Loading...
1990 10 24CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 24, 1990 Chairman Conrad called the special meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:15 p.m.. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli, Jim Wildermuth and Joan Ahrens COMMISSION MEMBER A8SENT: Annette Ellson STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Gary Warren, City Engineer; Sharmin Al-Jarl, Planner 1; and Mark Kneeler, Comprehensive Plan Consultant PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF CHANHASSEN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Public Present: VanDeVeire, Betty & Larry Morin, Joe & Gayle Tichy, Brian Phillips, Warren & Arlene Mielke, Jim & Doris O1son, Andrew & Cheryl Scott, 3oseph Song, Charles & Irene Song, Susan (Illegible Name) Bill (?) Foster, Mark VanderVorste, Ben & Greg Rivkin, Eric Klingelhutz, A1 Reick, B.3. Davidson, Bret Barke, Gini Finstad, Barb & Allen Sanda, Mark & Kathy Klingelhutz, Brian Gorczyca, 3ack & Melanie Stellar, Merrill Hamblin, Dick RoDs, Roman Mertz, Craig Kuder, Martin Schafer, OrIin Keane, Tim Smith, Julius C. Gardner, Rennee & Jim Miller, Bill 4980 Co. Rd. 10 E, Chaska 1441 Lake Lucy Road, Chanhassen 1471 Lake Lucy Road, Chanhassen 1571 Lake Lucy Road, Chanhassen 1645 Lake Lucy Road, Chanhassen 8290 West Lake Court, Chanhassen 7091 Pimlico Lane, Chanhassen 7200 Galpin Lake Road, Chanhassen 525 University Ave S.E., ~6, Mpls. 1851 Lake Lucy, Chanhassen 8105 8020 8141 1695 8600 White Bear Lake, MN 55110 7291Salpin 81vd., Excelsior 7071 Shawnee Lane, Chanhassen 1701 Stellar Court, Excelsior 1685 Stellar Court, Excelsior 2031Timberwood Drive, Chanhassen 1850 Lake Lucy Road, Excelsior 1931Crestview Circle, Excelsior 340 Sinnen Circle, Chanhassen 10341Heidi Lane, Chaska 1100 First Bank Place West, Mpls, 6831Galpin Blvd., Excelsior Carver County Assessor, Chaska 7900 Xerxes So, Bloomington 55431 6750 France Avenue, Mpls 55435 3921 Stratford Ridge, Chanhassen 8121 Pinewood, Chanhassen Dakota Lane, Chanhassen Acorn Lane, Chanhassen Maplewood, Chanhassen Stellar Court, Excelsior Great Plains 81vd., Chanhassen 55402 Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 2 ~Ahite, Don & Marsha Goers, Bill Carlson, Kent Shardlow, John W. Ahr ens, Doug Alvey, 6erry & Karla Cochrane, Mike & Joanne Janicke, Marvin Smithburg, Robert Johnson, Duane M/M Smith, Bob Carlson, Dale & Gloria Wing, Richard Hanoi no, Nancy Longman, Steve Jacobson, Dennis Williams, Mark & Tracy Mason, Michael Donnay, Richard Leirdahl, James Koubsky, David Johnson, Larry Stockdale, David Blanchar, 3on Olson, Peder Coey, Ted Dimler, Ursula Cropsey, Patrick Dirlum, Dennis Quinn, Gene 8850 Audubon Road, Chanhassen 1601 Lyman Blvd., Chanhassen P.O. Box 762, Wayzata 55391 300 1st Avenue No, Mpls 55401 Chanhassen 1831 Sunridge Court, Chanhassen 1751 Sunridge Court, Chanhassen 7021 Galpin Blvd., Excelsior 8657 Chan Hills Drive No., Chanhassen 7317 Hazeltine Blvd., Chanhassen Richfield 6900 Utica Lane, Chanhassen 3481 Shore Drive, Excelsior 6620 Galpin, Excelsior 13539 Oak Hill Court, Eden Prairie 6841 Hazeltine Blvd., Excelsior 1655 Lake Lucy, Chanhassen 833 Woodhill, Chanhassen 8109 Dakota Lane, Chanhassen 2350 Timberwood Drive, Chanhassen 1311 Lake Susan Hills Drive, Chanhassen 7022 Pima Bay, Chanhassen 7210 Galpin Blvd., Chanhassen 25 Norma Ridge Drive 8635 Chan Hills Drive No, Chanhassen 1381 Lake Lucy Road, Chanhassen 7203 Kiowa Circle, Chanhassen 9100 West Bloomington Swy St. 157 15241 Creekside Court, Eden Prairie 532 Lyman Blvd., Chanhassen Conrad: The sole purpose for this meeting is to discuss the Comprehensive Plan. It's a public hearing and what I'd like to do, before we open it up for public comment is get a little bit of background on the process which is probably kind of boring but something that we're going to tell you...and then open it up for our staff to give a report to tell you what is presented and then we'll open it up for public comments. I'm going to sit down. I was here 10 years ago when we had a comparable meeting and we had two public hearings and 5 people showed up so I think either people are more involved. We have more people in the community and I hope those are the key things for your attendance tonight. The process that we're looking at is called a comprehensive plan. It's required by the Metropolitan Council but it forces communities to do some planning and' probably without that process we may not do some planning and we may work on land use and land development on a year to year basis which, as you know, even when we look ahead, as you know when you do it on a short term basis it makes a lot of people nervous and there are tendencies to make fewer good decisions. In that process we hired a consultant and we directed the Planning staff to pull out information for us. Present the information to the Planning Commission and as I said, this process has lasted for approximately 2 years. If in that process we've handled several open meetings. Many open meetings. We've invited the public in some of the public forums to come in Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 3 and tell us what you think before we get to a final stage and tonight is really not a final stage because there's still more to come but again it's really tough to make changes at the last second. It's like it's nice to see where the community stands on issues before we put it into manuals. There's an insecurity but once it's in print, it's true and therefore we open it up for public comments occasionally over the last 3 or 4 months to know what the community, what the residents think about what we're doing. Based on that input, we as a commission looked at the issues that were raised and we either voted or we directed staff to review those issues. They weren't cast aside and said we don't want to consider that. We looked at every issue that was brought up and like any kind of commission or council, when you have 7 people you have 7 different opinions but we voted on those and those, along with staff input and our consultant's input, we have formulated something that we're getting close to presenting to the City Council. Tonight's meeting may seem a little bit anti-climatic because we have had some public forums and we tend to know where some people stand. Yet on the other hand, it is for you to tell us what you think of what we've got on the board right now. It's our rule as a commission to decide if we want to further study it. If we're totally wrong or if we want to pass it to the City Council. In all cases, the City Council makes the final decision, tn all cases. They're using us to try to develop something that they can react to. ~nd I don't know if many of you have seen it. The plans that we have is relatively thick. I don't know if thickness counts. We took a look at Excelsior's comprehensive plan and it had 25 pages in it. There's some good Dews to that. You can read it quickly. And there's some bad news to this. Hopefully this means we've done some homework on a lot of different issues. I think you're all here going to talk about where, how those little maps look but Z guess I would like to make one comment that in this plan we not only talk about what those maps and the land uses look like but we talk about the natural resources in the community and how to preserve and protect them. We talk about employment. We talk about housing, recreation, transportation, sewer and water, capital improvements. It's a guide for 10 years which will be changed but at least it's a guide and it has a lot of stuff in it that will hopefully guide the community as the community does grow. For tonight's meeting we're going to open it up with our Planning department making some comments. Our consultant probably giving us some input as to how we arrived at certain things and then we'll open it up for the public for your comments as to what we have today. The only restrictions that I'd like to do. They may kick us out. They will kick us out of this building I know by 11:00. I'd sure like to close the meeting by 10:00 so we can comment and set some kind of direction. We're not here to ramrod anything down your throat so we'll pay attention and if we can't get all the comments done, we'll continue the hearing. I would tike to though limit the comments first go ahead to 10 minutes. If there's anything more than 10 minutes, we're going to cut you off and let somebody else have a comment. We'll come back to you as time permits. The other things that I would like to do is if there are, we will listen to the same comment. We'd prefer not to. If there are people that believe in what was just said by somebody during their turn at the microphone, I guess showing your support or a comment just saying we agree I think would serve for us the same purpose. We're not going to cut you off however if you do want to make a comment to us. That's not why we're here. I think with that introduction, the only other thing after we have our planning staff talk to us a little bit, when you do have a comment, if we can get you to our microphone for your Dame and Planning Commission Heeling October 24, 1990 - Page 4 address for the record and then the comments that you have. If you represent a group or another person, again that would be appropriate for your introduction to yourself and your comments. Paul? Krauss: Thank you. As the Chairman indicated we've been working on this for approximately 2 years. Our current plan dates back to 1980 and has proven to be inadequate to respond to the issues of the 1990's or to deal with the growth that's occurred. There's a basic question as to why we do a comprehensive plan and there's basically 3 answers. It is required by law. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act administered by the Metro Council does require that you maintain a comprehensive plan. Secondly, the Comp Plan is the only means for relocating the MUSA line. The urban service line that determines where we can provide urban services and where we can't. Chanhassen's rapidly running out of service area. We experienced a 100~ increase in population and a 300~ increase in jobs over the last 10 years and I can state unequivocally that nobody probably wants or foresees that growth trend continuing at that rate. That if a reasonable amount of growth is to occur in the next 10 to 15 years, the MUSA line needs to be relocated to accommodate that. The last reason is probably the most important one and that is that a comprehensive plan is a vision of what the community wants to become in the next tO to 15 years. It's used to set some fundamental directions for growth. For example, the Planning Commission determined that the ratio of land uses that we have in the community today is a good one. That the mix of employment, commercial, single family residential and primarily a single family residential community is a good one and should be perpetuated and that became a goal of the plan. Another broad brush goal had to deal with maintenance of our central business district and encouraging the central business district to continue to develop and continue to be an important part of our community. The plan's also used to promote environmental protection, locate and preserve parkland, identify school sites and recreational facilities, outlying utility and street improvements and hopefully lay out a schedule for undertaking those projects. I guess I'd digress a little bit to say that 10 years ago somebody who was sitting in this chair would have looked out and said there's a recession coming and that you're probably not going to see a lot of things happening for a long time. We're sitting in the same situation now. We realize that demographic trends are somewhat different. The baby bubble is now passing through the system. Most of those people have homes. We are probably facing a recession. However, I would ask you to keep in mind that this plan is for 10 to 15 year timeframe and all we need to do is look back and see what happened in the previous 10 years to see what the possibilities are in the future. The 1990's potentially could be a very exciting decade for the city. In our studies of surrounding communities we realize that most of the surrounding communities have either filled up or the attractive land in those communities is gone. We have had a very significant growth in our employment and that in itself is making the community more desireable and I think you're all aware of the fact that our access situation, which has always been fairly difficult, is rapidly being improved. In developing the draft comprehensive plan the commission started by reviewing those forces that are affecting our community and then established goals and policies for each plan element. The Chairman touched on those plan elements. The plan element that's received the most attention is the land use plan, that colored map and it is important but we also have spent a lot of time on natural features, environmental protection, transportation planning element Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 5 is quite significant. We've recently completed a study with Carver County. We also have a housing element, a recreation plans are in the comprehensive. plan. Utility extensions. Our solid waste management program which the city administers is also in there as is the capital improvements plan. Public input on the plan was obtained by residents attending numerous work session meetings and two well attended informational meetings held this summer. As a result of these meetings, a number of changes were incorporated into the plan. The Planning Commission has also received a large volume of correspondence, petitions, newsletters which were considered. They were all passed out to the Planning Commission for their review. In fact they're contained in an Appendix to the plan for those of you who've had an opportunity to have thumb through it. We've had a number of articles placed in the local newspapers. 8otb the papers have been very cooperative in getting the word out as to what's going on and I think your attendance here is evidence of that. Finally, people who expressed an interest in the plan, we've had a running mailing list and anybody who's written us about anything or asked to be on a mailing list has received special notice of meetings and we do have a sign up sheet in the back tonight and we'd encourage you to sign that and we'll keep people posted of forthcoming progress on the plan. Tonight's meeting is the official public hearing that's required by law. The previous meetings have been informational and the Planning Commission's gained a lot out of them but this is the official meeting that must be undertaken. As the chairman indicated, the Planning Commission can accept testimony and pass the plan along to the City Council with their recommendations or they can determine that additional changes are required and I guess we'll have to wait and see what their decision is on that. Ultimately the plan will be sent to the City Council for approval and they can also incorporate additional changes. /he City Council will probably get the plan for approval by the end of the year. Depending on what happens tonight, we'll have a better idea on how that will go. After the City Council approves it, it has to be sent to the Metropolitan Council and that's a whole different process. They have at 90 days to review the plan. It's a major plan amendment. It's sent out to neighboring communities. We've been trying to work with the Metro Council and keep the neighboring communities aware of what we're doing but they also can require additional changes in the plan. Final plan adoption will probably occur by next spring if everything moves along. With that I'd like to have Mark Koegler, who's the City's planning consultant give a brief overview of the plan and the revisions that were incorporated most recently this summer. I'd also note that Sary Warren sitting to my right, our City Engineer is present tonight and can respond to questions. Finally, there have been some questions raised on property valuations and taxation and Orlin $chafer who's the Carver County Assessor has been willing to attend our meeting and he's here tonight and can respond to some questions as well. With that I'll pass the meeting over to Mark Koegler. Mark Koegler: Thanks Paul. My comments this evening are going to focus specifically on the land use section. I'll touch a little bit on transportation and I would echo that the Chairman and Paul's comment that we're not trying to omit the other sections of the plan but in a forum like tonight obviously we can only focus on so much so any comments that any of you have on any other of the sections of the plan are certainly still in order this evening. I want to really do probably 3 or 4 things. I want to provide you with some orientation to the land use plan. Talk a little bit about some of the land use categories and what some of the designations Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 6 that you see on the two boards actually mean. Give you a little bit of an overview of some of the rationale behind how those designations took place and some of the changes that have taken place over the last literally probably 12 to 18 months as that thing has evolved and then finally touch a little bit on some of the transportation related issues and how they impact the land use plan. The plan itself, the land use section is driven to a large degree by some of the demographic information that's in the plan document that deals with some of th~ projections on population, on households, on employment growth. To give you some idea of what those benchmarks are, the plan identifies 3 different sets of projections and then goes on to basically highlight what we've targeted as kind of a midrange set of numbers. Approximately 18 months ago, at that time we were still projecting for 1990, the plan was projecting about 4,113 households with a population count of about 11,105. As many of you know, I'm sure you've read in the local newspapers that the census information is out in very preliminary form and those numbers very much verify those projections that were made a while ago. The census as of April had a population for the City of about 11,700 with just over 4,000 housing units so they were very close. The plan then Goes on to project that by the year 2000 the population will rise to about 17,700 and the total housing count will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 6,500 units so it will be up about 2,500 in round numbers from where we are today. I'm going to move over and discuss some of the boards a little bit. If any of you are in the back, feel free to stand up and move around or whatever so you can see a little bit better. First of all in terms of some orientation. What we've had to do for the sake of convenience is break it into two areas. Kind of a north area and south area. The north one is on the right side, the south is on the left. Common features of both is TH 5 and this area which is down kind of across the center portion with most of the colored area above on this particular map. I want to walk through very quickly the kind of palate of colors that have been used here so in case you haven't had a chance to look closely, you know what those mean. Many of you have seen, we have a larger scale map... The colors range from initially the lighter yellow color is residential large lot which is essentially 2 1/2 acre, single family residential type of development. On site sewer systems. Most of those were platted prior to 1987. The more canary yellow color is residential low density category. Essentially the single family detached...15,000 or greater square foot lot in terms of the zoning code. The residential continues then into the orange color which is medium density. That really is earmarked more for townhouse type of units...houses we're talking about and then the brown is the higher density category which would be more of an apartment type structure. The red color on the map which occurs primarily only in the downtown area is commercial. The purple that you see, particularly south of TH 5 on that exhibit is the office/industrial category. That is usually your light manufacturing, office, warehouse type of facilities similar to what is now in place in Chanhassen Lakes Business Park and what's developed in there over the last 10 years period. Moving through the categories, there's two colors of green on the map. A lighter color of green represents parks and open space corridors. The more olive green represents public and semi-public land uses. An example would be the Arboretum, churches, schools, things of that nature. There's undeveloped land that's just shown in white. The only really occurrence of that is in the extreme southern portion of the community well outside of the MUSA line area and I'll touch on that in a few minutes. There's a mixed use category which covers both high density and commercial uses. It's only location is Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 7 down in this portion of the city. The HUSA line that I mentioned a moment ago, for any of you who are not up on your acronyms, the MUSA is Metropolitan Urban Service Area. I think most of you are aware that that's kind of a line, demarktation between the area the essentially can receive sanitary sewer service and an areas...until after the year 2000. The heavy red line that appeared on both of these exhibits is the MUSA that's being proposed as part of the comprehensive plan update. It does add land area as I'm sure most of you are aware to the existing... The existing line is on the map, it's probably very difficult to see if you're much further than 5 or 10 feet away. It's the smaller red line. I'll call your attention also to there's an asterick up in this portion, south of TH 5 and the east side of Galpin. That's identifying a cooperative effort thus far with the school district to identify a potential...school site that may be designated at some time in the future. The land use pattern that has evolved out of this entire process has a lot of reflections back to what was compiled in the 1980 comprehensive plan. I think it's parallel to the philosophy. At that time the city's developed area was primarily around Lotus Lake, some of it beginning to extend south of TH 5 but not to a major amount with the exception of the Chanhassen Estates area and the industrial area down in Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. The pattern then has been one of that development pushing basically southwest and somewhat westward in what was labeled in 1980 as an organized fashion. The 1980 plan actually showed it's sewered portion of the plan, where likely areas would be in 5 year increments for sanitary sewer service to be expanded between 1980 and at that time the year 2000. The MUSA line was identified for 1990. It was kind of summarily changed by the Metropolitan Council a while later to the year 2000 and now...a change in that again. Touching on some of the particular land use patterns, I mentioned it before. The red is the commercial area...substantial location of commercial is in the downtown area. That's very much indicative of the City's philosophy to emphasize development in that area. As I'm sure you're all aware, there's a significant amount of investment there within the last 10 to 12 years. Some of the fruits of that are being seen now and the emphasize is on continuing with that type of pattern. The industrial development that started initially over in the...of the county and then...Chanhassen Business Park is basically being continued philosophically down towards Chaska. If this map were to contain Chaska~s land use as well, you'd see the purple color that basically abut this entire area. If any of you had a chance to look at the exhibit that's over there, that reflects some of the land use outside of Chanhassen's boundaries that identify that. There were a number of issues that came up during the preparation of the land use plan... I'm going to touch on some of those briefly. The Timberwood neighborhood which is one of the residential large lot designations in this area certainly was a topic of considerable discussion. It essentially kind of lies in the center of what I described as the path...connection of industrial down to Chaska. After numerous meetings and a Great deal of...the Planning Commission did decide to make some changes in that area...identifies them as single family surrounding that as well as the medium density closer to TH 5. A very similar occurrence took place in the SunridGe Court development down in this area. What has happened is what formerly contained some industrial designations has been turned back over to residential also. Another change that has taken place in more recent times. In this corner of TH 5 and' Galpin...was designated as neighborhood commercial site. It was approximately 11 acres in size. Based on testimony and consideration by the Planning Commission, that was converted Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 8 over to a residential use. They were considering the size of the parcel, it's... Lake Lucy area up in the northern portion of the community is another area that received consideration attention. It was the subject of considerable resident comments as well. The final decision, at least to date and for the purpose of bringing it to public hearing tonight was to leave the MUSA line essentially intact where it was shown. There was consideration in taking certain properties out...line around. To date the commission has elected to leave the line where it is. The final really change that kind of evolved was kind of a concept. Kind of a planning concept that occurred and that's what's been labeled buffer area. On this map there are various designations of buffer areas both on the southern part of the community and to the northern part. What these are and they're shown basically as interface areas between a residential land use and some other type of land use. They're identified as land as an additional buffer strip outside of the normal setbacks. Outside the normal landscaping requirements. On a land to land contact basis, it'd be larger.., roadway such as along Audubon that may be reduced to something like 50 or 75 feet...additional street right-of-way... The intent of those is to provide some physical and visual separation between uses. Touching just for a moment on some statistics and we're not by any means going to get into detail and bore you with a lot of numbers. I'll make just a quick reference as to what some of the tabulations of land would reveal. Inside the existing MUSA line which if you'll allow me just generally I've identified as this area on this map. When you get over into this map, it's predominantly an area that comes up this way. Inside of those boundaries at the present time the City has 281 acres of vacant single family designated property or low density designated property. 