Loading...
PC 1997 10 15CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER IS, 1997 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7; 10 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Allyson Brooks, Alison Blackowiak, Ladd Conrad, Craig Peterson and LuAnn Sidney MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Joyce STAFF PRESENT: Bob Oenerous, Senior Planner and Mark Koegler, Planning Consultant COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION - UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION. Generous: Thank you Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. The infrastructure.., of the comprehensive plan are basically the framework of what your community grows. As part of this update we've been looking at responding to the Metropolitan Council's growth strategy.., for developing a phased expansion of the metropolitan urban service area, the MUSA line. A second major issue that we'll look at is providing or developing a policy for the extension of services to large lot subdivisions. Older subdivisions in the community. A third issue we need to discuss is whether or not to adopt specific level of service level for our roadways. Level of service standards determine the flow of traffic along a stretch of roadway or... intersection and their grade level determines how congested the roadway is. And the fourth issue that we'd like to point out is we're looking at expanding policies and facilities.., transportation. Pedestrian and bicycle access... In the 1991 comprehensive plan there was a list of roadway deficiencies within the community. Part of our analysis we looked at some of the deficiencies that have been corrected in the last 6 or 7 years. In addition however there are at least five roads that still retain deficient... We have entered into a contract with SRF for the transportation study in conjunction with the Carver County study to look at transportation specifically in the City of Chanhassen. Unfortunately we won't have useful results from this until sometime probably in December or January. And then the final study for the Carver County won't be until next June. However, as part of the existing deficiencies, the Highway 5 upgrade currently scheduled that for letting in 1999 and construction in 2000 and 2001. However, our concern is the State has continually.., to fund it. We're a little hesitant to rely on... heavily. As I said one of the issues we're looking at is the level of service standard. Whether or not we should officially adopt part of the comprehensive plan. Level of service standards are two edge swords. If you adopt the level of service standard B or in their community and don't need it, we cannot legally permit new subdivisions to be approved until either the mitigation measures are in place or the level, or the projects that.., are funded. The problem with this is if they don't develop here, they may move farther out west and further impact our major roadway system, Highway 5 and Highway 212. And so we wanted to look as part of our discussion whether we should adopt level of service standards for local roadways only or for roadways that are both local and.., and hope that the Planning Commission can give us some direction on this. Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 1997 Brooks: So you're talking like Trunk Highway 5? Bob Generous: Trunk Highway 5. Brooks: That's at level of service F isn't it? Bob Generous: No .... generally accepted appropriate level of service during rush hour. Brooks: It's a D during rush hour? Bob Generous: Yes. As part of that study that they prepared for Highway 41 and 5, the Arboretum Business Park. They said in 2003 we would hit F. Based on background flows of traffic. Brooks: It doesn't move at rush hour now. Bob Generous: Yes. But it does, it hasn't failed. Brooks: Oh I think it failed. Bob Generous: Which is the level of service F. While it may be congested, it still operates. Brooks: What's Trunk Highway 7? Bob Generous: I don't know. Hopefully as part of the study.., contact MnDOT. That's the other part of this... Brooks: Did you get a copy of the transportation system plan? Bob Generous: Yes... As part of our... Again I said, and finally we looked at strengthening specific policies regarding mass transit, pedestrian, bicycle. Probably the most important component of our update is the MUSA expansion proposal. Staff has prepared a proposed MUSA line expansion that would take the City to ultimate build out around 2020. The existing 2000 MUSA line, we would propose that everything north of Lyman Boulevard be brought into the MUSA area by 2003. And then the area northwest of Trunk Highway 101, the proposed right-of-way for 212 be brought in as 2008. And then this small area off of Highway 101 that is actually will be served by the Lake Riley Trunk Utility area. Brought in as part of that expansion. The next area will a 2013 MUSA area that would incorporate the land east of Trunk Highway 212 and north of... 26 and 25. And then finally the ultimate MUSA that would incorporate the balance of the community. As part of our capital improvement program and the capital investment program we have shown how this can be done and we'll be bringing that with our next update. Brooks: People who are on rural septic now, are they required to hook-up or is it an optional? 2 Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 1997 Bob Generous: Currently it's discretionary. Up to City Council but there's no specific policy. As a general guideline we've been stating that unless a majority of the property owners within those developments petition for it, that we leave them outside of the utility expansion. There are exceptions when there's failure in the systems and that is for public safety reasons. And that health and safety exemption.., looking at providing the other policies that they'd only... Part of the rationale for that is we don't want premature connection because if we do a utility expansion.., you have to, you can only assess the benefiting properties... Peterson: And what can we do Bob, if anything, as we continue to grow outside the MUSA and people are putting in septic systems? About creating a policy that would put the onus upon them to do testing every 2, 3, 4, 5 years. I don't know. Right now there isn't that. I mean we're depending upon the trust that the homeowner, if it does fail, that it's reported to the City, etc., etc. Bob Generous: I believe the policy related to that, the public building department is working on a program to address that. Peterson: I mean we've got a pretty large percentage of sewer and water within the City I would imagine, don't we? Bob Generous: Right. There might be 300 homes. There are very few large lot subdivisions that are undeveloped... They just requested a 2 year extension on their plat. Development... Peterson: I mean it would seem at least, it would seem easy for us to, on new systems for both water and sewer, that we could put in, put the responsibility on them to provide the City with a verification of usability. Bob Generous: Well that's, yeah on page 8. Or page 9, the policy addresses the septic system. In discussion with the building official, they're looking at implementing next year. It depends on the budget process. Peterson: Okay. Bob Generous: I hadn't intended to go through the specific policies in the statement. Most of them are still appropriate like I stated, we'd like to expand the multi levels of transportation element to include the MUSA expansion lines. We do have some concerns, questions, whether MUSA expansion areas are too restrictive. We believe there is sufficient land, however you might want to develop.., how we can expand... Or maybe the City wants to slow down growth rate... Conrad: Mr. Chairman, it's real tough for me to figure it out based on some lines. Bob Generous: Well that's what, the first attachment there we were looking at within each of these MUSA expansion areas. The number of units that we would anticipate based on our current level of... and these numbers we have taken from... Using our GIS. Conrad: I think you have to go through that with us so we understand what you're doing. Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 1997 Bob Generous: Okay. For every, we estimate annually, we'll have about 300 permits for residential development. So for every, well you divide the total number of units by 300. That will give you your capacity for the development.., area. Conrad: Standard for development? Year supply do you like to have in the hopper? Bob Generous: ... about 7 total within the 5 year plan. You'd like. Conrad: And that's what you feel keeps prices equitable? Bob Generous: Right. Conrad: And is that a standard based on what? Bob Generous: That's what's in the comp plan now. We have a 30% overage. Conrad: That is what Mark has recommended that we keep that kind of standard in to keep the prices? How do we, I just want to know how our standard is developed versus what's in there. I need to know what the best thinkers we have say we should have to keep the prices stable. Not inflationary. So with that aside, yeah I'd appreciate a quick overview of how you determine how many acres and. Bob Generous: Well we were using to develop this line is probably incorporated a logical division area. We have about 5 years inside the MUSA and so I just, this was the first mn through. I finished the calculations.., so in the first MUSA expansion we have about, a little over 2 years of growth. In the second MUSA expansion area we have 6 years.., such fine lines. Maybe we call it a 2008 MUSA. Conrad: Well wait, you've got to hang in there with me Bob. So, and your graph, your chart that says 1998 to 2003. Bob Generous: So we've taken total acreage of land from each land use. The wetlands have already been taken out as part of our GIS. Conrad: Okay, so what does BC 7 mean? Bob Generous: Oh, that goes with the utility expansion area typically. Conrad: Bottom line is I didn't get this at all. And I didn't get why it was snuck in with utilities and I understand utilities in relationship to utilities to expansion but it's sort of like, wow. We're talking utilities and all of a sudden we're into our MUSA expansion and it seems. Bob Generous: Well MUSA's directly related to utilities. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 1997 Conrad: I get it. I understand that but it's. Bob Generous: We could have described it, just described an area. The BC 7 is related to the sewer expansion plan that was approved in '93. Completed by the City. It's just the way... service area. Conrad: So BC is, that's just. Bob Generous: If you look on, Bluff Creek 7. It's a service area. And there will be... way to designate it. I figure that related this map to the MUSA expansion. We used, the MUSA area within each of those potential expansion areas, you can look at what sewered area they're incorporated in. It really ties in, you'll see more of it when you bring the capital portion together with this. Because they're all related to a specific service... Peterson: If you go back and take a look at 1998 through 2003 then and you look at total units, 653. How does that correlate to the 300 per year? Or am I looking at something different altogether? Bob Generous: No, that would be the total estimated units developed in there based on the assumption we have here. Large lot, 2 1/2 acre minimum lot size. Low density of 1.8 units per acre. Medium density is 6 units per acre and high density, 11 per acre. Conrad: How does that fit that 3, we've got 300 building permits? Bob Generous: The assumption is if you have 600 units, that would provide you with... Conrad: But you've got 5 years for a time period. Peterson: So you're losing your 7 years. Bob Generous: But we're also, some of the stuff in the current MUSA area hasn't developed yet as we expand the line out. Conrad: You've got a supply. Bob Generous: Yes, we have an excess. Conrad: You're just adding lwo years worth. Bob Generous: Basically. Now if we wanted to make 15,000 units, or 1,500 units every... Peterson: Would it be safe to say that of your 300 units, probably the far reaching majority will be within inside the MUSA? That's already defined currently. Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 1997 Bob Generous: Yes. Because those will have to be developed. It might have been... For example the Longacres development... We have almost 300 units coming in in Walnut Grove and it's... When we get down to the bottom the numbers converge with what has been estimated all along. Conrad: How do I know what our inventory is? The acres right now in the current MUSA? Bob Generous: Well that's part of the, you will... Conrad: Did I miss that? Was I in a meeting or I missed a meeting? Bob Generous: Well yeah. We haven't provided all the background materials. It was in. Conrad: How critical do you want us to be right now Bob? Bob Generous: Well I'd like you to provide, what information you need. These are good things. Specific things to address. It helps. Conrad: It's really hard for me personally to react because I see the logic. I know what you're doing. I've done this before. It's just if I don't, my goal is to keep enough inventory out there to keep land prices stable. We don't what inflationary prices in this community. At least that's a personal belief. But I don't know how many units we've got and how many acres we've got available and we add this to, you know that. Let's see how you're calculating it. I just need a bigger picture of available units and I think I need to believe that there's a standard. See at the end of 2003, I've got to believe there's still going to be several years of supply out there to keep prices stable. Now that's just one side of this whole equation. The other side is cost and whatever and putting in utilities and putting in... I just need to see how we're doing that. To react to your, yeah so therefore I can't really react to what you're showing me tonight Bob. Other than tell you what I need to know to see that we have a standard of having, every year there should be so many years of supply of land and I understand that the, we go in 5 year increments so that's a problem and that's the Metropolitan Council land use planning so I get it at the end of the 5 years we're going to have less than the beginning of the 5 years. But I don't know that I want a standard of only having two years of supply left in the year 2003. I think we should all know that that's going to drive up land prices. Stop development. Maybe that's good or bad. Bob Generous: Well maybe that's the policy then. We look at we want to have x amount of years left. Conrad: I would think we would. Peterson: I think if that point is important to us, we think, let's find out somebody who knows and do the analysis of what, how does it affect land prices and the growth and can we afford to put in MUSA to balance the prices versus the cost of putting in additional MUSA. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 1997 Conrad: Mr. Chairman, the only reason I'm pushing this is we have this affordable housing goal and land drives housing prices. Not the timber. It's the land. You've got a 2 year supply. You're going to push up the prices. I don't have a crystal ball. I don't know what I'm really talking about. I just know that's the way it works. So if we have this goal, I haven't said I believe in the goal but we do have it out there and 50% of our houses, housing units are going to be affordable, then we'd better make sure we don't artificially force the price of the land up. That's what you could do if. Brooks: Yeah, but isn't that somewhat contingent too though, we talk about the analysis. Somebody would have to come in and talk about the turnover rate of housing units. I mean it can't be just land alone. I mean I don't know what the median life span. Conrad: New home construction, cost of a new home is totally dependent on the cost of the land. It is a multiplier effect. The developer says land costs x amount. I can put a house that is 4 to 5 times that valuable on that land. That's how they, so if you increase the cost of the land, then you've got a multiplier effect on the cost of the housing that you're going to build so that's just for new housing. You're right. Brooks: Yeah, that's just for new. Conrad: But as far as inventory, you're right. Different subject. Brooks: Yeah, but there's got to be a relationship somewhere. I mean no everybody who moves to Chanhassen wants a, you know has to have a new house. Conrad: But we're zoning future use. You know we don't care what... Peterson: I mean an excellent example being, you look at lot prices today. I mean generally speaking, speak to this if you will Bob. Trying to find a lot for a single family home under $50,000.00 is virtually impossible today. And 4 years ago it wouldn't have been impossible. And accordingly our housing starts are down substantially to 4 years ago also. Brooks: Do you know, what is the average price per lot? Bob Generous: Well it depends on amenities. It runs $40 to $150-$200,000.00 .... developed subdivision. One of the last lots. Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I've got a quick question about the dates. When we put a date down, for example 2008 and say that we're going to off'er MUSA services to that area in 2008. Are we as a city bound to do that? Bob Generous: You amend the map every 5 years. It depends on how fast you... Blackowiak: My thought was, instead of putting dates, I mean can you have dates in your head or whatever and phase it in? This is Area 1 that's coming in. Area 1 will come in, you know no 7 Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 1997 earlier than 10 years from today. This is Area 2. It will come in no earlier than, can you do something like that as opposed to putting specific dates on that we may be bound to honor and not want to honor. And 5 years is a long time I think. I mean if you've got, you know we make a decision tomorrow and then all of a sudden we decide we really didn't want to do that, we have to live with that for 5 years. Can we not put dates on? Can we put a range? Can we time it to say, you know x number of years after the staging of Phase 17 Something to that effect as opposed to specific dates. Bob Generous: Well we can.., if we go, the policy is to keep a 5 year supply of land available... Blackowiak: But I mean, you're not going to. Bob Generous: Then we'd drop out dates. Say we'll keep a... This is our phasing plan...how we'll grow. Blackowiak: I just worry about putting a date. I mean it looks good on paper but do we want to be bound by the date 2003 if we decided that's just not an area that we need to develop. Or 2008, let's say 2003, all of a sudden has not been developed at all. Do we want to invest an infrastructure for 2008 and spend all the money and potentially not have any development there. That to me sounds like a not real wise use or wise allocation if you don't have a building where you want it. Why provide infrastructure to an area which you had envisioned as being developed after 2003? Bob Generous: I'll have to... specific. Peterson: Other comments? Questions? I don't now whether it's appropriate now Bob or not but within the context of the plan itself it really doesn't talk about the growth of the roadways as a standard to set. You talk about it in a narrative, the memo of October 8th but it's not necessarily specifically put in there. I mean we talk about the MUSA line and preparing for that growth. We don't talk about zoning and do we make a decision and we put in the plan that we will not, unless this roadway is upgraded, that we will not build out this development or put development in this area. Bob Generous: That would be... in essence you are saying that. In Florida they have a... requirement. The facilities either had to be in place or in a capital program to meet the demand... Peterson: My personal opinion is that I think we need to go in that direction and make a stand more strongly than we currently have. That's my humble opinion. I don't think we're doing that by what's in here. I don't think it's strong enough. We sit through many meetings talking about traffic and congestion. What TH 5 is and what's happening on Pioneer Trail and what's happened to TH 7 and the other roadways. I don't think we're addressing it from that perspective adequately. I don't know if my fellow commissioners are. Brooks: Well I agree with you and I think one of the main problems that we're facing is that there is no state and federal funding coming our way to build more roads. So how do we want to deal 8 Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 1997 with that? Maybe we need to put the onus on the developers and say that's great if you want to put a development in but then you're going to have to upgrade the road to go along with it. Peterson: I mean there's no easy answers to this but I think we need to start getting used to a different perspective and tone. We're going to have to say no eventually. Whether we start thinking about it now, which I think clearly we need to do. Sidney: Bob, do we have all the data for a level of service for all roads? Bob Generous: That's part of this study. Brooks: We have our first transportation advisory group meeting tomorrow night for the County plan so I can come back and, as we have our monthly or you know meetings, I can come back and let you know what's happening. I think the first meeting all they're at the point now of is talking about the issues we're facing, which is a rehash of everything everybody knows but they started. Bob Generous: Part of the problem with the level of service standard... Peterson: It's no different than us penalizing a car dealership for not getting in here soon enough to get into the right zoned land. Timeliness is a fact of life to some degree. I empathize, but if we don't take a stand it's going to get worse and worse and worse. I can just see us letting it slip by and we have to let this one go but we've built up MUSA and fortunately the roads haven't followed. Put another 300 unit development in and another down the road and another down the road. I mean I wish I had an answer but I'm just getting a sense that we're going to get caught up without doing enough early on now. I mean Ladd you're staring at the ceiling and thinking. Conrad: Well yeah. I'm not sure what, you sure a lot about the concern for transportation. I'm just thinking. Because I'm in the north part of town, I have no problems. It's better than it's ever been and I've lived here for 27 years. Brooks: Do you take Trunk Highway 7 then? Conrad: No, 62. Crossroad which dumps out. It's perfect. So ifI were to survey anybody north of downtown, anybody north. They don't believe there's any problem. Peterson: Particularly now that 62. Conrad: 62 is just so good. I can get home 5 minutes faster. Faster than I've ever been able to do. Brooks: But it's going to build. Conrad: Sure. Brooks: As people find it. I mean I take 62 now too. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 1997 Conrad: But my point is, it is faster than it's ever been. It's a better road system for where I live right now. Brooks: Right. But I think you also have to stop and think a minute. Do you want to wait for 62 to build and then congest TH 101 or do we look ahead and say, we know this is going to happen. We know TH 101 is going to be a disaster zone. Let's plan now. Why wait for everybody in the north end to complain? It takes 20 years to get something done. Conrad: Yeah...the residents have not felt comfortable with 212. And Highway 5 is, Highway 5 is the problem. I don't know of other problems in town. There are minor problems but you can see the, we've solved quite a few of them over the last 5 years. I live on one of the future needs in Chan, based on recommended... In fact I use all of it. I'm just not sure, and that's why I was staring at the ceiling. I was just trying to figure out how bad really is it and it's a state problem. Highway 5 is a state problem. It's not our highway and therefore I'm sort of wondering, well what do we do about it. We really got involved in 212. Chanhassen very much was, and the visuals got very involved in getting it moved ahead several years ago. Then it got delayed. Brooks: Well delayed for 20-30 years. Conrad: We got very involved as a city and as individuals felt it was important to do, and it didn't pass so we've lost 212. TH 5 I think, there's going to be something happening on TH 5. Brooks: You're getting a couple of extra lanes, you know a mile. I wouldn't do a dance over that one. Conrad: But it's better than what I'm used to before we did improve TH5 for 5 years. So again I'm not trying to make any other point than I'm just trying to... Brooks: But there's other things we can do besides building roads. This is where SRF I think has to be really you know watched carefully. I mean there's all sorts of alternative traffic management studies where you redirect local traffic off of TH 5 and get more people to use TH 101 and 62 or get people maybe to move up to TH 7 or when they're doing local roads, maybe we want to look at upgrading city streets to have them use alternate routes off of TH 5 to get to where they need to go. But you know, that's an important part of this transportation study is going to be not just coming back and saying, gee we need more money to build more roads and there isn't any. Because we could say that. Conrad: The study, I don't know anything about the study. It is being done on Highway 5 right now? Bob Generous: All the major roadways. We have a signed agreement with them to do specific roads... Peterson: Well, there's some feedback for you. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 1997 Conrad: Yeah, take that. Bob Generous: ... it's hard working.., what are the specific issues that... I was aware that we'd like to see what our.., capacity is so we'll make sure.., how many approved plats we have. Conrad: I think it's neat to have a level of service type of deal. I think that's cool. I'm just not sure what we do to it because.., the ones that I'm aware of, I don't know how we can affect positively. We can say, it's like cutting off your nose to spit your face. I just look downstream and say okay. Well we have a F rating on Highway 5 so let's stop. We'll show them. We'll just stop. We'll show the people who invested in our community. Let's just stop and then we'll wait until the State figures out that they can do something for it. What's wrong with this logic? That's not very. Brooks: But that's why I was saying, we have to think more, we have to think in a bigger context than trunk highways. We have to think about alternate routes. Upgrading city streets. Transit. I mean Hennepin County is spending a lot of money on a commuter rail study. I know every time somebody says commuter rail everybody runs in 15 different directions but it's coming closer. It's more real than it's been in a long time and we need to think in a broader transportation perspective. Not just a trunk highway perspective. Peterson: Our hands are fled. We just need to try to figure out some creative ways to loosen up the ropes a little bit. We can't do anything per se because if we do say stop development, which we can easily do with hardship, then Victoria and Waconia. Conrad: Yeah, they'll expand. And I think there's some people who moved into town in the business community that were really dependent upon us growing and would not be happy if they didn't... Major folks are struggling. So I don't know. We do have to do the planning and I do like level of service... Bob Generous: That's one of the ideas. Do we just tie it to our local jurisdiction roads where we do have control. Conrad: That's theoretically all you can do because that's all you have control over. Brooks: Well the trunk highways are so bad now anyway, what's the difference? It's not like what are we going to do? Well, we're at level of service F. We'll keep it there. I mean. Peterson: Other comments or feedback for Bob? Conrad: On this whole thing? Overall, you know really some of the standards are pretty good. Some of the things that we did before are, the policies geez. I have Mr. Chairman nothing to add. I think they're strong. Yeah, they're strong. They say what we want to say. My only comment, and I made it earlier on and that's when we, throwing in this land use and MUSA stuff in the midst of all this just sort of faked me out. It seems like it's a subject all by itself. It was tucked 11 Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 1997 in. All of a sudden I burst upon it in the staff report and you know, how did we get here from there and I think if staff can do a job of bringing us through the inventory bit. How much we have. How much is left. Then I can understand that whole page and that's my only other. Peterson: Anyone else? I think it does, every one of the points really has standed the test of time and I think that is probably the greatest compliment to the people that participated in developing them a number of years ago so. Good. Thanks. BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT - DISCUSSION. Bob Generous: Mr. Chairman, Mark Koegler with Hoisington-Koegler is here to present the draft ordinance. We stated that it's tentatively scheduled for a public hearing for.., depending on the discussion today if it's a public hearing... Mark Koegler: Good evening. Let me do a couple things in covering maybe some introductory remarks. Kate, in her absence had asked that maybe we just take a moment briefly and step back and revisit the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan that was done just to set the stage. Set the context for what we're going to be talking about in more detail this evening. The management plan itself was completed in '96 and '97, adopted earlier this year and it really, it was an overall plan for the Bluff Creek area which I think the Planning Commission is certainly aware of the boundaries from just north of Highway 5 essentially.., essentially the western edge, encompassing quite a substantial area within western and southwestern Chanhassen. The plan was a broad based view of the whole corridor involved a technical and a steering committee that went through and did an establishment of some vision and some goals as a part of that. Did a very detailed inventory. Natural resource inventory of the area. Out of that inventory basically you kind of began to define by geographic segment various plans. Various suggestions for ultimately improvements within the corridor district. The primary goal to preserve water quality, preserve wildlife habitat within the Bluff Creek area. The watershed management plan defined what they called a primary and a secondary corridor, which is kind of a hierarchy if you will, of quality of resources. The primary area being more pristine, more connected to water quality and wildlife habitat and movement issues secondary, still having a relationship but not quite as strong. The implications of the vision were translated into this plan. There were a series of recommendations in the plan that included a lot of major topical areas. There were preservation of some sites that were out and out called for. There was an educational component of the plan itself. There were physical improvements that are called for as part of the implementation program and then the thing that we're really beginning to focus on in more detail tonight, the rezoning and land use modifications that were laid out in kind of a general context and we're trying to take that down to the more specific this evening. That was identified in the implementation program as a high priority among all of the projects and if you have a chance to revisit the document, there are a number of suggested things that are going to be happening in the upcoming years. So the plan was adopted by the Council. The charge back to the Planning Commission as we've been talking about in a general sense for the last few months is then to craft an ordinance that begins to take the plan and put the plan into reality of via the ordinance structure of the city, which is what I want to focus on this evening. I want to begin my remarks I guess by saying that the draft that was in 12 Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 1997 your packet is very much a working draft in our mind still and I think that leads into Bob's initial comment. I think what we're going to talk about tonight still has a number of what I would call rough edges that need a little bit more work, and I'll highlight some of those as I go through some of the things that at least from our perspective we think still need some additional attention and some direction. We're going to take on that in certainly any direction that you would like to off'er this evening would be most appropriate. So as far as schedule goes, probably the more realistic schedule, and again it depends on your comfort level, is to consider coming back with a revised version of this on the 5th and the 19th being then the public hearing date and we've always had that kind of as an alternate as part of the overall program for getting the ordinance adopted. With that as kind of a lead in, if it's appropriate Mr. Chair, I could go through and just highlight maybe some of the major aspects of the ordinance draft. Then maybe use some examples to relate what I think are still some issues and some concerns that we have that still need a little bit more work. And then bring it back to a discussion mode if you'd so choose at that time. The ordinance fits obviously into the City's overall code structure. There are some definitions that have been added that really, to a large degree come out of the plan that was done. There are some terms like ecosystem, natural habitat area, and then certainly defining this primary and secondary zone which are shown graphically on the plan map itself as again these two areas where there's kind of a hierarchy of the importance of the resources within those areas. What we're talking about establishing is a Bluff Creek, what we're calling the Bluff Creek Watershed District or perhaps the BCW designation as far as zoning might go. The map, ultimately the zoning map for the city would be amended to include the overall limits that are shown as part of the Bluff Creek Watershed Management Plan graphic. Eventually we'll take that and we'll fold that into the zoning map. This is identified as being an overlay zone. Very similar to the zone that you crafted a number of years ago for Highway 5. There is a number of points in the initial portion of the ordinance to just kind of interrelated to other aspects of the current code, and I'm not going to go through those in great detail. We can come back to those but yet maybe perhaps more to the meat of the ordinance itself. Looking first of all at the purpose. The purpose and intent statements come largely out of the body of work that was done in putting that plan