Loading...
1990 03 07CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 7, 1990 Chairman Conrad called the meeting at 7:35 p.m.. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli, Jim Wildermuth and Joan Ahrens COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Annette Ellson STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner; Don Ashworth, City Manager; Roger Knutson, City Attorney; and Todd Gerhardt, Administrative Assistant. CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO RELOCATE THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA) LINE ON LAKE LUCY ROAD. Public Present: A1 Harvey - 1430 Lake Lucy Road Paul Krauss presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. A1 Harvey, 1430 Lake Lucy Road: We did have failing sewer systems due to the dry weather this winter. Our system did freeze. We have been pumping it to meet satisfaction to the City. My question is, we are ready for sewer. We built in 1965. We told we'd have it in 1975. We would like to have it. My only question is, I own additional property to the left going out to Yosemite and if I've got to bear the cost of extending this, I would like that property to be included so if in the future time I would rather feel I'd want to develop that property. Or at least I would like the condition of the extension to be so that it would adequate serve our properties. We have 11 acres there. The north line is the Metropolitan Sewer south line up at Yosemite there so I guess I would just like to see, rather than piecemeal just do this little, to satisfy our needs right now, I would question if we could have it extended to take care of the total property there. Conrad: More than likely that, as I'm sure staff has told you or if not, all that area is going to be included in the MUSA line we think relatively quickly. I think that's what Mr. Krauss was saying. We are extending the MUSA line for service. We believe they'll accept our proposal. Would bundle in all your property and we wouldn't really have to go through what we're doing right now with you. We really think that that's going to happen. It appears to me that going beyond the i~,ediate problem, solving the immediate problem would be sticky. Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 2 Krauss: Mr. Chairman, I think you're assessment is probably accurate. In the past the Metro Council has been rather relunctant to grant these sorts of requests. They've often asked the City to delete a corresponding amount of acreage from the MUSA line which we think is an inappropriate thing to do and they often establish a requirement such as we saw on the Shively Addition where no further subdivision is to be allowed that's accessed to sewer until the MUSA line is expanded. You're right, I think bringing in additional properties at this time is likely to raise a lot of eyebrows at the Metro Council and probably muddy up the request. A1 Harvey: It did state in the thing that we signed our life away to get here, did state that our properties would be encompassed with this extension. Krauss: If I could clarify that. There's two activities going on here concurrently. One in which you're not privy to tonight because it hasn't been done yet is the Harvey/O'Brien request for a feasibility study to extend utilities. Under the feasibility study, the engineering department's going to look at the best way of serving the entire area, not just the two lots that are in this request. That's because we want a system in there that can be extended in the future. However, we didn't feel that we should extend the services to serve anymore than those two lots at this time. Conrad: Thank you for your co~,ents. Any other co~'~,ents? Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Ahrens: I can go along with the staff reco~,endation on this one. I don't think it's appropriate right now to, it seems to me that this whole thing arose originally out of failing sewer systems and I don't think it's appropriate at this time to expand beyond the needs of the houses that are there right now. But as far as what's before us on the table right now, I'd go along with the recommendation. Wildermuth: The house was built in 1965. When did our ordinance require 2 on site locations for a septic field? Olsen: 1987. Wildermuth: What is the cost of putting in a new septic field? Olsen: I think it can run around $8,000.00. Krauss: To $12,000.00. It's probably roughly equivalent to the cost of extending utilities to the property which, if we were going to do that in a year or two anyway seemed rather redundant. Wildermuth: In view of the emergency situation, it certainly makes sense. Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 3 Batzli: When you put the MUSA line in, how soon do you have to convert from your septic field to the urban service? Krauss: The moving of the MUSA line doesn't in itself require that you convert. The requirement kicks in when the utilities are placed I believe within 150 feet of your home. Batzli: So that even if they were, if this doesn't go through and they have to put in the new septic fields and then a year down the road this portion is included within the MUSA line, that wouldn't necessarily mean that they have to hook up. The report seems to state that they're going to save money by doing it this way but that's not necessarily the case. They may be on their septic sewer for years within having to hook up to the urban service. Krauss: Commissioner Batzli, that is a potential. The applicants though have indicated to us that they'd like to develop the property at some point in the future which is one of the things that we took into consideration. But yeah, there is a potential for redundant service. We don't have any assurance that that's going to occur but there is a good potential for it. Ahrens: How close is the sewer line right now? Isn't it within 150 feet? Krauss: No. It's several hundred feet to the east. It terminates, I thought we had it illustrated on one of the illustrations. It would terminate right there. Batzli: If in fact the Met Council comes back and says you have to take 10 acres somewhere else out in order to get this through, do you still recommend this? Krauss: I'm not s,]re Commissioner Batzli. That gets into an equity issue. In the report and in the Metro Council application, we've tried to tell them that we think that that's inappropriate to do. If they want to force that issue I supposed we'll have to deal with it but I really have no idea where those 10 acres would come from. Batzli: I agree with the earlier comments due to the emergency nature of this. I don't think it's appropriate to bring additional acreage in and if in fact the Met Council wants to take 10 acres somewhere else out, I think we should review this again. Conrad: Someplace 10 acres out and then where? What did you mean Brian? Batzli: If the Met Council says no you can't service this without taking an additional 10 acres out of the MUSA line. Conrad: The current MUSA line as it stands, okay. ~mings: I kind of agree with Brian's comments. I think it makes a difference to me. I kind of go either way on this one so I decided I was going to s,]pport the staff's recommendation here but I tink this one could be handled either way. The only thing I didn't know that I learned tonight Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 4 is that they wanted to develop the property which makes me want to see the sewer come or make me think that the sewer should be extended. Is there anyway on these kinds of things to get any kind of informa indication from the Met Council ahead of time or is it real unreliable? Krauss: The Met Council is a big bureaucracy that doesn't like to give any indication of anything. Emmings: Some people look at us that way. Krauss: Yeah. I don't know. I've called over there to find out the procedure and see if there would be any difficulty with it and I've had differing opinions. E~m, ings: Do you think that doing this now would have any impact on what we're doing in terms of the big expansion we're going to be requesting very shortly? Krauss: I don't think so Commissioner E~ings. We've prefaced the whole report by saying that we're relunctant to do this and we've turned away others. It's only the emergency nature of this one that causes us to act a little differently. ~m~ings: My only other comment isn't really related to this thing but it's more related to the point that Brian raised about whether or not they'd have to hook up if sewer were available. I thought we had sort of, I know we've discussed in the past the fact that if people have good functioning septic systems, it may not, we may not want to have a policy whereby we require hook-up to sewer even if it is available until there's division of land or the systems fail or whatever. Do we actually have a policy on whether or not people have to hook-up to sewer if it's available? Olsen: Yes. There's an ordinance that states that with sewer and water. Emmings: Okay. Water I understand and what does it say in terms of sewer? That you have no choice but to hook up within a certain... Olsen: Right. I think it's within, like Paul was saying, within a certain number of feet that you are supposed to hook up. Emmings: I think we should probably, that should probably be something that we review at some point. Krauss: It certainly can be. That issue is going to be confronting us probably quite a bit with the expansion of the MUSA. I've seen some ordinances that were worded that you didn't have to hook up until your system failed or you had to pump it once. You were allowed to pump it once and that was it. There's an equity issue with that and maybe we should take a look at that. ~mings: Otherwise I guess, in balancing all this out, I'd support the staff's reco~,endation. Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 5 Erhart: How often do you have to pump it now? A1 Harvey: It's in the winter now it's been every 2 weeks. Erhart: How much does that cost you? A1 Harvey: $65.00 every pump. I might add, why we would like to see the sewer come through is, when we did build we extended our system to the front thinking that sewer would be coming through along the road. Now we have no accessible area to extend the system that's in there now. In fact we've got drainfields everyplace of ground that's available to us to the front so that is why we would have liked to have slipped a pipe in when they put the waterline through. Erhart: When did it stop working? When it froze? A1 Harvey: It's been much worse this winter because of the lack of snow. It does function considerably better in the summer. Erhart: So it's also marginal in the summertime? Does it work properly then? A1 Harvey: It takes in some surface water. To clay around it, it's rather a unique system. It was a filter bed and a drainfield and the clay around it has really kind of saturated or absorbed the...and stuff so there isn't much runoff from the system. So what filters through the filter bed that gets away but it's probably served it's need in 25 years. Erhart: I guess I agree with staff that we ought to go in and see if we can get in a certain kind of emergency hook-up where they have to do a formal MUSA line amendment. I guess you know better than us on that but it would seem to me that someway to do this without creating too much effort. I assume it's automatic. If Met Council would come back and ask for 10 acres, that would automatically require a major discussion for both the staff and Planning Commission so I assume that's automatic. In that case, we probably would have to live with the situation and try to go for the big MUSA extension. Conrad: Okay, thanks Tim. I'd be real disappointed if the Metropolitan Council didn't grant this. I agree with the staff report. Is there a motion? Erhart moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Co~m~ission reco~end approval of Land Use Plan Amendment Request 90-1 to include properties located at 1420 and 1430 Lake Lucy Road into the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and that the Metropolitan Urban Service Area line be amended to include said parcels. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Planning Co~tission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLE IV, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, AND ARTICLE XXVII, MINERAL EXTRACTION PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF GRADING AND MINERAL EXTRACTION ACTIVITIES. Public Present: Name Address Mike Dwyer Tom Zwiers Jerry Rypkema Leon & Delores Mesenbrink Diane Beauchane Jason & Tara Beck 1600 TCF Tower, Minneapolis 9390 267 St. West, Lakeville 18601 Panama, Prior Lake 250 Flying Cloud Drive 240 Flying Cloud Drive 240 Flying Cloud Drive Paul Krauss presented the staff report. Conrad: How would we know how this ordinance impacts Moon Valley? Krauss: I would defer that to the Moon Valley operators. We've asked them to consider that? Conrad: It's hard, there are separate issues Planning Commission but yet we do know that there is a definite impact apparently with the ordinance on Moon Valley operation but tonight we literally are looking at an ordinance that governs all of these activities in Chanhassen. We are looking at an ordinance. We're not looking specifically at Moon Valley. As Moon Valley gives us some items to consider, we may want to modify the ordinance or take a look at those considerations a little bit closer. It's a public hearing, we'll open it up for public con,tents at this time. Michael Dwyer: Mr. Chairman, my name is Michael Dwyer. I'm an attorney representing Moon Valley Aggregate and it's president, Tom Zwiers. I practice at the law firm of Mackall, Crounse & Moore in Minneapolis. Our firm has represented Mr. Zwiers and Moon Valley in a number of actions. As to why I'm on this particular file, I think it's also due to the fact that I'm on the Planning CoF~,ission for the City of Mendota Heights. Presumably I know a little bit about land use laws. Mr. Zwiers is here this evening along with his assistant Jerry Rypkema and Mr. Zwiers and Mr. Rypkema can fill you in on some of the details in how Moon Valley gravel pit is operated. I understand that several of you folks have taken advantage of Mr. Zwiers' offer to tour you through the site. I think 4 or 5 or 6 of you may have done that. We are here this evening in opposition to the ordinance and we have a number of reasons why. The first one is, I think if we cut through all the semantics, there is no question but that this ordinance targeted to Moon Valley. If you read the City Council Minutes, if you read the staff report, this thing is being generated just for Moon Valley alone. Moon Valley is the only mining operation in the City of Chanhassen. I understand sir your attempt to make a distinction between reviewing separate ordinances apart from Moon Valley but I think that's an Planning Co~ission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 7 impossible task for you folks. You have to look at this ordinance in light of the Moon Valley operation. So we oppose it on the grounds that it's targeting a pre-existing, legally existing, non-conformity. Mr. Krauss indicated that it was a non-conformity to a certain degree. Well there aren't any degrees about it. It's a legal non-conformity recognized by Chanhassen's ordinances. It was in existence long before the City of Chanhassen, laid over the City it's zoning ordinances and it has the force of law behind it. It's a legitimate operation. This proposal, the proposed ordinance seeks to take away from Moon Valley the legal right of being a non-conforming entity. Take it away and not give anything in return. That's inappropriate. Beyond not giving anything in return, it demands compliance by going through a permit process that Moon Valley estimates may cost as much as $35,000.00. Now as Mr. Krauss said, we have met with representatives of the City. The City told us they had absolutely no concept as to how much it would cost to comply with this permit and when we threw out the figure of 35 we were told, well get a different estimate. Go talk to someone else to see how much it would comply with. The permit process is expensive and I think it's darn uncertain whether a permit would ever be granted to Moon Valley. That is inappropriate. It's just unfair. We further oppose this ordinance because the City has not presented any evidence, and I'm not sure it can, that this ordinance is required. It's not necessary. It is couched in terms of an exercise of the City's police power but the City hasn't demonstrated the necessity to exercise and interfere with an existing land use. As Mr. Krauss indicated, there had been rumors and I'm using his word of an expansion on the part of Moon Valley. That has been since proved to be absolutely wrong. Moon Valley has absolutely no plans to expand it's mining operations and never did have any plans to expand it's mining operations by purchasing additional land. There have been no automobile truck accidents involving Moon Valley trucks. We are unaware of any incidents of citizens or visitors or