175 acres of multi-family, 118 of commercial and 95 acres of industrial. The change in the MUSA line for additional area if you will, that occurred between where the line lies now and where the line is proposed to be as part of the plan obviously brings additional land into the total system. Land that potentially will develop over the next l0 year time period. I would stress over the next 10 year period. That's not been identified by any means the 1991...all the properties available. It's very much contingent upon the City's ability to provide sanitary sewer service and some of the other urban utilities to those areas. The numbers reflecting the additional area on the plan approximately 840 acres of single family, approximately 115 of multi-family, 543 acres of office/industrial land. The total results essentially in the residential portion only. The total availability of land between where we are today and the year 2000 is approximately 1,400 acres. The text portion of the land use plan contains some dialogue about some of the projections and some of the methodologies that we've done but basically it's set up a patter the City's going to need somewhere between approximately 1,300 and 1,900 acres to satisfy residential demands between now and the year 2000. $o you can see the number that's bee~ identified in the plan again is somewhat of a conservative midrange kind of number. . ..limits that the Metropolitan Council would approve, the emphasize by the Planning Commission since day one has been to try to...reasonable document for all areas. The final thing that I want to touch upon quickly is transportation. On this map there's a series of lines that are superimposed on the land use colors. Again, with the room configuration it's real difficult to see. Perhaps...identify some of the new alignments and look at those quickly for you. TH 5, there's a new frontage road shown along the north side that would extend from CR 17 or Powers Blvd. on the east to TH 41 on the west. There is a compatible somewhat detached Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 9 frontage road to the south of that that stretches from Audubon Road on the east over again to TH 41 on the west taking a rather circuitous route to get there. There are two road segments in the northern portion of the community. The connection between Galpin Blvd., which is CR 117 and TH 41~ One appears north of Lake Harrison and one appears to the south of Lake Harrison. Those will be future collector street locations. The obvious, and I said this 10 years ago, the obvious transportation...TH 2t2. I'm glad to say it's a little further alon~ than it was when we did this back in 1982. At least the official mapping has occurred. That is shown continuing on this plan. That then evoked some other transportation improvements. TH 101 is being rerouted south of TH 5 over to Market Blvd .... down to the new interchange location for TH 101. Ultimately then another interchange being constructed over to the west along CR 17. That really kind of concludes my overview comments on the plan. I don't know if Paul has anything to add to that. If not we'll turn it over to the Commission. Conrad: Thank you Mark. I guess we're close to opening it up for your comments. I'm just going to reiterate one thing. Our process was driven by some goals in each of these areas. If you're interested in what the goals were, I think that kind of tells you how we got to where we ended up and I'd encourage if you're curious what those goals are in terms of transportation, land use, housing, to go to City Hall and get a copy of those. They're probably on 8 or 10 pages in this document but it tells you what our goals are for development and how we're going to do that and the policies that would assist in accomplishing that. The only other thing before I open it up, just so you're aware, this is a land use plan and it's not zoning. Zoning could follow later on. Probably will but it is not the same thing as zoning. Zoning occurs later on when there is appropriate application to rezone the property. This is our way of saying Met Council, residents, here's how we think we're going to grow. We've got some blocks out there and this is the direction we're going in. I'm going to open it up for comments. Who would like to be the first person tonight? Gene Quinn: I guess I will. My name is Gene Ouinn. I live at 532 Lyman 81vd.. When you say this is not zoning, okay but people want to come down to City Hall and see how something is going to be used next to me, it's as much a zoning. Or just about as much. Let me show you where I'm at. I've got 10 acres right here. Right next to it is commercial... Okay, my house is about here. The day's going to come when...make it into lots. When people come out, come down to City Hall and they want to see what's going to happen, what do they see? They see red zoning don't they? Conrad: If they look at the comprehensive plan, they'i1 certainly think that that's the direction it's going. Gene Quinn: I mean it's going to cost me a lot of money. Lots of money. I've got here a handout that was from about 3 years ago, a public hearing for TH 212. At that time it was commercial on this whole interchange with half the new parcel...mixed use. Okay, he's going to end up selling that land for what, $3.00 to $5.00 a square foot in 5 years from now and it's going to end up costing me a lot of money. Is that fair? Thank you. Conrad: Thanks Gene. Paul, did you have a comment on what? Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page lO Krauss: Only, well the commercial/mixed use that's being shown there is being shown around a highway interchange between TH 101 and TH 212. It's going to be a high traffic area. It's going to be high visibility area. There's reason to think that higher intensity uses are appropriate there. We do have to be careful of how we get that interfaced between the commercial and higher density and the residential and I believe we've showing, are we showing a buffer yard there? Yeah. We're showing the buffer yard concept in there and it is something that's worked out when we actually have a design. That's about it. Conrad: Gene, your preference is not for mixed use there Z assume? Gene Ouinn: Well, the way I see it is that we were committed. The City made up this thing. Okay, we spend our time going to a public hearing. At that time it was to work with changing the freeway alignment so my next important thing was the land use around it. Okay? We show it as medium density with two different alternates... I even talked, you know that's the way I felt so I talked to a local realtor. This lady is involved in selling lots and platting and she's got a good feel for people. Okay? People go down to City Hall and look at that and see that commercial next to them and you know what the answer's going to be. They're going to run away. There are enough lots to buy in Chanhassen, you don't have to buy one next to... Some of that, the way she explained, is probably worse before it's actually developed because they don't know what's going to go i n there. Conrad: Okay, thanks. Richard Donnay: Richard Donnay. I'm at 8109 Dakota Lane in Chanhassen in the Estates. I'm concerned, I'm wondering about the park property, the park property around Lake Ann. Between Lake Ann and Lake Lucy. Is that park area now between Lake Ann and Lake Lucy there? Is that what it is now? It's park and will it continue to be park indefinitely and do we have parkland all the way around Lake Ann? I mean is it permissible for a citizen to walk around Lake Ann now and t4hat are the possibilities of expanding the park up around the west side of Lake Lucy. That's really beatiful in there for trespassers would find that out at this point. I'm really hopeful you can develop a park around those lakes there. Conrad: Thanks for your comments. Mark, can you handle that? Koegler: Yes. The park plan literally since the 1980 plan was put together has strongly advocated that Lake Ann is probably the only lake in Chanhassen that the City has a reasonable chance to get circulation all the way around. I think a lot of us would like to tell you tonight that it's there but it's not at the present time. It is on the south side with Lake Ann Park. It is on the east side with the connection up to Greenwood Shores Park on kind of the northeast portion of the lake if you will. What the comprehensive plan shows then is a continuation first of all of a slight expansion of the park area between the two water bodies and them with at least some kind of a connecting strip around the other side. Whether that's in ownership, whether that's in easement, that would remain to be seen. The tenacle that you see that kind of stretches up to the northwest from there is the Lake Ann Interceptor sewer alingment that follows up through there and the City's long term hope is to see that as a Planning Commission Heeling October 24, 1990 - Page trail corridor with a connection from Lake Ann Park getting up into Minnewashta Regional Park. So what you have on that map is actually a mixture of existing conditions and the plan's proposed expansion of public useage around Lake Ann Park. At the present time I believe there's at least one home on the southwest portion kind of on Lake Ann which would be impacted or would have to be dealt with as a part of that acquisition. Richard Donnay: 5o the land between those two lakes would have to be purchased from a private owner at this point? Koegler: It would. The City presently has title to a very small area between the two lakes in the form of Greenwood Shores Park which is about a 3 acre park. Bob Smithburg: My name is Bob Smithburg. I'm very new to the area here. bought a house on 8657 Chanhassen Hills Drive North. I'm concerned about TH 212 and TH 101. Could you tell me, this might be old for everyone else but could you tell me the status of the proposals for the highway. Will it enhance my property value? Will it degrade it, which I feel it probably will being an artery into it. Will it be a submerged highway? Can you give me information on this? Warren: Highway 212's been officially mapped by the City. The corridor that's shown on the city's map is accurate as we can represent it at that scale of a map. Indications from the Department of Transportation is that the project is funded for construction out to the intersection of Lyman and TH 101 probably by the late 90's. I would expect 1996 to 1998 timing when that road would be under construction. Through the Chan Hills area, the last concepts that we've been provided from the State shows that it's a depressed road section and that it would actually be going underneath the existing at grade intersection so there would be some buffer to the local neighborhood as a result of that. Conrad: If the County Assessor is here, maybe you could answer a little bit of your question about value. Bob Smithburg: Okay, and then one other question. Will they be putting Lip, you know such as on the county roads in Minneapolis, wooden what do you call them? Noise barriers or visual barriers? Warren: The State is currently completing the environmental impact statement for the roadway and they do use as you're aware, noise walls in certain areas where the criteria dictates it. To be honest, I don't know completely the road section as far as whether they've actually proposed any noise walls. In areas where there's depressed road section, typically they don't need it but that will be a part of their final environmental impact. Bob Smithburg: Okay. I would appreciate it if you have influence in this matter, to really push for this because I know the decibel ratings are quite high that they judge by and to our normal ears, it's pretty irritating. Conrad: Is the County Assessor here? The gentleman was concerned about land valuation with 212 going through. Planning Commission Meeting October 24, i990 - Page 12 Orlln Schafer: The land values change as property changes as plans such as this take effect. They're long term and he's talking about that corridor being there but utilized sometime... It wouldn't be really much impact at all as far as land value. If you're a developer who's expecting to purchase land and subdivide it and develop it, this is what this is all about. It's gearing up, telling you where you're most likely sites are available and what is going to impact those sites. Normally you see highway construction such as this, you'll see low density housing with large buffer areas. Something like that to protect the noise or the economic impact from the highway. By doing that, you're not lowering your value. You're enhancing the property from the sense that... The impact to a value...is minimal... The same thing appties...around that Lake Ann area. We see that park over there. People that join a golf course enjoy the rather large value in their property simply because they're buying the aesthetics of a visual amenity that...so this works both ways. In some cases you can tell somebody you made a bad choice. The property is going to be impacted... Perhaps other choices say it's to your advantage to the property. According to this, who are going to benefit? You and others in the area. Referring to what Mr. Lyman was saying about the development property. We don't necessarily define...shy away from being neighbors to industrial sites. What we've seen in Chanhassen and Chaska too and other areas of the metro area where they're developing light industrial and commercial property...landscaping and they are enhancing the picturesque studies of the building and they're demanding certain things of these contractors and these developers so they are no longer eye sores. They aren't these 10 story brick warehouse type buildings that are going up. They're doing a very decent job for the most part of fitting in with the landscaping of the area around. I would not say that you're going to be negatively affected...rather than the industrial park. We have some in the industrial park out there now that actually the homes were built there first but since the industry went up across the way, people thought they were going to be negatively impacted... So people will go to those sites. I don't think it's going to overly negatively affect it. The other thing is that... I guess that's my point. Everything's going to sell. Everything's going Conrad: Thank you. Other comments. Craig Harrington: Craig Harrington, 8140 Maplewood Terrace. I just have a couple of questions and some of these may be for Gary or for Mark or Paul. On the highway 5, do you know starting from let's say Audubon Road goin¢ west, where the new highway's going to cut? Whether it's going to cut to the south or to the north. I'm watching as it's going through Eden Prairie. It seems to be cutting to the south right now. Have they made amy proposals or staked that out yet? Warren: From CR 17 to TH 41, you're talking about that section? Craig Harrington: Right. Warren: All I can tell you at this point in time is that the current alignment, you can see the construction going on Dow to add the two lanes to the bridge are going to be on the north side of TH 5 so when it comes through CR 17 it will be on the north side. Now they flip back and forth as you'll see on this recent segment that's under construction depending on Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 13 obstacles like the park property and some of these things so there's no given alignment yet at this point in time. Craig Harrington: Okay. The other question Z have, Mark on where the public or the intermediate school may be going, there's like a shaded area. Is that actually, between the frontage road and the highway, is there going to be any developable area in there? Is that just going to be buffer land, vacant land? Krauss: Craig, that's one of the things that has changed in the plan. I think Molt recall that an earlier version of that plan. Craig Harrington: Right, we had the frontage road I think further down. Krauss: Bisecting the property. In fact I think it was Mary that suggested that we run it as a frontage road section and it made a lot of sense to do that. What we anticipate doing is essentially it will be a frontage road so you'll have TH 5, you'll have a median strip of some sort and then you'll have the frontage road and then everything beyond it. The only place that would not occur is at Galpin where you need to provide enough offset from that intersection .for safety so it ~ill come down a little bit. Craig Harrington: But even so, will that still, it looks like it, is that going to be developable let's say between where it comes i~to Galpin and drops down a little bit further on the east side there between CR 117 between that frontage road and TH 5. Is that going to be, you know because it's just shaded now. That's all I see right there and I don't want to see a gas station there or something like that. Koegler: You're right. The designation on the map bear in mind it's a 1,000 scale map. It is fairly generalized. I think that type of decision would ultimately be made at the time that road goes in and you study the intersection configurations. I can tell you the intent of the plan right now for the record, as Paul stated, is to tuck that frontage road up to TH 5 where there would not be developable property between the two areas. Craig Harrington: Okay. The other question I have is and is for maybe the County ~ssessor. I was just curious about, ~e're now in the MUSh line for Timberwood as far as I understand right? Krauss: No. Craig Harrington: We are or. Krauss: Oh, you're proposed to be yeah. Craig Harrington: ~e were a donut hole at one time but we all decided that's not the way to go but I was curious if the assessor ~ould just comment. I think all of us in Timberwood area are especially concerned if our tax value's going to go up simply because of the public sewer and water going in at this time. How that's going to impact us once that becomes a part. Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 14 Orlin Schafer: The HUSA line in itself does not increase proper%y value. That's easy to say in theory but hard to prove. The results of the HUSA line opens a lot of area, moving of that line, opens a lot of area to be developed... There's several people in the audience tonight that I've had conversations with...that have addressed this problem and they said, you've got my property value and here I'm sitting on 6 or 8 acres, you've got my property value at $70,000.00 of real estate and that's just outrageous. I can't use more than an acre and a half of that and therefore $30,000.00 should be more appropriate. The truth of the matter is, when the HUSA line opens up, if there's some give and take in variances and zoning and so forth, that probably can be developed so the NUSA line is giving that individual an opportunity to do something more with his property and many of these people are holding those pieces of property in that light. With the development of that property in mind. The NUSA line would not increase the value from a tax point of view. Now special assessments for the installation of the utilities. Those sorts of things. I don't even touch that. I have nothing to do with that. I don't even want to give anyone the idea that that's the case. They approve assessments...specials by the advantage it gives to your property or the value that it adds to the property because of the availability of those utilities. That's something entirely different. I deal with the value that those utilities gives the property.., ge talk market. If it adds some value as a part of the market is concerned. If you're sitting, out there on 2 1/2 acres, you've got your own well and your own septic system and you can have the MUSA going right in front of your yard and not hook on. It really hasn't added anything to your property unless you're usin9 it as a selling point to somebody that says hey, we've got MUSA right here. If you ever have trouble with your well, it's right out there in front. Fine. When it's stubbed in and we see you hooked onto it, we'll add the value as far as the market from the market perspective but just because the line runs in front of you or touches you...that doesn't really add...to your property. That's how we came to the...portion of who's going to pay for the construction. They're going to tell you eventually you do. You definitely do at some point in time. You're going to hook onto that public utility. You will use the system at some point in time. There are certain protections that you put into place for people that own property as this line grows. As it expands. There are some agricultural things that we can do that have been designed, they're in place now to protect farm entities from being swallowed up or forced to develop...customarity when development, again there's blocks of property...subdivided, the farmer that's retaining a piece of property in an attempt to farm feels the pressure and his land value goes right through the roof. We have some property when the...for $700,000.00. We had...agricultural land at that point in time. That's the kind of pressure those people do...being taxed off the farm. You've heard that before and you'll continue to hear that, especially here in the metro area where there are safeguards that we use. They must be used with caution because at some point in time you're going to dance or you pay the bank and somewhere down the road you might have to pay real fast. For instance green acres is utilized, payments are deferred. Taxes are held down and all of a sudden you sell off. You become ineligible for green acres. You've got 90 days to pay that and Scott County is seeing some of that where they have some prime property that should be developed and they can't, the people who own it can't afford to sell it because all their assessments and all the back taxes will come due ~n 90 days. They're just scared to death of selling. They wouldn't Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 15 get any money. They don't feel they would. So that is, in reference to the MUSA line. The line itself won't do anything. It won't do anything with the value of your individual property until we see... If you have 40 acres out there and the line comes across the bottom of it...subdivide your 40 acres, fine. We sit on it until we see you subdivide that 40 acres and then we sit on it until we see you sell some lots so we're really pretty laid back... Anything else? Conrad: Thanks. Craig Harrington: I appreciate that comment and I will hold you to it. I think as you know, we're in a new development and pretty much everybody's going to stay with their own private well and septic and my concern was, and I agree. It should be based on market value and there's that amenities that we have when the MUSA line comes in but I just didn't want the values to jump up even though we're not going to take any advantage of that use for probably many years to come since we've just put in brand new septic and wells. The only other comment, parting comment I have is again, my long standing comment is that I would not like to see the commercial/ industrial go west of McGlynn's so that's my comment. Beverly VanderVorste: Beverly VanderVorste, 8141Maplewood in Timberwood. I've seen a lot of different things that have gone on around there and I like what I see and I want to thank everybody. Conrad: Thank you. That may be the only positive thing we hear tonight but thanks. A1Klingelhutz: I've been asked to do this by a pretty good friend of mine and it kind of hurts me to do it because I've got a friend sitting right here that's just as good but Mr. Curry who is Scotland right now asked me to read this letter that he sent to me and wants it put into the record. It really bothers me when you get between a rock and hard place. A good man sitting here and Jim Curry, a good friend of mine and I agreed to him that I would read this letter to you. It says, Re: Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing. It says I'm unable to be with you tonight however A1 Klingelhutz is representing me. It says my wife and I own 75 acres off of TH 212/TH 101 intersection. Paul Krauss has given surveys of this land during the informal hearings held last summer. The land measures out to 45 acres of condemnation land and 30 other acres. Chanhassen city staff and consultants are recommending that the land be shown as mixed use for the comprehensive plan. This would include high density, commercial and freeway commercial. We believe this zoning for the intersection land is very wise. Above all the city keeps it's option open as to the ultimate use of the land. During the 199-0's the city of Chanhassen will probably request a master plan for all the non-highway acres when a request comes in for a use for any of the land. This will involve public hearings and give everyone a chance to be heard. In addition, each land use that comes up will go through the planning public hearing process. Once again everyone will get a chance to be heard. In this way Chanhassen keeps all their options open and will ultimately have a gateway spot into the city that will be a real asset to the community. Yes, mixed use is a wise comprehensive plan designation for this area. It says I will be pleased to 'expand on this statement or answer if there are any questions. It says please make this statement a part of the public record. Thank you. Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 16 Sincerely, 3im Curry. And I guess I sat in on most of the meetings pertaining to this comprhensive plan. In fact several of them and I know there's a lot of citizens been here and a lot of them had 3ustifiable complaints but overall I think the Planning Commission should be complimented for doing an excellent job of putting this comprehensive plan together. Thank you. (Applause!) Conrad: I don't know how to deal with that. Other concerns or comments. Eric Rivkin: Eric Rivkin, I live in Lake Lucy Highlands and I want to take about 8 minutes to explain my comments on the plan. Even though you included the petitioned area within MUSA, you did address the underlying concerns of many of the petitioners of which I am grateful. There's always a compromise to be struck and I think we're headed in the right direction. Number one, you honored the original petition to keep at least Lake Lucy Highlands classified as large lot for many reasons agreed with in the petition. It appears you expect it to remain that way for the 15 year life of this plan. I would also tike to know though why some of the other petitioners who did not change their minds did not have their land also represented as large lot. Number two, in Mr. Erhart's words in a letter sent to Planning in response to the petition, I feel the commission has "gone out of their way to make it clear that it is the policy of the city to discourage premature hook-up of homes with working septic systems." and that is one thing I also appreciate. It recognizes that many of'us were platted since 1985 with new systems built to current technology with alternate drainfield sites. I would like to see a clarification in the plan about the right to use alternate drainfield sites or to repair any part of a system for those inside the MUSA. If a repair or replacement of a system can be done on a large lot property and environmental problems would not become evident, then a single homeowner should have the right to' do so without being forced to hook up. This would also require a MUSA amendment to my knowledge. I feel it's only fair that this policy would apply also to municipal water. I also agree with Mr. Erhart that his comments that the Metro Council takes a hypocritical stance when they condemn septic system safety and then allow millions of gallons of raw sewage to run into the Mississippi River. The plan recognizes that many of these on-site systems would last longer than the life of the plan, perhaps 30 years. That means our new system would certainly not derive benefit for the life of the plan. It's also entirely possible that it may never derive benefit because with proper care and maintenance, use of the alternate drain site and use of proven new technologies that could be adopted are conceiveably more environmentally sound. Septic systems may never fail. The ones ~4e have for even the life of the home. In the spirit of "going out of your way", I believe the plan should reflect that possibility rather than assume that hook-up will always be mandatory. A quick word about, there's a couple of inaccuracies about some of the mapping on the plan. One is there's a lot the DNR owns on the west side of Lake Lucy. I'll point it out. It's a 5 acre lot right here and...and I think there's no reason that could not be designated as park open space. The other thing is, contrary to some statements in the plan, expanding MUSA boundaries do drastically increase property values. A case in point is the Carrico property bought recently by the City for Pheasant Hills Park. That's that green square that's right above Lake Lucy Highlands on Lake Lucy Road Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 17 there. The owner valued the raw land at $350,000.00 as if it had full development potential inside the MUSA yet as an argument to keep the purchase price down to $145,000.00, which is halfway between the $40,000.00 or so that the City had an appraisal at and the owner's price, it was argued that it did not have that potential because it was outside of the MUSA. It's not even in the MUSA yet and already had the price boosted. ...property values because past history shows that sometimes homeowners are made to share the cost of installing utilities in adjacent property developments in many cases when there are many years left on their septic systems. Pending special assessments on record cause banks to withhold that. money preventing the use of it. When the homeowner's not deriving any benefit from that utility. In effect the assessment is as good as levied. There's a comment in the Comp Plan about parks. It says that for local parks, small neighborhood parks like Greenwood Shores and some of the other small green parks, the dots that you see around the map there. It says the key ingredient for successful local parks is quick, convenient access. If that's policy is applied to all the local parks, does that mean that Greenwood Shores should have on street parking? Hot one but I'm going to make it on record now. I'm raising the question. Okay, Z don't have an opinion one way or the other. I'm just representing a lake association on that. okay? In general the plan has many nice things to say about preserving the natural amenities that make what the people want Chanhassen's character to be. I think the plan should emphasize this more by recognizing the natural amenities are the very soul of the city and that they must be preserved, restored or recreated as development progresses. I believe development from now on should give back more than it takes away in terms of environmental impact and should take forms in both encouragement programs and formal policy. I think the creative zoning classifications such as, I'm going to make one up. RES, Residential Environmentally Sustaining and abolish alt the other zoning classifications and more comprehensive aesthetic design guidance by the Comp Plan would prevent this squeeze every inch you can sprawling suburb that is so unappealing and psychologically and environmentally damaging. I don't think that return on investment should ever be the only criteria in planning a development. I like the buffer yard concept that is mentioned in there. To separate residential from industrial but I think you should insist that they be landscaped with natural variations and contour heights and foliage rather than unsightly straight bunkers and army landscaped half dead trees. Most of them should be required to be landscaped to support wildlife by planting adequate native cover and prairie grasses. They provide a self-sustaining type of landscaping and are non-polluting because no fertilizers are required and they act as a drainage buffer for nutrients and sediments which is a stated goal in the Comp Plan and is a goal by the Metropolitan Council to try to reduce non-point source pollution into the river. This technique should also be applied between and within residential developments as you have already mentioned but allow tighter clustering by creative zoning to maintain and manage the rural character that Chanhassen residents want. More open space can be preserved by keeping farms in certain areas. Non-point source pollution from agriculture can be avoided by converting to sustainable organic methods now gaining widespread popularity. The plan should encourage farmers to stay and not sell out because of development pressures. Strict guidelines that go beyond inadequate State or Federal standards on. visual, noise, odor and air pollution have been done elsewhere in creative affordable visually appealling developments. In the pioneering spirit of Chanhassen, I would Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 18 expect those kinds of guidelines too. Thank you very much. Conrad: Thank you Eric. I do appreciate all your energy as we've gone through this. You've challenged us at the right time. Maybe we can respond to a couple of your thoughts. You could sit if you like or stand but you said so many things. I don't know really the right place to start but I am like you concerned and like a lot of residents, concerned about ottr standards for sewer hook-up, gaul, I'm going to ask you to, a lot. of what you said just may not relate directly to the comprehensive plan. Really relates a great deal to standards and to things that may not be in that plan. It's enforcement and it's the how to's that maybe the plan doesn't deal with but Gary, I guess you're better. We'll take Paul off the hook. Gary, you're the one to really talk about sewer hook-up standards, repair. I think a lot of people are nervous that as soon as that sewer is there, that you know they're forced to do some things. Could you relate, and I guess the issue is, do we have the standards in place right now or is that something that we have to take a look at given the fact that we're moving the MUSA out and we have some property owners that may have, like in /imberwood case, we have adequate sewers there and I think we've reviewed that and shown that septic systems are equal if not better. Well, equal. I won't say the word better but equal to what we get from our buried sewer system. Gary, can you handle any of those questions that I laid out there? Warren: I'll certainly try. Septic systems issue, we talk about the ney systems. The 2 1/2 acres where the systems have to verify that they actually have an alternate treatment site in the event of a failure. I think the City has done good to try to comply with the requirements actually of the Met Council or the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission in trying to strike some compromise already to allow us to exist with those types of systems. The impression that the City is looking to go out and blatantly force homeowners off of septic systems and onto a public utility I think is wrong and should not be the understanding around here. They are very unique. Any of the public improvement projects that we do to address pollution problems of this nature, we just extended a small extension along Lake Lucy Road to service the 0'Srien/Harvey property for example where we had failing systems there and granted these were older systems where they didn't have alternates available. Each of those become so unique that it's very difficult to write a comprehensive policy saying you shall or you shall not connect or not connect in this regard. I think the statement that is in the draft plan right now I think is a very accurate and good guide as to the intentions of the city in not looking to force homeowners off of their systems if they are accountable and able to maintain those systems and show that they are not as Eric referenced here, a detriment to the environment. I think that's what we're all interested in. Whether you service that by private systems or by a public utility, I guess there is documentation to show that the private systems can sustain themselves if properly maintained. There is a potential fallacy in that just because a property was shown at the time of platting to have alternate sites, that it will continue to have two alternate sites or an auxiliiary site. What a homeowner does to the property in modifying the grading can disturb the alternate site in fact to the point where you would not have an alternate site. So I think there's some realities that happen here as systems age. As properties get sold to other property owners who pass it on to other property owners and none of the systems ever fail at the same time. Were that the case, you wouldn't have a question about it. The Crestview/ West Planning Commission Heeling October 24, 1990- Page :19 65t. h Street issue just west of Galpin is an example where we had several failing systems. Some that were new that didn't want to have the se~er in there and it took a conscientious look through a feasibility study to say what's right and what's wrong and it really is a very unique situation so I really feel that the comp .plan as it's written now is sympathetic and expresses well I think the policy in general terms that the City should look to. I think as the systems age we're going to have to respond specifically to each of those cases as they develop. Eric Rivkin: I do agree with the wording in the plan. I did comment that it was, it's at least in my best interest but I do just take issue with you know one assumption in those words and that's the word premature. You assume that somebody will, all septic systems will eventually hook up. guess I take issue with that. That's all. That we have such curren% standards are and the technologies that I use anyway, the S82 system are such that I mean 3elf Swedlund my installer said it's sized for an apartment building for what was put into my place. I don't plan, I can't subdivide. I can't disturb the site number 2. The alternate site, as a lot of the people in Lake Lucy Highlands can't do, and so we're just wondering about the future. Conrad: Eric, a couple other things. When you said the natural feazures being the corner stone. You can see we wove natural features in rea_ heavily into the plan. As long as I've been around we've found that it's better to protect what you want rather than zone against stuff that you don't want. So a heavy concentration on protecting the natural amen:ties for why we moved here in the first place. You brought that point up as a corner stone comment. If you have wording that you feel strengthens, we play with wording a whole bunch. You know if you've got any other wording that does it, I'd sure appreciate you sending us that and we'd take a look at it. But it's laced throughout here and that was one of the intentions of staff. I think it was of the Planning Commission also. Eric Rivkin: It's just that sometimes strong enough policy doesn't hake it out into the how to's as you can see you know. There's straight line bunkers as short as possible with half dead trees on them you know scattered throughout town and you know, sometimes the Council says well our hands are tied and we can't make the developer do that but it would be nice to try and eliminate and get these things done up front so a develope¥ can take a look at the comp plan and try to design out those problems before they get to the Council. Conrad: Buffer yard standards, we'll be looking at those. Noise standards, we are looking at noise. Paul, what are we doing with nor. se standards? We've talked about it. Have we done anything? Is it on our work? Krauss: Not specifically, no. There was a consideration of a noise ordinance last year. That really didn't reach any kind of fruitition. We are regulated of course by State noise standards which are stiffer than the Federal noise standards and those are iD place of course. Eric Rivkin: Thank you. I think you did a good job. Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 20 Joe fqorin: Yeah I do too. For the most part I think what Eric said is complimentary and I think for the most part the comprehensive plan is well clone. There are some exceptions where people are still being treated unfairly but I honestly believe that you people are listening to the inputs that you're getting and I'm hopeful that some of these unfair situations will be mitigated. So in general I really appreciate. Conrad: What's your name for the record? Joe Morin: Oh! My name is Joe Morin. I'm living at 1441 Lake Lucy Road. My general comment is that I appreciate your concerns for the environment in the comprehensive plan. I've scanned through most of it. I like your statements about open spaces and low density. I would like to see more, in general more property especially around the Lake Lucy area and Lake Ann area designated as larger lots. So that's a general comment. I think right now I'd like to thank Paul Krauss for the time that he spent yesterday. He spent an hour and a half with my wife and I helping us understand the impact of this comprehensive plan on our property and l don't think there are many officials in other cities that would have done that and I really appreciate it. Now specifically the area I want to talk about in the plan that I'm concerned about is in the land use section on page 22 and 23. Particularly on 23. There we refer to the Lake Lucy Highlands area and in the plan we talk about on-site wells and sewage disposal systems that have been built to required standards. We talk about the fact that this represented a substantial investment on the part of the landowners in the Lake Lucy Highlands area and that the city policy here is that these areas be given special consideration. The special considerations are itemized as number 1, they're not required to hook into city utilities. Number 2, they're not required to pay utility assessments until the utility extensions are required to serve them and I think that's eminently fair. These people have working systems. They have sufficient land to put in another system should it fail in the next 30 years which isn't likely and so I think that's eminently fair. The only problem I have with it is that it only applies to the Lake Lucy Highlands area and I think there's a lot of other people in the Chanhassen area that are impacted by this MUSA line change that are in the same situation and I'm one of them. We moved into our home in a year and a half ago. In April of 1989 and I think our systems are probably more recent than most of the systems around here including the Lake Lucy Highlands area and I think that what's fair for those people is also fair for me. The other people in the community that are in similar circumstances so what I'd like to see is that that special, what is it a special consideration be more of a general policy that applies to everyone who has working systems. Everyone who has sufficient land to upgrade those systems should they fail in the next 30 years. So I don't want a specific policy that kind of discriminates against other people in my situation and I'd encourage other people here who feel the same way to speak up and make their concerns known. I don't think it would be very difficult to administer something like that. It'd be simply keeping a list of which people meet those requirements. Now I'm not concerned about a couple hundred dollars or something like that. If a utility comes by and I get assessed for it. I'm concerned about major possible impacts to my area. And so I have a special concern too that I'd like to kind of show you on the map of right about where I am here. Specifically this is where my property is right here. South of Lake Lucy Road and it's a 5 acre parcel. It's mostly wetland. It's a large pond. Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 21 Brian Tichey has the parcel right next to me so the pond k~nd of, our property is kind of split right down the middle of this pond dividing the property. Brian's is a 5 acre parcel right in line and most of that area is undevelopable as wetlands and so forth. However, the terrain in this area tends to roll downhill. That's why they have...because the water kind of drains in that direction. Paul was explaining to me that the sewage tends to roll downhill and so a likely scenario for developing sewer in this area would be something that might connect these areas to the Lake ~nn Interceptor and that's a major, major work. Engineering feat if you will. It's about a couple of miles. Maybe a mile...Maybe 2 miles through a wetland area which would be very expensive to put in. We're talking maybe a million dollars. More than that and an assessment to me for my portion of that would possibly drive that up and I'm very concerned about that... It's also a threat to the people in the Lake Lucy Highlands area who are given, how are they given special consideration and should that kind of sewage line be put in, they're not required to pay utility assessments and I want to be also included in that special consideration because I don't plan to ever use that. I don't plan to develop my area. I'm in the same situation they are. I have a working system that will last the next 30 years. It will last for the life of this comprehensive plan and... Those are basically my comments. Conrad: Okay, thanks Joe. Paul or Gary, can you respond to that request? Krauss: One of the concerns that we've had and one of the things that we've looked at was coming up with a MUSA line that made sense. That was reasonable from the standpoint that, (a) the Metro Council would buy it and that's not an easy task. If we wiggle around the MUSA line so that we hit and miss lots at the current whim or current wish of the owner, the Metro Council's going to throw out that MUSA line amendment because it doesn't pass a reasonable test. But more important for us is that it makes it very difficult, if not impossible to extend utilities and streets and provide services at such time that those are required. If we have a checker board pattern, that may asceed to the wish of the individual owners but roads don't take checker board patterns and sewer lines don't just end and then start again. What we've done is, the Planning Commission took a lot of testimony and determined that Lake Lucy Highlands, that Timberwood, that Sunridge Court, are basically relics of an ordinance that hasn't existed since 1987. Actually Sunridge Court is actually a more recent than that but they represent a platting, a type of development that is no longer allowed in the community anywhere within, well no longer allowed in the community. That's by contract with the Metro Council. You now, outside the MUSA line you can only develop 1 home for every 10 acres on gross density with a minimum lot size of 2 1/2 acres. When the Planning Commission looked at these 3 subdivisions, they felt that because these areas were so concentrated and because from our point of view there is no more development potential in these subdivision. There's that one house sitting in the middle of a 2 1/2 acre lot. It has a new on-site sewer system. It has the road that it's already going to need. Timberwood has all the roads in place, that we don't need to look at providing any services for those areas, bJe can't make that assumption when we look up and down a street, and we have 3 property owners that want to do something in the next 10 years. 