together. The vision that was a part of that in essence in protecting the Bluff Creek corridor and the resources that are there such as the wetlands, the blufl~, tree cover, through a variety of techniques of which this is one. Encouraging a developing pattern that allows the mixture of people and nature development if you will, while still to the degree possible respecting the natural resources that are there. And then one of the goals as part of the plan has been to allow creation ofa greenway that ultimately would go from the southern portion of Chanhassen, meandering up the boundary of the Bluff Creek corridor and connecting up to Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. That would become a very strong corridor. A very strong linkage for pedestrian, bicycle flow through the community. As far as intent of the ordinance itself. It is to craft a district that allows again this blending of the development pattern that will be coming into the natural environment in land areas that are suitable and in a manner such that the unique resources there are protected. Consistency certainly with the comprehensive plan, with the watershed plan, with the surface water plan, with the community's existing zoning and subdivision ordinances and other applicable references there are included. Preservation of natural conditions found in the primary zone and that's something I guess I have to stress strongly is that the ordinance is structured to preserve what was identified as the primary zone. That was a very strong direction that came out of this effort, and that's something that I'll talk about a little bit more in how you do that and really what the implications of that are. And 13 Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 1997 then minimizing impacts in the secondary zone. Not necessarily precluding development by any means, but effectuating the appropriate controls that will make that development as compatible as possible with the resources that are there. Creating a suitable balance between the amount of open space landscaping, view protections, those kinds of things and the man made features. How do those all work together. And then back to the open space again. Again facilitating the possibility of having an open space linkage that will be a part of this that's viewed, not only as a recreation and transportation corridor, but providing access to the educational resource that's there as well as part of the Bluff Creek. It is as I said an overlay district, which would be applied over the top of the underlying zoning so the underlying zoning would still prevail with regards to uses with anything that we ultimately make exceptions to as a part of this ordinance. The ordinance draft talks about boundary delineation and essentially we will use this as a guide but the ordinance looks at requiring somebody to come in with a development proposal. It would take a better look at the delineation of the primary and secondary corridor areas based on some of the kinds of standards that are contained in the plan. Very similar to what's done with wetlands. Not terribly different. You know as a general guide where they are from the maps that are present but really the field observation is what ultimately determines that and we're looking for that to be a part of this process as well. There are regulations in the ordinance dealing with impervious cover. Relating back to the Best Management Practices Handbook the City references in many of the ordinance sections. Development minimizing essentially the amount of impervious cover by encouraging clustering, common access drives, utility corridors, things of that nature. There are some standards in there regarding impervious cover in areas of steep slopes and they're kind of on a sliding scale. Where slopes are less than 10%, this looks at allowing the impervious cover to be consistent with the underlying zoning. For example if it's a PUD, it would be 30% in a residential. It'd be 70% in the industrial and by and large I'm presuming that a lot of the pieces that you would see developed here in the future would be done as planned unit developments. The ordinance doesn't take any means to define blufl~ beyond what it's already in other sections of the code. It does deal with the sight views, and I guess I would highlight there is an example graphic that's there and it's our intent to make this ordinance more graphic in it's orientation, similar to the Highway 5 ordinance so that we will be developing some graphics that support some of these other clauses that are a part of the code. So you'll see more of that in the final draft that comes back. Encouraging design though that takes advantage of essentially laying the structure into the landscape in order to preserve views. Those views not necessarily only being associated with blufl~ which are covered in other portions of the ordinance right now, but they may be views from public arteries for example in and across wetland areas. Density transfer is certainly we've talked about before, one of the key concepts and something that I want to provide some examples on in a few minutes but the intent here is whether it's a residential or an industrial property is to allow a transfer of density from, particularly the primary area and to the degree that it's appropriate, from secondary areas to other portions of the site. What I'll show you in a few minutes is that works I think reasonably well in residential. I think on the industrial side we still have a little bit of work to do. That one's still somewhat of a challenge and I'll touch on the specific in a moment. One of the things that I want to highlight is that based on the size of the parcels that are out there that ultimately will be developed and the extensive amount of primary and secondary corridor areas, it's likely that what will happen is what's on the top of page 6. That in order to effectuate the residential density transfer, there's a proviso in the PUD standards right now that essentially don't allow you to put anything but single family in the low density 14 Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 1997 categorized lands in the comp plan. This looks at changing that to allow any type of housing that's allowed in the community to go into those low density categories. The reason being again is we have so much natural resource areas here that we're trying to protect that you have to go to another housing form in order to maintain that same density and maintain that same level of development, and we can come back and visit a little bit more about that tonight too if you would like. There is sections in the ordinance dealing with natural habitat preservation and habitat restoration plan. Not only trying to preserve resources within the primary zone but in the secondary zone for example in areas where wildlife habitat for example may need to be disturbed because of development. What is the means of mitigating that? What are the means of replacing that resource if possible and asking to address that as part of a plan? The ordinance calls for 100% open space within the primary zone. That's consistent with that goal of that is the area that is to be preserved. There are some structural setbacks that are identified there, specifically a setback, structural setback of 30 feet from the primary zone with no disturbance to occur within the first 20 feet of such a setback. We're essentially talking about a Bluff Creek impact zone if you will, much like you see in a shore impact zone or some of the other portions of the code. Part of the logic behind requiring a 30 foot setback from a structure to the edge of the primary zone is what you might call kind of the residential creep that happens over time in any community. That if you build a house next to a wetland, next to a resource you're trying to protect, the more it goes out a little further. The more it keeps going out a little further and pretty soon the back yard's gotten bigger so there's just some means in this to try to hold that edge and define that edge as a part of this with setbacks. As I indicated before the boundaries will be delineated as part of what ultimately will be a zoning map change and that's something that we'll have back for you next time also. But the new boundaries will reflect the boundaries that were established as part of the plan. With that what I'd like to do is take a couple of minutes and talk about a hypothetical, somewhat hypothetical residential and industrial development pattern in some of these areas and maybe that helps to bring some of this to focus. I've got some handouts for you to follow along if you'd like. We've taken a hypothetical site that is somewhat less than hypothetical, and it sits right here in the