anyone being endangered by the operations of Moon Valley. As I understand the law, there's got to be a need before the City can flex it's muscles and try to take away from someone or an entity something that the City has already recognized. To the contrary, in terms of the way this operation is run, I think those of you who have viewed it would agree that it's being run in a very responsible and far sighted manner. Mr. Zwiers has operated the mine in such a manner that he is terracing or stepping the mining operation so that when the deposits are exhausted, there will be terraced area available for future homes. Particularly on the bluff area, I think those of you who were up there would agree that it's a magnificant site up there and the only reason and all the reasons Mr. Zwiers and Moon Valley need not to destroy that property. He has a vested interest in making sure that that beautiful property remains so. His long range plan is to have it submit it to the City for subdivision for residential lots. To that end he has purchased land on the top side off of Pioneer Trail so that access can be gained to the top side of the area for those residential lots. The top soil is being preserved. There's a huge mound of black dirt there. The dust and erosion is under control. Moon Valley has worked with MnDot in terms of putting up truck signs. Has requested to expand the shoulder at the entrance without much success. It's a responsible operation contrary to I think the assumption that got this whole ball rolling that it was an irresponsible operation. We further oppose this ordinance because the City already has an ordinance dealing with mining operations contrary to what is Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 8 represented in the staff report. The existing zoning ordinance dealing with mineral extraction, and I'm reading from Section 20-1351 to Section 20-1384. There is an extensive mineral extraction ordinance on the books and it deals with everything. It talks about fencing and noise. Appearance and screening. Hours of operation. Explosives. Fugitive dust. Slopes during excavation. Top soil preservation. Water pollution. Equipment. Processing. The application process is all set out there. The permit process is set out. That there would be a public hearing for the permit. There is a section here on the surety bond. You've already got a darn extensive ordinance that deals with mineral extraction. Now the big difference and the principle difference between what is on the books as the City has indicated to us, and what is now being proposed, is the new ordinance takes away from the grandfathered status of Moon Valley and that's the essential difference. The language is a little bit cleaner in your new ordinance. I think that's probably because Mr. Knutson drafted it and I don't know who drafted this first one. But clearly the intent of that new ordinance is to deprive Mr. Zwiers and Moon Valley of the grandfathered status. That's not right. This is still America folks and you can't take away from him something that is a vest property right. You can't without a real strong showing that he and Moon Valley are operating in a dangerous manner. Finally, Moon Valley opposes this ordinance because if adopted, under the proposed ordinance it would be put out of business. As Mr. Krauss eluded to, there are setback requirements and Moon Valley has operated in such a manner that it's in violation of those proposed setback requirements. So for all those reasons in addition to the fact that it's going to cost, it would cost Moon Valley an awful lot of money to go through the permit process, we would request that you folks reco~,end to the City Council upon findings that there is no demonstrated need for a new ordinance. That the new ordinance is unduly burdensome to Moon Valley. That the measures sought are not reasonably necessary. That you recommend to the City not to adopt this ordinance. If you folks accept the recommendation of the Planning Director, to have the City adopt an ordinance that you already have, we would ask that you continue the grandfather and exempt Moon Valley from the provisions of the new ordinance. Turn over this section to Mr. Zwiers if you folks have any particular questions as to how Moon Valley has been operated and the future scope of Moon Valley's operations and what Mr. Zwiers' plans are in terms of using that land in the future. I'd just like to reiterate that the best security that the City has in terms of how that operation is going to be used is the land itself. There's absolutely no need for a bond or a letter of credit to be posted because he's not going anywhere. He wants to live out that land. Conrad: Michael there are 4 things you said. The cost was extensive. You didn't like the setback requirement. It basically constituted a taking or a taking of rights. What else? Is that it? Are those the key factors? We're really interested in specifics in the ordinance that we see in front of us. The impact on you and I've only seen, the cost is one thing obviously. The setbacks is another. I'm curious what else? Mike Dwyer: Okay, I can address some other ones. Under the proposed ordinance the City Engineer would have the sole discretion to require that this entire 85 acres be fenced. I don't know what the cost of that would Planning Co~m~ission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 9 be but it would have to be enormous. The ordinance requires that any slope, existing slope that has a degree of greater than 1:1.5 be fenced. Your existing ordinance has that and also has an additional requirement that this new ordinance doesn't pick up and that is that you'd have to fence any pool of water that's deeper than 1 1/2 feet. There is a requirement that Moon Valley give to the City for it's consideration the routes that the trucks hauling this product would take. Presumably just the roads in the city. There's a requirement that all the haul roads be paved with asphalt or concrete. That is an additional expense. Well, I have not gone through the entire ordinance to direct it toward the particular operations but we could do that at a later time if you'd like to. I can pinpoint... Conrad: I guess I'm not as concerned and maybe other people are, how the operation is running today and maybe we'll hear some neighbors comment about that. I am very interested in the specifics with the ordinance. We have to decide how it impacts you based on how you tell us it's impacting you and obviously the 300 feet versus 50, that's a problem. But you know, I think we need to hear and obviously some of these things cost money and we have to figure out if it's worth it on our part but until we hear the problems, we really don't know. The general things, it costs a lot. Everything, businesses cost a lot. That's just an absolute. There is a cost associated with running a business. We need to know what those costs are. We need to know if they're excessive and we have to make some kind of decision. Mike Dwyer: Another one that comes to mind in terms of putting Moon Valley out of business would be the requirement that the processing equipment which consistent in Moon Valley primarily of a screening operation, cannot be within 500 yards of adjacent land that is not dedicated to mining. Well, we'd be in violation under that provision of this proposed ordinance. The hours of operation. I can't remember under the old ordinance or the new ordinance how that is dictated. I think those hours of operation would be negotiable. Moon Valley hauls a great deal for the State and local governments. They have their own requirements as to when, they prefer that these trucks be on the road during the evening as opposed to heavy Private passenger use. The principle point though sir is this ordinance, if passed, would put costs, unreasonable costs on an operation that has existed before the ordinance did. That's our concern. It's a non-conforming ,]se. Your ordinances recognize it as a non-conforming use and now you're taking that away. There's no difference between a non- conforming use that is regulated and, it disappears. A non-conforming use becomes regulated. It's not a non-conforming ,]se. If you do have any questions of Mr. Zwiers, I'd invite you to ask them. Perhaps while he does that, I'll flyspect the ordinance again and point out further. Perhaps it'd be best if I submit to you in writing a detail of how this... Conrad: That'd be appropriate. Let's see where the hearing goes. Mike Dwyer: Thank you. Conrad: Thank you. Other co~m~ents? Planning Co~tission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 10 Leon Mesenbrink: My name is Leon Mesenbrink. I live at 250 Flying Cloud Drive. Right across from the Moon Valley pretty much. I've been here since 1959. In that area. Long before there was the little, still a ski tow there. Little rifle range. Ma and pa gravel pit. Didn't really amount to anything. I didn't think much of it. About a couple years ago I started walking around the hills across from the house taking the kids for walks and I couldn't believe was I was seeing. Holes in the ground like you wouldn't believe. Well this person, they're saying that they're terracing it. Right across from my house, if I take a small child. He falls down that terrace, that'd be one heck of a fall I'll tell you. A bank is undercut. If a small kid would go to the side, they don't want to put a fence up. They want the best of both things these people. They want to have an ordinance for everyone else that's going to start but they don't want anything, they want this grandfather to do what they want to do here. They're within 50 feet of this property here with this grandfather gave them kind of right to go anywhere they want to go. What's going to stop them from going north, south, east and west to within 25 feet with this grandfather clause? Absolutely nothing the way it sounds to me. We're not only talking about myself and some of these other people. We're talking people within 80 acres all around here. In other words, that they could, any other operation that starts would have to obey by these rules but these people wouldn't? I certainly don't think that's, you're talking about taking rights away. That's taking rights away from everyone else. It's giving these people the right to go do anything they want with this grandfather clause? I don't think so people. I think you'd better take a long look at what we're doing here. These people have a right to run an operation. I have no problems with that. I would like to see some controls put on it. If it has to be fenced with a drop that's just now so a small child wouldn't fall and hurt themselves, there should be a fence. If that's an expense, like you say, any business there's expenses to business. It's an expense that those people have to bear but are you going to put all. types, are you going to tell any young kid 5, 6, don't go up in those hills because they could fall down because these people have a grandfather clause? You people have a responsibility here to everyone. To be fair with them but to be fair with everyone. I think that's what you should do before you decide anything. Thank you. Conrad: Thank you for your comments. Other opinions? Erhart moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Roger Knutson: Mr. Chairman, would you like me to make some co~,ents? Conrad: I was thinking of asking you and I just wasn't sure when. Maybe it's appropriate right now Roger. Roger Knutson: As Mr. Dwyer said, we had a meeting and we had some discussions. We emphasized to Moon Valley that we recognize they are a non-conforming use and we recognize they have the right to continue in existence so there's argument about that, at least there shouldn't be. We tried to make clear and we think is correct, that even though they are a Planning Co~ission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 11 non-conforming use, you have the right to regulate non-conforming uses which different than putting them out of business. Obviously if they're already within 50 feet of a property line, you can't make them stay back 300 feet or 500 feet or 200 feet because that's an impossibil~.ty and there's a provision in the ordinance that acknowledges that that says for existing uses, variations will be granted as appropriate to recognize what's already there. The idea of the ordinance is not to put non-conforming use out of business but to regulate it so it does not cause problems and that's the purpose of it. I don't see any taking issues or anything else. It's strictly a matter of fact that I think we can regulate a non-conforming use. There are all sorts of existing businesses that have to come into compliance with new rules. Environmental rules, what have you. Factories have to put in scrubbers on their chimneys and do all sorts of things they didn't have to do when they started but times change and rules change and you have to comply with those rules to protect the public good and that's what we're asking. Unless you have questions, that's all I have. Conrad: We probably will. Batzli: If you amended the current ordinance to include language that current existing uses would have to enter into a permit within 6 months, would they have to come in for a permit under the current ordinance? Roger Knutson: I'm not sure I understand your question. Under the current ordinance they don't have to come in for a permit but if you amended the zoning ordinance right now and said you have to come in? Batzli: Yeah. Roger Knutson: I think you could do that. I think it's cleaner having this in a separate ordinance. In the gravel ordinance to make it clear that you're acting under the police powers, general police powers rather than specific zoning. That's why it was set up that way. For example you did that with contractor's yards. You required existing contractor's yards to come in and get a conditional use permit and although it was suggested they wouldn't get a permit, I would tell you what my reco~m, endation but I can't tell you that you would grant him one but I would certainly say you should grant him one because there a non-conforming use and they have a right to continue in existence but you can attach reasonable conditions to protect the public. Conrad: Tim, we'll start at your end. Erhart: First I'll respond to the Moon Valley's attorney's co~,ents and sometimes these kinds of comments may disturb me so. Number one is that I absolutely don't agree that this is entirely targeted at Moon Valley at all. I happen to live adjacent to another mining operation in the City of Chanhassen and have the same concerns about that operation as the gentleman over here had, Mr. Mesenbrink, that today it's small but it certainly would grow to within 50 feet of my property if we don't have some kind of regulations on it. They were already out there working on Sundays removing clay. Next they'll be working at night and I can hear it and it hasn't Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 12 bothered me so much so far but I think it's time to get a handle on these things so in addition to that I also know that there's one other large property owner close to where I live who is also considering and has been talked to by somebody that's interested in mining clay off his property. So I take exception to your contention that this ordinance is directed specifically at Moon Valley. Two, your statement that we cannot regulate these things I believe is wrong in that I think we have not only the right but the obligation to protect the health and safety of the people and the property owners of Chanhassen. Despite whether or not that you consider yourself grandfathered in or not. I think that's simply what we're trying to do here and that's our concern with this ordinance. I agree with the other co~ents here that in the first place I don't know what you meant by the $35,000.00, if that's the permit and if the legal cost is that high or whatever it is but like any business in this city, including mine, there's a cost of operation and when I see that, certainly your annual revenues exceed $800,000.00 since that's the size of the contract with Eden Prairie, $35,000.00 might be, seems to be minimal so I guess it doesn't really sway me one way or the other. Last, or at least fourth, to say that you're not interested in expanding the operation, well I think your actions, not wrong actions but I think your statement is totally incorrect because you've already expanded operation so from what you were when you just bought the property and now you're mining clay up by Pioneer Trail. I expect that the other mining operation to my west, they're going to expand and we might have some others starting. And last, .your con, tent about no accidents so far. That doesn't mean there won't be any accidents in the future and so I personally think your co~m~ents were inappropriate for what we're trying to get accomplished here tonight and that is to write a good ordinance that protects the safety and the health of the citizens of Chanhassen and we're not trying to put Moon Valley out of business