2 property owners that don't. Another one that does. It simply doesn't work efficiently in that manner. At the request of the Planning Commission we contacted not only the Metro Council to get Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 22 their policy input on that question but we contacted a number of other communities that are developing or in the stage of development as we are and two, everybody said don't under any circumstances allow these checkerboard patterns to develop because they're impossible to deal with alley the fact. That was our recommendation to the Planning Commission and that was the determination of the Planning Commission in defining the MUSA line where it was. There was some gross deviations to the MUSA line that were considered. Throwing out a large section up near Lake Lucy Highlands. Many lots. I believe there was a petition that was circulated by Mr. Rivkin and we looked at an alternate land use scenario that would have brought in a sufficient amount of acreage closer to TH 5. The Planning Commission had some difficulty with that alternative but equally importantly there didn't seem to be any uniform opinion. There was no real large block of owners that decided one way or the other. There were a lot of owners that signed a petition. There were a lot of owners that came to a public meeting that we had this summer that said they didn't sign the petition and they wanted the right to do something with their property. All things being equal, I think the course of action the Planning commission took was to keep the MUSA line where they've shown it and to try to develop policies that were sensitive to the individual needs of individual property owners. We can't, these things are so detailed and when we're talking about an individual sewer line or an individual water line, then we can't really be more specific as to exactly how we would treat an individual lot in an individual circumstance except to try to set a policy tone that says we'll try to be as cooperative as possible and we understand that we're not trying to force things to happen. That we're not trying to force the premature retirement of on-site sewer or force additional expense. And that's pretty much the policy that's been incorporated in the comprehensive plan. Conrad: Alright. Gary, what kind of special assessments would Joe look forward to in the future if he wanted to keep, in this particular case I think we made the decision per Paul's statement, as to how to develop that from a sewer standpoint but in terms of special assessments when a sewer would go in. How would his property be dealt with? Warren: I couldn't give you an exact dollar amount by any means. What I was going to add Mr. Chairman is that whenever the City undertakes a public improvement process, it has to follow the hearing process. The feasibility study process. The whole 9 yards as far as involving the property owners who are affected or proposed for assessments. So just to make sure that there isn't the impression out there that the City can all of a sudden go out and just put in a sanitary sewer intercept around Lake Lucy and say we're going to service all these lots, it is a very formal process that will allow input from the public and on the affected people and by law requires us to notify them of the proposals. As a part of that process, that the details are hammered out as far as who is proposed for assessments. Who isn't, for whatever reason and that's really what's worked out. It can become very specific to the fact that this person doesn't have any frontage on a road project but because he benefits from it we give him an off-line assessment to recognize that benefit. There isn't a 'book written that can address all of the situations. And it does have to stand the test of benefit in a court of law. We cannot assess a property if we cannot sustain the value of that assessment that the property's actually increasing by that amount as a minimal. Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 23 Gerry Alvey: My name is Gerry Alvey. I live at 1831Sunridge Court and I've got some questions. I'm a little confused on the issue of the water service and the septic fields for some of the large lot developments that have rather new services. I understand that they're exempted from tying into the city services but also in these large developments, they are new enough that not all of the homesites have homes built upon them. If a new homeowner comes in and purchases after these areas are within the MUSA line, would that new homeowner then have to tie into city systems? Krauss: I can answer that. You know we didn't deal with that specifically Gerry. I guess we didn't envision it as a problem because we assumed that these developments would continue to build out in the way that they've been approved which is with on-site sewer and water. Gerry Alvey: I guess that was my question. What I was leading to is if any of the new homeowners that purchased after it's within the MUSA were required to tie into the city systems, then what would the assessments be for the trunk lines that would have to be run? Krauss: We never envisioned that. Gerry Alvey: Okay. Again, for the people that have those systems, if they have a failure of their system, does that mean that they then have to tie in or can they repair that failure? Warren: I think what we're saying as a general policy is that in these specific cases where they have the new systems where they have to have an alternate system initially when the site is constructed, that they will be given an opportunity to show that they can, if they choose to spend the money in that way, put an alternate site or rehab their existing system. It's also important to keep in mind that we do not have the ability to just run an isolated sewer line to one specific lot in a subdivision.. We have to have the trunk main. You're looking at really a comprehensive construction project and if it would come to that, then you're looking at all the properties being involved in one way or another. And that is what primarily what makes it difficult. Let's say we have one property in Timberwood Estates that for whatever reason, the soils ~Jere improperly diagnosed or they fail for whatever reason and that property is unable to place an alternate treatment site on it's site. The only option available to it short of us running a public sewer to it is to put in a holding tank and continue to pump that. You can talk to Mr. Harvey on Lake Lucy Road the expense involved with that so there is a risk I think that every property owner who has a private system should know if they don't already and that is stuff happens and it's not always said that nicely .... and even if you have 5 alternate sites, you may not be able to come up with one that will qualify but we will not be running a sewer just to service one isolated property because can potentially put a hardship on that property owner to come up with an alternate means and the most dramatic is to have to hold all your sewage and have it pumped every week. Gerry Alvey: Okay, I think that answers my question. So if there is a failure with an existing system and it can be shown that that failure could be repaired, that would be at the homeowner's option to do so? Narren: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 24 Gerry Alvey: Okay, thank you. Conrad: I think it's real important to note that, it sounds like we're making compromises through here. I think the direction is to maintain the quality of a septic system. From an environmental standpoint, that's really quite important but we've shown the flexibility or we're showing the sensitivity to not force homeowners to do one thing or another in some of these situations but still to maintain the quality that we all expect in terms of sewage disposal. Craig Hertz: I'm Craig Mertz. I'm here as attorney for Lakeview Hills Investment Group. That is the group that owns the Lakeview Hills Apartment complex to put a location on it. This is the land that lies between Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Riley. We're bounded on the east by the Eden Prairie boundary and on the south by the frontage road along Lake Riley and on the north by Rice Marsh Lake. This particular piece of property has a zoning history that goes back to the Chanhassen Township days, specifically more than 27 years. It was in 1963 that the Chanhassen Township Board approved this site for a 15 building apartment site. 525 units. Ultimately the owners of the property only took out the building permits for 5 of the 15 buildings but it has had a high density zoning category ever since 1963. The present owners of the property prior to their sale did investigate the situation and were aware of the zoning history and bought it with the expectation that this property did have a development history. Now the map before you indicates that the north half of the site is being transformed into a potential highway corridor and potential park. Another element that I don't know that all of the commissioners would be aware of was is that in 1977 the City approached the owners of this property seeking sewer lines across the site and at that time the then city engineer assured the owners that this sewer development was not going to affect the potential development of an additional 350 units of apartment buildings on this particular property. Now I didn't bring my crystal ball along tonight and I can't tell you whether Lakeview Hills Investment Group would be the ultimate developer of this property or we would simply be holding this for resale but I can tell you that we believe that this, the adoption of this map will have a negative impact on our property. Our buyers are going to look at this with the idea that they are not going to be able to utilize the northerly portion of this property for development unlike my clients when they bought the property. What the investment group doesn't want to become is the involuntary and defacto owner of a city park. This comment's directed more to the' City Council rather than to the commissioners because I know you folks don't have control over this particular thing but the investment group doesn't want to be put into the position where we can neither fully develop this site yet you folks take no steps to acquire it as paYkland or highway corridor so I ask that the city not put us in that dilemma. Conrad: Mark, tell us about that park site. Do you recall? Krauss: I think I can do this one. This is one park I know. There are several activities going on at the same time here that affect that property. It has, it's obviously been developed with multiple use for a number of years and there is a vacant lot, well there is vacant land to the west that is also in that designation and continues to maintain that Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 25 designation. As everybody is aware, last fall the TH 212 corridor was officially mapped. We now know with a great deal of certainty, we think, exactly where that road is going to go. We know that a lot better than we've known it for a long time. That highway bisects this property. It creates two separate parcels. Now we do have a program whereby owners who are put upon by future highway corridor designations can put their property Lip for sale for like, it's basically an early take process to help buffer the financial impact. So if this highway's not built for 10 years or for 5 years, that there is a mechanism in place with funds provided by the State Legislature to acquire that property today and reduce the financial burden. But what the highway does is it bisects most of that site from a highly attractive natural area by Rice Marsh Lake. When we realized what that area was, it contains wetlands. It contains a heavy oak forest with beautiful views out over the lake, we believe that it should be preserved as recreational land. Now simply putting a designation on a map saying that this should be a park doesn't make it a part. The City is basically put in the position that if we want to bring that about, if we want to make that a park, we're going to have to acquire that. We'll either have to acquire it through dedication when additional development is proposed or we're going to have to buy it. If we're not in a position to do that, the owner is entitled to a reasonable use of the property. So basically the owner's in a position to tell us to put up or shut up and at some point we're going to have to make good on our commitment or give it up. But we do believe that that park is a highly attractive site and warrants some protection and it factors into our natural features plan and our recreational plans and that's how that came about. Conrad: I think that's a great park site but Craig, I also understand what you're representing. Craig Mertz: We don't dispute that this might be a terrific site for a park. It's just that we don't want to be the owners of... conrad: Okay. I think the City Council will take your comments under consideration. Mark Williams: Mark Williams, 1655 Lake Lucy Road. One more little word about Lake Lucy Highlands. I do appreciate the large lot designation in that area and am strongly in favor of it. Also, I firmly believe that we would not derive any benefit or deserve any assessment from the Lake Ann Interceptor. I also do understand the concerns of people in a similar situation that are not presently or are not in the Lake Lucy Highlands but have similar acreage and septic systems so I appreciate that present designation and hope that it stays that way. Thank you. Dennis Oirlum: My name's Dennis Dirlum. I'm one of the partners that owns the property around north and east of the Timberwood. I sit here and look at the plan and it looks like the staff and the Planning Commission have certainly done a wonderful job in laying this all out but there is one glaring error, mistake and that is that area, my property where we are stuck with a low density housing next to what is soon to be a four lane highway and a frontage road. If you look anywhere else along TH 5, there's a definite buffer of some red. Different shades of red or brown or green. Nowhere else on there is there a place where you have put yellow or is there existing yellow. We've certainly taken the consideration the Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 26 homeowners of Timberwood and wanted to protect them from any of the bad zoning and as our assessor has said, that industrial parks aren't necessarily bad. People are buying lots next to industrial parks and they aren't having an negative affect. And given the elevation and the vegetation around Timberwood~ there's a very good buffer already existing. What we're not stuck with with the way you have it here is single family lots backing up to a 4 lane road with no buffer. There's no trees. It's just wide open land right next to the highway. I'm not sure what the frontage road has done by swinging the frontage road. If that is part of the City's intent to give those houses a buffer to TH 5, the four lane. Maybe that makes some sense. If that's the case, then let's move the frontage road to the south and put it closer to Timberwood and then put some industrial next to the highway where it belongs. I"m a real estate developer. I've developed land for the last t2 years in Eden Prairie. One of the sites that. I had an option on about 3 years ago was along TH 5 in the western part of Eden Prairie along the Chnahassen/Eden Prairie boYder. Around the Kerber's slew. We developed about 90 lots around that subdivision and it sold out very quickly. It was a very nice area. One of the last pieces to pick up was on the very east side that went down to TH 5. We received city approval. We went out to the builders to sell the lots in a moderate price range for homes in the $130,000.00 to price range and the builders said no. We can't or realtors can't sell these. We're not interested in these lots. We'd 3ust blown through the other 90 lots in a year and a half but we can't take those. They will not sell. People don't want to be next to TH 5. Then we looked at townhouse. Can we go to the townhouse developers? The townhouse developers weren't interested. We did finally find single family builders that were interested in buying starter homes if the lots were priced around $20,000.00. So if you interperlate that into what the price of the home is Going to be, you're probably looking at under $100,000.00. I don't think that this, number one is the location for single family homes nor do I think it's going to do the homeowners of Timberwood or the City of Chanhassen any Good to have that kind of houses priced in that area. I'd ask you to go back and take another look at this area. Industrial makes sense. Well planned industrial and that's what we've always been talking about. And you know there is a good buffer between Timberwood now and we propose to put a buffer area between us in addition to it on our property and I think that's a good alternative also. Thank you. Conrad: Thank you Dennis. We'll probably come back to that later on. sam Mancino: Sam Mancino from 6620 Galpin Blvd. and I recognize that it's been a long process that you've been through to tYy to plan this and thank you for your help in trying to make it work. I have to speak kind of from a feeling level that I think my wife and I sort of feel cheated out of 10 years because when we moved in here about 8 years ago we did look through the comprehensive plan that was in place at that time and it looked like our land would be pretty much rural and secluded for another 10 years into 199~ or 2000. And I believe that development really follows these comprehensive land plans and it becomes zoning and it forces the development around us. My problem is that we moved into a large lot area and right now north of TH 5 I don't believe there's any new large lot area built into the plan and we'd like to be able to look around us at more large lot development, tet me point this out. Our property is right here. You have it adjoining or right across Galpin Blvd. is from the Highland's Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 27 area. Just slightly south of that is the Carlson property which is...into a very large lot area. There's a very small sliver in here that separates two pieces that I think...large lot over a long period of time. My fear is that if you keep it zoned the way it is, that we will start forcing small lot development almost immediately to the west here to TH 41 because I know that that property has already got stub sewer line into it. So I would imagine that will happen almost immediately as soon as the process goes through. As a land owner that's been here for this long, I resent having to be forced into a position of having to move away from the kind of a situation of living in a rural area and driving and I put up and I enjoy the drive into Minneapolis a half hour every day but I do that because I have the land buffer around me and I don't feel like I should have to drive a half an hour to drive into single small lot. areas. That isn't what I intended to do so I am forced either to move out further or to shrug my shoulders and move back into Minneapolis. I would appreciate if we could find a way to extend the large tot useage where there's already predominantly large lot useage right now. Thank you. Conrad: Thanks Sam. Rich Larson: My name is Rich Larson and I live at 8141 Pinewood Circle. I'm going to agree with the last person and I kind of violently disagree with the previous person before me. My wife and I looked at the comprehensive plan last year when we moved into the area and there was a good deal of residential in the current plan add to have someone say that people don't mind moving into an area where there is an industrial park is one thing but to move into an area expecting residential to be part of the plan for some time is totally different. To change that would kind of interfere with a number of people's plans and intent for moving into the Timberwood area. Enough said on that. I've got another concern about this study area. Nobody's really said much about that tonight. That's kind of kitty corner from where we live right now and there have been a number of things discussed there. I've got a comment and then a question for My comment is, I would really not like to see something like Mill's Fleet Farm move into that area. I know they own the land but. What? Mary Harrington: Amen. Rich Larson: Okay. I think that would be a disaster to put that (a) right near the Arboretum. Near Lake Minnewashta and to have more commercial/ industrial development along TH 5 whereas you know he pointed out the yellow strip along TH 5 is an abberation but I say it's a great abberation because you drive in from Eden Prairie and there's nothing but industry along IH 5. And to space it out with some green and looking towards the future, you tear up the land and put in industry along that. You're never going to get it back. We're going to pave it over and be sorry someday. So that's my comment that I'd like to see that kept as environmentally intact as it is and not to see something like a Mill's Fleet Farm. My question for you is, I know it's a study area but what are your thoughts as to what will eventually be done with that? That's my question. Conrad: You've got to be pretty realistic about what that intersection is good for. It's on two major highways and you know, I guess I have to be real realistic. Commercial development there is probably a pretty good bet but we're not sure right now and that's why it's a study area. Paul, why Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 28 don't you jump in on that and you know, I don't want to deceive people at all. 10 years is a long way or 5 years is a long way. Ne don't know. Ne really don't know exactly how we're going to develop in the next 5 years but some of that development will tell us how to use that property a little bit better. Paul? Krauss: The study areas came about for a couple of reasons. First thing is that there was a determination made that unlike a lot of communities, that Chanhassen's Comprehensive Plan would be reasonable in terms of what we go to the Metro Council seeking an expansion of the MUSA line. There were a number of communities that have recently in 10 years ago just platted from fence line to fence line or planned from fence line to fence line on the assumption that development would automatically follow because it's on a piece of paper. Well it didn't happen and the Metro Council has problems with that and communities have problems with it. If you bring too much land into the system too quickly, you have growth rates that are difficult to manage. You have developments that are difficult to control. You have developments that's expensive and scattershot and difficult to service and nobody wants to do that so there was a policy statement made early on that said that only a reasonable amount of land would be in this proposal to adjust the MUSA line. That study area represents to a greater or lesser extent, and the line's not cast in concrete exactly where it needs to be but there's a limit to how much land we can reasonably ask to bring in and if that entire study area were considered or if the other study area were considered, there would be too much. We couldn't justify those levels of growth reasonably nor would we want to try. The second thing is that the City Planning Commission was fully aware of the fact that Mill's Fleet Farm owns that corner but there's an overriding concern that the Chanhassen Central Business District be allowed to reach fruition before anything else is considered that might be detrimental to that. And it's a national problem where you have central business districts that have been destroyed by premature or wrong headed shopping center development on the fringe and that's something that everybody wanted to avoid. By establishing at it as a study area, we're essentially postponing a determination on what should be done in there in the hope that 5 years from now who's ever sitting at this table may have more wisdom and more information than we have now to make a better choice. Having said that though, when we had our informational meetings during the summer, there were a number of requests from different residents adjacent or near both study areas to have some understanding of what might be considered in there. Not that these areas would be brought into the MUSA early necessarily but that planning efforts should be undertaken so that people can make decisions, people will move into an area knowing ahead of time what might happen. And the Planning Commission is basically accepted that and has set as a goal I believe the next process they will embark on is to attempt to define or get a handle on what those study areas may be. Not to bring them into the MUSA now but to get an idea so we can show it on a map and people can make more intelligent decisions. That's something that will be embarked upon after this plan is complete so hopefully we'll have some more information on that in the not too distant future. Mary Harrington: Hi guys. I showed up. I'm Mary Harrington, Timberwood. Arrived a little late tonight. You guys have been hard at work and not too bad. I4aybe you could solve some problems, I'm not sure, by moving that frontage road back up towards TH 5 and cutting it down into this thing and Planning Commission Heeting October 24, 1990 - Page 29 leaving a little 2 or 3 acre industrial creature over here and that would bring these medium density folks without sandwiching them between an arterial type ¥oad and then TH 5. Having a couple months ago been out doing some review work, as I'm an appraiser, in Chicago I was running down some of their major highways and in the older districts of the town they had some of them where they were just gummed to death with commercial/ industrial. It was beautiful buildings but totally sterile, unaesthetic junk and then there was this section on the same hishway where there was just nothing but trees and houses and grass and it was extremely pleasant to look at visually. Very aesthetic. The other stuff looked very tacky even though it was new construction. Chanhassen cannot afford to start looking like some of these planned towns that we just gum up our highu;ays with the stuff like we have between the beginning of Chanhassen and Chanhassen Industrial Park. Condensers and flat stuff. We need the green space. Me need it not to look unaesthetic. I mean our only space is basically at the present the Arboretum and it's a terrible eye sore to turn our town in just because specutaters are buying property and trying to capitalize at highest potential dollar bill useage which would obviously be something other than residential. There's more to our town than just the investor himself. We all have to live here and the investor usually doesn't but you might think of maybe moving that thing up there and taking a cut down there. We'd still have the road, you know if that helps anybody out or not. Conrad: Can you turn that this way so we can see what you're doing. Platy Harrington: ...then take a cut here and leave...That kind of a concept. That would save these poor guys and somebody mentioned that we don't want $90,000.00 houses in Chanhassen. I