community but what we did is we selected this particular site because it appeared on the surface of things to have kind of a blend of all, first of all, all of the types of properties.., outside of the corridor areas and those that are in the primary and those that are in the secondary.., any one category. The property that's been selected without naming any specific names, is an 80 acre site in Chanhassen within the Bluff Creek corridor. A major roadway along the west side. Quite a mix of topography. Existing wetlands occurring in pockets on the site. Some fairly steep slopes that occur and some isolated areas with the bulk of the site being relatively developable. Being a farmstead now. Being tilled now. If you look at applying in a general sense the primary and secondary corridors to that site. Suddenly we're chewing up quite a bit of the property. The primary being this line pattern that comes across, and certainly it encompasses the wetlands but it also encompasses basically tributaries that are part of the Bluff Creek. Those are the lands that were analyzed as needing to be sensitive enough that they were categorized as primary. The secondary then being kind of that buff'er strip if you will that comes around each of those. Those being then the two areas that are designated as part of the corridor. What we've done thus far, and it's a very simplified and very general sense but it begins at least to point to some of the issues that we're dealing with, is we looked at two scenarios. One says okay. If we look at a single family, detached housing development going in or a traditional Chanhassen PUD if you will, and bear in mind this is a simplistic approach. If we've got a total 15 Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 1997 site that's about 80 acres. The wetlands is about 5.4 of that so if we pull that out we've got a net site area of about 75 acres. Assuming about a 20% relationship of streets in a typical pattern like that. We're saying 15 acres of street right-of-way with a net developable area of about 60 acres. Now we're ignoring the fact that there may be stormwater ponds. There may be park dedications that would skew this but we'll just use it consistently the same simplified model. Leaving the 60 acres, if you look at the average PUD right now is 15,000 square feet per unit, in this hypothetical example we get 175 units that could go in there. We then look at what happens if we apply some of the provisions of the Bluff Creek ordinance. What happens then? Suddenly, first of all and foremost, we're looking at preservation of the primary corridor, which in this case is almost 30 acres of an 80 acre site. Again, a substantial number. So suddenly our net developable area is down to about 50 acres. IfI as a developer still want to sell that single family detached house product in Chanhassen of a typical PUD, suddenly I've got 40 acres instead of 60 acres and I can get 119 units instead of the 175 so in essence I've lost quote unquote if you will, the ability to develop 56 units. What we're talking about through means of density transfer as a part of this ordinance is that, we want to call it the ability of the development to be put in at a level of 175 units but it preserves a part of this ordinance by transferring that density out of that primary corridor area, into either the secondary or the unaffected portions of the property. So in essence what we're doing is we're taking this 175 units that's identified here and instead of putting it on a 60 acre site in terms of a net review of things, we're putting it on about a 40 acre site because again we've preserved the rest of that as open space. So if we just focus on the net density around the development patterns if you will, it's gone from about 2.9 to 4.3 units per acre. Average platted lot has gone from 15,000 to about 10,000 square feet. The form of housing may or may not change. It could remain single family in this model. It might become doubles if you have a more, if you have a different piece of property, I suspect it would force you into maybe a townhouse configuration or something like that in order to preserve that same density. Again, bear in mind this is a very simplistic model. Not meant to take in all the nuances and the sublities that are part of the development process but just a quick comparison of how some of the numbers look. This looks pretty workable. The framework. I think we're beginning to have methods crafted that this kind of a transfer could work. You've experienced this before. This is nothing that's terribly new to you. Maybe it's come with some pain but you've gotten used to it and you... The industrial side, ifI can touch on that real quickly, paints a little different picture. If we assume again that properties may be developed in a PUD fashion so that we're dealing with 70% impervious cover limitation as part of an industrial planned unit development. The scenario works like this. We've got again still our 80 acre site in a traditional development. We're looking at 5.4 acres coming out. We're at 75 again. We're using about a 10% number for streets in this case, which is probably a little high. Again, that developable area that's about 68 acres. If we can have 68 acres at 70% impervious which would cover buildings, parking, sidewalks, all the rest of those kinds of things, we've got 47 1/2 acres of potential development there. Again, this is a perfect scenario. This is a square site that you know a square building fits on and square parking lots fit on. Real world says these numbers won't get that high. If we use that as a basis of comparison then for the watershed district development, the Bluff Creek District development. Again, total site area of 81 acres. Pulling out that corridor again, the primary corridor of 30 acres. That net site area drops down to 50. Pulling out street right-of-way, we're down to about 45. Suddenly when we apply the 70% impervious to that, we now have 32 acres of building and parking instead of the 45. Quite a differential that occurs there. That again in terms of density transfer can be 16 Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 1997 potentially shifted if you will, from the point and we'll end up with probably higher net impervious cover in the secondary and non-corridor portions of the site may be higher than 70% in some cases. But what's kind of intriguing are the examples like this one that are extreme and some that are even more extreme in that if you look at if we're trying to accommodate, we have a development that should be at 47.5 acres of total cover. We've only got 45.9 acres of site now within this non-primary area. We don't even have a 100% relationship. We're over 100%. So in that case we've got 1.6 acres in this primitive example of building and parking that is basically being taken if you will from the properly owner, from the developer, that we may need to think in terms of some other means of compensation and how we deal with that. Is the shifting of impervious enough alone to accommodate that? In this case, maybe. In this current example. There are other sites though that continue to pose more interesting technique or more interesting concerns which is kind of in this portion of the site here so we really have an entire properly that's either primary or secondary. We can shift out of the secondary into the primary but I'm not sure, and we'll look at some specific examples on that still but I'm not sure we can shift enough of that again to get back to a 1 to 1 parity relationship. In all likelihood, if that properly is to be preserved, it's going to have to be acquired. Or portions of it are going to have to be acquired and how are we going to deal with that in the mix of things. It's kind of intriguing because the land use matter, this will be a little harder to see and I apologize for that but we don't have any better map. But what you're seeing in the southern portion and the reason we picked this site is it's shown on the land use plan as having an industrial designation. But it's also shown as possibly having some residential. So we looked at that and we're not saying it could go either way... If you look atthe parcel just to the north of that, that's industrial with open space underlined. Of course it can't be open space. The plan right now says it should be industrial. And that's certainly consistent with the land uses that you would find if this map was expanded to the City of Chaska. Brooks: Are you south of Lyman? Mark Koegler: Yes. I'm sorry. I should have provided some orientation. This is Lyman. Brooks: That's okay. It's justreallyhardto see. Mark Koegler: ... Lyman is here. Audubon is right here. This is the piece... Degler properly. The piece to the south I think is under Chaska Investments. Fox and so forth are to the east of that piece. The point being, without any specific names attached, is we've got an industrial piece there that industry by it's nature obviously is land intensive. It's impervious cover intensive. That's in direct conflict with what we're trying to achieve in Bluff Creek. So finding that balance is very tricky. That's part of what still needs some polish I think in all of this because I'm not going to stand before you tonight and tell you that I think the industrial density transfer is nailed down. I don't think it quite is as of yet. I think we're getting there and we'll get there and certainly would welcome any input that you would have tonight on not only that aspect but certainly other aspects of the ordinance. Brooks: Can you just put the overlay back down for a second? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 1997 Mark Koegler: Sure. That doesn't show too well either. Brooks: No. It's really hard to see. Peterson: And the overlay is a primary and secondary corridor? Mark Koegler: Yeah, the overlay is to simply, an acetate version of the delineation that's on this map. Brooks: You have a whole primary corridor going up from north of Lyman. Mark Koegler: ... camera can focus on it but, the area that we're in here, the primary is in the area that's in green. So for example as we look at this piece of property, especially the southern half of that to the eastern edge of that is all in primary. The balance of that entire site, what we've got, the approximation of 50/50 relationship there or primary and secondary with none of that properly wanting outside of those two designations. The piece that we've highlighted for example.., obviously a little different in that you've got a substantial primary down in this portion, as you can see, that is ringed with some secondary and smaller primary on the north but you've got this kind of curling shape of properly that's outside of the primary, secondary corridor designations on that site also. Brooks: Well... piece actually above Lyman. That it's zoned I believe industrial. Remember they wanted to put the townhouses on there, and I look at that all the time and I don't know, that's going to be so difficult to do something with without wrecking that. That's a huge wetland area. A pretty good sized wetland area. Mark Koegler: I should have indicated too, the dark blue is wetland. The wetlands on this map tOO. Brooks: And that's something that I don't know how it ever got zoned industrial because I don't know what you'd do with that piece without wrecking the whole area. Bob Generous: ...make it more... Brooks: What do you mean? Oh, that little hill where they wanted to put the townhouses? Bob Generous: No, that...meets the ordinance. Brooks: Yeah, of a bluff2 Mark Koegler: So that's an overview of what's there right now and what I think are still a couple of challenges that still lie out there, which is the reason I would not paint this as being a draft that's ready for public hearing but I think we... certainly welcome any comments, questions, clarifications. Anything that we can provide at this point. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 1997 Peterson: Commissioners, feedback for Mark. Blackowiak: I have a few questions. When we're talking density transfers, both for the single family and say the residential portion and the industrial portion. Are you making the assumption that the City needs to accommodate the developers in some way? Mark Koegler: I'm making, we're making the assumption I guess that that property under today's rules could develop hypothetically to a certain level. A certain intensity, if you will. And that we're now putting another set of rules on that property, which are pretty broad and pretty wide spread in their purpose and their intent. I think one of the things that we can come back to you with is the City Attorney's view of all of this. What the comparison with the transfer has been that set of standards could be applied today compared to the new set of standards, what is that differential? And is that equitable? Does that constitute at all a taking of any of that property? Is it more burdensome than what would normally be allowed? It certainly goes far beyond the normal wetland legislation that you find everywhere. The bluff legislation that you find everywhere because this is a unique natural resource that's trying to be protected so we've been trying to, to the degree that that's possible, facilitate some transfer of density. Whether that has to be 100% I think is a good question. I don't know the answer to that yet. Maybe it doesn't have to be. But I think there has to be some transfer in order to constitute a legitimate use of that property. Blackowiak: Okay, yeah. That would be a question is you know, how accommodating do we have to be as a city because we're talking about an area that we say is valuable and should be preserved so I guess my question would be, does it make sense to try to keep the same amount of development on that property or would it make sense to just keep the current zoning requirements in place and have fewer units and therefore less intensive use of the available land? I don't know that I am convinced that we need to do a 1 to 1 transfer and exceed impervious covers, etc. on remaining areas outside the primary and secondary zones. My second question is back to the habitat preservation and restoration. That's talking about Sections 20-1469 and 1470 about disturbances, etc. And talking about plan disturbances. What about unplanned disturbances and is the ordinance a place for any penalties in the event that there is disturbance of a primary or secondary zone of the corridor? Mark Koegler: IfI understand your question there, I don't know an answer off the top of my head. Blackowiak: Yeah I don't either and I don't really expect one I guess. I'm just sort of. Mark Koegler: ... whether this would be the proper venue for that or whether that's a development contract provision that has penalties associated with that. Blackowiak: Or even, maybe even a line in here just acknowledging that we reserve the right to, or the development penalties or something will be mentioned or agreed upon in any development contract or something to that effect because again we're talking about an area that is so important and I don't know that, I mean I understand that we need to put.., any disturbances but I think that 19 Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 1997 there will be unplanned disturbances regardless of how careful people are and we just need to plan for that event when and should it happen and make sure that we know what we're going to do when that happens because I often say that we've got all this wonderful agreements and conditional uses and no enforcement means whatsoever and this I really think we need to look into how we enforce this. Let everybody know that we plan to be serious about it if we're going to do it. We're taking the time. Mark Koegler: That line of questioning, you can take that a bit further into the implementation mode and question, where is the appropriate place to require for example some kind of staking, fencing or whatever of this delineated line. Talk about delineation in a planning context but not necessarily delineation and just like you're put up erosion control. This edge condition would be less obvious I think perhaps to somebody driving a dozer but that's another good point. Blackowiak: Right, and that's it. Peterson: Other feedback or questions? Conrad: Mr. Chairman, I really like this. It's not real specific yet. I really like the direction. I am a proponent of density transfer. It is philosophically, if you want to protect something, this is the way to do it. As Mark said, and I'm not going to belabor the point. We've got some problems, especially in the industrial type of transfer. I don't know how to solve that and I guess we just need staff and Mark to advise us in the alternatives and we should probably go through where we, every, we should go through the entire Bluff Creek site and where we're going to have problems and we should also understand how, I like density transfer but I also want to know what it would do to neighbors that are there. Brooks: Well it's also a question of wildlife. I mean the parcel that I'm kind of harping on that I don't see how it will ever be developed without something giving because of the large wetland area within the parcel. I mean the scary part of that is that it's a, you know the geese fly over there. I mean it's a, the natural resources. The wildlife that are a part of that are a major part and you, you know I don't know the answer. You know you do a big density in one section but then what are you