at all here. I guess I don't have to repeat what Roger says there but, so with that, I guess I'm not sure we're prepared to move, well I'm sure some of us are prepared to talk about the ordinance but I think Moon Valley ought to get the specifics and if they want to draft a document that itemizes what things that bother them, we can do that. But anyway, just proceed with the ordinance. So I'll go with that. Just a couple things I have here. Help me understand Brian's question in that how is it that this ordinance is going to require Moon Valley to come into compliance where they haven't in on the old one? Can you help me there Paul? Krauss: Well a couple things. The standards here are different and we believe a little more comprehensive than the ones we had but I think the key section is, and Roger correct me if i'm wrong but is on page 2, 7-32 that says that mining and excavation operations that predate this chapter that do not have a permit shall obtain a permit within 6 months after the date of adoption. That really is the key as to whether or not you could lift this section out and overlay it onto the existing statute. I'd defer that to Roger. Erhart: That's fundamentally the issue. One of the issues here is whether we can force them to do that or not. Roger Knutson: When I was drafting it, I sat and scractched my head a good deal trying to figure out what was the best place to put this. Whether in Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 13 an excavation and gravel ordinance or whether to put it just strictly in the zoning ordinance. I divided it up the way I did because I think you have a bit more authority to do this. I think you could do it either way but I think it's more authority to do it as a separate permitting process under your police powers than under 462 of the zoning statute. I think you could argue it either way as to which way is the best way to do it. Can you require a non-conforming use to get a permit and be submit to new regulations? I believe you can. Erhart: After restoration, are we defining, I didn't see here. Did I miss it. We're defining the slopes after restoration? Krauss: No sir. We didn't specifically what slopes we'd be looking for after restoration. What we'd be looking is when somebody came in for a permit, to give us a restoration plan that made some sense. I mean maybe give us a concept development plan to show that it can, the resulting terrain's going to be useful for what they're proposing. In the case of Moon Valley, we're not quite sure what the use would be because that area's all agricultural right now so apart from 10 acre zoning, that's the only thing that would be allowed in there. Erhart: I was thinking that in the case of Moon Valley or in that area or some of the other areas, I think what you're going to have a lot of, is a lot of steep slopes afterwards and even if they put black dirt back on top and reseed it and whatever, it's not going to look. I think it could easily happen that it's not going to look natural. I think you could have some 1:1 slopes remaining. I don't know if it's practical to control that but that was one of the concerns I had is how do you, when you get it all done, make it fit into the surrounding areas? The other one is, I've noticed that you have allowed your possibility of when you remove minerals is that it co~lld be convereted to a wetland if that was part of the plan up front. Is that my understanding Paul? Krauss: Yes sir. We would want to have a complete and comprehensive drainage plan. The rehabilitation plan would show the finished grade. The existing features, we'd want to have a preservation plan. Erhart: Do you see that potentially is that you could design in essentially a wetland or something in the end? Krauss: Sure. A lot of restored gravel quarries have water amenities in them simple because they wind up being big potholes. Erhart: The other thing, on your condition 5 on page 9 there. You state that no part of the rehabilitation area which is planned for uses other than open space, ag, shall be at an elevation lower than the minimum required for connection to sanitary or storm sewer. Does that mean gravity flow? Krauss: That's true. You can pump anything. We should make it clear that we're looking for gravity flow. Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990- Page 14 Erhart: The question I had, is that even, should that even be a requirement? What happens if it was required that it had to have gravity flow even before they started to hook into a sewer? You might be imparting a constraint that they didn't start with. Krauss: That's true. I guess the thing you're avoiding is a situation where you have a crater with homes at the bottom of the crater and everything has to get pumped up the hill. Erhart: I'm just asking you to look at the sentence there. Krauss: We can take a further look at that. Erhart: It may be a little bit too constraining. Anyway, I know Steve's got a whole list of things so, regarding the ordinance so I'll just pass it to him and if I've got some more. E~m, ings: I guess I'm comfortable that the City can enact an ordinance to regulate a deal with this subject generally for the City but I've got some real serious concerns as to exactly how this ordinance winds up being applied to Moon Valley. Although it's been said several times here that all businesses have costs and obviously that's true. It's one thing to have a business, to plan your business and plan those costs in and decide if you're going to go forward as opposed to having your business up and running on some kind of profit margin and then having regulations imposed on you that may threaten your existence so I think there's a difference there. While the staff report says it's not punitive. I can sure see that if I were the operator and it were true that these new regulations would in fact cost me more than my profit margin. I'd sure view them as punitive. But like I say, I think we can and should regulate this activity. We ought to have a good ordinance in place for these kinds of activities. I've got a solution in mind maybe so we can maybe acco~-~,odate everybody I would hope. I'm curious as to whether or not the operation of this gravel pit has generated complaints to the City? Krauss: Commissioner, I'd have to say yes it has. But the applicant or Mr. Zwiers, the future applicant possibly, has asked us repeatedly to tell him how many complaints we've gotten and that's tough because you know there were individuals there who were making a lot of phone calls and we got a lot of phone calls from other agencies. Emmings: I don't care so much about the numbers as the type. What have people complained about? Olsen: About the expansion recently. How far it's going to be going... E~m, ings: Now if we move back in time to when all of this activity started, the complaints about the expansion. What kind of complaints were we getting prior to that time? Olsen: I don't recall any. Planning Co~ission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 15 Emmings: So we weren't getting complaints about anything? Okay. I have specific things on language in the ordinance. Do you want me to go through that? Conrad: Yeah, I think so. Emmings: Okay. I think in Section 7-30 where it says, it would be the sixth line down, it says cubic yards of material. It says shall be processed adminstratively. In Section 7-35(a) it says they may be. Here it says they shall be and I think it should be one way or the other in both places and I think it should be may because I think the staff may elect not to process it adminstratively. Krauss: I would agree with that, yes. E~-~tings: So I think that shall should be changed to may. And then following up on that point, in 7-34(a). Instead of saying it may be approved, I think the approved should be changed to processed adminstratively again just for, you don't want anybody thinking you only have the power to approve. You have the power to deny as well but I think if you say you have the power to process them, that keeps all your options as open as possible. Under the definition section, 7-31. It defines the word grade and you already have a definition in the Code of the word grade as a noun and here it's being used as verb and I think that's real confusing. Or here it's being used as a verb or a noun but anyway, the definition we already have in the Code is different than the one that's here and I think that word should be changed to grading. Batzli: Is the definition in the Chapter 20, Zoning section? E~-~ ing s: Ye ah. Batzli: So it's in a different section. EF~ings: Yeah, it's in 20-1, Definitions. Batzli: And this is going to be Chapter 7. So it's going to be in a different chapter. Emmings: But I think nevertheless, I think it should say grading because the ordinance is called excavations, mining and grading so what we're defining as grading, not the word grade and the same with mine. The next one down. It should be mining. Batzli: Excavating? Emmings: No, because look at the title. Just to keep it consistent with what the name of the ordinance is. Now grading, would this ordinance cover a situation where someone is hauling in dirt or some other material into their property and just laying it on top of the ground? Because that'd be changing the contour so that would be grading? Do you think people think of that as grading? Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 16 Krauss: We could add filling. Should we add filling? E~m, ings: I don't know. It's just something that occurred to me when I read, grading to me means kind of shoving around dirt on the same site and I don't know. I .don't know if that includes hauling in dirt from off site and then shoving it around and whether you'd want to expand that definition to make it perfectly clear that we're talking about or removing soil from the site or adding soil to the site or pushing dirt around on the same site might make it clearer what we're talking about there. I don't know. Under 7-33, Exemptions from Permit Requirements. I was wondering why we're exempting (a) and (b). I'm wondering, are we doing that because that really is looked at as part of the building permit process? Krauss: That's correct. Emmings: Okay. Under application for permit under 7-34(b). Under number 9 it says that there has to be a landscape plan and I'm wondering what, I guess I was thinking it didn't make much sense to me but I guess I was only thinking about it in terms of like an operation like Moon Valley. A mining operation as opposed to, this might cover a lot of other circumstances where you would want a landscape plan so that would be right? Krauss: Arguably you'd also want one with the Moon Valley type of operation. We get into buffering and screening later in the ordinance. That's where that information will be provided. E~,ings: Alright. That section I would add a 15. Under 13 there's an (f) that says other information required by the City. I think that ought to be just moved out to number 15, the whole list. So if there's any kind of site specific or other information that was needed that could be required under this Section then. On page 5 at the top under the paragraph that starts with a (b) there, the third line down. It says, again may be approved and I would change approved to processed administratively again. Then in that same paragraph, sixth line down it eludes to a subdivision 10-154 and I think that's a stranger to our ordinance. I think you mean 7-34(b) but I don't know. Then in (c) there, I'm not sure, it says implementation of the overall plan. Batzli: Did you try to rewrite that? Emmings: Well, first I tried to understand it and I don't know. It says implementation of the overall plan. I think what we're talking about there is the operator's overall plan. Is that right? I wasn't sure what overall plan meant there. Krauss: I think that's a reasonable modification. Emmings: I thought maybe it ought to say compliance with permit approval or something like that, shall be by means of a renewal annual permit. That doesn't make me entirely happy but something. I thought maybe that got more at what you were trying to say. Planning Co~ission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 17 Batzli: Can I give him my shot while he's on there. Any approved permit shall be valid for a period of 1 calendar year and may be renewed for an additional 1 year period upon renewal in accordance with this section. E~m, ings: Sure. I think that's better. Then I thought the last half of that paragraph where it talked about the City Engineer being able to process this. Either ought to be under Section 7-37 where it talks about renewals or at least there ought to be a reference in 7-37(a) at the end back to that paragraph where it talks about how the City Engineer does it. One way or the other. Otherwise you look under the heading for renewal and you don't find the procedure there. Under termination of permit 7-36, in (a) it talks about material extraction permit. What we're talking about here is mining, extraction and grading so this one seems to be written too narrow to me. We should change that. It should be as broad as the ordinance itself is. In 7-42, vertical was misspelled. Then when I got over to 7-43(6) it says the perimeter of the site shall be planted coniferous trees or otherwise screened. Again, it was hard to stop thinking about Moon Valley through a lot of these things. That would be nuts up there to me. To require a site that size to be planted in coniferous trees around it when it sits up in a place where you can't see it kind of anyway. I hope we're going to be reasonable when we apply this stuff. Then I thought maybe, I've got two things I'd like to throw out as possible additions to the ordinance. One, it seemed to me that if a person didn't do the rehab in conformance with their rehabilitation plan. I'll read the paragraph I wrote here. If rehab is not completed in conformance with the rehab plan, rehab standards or permit conditions within 30 days of written notice of violations by the City to the permit holder, then the City may enter the property and complete rehabilitation. I thought there ought to be some provision so that if they walked away from the site, you can have the City give a notice for them of the specific violations that there have been and then let the City go in and do that so that it does get done. And then I thought the written notice of violation shall contain a list of specific violations and the City may enter only to remedy those violations specifically included in writing. If the City must complete rehabilitation, it may recoup it's cost by one, resort to any financial security posted by the permit holder. Two, collection proceedings against the permit holder. And three, assessment of cost against the property described in the permit. I thought that would give us a real potent tool for making sure that these properties get rehabilitated because to me that's the most important part. Or one of the most important aspects of the whole thing. I also thought that, or throw out for consideration a provision that if the landowner is a person other than the permit holder, that we get landowners to join in the permit application and also sign a statement that the landowner and his successors in interest be bound by the permit conditions and grant the City the right to enter the property at any time to check for permit compliance or to complete rehabilitation. That way avoiding any problems later on of the City trespassing. You can give the permit holder, I was thinking then after I did that that maybe we also ought to give, if there's a notice of violations under that other section, it ought to go to both the land owner and the permit holder if they're different people. What happens to our present Section 20 that deals with mineral extraction if we pass this ordinance? Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 18 Krauss: We would have to drop it. There should be a concurrent. E~m, ings: Shouldn't that be part of this that that would be revoked or repealled or whatever it's called technically? Now as far as, if we assume that this operation is grandfathered in or becomes a non-conforming use, which I guess is the same thing, is that the same thing Roger? To say something is grandfathered in, is that the same thing as simply calling it a non-conforming use under the ordinance? Roger Knutson: Yes. To just point out, taking care of the existing Chapter 20, we do that. If you look on page 9 of the draft ordinance, Section 7-46(2) there. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by amending Article XXVII in it's entirety to read:, so we've taken care of that. Emmings: In it's entirety to read: and then what? Roger Knutson: Turn to the next page. EFm, ings: Oh, alright. Roger Knutson: So everything in that chapter right now will be eliminated and replaced with that. Emmings: Okay. So that's already taken care of. You know you're not supposed to be able to expand a non-conforming use. Is that right? Roger Knutson: Yes but. The Supreme Court recognized that certain types of uses such as a gravel mine cannot continue to exist unless the hole gets bigger so they have said that even though non-conforming uses cannot expand, call it an exception or this is not expanding. This is continuation of the business so they have the right to continue to make the hole bigger. E~m~ings: Okay. And what limits that right? Roger Knutson: Of making the hole bigger? E~m~ings: Yeah. Now they're up to within 50 feet of the property line at least in one point that we've heard discussed here tonight and I guess, they can't go so close to that property line that the next fellow's land collapses or something like that. They've got to leave support there for his property but is that all that really restricts there? Roger Knutson: Currently in Chanhassen? E~'~,ing s: Yeah. Roger Knutson: Yes. We have no regulation of the non-conforming use other than nuisance which is kind of not a very great instr,~ent for handling these sorts of things but they can create public nuisances. Depending on what they were doing, that could come into play. Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 19 Emmings: I went out to the site and was shown around and Mr. Zwiers told me what his plans are for the property and so forth. As we were standing up by the office area, I asked him what was underneath my feet and he said more clay and more sand. I asked him why he didn't plan to remove everything right down to the road level and he said that he just felt the property had more value if he didn't do that. He showed me that he had the top soil segregated and set aside on one part of the property and he described to me what his ultimate plan was, at least at this point in time for completely the mining of the property and hopefully maybe building houses up there someday. I guess I feel pretty strongly that, while I think the ordinance is fine and reasonable, I wouldn't be happy if this ordinance operated on his property to put him out of business which I've heard stated is not our intention. There seems to be a lot of latitude under the ordinance in the way the provision and so forth for taking into account what he's got. The fact that he was there before we had an ordinance but if someone wanted to get real literal with the ordinance, it could do him I suspect a lot of harm in terms of the way it affects his operation. I think that having, I'm all for some of these things such as him having fences up where there's very steep slopes that could cave in if children got up there or something like that. Those kinds of stories you read in the paper on an all too frequent basis. I think there's some real dangers there that need to be addressed but when I see things like having the entire site screened or trees put around it, that's I think a good example of one if people got too literal with the ordinance, would be devastating to his business and kind of silly besides. My proposal, and I don't know if it would be, I just don't know-if it can be done but it would seem to me that there are provisions in here such as, Mr. Zwiers when he talked to me told me he had very specific notions about how the property was going to look when he was done. He stood there and said, this level's going to stay where it is. I'm going to take out these areas. I'm going to have another level up here. I'm going to do this with these slopes and he told me, he seems to have a very specific plan and I guess if that plan, maybe the way to handle this, or one way of handling this probably of this existing entity under our ordinance would be to reduce that to writing. Get him to put down what it is that he's got in mind for the property right now and considering our ordinance, making sure that he has a rehabilitation plan. He told me he does and he described what it was and put that down at this point in time and just make an agreement with Mr. Zwiers that he's going to ultimately have the site in such and such a condition. Then as the...maybe relieve him from some of the obligations under here that if enforced literally would cause him problems. There may be some things in the middle like putting up fences on steep slopes that he might not want to do that we might want him to do that maybe could be compromised. Or maybe there are things that we'll just plain want him to do. But it seems to me those aren't the big things if the big things are to everybody like they are to me, making sure that the site is safe. That it's not causing a nuisance to neighbors and that there's a rehabilitation plan. An ultimate plan for the property. That's all I've got to say. Conrad: That's the longest you've ever talked. E~.ing s: Sorry. Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990- Page 20 Batzli: I agree with Steve. I was out there with Jim and I'll admit I got the same tour, or close facsimile and he explained to me what he was going to do. I don't have a problem with what he's going to do. I'd like to see him be able to reach an agreement with the City that allows him to do that provided that fits in with the planning staff and our view of things when it's kind of reduced to writing but I think he's got a good plan for what he wants to do out there. I think some safety things do have to be addressed. If it was a rainy season and there was actually water in some of his sumps, maybe fencing around that. Around some of the steep slopes. I agree that the safety considerations and nuisance things need to be handled and should be regulated but I don't have a problem with being flexible in regards to a lot of the things that I see in this particular ordinance given the fact that obviously for instance on the setbacks and things, he's already exceeded those and prior to his expansion if you will, it doesn't appear that there were any complaints. So I like Steve's idea if there's some way to do that. I also liked his additions to the ordinance and I had some things th~:oughout the ordinance too that I'll talk about but I'm in general agreement. Conrad: Do you want to talk about the changes? Batzli: I don't know. Do you want me to talk about them now? The one thing I would like to see added is the fencing around the water. I'd like to see that back in there. The other thing is, the one thing that bothered me throughout and some of the other: things are less important is the definition of the word earth. To change the contour of the earth. I don't understand if it's being ,]sed as a planet or, the legal definition of earth is soil, alone is distinquished from soil rock. I mean that's the legal definition of earth. So I don't know quite how it's being used and if it's a proper noun, let's capitalize it or what are we doing here. That bothek-ed me. I'm not an English professor so can we get help on that one? The only other minor one is in 7-30. It should be 1,000 cubic yards of material or more or else you're stuck at 1,000 cubic yards. You don't know what to do. Take out the word more than right before the second use of 1,000 cubic yards. My proposal for Moon Valley actually before hea~:ing Steve's was going to be that they would be allowed to phase in some of these things over a period of time so they could take them into consideration when bidding on future jobs and so you don't nail them all at once with the cost that is a burden to them. At least they know it's going to hit over some period of time rather than boom, it's passed. 6 months from now you have to have all this implemented or at least be the permit in process because actually it says I guess, shall obtain a permit and that's questionable whether they could actually do that in 6 months given that it's kind at our option how quickly we proceed. One last thing. That is on the 50 cubic yards, how did we arrive at that number? I mean that's basically 5 dump trucks of black dirt on somebody's lawn if they're going to correate, put some black dirt on there. Wildermuth: Probably a little low. Krauss: A little low like we're regulating too much? It could be raised. It came from experience in working with similar ordinances elsewhere. 5 truckloads of dirt is probably enough for somebody to get black dirt down Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 21 to sod a lawn which is fine. Nobody cares about that. When you go over that, you tend to have the ability to impact drainage and wetlands and you're starting to get into the area that we'd like to look at. If you wanted it raised to 100 yards or some other number, we wouldn't have a problem with that necessarily but that's basically where it's derived from. Batzli: Wasn't one of the exclusions in the previous ordinance residential lots though? Krauss: Relative to building permits. With the building permit. Batzli: With the building permit? Okay. Krauss: And that's still an exemption. I had a couple of other minor things that I'll just show to Paul later. Wildermuth: As far as Moon Valley is concerned, I'd like to see some kind of a development plan arrived at between the City and city staff and the mine owner so that he could obtain a permit and probably would not have to meet requirements on the new proposed ordinance. I think the ordinance is a tight one. I think to some degree we're sending the message out that we don't want mining operations in Chanhassen. Which brings up another point. Roger, one of the things that does bother me a little bit is that there seems to be kind of a mingling of the idea of excavation, filling and grading of minerals. I guess I'd like to see a little clearer distinction between the two. I think they can be combined in one ordinance but we talk about, first we talk about landscape plans and then we talk about labeling trees and under the same heading we also talk about rehabilitation plans and distances for processing equipment from, somewhere it said 1,500 feet. 1,500 feet from the boundary of the adjoining property and that brings up another point. I think we've got to look at specific kinds of processing operations. A washing operation, 500 yards would be quite a distance for a washing operation. For example, in the Moon Valley operation you couldn't go 500 yards almost in any direction except maybe the west. Roger Knutson: Just to point out. You're looking at the second draft and quite frankly the first draft which was produced 3 days before this draft is dated, didn't address filling at all and Paul and I talked and we agreed that filling should be addressed and we did, kind of quick and got something in here on filling. I agree with you it can use. Wildermuth: A separate distinction between mining the grading, filling and excavation. The other interesting thing that I'd like to point out is that wherever mineral extraction is used, I think we should replace that terminology with mining. Extraction means separating metals from their ores and we're not talking about that here. We're talking about mining clay, gravel, sand. We're not really talking about mineral extraction in a mining sense of the term. Conrad: Should we be? Wildermuth: I don't think so unless somebody knows something that the experts don't. Unless we're sitting on a lot of iron ore or copper or Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990- Page 22 something like that. Silver. Gold. I think that the ordinance in general is appropriate for future operations. I think it gives us a good handle and good control of future operations in Chanhassen and I think that's what we want and that's what we need. I agree with what has been said about Moon Valley. I was very impressed by the mine site. I've been in a few mine s~tes. This is very orderly. Very neat. The man does have a plan and his ultimate goal is to develop the property. The equipment that I saw was pretty impressive. The office was first rate. I don't think there's anything shabby about this operation. I'm sure that we can come to some understanding recognizing that the grandfather status and so on, we can come to some agreement, some understanding, some basis on which a permit can be granted fo~ the Moon Valley operation but I do like the strength of the ordinance for any new operations. Any fresh operations. Ahrens: Well I may have a slightly different opinion because I didn't get to go in the office Jim. I got a different tour. I had to go outside. Wildermuth: How many mines have you been in? Ahrens: A lot. Ail the Eden Prairie ones. I agree with some of my fellow commissioners here and I have a couple comments to make on some of their co~m, ents. First of all, I agree with Roger in that I think there are a lot of ordinances adopted by cities and states that affect existing businesses and that lots of times require those businesses to comply with various health and safety and environmental laws and ordinances that cities may think are necessary for the public safety and interest of the co~unities. I think we have to, I think that's just something we live with in a modern age and we never know when there may be something new that's required to protect the public. I think that this ordinance does address several public health and safety issues. When I went on a tour of this site I noticed that there were, Mr. Zwiers' pointed out a deer, I don't hunt deer so I don't know the technical term for it but... Batzli: A tree stand? Ahrens: A tree stand, yeah. There are people who are not working there who are walking around on the property. I don't know if they're kids or adults or whoever they are but they are walking around on the property. I think that it may be infeasible to fence the entire property but I think that some fencing has to be done. I'm a little confused about, we've been talking about the expansion of Moon Valley that's when the complaints started and I'm not sure if that means the expansion of the mining operation or the excavation of the clay over by Pioneer Trail. Krauss: Commissioners Ahrens, that's a good question and there are actually two separate issues. There were rumors in the neighborhood and we've never substantiated them and spoke to Mr. Zwiers about it, that an additional parcel was going to be acquired. One that would have brought the Moon Valley operation closer to residential homes in the area. We found no indication that that was accurate but that was the rumor that was going around. Now it may affect, Mr. Zwiers indicated that it was a consideration, I'll let him explain that but there was some consideration to that but it's not actively being considered now. As to the one up on Planning Co~mtission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 23 Pioneer Trail, we've considered that as an expansion in the past because it's a separate, it's physically removed from the original pit. However, we've also found some information out about what's being mined up there and we were under the impression originally that it was a different, that the material they were excavating up there was clay, which it is but we were under the impression that there was no clay in the pit itself, the main pit and it turns out that there is so the distinction's getting a little more blurry than it had originally been. But we were looking at it being an expansion because it was physically removed. It was up in a different area. It was up near Pioneer Trail and not 169. Emmings: Is it on a different parcel of land? Mike Dwyer: No. Olsen: It's all under single ownership but it was on a piece that was purchased that at one time was separate but everything was purchased and under single ownership before the ordinance it's subject to. Mike Dwyer: That top side has been mined as well... Ahrens: The top side? What are you talking about? Mike Dwyer: The level top, Pioneer Trail side has been mined at different times. Other than, the Moon Valley operation has mined in phases. It has mined the top side. Ahrens: The area where the farming area was? Tom Zwiers: On the bottom side. We mined on that, like they're talking about that same parcel and we shaved down the front... Ahrens: I wasn't talking about that area. I was talking about where the clay is being removed right now. That hasn't been mined up there? Mike Dwyer: Other than the excavation you've seen. Ahrens: Is the excavation of clay, is that all part of the same use as the gravel mining? Tom Zwiers: We mine with blades...all types of materials out of it other than gold. Wildermuth: Would any future activity on the top portion off Pioneer Trail require a separate permit or would the whole parcel be under one permit? Krauss: I guess ideally the whole parcel would be under one permit that would all be controlled in some sort of comprehensive manner. Ahrens: Now if this ordinance is adopted and Mr. Zwiers' operation is grandfathered in, does that mean if he ever changes his mind about his intentions for the property or if he sells his property, that that property could, that anybody could do anything they wanted with that property? Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990- Page 24 Continue to mine it to within 25 feet of all the adjoining property owners? Roger Knutson: No. The idea is, he gets a permit. The permit runs with the land and the permit lays out conditions which he will now have to comply with. The owner of the property will have to comply with. Ahrens: But if he keeps the property and just changes his mind and he doesn't want to develop it into housing. He wants to continue to mine it. Roger Knutson: It's part of the permit process. Once you issue a permit, you have a land use plan with that. He can change it but he'll have to come back and see the City to get it changed. Wildermuth: One of the reasons for an annual update right? Roger Knutson: Right. He can change his mind. I mean if he goes on mining for 100 years and who knows what's going to be appropriate 100 years from now, he can come back and say, you know people aren't building apartments now. We want something else and come to see you and has to have it changed. Batzli: This actually extinquishes then the grandfathered non-conforming use? Roger Knutson: No. He still has... Batzli: If for instance he was to come in and get a permit and then cease operations for 2 years. Sell the property. The new person would not be able to continue? Roger Knutson: That's correct. Batzli: That's extinquishing the use then on the land? Roger Knutson: That's correct. If he stops doing it for a period of time, that's right. Wildermuth: Is that in here too? Batzli: No, that's not in here. The abandonment. Roger Knutson: That's in the zoning ordinance. Krauss: That's today. That's under the non-conforming section of the zoning ordinance. Ahrens: In general I think this is a well written ordinance. I have some changes too that I don't think we need to go into right now. Some of them have already been covered and I can talk to Paul about it afterwards. I don't think it's the intent of anyone to put Moon Valley out of business. I don't think even this ordinance, if applied to Moon Valley would probably put Moon Valley out of business. At least I haven't seen any evidence of that. There is in 7-46 a waiver that the City Council may allow deviation Planning Co~ission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 25 from the standards set forth herein for mining and excavation operations that existed prior to the enactment of this ordinance which seems to give the City Council power to exempt Moon Valley from whatever they want in here, if I'm not mistaken. Roger Knutson: That's correct. The idea is, we can't anticipate in writing an ordinance what all the different variations are and existing uses so we just left that open. Ahrens: Right. I think that if some kind of statement is made by Mr. Zwiers like Steve said, I don't know what the legal affect of that would be but if some statement were made and it was clear with the City Council exactly what his intent was and I don't think that he can be as rigid as it appears. It doesn't sound like Mr. Zwiers wants to fence anything in and wants to comply with a lot of the safety issues that are addressed by this ordinance. I think that he has to give on some of those. I think that the City, I mean I hope the City will cooperate with him and allow him to comply with the Statute as reasonably as possible but I think it's a pretty good ordinance. I guess that's all I have. Conrad: Okay, thanks Joan. I'll be real quick and brief. There's a couple things that are real clear to me. One, we need the ordinance. Absolutely. No doubt in my mind. Two, we have the right to do it. No doubt. Specifically, in terms of the ordinance itself, I've got two concerns. One is the cost and what we are imposing. I have no idea Paul. I don't know if we're talking $15.00 or $35,000.00. I guess I need somebody to tell me what we just did. It certainly would be site specific but again I just kind of, I need to know what the cost implications of this area. The second thing, in terms of there's a section in there talking about paving for 300 feet. I'm not sure what that does. Maybe it makes sense but it doesn't do a great deal for me as I look at different applications, specifically in this particular case, it doesn't make much sense to me. The paving requirement and I think I'd have to be persuaded that it does. The 50 yards looks kind of small. It looks like, but Paul you're saying you're willing to, or that's enforceable or that you can get control on 50 yards of earth or whatever. It seems like a low number but if you think that's enforceable and we can get a handle on those people moving 50 yards of earth, I guess I can go along with that. Specifically for Moon Valley. So those were my comments on the ordinance. I generally like it. I like the co~'~,ents that I've heard and the changes. Specifically on Moon Valley. I'm real interested in the restoration plan. Not in terms of pointing and we may do this and we may do that. I think we need as a city a plan. We simply have to have that with that site. In my mind that's an absolute. There are safety requirements there. As people move into that area, and we've all said it so I won't belabor the point. There are safety requirements, absolutely that have to be implemented there. I think the owner has a lot of good intent and my co~,ents are not intended to slander his intent because I think they're all good but I also believe that we have some reasons to maintain the bluff and the vistas and I think that's the reason we need an ordinance like this. I don't want to see the bluffs harmed. I don't think the applicant does either but I'm real curious as to how bluffs get restored and so those are my specific concerns with this particular site. They're not as much in terms of operational Planning Co~m~ission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 26 although somebody may bring those to light. I think we have restrictions on contractor's yards and I think those same restrictions should be applicable here. As somebody else said on the Planning Co~-~,ission, I think there's got to be a way to deal with, to put this ordinance in, number one. But then as we relate to Moon Valley, I think there's a way to require us to have specific standards for them i~tediately. Obviously that ones I'd be concerned with are some safety issues and some planning issues. I think as somebody else said, there are some other things that could be phased in over a 5 to 10 year plan and then there are some other things I don't think apply at all. I'd like to see, I think we have some things to do tonight. We can either table this commissioners and bring it back or we can send it through but I guess my direction is to table it for at least a couple of things that I was talking about. One, the cost review I'm intrigued with. I really, I think we need to know as a coF~,ission what we're asking a business to do. Therefore, we will be sensitized a little bit to a later on process when Moon Valley may have to come in for, apply for a permit or whatever. I'm also interested in getting a response from Moon Valley in terms of what the ordinance would do. Some of the specifics. That they believe are totally detrimental or~ harmful to your operation. I really don't want to hear, I don't want to make this a thesis but I want to know the real things. The things that we can't see. You've heard us talk about safety. We're concerned with safety. We're concerned with some of these things. Some of these things you just have to do. You just have to do it and I'd really rather not have you rebuff us on some of the things that we've got concurrence here unless you say, that's a $20,000.00 task. I want to hear about those things. So again, it's not a long exercise but I want to be a little bit brighter than I am right now on some of those cost impacts on your operation. And there will be, if this goes through, there obviously are cost impacts but I think they're worthwhile for the community. Our job and I think as you've heard everybody up here feels really strongly that you're running a pretty good operation in most respects and feels that we're not trying to put you out of business and we're not. And then I'd like to see the ordinance rewritten with our recommendations and staff respond to so~e of the coF~ents. Is 50 yards the right one and what have you. That's where I'd go. To table it co~.ission members and to have it brought back. There's another way to do it. There are other ways to do it but that would be my direction. Any co~,ents? Any motions? Wildermuth moved, Batzli seconded to table the Zoning Ordinance Amendment dealing with excavation, mining and grading for further review. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Con~ad: Let's specifically talk about when this would come back. What type of time do you need to respond? Mike Dwyer: We'd like to be responding to your staff's next draft. Conrad: Okay, that's fair. Paul, what do you think? Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990- Page 27 Krauss: This is an ordinance that's composed by a co~m~ittee of two, Roger and myself. I would suspect we could go through your co~,ents and get some changes out at least in a revised draft format probably by the middle of next week. End of next week. Roger Knutson: For the simple ones where you just said change this word and that, Paul and I can be on the phone tomorrow and compare notes and I'll have it out tomorrow. For the more substantative ones like you were talking about, is paved roads for 300 feet appropriate? I'll let Paul handle that. Krauss: I still think we could have it by next week. Mike Dwyer: We could respond to that probably... Conrad: A week? Okay. Tom Zwiers: I have a question. On the safety, on the fencing. Something to think about, if we change it, what do you think about changing the slopes to a 2:1 slope? We have to, when we bring black dirt in for our restoration on the south side, some of you were there, you see...that bank already, we could bring in the black dirt and slope those banks and get a 2 1/2:1 slope. I don't know if these people, a little kid would have an awful time to crawl up the bank on the other side because he's got to be a strong little kid. Believe me, I've got grandsons and I'm very concerned myself but the bank is as steep going up one side and it's full of trees and brush right now as it is coming down the other side. Conrad: Well yeah. Talk to staff about those rational type of things. I don't like fences. People can climb over fences and I don't know. Wildermuth: That's another thing. I think we've got to say something about what kind of fence. What are we talking about? Are we talking about chainlink or? Conrad: But specifically as I look at the bluff, and I'm looking at the very top, there's nothing you can do at that one point. There's absolutely, you're not talking about making the grade change unless you take down the bluff and we don't want that. We like how that looks but that is not a safe site and something has to be done. That's specifically what I'm looking at. I think there's some other areas where again, I'm not a p~oponent of fences just for fence sake but there are some hazards there that we just have to resolve but that's really specific to your particular location. Those of you who came in today, thank you for your co~,ents and this will be back to us probably 2 sessions, 4 weeks from now. Thank you much. Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990- Page 28 MODIFIED PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2. Todd Gerhardt presented the staff report. E~m~ings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Co~tission adopt Resolution No. 90-1 finding Modification Development District No. 1 and Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Comprehensive Plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried. JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL FOR DISCUSSION OF LAND USE PLAN CHAPTER OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Conrad: Bill and Don, thank yo for attending. Jay, I see you back there. You didn't fall asleep on us. Appreciate that. You won't have to ask some of these same questions when the mining thing gets to you. As you know we're now starting to crank on the Comprehensive Plan. You've known that for a while. We're getting close to public hearings and the thought was to make sure that the City Council had a review and provided us with any insights that you may have at this point in time before we take this to the public. So with that I think Mark will probably or Paul will kick it off and maybe with some support by Mark we'll review where we're going. Paul Krauss and Mark Koegler presented the staff report on the Land Use Plan Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Conrad: Again, maybe I'll mossey out here. I'll turn it this way so people over here and see. If you want to go over there. I really want to make sure that the City Council members kind of get a feel for some of the things we've been doing. As Mark just described to you, we took these out for a variety of reasons and I think they're pretty good reasons for not zoning right now. We also decided that with our residential block of unsewered area the direction we had, that we felt comfortable with, it wasn't the direction that staff proposed i~-~ediately, was to buffer that neighborhood as much as we can. No matter what we do, we're not going to really buffer it. It's such a unique situation that it won't totally be buffered, especially with the creek down here in the valley and the road and whatever. With the woods over there, it sure made sense to keep this residential even though you can see there's a whole lot of logic for keeping it industrial. The purple color all the way through. When we did that, that sort of put some of the industrial that would have gone there, that pushed it down south a little bit. Again, kind of taking Mark's wisdom and the numbers that Mark and Paul came up with in terms of what we believe was a conservative estimate of growth over the next 10 years and I think the Planning Commission felt it was a reasonable method of expectation for growth including industrial and residential. So we kind of surrounded that. I think we've got some higher density stuff closer to TH 5 but I know the neighbors in this area will be real concerned that they don't want ind,]strial surrounding them and in our minds this was one way of doing it. Another one that I'm sure the TH 5 Coalition will come in with, Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990- Page 29 talking about the rationale for keeping industrial entirely on TH 5 simply because there's a transportation corridor there. But again, keeping industrial pretty much consolidated there. I think Bill you brought up a point the other day a while back talking about the high density area. I think are those brown Mark? Koegler: Yes. Conrad: What's the impact of high density? So it's a spot on the map. How many units is that and what are the implications? I think we haven't resolved that, or at least I haven't. Is that too much high density or not? I guess we haven't done anything more, Bill after we heard your comment other than we kept the brown, the high density there but it's there and again the logic was to keep our higher densities clustered closer to downtown where there are services and easier to get to and what have you. We also clustered the higher densities around the park. Supposedly we'll have enough park space to accommodate but I don't know that for sure. Not totally positive. The balance I think, anything else that's unique that we've been playing around with that I should highlight? Krauss: You might want to touch on Ladd, well we're showing now. We had projected a demand for industrial growth. When the area around Timberwood was excluded from consideration for industrial use, we started to look for other sites. Now for a number of reasons the Planning Co~,ission suggested going south of the tracks. The primary reason being is that it helps to take traffic off of TH 5 and put it onto TH 212 which will make the most appropriate use of the new facility and hopefully avoid some problems that we have now. We looked at that land. The land is relative flat except for a centrally located wetland, it's all cultivated and is probably relatively easy converted into industrial/office use. There's a similar problem or concern that there needs to be some buffering for some single family homes down in the southeast corner but they're generally on top of a hill and we're more to the south away from the area that would be developed so that would help. But it also opens up the door to future consideration of continued, potential for some continued non-residential development in that 1995 study area in the future if the City determines to go that way at that time. Conrad: A couple other things or one other thing for sure. Tim is real concerned about our red little district down here on 212 that I think we're going to talk about that. We had enough little problems down there, not for sure we're not talking Moon Valley. We're talking some other cases where the wisdom of 5 or 10 years ago when we made it a zone specifically to accommodate existing uses, for some reason that really hasn't achieved what we thought it would achieve. It seemed like, I remember