don't see why not. I mean people are entitled to buy a $90,000.00 house and it can be rather nice. I have no complaint about that. Sadden to see that we have the industrial jumping up next to Carlson's property up here. Someway we can shrink that down or something? But I'd also tike to see a few less of it other places and I'd really wish we would address a little of the 1995 study area here because it would help us to plan maybe some of this other stuff. Also, if there's any other way you can get some more large lot designations, I'm sure a lot of us would enjoy seeing that but you've been hard at work guys. Roman Roos: Good evening. Roman Roos, 10341 Heidi LaDe, Chaska. After that presentation I think I'd need a road map to get through my property. I guess having sat on the Planning Commission for a good number of years and 10 years ago going through exactly what you're going through, I have a lot of empathy but I guess if we look at the 10 years that have passed and we look at the present time and look at the evolution of what's happened in Chanhassen on the industrial park and it's expansion if you will westbound through McG1ynn, the natural terrain of TH 5 and the railroad running to the southwest along with the Chaska developments, Arbor Park North, Arbor Park West which would be the very corner white area next to the acreage she was talking about. Maybe I'll just move over there a second, tt was mentioned earlier, this is also industrial park. The natural boundary of the northern park area as I would see it...TH 5 four lane. One of the things the city of Chanhassen has to accept, both on the Planning commission level and the Council level is when Timberwood came in, at that point in time we didn't know how the evolution...industrial area would be. Z think at this point in time we have to really own up to the fact that Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 30 we've created a community, a very nice community so we're going to have to kind of ask some of the questions such as buffering it. How we can control that...to get the natural evolution of...park to the westbound area. There is no clean answers...but I think when you took at and go out to the industrial park to the west in Chaska, the proposed area here industrial. This industrial area down here along with the...station. What's happening...so far back here, possibly this should not be industrial. Maybe it should be a natural break, natural buffer into th~ r~sid~ntial community. So I think it's going to be a tough issue but I guess I want to go on record as saying that I think that from the standpoint of evolution of the community, the natural buffering of TM 5 and the railroad, we're Going to have to find some solution such as the buffering effect for the Timberwood area... Conrad: Other comments· Steve Longman: Good evening. My name is Steve Longman and I'm an owner of the 137 acres between Timberwood and TH 5. I'm also a residential building contractor and have been since 1975 and I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about the marketability of that piece for residential building contractors. I don't think anybody would develop it for that. I'm certain no builders would purchase any lots on it. You'd be sticking your neck out too far and I don't think I could really sell a house to anybody in this room on that piece. I will just leave you with maybe one thing to think about. I question on that piece, if you were to put residential in there~ you could even pass the State's guidelines for the noise ordinance when you put a 4 lane highway in there. That might just kill it right there. It might be something to look into. Thank you. Conrad: Thanks Steve. Larry VanDeVeire: Hello. My name is Larry VanDeVeire, 4980 Co. Rd. 10, Chaska. I'm the property owner of the property on, 13 acres on the corner of TH 5 and Galpin Blvd.. I think you've received my letter. I'm a little displeased by the change in land use. We purchased property in 1985 to build on. After spending some time out there, the property is not suited for residential being on a corner. I lived in Chanhassen in 1965. When we purchased the property I guess I was thinking of Chanhassen in 1965. The road has considerable amount of traffic since then. We had an opportunity to break the parcel out at the same time Timberwood was and at the same time the other 2 1/2 acre parcels were broke out. Chose not to because it wouldn't be a good building site, or for residential anyway. Lundgren Brothers had sent out a letter earlier this year just stating that they were interested in land. I called them just yesterday or the day before because I couldn't see that property, anyone wanting it as residential use and called them to follow up on it. At first I wasn't concerned with the letter I guess because I just thought they weren't interested in it. They had sent a letter to everyone which was the case. They sent a letter to quite a few people, bJhen I indicated where the property was, they said that they would not be interested in it for residential use. We've heard from people from Timberwood. I can appreciate their concerns with industrial property moving in around them or supposedly moving in around them but at the same time everybody would tike something green along TH 5. It could have been me on a hobby farm. I'm glad it isn't right now because I wouldn't have wanted a 4 lane highway going in there on a hobby farm on Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 31 TH 5. Same thing with Mary Harrington where she was saying that the people in Chicago, green houses and stuff like that. Everyone living in Timberwood right now wouldn't change places for the people who would own house on those highways. Someone's living there but someone's paying the cost. Someone's hearing the noise. You know someone's paying the cost that they're not. As far as Mill's Fleet Farm, I guess I don't know where ~4ill's Fleet Farm should go. I don't know if Chanhassen's the right area but myself, I have animals and I know that something like that is needed on this southwest corner. I have to drive to Lakeville to get to one. Something like that's needed on this end of town. Like I say, I don't if that's the right place but I know we as residents do need it and I guess I feel that the property as originally planned, our property as being neighborhood commercial I thought was a good prospect for it. Eric Rivkin had commented that he didn't like seeing bunker type businesses going in and I guess I can appreciate that. I think the property would allow for something like that. That it isn't a flat lot. That you wouldn't have just row after row of little small cubicles or anything like that. Thank you. Martin Kuder: I'm Martin Kuder. I live at 6831 Galpin Blvd.. I have similar concerns to other residents that talked about special consideration when it comes to assessments that might be levied. They might not be levied to the large lot landowners but to others. I'm very close to that area and my sewer and water systems are all very new. About the same age as some of their's and I feel I could or should have the same special considerations that they might and also I'd like you to address what kind of assessments might be levied should this plan go through for the existing Lake Ann Interceptor that's already in. Conrad: Gary, we'll throw that back to you. Warren: The existing Lake Ann Interceptor assessment value was $434.00 roughly I think. It has not been levied yet. The City will probably be looking at levying that sometime next year. Martin Kuder: How wide of an assessment area would that involve? Warren: That involves the service area for the Lake Ann Interceptor itself which I don't know the easiest way to describe it from the maps but it's pretty much, maybe I can try to show it. As Mark had pointed out earlier, the Lake Ann Interceptor follows the green corridor here and for the most part the boundary area of the service area for Lake Ann is within the area that is shown in the MUSA line .... but the actual take Ann Interceptor... Krauss: I think we can expand on the Lake Ann Interceptor for a moment. That is a pipe that I think as you're aware is in the ground and has been in the ground for several years. It's a pipe that was put in by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. It's a major metropolitan interceptor. It's there as a result of years of effort by the City to provide for future growth of the community. It is not the local lateral system that we would have to build to serve individual lots. It's a major investment. The City anted up I think half a million dollars for our share of that pipe. Mhen assessments were conceived of, I guess it was back in 1986 there were public hearings that were held. Those property owners that were affected were notified of it at that time and since then anybody who's Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 32 bought property in that area has been informed of that and I believe typically has money escrowed or placed in escrow account to cover that. The policies that we're talking about in the plan for water and sewer deals with new lines. I think you really have to make a break point there between the new system and the Lake Ann system which is in the ground and it's already been paid for. Conrad: East of Galpin on TH 5. A comment was made not suitable for residential. Can you respond to that Paul? Krauss: A lot of people use the highest and best acronym to mean that it should be something like a factory or a shopping center or whatever they happen to feel highest and best is. In making the determination that that should be residential, I think the Planning Commission took a lot into account. They did look at the detriments, the detrimental affects or impacts of being close to a highway. I think there's a recognition that if you had your druthers you might initially build someplace else but land tends to be developed over time and when there's a wide variety of sites, yes, they'll probably build someplace else. When the availability gets tighter, I believe we see that as developing. There was an overriding, well one of the overriding goals of the planning effort was not to maximize dollar return. It was not to maximize industrial development. It was not to do a lot of those things. It was to develop a plan that was in the best interest of the community and there's a lot of give and take in that process. I think the Planning Commission spent, this is not an exaggeration, approximately 9 months looking at what should be done around Timberwood. I think there's a general recognition that in some eyes that the resulting plan is not what would be called the highest and best use but it's a compromise. If you had your druthers, Timberwood might not be where it is today. I mean Timberwood is something that had to be designed around but the fact is that it is there. It's a residential neighborhood and we have people living there. He have to do something about that. We're aware of the fact that a plan was developed by a group of property owners on the highway that showed alternate land uses in there. In fact in some of the earlier versions of the plan, the Planning Commission considered other uses in there. When all said and done however, all that information digested, this was the plan that was called out and I think, you know from a staff viewpoint, there's a comfort level with it recognizing limitations of that site and again, this is a result of a lot of effort on the part of the Planning Commission. Conrad: Maybe another thing on-TH 5 east of Salpin where we are, we were looking for property close to transportation corridor where we could put higher density. As you can see we've strung out some higher density units. One, we're required by law. Not by law but Metro Council very strongly encourages us to do that to the point where, I don't know Paul if you'd say it's required but it's pretty darn close to being required. Plus it's also based on some of our goals and policies. Goals that we set, to provide mixed housing opportunity in Chanhassen and not to be a...exclusive and I think that's again one of the reasons we settled there. I think there were some other options for that land but the higher density property fit the nature or the character of that land. 3ohn Shardlow: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is 3ohn Shardlow. I'm a planning consultant with Dathgren, Sh-ardlow and Uban. I'm Planning Commission Meeting October 24, i990 - Page 33 one of the property owners of the Chaska Gateway Partnership in the southeast quandrant of TH 5 and TH 41. As you know, I was here through part of the process as a spokesperson for the TH 5 development coalition which was a group of people consisting of owners of about 700 acres of land and it was our firm that put together the plan that Paul referred to previously. Needless to say there is considerably difference between the plan that's here tonight and the plan that we proposed and so to the extent that there is a difference, I acknowledge that. I want to point out a couple of what I consider to be key comments that parallel some of the comments that have been made regarding the feasibility of single family residential along TM 5. 3ust as a point of clarification for myself, when we presented the plan and the packet of information, it included a noise study prepared by BRW. That indicated that by the year 1990, which is the year today, the vast majority of that site would be in violation of the State Noise Standard for single family residential and by the year 2010 the entire parcel all the back to the back lot lines of the Timberwood subdivision would be in violation of the State Noise Standard. It was a directive as I heard of the Planning Commission to staff to look at how that area might be buffered and to come back with some indications about what kind of berming and buffering could be there to protect single family residential. We've inquired as to that work and have yet to see it. We're very interested in it. I'm the City Planning consultant in the city of Roseville and if you want to see what this looks like in the flesh, I would direct you to a portion of TH 36 just east of Victoria Street on the south side of TH 36 which has exactly the same size, exactly the same design highway with exactly the same traffic today as this roadway is projected to have in 10 years. So what you're planning along TH 5 exists in Roseville today and as we go about our comprehensive planning process in the city of Roseville, we are struggling with how to redevelop that area because of concerns that neighbors in that area and property owners have regarding the untenable noise that they are subjected to. I suggest to you that we have acknowledged and would be willing to continue to acknowledge that Timberwood exists and that there is a need and that it is appropriate comprehensive planning principle to protect those people. I would suggest that forcing the area all the way up to TH 5 to go single family residential is going too far in that regard. With respect to the collector streets on the south side, I believe it's correct to say that we were the ones that suggested the collector street on the south side and suggested the concept of having a local system of collectors to provide local circulation and not to put that traffic onto TH 5. So to the extent that that recommendation has been carried through, I acknowledge it and I say that I think that that's a good idea but I would clarify that when we showed that service road, we showed it as a remote service road so that the people who would have to dedicate the right-of-way would be able to develop both sides of the road and therefore to do it efficiently. Now not only has the land use changed from a land use which would provide a higher return to the landowner which would assist them in recouping their investment but it's also now a single frontage service road. I'd ask you from a practical standpoint is the landowner going to be responsible for dedicating the right-of-way for that roadway? And if so, what is the feasibility of developing that property for single family residential and doing what you wouldn't do out in a rural area which is single front the road. There is also what is identified as a middle school search area on a portion of that property. It's one of the only search areas I've ever seen that is limited to a single parcel and I'd ask you what the significance of Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 34 that is to a property owner who's going about the business of trying to market their property, and I'm not trying to make fun of the process. Z know that we, as part of our comprehensive planning processes have to look at where schools should be located but I'd ask you to think about that as yogi carry through with the planning process about when that decision gets made and what the implications of that designation may be for that property owner. Another comment I offer just in practical issues. It's nice and it's good to have the happy words in the plan about the goals and objectives of buffering everybody and 100 foot wide buffer strips sound great but who gets to dedicate them? What's the practical aspect of 100 foot wide buffer areas in addition to setback areas? Who maintains that land? Now it's one thing to say that people have to have extensive setbacks between industrial or office/industrial park property and single family residential and that it be bermed and that it be landscaped and that it be maintained. I think that's a reasonable thing to factor into the planning and development process. But to simply paint a bunch of magic marker green lines between all of the different designations of land use, I think can be a very impractical thing to actually carry through and implement so I challenge you to do that. One final comment that I think is extremely important as you proceed and move forward in this process has to the whole issue of a sanitary sewer feasibility. There has been some investigation done in the area of sanitary sewer investigation. Talking about feasibility. What it's going to cost to extend it. How it's going to be extended. Alternatives for extending it and so forth. Those are vitally important issues with respect to land use and needs to be coordinated and needs to be factored in when you took at the feasibility of future land use pattern. Thank you. Conrad: Thanks 3chh. Do you want to address any of those issues that 3Chh brought up right now in terms of the school designation? I guess we can talk about that later on. Paul, the dedicated right-of-way on that property north of Timberwood. 3chh brought that up. Single frontage. Are those policy issues? Are those issues that we deal with in the comprehensive plan? KraLISS: I think they're issues that you deal with in the field when you actually get a development proposal. We have proposed a number of collectors, new collector streets. The alignment for those are not. cast in concrete. On a collector street you basically want to connect the two ends points and not introduce so many curves that it becomes a disincentive to use it. So I'd say there's some flexibility in the design and to give credit where credit is due, 3ohn's plan was the first one that showed a collector street through there and we've not been unwilling to accept good ideas wherever they come from. One of the other suggestions that we got from that was Mary Harrington spoke before and Mary's suggestion was that that be done as a frontage road. The reason why that made a lot of sense to us was because of the way that collector, if it took the middle path bisected a neighborhood. Basically you trapped a strip of land that could have houses on it. Could have office, whatever, between a collector street and a 4 lane highway. It almost made it less optimal an area to develop. By moving the road further to the north, you provided greater physical separation from the 4 lane and you've got that higher traffic street out of what hopefully will become a residential neighborhood in the future. It also helped to free up that potential school site area. The original alignment of that thing bisected the site that the school has told us would Planning Commission Meeting October 24, i990 - Page 35 make a good location for a mSddle school. They need a 40 acre chunk of ground to bring that about. Probably about 30 acres of which would be permanent green space. One of the reasons why that school site is located there, we did explore 3 sites with the school district, is that it really is a benefit to breaking up that commercial/industrial corridor effect that the Planning Commission wanted to move away from. They wanted t° be able to bridge TH 5 with residential or residential with current uses and it was felt that a school that has 3/4 of the site being open space, permanently gYeen would be an ideal way of accomplishing that. And the road was also swung wide as Z said to avoid impacting that school site so there were a number of reasons that went into that. Conrad: Note comments. Andrew Olson: I'm Andrew Olson of 8290 Nest Lake Court and I have a question concerning your other 1995 study area as far as Hwy. 17. According to your large book, it says proposed 4 lane highway by the year 2010. Why are they doing work on that right now if it's not foreseen or nothing to the south of us, it comes to a T right now. Why are we doing this work at this time? Conrad: What are you talking about, 2127 Andrew Olson: I'm talking about Hwy 17 south of TH 5 to CR 18. Krauss: There is a project going on on Hwy 17 north of Lyman Blvd. right now that Carver County is involved with and that's to prepare a road bed so that that road can be widened in the future. The actual pavement is not, don't even believe programmed at this point in time but they have an opportunity to get the dirt and widened it at that point. Ultimately that road will drop south to new 212 but nobody is doing any work on that section now nor is that programmed or planned in any way. That would presumably be done at such time that the highway's extended out past that point. Andrew Olson: Yeah, my question would be then if it's going to 212, are the two tied together simultaneously? If I find out 212 would be going through 6 years from now, will CR 17 be built at that time to tie in? Krauss: CR 17 south of Lyman? Warren: Most likely, the current situation analagous to that would be the TH 101 which we show and the City has officially mapped. We will not be constructing that realigned portion of TH 101 down to TH 212 until TH 212 is anticipated to be along with construction and that's the time when the City would anticipate pushing forward with it's project. Similarly I know the County would be planning on expanding that road segment at such time that the 212 corridor is constructed to that intersection. Andrew Olson: And will it be 2 lane or 4 lane at that time? Any proposals that you know of? 14arren: Right now it'd be 4 lane down to Lyman. From there south I would expect it would be the same. This is a unique opportunity to save money actually that the developer's donating the fill. The County is moving it Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 36 and both parties are coming out basically saving a lot of money. There's about 80,000 yards of material that are being moved for the future roadway which otherwise, if it were done at that time, would have to be paid outright and imported so it's just a unique window here in time that they're taking advantage of. Andrew Olson: Do you have a timeframe in mind when that might be permanently paved then to 4 lanes? Warren: Well I think we're saying, the City has a project at 1992. We are planning to upgrade the road section down to the creek area basically, or there abouts. The County plan for taking it there further to the south. can't speak for the County Engineer and the County Commissioners but they're very much going to be watching traffic use patterns and see if they, it probably would happen that they would expand it down to Lyman or could expand it to Lyman prior to the 212 corridor but to go south of Lyman to 212 I think definitely would wait until the 212 is constructed. Andrew Olson: Thank you. Conrad: Who else? Tim Keane: Good evening members of the Planning Commission. My name is Tim Keane with Larkin, Hoffman, Oaley, and Lindgren, 7900 Xerxes, Bloomington. I am here on behalf of Mill's Fleet Farm, the owners of the property in the northeast corner of trunk highways 41 and 5. We have participated throughout this process and expressed our intent and desire to seek guidance for the development of the property owned by Mill's Fleet Farm. We compliment the Planning Commission on their efforts to date but we're asking you to go a little bit further and not wait until 1995 to study your study areas. Our principle concern with the designation is that it in effect is a 5 year moratorium on not only the use of the property but any potential planning or marketing of the property. By designating that. as a study area without any guide for the property owner as to it's potential use to a buyer as it's potential use, it's rendered virtually unmarketable. So there's some concern there. Secondly, I think that the designation of the study area at this time and waiting 5 years until you plan for the use of that area is going to bring the same pattern that we're dealing with in 1990 and that is, we move in a neighborhood of constituency of