going to do to the wildlife that inhabits the area. I mean the noise. The air. And I think we need to look at parcels like that and question whether are we really going to make an active effort to preserve them or we're going to have to just let them go. Conrad: Or buy them. Brooks: Or buy them because it's not, it's almost a situation where if we develop it, it's going to get mined. Peterson: Anything else Ladd? Conrad: No. Again Mark was looking for feedback and.., some details that he's recommending and, but boy. I sure like, personally like how this reads. It preserves just a great asset and it also 20 Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 1997 gives the landowners the chance to do something economic with their land. That's not very much feedback for Mark. Philosophically. Peterson: Anybody else? I just had a couple of questions, more than anything else Mark. If you look at, we talk about the green way will serve as uninterrupted pedestrian trail and bike system. I mean where are we at in trying to lay that out within the district itself. Is that something that, the one thing that the public will be interested in. When they see that on paper they go oh. Where's that going to go, you know. And I mean are we, how much development is it going to take for us to bring that, the first development we have come in, we need to be thinking about that. If we're going to be putting it in. Where's that fit? Mark Koegler: It is a concept, still at this stage that has certainly been reinforced by this plan. I think it's really kind of been in the back of a lot of minds in this community for a long period of time. That's an ideal place for a corridor connection. But there has been nothing put to paper in terms of an alignment as of yet.., end of the earlier topic you talked about is the MUSA line expansion.., and those development pressures take place, that will be a logical question. Where do you want it to go? How does it impact properties? That does need to be probably another thing that has to happen, fairly close on the heels of. Peterson: In the intent area, under D. You talk about the creation of interconnected open space that preserves migratory patterns for wildlife and facilitates recreational opportunities for people. Those are separate and distinct and in many ways I see them almost as being conflicting. To balance migratory patterns and recreational opportunities. You've got a lot of delicate balances in here but that one seems to be more than, more difficult than many of the other ones. General feedback. I was also surprised that we didn't, we left that blufl~ and didn't become more strict what our current standards are. In many of the other areas we went more aggressive on what our current standards are and the blufl~ we didn't. I'm just, I'm relatively surprised that we didn't take a more aggressive stand in preserving even over and above what we currently have, just because of the delicate nature of that area. Was that a conscious decision or do we just feel that the.., that we currently have or no? Mark Koegler: We looked at that pretty carefully and we can certainly investigate that a little further if that's your desire. But in looking at you know, kind of first of all I wish somebody had a perfect model for this kind of an approach, and it's not out there from what we can tell. You can certainly find bits and pieces that have been done in Minnesota or in the northwest or in California that have some similarities but nothing hits the mark at all. But in looking at what communities have done generally with bluff related provisions in sensitive areas like this, Chanhassen's current ordinance basically was right in line with everything that we found. The one exception was, and the plan for example recommended a 30 foot setback for new development. Well that's already in Chanhassen's code. The code now has I think it's a 5 foot, is that right Bob, setback for existing conditions from the blufl2 I think there's a 5 foot provision that's in there. We found a lot of examples of 10 and didn't think that that 5 feet in that context was probably significant enough that we addressed that separately from the ordinance that's already there. One of the goals is certainly to make this as easily implemented as possible so therefore not to create conflicts with other portions of the code or differences from other portions of the code 21 Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 1997 that don't have to fundamentally be there. So the initial review, our feeling and staff's feeling was the blufl~ are pretty well protected, pretty well addressed in the current ordinance and.., some minor things but it's probably not worth it. Peterson: Lastly, we talk about density transfer. Can you list three separate and distinct areas for allowing that and guidelines and we put down other lands as determined by City Council. I generally have an adversion to throwing something like that in there. I think it's asking for problems personally so that's my feedback for you tonight. Any other questions or comments? Anybody? Conrad: Mr. Chair, just, Bob when this comes back. All of us have to understand what we're doing. You need to take us through the entire site. The entire thing so when we say density transfer, not just an ordinance. Like Mark did tonight. He took us through a specific deal. I think all of us want to see, as you move that 1 to 1, or whatever the ratio is, this is the implication. This is probably what's going to happen so we all understand what that is. If there are sites that can't take that. Or at least know. Brooks: ... can't take that transfer. Conrad: Yeah. So it's a great exercise. Mark Koegler: Don't lose sight of the fact that one of the parallel things that's going on right now is that there was a sizable portion of referendum proceeds that were, by the voters, that currently negotiating properties, some of which may well be some of these more sensitive areas we're talking about. That hasn't been determined yet and I guess that's a subject of a lot of factors in that decision. One of them being what can be bought at a reasonable price but it is in all likelihood some of these properties may be acquired and preserved in advance of even having any development pressure on them. But I assume that's going to be coming. Brooks: Little farther out than that don't you think maybe? Bob Generous: Well, they're working on some of the negotiations right now. Brooks: I realize that but. Bob Generous: They could eat up that money very quickly. Brooks: That I agree with. Mark Koegler: There may at least be some of these chunks that will fall out of this equation. Part of that from an ordinance perspective. Hopefully there will be some of those that are more difficult to deal with. Peterson: Good, thanks Mark. Any old business? 22 Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 1997 OLD BUSINESS: Bob Generous: Famous Dave's is coming back. Peterson: When? Bob Generous: The 5th. Conrad: Where? Bob Generous: Same spot. Different architecture. Conrad: Better? Bob Generous: Sharmin loves it. It's interesting. Peterson: Sharmin loves it. Interesting. Brooks: Does it look like any other Dave's bar-be-que shack that we've ever seen? Bob Generous: No. Brooks: Oh cool. Maybe it meets the design standards Ladd. Bob Generous: Well Mika did the design work. Brooks: Pardon? Bob Generous: Mika did the design. Peterson: Other old business? Is the dealership coming back for a work session at all or is that? Bob Generous: Yes, I believe it's the second meeting in November. Peterson: We don't have any Minutes to note. Ongoing items, anything? Bob Generous: I can tell you what the Council did Monday. Peterson: Go ahead. Bob Generous: Okay. They approved the temporary tower ordinance. The final reading. They nd also approved the Villages on the Pond 2 Addition, final plat. Southwest Auto Brokers conditional use permit down on 169. They were happy that the site... Then they tabled the amendment to the interim use permit for.., the nursery, wholesale on 169. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 1997 Peterson: Tabled it primarily because of the signage being inappropriate to. They were spending a lot of time, as we did with the sign for Hooves, I can't remember. I always get it .... Paws, Claws and, and they were setting high standards for that sign and then the Henning sign was not near the level of quality that that one was. There was a conflict there, what they should let go so they tabled it to get a better design created. Any open discussion items from anybody? With that, may I have a motion to adjourn. Blackowiak moved, Brooks seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:38 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 24