why we did it and who suggested it and whatever but I don't know that we've solved anything down there and we may be creating more problems. So we may as the Planning Co~ission do something down here. Make a different recommendation. Anything else that is worthy of talking about on this plan? Again, I'm not letting the Council members speak yet. I just want to point out some things that we think might be controversial or you could go a variety of ways on. Anything else? Okay. Jay, any? We're looking, you know there's so much background and you're going to hear this over and Planning Co~tission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 30 over again in the next couple months so I don't want to bore you with stuff tonight but we're looking for glaring deficiencies. Things that the Council would say geez, don't present that to the public. That's definitely wrong or you haven't considered something. Before we start fine tuning this thing, we're kind of interested in your reaction in general on this map. Councilman Johnson: Some of my reaction, along the TH 5 corridor putting residential along what's going to be a 4 lane highway. I'd like to buffer the residential some from that highway. What fairly low intensity use, I'm not talking any Target stores or anything like that. I consider that's too high a density but something to buffer. You put an apartment building next to a highway and it's a lot of noise for the people living in that apartment plus as you look at the apartments that we're putting in and that people will be going into apartments lately, especially Village Heights or whatever they are over here, you're talking a lot of young kids and stuff. That's not the type of families you want to be putting in next to a 4 lane highway. Kids get out in the streets. A 4 lane highway is not a place for a kid to play. Conrad: So if I hear you Jay, you'd be more prone to an industrial use? Councilman Johnson: Well, it has to be a very light industrial, which our industrial parks are fairly light with the exception of the big places. The McGlynn Bakeries and the Rosemounts and stuff like that. I wouldn't want to see any of that type of thing in here. The lighter...type use. It wouldn't have a second shift and that type of use to where it doesn't create noise and hazards and the problems for the residential behind it and I do believe that the next phase in should be your medium or your high density... Conrad: So really there's very little opportunity for transitions other than the one between this line and TH 5. Councilman Johnson: Put a transition of single family in there and then you went to medium density and then a highway. Where I'm not sure if we want to ring that place completely with single family. Whether that's the way to do it or even if you have access to do that. The big lot to the west that's all single family all the way up. Again, I'm not sure that single family adjacent to TH 5 is a good idea. Conrad: This one is in the bag. For sure down here that's really appropriate single family. There's no doubt from here down there. It's treed. It's good looking. Councilman Johnson: Let's follow the purple from Chaska down and that starts playing some games in there too. I can't see the roads too well. Right now actually we have some purple where you've got it yellow. The Volk property being actually industrial operations. Contractor's yards and stuff. Is that bottom corner now and it's solid purple to the west from  there and to the south from there so all that single family is completely surrounded by the west and south by industrial in Chaska. Planning Co~ission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 31 Conrad: Yeah, but this is still buffered quite. The buffering here you've got a creek theoretically that's doing it. visually you're not buffering much. It makes sense to, at least in my mind and I think some of the coF~,issioners, that residential be put in here and not cross the creek, or industrial not cross the creek area. My thought was the wooded land here is really quite nice and that's a nice buffer no matter what. I really don't care what's over there. It's still a pretty good buffer and I think somebody, a landowner there would get good value out of converting that residential. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see it stay large lot as it is now because there's some unique properties. There's some wetlands tossed in the inside of there. In those woods there's some wooded wetlands up in there. I would have liked to have seen Chaska do some better archeology of the area when they proposed a composting plant in that corner. There's some areas where I highly suspect we would find some significant indian artifacts and stuff. There's some very unique natural features in that area that we've got single family residential that I might want to protect more. Conrad: But you really can't do it, how do you want to do large lots? Councilman Johnson: Well what's there? Conrad: We really don't have a 2 1/2 acre zone. With the MUSA line extended out, we no longer have. It's zoned residential. Our largest lot is 15,000 square feet so are you suggesting we look for another zoning district? Councilman Johnson: I don't know. If you look at the current land uses, some of the houses there are already fairly small but when you get back to Jerome's house and Johnson's house, there are 4 or 5 properties back there. I would hardly see them changing actually. It's not the type of property that may develop. People that buy that kind of large wooded space with corrals and horse stables and everything, it's probably... I don't know. Conrad: If you're the property owner, that may not be the way you'd like to do it. Councilman Johnson: Just knowing the current property owners, that's probably but we know one of them is selling to move up to the other side that you're talking about. She plans to subdivide... Conrad: Bill or Don, what are your co~m, ents on the Timberwood? Mayor Chmiel: I agree. I agree with Jay to a certain point along TH 5. Some of the buffering that should be there rather than have residential abutting and I'd also like to say the fact that you've put a lot of time into this. We appreciate it and appreciate the oppOrtunity to have a review of it now. I think what I'd like to see done too before I come up with any finalized coF~,ents, I sort of like what I see now but I'd like to get citizen input into this. I'd like the City to come forth and voice their either senses of opinion of saying yes it's the way to go or what Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990- Page 32 objections they might have. Conrad: Typically we do that in a public hearing form. Mayor Chmiel: Right. I'd like to see this advertised enough so people are fully aware as to what we're doing within the city. Erhart: That's our plan isn't it Paul? Krauss: Yes it is and I think we'd like to do it both informally in a series of meetings possibly on a neighborhood basis. Mayor Chmiel: Informational basis? Krauss: Right. To encourage so~e discussion and then officially in the public hearing which they certainly require. Timberwood Resident: Mr. Conrad, I happen to live in Timberwood. I thought I'd give you a little information. Maybe first just a little bit about my background. First I'd like to say I'd like to con, tend you. You've done a tremendous job...working on this. This is real informal at this point and I understand that but I thought I'd just give you a little bit of background as far as what some of the residents are thinking at least now, at this point and I know it's going to be open for discussion later. My particular background, just to give you an idea, I am vice President of North Star Title. I receive appraisals for 3 states and I've been an appraiser for 16 years. I oversee about 300 appraisers right now so I have, in some way I'm an expert on this kind of stuff yet I also have a built in bias and because I'm a professional obviously I want to state that right up front. But there's a couple, most of the residents that we've talked to, and I represent of course everybody in Timberwood and people north of TH 5 and the people immediately south of TH 5. Pretty much the consensus there was they wanted of course to keep it all large lot. At least that's what they're telling me. That they like it large lot. Where I'm coming from, of course I know that is a little bit wishful thinking. Some of the immediate feedback that I got was that they would like to see McGlynn of the industrial stop at anything p~oceeding further than McGlynn going to the west. They thought the site where TH 41 and 5 intersection, as far as industrial, that they can see that pretty much, obviously they would like it to stay residential but I think some of our feeling is that they would like to see that maybe not quite as much industrial. But as much as possible keep the industrial more, as it's going, it seems like a little bit more south of the tracks there. That's kind of the feedback I'm getting from them. I think the other thing, just from a professional standpoint. This is just something for consideration and I just throw it out. As you move along TH 5, and just kind of the feeling I'm getting and again, the co~m~on theory right now is that put as much industrial/ co~ercial along the basic highway truck. What we're seeing though, you have to be careful as you do that because one thought, you may have a situation, it looks nice sometimes now. The first 10 years but you don't want to have a situation where when people drive through Chanhassen where it gets, have you ever driven along Hwy. 13 going through Savage or Shakopee, there is a possibility and I'm seeing it again as an appraiser, Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 33 seeing it in Eden Prairie and Edina. In other areas where they're putting residential, sometimes twin homes, a little higher density right up to the highway and having no problem developing it. It gives a little bit of a break. We'd be talking here about 3/4 of a mile really or less that would be residential on both sides of the highway for that one area as they go through Chanhassen which would give a feeling that it's just not constant industrial park and co~ercial all the way along the highway. So it's, what I'm finding is that people are willing to own houses and maybe more twin homes right up to the highway but even the single family, I'm seeing it in Minnetonka as well where they don't seem to mind. Conrad: Paul, these 2 1/2 acre parcels in the sewered area, is that financially feasible? I've always considered that just... Krauss: Realistically when sewer's available and the availability to 15,000 square foot lots, it would take an extraordinarily expensive home to that particular lot. That's not to say it couldn't be done... Realistically you'd find something smaller. One thing that needs to be made clear and it was discussed earlier. The ordinance that was in affect that Timberwood was designed under no longer exists and we don't have the authority to do that any longer. Timberwood Resident: This is where I was thinking, even though all the people are saying that they'd like to see that in large lots, once that's sewered and water, I don't see how, as you say it's a little bit... Conrad: I think the only thing you can do is to not sewer. Or you create a 2 1/2 acre zone and I'll guarantee you, I don't believe there will be any houses in the 2 1/2 acre zone. Krauss: If we did that, it would have to be 2 1/2 acres with sewer. Conrad: That's what I mean... Erhart: Can I address the other issue...because I think' I was probably the strongest proponent to mix up the highway 5, I'll respond and agree to what your comments are. I was very concerned and against the idea of having a continuous strip of industrial along TH 5. Eventually, all the people that live all out there drive that twice a day. Not considering even those people that pass through Chanhassen and get an impression of it. And you drive in Eden Prairie you'll find, as you say, you do find homes right along the highway and I think the mix of the type of use is much better appearance, those of us that drive it as well as others, than having a continuous strip. Lastly, those areas are not populated now so any homes that would go in there, both the developer and the home buyer would be fully aware that TH 5 is going to be a 4 lane highway. And where we have the case down east of TH 101 and south of TH 5 where some people are surprised, I don't think there's going to be any surprises. They're fully aware of what the situation is. Lastly, to address your concern, wouldn't TH 5 be fenced when it gets to 4 lane? Or what is the plan on that? Krauss: I don't believe the other sections of TH 5 are fenced. Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 34 Erhart: I think that's a legitimate concern. I don't know, what do they do in Eden Prairie? Krauss: Mark has an concept that's on the corner there that theoretically we'll propose as one layout of how development of that area to occur. In meeting density development in Chanhassen, it's convenient for us to regulate that sort of stuff because it has to go through site plan review. During the site plan review we would look for, even if the developer didn't want to, I can't believe he wouldn't, is very extensive buffering, berming. If a fence were deemed necessary for either noise or safety, a wood slat fence of some sort we would look at that at that time but you're looking at an area, and the Planning Commission. We played devil's advocate a little bit with the Planning Commission when they wanted to go residential in that area. We said look, you're looking at a non-amenity piece of ground. Whoever builds on there is going to have to force it go and they're going to have to build the amenity with that project. That's not an impossible task. It's just something...and I think the Planning Co~,ission...and thought we could do some legitimate residential developments in there. Conrad: Bill, what are you thinking? Councilman Boyt: Well, two different areas on this one. I think that the plan really turns on how well we establish buffers. So I think somewhere in here I'd sure like to see the Planning Commission do something with our attempt to buffer the size of lots that abut one another. That's been sitting around for a year. Conrad: Yeah, we've been. Let me just real quickly. This is obviously the logical one to buffer. It can't be done. Literally, you can't buffer 2 1/2 acre lots with a compromise between. Councilman Boyt: Ladd, we've never proposed to abut 2 1/2 acre lots with 2 1/2 acre lots. It's simply giving a chance to say 20,000 square foot lots. Something bigger than the average which might pull in a more expensive home which might serve say the developer. You have to do some planning with this. You can't just slap a standard size lot up against one of these others. Conrad: I'm going to take you, I'm going to challenge you on that because I'm interested in what you would do. In this particular case, we'd have to make a new zoning district. We don't have a larger zoning district than 15,000 square feet. We tried one and nobody supported it. Councilman Boyt: Well I take issue with you on that and we couldn't get it out of the Planning Commission. It went back to staff and died there. Erhart: Before this new ordinance in 19877 There used to be a 1 acre. Wasn't there a 1 acre district? Olsen: That was proposed. It just never went through. It was around Christmas Lake. Erhart: That did not exist. Planning CoFm~ission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 35 Councilman Boyt: Steve, says we're not talking about the same thing. I'm talking about the blending ordinance but that's just one example. What I'm saying is, if we can buffer single family residential from the highway, then we probably can put them in there. If we have landscaping. If we have berm possibilities. Likewise with, to me a very real possibility is if DataServ came in and said I want to take 50 acres and I'm going to put my building dead center in the middle of it, that's a heck of a buffer. You look at, yes you can go down and look at Savage and say, they surely fouled up their business highway but you can go look on the north end of 494 where it meets 694 on the west side of town and I think you see some very clean, well kept business, light industry there that is a heck of a buffer and I think it looks pretty good and protects a lot of open space. So what I'd like to see, I guess I'm not so concerned with what you do with TH 5 in terms of industry or residential. I'm much more concerned with what our zoning ordinances give us the power to build into those developments. Do we have the ability to provide that screen or do we have to just tr,]st to the way the developer does it? I'm not very comfortable but if we have to trust the developer, then it becomes a much bigger issue to me whether that's light industry or whether it's R-4. If our zoning ordinances give us the ability to screen, it seems reasonable to me what you've got. Conrad: Mark, how many people will fit into these two brown squares? Koegler: Let me think about that for a second. We've got probably, how big is that Gorra designated to? Is that 30 acres? If we take the piece west of Lake Ann that's the Gorra piece at about 30 acres, depending on the type of development. It's not uncommon, what do you want to label it as? 8 units per acre? 12 units per acre times 30 so, depending on scale of development, 250 to 500 people on that piece. Conrad: 250 to 500. Koegler: A larger number there. The issue of high density has been brought up a number of times and Paul just raised a good point. The plan really doesn't call for any new high density areas outside of that example that we're talking about right now. If you look at the zoning map, everything else really is identified right now in a high density configuration or is part of a PUD that was approved down around Lake Susan. In fact there's been a little bit of retrenchment in exchange for that in that the piece i~-~,ediately south of Rice Marsh Lake, north of the Lake View Hills apartment complex, used to be high density all the way to Rice Marsh Lake and that's been pulled out with the mapping process of TH 212 and their realization that that north piece there is an ideal open space property. So the numbers haven't changed significantly in terms of land designations in that regards over the last 10 years. There is no medium called for on this plan however. Conrad: But we've got the high density right here basically. A few little pockets around the city but basically right there. There's a logic to that but it's really clustered. Planning Co~tission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 36 Councilman Boyt: Maybe I can kick it off on this. I think you go up north of Lotus Lake where we have high density and the developer came in and said I don't want it. We took it out. The thing that that had going for it was it wasn't, it was a fairly small area of high density. When we tie together, separated by the park, 150 acres of high density plus, I'm very concerned about that. I'm concerned because of the demand it puts on city services. It's nice that it's there by the park in terms of open space for people. I like that but I'm equally concerned about is the demand it puts on our elementary school. I would be much more comfortable if we had the high density broken up rather than clustering it so tightly. Conrad: We feel there's justification for that amount of high density. The logic seemed like we were able to justify it. Krauss: On a percentage basis, it's still a very small component of the proposed land uses in the city. It's kind of, it's a little bit of conjecturing on our part to tell you that that's going to get filled up in 10 years. There was a part on here...that ended in 1985, a change in tax laws. Chanhassen didn't get anything out of that. We just weren't in the position at that time to satisfy that market demand. We're not really dramatically changing the percentage of land in that designation with this new plan. Frankly, it's kind of like a nimbulous approach to establish high density you might perceive. We've often heard some of the City Council meetings where some of the people were saying we didn't provide opportunities for employees of some of the plants in town. I don't know where else we'd do it. Councilman Boyt: Now Paul, and I'll stop on this issue, but I've never had a single family resident who didn't own a major business in town come in and say, you know we don't have enough high density and I want it in my back yard. What I see us doing here is by, and this is a very small part of the city of Chanhassen but it's a very big part of that part of town. Conrad: You want to cut the high density down Bill? Councilman Boyt: I do. Councilman Johnson: I don't. Mayor Chmiel: I think we need some high density in order to provide the opportunity for the businesses within the City to house their people here rather than driving from all over. Councilman Johnson: The other thing that's not in there is, they're talking a new middle school in Chanhassen. Mayor Chmiel: That's a high probability. Councilman Boyt: There's no zone there for it. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, and there's no zone there for it. Mayor Chmiel: That's something we should look at. Planning Co~m'Lission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 37 Krauss: Don Ashworth talked to me about that quite a while ago and I gave a little bit of thought in trying to designate a site. The problem is we don't know where they want to put it exactly. Councilman Johnson: They want to put it where they can buy the land as cheap as possible now and then tell you where they want to put it so the price of land doesn't go wacky on them. Krauss: Theoretically you can put a school anyplace, any residential district. We don't have to preordain where it's going to be. Councilman Boyt: We could though. Now is the time to do it. Mayor Chmiel: The time to do it is now so people are aware once that areas develops around there. Emmings: Who decides where a school can go? Mayor Chmiel: The school district itself. Councilman Boyt: They said in the past, in fact they said 2 years ago. Tell us where we can build it in Chanhassen and we never told them. Councilman Johnson: There was some discussion. More on the staff level before Paul and kept under wraps waiting for the land pricing. Emmings: Couldn't we contact the school district? Conrad: I think that'd be the sensible thing to do. Emmings: Ask if we can pick a place as long as we're mapping now. Krauss: I know Don's talked to me abo~]t the north side of TH 5 in the vicinity of Gorra's property as being one of the sites. Where that high density area is. There's a problem though in, we'll certainly.., but if we designate a school site on this map and the person that owns it comes to us and says I want to develop my property and we're going to say well, don't because the school district may buy your property one day. I mean we have to allow development to occur. Councilman Boyt: The school district came to the City 2 years ago and said we want to know where we can put another elementary school in Chanhassen and we never got back to them. They probably weren't going to put it here anyway given the other pressures that they had to bear but we never gave them a site and I don't want to be in that position when they come around looking for our middle school. Krauss: Well we can certainly give some more information on it. Councilman Boyt: I think the thing that we'd better, if we're going to try to do this so we can staff Jerome Carlson's operation, we better figure out some way to build an apartment that somebody at $5.00 an hour can move into Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990- Page 38 and we don't know how to do that so far. Conrad: In terms of the amount of industrial, just two other things. We really tried to keep co~,ercial right here. It makes a lot of sense to me. We are allocating enough industrial to meet the demand projected from today's market based on historic demand. I think residents will come in and say well we don't need to. I think the neighborhood would say well why should we. Councilman Johnson: Ladd? One thing...2 years ago a session we discussed what type of business should be, certain types of cities. Without doing a detailed analysis of our city, our's seem to fit into a slot that I haven't seen us do...which is the research and development and headquarters where you're looking for the, you know we've got a fairly expensive school district. Good education. Fairly expensive lots. Higher taxes so you're not normally looking for the United Mailings and that kind of development but more of the development where most the salaries are fairly high. Your corporate headquarters where you've got the general managers and all that kind of good stuff there and research facilities where you've got your senior scientist working. I don't know how you work that into a land use plan. I think it's almost an HRA type deal. Conrad: Usually that's more of a strategy on the residents of your city versus the zone. A different zoning district. You have your city go out and your development director seeking that type of business more than they're seeking the more industrial thing. Councilman Johnson: Those guys, that type of thing, they want parklands. They want the amenities, they're more worried about and things which really describes Chanhassen. The other one is, I keep hearing co~,ercial at TH 41 and TH 5. It seems that the busier the intersection, it seems more obvious to become eventually a commercial area. Whether we may want to delay that a while. I kind of feel we probably want to delay that if we have a chance. Maybe not tie up industrial at this time at that location. I don't know why we don't have the planning area to the south there too. Conrad: I think Paul and Mark can explain that better than I but it's simply the proximity to Jonathan. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, that does make sense. But how do you sewer it? Krauss: Well we're looking at that right now. We have a consulting firm that is going to tell us that answer. There's several alternatives but clearly that property at the corner is at the end of the line and it's going to be quite expensive to serve it and it probably... Councilman Johnson: Unless there's big enough money. Emmings: Do we also worry about losing that property to Chaska if the owner decides... Councilman Johnson: To service with sewer now. Planning Co~mLission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 39 Emmings: Whereas if we have a plan to let it go industrial in the future and plan to get services out there eventually, I don't think they can detach so easily. Maybe not at all so I think if we preserve that property in our tax base instead of letting it slide away to Chaska and I think that's appropriate too. Conrad: I feel a little bit, not much to do there but it's just a beautiful site and we are, we're surrounding them with industrial. We call the green area a buffer but visually it ain't no buffer folks. It's really an unfortunate deal. Erhart: One of the things about those houses already though, they already overlook the industrial buildings in the Chaska park. If you stand in their yard, all you can see is that big concrete hill. Councilman Johnson: That's a long ways away though. Erhart: It is a ways but... Conrad: It's very visible. Koegler: You look through the electrical substation. That's the fact of the matter down there. Paul mentioned, fortunately to the north there's a significant ridge there and there's a break that that property is basically in the watershed that drains south so the impact is entirely southward. Conrad: Anything else? Resident: Can I ask a question? How many residents live in Timberwood? Timberwood Resident: 38 owners. Resident: There aren't 38 houses? Timberwood Resident: Not yet but they're all except for 2 or 3 lots that are still owned by the developer. They're all probably, I think there's about 10 or 12 houses up already. Probably some of the concerns that the residents will have is the sound, light and odor... I don't know where it's coming from but the different odors such as butterscotch. I don't know where that's coming from. But there's sounds already from the Chaska industrial park. They're aware of it and the extra lighting that comes in at night and stuff like that. Those are probably some things you'll hear. Conrad: It's the toughest area that we've found. I think if that wasn't there, this configuration would be fairly different. Councilman Johnson: Do you believe the Met Council will give us this much more MUSA line between now and 2000? Conrad: I tell you, when you follow Mark's logic, which is relatively conservative. We haven't gone out overboard. You've got to follow the numbers through Jay but when you take a look at it. In fact, I would have upped the numbers in terms of projected needs over Marks. That was my gut Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 40 reaction based on recent history but he's really taken some relatively conservative numbers. Councilman Johnson: Any kind of phasing plan to follow in the proposal for Met Council to where we're saying we want to phase in so many between 90 and 95 and 95 and 2000 so much more? If we plopped all this in right now, I see another land rush. I see another swamping of Planning Co~;ission like it was 3 years ago as the real development bloomed. You had 10 different housing developments going all at once. I'd rather see it phased in so staff isn't swamped as badly and the whole city growth is more regulated. Krauss: Jay, one of the things we'll be looking at the phasing, when we get to the utility information back, asking them to structure that in some sort of way that makes sense. Phasing is a good concept and the intent... On the other hand, I would prefer in representing the City that the City direct the phasing and not phasing that we have to go back to the Metro Council on our knees and beg every 2 years. Councilman Johnson: Our phasing plan, not theres. Krauss: Yeah, and we're trying to lay out a 10 year growth pattern here. There's like a 1 or 2 year overage with our numbers and that's using a conservative projection. They're telling us we should have a 10 year growth ability plus 5 year overage. We're coming in with less than they indicated. As to whether or not Metro Council's going to approve this, Jay that's always been the $64,000.00 question. We don't know. We think it's reasonable. We think that the Metro Council has a very difficult position to uphold because as recently as 8 or 9 months ago, they were publishing statistics that in the year 2000 we'd have 10,000 people and 400 or 500 jobs and we exceeded both those numbers a year or two ago. They recognize that. I've talked to their staff. They recognize that something happened out here that they never anticipated. Whether or not they buy this, we hope they do. At least it may put them, hopefully we can develop a cooperative posture with them on this. I'm very hopeful of that. Councilman Johnson: So then the Blue Lake Treatment Plant crosses into the middle of this and availability of, not trunk sewers but being able to do something with the sewage once it gets down there. That's going to be a major problem with this because I don't think the 10% or 20% increase or 10,000,000 gallons a day increase from their 90 now up to 100,000,000 gallons or whatever it is, that's already spoken for. There's other restrictions in this that while the logic says we should have 10 years, we've got to have some place for the sewage to go. Koegler: Jay, we'll address that specifically too in terms of flows that are resulting from this 2000 land use pattern as well as maximum flows for each of these areas so you're absolutely right. That has to be entered into this whole equation. Conrad: When you calculate a site, these high density areas, what do we look at in terms of that impact? Impacts on parkland. Putting 1,000 people here, do we know that Lake Ann can accept 1,000 now? Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 41 Koegler: The philosophy that I think historically has driven the property in Chanhassen that results in that map pattern and the philosophy extending that westward is one of locating those types of uses adjacent to a number of things. One is co~m, ercial and service retail. Second item is major street patterns. Just for transportation ease, ingress and egress out of those sites and the third is parks that you just related to. The park element I can't answer you specifically. Have we looked at and can Lake Ann Park absorb this much use? We have shown a 30 acre expansion of that park on the east side. That's part of the City's overall park plan which calls for another co~Lunity park to be implemented over the next 10 years in the southern portion of the city around the Lake Riley area. So again it gets down partially to prograF,~Ling and Lake Ann is used a lot for organized team kinds of activities which can be handled in a lot of sites. The property that was large enough now we think with the expansion is large enough to provide the type of passive open space and play opportunities that that volume of people will need. That's a long winded yes answer to that but we can't tell you we've studied this and we know we've got so many square feet per anticipated resident of those high density areas. A general sense, it is deemed to be adequate. Councilman Boyt: I'd take issue with that. Lake Ann Park as it stands today is filled. Conrad: And Mark's saying they're adding 30 acres. Councilman Johnson: That's not much. Councilman Boyt: I think, what did we buy just down south? Did we buy 30 acres? Koegler: 30, yes. Councilman Boyt: So it's a pretty sizeable piece of park property that we'd be conceiveably adding to that. You're also adding 1,000 people. We have, I think right now we're in an overuse state on our parks. All you have to do is go out there and look. Wildermuth: One of the things I guess I'd like to see is that high density area right on the corner of, that one there, move up closer to the Minnewashta Park. Maybe across the highway of that overpass or something because the piece that you just had your finger on, there that high density piece, would be such an attractive coF.