opposition to anything happening and who knows where that will bring us in a rational planning process. The area could be planned today. It does not necessarily have to be within the designated urban service area but the ultimate use of the property certainly could be planned and set forth on the comprehensive plan. And that is our request. That you continue your fine planning efforts and extend them to the areas desigf%ated as the 1995 study area. Thank you very much. Conrad: Thanks Tim. Additional comments. Appreciate you all sticking with us. We've lost a few. Terry Forbord: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Hy name is Terry Forbord. I'm Vice President of tundgren Bros, 935 East Wayzata Blvd. in Wayzata. Can you hear me from here? Okay. I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you this evening. Probably more than anything I appreciate your objectivity through this whole process and I concur entirely with Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 37 Klingelhutz' last statement that we're all very fortunate that you have held these open meetings like you have. It doesn't work like this in all cities, as maybe some people iD the audience aren't quite as familiar. The process occurs but not as openly as this one has so we appreciate it. Recently we presented to the City a request for inclusion of approximately 90 gross acres of land into the urban service area north of TH 5. There is approximately 70 acres of net developable land. The property is on the northern part of the 1995 study area north of TH 5 and I will show you. It represents approximately 57 acres right here and it represents approximately 30 acres of this lO0 acre parcel. The reason that, I'll go back. The northern property is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Dwane and Marlene Johnson. There's a letter in the packet of information that I delivered to you from them requesting that their property be included. The 30 acre parcel is owned by Mr. Dolejsi and there's also a letter I believe as Exhibit C in your packet. The reason Mr. Dolejsi's property was included in this is because of the physical constraints that exist on the property pertaining to wetlands and slopes and vegetation. That it really fits well and dovetails well with the development of the Dolejsi property. You would not be able to cross that wetland or it's highly unlikely you would be able to cross that wetland with a roadway. So what we are giving you this evening basically is a request only for inclusion, of that property into the urban service area. I've addressed a number of issues in the proposal to you of why we think this is a good idea and rather than pontificate and go on and on stating what those reasons are, I wilt answer questions if you have any and I will go on if you would like me to. If you have any questions. Conrad: Anybody with questions of Terry right now? Terry Forbord: Okay, thank you very much. I think I did forget to state that we have been developing land in the city of Chanhassen for approximately i0 years now and primarily in the Near Mountain area which i.s in the northeast corner of Chanhassen. That neighborhood community is close to being built out and we have been working with many of the local landowners quite well in trying to assemble a larger tract of land to replace Near Mountain so we would sincerely appreciate your objectivity in the review of our proposal. Thank you. Conrad: More comments? Anything? Eric Rivkin: Is it my turn for a second? Conrad: Sure. Eric Rivkin: Just a couple things. I think you could go easy on the developers by not requiring, about this gentleman who sat back here. Very tall guy. Came in late. I don't know who he was but he said that buffers would be hard to maintain. They wouldn't need to be required to be maintained at all. Plantings of course have to be live but they don't have to require a mowable grass for instance and if the thrust of the comp plan is to have natural looking things, than why have it mowed? It's also better for the environment not to mow it because then you don't have the non-point source pollution from fertilizers and runoff and the like. You also can be, with creative zoning you could have the same number of units on less available land. I think he was eluding to the fact that the Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 38 buffers would take away too much potential land for development. You know reducing the return on investment or something but I don't think that necessarily has to be the case. Leaving a buffer area worth something aesthetically and environmentally to the community on both sides of the buffer I think is where I'd like to see things headed. When 3ce Morin brought out the issue that he deserves the same special considerations on the special assessments and the sewer hook-up, he was not referring to moving the MUSh back at all. We don't mind where the HUSh is, it's just that we'd like the same protection. He wants the same protection using the same criteria that was used to determine those special considerations in the first place. Since he and both of his neighbors on either side of him qualify for that because same qualifications apply to them, that they feel they have equal right to those same considerations. To give you an example. One of the criteria was that the area, as Paul mentioned, should have to be sell. able to the Met Council may not be peppered with a lot of large lot. You know smaller large lots peppered all over the place. Well, if it were contiguous, which in this case it possibly is because their properties are just to the east of Lake Lucy Highlands. There's properties to the south. Mr. Gutmiller and Mezzenga and possibly the gentleman sitting back here who got up and spoke earlier, are contiguous with Lake Lucy Highlands. The Rings and the Mancino's I know. They all signed a petition and as far as I know, they have not changed their minds. So with this large lot designated properties, we're contiguous. Then it would not have the detriment of having the peppered look. The other thing is about Fleet Farm. I personally don't like to see a Fleet Farm here. I've seen the one up in Brooklyn Park or up near Anoka, wherever it is and Z don't like the idea of possibly having a 24 hour business open on TH 5 in a prime residential area with truck upon truck. Additing to the truck traffic. The noise. The lights of the parking lot shining up all the time. I think it would be an eye sore. I know the revenue might of course be tempting but I just don't think that it can be, unless there'd be such severe restrictions on it that might just completely turn them off to being here. That's my own personal opinion that maybe the land could be considered as a community center. Perhaps purchased by the YMCA. This is a good location for them. The nearest one's at Ridgedale and Edina and maybe consider approaching them to find out if they'd be willing to purchase the ladd for that. A couple of residents in Timberwood that I talked to like that idea and I don't think the City has to give up anything for that. I'm not sure whether they are exempt from paying taxes or not but they certainly charge enough for membership there, I assume they make enough money to pay the taxes so that's my feeling about that. Thank you. Conrad: Thanks Eric. Other comments? Any more? Is there a motion to close the public hearings? Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. AIl voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: The public hearing is closed. I thank you for all your comments. We're not done though but if you'd like to leave, that's okay. ~4e're going to discuss some of the comments so you're welcome to leave and we appreciate your comments. You're welcome to stay. Our rote right non is to decide whether we can send the plan to the City Council. Whether we want to hold it open for more discussion. So again, if you leave I thank you for attending. We're going to continue on here and proceed with some Planning Commission Heeling October 24, 1990 - Page 39 comments. I think generally, I'm not sure what a good format here amongst us commissioners is but I wouldn't mind, instead of going round robin and kind of getting confused, if we could deal with the issues that were brought up that I'd like to have us all react to one issue at a time versus one person's comments. Then I'm going to come back and if there's other stuff that you want to deal with in terms of what was not brought up in the public hearing, what you saw in the plan., I think then there's a time for that too. And I'm going to go down sequentially. These are my priorities and not necessarily, these are the things that I heard. Not necessarily what you heard so feel free to jump in. The first issue with the development at the intersection of 212 and 101. In terms of the mixed use zoning. Is there anybody concerned with the comment from Gary Lyman that that was not appropriate, especially since it's fronting up his residential? Emmings: Gene Quinn. Conrad: That's right. Emmings: Somebody else was calling him Lwman. Conrad: Yeah, that's what it is. I'm sorry. Any comments on that? Would anybody like to revisit the issue? Are we comfortable with the mixed use zoning? Batzli: As I recall there's a buffer inbetween there? Erhart: You mean the 100 foot buffer? Batzli: Yeah. I can't tell by this map. Krauss: Ne did add a 100 foot buffer between the gentleman's property line and this site, yes. Batzli: You know issue was raised and maybe now isn't a good time to talk about it but, from who's property does that eventually come? Krauss: It comes off the developer's property as we envision it. Now in talking to the City Attorney who tells us we have to modify our zoning ordinance to back up the comprehensive plan-and we anticipate bringing to you a revised zoning ordinance amendment to deal with that and parking lot setbacks in general in the next month or two. Conrad: It would come off the owner of the mixed use. Krauss: The more intensive use, yeah. Emmings: I have a question on that. On that buffer yard, is 100 feet written in stone or are we sensitive to the site? Krauss: We haven't drafted the ordinance yet. All we have to go on right now is the policy direction which says t00 feet in interior property lines, 50 feet along roads because the road itself provides some distance~ Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 40 Emmings: Well, shouldn't there be some flexibility there depending on the site? You might want a little more, you might want a lot less. Whatever. Krauss: If you're saving a dense stand of oak trees for example, you may be able to do it in 50 feet, yes. We could write something like that into the ordinance. Emmings: Alright. Conrad: What'd you just say? Emmings: I guess the point is, as far as the issue you brought up and how I feel about it is, we have looked at it. We're going to have to do some sensitive planning there when we put that in but I for one wouldn't want to go back and redo that. I think the plan is good the way it is. Erhart: My concern is that when we zone something commercial, essentially we're getting just about at the highest value use that you can do. If we come back later on and we look at that area and later on we want to put in a buffer which consists of medium density or high density, all of a sudden we're going to be rebuffed by the landowner who now says well you're down zoning my property. I guess I really, if that line of thinking is correct so far, if that's the case then, maybe we ought to be real careful to zone something commercial. Emmings: We're not zoning. Erhart: What are we doing? Conrad: At this point in time, it's a concept right now and we can change. When zoning, if we do decide to change that zoning when there was an application to do such, we can move boundaries. We can do whatever we want to so that. Erhart: I don't want to get into a situation where we are essentially committing to a landowner the highest value per square foot which is commercial/industrial here. Conrad: Yet on the other hand, if you didn't communicate to new residents that that's what your intention really is, you would not be doing them any favors. Erhart: I understand that but I just want to make sure that it's clear that we can go back later and put some buffer, even if it includes apartment buildings, without getting in a situation where now we've locked in and oh, 3in Curry commercial. As much as I like 3in, I mean it's important that we have flexibility to even if we decide later on that 100 foot isn't going to be adequate. That it makes more sense to put in some apartments, that we haven't committed to the landowner a commercial value. That's my concern. Krauss: Mr. Chairman, we shouldn't forget that buffer yards and screening and landscaping as a concept is not a new one in Chanhassen. It's embodied in our site plan review and we do that typically with every project we review. What the buffer yard concept does is it expands upon the existing Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 41 controls that we have but I think that the current dialogue that we have on buffering and screening is certainly going to remain with the emphasize that it's at to date and be expanded upon so we would have the opportunity and the flexibility. It's already in the ordinance to buffer unique situations as we need to. Conrad: Any other comments on this particular parcel? Anything? Mary, what was your comment? Mary Harrington: ...right now it's like 50 feet? Conrad: Ne have a buffer yard concept called, that in this particular case would separate the higher density from the residential. (Mary Harrington made a statement that could not be heard on the tape.) Conrad: We're saying there's an automatic buffer yard that we are requiring between the mixed use commercial. Mixed use development and. Mary Harrington: More than 50 feet? Krauss: It's an additional requirement. Mary Harrington: You're just asking for space? Krauss: No, the ordinance will require that they do something in that space. That they do berming. That they do landscaping. We'll preserve something. Mary Harrington: That sounds good. Conrad: Okay. We're going to leave that issue unchanged. There was a concern with areas besides Lake Lucy Highlands in terms of excluding them from the necessity to hook up to a sewer and special assessments. We dialogued about that a couple of times. A couple different individuals tonight. Is there a sensitivity to revisit that issue? Wildermuth: I think that page 23 has to definitely be revisited. I can understand how we can exclude the obligation to hook up to a sewer if you have a viable septic system but I don't see how in the comprehensive plan we can be talking about waiving any assessments for a certain select class or group of people. I think that's a real mistake to write something like that in the comprehensive plan. Emmings: I have a question. If right now we're talking about these special considerations for these large lot owners in this area designated on the map as large lot but are we only talking about special considerations for them or for any lot that would meet the same criteria? Krauss: Frankly, we're only talking about those special considerations for those subdivision that were platted prior to 1987 or under the old ordinance that represent concentrations of developed lots that have no more development potential. That conceiveably because of their concentrated location we can skirt, probably at some extra expense but we can skirt them with utility projects that are designed to serve other lots. I can't PLanning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 42 emphasize too strongly that we don't have that flexibility when we pick and choose lots up and down the street frontage. It simply doesn't work. What we can do is try to develop a sensitivity in our policies to how to deal with these intervening property owners at such time until they decide that they want to also take a benefit from the utility but that's another question. That's not writing a whole different status for that. Ahrens: Who picks up the extra expense on that? Warren: If a project were actually undertaken, a public improvement project, the City would be faced with a decision as to do you absolve that particular parcel from any assessments and thereby the cost would be either covered by the city's general fund or general revenues so the city at large would pay or the individual benefitting property owners who are assessed would proportionally pick up the difference. Or the actual assessment is deferred until such time as the property is ultimately connected into the system which occurs as a negative or a bad debt against the city. I think that, if I could offer my two cents on it, that the Policy. The city ordinance currently existing on the books does address a lot of the other instances where you have isolated cases throughout the City where they have a system that fails. We don't have sewer that fronts the property or within a 150 feet of the property. They obviously are Dot required to hook in at that time. I think a lot of the individual cases that may be we're concerned about that, this concern that the City's going to run a public improvement project out to the intersection of CR 18 and Salpin just to pick up one isolated failing system, I mean that's just impractical. The City would never do that. Wildermuth: Well it sounds like the issue of utility assessments has pretty much done on an ad hoc basis depending on the issue at hand so I don't see any reason to put those statements on page 23 regarding assessments in the comprehensive plan. Warren: You would not be able to commit future City Councils on assessment policy on specific projects. I think the intent is written earlier in the report here that Paul has here is very close, as strong as you can get about addressing the problem. Regardless of what is in this document, not to minimize it's importance, the City Council when it sets assessment policy, sets assessment policy and uses this as a guide but will decide at the time of the specifics of the project how to assess it. Wildermuth: So you're saying it really doesn't matter whether it's in here or not? Warren: Well I think it's important in fairness to everybody here that there is a guide here and an intention that I think the Council, like they do on any other assessment project, takes into strong consideration so it definitely will have some weight. 8ut you cannot tie the hands of a future City Council to an assessment policy in this document. Each instance is so specific that the assessment policy has to be flexible. Wildermuth: Well, I think for that very reason I would be in favor of taking the assessment verbage out of the plan. Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 43 Conrad: Philosophically do you agree with it? Do you want to extend it to other properties contiguous or not contiguous to this? Give them the same priviledges basically that we are giving, whether it's in here or not, there's got to be a vehicle to communicate that to the City Council. Nildermuth: I think you could argue that point either way. Certainly the same availability for assessment waiver ought to be extended to other people in other areas that find themselves in the same position or situation. Maybe not as large an area as Lake Lucy Highlands but maybe on some individual basis. On the other hand, you could argue that why are we even addressing something like waiving'assessments here when it's the problem of the City Council. Public sewer and water are part of the common good. If we're going to play games with assessments, I think we're going to end up in a lot of trouble. Conrad: 3nan, did you have any comments on this? Ahrens: I guess I have a problem with the assessments too and you know, philosophically I would like to give everybody the same right to be excepted on a large lot if they want to be excepted. I think that in practical terms it seems impossible to do that. I don't know if we should be addressing the assessments either in this part of the comprehensive plan. It doesn't make much sense to me. I think that if there's a contiguous group of parcels along Lake Lucy Road, I don't know if there is, they should be included too. That is part of a whole area in there that seems to have the same desire to be excluded from that. Conrad: There is rationale for us to deal with that I think, even though we're not dealing totally with economic issues, in terms of assessments. Wildermuth: But what about Hesse Farm? Conrad: But what we do in terms of land use obviously impacts folks and how we. You know if we didn't feel comfortable providing a special compensation or regulations for these people, we may not have zoned it the way we did. Therefore our zoning inclusion in the MUSA, exclusion could have changed if we did not grant these particular exclusions or exceptions to the general rule. ~hrens: I guess because we don't know how we're going to pick up the extra expense on the assessments. I mean are we excluding some people only to put additional assessments on other Chanhassen residents because they're not lucky enough to be included in that excluded area? Conrad: Nell, Chanhassen got into this problem itself. The 2 1/2 acres, that's Chanhassen problem. (~hrens: But it may not be all of... Conrad: ...and we went along with it. The Planning Commission never went along with it to my recollection. I always say that but we did' grant that authority or we did grant that ability to put 2 1/2 acre lots in and those people went in and' put in sewer and water and I think what you're saying or what we can say is hey, so what. You have to live by the letter of the law which says you hook up. That's what we could do and in this case we're Planning Commission Meeting October 24, i990 - Page 44 saying hey, that doesn't make sense but you're right. Some other property owners will have to pay for that exclusion. Ahrens: If that's the route the City Council takes. Conrad: Right. I think City Council has a financial, this is a financial issue for them. I think it's a question of what signal we want to send to the City Council. Do we agree that this should be done but I think they really have a vested interest economically in this and they're going to look at it real closely. I guess the question that I bring up tonight is in our direction to them, do we want to say grant this permission or grant this opportunity to others in like situations? Paul Krauss would say there aren't any like situations. Ahrens: Well, several property owners would disagree with that. Conrad: They would disagree. Maybe I put words in Paul's mouth. Did I put words in your mouth? Krauss: I do disagree. I think that Lake Lucy Highlands and Timberwood and Sunridge Court are clearly different animals from the standpoint that they are for all intensive purposes fully developed. They have their roads. They've on site water. They have on site sewer. They're done. The houses are sitting on 2 1/2 acre lots. They're often sitting in the middle. It's almost out of the realm of possibility that there's further development potential on those lots. Not inconceiveable but it's almost out of the realm of possibility. Anyplace else you're reduced to a property owner telling you, I am telling you today that I don't want to develop my property and therefore I want to be treated differently even though my property has development potential and we've just seen too many cases where when, nobody wants to call anybody a buyer. Nobody wants to make anybody do anything but people get divorced. People get old. People get transferred. Any myriad of reasons cause people to change their mind. Mr. Rivkin's referring to lots along Lake Lucy Road to the east of Lake Lucy Highlands. There's about 6 properties in there and I have not talked to all the property owners individually. I've talked to several of the groups but even the groups of people that have talked to me have told me that there's property owners bracketing their lots that want to develop. I think you saw that same situation when Mr. Rivkin presented to you a petition with some very blanket statements that these people did not want to develop and people stood up in the audience and said no, that's not true. I would like to have the opportunity to do that. And I also can't stress too strongly that once you get this checkerboard pattern in place, we've already got a bad enough checkerboard pattern trying to get around the 2 1/2 acre subdivisions. If you exasperate that, there's going to be a very great difficulty in providing in a cost effective and reasonable manner street, sewer and water. We simply will not be able to do that. Emmings: Well, I'd just like to add to that. I think that the disctinction that Paul makes for these individual neighborhoods is a reasonable one and especially in light of the background and history that at the time that we did those we also completely rewrote the septic system requirements in the city and they really I think, at least I was convinced at the time that septic systems in a lot of ways because they don't add load to other public facilities. The interceptors and the plants where all Planning Commission Heeting October 24, 1990 -- Page 45 the sewage has to be treated, treating it on site, there's some real distinct advantages to that. The environment. If they're designed right and maintained right and I think we put the thing in place that will make