where again the purchase may be a factor. Peterson: General question Mark. This is really the first time that we've seen an overall purpose. As you build the ordinance, as I assume you're building it now. Give us some sense if you would as to how much detail we can expect. Obviously we're going to need it as a tool in seeing proposals in front of us. Mark Koegler: We're trying to I guess respond certainly with a level of detail that's going to make it a tool and not make it something that's ambiguous. You know we are looking at the impervious cover limitations that will contain suggested numbers that you'll have a chance to review and see you know and they'll obviously be compared to other aspects of the City Code. As I mentioned in my quick comments, there are other resource protection measures that are outlined in the plan such as blufl~ and things that we need to make sure are covered between that and other sections in the Code as well. So the intent is that it will be tangible. You know something certainly that has enough details in the standards that it's not an ambiguous, lay it over the top and try to see what fits. The challenge is still unfolding though, I'll be quite candid with you. It's, we have a lot of work yet to do but. One of the things that I'm interested in I guess in feedback. One of the things that has been of some concern on the housing front is, it's easy as we talked about before to talk about density transfers and then when you get into a Planning Commission meeting and you've got a proposal in front of you, sometimes the chairs are full and sometimes those decisions are quite as easy and I'm curious, probably not a lot of reaction from 13 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 1997 Creekside. Was there much resident reaction from Walnut Grove? Probably in the course of some meetings talking about densities and shifting units here and there and was that something that people were very sensitive to. So I think that's an issue that's going to be faced later down the road each time one of these subdivisions come in and you'll be forced with balancing the objectives of this plan with balancing maybe sentiments of people in the area and what they want to see. Peterson: And there was significant on Walnut Grove but it was primarily with the single family homes to the north. Talking about what kind of density was between them and the high density and that transition. My reaction, I think we have less resistance because this is essentially a new area. It's, it will go in gradually. As soon as we plant one in there, persons next to it in a different kind of density are going to be the ones sitting in the chairs. But at least we can compare individuals living in the area as to what is going around them. I don't think the stafl} we deal with this all the time. As people come in and ask, well what's going to go next to me. Aanenson: I think it's our job to make the compelling argument about what we're preserving and what we're trying to accomplish. Preservation... long term corridor. What we're trying to accomplish... Clustering. Not necessarily increasing the... Peterson: This is kind of off the wall but after we had it set and.., exactly the way it would have proceed. Is there any way we can deal with developers to provide buyers, put buyers with information regarding what that whole area is and 3 miles around them is going to be? Aanenson: I think as part of the public hearing process, that's something that the comprehensive plan is trying to do. I think the developers though, the larger...that's what we've been trying to say that the area of the city along the creek in the southern area, because of it, it's going to be developed. It's not going to be... so I'm not talking about density of development.., and I think the people that are down there are good stewards of the land and they care about their property... Peterson: I just want to be able to provide some easy way of letting residents know. I mean public hearings aren't going to do it. Aanenson: No. There's going to be some areas where we've got those larger lots. Mark Koegler: One thing that's interesting about this entire endeavor is this ordinance piece that we're focusing on is just one piece of the whole thing, and if you recall on looking through the implementation plan, that as the part of that overall document, there's a lot of educational, a lot of resource kind of outreach things and I would presume it's quite possible. Somewhere along the line somebody will produce some kind of a printed piece about this. Kind of a summary version if you will of a plan that could be available generally to the public. Something like that would make an excellent way to help people understand what is out there and what they're maybe buying a house adjacent to. That implementation program is just full of different approaches. Everything from funding mechanisms to acquisition mechanisms and I've got to think coming out of that there's a lot of education that's a part of that as well. So I think there will be great opportunities to really publicize the resource that's there for the people of Chanhassen. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 1997 Aanenson: Good point too. We had on the steering committee some... Bluff Creek Elementary they'd use that as a resource so we need to talk about going back to why we're doing this. That'd be good... And now with the acquisition of the 100 acres on the north end.., passive park and how that ties back in... Mark Koegler: Great opportunity there for all these little elementary kids to go home and educate their parents. Peterson: That may be one way of doing it. So we see the draft on the 15th? IS that pretty much in stone? Mark Koegler: Yeah... ordinance in place by the end of the year. That was in response to physically too, some of the kinds of concerns that the commission had. Identifying a path and trying to keep things moving along as people keep marching on with projects. So we're looking at coming back with a draft on the 15th. I think the packet that you go had a typo in it, that November 5th will be the Planning Commission public hearing. We weren't scheduling a special meeting for you on a Friday or whatever date that ended up being. And hopefully then going to Council on about the 24th of November for review and beginning of action by that body so that things are essentially in place by the end of the year. We're pushing for that schedule and have every reason to believe that we can adhere to that. Aanenson: If you do need another meeting, there is another Planning Commission available in November. If you do need that before the next Council meeting in December, you can do that. Peterson: Does this assume we can get the ordinance draft? Aanenson: You'll get it ahead of time. Mark Koegler: Oh yeah. I don't expect you to speed read it that night. Promise. Peterson: Thanks. Mark Koegler: Thank you. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: LuAnn Sidney noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 3, 1997 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS: Aanenson: Yes, we are set for October work session. We'll have it upstairs in the courtyard conference room. I've also scheduled Planning Commission interviews. We've got four candidates. Peterson: Four? 15 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 1997 Aanenson: Yeah, so if it's okay, can we start at 6:00 that night? Joyce: I'm not going to be here that night. I'm going to be out of town. You're not going to have a public meeting then, the first is what you're saying? Aanenson: No. We'll just start at 6:00. Have dinner. Have the City Attorney talk about legal issues. Planning Commissioners and from 7:00 to 8:00, I thought we'd talk about other ongoing issues. Goals for next year. Kind of where we're at with ongoing issues. And then I set up interviews from 8:00 to 9:00... Peterson: Why don't we try to get tape recorders there. I mean not knowing what Roger's going to say but I assume anything he'll say will be... advice. I'd like to be able to. Aanenson: Sure. We can do that. Peterson: Even for new members that would be. Aanenson: I know Alison will be there... Peterson: Anything about the Council? I guess they haven't seen much until they get the car dealership on Monday. Aanenson: Yeah, that will be Monday. And actually as far as the application, we're looking at the second meeting of November... October when Mark will be back and then hopefully we'll see.., that meeting. Brooks: How are they doing? Aanenson: Actually they threw the baby out with the bath. They're starting from the beginning. Which is sometimes the best, yeah. Sometimes the best thing to do. We'll also have the element of the comprehensive plan, the water... Transportation, we're working with Carver County. We added on to theirs.., out to bid and we added onto our issue. Hopefully they'll meet our deadlines. Right now we're still tracking with, we'll probably hold our public hearing end of March, first part of April. Brooks: So you're using SR... Aanenson: Yes. We did give them, ask them for a bid and had what we wanted in engineering... Brooks: They did a pretty nice job.., steering committee .... why are we doing a plan if there's no money to build the roads anyway. And... of SRF came back and very eloquently said, rightly so that if there is money, we need a plan. If you don't have one... 16 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 1997 Aanenson: So they're sitting down with members of our staff and.., go through, we're going to need some.., but that's going to be our last... Actually for the council and for you, that's going to be critical in our road management... Peterson: Any other discussion points? May I have a motion and a second to close? Brooks moved, Joyce seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 17