~ercial area for extension of the co~;ercial area. It's almost contiguous with the downtown area so it wouldn't detract from the CBD, central business district. Conrad: Why did we decide not to do co~m, ercial here? Councilman Boyt: Let me suggest to you that we just had the school poll people that had a real interest in that piece of property. If we make it easy for that piece of property to develop in certain directions, I think we'd best put on our hard pants because we're going to be spending a lot of time sitting listening to people who want to develop it. Planning Co~,ission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 42 Wildermuth: What are you saying Bill? Councilman Boyt: I'm saying that that's a particularly sensitive piece of property and that the way we zone it may very well impact on how the current owner builds. Wildermuth: Sure it is. Well, Eckankar owns it. Conrad: What do you see that site being used for? Councilman Boyt: Well I could only guess that they'd come back in with what they had 4 years ago which was approved, which they decided not to develop and then the zoning was changed. But if we want to change it back and see if they come in again. Councilman Johnson: If they went commercial on that piece of property? I could even see high density... Councilman Boyt: I think Jim is right. I think this property is one of the best pieces of property in the center of the city and we should zone it with that in mind. It's sitting next to the park. It's a nice piece of property. It'd probably be pretty easy to develop. E~m, ings: What specifically do you want it zoned to? For what? Councilman Boyt: For whatever one of the better pieces of property in town ought to be zoned for. Conrad: Public space or are you talking about commercial use? Not residential. Councilman Boyt: I don't know. I'm just saying that when we zone it that way, we had best be ready for some excitement when the proposal comes in on how they're going to use it. Doesn't that make sense? E~,ings: It doesn't give us a whole lot of guidance. Councilman Boyt: I'll leave it to brighter minds. Conrad: Don't trust that Bill. Councilman Johnson: That would be a good spot for a middle school. Councilman Boyt: It'd be excellent. Councilman Johnson: Next to the park. Councilman Boyt: I think the school district has already said that they sort of covet that spot. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, but not at $30,000.00 an acre. Planning Co~m~ission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 43 Councilman Boyt: No. So they might like the Gorra property or whatever that is on the left. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, if they can still buy it while it's still unsewered and not $30,000.00 an acre. Krauss: Well the cat may be out of the bag on the Gorra piece. I'm not 100% positive but the City Manager showed me some correspondence from Metro Council/Metro Waste. Gorra was in a condemnation suit. It's my understanding that the settlement of his suit is that he's to be considered as being in the MUSA line now. Councilman Johnson: But he's not going to be allowed to hook into anything there. Mayor Chmiel: For 5 years. Conrad: Okay, so we'll play around a little bit with the schools. We'll figure out what kind of impacts there. Emmings: Even if we decide for example that a school ought to go on that corner or something..., how would we indicate that on the map? We don't have a zone called school. Conrad: We have public, what do we have? We've got a color for it Steve. Mark's got a crayon. Koegler: Schools are classified under the public under the public category on the land use map. E~tings: What color is it? Koegler: Kind of an olive green. Conrad: Second priority on that site would be... Wildermuth: I think we've got to be real careful about what we do though. Having in the central business district. We've got it boxed in. It's bracketed now. I think I heard some people talk about how we'd be making a serious mistake if we put any commercial on the south of TH 5 because it would detract from the central business district. It may be extending the red on the other side of... Koegler: High density behind it. Wildermuth: Yeah. CR 17, maybe a little further north on the Charlie James property. Conrad: We've had it zoned different ways. That's been a problem parcel for a long time. It used to be campus business. Councilman Boyt: What about the possibility of moving some of that high density residential up by Minnewashta Park like... Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 44 ~mings: It's not a bad idea but then we always want to keep high density, there's always a desire to keep it close to the downtown because people will have easier access to services that downtown will offer. Councilman Boyt: But remember we've got 3 downtowns. We've got Chanhassen and we've got Minnetonka or TH 101 and TH 7 and we've got Excelsior. And that at Lake Minnewashta is very close to TH 7. E~m, ings: That's true and that corner is developing. Conrad: That's adjacent to a lot of parkland. Krauss: Then you sort of wind up with a land use anomoly. It's kind of incongruous to be going...single family neighborhood that one, would probably be one of the more attractive ones in the city because of the rolling terrain and the trees and come onto a 400 unit apartment project. It might be a very nice apartment project but you have access considerations to be running all those cars in front of all those other single family neighborhoods. Conrad: You've got that now. Emmings: You're also telling the...owner in downtown Chanhassen... Councilman Boyt: We've got a local entrepreneur that's building a center on TH 7 and 41. 400 apartment units in one location, we may build it but people are going to look at that and they're going to say, who did that? The residents who are here now, because that's what they're saying about the little amount of apartments that we just built across from Kerber Blvd. and that's, how many apartments is that? 40? Koegler: 68. Councilman Boyt: 68. So 4 or 5 times that amount, people will notice. Conrad: I think you're going to hear citizens complain about everything literally when it gets close to them. There's a real issue here. Industrial, going back to a different issue, but the industrial, we're planning based on meeting demand. I think that's a real issue. I think residents are going to come in and say hey who cares what the demand is. Who cares. This is a residential community and let's just cut it off right here. We don't need that. Ed Hasek: I think what Bill was saying is if you do decide that that's exactly where you'd like to put high density and you make that decision, that you'd better be prepared to defend it. That's it. You're exactly right. No matter what you do, somebody's ox is going to be getting gored and they're not going to be happy about it but you have to be ready to defend a plan to give it some credence otherwise you might as well give the residents these little colored squares and let them put them where they think they see them. Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 45 Conrad: Well the map would be yellow. Ed Hasek: The map would be yellow. The taxes would be through the ceiling and they'd be unhappy about that as well. Conrad: They wouldn't see it at the time. Ed Hasek: Not until they had to open their pocketbook. Councilman Johnson: What is the tax impact of the high density? I know that single family costs us more than what we have taxes for generally to provide public services. Is high density? Krauss: High density is taxed at about 3 times the rate of single family. In terms of making revenues, it's the next best thing to industrial office. Councilman Boyt: That's not what Roger's study said. You guys should get together with Roger. When we looked at Eckankar Roger came back with a study that said residential breaks even. When you build an average sized home, it breaks even. Krauss: I think Don, since you just walked in. Don Ashworth: I overheard it and yes. Councilman Boyt: Tax impact of development. The tax impact of apartment development was actually negative as I recall. Don Ashworth: That's generally true, yes. Commercial/industrial property will carry the tax load. Single family residential, especially the closer you get to estate type of developments will actually pay for their share. Generally there's fewer children per home, higher valued home and then as you start moving down the ladder, it will move from a positive position into a negative. So multi-family... Conrad: So high density Don would be a greater tax load burden for Chanhassen? Don Ashworth: You have to put that again into context. For your businesses and what not, they like to take and have people who can live and work within the community and the same way with the grocery stores and what not. They have closer transportation. Can walk and what not. Usually be able to create a situation in the downtown area, it's good to take and have multi-family in those types of areas because they help support each other. Co~ercial/industr iai/residential. Councilman Johnson: It's a necessary part of the picture. Councilman Boyt: Just don't put it all in one spot. Conrad: Okay. Thanks. Appreciate you coming in and talking to us. Planning Co~-~ission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 46 Bill Miller: I'm also a resident of Timberwood. My name's Bill Miller. I work downtown and I'm likewise concerned about what's going to happen to the land just north of the Timberwood Estates. Especially on...purple. I've talked to several of the neighbors and they're...I've talked to at least 12 or 14 and...and there are a couple of concerns. One of the concerns...and what impact that's going to have on their property. Their lifestyle. Secondly, wha% ir. pact that land will have on the city of Chanhassen. We generally feel that they, like you said, people don't want industrial. I understand that. I don't understand why that has to be... here and there...isolating that little square there. The second thing is, they're concerned that if something happens to that land that is undesireable, that perhaps the land that you have now may not be developed ... The other point I'd like to make, there are people outside that little square, both to the south and to the west that are likewise concerned about what happens. A dinner party I was at earlier this evening...12 people, all residents of Chanhassen, they too seem to be not in favor of continuing additional industrial development down TH 5... Councilman Johnson: But they also want their taxes reduced. Bill Miller: I've lived in 8 different cities in my life and everywhere I go it's a different...taxes are always high. Services in general are generally in excess of what they are here and there was no industrial and taxes are high... Everywhere I've lived seems to carry it's weight... Also, as a final note...number one, it seems that the general plan of what you're planning, I happen to be in the investment business. Number one is the assumption of growth you're making. That you're coming up with some amount of land...last 3 years. It's all been incorrect to look at what happen the last 2 years... I wonder if people are planning, thinking about gee we've just been through a major expansion in the world. Minneapolis has some problems. Companies are in trouble in Minneapolis. Control Data is in trouble...Cray is not growing anymore. They're seeking industrial land elsewhere... There may not be as much growth industrially and the fact that... The second thing is looking at short term versus long term. You're obviously looking to the year 2000 but there are, things come up. If you own this land and...but people criticize the investment business for focusing in on short term...and that's the problem with this country. It's the same way with planning communities and land. You eliminate the short term, the irritations to... I think it's valid to look at communities... Conrad: We're trying to. We're looking out 10 years and there's no crystal ball. You know there's nothing to say that anything's going to continue but you use the best data you have and you try to forecast. You try to put something out there for 10 years so new residents to the area know what we're thinking of. This is not a zoning map. It's a comprehensive plan right now but it will convert to a zoning map. If we don't put something out, new neighbors don't have a clue and that's far worse than just doing it on a day to day or short term basis. There's a lot of logic, and a lot of failures obviously in that too but to be real direct, the property that you're on, there's not a good way to buffer it and we've looked at it for a long time. You're on 2 1/2 acre lots. You put residential around there and our biggest residential lot is 15,000 square feet. It's going to be hard to keep your neighborhood happy. Planning Co~-m~ission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 47 Bill Miller: Well, they're... We've looked at all those things and we're telling you it's this and I've heard coF~,ents and I've talked to several of you on the phone and what not and I know there's been substantial amount of thought on this on your side...but I say that we were talking earlier... there really hasn't been a lot of input from everyone concerned yet. Conrad: That's why we go through the public hearing process. Emmings: And we sure aren't talking about this in terms of absolutes. Anybody's who been on the Planning Co~.ission for any time at all, we pick out one little piece of property over there and it's been 3 or 4 different ways it's been zoned in the last few years. This is really kind of an abstract exercise. It's really kind of arbitrary in a lot of ways. I think...is disillusioned about that or carries around and illusion about... Bill Miller: Well I was just told there's... Conrad: That's just from many years of watching residents come in here and they're concerned with 30,000 square feet going up against 20 and your lots are 75,000 square feet and I don't know how to buffer you so you'd be happy. Bill Miller: Well I just want to make sure I get the overall alternatives I guess before I'm told there's no... Conrad: I think we talked about it. We talked a lot of about it tonight. Councilman Johnson: No matter what you do on these zoning maps and everything, a new landowner can come in with a petition to have it rezoned. We see it every year. We have rezonings every year. Councilman Boyt: I'd be curious as to Clark, what do you think about what you see up there? You're the seasoned veteran here. You've seen your shares of City Council battles. Clark Horn: First of all, the process that they're looking to here is not something that was generated in just reaction to the last 2 years of growth. The comprehensive planning process started over 10 years ago with the last plan we had. The plan we put in place at that time, even though we went through some very tough times shortly after it was put into place, it well exceeded projections that we were even allowed to put in at that time. I like some of the things that were done here. I think the Planning Co~-~,ission has been very sensitive to the somewhat anomolies that have occurred because of the MUSA line that was placed on us in the past. I also think that there has been an attempt made to break up some of the zones along the highway. I think...see a continual industrial park along the highway. The other thing that makes a lot of sense to me is what I see as a long term response to what's going to happen in the future when a major highway being shifted to TH 212 from TH 5. It's very easy to put your blinders on and say look at TH 5 and all the traffic it has. TH 5 will always be a problem but a majority of the traffic is going to go down Planning Commission Meeting March 7, 1990 - Page 48 to TH 212...long range trend towards that happening. So in general I think it's a pretty good plan. I think there's some minor issues that might be worked out. I'm a little concerned about the lack of co~,ercial space. I don't really know where else we could go with commercial. We're pretty limited. We've got a lot of natural breaks that prevent it from really expanding too far but in general I think it's a pretty good plan. You've put a lot of thought into it. It's not a short term reaction to the last few years growth. I think it's something that's real and you just have to look at the growth that's coming this way. Sure, we go through economic cycles but in general this makes sense. Conrad: Anything else? Wildermuth moved, Ahrens seconded to adjourn the meeting. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m.. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Diretor Prepared by Nann Opheim