them self sufficient so I think they are kind of a special case. Ahrens: Those are big if's. Emmings: If they're installed and maintained, sure. That's right. That's always. Erhart: I need help here. I guess I don't quite understand the problem. Why would we, what is the circumstances under which somebody would be forced to hook onto the sewer? Is it when the neighbor puts sewer in or someone beyond the sewer wants to develop and then you have to run sewer next to his property and then you're going to assess him for a high assessment or what? How does that work? Warren: Well there's two things I guess I tried to elude to earlier and that is, it is difficult to imagine that the City would 3ust outright go and try to install a ma3or interceptor pro3ect to intercept a couple of failing systems. You don't do that. Erhart: No, I'm not talking about that. Say some fellow in Lot 2 has 10 acres up there and he wants to subdivide into 20 lots. How does that affect Lot B which might be between Lot 1 and the existing line? Warren: Well, if we have to obviously run sewer up to intercept your 20 acres and if there is a development in the middle that is not looking to develop, then that expense for that link of the sewer which you can't get by without, needs to be paid for somehow. Therefore we do, there are examples that maybe a watermain example would be a little bit better where the Chan Hills subdivision did not have water service available to it until the city went ahead and constructed the Chan Hills trunk watermain which extended watermain down Powers Blvd. and then cross country into the subdivision. Now in that case, the city assessed hook up charge on an area basis to the area that we had shown would ultimately take service from this trunk main. Very similar to the Lake Ann Interceptor. So there is a potential for an area assessment for ma3or interceptors which is quite common to assess that benefit. Erhart: Okay, and that's the real concern that people here tonight have. Not the guy that's got the failing septic system but the guy who's going to come in with a lot in the middle of this group that wants to subdivide. Krauss: That's true but it's not an open and shut case. I mean the fact that somebody wants to develop add they're removed from the line and the intervening property owner's don't, you know City Council deals with these things in a political forum. There's public hearings. If you have 9 property owners that don't want to develop, don't want to pay for their utilities and the one at the end of the line does, he's going to have a darn tough time convincing the City Council that it's a public improvement that needs to be born by everybody. Council's more than likely to say developer if you want it, you can pay for it. Dead head the' line and we'll pick up charges for these people... Planning Oomm£ss£on Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 46 Erhart: So if it's a reasonable thing that you can deal with at the time, then I don't understand why we can't just change this paragraph and eliminate the priviledge given to Lake Lucy Highlands and Timberwood and just make it more general. Sust say for those areas with large lots, it is the policy of the city, or areas with large lots. Large lots with septic systems, it is the policy of the City that these subdivisions or whatever. Maybe that's not the correct word but these areas will not be required to hook into the City utilities. Period then. Just drop it there because I have a problem isolating those two subdivisions when there's not in my mind that much difference than they are with Eric Rivkin's group. Conrad: But there is. Erhart: Well what is it? Conrad: I think as Paul said, those areas are pretty much in. They're in place. They've been developed. Er hart: Well so have these other lots. Emmings: No. They can be developed where these can't. These people once inside the MUSA could go down to 15,000 square foot lots but that's not going to happen here. That's not going to happen in these completed large lot subdivisions. Erhart: 1,4hy can't it happen there? Emmings: Well, theoretically it can except they haven't build their houses planning for that so they put them in the middle of the property or whatever . Wildermuth: What happens if the house burns down? Erhart: If a guy has 2 1/2 acres right in the middle there with 3 acres. Emmings: It's possible. It's just. Krauss: You would have to change the comprehensive plan as well. The reason we came up with this specific designation for that is because they're designated as a completely different animal. It's designated as large lots only. If they wanted to come in with 15,000 square foot lots, they would have to rezone the property. They would have to change the comprehensive plan. They would have to convince their neighbors that there's a benefit to running utilities down streets that weren't anticipated to have these things which all sum total makes it a virtual impossibility that those are going to subdivide. Ahrens: Maybe it's the length of the table here but we were talking earlier about assessments. The assessment language and not requiring people to hook up to sewer and whether or not it was appropriate for us to include the language regarding excluding these people from utility assessments. I mean in the comprehensive plan, weren't we discussing that earlier? Batzli: We were at this end. Planning Commission Heeting October 24, 1990 - Page 47 Ahrens: We were at this end. Yeah, right. Maybe there's a link that divides down the middle here. Warren: The assessment procedures can have such significant impacts on the city financially and there is such a rigorous assessment process established in the State Statutes to be followed on every assessment project, that to try to muddy the waters with a policy discussion here on assessments I really think is just going to cause more problems when the actual assessment process for any public improvement project follows a public hearing process. Has to stand the test of showing benefit. On and on and on. To talk about who connects and who doesn't and who's required and who isn't, I think they can be two separate issues but I think as Paul is saying, you've got some unique situations with the Lake Lucy Highlands and such but you start handcuffing the City's abilities to service good properties if you get too specific as well as who you're going to kick out of the connection area. Ahrens: So Gary, are you saying that the assessment language should be taken out of this section? Warren: I guess from me perspective the assessment language isn't totally appropriate to be in. Ahrens: I agree Wildermuth: Right. Erhart: I agree with that. Emmings: So would you go along with the suggestion where we just make a more general statement that the large lot, something about large lot residential subdivisions with septic systems in place what? What would you say? Erhart: 3ust the policy is that they are not forced to, the subdivision will not be required to hook into city utilities. Period. Drop the reference to utilities. Ahrens: I absolutely agree. Erhart: 3ust make it more general. Ahrens: And drop all this other. Erhart: Drop the reference to utility. Krauss: I think you should refer back to the policy statement on page 14 of the goals and policies because I think that would more accurately emphasize what we were trying to get across. It's the bold faced one with the goal to recognize the unique circumstance of the lots. It describes the policy direction that we think is consistent and one that we can work around. Warren: Second paragraph. Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 48 Ahrens: Page 14 of the land use? Batzli: No, the first section· Conrad: Paul, are you comfortable with generalizing this exclusion? Krauss: No sir. Once we are reduced to developing systems based upon the current whim or direction o¢ a property owner that can change on a moment's notice, we can't provide those streets and utilities effectively. Conrad: I'm not comfortable at all with broadening the definition. I don't care if it's in the language in the land use. In the comprehensive plan. I don't care but I'm not comfortable at all extending that priviledge beyond the areas that were identified for the particular reasons that Paul said. I think that would just be a major mistake. 8ut we've got to check. Batzli: Philosophically from the standpoint that if you have a septic system and it's not failing, I mean their statement that you don't have to hook into it, I think they eliminated the part about the assessments. What's wrong with a philosophical statement that if you have a septic system that's working properly, why do they have to book up? I understood that was his amendment· Conrad: I'm not concerned with the hooking up as long as we have a good method of monitoring to tell you the truth and what we're doing is broadening the ability to keep that septic system here or to put them in. As long as we have the control to monitor that, that's fine but I think the assessments, it's not the hook-up as much as it is the other assessments that are in the street that I just think would be very prohibitive for Chanhassen · Batzli: If people weren't. Conrad: If people weren't assessed for them· Ahrens: Could we just change the second sentence on page 23 to read, it is the City's position that these subdivisions, let's say we're just talking about Lake Lucy Highlands and Timberwood, will not be required to hook into city utilities period. Leave out, nor pay local utility assessments until such time as utility extensions are required to serve them. That's the language I have a problem with. Any takers? Nildermuth: Yeah, I support that. Conrad: Did you agree with her Jim? Nildermuth: Yes. Conrad: Joan, would you read it again? Are you on page 23 or page 22? Ahrens: Right. It is the City's position that these subdivisions will not be required to hook into city utilities period and that we remove the land that reads, nor pay local utility assessments until such time as utility extensions are required to serve them. I don't feel comfortable excluding Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 49 them from utility assessments if we don't know who's going to pick up the bill for that later on. Batzli: So you'd leave it for the City Council to decide through their normal process at that time whether they're assessed? Ahrens: Right. Conrad: Okay, Jim are you comfortable with that? Wildermuth: Right. Conrad: Brian? You're basically not sending any signal. You're sending no signal to the City Council although they're 9oing to, they're obviously going to revisit this issue whenever they get it. But you're not giving them a direction. Okay. Brian? Batzli: I have a problem with it because I understand the issue of this 2 1/2 acre lot that Chanhassen is stuck with and we do have these two concentrations so upon my initial reading I thought it made a lot of sense but when you start visiting specific situations of extending or skirting a trunk line past the property and then to say that them don't have to pay for it at that time and to put a burden on the rest of the community, is that fair as well? At this point I would rather wait until the Council has to wrestle with the problem at that time. It's kind of like passing the buck though. What I really like is if we could come to some sort of decision right now but I don't know that we can. So I would actually, if I had my druthers, I would leave it in but I don't know that that's fair to the remaining residents upstream, downstream or what have you. Conrad: You know that one issue, and it's hard to, we're talking intangible stuff here and a concern that I always have is forcing people to move out because utilities come in. I've seen that in certain cases. Not a whole lot but I've seen that in certain cases. When there are assessments that go in, are we talking really huge assessments that obviously are going to force somebody to sell? Warren: Typically I guess it all depends on the income levels of the individuals we're dealing with and they're usually are like senior citizen type considerations that can be given in the assessment policies but the assessments, I mean you're talking in the $2,000.00 to $5,000.00 range typically for residential type sam sanitary sewer assessment. Conrad: Let's say there's 500 feet on the property. 500 feet frontage. How would that owner be assessed for 500 feet? Per unit that's potentially to go in? Warren: Typically we assess sanitary sewer on a per unit basis. That's correct. Similar with watermain. Conrad: So if it's in the street. If a watermain's in the street, or the sewer and water's in there, then the city policy and it's going bM to service. I'm going to take a situation where let's say, and Tim brought it up. Let's say 4 property owners wanted to develop and 1 didn't. It's still 4 to 1. They might get this done. So one we've got the one that Planning Commission Heeting October 24, 1990 - Page 50 didn't want to develop and they own 10 acres or 15 acres and that sewer goes by on their property frontage. What's going to happen to them? Warren: Well the assessment policy can be decided by the Council to say that that particular parcel would be deferred. The assessment would be deferred. That's not the preference. Financial advisors would say that's a bad debt against the city's records. Conrad: In your experience Gary, would that happen? In your experience have you seen that happen? Warren: Analogy would be on a small scale is the Harvey/O'Brien property on Lake Lucy Road where the Council chose to use the connection policy in that Mr. Harvey's system was failing but Mr. O'8rien's was fine. Mr. Harvey is requiring to hook up to the sanitary sewer. It always happens, he's the guy in the upstream end. The guy in the downstream's system is good so even though we went past Mr. O'Srien's property, he was not required to pay the connection fee at this time until he either subdivides or his system fails. Now that's a two property issue but you know, so there was an example where that was done. More likely if there are property owners looking to subdivide and develop, the assessment policy or the Council would most likely look to those property owners to bear a large percentage of the cost of the person who maybe doesn't want to assess. That's where the developers and the value of property comes into play to see if they can absorb that extra expense. We're going to be dealing with this. You've - already looked at it with the Klingelhutz' property where watermain, in order to serve that is going to have to be extended from the TH 101 area up in Chan Hills most likely and we're going to have to go through the TH 212 corridor area and then past, we called him Mr. Lyman. That's not correct, but it's past his property and there's a case where we'll be looking at the policy as far as who should be paying and what the policies are. The feasibility study, the first step in any of these assessment projects, the feasibility study looks so specifically at those and establishing guidelines as far as the policies are concerned, it is a very complex thing and can be and those exceptions, you need to have that specific information to really make sense of it. Conrad: But you're saying there can be sensitivity on the City Council's part to not force. Warren: That's correct and I think there is and I think that I am, quite honestly I'm scared of any kind of blanket statement where you say that you will not make anybody connect. I don't think that's realistic. Conrad: Okay. We beat this issue a little bit. Now 3oan, you're comfortable taking out the specific assessment language in the comprhensive plan right now? Ahrens: Yes. Conrad: Still relating it back to the two developments. Two or three? Krauss: Two. Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 51 Conrad: Three developments that are in and basically built out. The option is to, there's some other options also and that's to apply it beyond those three. Wildermuth: Well it looks like the City does that anyway on a selective basis using the State guidelines. Conrad: It can, yeah. Wildermuth: Based on what Gary says, I guess it becomes more of a moot point to leave it in or take it out. Whatever we want to do. Conrad: Okay. How many would like to modify that paragraph with 3oan's motion or wording change or deletion? Jim? Brian? Batzli: I like the policy in our early section but then when it's fine tuned in this section, for some reason I don't but I would vote to leave it as it is. Conrad: Leave the paragraph as is? Batzli: As it is. Conrad: Me too. Emmings: I guess I've been convinced that the assessment action is one that's probably more appropriate with the City Council and out of the planning realm and into the fiscal realm and ought to be considered there rather than here. So I guess I'd go along with the amendment. Conrad: Okay, did you go along with the amendment 3im? Did you say yes? Wildermuth: Yes. Erhart: I'm with 3oan. Ahrens: The table's not too long after all. Conrad: Okay. Paul, we're deleting. Krauss: Is it pulling out that tine or the whole? Conrad: 3ust the assessment line. The Lakeview Hills and the park issue, anybody have some comments on what Craig Mertz said about Lakeview Hills and the park? I don't know that there's anything that we need to react to on that one. Wildermuth: The park between Rice Marsh and Lake Riley? Conrad: Yeah. Ahrens: No comment. Conrad: Let's talk about Timberwood and the area to the north. We heard the owners. We heard some of the residents talk about Timberwood and what Planning Commission Heeling October 24, 1990 - Page 52 they'd like and I think we've done a fair amount of buffering around them. The owners of the land to the north obviously want industrial. Bringing up several points all of which are valid in their own right. Any movement to change what we see there? Ahrens: You know I, who's the property owner that talked about the northeast parcel? Northeast of Timberwood wasn't it? Batzli: There was one that talked about that. Ahrens: Someone talked about the area northeast of Timberwood. That big parcel. Krauss: Mr. Dirlum here is one. Dennis Dirlum: North and east. Ahrens: North and east, okay. I guess I never quite understood why we moved that frontage road so far north anyway. I think I was opposed to that from the very beginning. I thought that the frontage road should run closer to Timberwood and if it did, it would provide a corner on that in the very northeast parcel to be developed into industrial/office which I think is much more appropriate than residential. I mean I never liked that from the beginning. It wasn't something that I went along with. I think that we're creating a parcel of land here that's undevelopable for a whole lot of reasons. I would like to see that re-evaluated by the commission. If a school does not go in there, we've created a situation that I think that we, you know we don't want to live with. I don't think it's appropriate at all for single family housing with a four lane highway. Conrad: What would you do for buffering? Ahrens: I think there is, I mean first of alt, you mean to the north of Timberwood? Conrad: Yeah. Ahrens: Well there is buffering there now. I mean how much buffering are we required to? Conrad: We're not required. It's just typical planning between different uses, land uses we buffer. Ahrens: I mean what I would like to see is a school there which is not our decision to make. It's the school board's decision to make and then to have the parcel to the east of that be office/industrial. I think that's a very natural area for office/industrial there and move the frontage road further south. Conrad: Paul, the reason we moved the frontage road to the north, what was the motivation? Krauss: Well, if you'll recall we went through a variety of plans that looked originally at industrial/office up there. Then there was a mix of medium density near the highway with single family near Timberwood divided Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 53 by the street. Then there was an option that had a corner near HcGlynn's on the west side of the creek. /hat was office because office was viewed as being somewhat more conducive to being near residential than pure industrial uses. In a lot of those plans and if you recall, Mark did up some detail plans about how that area might be laid out, the strip of land north of Timberwood, between Timberwood and TH 5 is not terribly deep. Nhen you put in a collector street and then divide up the property that way with something north of that and something south of that, you wind up with somewhat constrained parcels. Ahrens: But it is more developable for the landowners to have office/ industrial up there isn't it? Krauss: Well what do you mean by more developable? Ahrens: It's easier to sell that idea. Krauss: Presumably that's the case, yeah. Ahrens: I'm afraid we're creatinQ a situation where somebody's not going to be able to seli their land. Conrad: Jim, how are you? Nildermuth: Nell I think the arguments presented tonight against trying to zone that anything residential were pretty compelling. We heard from a number of different property owners and the fellow adjacent along TH 5 that said that a developer that had contacted him via letter, that he in turned responded to had told him that they had absolutely no interest in anything along there. From a residential standpoint. It kind of indicates that I don't know that we have to make a decision tonight but I think that that section north of Timberwood ought to be revisited all the way across. And I do think something should be done with the frontage road. I would favor seeing the frontage road probably adjacent to the Timberwood lots. The northern Timberwood lots maybe with a requirement of a fence or something like that. Conrad: Remember the original intent, and there were several intents but as we moved away from industrial/commercial that we had there in the beginning, the thought was to buffer. The thought was to change the variety of visual impacts on TH 5. Nildermuth: If you recall, I think I was one of few that voted against making that residential and I favored continuing to see it industrial office park or limited to office park. Ahrens: I would go along with office park too. Nildermuth: Create the similar classification and require office. Conrad: Brian? Batzli: I was initially convinced that it could be residential. Obviously we're going to get conflicting testimony based in part on the landowner. I thought we had some pretty neutral people saying it could be developed Planning Commission Heeting October 24, 1990 - Page 54 residential and obviously the people who own the property don't feel that way, or at least that that would bring in the highest dollar investment on their land. But as far as the road goes, I think if in fact a school locates there, I think that's where you want it and I think we evaluated a bunch of different scenarios which that appeared to me at the time to be the best. So if we decided to rezone or potential land use should not be residential, then I think the road has to be revisited b. ut as far as the residential, through a residential section, I think that's the best place for it to go. At this point, unless we have I guess some compelling argument that residential won't go in there and it's just a question of how much money are we going to get on the land which we bought for investment purposes, I don't know that from a planning perspective that it should be changed. I think the visual impact as well as basically a strip zone all the way along the corridor. I don't think that's good planning so I would not be in favor of revisiting it unless we had some sort of compelling testimony that says this thing is not going to go residential at all. Emmings: I think I essentially agree with what Brian said. The fact that the road is drawn on the map here doesn't mean that that's where the road will go. If I could be the person who determines what goes north of Timberwood, I'd want to see the school go in on the parcel that's marked for the school and I would take that northeast corner and make it office industrial. That seems to me to be, make a lot of sense with everything that's around it. But for now you know, I guess my position would be that we've looked at all kinds of alternatives and we're really beaten it to death and I don't want to do it anymore. I'm content with what's here. I think if we study it for another 6 months we'll probably wind up back here anyway. That road will either stay where it is on here or it will be changed when a specific proposal comes in to develop the property and we'll just have to wait and see. Erhart: I guess I don't disagree with 3gan that when it comes to reality and that is the time when a proposal comes in, at that point we will say yeah, this is a nice development for industrial or office or something and it makes sense and it fits with the existing buffer that exists with the Timberwood area and we'll change it and accept that. I think my general feeling is in an area where we don't know today is that we ought to put it in the comp plan as the lowest intensity use that seems reasonable and that's what we have it at. We have it at single family residential. We can always increase it's intensity when we see some specific proposals. With that I'm comfortable at leaving it the way it is today. But I agree, it's a big problem and I think it's going to change when we start seeing development proposals. I think we're going to, we'll be forced to revisit it at that time. I don't think we have a problem just by leaving it the way it is today and anticipate that. Conrad: If you really felt there was a better use for it though, the time to communicate that is right now. Erhart: I couldn't tell you what it is. Conrad: Okay. I 'm comfortable leaving it the way it is. I've struggled with this and I think we started out with industrial use. I think the neighbors obviously stress their buffering concerns and I think that's why I went along with what we've got. I believe if I saw a buffering Planning Commission Heeling October 24, 1990 - Page 55 opportunity and I've always thought this, I think we've got a couple things. I'm not really concerned with green space, visual impact on TH 5. To a degree I'm concerned with residential access, neighborhood type concept off of TH 5 however. Not going through an industrial park or a business section. I think neighbors had some real valid points to that. However, I still think if I would have seen some ability to buffer to the tune of hundreds of feet to the north. Not a hundred but hundreds, I think I would have kept industrial there but we haven't addressed that issue. We haven't talked about that and I think that's almost beyond our ability to do. I think the developers as they come in with proposals, I think what I'm saying would make Timberwood residents, and maybe what we are saying, we're going to make Timberwood residents a little bit nervous. They probably think they've fought this thing and it's one of the issues you've got to stay with because there's obviously a disagreement here as to the best use of that land and I think it's probably not over based on the comprehensive plan. It won't be over until there's zoning there and I think that gives the developer still the opportunity to propose something that probably the local residents feet is better than much lower housing value properties to their north. You're going to, I'm not sure that the residents were clear visioned when they looked at this but on the other hand I am committed to buffering the residents that are here. I think we can do that and I'm in agreement with what we have on the plan. If I counted noses it's probably 4 to 2. It stays. We had extended large lot useage comment. Emmings: Mancino 's? Conrad: Yeah. Is there anyone that wants to run with that thought? Ahrens: With what? Conrad: Extend the large lot concept to other areas. Emmings: To the west of Galpin basically is what came up I think. Wildermuth: All we've done is create problems with the existing large lot program. Why do we want to extend it? Emmings: ...extending it to the east and then we're talking about extending it to the west. Erhart: I thought we just covered that didn't we? Conrad: Yeah. The study areas. Anybody interested in taking the study areas out of the study area concept and zoning it? Not zoning it. We're not doing zoning but sOggesting a different land. Emmings: Are you talking about the Lundgren proposal now? Conrad: No. I'm talking about the TH 41 and TH 5 study area. Not Lundgren at this time. Batzli: I guess I'd like to hear Paul's reaction to Tim Keane's comment that they're basically going to freeze the land use in those areas for the next 5 years. Planning Commission Heeling October 24, 1990 - Page 56 Krauss: I would agree that it effectively does that. That's probably something of a non-event because that was the goal in essence. Emmings: Are we on solid ground doing that? Krauss: I believe we are. You know Tim is an attorney. He may have a different opinion but I believe we are. You know you look at our current plan right now and you have a big blank spot because there's nothing out there. It just assumes it's 9oin9 to be farmland so in designating it as something that we have committed to study by 1995, we probably accelerated the process over what's there right now. In addition, you've already directed us that the next thing you want to do is after this plan's in place is go into an analysis of what those study areas might be so you've already committed to doing it so I think Mr. Keane's goal is probably going to be met. It's doesn't appear as though it's going to wind up with a Fleet Farm on that corner in the near future but it's not out of the realm of possibility and it's still something that's going to be studied and you've committed to do that. Emmings: We've got Fleet Farm on the corner and this Lundgren proposal on the north end. Do we have any similar pressures on the 1995 study area to the south? Krauss: No, and that's quite different. There's a physical constraint in the study area to the south. We physically can't serve it. There's no way we can provide access to the sanitary sewer system at this point in time. Emmings: So we can study the north one first. Conrad: That'd be after we studied the fringe business district? Batzli: Yeah. Erhart: Are you looking for comments on this? It sounds a little revolutionary but I guess in thinking this whole thing over the last few weeks, and again in listening tonight I guess I would propose and support that we actually extend the 1995 study area to include all the property west of Galpin Blvd. and south of TH 5 for a number of reasons. One is that I think, I have a sense that we're just a little bit too ambitious in the amount of land we're trying to put in the MUSA line today. I know the numbers all add up and the projections and everything but I sense we're just a little bit too ambitious. Two is that we don't have any idea how we're going to serve that with sewer. It's a long ways from the Lake Ann Interceptor and we've got 1,000 acres which is closer to the existing Lake Ann Interceptor that we can use the next 10 years figuring out how to serve that with sewer. I just don't know why we're concerning ourselves with that area down there at this point when it makes more sense to throw it in with the 1995 study area. It seems to align itself with that area. Lastly is that I don't know, I'm not sure we know what that area is best served at. It may be that commercial is a better use for the southeast section of that intersection of TH 41 and TH 5. So that's my feelings about that. I 'think I expressed that one time early on in this process that I felt that that part of it ought to be left out too. Conrad: So you're talking west of? Planning Commission Heeling October 24, 1990 - Page 57 Erhart: Nest of Galpin, south of TH 5. The other areas are logical to me. Here you've got a large residential that essentially is served with gravity flow. Although I do agree that the Highland or Lundgren thing ought to be considered. That makes some good sense. So we have a general area of residential that could be served with gravity flow and you have your industrial which follows the railroad tracks and merges with the industrial park in Chaska. To me this part is still so far out from the existing sewer system and it's not clear to me that we have to add that much land in at this time. Emmings: But it's industrial to the south and to the west of all those areas. Erhart: I'm not saying it won't be industrial. Conrad= What are the potential? Paul, do you want to respond to that at all? Krauss: Okay. As I indicated earlier, we're proposing to bring 2,600 acres into the MUSA line. When you eliminate the existing Timberwood type situations. When you eliminate Carlson and Prince under the assumption they're not going to be available. When you eliminate lakes and wetlands and future park acquisitions, you're down to 1,500 acres of ground that's potentially developable if individual property owners make the decision in that timeframe to do that and we can't, we obviously don't believe that that's going to happen uniformiiy. From a residential standpoint, we're convinced that we've undervalued or undershot the amount of residential land that probably could justifiably be made available in the next l0 years. If you take our 4.75 growth rate and bring that back to how many acres we need, I forget the exact number but we're shorting ourselves. If we drop the area west of Galpin, south of TH 5 from the plan, more importantly you're eliminating probably about 60~ of the additional IOP land which we're currently out of in the community and that was one of the goals was to provide for a reasonable amount of growth in employment and that chunk of land is approximately 200 acres? I think Mr. Shardlow's company owns 160 and I think there's another 40 across the way by the Arboretum. It's a significant amount of what we had allocated for the next 10 to 15 years of industrial office growth. Thirdly, and I don't say this as a sort of a threat lurking there in the background but it can't be denied that some of these property owners have already apparently talked to the City of Chaska about annexation should they be able to serve these properties and we not. We've already lost one parcel over there based on that rationale. To the best of my knowledge I've been led to believe that some of the property owners that were here tonight have already made inquiries to the City of Chaska along those lines. I guess I'll leave you with those items. Conrad: Anybody interested in supporting Tim's, not a motion but Tim's request to broaden that study area? Emmings: I'm not. Batzli= No. Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 58 Conrad: Me neither. Mary Harrington brought up some issues. I think the one that we paid attention to, or at least I did, rerouting the access road a little bit to the northwest to create a pocket of land for commercial or industrial use. Anybody want to follow that up? Wildermuth: I guess I didn't follow, I don't understand what that proposal was. Conrad: It was, as we understood it, it was basically to take that frontage road. Where you see the school? Okay, and route that frontage road, keep the frontage road north as it goes to the west. Keep it west and then bring it down gradually to the south and it would carve out a parcel that she said could be industrial or commercial. Emmings: That's very similar to Joan's. My response would be similar to my response to 3oan's to move this further south. This is real fine tuning and then I think it would be better done with, I don't need you here. I don't think we ought to do that. That fine tuning can be done with specific plans and I think the plan we've got is alright. Conrad: I don't think it really serves any purpose right now. Planning wise or property wise. Anybody else on that issue? Let's go to the intersection of Galpin and TH 5 to the east. Comments on not residential but more commercial use. Anybody sensitive to revisiting that issue? Erhart: Why did we take it, we had it commercial at one time. Why did we move it? Krauss: Well I can only indicate what I thought your direction was on that. Erhart: It was my idea right? Krauss: I don't recall who's it was but we believed that it was a good neighborhood commercial site since it was physically removed from the area to the north. There's a line of trees and I believe a low area and Mark, how many acres was that? Koegler: Nell the total is somewhere around 13 I believe but bear in mind there's the park...to divide in there and there would be frontage road carving through here so the net is going to be smaller than that. Krauss: Yeah. There's probably still a viable site left. When you directed us to remove that I believe you were reacting to a lot of input that you had gotten that there was a desire not to have commercial intrude into residential neighborhoods and we were directed to remove it. Conrad: Who directed that? Erhart: Let's hang him. Conrad: I'm trying to think of the situation. It was Emmings. Emmings: No it wasn't. I remember someone coming in and saying that because it was low. Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 59 Krauss: There was the fellow from the Arboretum was one of the people who said it was a low, wet site as I recall but you know, frankly it is not. It's at the grade of the highway adjacent to the intersection. Conrad: So you have taken the commercial out, designation. Anybody want to put it back in? Erhart: Is it staff's continued recommendation to make that corner commercial? Krauss: You know there's so much in the comp plan and things that we feel strongly about and things that we feel are a good idea but don't feel strongly about. I guess this falls into the later category. We originally proposed it as a neighborhood commercial site. We think it's reasonable to think that neighborhood scale services belong someplace between downtown and Victoria. That seemed to be a good place to do it where it would be buffered from adjoining neighborhoods. On the other hand, you know it's not a life and death issue. Conrad: Any takers on that? Wildermuth: I agree with Paul. I mean it's what, right adjacent to the larger study area. Just leave it the way it is. Conrad: Leave it? Krauss: By leave it do you mean put it back or leave it the way it is? Conrad: No, leave it the way it is. Emmings: Leave it orange. Conrad: I think that's an area we sure could be sensitive to in the future however. If there's a need. The Lundgren proposal as part of the 1995 study area. Paul you felt that there's some rationale for considering that. Krauss: Yes sir I do. As I say, we went into this process knowing, well we come out of this process knowing that we're probably shorting ourselves on residential land for the next, for the duration of the plan. As time goes on we become more and more convinced that at least if we take what people are telling us on face value, a lot of the land that we're assuming is potentially available for development won't be. It's hard to envision the Hancino's having their property developed in the next 10 years although that's in that category of potentially viable land. I think we can justify an increment to the residential classification of the magnitude that they're requesting. I also think that having seen the layout that they prepared, that it seemed emminently reasonable. The dividing line there frankly was not given a whole lot of thought because that's where the 1980 plan had it and it was originally the 1990 HUSA and it's now the year 2000. We didn't pay a whole lot of attention as to what was actually on the ground there. When you look at the Lundgren plan, it makes sense from two standpoints. It uses the wetland which is really the effective barrier that should separate whatever happens with TH 5 from the residential area. It also provides us with the potential of building that street through Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 60 there that we believe we need to handle the growth. I've also had a number of discussions with the property owner immediately to the east, the Song's and I believe they're interested in doing something with their property in the timeframe of the plan and it really fits together quite well. So yes, I would support his conclusion. Conrad: Is there anybody with a difference of opinion? Emmings: At first blush, and we only got the plan yesterday to look at and that's my reservation. At first glance it appears to be a very good plan. I don't think, I wasn't aware of the extent of that wetland in there. It doesn't show up on our maps. It seems to be a real natural dividing line and the subdivision looks like a good one but I just don't think we've had time enough to consider it. Getting that road through there I thought was a big plus to the plan so it may be, I guess my position on it would be that we just haven't had the time to look at it or evaluate it but my concern would be that if we don't drop the MUSA line down now to say go through the center of that, then we'd have to go back to the Met Council right after we get done. Let's say they buy what we're trying to sell them here and we've got to come right back with a little addition right off the bat. I don't know how that's going to go. How that's going to play so it might be, it might make some sense looking at it from that aspect to do it now. I don't know. Conrad: I think my thought would be to do it, to direct staff to change those boundaries before this gets to City Council to review. To review it. To look for the pros and cons and do a thorough job of analysis. Emmings: Is that in fact a wetland? Krauss: Yes. Emmings: Okay. It just doesn't show up on our map. It's big to not show up on our map. Krauss: It's quite a significant one, yes. Well, a lot of them don't show up on our map. Emmings: I know but this is a real big one you know and that's a lot of. Wildermuth: I agree. I think it ought to be included in this study. In the plan. It would reduce the 1995 study area then right? Conrad: Yes. Wildermuth: By roughly 35 acres. Conrad: It makes sense that that's the right long term use. From the way the natural boundaries are, I think the boundaries for the study area were, well a little bit arbitrary and here we have some natural features to go by that are going to dictate how that study area gets developed so I think logically on the surface it certainly makes sense. I think Steve suggested that there's got to be a little bit more thought put to it but on the surface I think it makes sense. Brian? Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 6i Batzli: Well I guess I echo Steve's sentiments that I don't know because I haven't been out to the site. I haven't really looked at it. It seems to me that obviously, and the particular applicant apologized for not bringing it to our attention earlier but it seems like a last minute adjustment which I don't know whether it's warranted or not. Conrad: Paul, when you say that we have undershot the mark for allocating land for new residential use, why are you sayin~ that? Krauss: Do you have a table that shows that Mark? Koegler: Mr. Chairman, if I might address that. I think consistently in this plan you've gone after the reasonable test and we went through that when we talked about all the population household projections and ended up with what you labeled as the City's... Those extrapulated to the plan call for a total land requirement for residential of 1,258 acres. Now bear in mind what we've always used in this planning process for the last 10 years as has the Met Council is a 1.5 factor or 50~ overage to allow for market flexibility to take care of the Prince properties and some of the others that will not develop. We stress that that's important and the Met Council has agreed with that consistently. That bumps that number to close to 1,900 acres that are required. We're presently showing about 1,410 so this addition of a net of roughly 70 or 90, whatever it was, is certainly still supportive and I think still passes that reasonable test quite easily. conrad: Tell me Paul what the process is. I don't know what they're going to do in terms of closing the school down. The question now is, what's your next step as a staff? I haven't opened it up for other comments other than the ones that I've brought up but do we need, and I guess commissioners you can tell me too, do you want to review this and have other comments at our next meeting or whenever we can deal with it? Do you want to forward it on to the City Council and I would say if we did that, when would this reach them Paul? Krauss: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure of the exact date. If you told us to go ahead, make some changes and send it to the Council tonight, it's really a matter of scheduling. They only have, we're missing meetings because of holidays. I've got to believe it wouldn't get to them before the end of November. conrad: So for us to review this at a next meeting or whenever we can may not delay them reviewing it? Warren: Council meetings first and third Mondays in November. Krauss: It wouldn't be a significant delay, no. Conrad: Not that I think we should or whatever. I just wanted to clarify that. Is there a direction that you folks would like to take in terms of getting it out of our hands? Reviewing a few more issues? I think we really have to get out of the building right now. When the lights go out. Erhart: I think the Lundgren issue is the last issue isn't it? Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 62 Conrad: Well it's the last one that I brought tip and that doesn't deal with anything else. Emmings: You've hit on all of mine. I think you ought to hire a professional proof reader to go over this text. There's words missing. And I'm not, well I am being critical I guess but I think after you work on something this long, you can't really read it anymore. I think you ought to hire someone to read it and go through it so that, it's pretty bad. Batzli: I had a minor issue that Eric Rivkin brought up on the DNR owned land. Is the parcels that he's talking about significant enough to show up on our map? Should they be green or are these things just small that wouldn't show up anyway? Koegler: It's a fairly small piece. We've looked at...entirely wetland. It can be added as a green dot on the map. We certainly can do that. It's not a big factor. Conrad: Okay, there's really only one outstanding issue that we're kind of surrounding here. Joan, were you in favor of that? Ahrens: I don't know. I can't say one way or the other right now. Wi ldermuth: I got the packet last night and read it through and yes. Conrad: Brian, you're sort of saying hey, I don't know? Satzli: Correct. Conrad: And what would you like to have happen? Batzli: Well the thing that troubles me is that there may be other type situations which may have arisen in the city and that we may or may not have reviewed if people had been given the same chance. I'm concerned that dealing with it at this late moment, I love Lundgren Brothers developments but it appears to me that we may be showing some sort of favoritism to this particular project and I don't know the exact reason why. Conrad: The reason that staff related was that we're under what we should be requesting. Batzli: I understand that but we've seen one proposal and I'm just, I'm concerned about it and I raise it so that we can at least all be totally on board and this is the way that we want to go. Conrad: Okay. Steve you were in favor of. Tim, you were in favor of including it. Wi ldermuth: Ladd? Conrad: Yeah. Wildermuth: Maybe you just ought to make the point that you know, before any type of development comes through, there's a lot of steps to go through yet. Planning Commission Heeting October 24, 1990 - Page 63 Emmings: Yeah, we're not approving this subdivision. 8atzli: I realize that. Wildermuth: It's just some rough sketching from a plan standpoint. Ahrens: 8ut that's removing a lot of land from the study area. Conrad: A lot of it is undevelopable. Ahrens: I mean there must have been some reason we had that in there. Emmings: We're precluding the possibility of that subdivision if we don't include that land now I think and I don't want to do that so I'd move the MUSA line down and I'd move this whole thing onto. Conrad: 0o you want to dish no staff review or are you comfortable directing staff to do that? Emmi. ngs: I'm comfortable on the basis of the fact that we now know that there's a natural feature there that provides a better dividing line that the MUSA should run through rather than just running it on lot lines. Conrad: Okay. And Tim? Erhart: Exactly. There's no rationale for the lines that are there other than it's lines that were made up 10 years ago. This at least we've got something and it makes sense. Conrad: So what would you like to do in terms of our analysis? Are you comfortable letting staff move the line based on the proposal? Erhart: Yep · Yep. Conrad: Okay. I think there are more in favor at this time of moving the line so let's move the line. Anything else? Emmings: Are we going to move this on to City Council? Conrad: We have to make that motion. Emmings: Are you ready? Conrad: Wait. Is there anything else? Okay, make the motion please. Emmings: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan with the one change we discussed with the northern boundary of the 1995 study area on the corner of TH 41 and TH 5 being moved down to run through the middle of the wetland that's been now identified on the maps. Conrad: Is there a second? Erhart: I'll second that. Planning Commission Meeting October 24, 1990 - Page 64 Conrad: ~ny discussion? Batzli: I guess I'd just like to go on record that I'd like staff to look at that very carefully. Conrad: I think that's another, yeah me too type of comment. And would expect that if something, I'd like to see the analysis that you do on it prior to the City Council seeing it. Anymore discussion? Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan with the one change that the northern boundary of the 1995 study area on the corner of TH 41 and TH 5 be moved down to run through the middle of the wetland that's been now identified on the maps. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Conrad: I thank you all who are here and stayed with us. I'm impressed. That's kind of nice of you to do that. ~4e lost a few people out there but thank you. Stay in touch with the newspapers because it will let you know when this goes to City Council. City Council has the last say and there will be changes. Then beyond that Metro Council has the last say. Thank you . Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded to adjourn the meeting. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim