1988 10 18 Agenda
.
AGENDA
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1988, 7:30 P.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of September 27, 1988 Minutes.
3. Accept Commission Resignation Submitted by Mike Lynch.
4. Rezoning Proposal to Preserve Minnesota Valley.
5. Review Current Balance in Capital Improvement Program Fund.
6. Update on Trail Task Force.
. 7. Set Next Park and Recreation Commission Meeting Date.
*~
'Ple..o-~e
m e.--C--:\--
a-+
}-\~ \ \
€
\?~.
{j +-
00
lAJe-
C-6-V\
100 lc-
eDVV\e p~O .pe"~ fa <"
\ V\ S()LA...~\('V\ ~O-f\. 19- L(ou
~V\ ~ C-{)VV\-€- eo..~(lj p\~6--se... ~\ \
C1-s 1- \ ct CO 56 we c\ () V\ "l-
so... t-e...-
.
tv\~
VJo..~ -\-
CLt-
h-e.ec1l-e~c:; k_1 .
~
~.u
CITY 0 F
CHAHHASSEH
3
.
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Park and Recreation Commission
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator
DATE: October 13, 1988
SUBJ: Mike Lynch's Resignation
Attached please find a letter from Mike Lynch resigning from the
Park and Recreation Commission. The City Council acted to accept
Mike's resignation at their last meeting and authorized staff to
advertise the vacant position in the local papers. ~
Mike has been a member of the Park and Recreation Commission for
over 9 years and his background knowledge and input will be
missed. Upon the Commission's direction, staff will send Mike a
letter of appreciation similar to the attached.
~
CONTROls & METERS, INC.
September 28, 1988
Chanhassen City Hall
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Attn: Lori Sietsema
Dear Lori,
Confirming our telephone conversation of September 26th, it
appears that I must tender my resignation from the Park &
Recreation Commission effective immediately. My personal
schedule has become so full that I find that I cannot
accommodate the amount of time required to properly discharge
my duties in several of my outside activities.
.
I have felt a great sense of satisfaction in my work with the
Parks program in Chanhassen, and find it rewarding that we
have developed beautiful facilities which are well received
by the general population.
It is with some regret that I resign at this time since such
a great deal of development is left to pursue. Plans that
we had been nuturing for many years are about to reach a full-
fillment stage and I would have liked to be active in those
last few processes.
I certainly appreciate your dedication and the help you have
given us over the years and guiding us through the maze of
governmental red tape.
Sir.ce;:ely,
~~, i-~" J
Mike Lyn~n IICAJ
ML/gI
.
a-~_""'l:;.. \I o:;..l.J
SEP 29 1988
Clrt .Of CHANHASSEN
7613 Washington Avenue South. Minneapolis. Minnesota 55435. (612) 944-3666. Fax: (612) 944-2689
CITY OF
CHARHASSER
Lf
.
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Park and Recreation Commission
FROM:
Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation coordinator~
October 5, 1988
DATE:
SUBJ:
Minnesota Valley Preservation
Attached is a memorandum from Tim Erhart asking for the Park and
Recreation Commission's support in rezoning the Minnesota Valley
area from Business Fringe (BF) to Agricultural Estate (A2). It
is Tim's feeling that by inhibiting commercial development, the
area will be preserved as green space.
There are certain implications and ramifications that rezoning
would have that need further review (see attached City Council
and Planning Commission minutes and Barbara Dacy's staff report).
Staff does not see the Park and Recreation Commission taking a
lead role in this issue other then to support the preservation of
unique characteristics within Chanhassen, including the Minnesota
Valley.
.
RECOMMENDATION
It is the recommendation of this office to support the Planning
Commission's efforts to rezone the BF district along Hwy. 212 to
limit development along the Minnesota Valley.
.
.
.
.
Tim A. Erhart
775 West 96th Street
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
To:
Members of Chanhassen Parks & Recreation Commission
and lori Seitsema
cc:
Joanne Olson, City of Chanhassen
ladd Conrad
Steve Emmings
Tim Erhart
From:
Subject: Minnesota Valley Preservation
Date: September 23, 1988
During a recent meeting of Parks and Recreation, I discussed my proposal to
inhibit further development in the Minnesota Valley by rezoning it all to
A-2 Agricultural Estate. I have enclosed, for your review, my proposal
letter along with comments from former Council member, Pat Swenson.
Planning Commission and Council have already agreed to look into this matter
and in general liked the idea.
I would encourage Parks and Recreation to get involved as soon as possible
with this. I believe this should be a joint Planning Commission and Parks
and Recreation project. I also think it will require the support from both
groups for us to succeed.
-0.
. h~: ((h, --/
TAE~Yl.' Vy
OCT 0 .J 1988
CITY OF CHANhA~.);;..N
Till A. Erhart
775 West 96th Street
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Minnesota River Valley Plan
Date: May 18, 1988
As a member of the Planning Conmission and living close to the Minnesota
River Valley area, I have come to appreciate the unique resource which
exists in our city. Unfortunately, our current approach to planning in this
area guarantees both a missed opportunity and the extenuation of dangerous
traffic conditions by encouraging commercial development within this area.
The area in the valley from Flying Cloud Airport to Chaska north of TH 212
consists of severe terrain with bluffs and wash outs as you go up the
valley wall. The severe erosion and numerous streams flowing down the
valley wall give the area both a unique appearance and environmental quality
unique to our area. It also poses substantial danger any time development
occurs due to the unavoidable erosion of the steep terrain. The valley in
this area south of TH 212 lies within the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife
Refuge.
In addition heavy traffic, much of it trucks, combined with a three mile
downhill grade, makes any stops or turns in the area extremely dangerous.
Since no service roads exist on TH 212 businesses in this area must access
directly onto TH 212.
The City of Eden Prairie has already seen fit to preserve the valley by
maintaining much of the area north of TH 212 as Aaricultural. In addition,
an overlay Conservancy Di strict 1 imits development in both the Minnesota
Valley as well as the Purgatory and Riley Creek watershed. The Eden Prairie
ordinance allows only Ag and large lot residential uses. The only non-
conforming structure in Eden Prairie is lyon's Tap.
Over the years, a few businesses have sprung up in the Valley in Chanhassen.
Many of these have gone out of business due mostly to the fact that the
area really doesn't lend itself to a business environment being just across
the bridge from Shakopee. In addition, the heavy traffic and high speeds
discourage stops by motorists along this route.
The remaining businesses on the south side include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hotel
Super America
Junk yard
Vacant restaurant building
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
All of these are non-conforming since this area is designated A-2 and all of
the area south of TH 212 is included in the Minnesota Valley National
Wildlife Refuge.
We have designated a portion of the valley in Chanhassen as BF (Business
Fringe) which is a commercial use. Existing businesses located within the
BF district in the TH 101/212 intersection area include:
1. Brookside Hotel
2. Vacant gas station
The hotel is legal non-conforming since hotels are not allowed in the BF
district. No sewer and water exists or is planned for this area, therefore
commercial use is limited to low water usage businesses.
We have recently allowed three new business in this area: Cold storage,
garbage truck storage and cleaning, and outdoor display of merchandise
(landscape business). Fortunately the garbage truck business is not located
directly on TH 212. The cold storage and landscape businesses however pose
a definite safety hazard for all customers of these businesses.
There are a number of issues which cause me to urge the members of the
Planning Commission to recommend that the zoning in this vicinity be changed
from BF to A-2 Agricultural Estate. (I am not suggesting we change the BF
area existing next to Chaska.)
1. We have an immediate opportunity to provide a truly unique green
area within the metropolitan area for future generations. If we
delay, we will probably miss this opportunity altogether. Much of
the area (south of TH 212, all of Eden Prairie, and most of
Chanhassen) is already restricted from development.
2. The landscape is delicate and surely doesn't lend itself to
development due to severe erosion potential.
3. We are encouraging business to develop along a highway where a
long downhill run causes traffic to travel at speeds ranging from
55-70 mph. The density of traffic in this area averages 20,000
vehicles per day. Much of this is grain trucks which simply
cannot stop when coming down the hill. To encourage more direct
access onto TH 212 is simply going to directly cost lives. On the
one hand, the city is taking the responsibility to encouraging the
growth of a commercial area but we are not providing the access
roads which are required for safe ingress and egress for these
bus i nesses. I have voted against each of the two proposals
because I cannot in good conscience agree to creating such a
dangerous situation.
2
A commercial area requires sewer and water. Sewer and water is
not planned for this area for any time within the next 30 years.
5. Designating the area A-2 is totally appropriate in that a certain
amount of agriculture use occurs in the area today. The Valley in
Eden Prairie and most of Chanhassen is already designated
agricultural and low density residential. In addition, the area
includes two homes which would conform nicely to the allowable
uses in the A-2 area. Lastly, the one unit on 10 acres and large
lot requirement of residential development in the A-2 district
would conveniently limit the growth of homes preventing increased
density, further erosion and traffic problems.
4.
6. Changing the zoning to A-2, Agricultural Estate allows reasonable
use of the property: Agricultural or residential lots. We've
seen that the area is not a viable commercial area, therefore it
is arguable whether the property is worth more or 1 ess zoned
commercial. Zoned commercial restricts the owners from sell ing
residential lots.
I believe the urgency of this matter should cause immediate passing on this
recommendation to council before any additional plans are submitted for the
~z: this area.
(
TAE:j
3
.
.
.
.
, ~', '.'.'
.
.
To: The Planning Commission
From:Pat Swenson
Date: 8-8-88
Re: Commissioner Erhart's letter of May 18 re Minnesota Valley and
Letter of May 27 re Land Use in the A...2 District.s.
I won't attempt to elaborate on the Commissioner's letters. Suffice
it to say he has more than eloquently demonstrated the need for posi~
,the action on these two issues for the preservation of areas which,
, otherwise, may well be extinct in a very few years. It is indeed
incumbent upon all of us to think in long range timing...as well as
for what_seems appropriate for now.
I
,
There is no question that the present situation at the junction of
212/101 is not befitting the southern "gateway" to our-beautiful city.
As some of you know I have attempted for several years to correct a
difficult flaw in the appearance of that area. As some of you also
know it is far more difficult to 'correct' a bad situation than it is
to prevent it in the first place...which is what Tim is trying to tell
us.
Traffic 'from DakotaA~tt Counties (Burnsyille, Savage, Shakopee,
Prior Lake, and Southern Bloomington) ; from Flying Cloud, Valley Fair
and Canterbury Downs all use 169/212/101 as entryway to and thru
Chanhassen. The Arboretum, Dinner Theater, "Riv~ and now our new and
charming 'downtown' plus the convenience of the existing motel and the
new 4 million dollar hotel proposed to begin construction in the Fall
all will undoubtly continue to draw greater patronage from the south
as well as other areas. Shouldn't we ask ourselves how important it is
for these visitors to know that Chanhassen cares?
I urgently request you to consider Commissioner Erhart's proposals from
this'viewpo'D~'as well aS,what seems to me to berhis indisputable reasons
for positive action on these issues.
Thank you.
)
Pat
lU4 (
., Ci ty ~Council Meeting - (.l1e 27, 1988
c.(
I .
Acting Mayor Geving: Wa've going to quit the debate and we're going to vote.
There is a motion on the floor. Thank you Mike and thank you very much Rick.
There is a motion on the floor and there is a second to participate in the
funding of the project for 1989 in the amount, and I'm going to put in a dollar
figure of $10,000.00 as our participation for 1989. When we get to the budget
~ will get to hard dollars. Approximately $10,000.00 so when we get to Don's
budget ~ can put the figures in. Anybody have a problem with that?
Councilman Boyt: I have a problem with catmitting to a budget ~ haven't even
discussed yet. I think the intent. Say we intend to fund it.
Acting Mayor Geving: That would be fine.
Councilman Hom moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded that_.the City Council
interxls to participate in the funding of the Recycling Project with Carver
County for 1989 in an amount of approximately $10,000.00. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
B. REX:YCLING: CURBSIDE PICK-UP.
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded the authorization to create a
recycling conmi ttee for curbside piCk-up. All voted in favor and the motion
carried. .
Councilman Boyt: What about two. 0:> we need to authorize the application for
grant monies?
Acting Mayor Geving: No. 'Ibat was just the curbside. We did that. It's all a
part of the first one.
Councilman Boyt: So your motion included both?
Counci lman Hom: Yes.
'>( _PISCl1Ss:':'WiNilrNG.~ISSION llJ;I:OlliENDATION ON AMEND1ENTS'l'(). .SF.~ JI-2 ZQti~~
DISTRICTS. J
Acting Mayor Geving: 'Ibis might take sane time. I hope we can limit it.
Again, I think we're all familiar with the Planning Commission notes. We've
read your letter Tim. I think at this point we don't need your comments,
I don't believe Barbara. Let's go right to Planning Commissions comments fran
Tim. speak briefly.
Tim Erhart: I will. Which one do you want to take first?
Acting Mayor Geving: Let's go with the SF. The recommendation are amendments
to the SF and A-2 Zonding Districts. You might just want to comment briefly
about than.
Tim Erhart: Q, the Business Fringe, I think the cannents you made tonight
earlier, if we have a dangerous situation, I think we're obligated to do
60
-I
~.
~
."",~.",.,-'-'-:... ....
t'
.." ...
...;'::.;,....:.~", ",~6-rJ~
. ..~:..~,;~'''..,;......,~ ~".ii;jtn;.:..tirr . '\,
...~.'....,'''''~J!:~...... " ...
I'
:L..
"
l.
r
City Council Meetin~ ~une 27, 1988
((
{05
something about it. I think we have a very dangerous situation down in that
area where we're allowing, not only allowing but promoting the intensification
of business' direct access onto TH 212 where the speeds, in the report I think
you can see what the speeds are. It's just doesn't make any sense. Now we've
got lots of land in Chanhassen. we've got a big commercial industrial
developnent just outside the area here am we have a downtown we're trying to
support, we really don't need to promote commercial developnent in this area
where we're not providing facilities to support it. I think it's very
dangerous. Secondly is that I think we have, again having enough area for
commercial and imustrial here, I think we have a real opportunity to preserve
this area for people who live in Chanhassen 33 years from now. As the whole
ci ty gets developed am we have 23,333 people living here instead of 8,333, that
we have sane space available that's open and green. I think those two things
tied together, to me it's the time to make a decision on this. We can do it
today and preserve this area simply by converting it to A-2 without a lot of
expense to the City. I think your comnent on staff is the concern that we have
and you expressed Roger, was that these people won't have anything to do wi th
this lam if we do it, if we convert it but A-2 still allows you to build homes
no matter what size lot is existing, they can build at least one house on it.
I'm not too sure that that isn't increased value over it's value as commercial
today considering the history of commercial successes in that area. In some
cases, we've made a big investment here in the downtown area. In fact we run
into a situation where somebody wants to push us on it in converting it to A-2,
look at what it would cost to compensate what you might consider Ag, I think
it's worth it for the future of Chanhassen to preserve that area and to
eliminate, I think a real big liability problem.
Acting Mayor Geving: Now are you speaking for the Planning Commission tonight?
Are you representing the Planning COmmission's views?
Tim Erhart: I think so.
Barbara Dacy: '!he Planning Commission has endorsed this.
Tim Erhart: That's my COImlents on the BF.
Acting Mayor Geving: Should we take the BF first and just kind of walk through
it? Go ahead Jay.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see some numbers. I think it's a proposal we
should pursue to look at it am have somebody, through the City Attorney's
office prepare us a scenario of our liability, which I believe at that point
would be as far as what your opinion of takings are and staff. That's not the
kim of ~tuff you want to publish and I believe would be client privledged
infonnation whatever but to make that decision I think we have to look at the
financial side of it. I'd like to be able to make that. I'd like to be able to
do that because I agree with you on that area. That part of the BF, well
intentioned as it was when it was created. It used to be a business type area
am it made sense at that time to keep it there. It also makes sense not to.
I'd like to see a little financial analysis as to what we're getting ourselves
into. Sane concepts look nice am then you find out that those little concepts
can costs a million dollars and we have to say how nice is a million dollars
worth so that's where I'm coming from.
61
~,~.~:\~~t.~~(
.~:~1
.' .,_;......~.......~..-...i~sw-".'-''"''"
-....A...........;
106 (
Ci ty Council Meeting - f.je 27; 1988
((
Acting Mayor Geving: So what you're saying Jay, you suggested that the Attorney
look into some of the legal ramifications of looking in this direction and
converting that to real dOllars? What is our financial liability as well?
Counci lman Johnson: Right.
Acting Mayor Geving: Is that a fair question Roger? Can this be done?
Roger Knutson: Sure. ... the uncertaini ty that saneone else would conclude.
Acting Mayor Geving: But it's a fair cannent that you can take...
Roger Knutson: It might work for the City appraiser for example.
Councilman Johnson: But by him doing it for us, we're obtaining legal advice
fran him. If we ask the City Appraiser to do that for us, we lose our Attorney
client priviledge on it.
Acting Mayor Geving: '!here's no question that the basis for ~at you've
recarmendErl fran the Planning Ccmnission as moved am unanimously agreed to Tim,
is opening our eyes to the whole area down there. Maybe we made sane moves with
applicants that came in am had a good idea at the time am maybe the Council
considered it and said, yes that doesn't seem like such a bad place for that
kim of business not recognizing the long ter.m viewpoint am what this would do
if we continued to proliferate. I think your cannents are very appropriate. I
appreciated reading than and I know it took a lot of thought on your part and
certainly the Planning Ccmnission has studied this and given us their considered
opinion on it. You're speaking for than and I can see that, I think you did
your hanework.
Councilman Horn: When I read everything tha t Tim had put together, it wasn't
very clear in my mind... then I read the staff report and thought back to why we
established it iri the first place and I believe it was established as a planning
issue or a zoning issue before we had any applicants that came in. There's a
logic there that makes sense too. It's moving it to areas that created less
traffic than what was, already put in there and I agree with you, I don't think
any business like the type that has gone in down there in the past like the used
car sales am some of the business to the general public, are reasonable at all.
It was the intent, as I recall as Barb was explaining it to us for the business
fringe, that they would be the low traffic type of things. Where you go down
there and operate your business but you wouldn't create publing caning in and
out of there all the time so I weigh that wi th what is it taking? What can we
allow as a reasonable use and the logic says, that's the kind of thing you put
in there. Sanething that makes it less of a hazard than it was before but it
still allows them sane type of use. I think as far as A-2 goes, you can far.m
it or put a house on it. Obviously that land is not far.mable or a very small
portion of it is farmable. As far as putting a house down there, there are a
couple of houses down there but it's not" very attractive to have your driveway
COming right out on Highway 212 so my thinking has kind of cane around back
saying what staff recc:mnended for that made sane sense. I'm still concerned
about those safety issues and that they're gOOd points. I'm trying to find a
reasonable middle ground where we can do both. It's going to take, as Jay said,
a lot of what the Attorney tells us, is allowing a reasonable use going to make
that happen? I suspect looking at it now, we would have been in a much stronger
62
", - ,
er
\
\
".,
:-.~~~~~:;~ .:.~;~~-
-.~':~'-.
,
.
L.
.
City Council Meeting~ ~le 27, 1988
107
( .{.
position to go to A-2 or to leave it A-2 than having now gone to this change, to
try am go back, it makes it a lot tougher.
Tim Erhart: I think the intent of converting to A-2 was simply trying to reduce
the amount of developnent in ei ther the next 2" years or until such time the .
City really wants, at sane time to acquire it and make a park or maybe the State
wants to make a... By making it A-2 you can reduce the amount of developnent
and also reduce the amount of traffic that passes there.
Councilman Horn: I think the thing that broke the logic string for me was
allowing a nursery in there because that does cater more to a public type thing
and that's the one, as I think about what we tried to do, it doesn't make sense.
That's where I think we went across the line in what's reasonable. The others
are not much traffic generaters but the nursery I think is beyom what we had in
mind .
-
Councilman Boyt: The Planning Camtission Minutes of May 18th, Barbara made the
comments that there are several possibilities here which certainly looking at
the Zoning Ordinance is a good one. (be of the best things the City can do is
set appropriate zoning. She also mentioned though that let's consider other
approaches to sane of the motivational issues here in the zoning. The traffic
issues for instance. We have occasionally heard discussion about a frontage
road. Is that ever realistic? How much is it going to cost if we do a frontage
road? It seems to me I've heard figures of $5","00.0" for a frontage road at
same time. Is it conceivable that we can consider that as an alternative? I
guess I'm saying, even if we rezone it we're still stuck with a huge problan
that we've already got in the amount of traffic that goes through that dangerous
section of highway. Are we better off to open our perspective a little bit and
look at how do we resolve the issues that we currently have and does that set us
up for a better future? I agree with you. You talk a lot about the nature of
that strip of property and all I'm asking is that when we look at our report,
consider the possibility of zoning it some other zone than what it currently is,
let's look at other options that would be same sort of a permanent fix.
Tim Erhart: I think Barbara had in her report suggesting about $500,0"0.0".
Councilman Boyt:. Regardless of the cost, I think we need to have that kind of
information. As Barbara mentioned, maybe those properties don't have the
capability of paying off that sort of assessment but we need to know that
because I think that has an impact on what kim of zoning is permissible. It's
rather inappropriate to encourage any kind of business if we know we're never
going to be able to resolve the traffic problem.
Barbara Dacy: Decide to build the new TH 212.
Councilman Boyt: Well, outside of building the new TH 212.
Acting Mayor Geving: I guess what you're saying is that we not only have, we
created the problem because of sane of the businesses that we've let into that
area but what will happen in the interim between now and the time that we do
decide to take sane action am we get 2 or 3 more applicants caning in here?
They have every right in the world to move ahead in that business fringe area
and develop. I'm not an advocate of moratoriums but I certainly wouldn't want
us to have a couple more applicants cane in i.n the near future before we get
63
_,-'"',. .J..
-.-r.... _.,~._..;..-"
"~.~;
~a_~~~ -'r -~-~;....
1 O~ty Council Moeting _ r."\7' 1988
((
something in place if our desire is to prohibit it. If we really want to stop
that and take another look, we definitely want to be able to put in place some
mechanism just to hold things as they are until we can get that done.
Tim Erhart: I was stunnoo when that retail or that landscape thing went in
there. I go and buy gas down there quite often and I tell you, you go in that
service station and try to make a left turn to get back to my house, it is
scary.
Acting Mayor Geving: It's almost impossible.
Tim Erhart: It's real scary. I think if we're going to let businesses down
there.. .
Councilman Horn: As far as making it work, I think it wa~ just the last
individual. If you consider what was there before, a used car dealership, gas
station, to me those...
Acting Mayor Geving: '!hose were appropriate though in that area. '!hey've been
there for years and they're going to stay there for years.
Councilman Horn: It's part of what we tried to do by resorting was to restrict
that. I think we lost sight of what we were doing with this nursery.
Barbara Da.cy: At least you know that that's not going to go in there.
Councilman Horn: There's still a chance to tighten up. Whether we change it to
A-2 or even tighten up the business fringe even more to keep any kind of retail
out of there. . . . and then we don't have the change of zoning type of taking
that people will complain about.
Barbara Da.cy: I think the Attorney would agree that the moratorium option is
not a good one for the City to pursue and maybe we would nea3 to look at the
language for the uses in the BF district. Q.ztdoor display of merchandise for
sale is a very broad i tan. It could be trees, wi.dgets or usoo cars or anything.
I will pursue from the Council's comments that you basically concur with the
Planning Cammission's'recammendation.
Acting Mayor Geving: I believe that would be, at least what I've heard here.
Jay, do you agree that that's pretty much where we're going with this BF?
Alright. I don't know what you're looking for tonight Barbara. Just
concurrence on that issue?
Tim Erhart: I think the one question I'd like to have answered in my mind... to
revert back to the A-2. What is the real cost of liability? If somebody is
going to cane in here and say hey, you guys are taking and I want thousands of
dollars.
Acting Mayor Geving: It's certainly possible.
Tim Erhart: Because I kind of think that question, to do it right, I think
that's what it's going to cane down to. Is there a liability?
64
.
r
,
\
"';:-"r.:.-..,
.~"::'-J", . --, ..
.
1
.
..A.-
-.
~ City COuncil Meeting (.,.[~ 27, 1988
((
109
Acting Mayor Geving: You don't know if there's a liability until somebody lays
it on you.
COuncilman Horn: You wonder if it's a legal liability and a moral liability.
What damage are we actually doing to people fram a land value standpoint for
instance? Obviously that's not a legal issue or may not be a legal issue but
it's a moral issue for us.
Acting Mayor Geving: I don't know if we made a mistake in rezoning the area
like we did but I think we had good intentions. I think we had the best of
intentions. Based on all the discussion on where we were heading, it probably
seemed reasonable. What are you looking for tonight Barbara?
Barbara Dacy: Basically whether or not you concurred with the Planning
Carmission.
Acting Mayor Geving: en the BF District, yes. Do we want to turn the coin
over now and talk about A-2?
Tim Erhart: Regarding the long letter on the A-2. I think it's pretty s~le.
I think in 1984 when we talked about contractor's yards and contractor's yards
is really the prime issue I'm trying to deal with there. I don't think anybody
envisioned in 1984 the developnent that we were going to see in south
Chanhassen. In 1984 it was still, I think perceived by most people on the City
Council as agricultural land. It's not agricultural land today. What you have
there in south Chanhassen is low density residential period. There are two
fanners left in south Chanhassen so I think we have to find some uses here that
fit low density residential. Even if you believe that industrial uses is
compatible with agricultural land, it's not ag land anymore today. There are
houses allover the place and more coming in.
Acting Mayor Geving: And we knew that too when we started with some of our
sewer projects and so forth. We knew it was going to develop. Farmers would
go.
Tim Erhart: But you probably didn't know how fast it was going to occur with
this change in th~ 1 in 113 which drove almost everybody to subdivide their land.
Councilman Horn: There was another thing that we tried to do there too and that
was to protect same of the small businesses. At that point the only option them
had was to try to rent space in the industrial park or leave Chanhassen and we
didn't want that to happen. This is an interim type of use to try and keep
people in business until you're going to be forced out at some day. It really
put people on notice that at some time your operation is going to have to cease
and we're going to create a use for it in the agricultural area on an interim
basis. That's why they were all conditional uses because if they became a
problem and over intensified, when they came up for review...
Acting Mayor Geving: That may be true but what we created was long term. Some
of these people that we thought were going to be an interim solution just to
keep them in business in Chanhassen, they not only have became a business but
they've expanded the business into the adding areas and I don't know how you
shut them down. We legitimized them. We had them came in and became formally
65
LIO(
City Council Meeting - ~~ 27, 1988
((
recogni zed as a business as a contractor's yard and if you don't allow it, where
are you going to put them? There are more coming. There's going to be others.
-r
Councilman Horn: We've approved every expansion.
Acting Mayor Geving: Sure we have.
Councilman Horn: But we don't have to. When it becomes an over
intensification, shut them down.
Acting Mayor Geving: So people would say they belong in the industrial park.
Keep them in the industrial park. I don't know if we can. There is probably
twice as many construction yards out there that we don't even know about that
are working out of their yards am garages am so forth.
Tim Erhart: I think more important is you don't know when they expand. You've
had 1 or 2 come in here asking for expansion, I'd be surpriSed because I live
next to two of them and they just sort of expand. Q1e year they got a little
bigger am the next year.
Councilman Boyt: What's the possibility there Roger, if we don't have an
accurate means of keeping track of contractor's yard size, do we in effect after
say they've been that large for a year, that we basically grand fathered them in
at that size?
Roger Knutson: No. It becomes a matter of proof. You have to prove what they
look like. What you approved when you approved them.
~
Councilman Boyt: How many trucks they had or whatever?
Acting Mayor Geving: Bill, what you have to do is you almost have to take a
picture. A picture of the business as it existed on a given day. The guy owned
3 pick-ups, a Bobcat and x number of loads of rock and dirt am whatever am
that was his business.
Councilman Boyt: Do ~e have the capability of keeping track of the contractor's
yards we now have?
Barbara Dacy: Yes, by site inspection.
Councilman Boyt: I mean realistically. We can do that?
Barbara Dacy: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: We're getting better at it?
Barbara Dacy: With the addition of Scott Harr, we are.
Councilman Horn: He has to inventory everything that he's allowed on a
condi tional use permi t.
Councilman Boyt: It seems to me that possibility the ordinance already contains
an effective elimination of additional contractor's yards if the Council simple
enforces what we have to work with. If we've got that they can't be within a
tt:
66
..- ,.,_'.......' ~''''''..-=t' .:.. c....... ~. ~ .~- !:"."
.. --:',....~ ~_~<. "....".r. +- _
I'
.
1._
..
-. . City Council ~ting( .:.(.a 27, 1988
11]
((
mile of each other, we've basically covered Chanhassen right now but do we have
the dedication of purpose to enforce that?
Councilman Horn: I agree. I think it is controllable with what we have. If it
isn't being controlled, it's because we're not doing it.
Acting Mayor Geving: But what about sane of the Planning Cam1ission comnents on
what should be in and what should be out? What should we exclude? That's part
of Tim's reccmnendation. Churches, public buildings should be in and he wants
certain things out. ro you have any ccmnent on that? Things that don't fit.
Councilman Horn: I have no problem with doing it. I think that what we're
talking about here has to do with contractor's yards as a conditional use but I
think there are. I think the list he's given us is more appropriate.
Tim Erhart: I guess the kind of comnitment we're loo~ing for is the general
comnents, to look at the uses in the A-2 and cane back... If there are a number
of uses that you'd like at a contractor's yard to mean...why don't we look at
them all.
Councilman Horn: I might take exception to bed and breakfast though. I know
there's a proposal for the Assumption Seminary property to make it a bed and
breakfast and I think that's, I would love to see some type of good use made for
that property so this might be the excpeption to the rule.
Councilman Boyt: I think the work you put in on this justifies certainly
carrying it further forward. I think we would be very fortunate if other
Planning Commissioners would take on other zoning districts and do as thorough a
job as you've done with these. It's certainly a step forward and to have that
kind of dedication is great for the City. I would support it. I think you've
scratched the surface on a lot of tough issues and I'm not sure that I would
agree with everything you want to remove should be removed but I'd sure champion
your efforts.
Councilman Johnson: I'm in pretty well agreement here. Bed and breakfast, I
think sane size restrictions, I think it's Northfield and a few other places
that have sane ~ and breakfasts that are pretty large. They're small hotels
with 20-30 rooms and stuff like that so when we're talking about the lady down
on Bluff Creek who's got 4 or 5 rooms or whatever it is, that's one thing.
Pretty low intensive. I'm not too sure about temporary retail nurseries. If
it's not in there, I think we should have the public in the final
recommendation. Public buildings.
Tim Erhart: Let me explain that one a little bit. The attempt there was to
allow enough people like the one here who came in here and filed with us.
Acting Mayor Geving: Natural Green?
Tim Erhart: Yes, the one that was going to replace. To sanehow let them go in
on a temporary basis but when it was converted to a truly residential district,
that that permit would be automatically be removed. What you don't want them to
do is to go in and invest in a lot of buildings and permanent structures. Even
though you might want it now as a good thing for the City. What you don't want
to do is go for the permanent...
67--
;. ...JI::)_~!I'''''
_...,.-........',.;.;....#~/:
.-
1 12::ity Council Meeting - C~! 1.7, 1988
(-.(
Acting Mayor Geving: I don't know how you do that. I don't know how you do
that. I like the idea of tanporary but I don't know how you control that. I
don't know if you can legally.
Councilman Horn: '!hat's exactly our intent with contractor's yards.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think you've heard from us tonight. It's getting on to
11:30.
Councilman Johnson: I don't think retail, temporary or otherwise, is good down
there. We say we don't want the book store down there. I just don't think
retail is good in the A-2. You attract too much traffic.
Acting Mayor Geving: Barbara, you heard fran the Council tonight on some of the
direction. 'Ibat we're basically saying, Tim has done a terrific job here and
you just need to fine tune it am cane back to us. Thank you very much Tim. You
did a good job. And I would agree with Bill. I really personally like the idea
of Commission members taking on a task. I've always said that people who want
to take on a special assignnent. Clark has always had an interest in our
vehicles for example. He just digs right into those. Those are special
assignments and I'd like to see people do that.
Barbara Dacy: I also think Mr. Erhart's enthusiasm is also reflected in the
Commission's willingness to meet three times in JUly.
CITY COUNCIL SALARY SURVEY.
Don Ashworth: You received this from the League of Cities and basically would
ask the City Council whether or not you wish to consider that at this time. If
there's other information that you would like to have before considering that
type of change. I should note that any action that the Council would take can
not become effective until after the next regular general election. Again,
there is no necessity to make comparisons but I anticipated the Council would
want to so I've included literally all size communities. I have also circled
those communities that I think are closer to ourself as far as the amount of
work effort that council manbers are required to go through. In other words,
Orono may be larger but I do not believe at the current time that the total work
effort of an Orono councilmenber is anything close to what you are going through
yourselves.
Acting Mayor Geving: Or at Fagan or Eden Prairie. I think Eden Prairie, they
may be a lot bigger but I think in terms of the amount of effort in think in
this Council prObably. AnYwaY, go ahead Councilmenbers, give us your views.
Councilman Horn: I think the closest comparison we could come to would be
Chaska am we're right in line with them. It's my recomnemation that we do not
change.
Councilman Boyt: I like the figures Don pulled together and I agree completely
with Clark. No change.
'~8
.10'
-r
~-
,
"
,e
.
.
(
(
CITY OF
eHARHASSER
-
I~
MEMORANDUM
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN'\ctMfNNESOTA55317
(612) 937-1900 /
Indors~1
Modifit~
Rejecter!
",.-
Dzt~
TO:
Don Ashworth, City Mana~
Barbara Dacy, City Planner -~
Date :;c~=,-i::cd to ~~.~<l
i-';!?-L_
Dtte SubiT.:::cd to C:~X;-
FROM:
.
DATE:
June 23, 1988
SUBJ: Discuss Planning Commission Recommendations on Amendments
to the BF and A-2 Zoning Districts (ZOA 88-6)
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission has undertaken two studies of the zoning
districts in Chanhassen's rural area. Commissioner Erhart has
spearheaded these analyses with written recommendations as to
potential zoning ordinanc~ amendments the city could process
regarding the BF, Business Fringe and the A-2, Agricultural
Estates District. The Planning Commission at the May 4, 1988,
meeting endorsed Mr. Erhart's comments regarding removing the
Business Fringe District designation along TH 212 east of TH 101
to A-2, Agricultural Estate. At the June 1, 1988, meeting, the
Commission endorsed Mr. Erhart's recommendations as to amendments
to the A-2, Agricultural Estate District. The Planning
Commission would like the City Council to discuss these two
topics and make a determination as to whether or not a specific
zoning ordinance amendment should be initiated.
ANALYSIS
Amendments to A-2 District (Attachment #1)
Attachment #1 represents Mr. Erhart's letter dated May 27, 1988,
a~lyzing uses currently permitted and not permitted in the A-2
District. The Planning Commission concluded that contractor's
yards, bed and breakfasts and mineral extraction uses be elimi-
nated. The Commission also recommended that temporary retail
n~rseries, churches, beach lots and golf courses be added to the
list of conditional uses.
As to the recommendation to add additional conditional uses,
staff concurs with the Commission's recommendation for all of
them except to note that temporary retail nurseries needs to be
studied further. Defining and regulating the term "temporary"
may be difficult.
...... ....
(
(
Mr. Don Ashworth
June 23, 1988
Page 2
.
If the intent is to limit the scale and intensity of the retail
activity, other devices should be used rather than using the term
temporary. This deserves further investigation by staff, com-
mission and council.
As to the uses that are to be eliminated, several issues
regarding contractor's yards, bed and breakfasts and mineral
extraction are raised. The Council will recall that an ordinance
amendment process was conducted in 1984 to permit existing
contractor's yards to operate within the rural area. Although
staff concurs with the Planning Commission's recommendation
regarding these uses in the rural area, the Council needs to
discuss whether or not it wants to re-evaluate its decision in
1984. As to the bed and breakfast establishments, the city
undertook an extensive analysis of bed and breakfasts upon a
specific request on Bluff Creek Drive. Although this particular
site has been sold, the ordinance regulations have appeared to
work in limiting the intensity of this type of use in the rural
area. The definition of bed and breakfast limits the total
number of rooms to five. This was done in order to draw a
distinction between a bed and breakfast and a hotel. Staff
believes that the ordinance does provide a unique opportunity for
someone in our area to operate a bed and breakfast versus
creating a "hotel". .
The mineral extraction section of the Zoning Ordinance pertains
not only to the removal of sand and gravel but also to grading
property. The only instance of mineral extraction in the city is
the Moon Valley Excavation area. Removing mineral extraction as
a conditional use in the A-2 District would make the existing use
a non-conforming use. At this time, staff does not have infor-
mation available which could provide to the Council as to whether
or not this would impact the operation or would impact other
areas in the city. It should be noted that because this ordi-
nance pertains to grading of properties, we do not want to remove
the possibilty for a farmer or property owner the ability to
grade property. In fact, there are sections in the mineral
extraction ordinance that could be further investigated by the
Planning and Engineering Departments as to format and language
regarding grading permit procedures. Therefore, staff would
recommend that we would be directed to analyze Article 27 of the
Zoning Ordinance regarding procedures, language and applicability
in certain areas of the city.
Removing the BF, Business Fringe District (Attachment 12)
Attachment #2 is the memorandum that was sent to the Planning
Commission regarding this item. To summarize, staff's position
was that some of the lots in the BF District area could not be
put to a reasonable use under the A-2 District regulations. The .
"' ,__.i _4;.-_._~.........' ~""",),i;-,
~~ ..Vt~'..~ '" .......u:> <.....
,.
.
.
(
(
Mr. Don Ashworth
June 23, 1988
Page 3
City Attorney visited the area with staff and was concerned
about which parcels would be removed from the Business Fringe
District. Again, while staff agrees with the general principles
put forth by the Commission, there may be legal implications
arising out of rezoning this area to the A-2 District. The
Council should indicate in concept whether or not you agree with
the Planning Commission's intent.
RECOMMENDATION
Commissioner Erhart will be present at.the meeting to present
these two items in conjunction with Planning Staff. .Council
should give staff direction regarding these two issues.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from Tim Erhart dated May 27, 1988.
2. Planning Commission packet dated April 29, 1988.
3. Planning Commission minutes dated May 4, 1988.
4. Planning Commission minutes dated June 1, 1988.
.~... ....,...:"~......,;.......:'...~-
. "
.
, ~.,;..::..,...-~-~...-.....~y,;...j;,
(
(
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 30
.
~
,
Dacy: I just said that. I said this portion.
Batzli: Can we take about a 5 minute break here and just get together and
try to draft something?
Conrad: I don't think we need to. I think we have given Barbara... I'd
prefer not to draft wording to an ordinance by the Planning Commission.
It's just not appropriate but the intent Barbara, I guess we'd have to
agree with what Steve is saying. I don't know that there's a practical
aspect to Chanhassen in what you're saying.
Emmings: Where there's a railroad or a road, you've got the distance.
Now we're concerned about the screening. So we're not so concerned about
setbacks except in so far as screening takes a certain amount of land.
Conrad: Does everybody agree with what Steve said in terms of philosophy?
Barbara, if we agree philosophically with Steve's, if that's agreeing
with some kind of an intent, what would you prefer to have us do? We
can't make a motion on absolute words because they're not there yet.
Dacy: I would recommend that you move to amend the Section as listed on
page 3 of the staff report. State your intent and then I'll get with th.
City Attorney to draft the language. As a matter of fact, what I'll do
have the Attorney review verbatim Minutes to make sure.
Conrad: Do you have a reason to move it through the City Council in two
weeks?
Dacy: I don't think it could get to Council by the 13th anyway with him
having to review the Minutes but it would certainly be on the 27th.
Conrad: So it could be back here for our next meeting?
Dacy: So if you wanted to table it until the next meeting...
Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to table action on the Zoning Ordinance
Amendment to amend Sections 20-695, 20-715, 20-755, 20-774, 20-795 and
20-815 until the next meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved, Erh?rt seconded to approve the
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 18, 1988. All voted
in favor except Conrad and Headla who abstained and the motion carried.
~EN DISCUSSIO~
Conrad: Let me introduce this. Commissioner Erhart would like the
Planning Commission to discuss the attached at Wednesday's meeting.
I think as I said before the meeting started, this is really a nice
analysis. You did a real nice job of reviewing the situations down there.
I appreciate that. That's really terrific. Steve, did you have any
.
Tim,
(
(
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 31
.
'-
recommendations that you wanted to give?
Emmings: Yes, I just think too, Tim has made a very compelling case here.
Both from the way you handle contractor's yards when they're moving into
the A-2 district and I think this ought to go to staff and they should
give us their input on what Tim has proposed here and we should consider
it as an amendment to our Zoning Ordinance.
Conrad: I guess we could go over this tonight Barbara, verbatim or Tim
could give us an overview of it. It's real understandable. I'm not sure
that he needs to do that. What Steve is saying he'd like staff to review
it and comment on the specifics of it and tell us where staff feels it is
inappropriate or look for the loopholes or look--for the reasons not to
make this an amendment.
Dacy: We have reviewed it and give the approach as similar to the one
that you took with the BF district. That maybe we should send this to
Council. If the Planning Commission endorses it, give it to Council as a
discussion item. Say this is where the Planning Commission would like to
head on a potential zoning ordinance amendment issue.
.
Emmings: The choice between letting them have a first look at it as
opposed to sending them specific language to change the ordinance?
-
Dacy: It might be good this way so that the Council can get a feel for
where the Planning Commission is coming from as a whole on this.
Erhart: Except the last paragraph, I think there's only one paragraph
that's missing. Rather than just passing, you say here's a great idea and
pass it to Council. I think it's worthwhile having Commissioner's comment
on some of these items before we pass it on. I agree that we shouldn't
try to create language here at this point and get to the specifics but I
think in this kind of thing, they really need to look at the comments of
the Commissioners.
Emmings: I don't agree with you for the simple reason that we don't very
often pass them something that's so thoroughly explained.
Conrad: It's real logical.
Emmings: I thi nk what we're saying, I thi nk tha t 's a good idea to pass it
up to the Council just maybe with a comm~nt that we think that based on
this we should make some changes to the Zoning Ordinance.
Dacy: We could schedule it for the 27th. Kind of reserve a special area.
. ~- .'- ,----~--,>....,. -
.,~-,;-'.~"""
(
(
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 32
.
"
Emmings: Do they want us to basically look at the zoning amendments to
bring the zoning ordinance in line with a lot of the things that you're
discussing.
Conrad: Is there anything in here that somebody would like to bring up as
something we wouldn't want Council to see? Something that we don't agree
with in Tim's analysis. Is there something that's really objectionable?
Wildermuth: There's one thing that occurred to me as I read it. ...the
A-2 district out there? Almost everything is already is A-I and one of
the things, in addition to letting in A-2 would be to require that the
contractor's yard...in A-I.
Erhart: There is a substantial difference between A-I and A-2.
Wildermuth: But in your own table analysis here.
Erhart: There is on lot size and so forth.
Dacy: The A-I is 40 acres and that's specifically for ag preserve.
Erhart: You eliminate A-I and there are only two parcels in the whole
ci ty in A-I.
.
"-
Dacy: We can't eliminate A-I because State Law says we have to provide
for a zoning district to allow it.
Wildermuth: That was just a thought that occurred.
Dacy: The only staff comment is on the contractor's yard. That might be
a little politically messy because four years ago the Council went through
a process to amend the agricultural districts at that time to allow
contractor's yards so now you have a process four years later that's
proposing to eliminate them and Tim and I have talked about that.
Wildermuth: This is a different Council.
Dacy: Exactly and that's another reason that I think it would be good to
have the Council discuss this thoroughly before you start notifying
property owners and conducting a public hearing.
Headla: What was your point?
Dacy: My point was that four years ago the Coucnil specifically amended
the agricultural district at that time to include contractor's yards. Now
this amendment would go back and exclude them. Remove them as a
conditional use so I'm saying that four years is relatively a short time
span and I talked about this with Tim and that might be politically mess.
for some of the. Council members. That's the reason why it should be
discussed though.
'-.
-.
(
(
Planning Commission Meeting
June 1, 1988 - Page 33
'.
Conrad: What we'd like to do then, if we send this up to Council for
their discussion and their direction to staff.
Erhart: Are we all saying generally favorable direction on this?
Conrad: I've got some small nit picky things.
Erhart: You're using just the Minutes to support that?
Conrad: I think in our motion we can...
Erhart: You're looking for a motion?
Conrad: Yes.
Erhart: Okay.
Conrad: And send this to City Council to provide staff with the direction
and I think under that motion we can comment that the Planning Commission
endorses this particular paper. Is there a motion?
.
Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to send Tim Erhart's memorandum
dated May 27, 1988 onto the City Council for them to direct staff and the
Planning Commission with regard to it's content and further action on it,
noting that the Planning Commission finds this to be logically explained
and an all around good idea. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Emmings moved, Elison seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m..
Submitted by Barbara Dacy
City Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim
.
-~ ."
--_.~:-
(,
(
.. ,
,
· c
Tim A. Erhart
775 West 96th Street
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
.
May 27, 1988
Planninq Commission
Subject: land use in A-2 Districts of Chanhassen
We have recently reviewed a number of proposals raising the question: What
is proper land use in Chanhassen's A-2 Zoning District? The proposals we've
seen include batting facilities, miniature golf courses, produce stands,
retail nurseries, contractors' yards, garbage truck storage and cleaning,
etc. -
We have attempted to use our zoning ordinance as a gUide in approving or
denying these requests. In general our new ordinance is consistent in its
assignment of compatible uses in the various zoning districts. The
exception is the A-2 district where the allowed uses are incompatible in
some cases. As a result, I have become increasingly uncomfortable with the
recommendations that the commission has been forced to make following the
gUidelines of our zoning ordinance.
In analyzing this problem we should review the first stated "Purpose" of our .
zoning ordinance:
1-21 "Protect residential, commercial, industrial, and
institutional areas from the intrusion of incompatible uses."
, i
Applying this goal as the basis for determining acceptable uses in a
particular zoning district we must decide which uses are compatible and
which are intrusive within any particular district.
The titles of the districts, to a great degree, tell us what the intended
uses are. For example, the intent statement for the A-2, Agricultural
Estate District states "Preservation of rural character while respecting
development patterns by allowing single family residential development". In
general, those uses which are compatible with intent of the A-2 district
are those associated with raising crops and cattle. In addition, things
found in residential areas such as swimming pools, tennis, day care, and
home occupations would be compatible in this area by definition. One can
generally conclude that uses relating to agriculture and listed in the A-I,
Agricultural Preserve district as well as. those uses generally related to
Residential and found listed in the RSF, Residential Single Family district
should be allowed. This analysis is straightforward and one might conclude
that a method for creating the list for the A-2 district would be to simply
list all those allowed in both A-I and RSF districts. For the most part
this has been done as the following chart shows.
1
.
." ...................'-... ......"'..,__._:.0.
.". _......."....... ~._---.... .......~.
"
(
(
'. Permitted Uses A-I RSF A-2
Agriculture X X
Public & private parks & open space X X X
Single family dwellings X X X
Utility services X X X
State licensed day care center
for twelve or fewer children X X X
State licensed group home serving
six or fewer persons X X X
Temporary real estate office and
model homes X X
Arboretums X X
Permitted Accessory Uses A-I RSF A-2
. Agricultural buildings X X
Garage X X X
Private stables X X
Swimming pools X X X
Tennis court X X X
Signs X X X
Home occupations X X X
One dock X X X
Road side stand X X
Private kennel X X X
Conditional Uses A-I RSF A-2
Public building X
Temporary mobile home X X
Group home for 7-10 persons X
Churches X 0
Private stables X X
Residential beach lots X 0
Commercial kennels, stables, X X
riding academies
.
2
"".<r . - ,.... - .....~.......It t>.-....... ...,..- ..~.--~
.' .,""........,.............-
(
(
Notably absent from the list in the A-2 area are: Public Buildings,
Churches and Beach Lots. I suggest we revi ew the absence of these uses
since it appears we are acting as if some of these are included as
allowable uses in the A-2 area.
In analyzing this, you can see that to a great degree, the A-I and RSF
districts are inherently compatible as we see that all most all of the uses
listed are allowed in both districts. Note that industrial and commercial
uses however, are not allowed in either area.
There are three other major categori es of uses whi ch keep comi ng to the
Commission as a desired use (by applicants) in this district. Some are
incompatible uses and shouldn't be allowed yet are found listed as allowed.
Some uses are probably compatible, but are not allowed.
General Use CateQories Discussed:
OPEN SPACE RECREATIONAL
SALE OF UNPROCESSED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
INDUSTRIAL/NON-AG COMMERCIAL
I believe we must carefully analyze these uses and eliminate those which are
currently allowed which are intrusive. We should also review some uses
which I believe should be included in the A-2 district but are not.
Completing this task would eliminate the contradiction in the list of
allowed uses and better help guide Chanhassen's growth. In addition, we can
avoid some of the problems we now experience such as contractor's yards in
an RSF district which become permanent neighborhood fixtures.
OPEN SPACE RECREATIONAL
Definition:
Open .space recreational can be defined as those uses which require large
parcels of inexpensive land for outdoor sporting or cultural activity.
Examples: Golfing, hunting clubs, stables, parks, arboretums, zoos.
Analysis:
These uses already exist within the A-2 district of Chanhassen and are not
intrusive with the rural nature of the area. Some of these activities
require buildings or equipment which may be intrusive, however in all cases
the structure is accessory to the primary use, that being use of the land.
3
~-
.
.
~
.
,e
.
.
.,
(
(
,
..
SALE OF UNPROCESSED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Definition:
This is a business whose major activity is selling or distributing
unprocessed agri cultural products such as vegetabl es, frui ts, flowers and
nursery stock.
Analysis:
Our current ordinance allows both road side stands and wholesale nurseries
in the A-2 districts. The road side stand is retail, while the wholesale
nursery, which by definition, is not. Our ordinance does not restrict
activity to sales of only those items grown on site. Sales of agricultural
products by local growers have long been associated with the rural setting
and as long as the sales are restri cted to unprocessed materi a 1 s e. g. ,
fruit, plants, trees, etc. I believe this activity in fact compliments the
agricultural nature of the district.
Should we allow retail Nursery sales in the A-2 area? I believe we should.
We currently have two nurseries within our A-2 district. Halla Nursery
se 11 s retail because it is grand fathered . Northwest Nursery woul d 1 i ke to
sell retail, but is restricted to wholesale at this time. Like Halla,
Northwest grows some of its material on site.
I suggest that if retail sales occur on site that we limit those sales to
materials grown on site or on surrounding properties. This would, in fact,
encourage owners to ma i nta in current farm 1 and in some kind of product ion
rather than sub-dividing. In effect allowing retailing of "home grown"
products can actually assist the city in maintaining our open space as long
as possible.
I also believe we should make the retail sales of agricultural products a
temporary one. This would prevent operators from building permanent
structures and prevent incompatibility later, when a higher density
residential use occurs. These buildings must be removed and the use
suspended when an A-2 (or RR) area becomes residential only.
~
4
.'.. - .....
(
(
INDUSTRIAL/NON-AG COMMERCIAL
.
Definition:
An industrial or commercial use can be defined by an activity involving
employees, equipment and warehousing whereby a product is manufactured or a
service is rendered. The primary facility of an Industrial Non-Agj
Commercial use is the buildings and equipment whereas the land becomes an
accessory. Thi s compares to farms, nurseri es and outdoor recreation where
the land is primary and the structur~s and equipment are accessory.
I
I
I .
Analvsis
Somehow, in the A-2 district, we have come to accept the idea that an
industrial use is compatible within the rural setting. I cannot develop any
argument for concluding that such a use is at all compatible with the stated
intent for the A-2 district. Moreover, I find that industrial and non-Ag
commercial uses are the most intrusive uses conceivable when you consider
the type of buildings, their permanence, the equipment, and the type of
act i vity i nc 1 ud i ng numerous employees, are central to the purpose of th is
use.
No different than those businesses which occupy our industrial zones, a
contractors' yard, is an industrial use.
There are employees who live off-site
The business is housed in an industrial building
Equipment is used for the purpose of conducting commercial
business
There is warehousing
There is payroll
Nothing is grown on the site which contributes to the business
Buildings are permanent
.
, i
It is obviously more economical to put a contractor's yard on a farm site
where land is cheaper than in an industrial. park. Due to the close
proximity to the metro area and the cost advantage compared to industrial
districts, we are seeing a growing number of requests for conditional use
permi ts for contractors' yards. It appears that Chanhassen is one of the
few remaining suburbs allowing contractors' yards in its Rural Residential
areas. We have worked hard to develop plans and ordinances which assure the
orderly development of Chanhassen maintaining its natural beauty and small
town image. Quickly our beautiful open areas are turning into industrial
sprawl as contractors' yards pile up vehicles, storage garages, equipment,
mounds of barren dirt, rotting lumber and rusting steel.
When a condit i ona 1 use permit is approved for a contractor's yard, the
permit goes with the property. As a result, we cannot seem to el iminate
this use when residential density increases, as it certainly will, in this .
5
,.
.
.
-;
(
(
area. Lastly, . historically the city has been unable to enforce the
regulation which applies to contractor's yards. As a result, the
contractor's yards tend to grow and become increasingly unsightly and
intrusive.
Following is a list of uses allowed in the A-2 district which are neither
agriculturally related or residentially related, nor are they allowed in the
purely agricultural area (A-I) or the purely residential area (RSF). The
one exception is Bed and Breakfast.
Conditional Uses
A-I RSF A-2
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Bed and Breakfast
Mineral extraction
Cemetery
Contractor's Yard
Commercial communications
Wholesale nursery
Electric Sub-station
One might argue that the A-2 area is uniquely suited to serve some of these
uses such as commercial communications and sub-stations. The remaining, I
bel ieve, are incompatible and should be removed as permitted or
conditionally permitted uses in the A-2 district. For example, I must
question whether mineral extraction is still compatible considering the
increasing population density in our A-2 district. By listing "bed and
breakfast", does that mean we want someone building a new hotel in our rural
area?
The most gross intrusion however is the contractor's yard. Contractor's
yards have nothing at all to do with agricultural activity. They are
incompatible with residential and agricultural settings. They are, in fact,
a blight to the single amenity which Chanhassen residents value most when
asked - our remaining open and wooded areas.
We must be careful not to confuse a 1 andscape contractor with a who 1 esa 1 e
nursery. Landscape contractors are i ndustri a 1. They do not grow anythi ng
and therefore cannot be cons i dered agri cultura 1. We must be sure that the
language of our ordi nance properly separates 1 andscape contractors from
nursery operators.
We have had an opportunity recently to observe fi rst hand the results of
allowing contractors' and landscapers' yards within Rural and Residential
areas of Chanhassen. After studyi ng the issue, I have concl uded that
allowing contractors' yards outside an industrial zone goes completely
against the purpose and objective of our zoning ordinance. Worst, it is a
growing blight to our community. Lastly, we are creating problems which
are not easy to solve in the future as we have seen in the Lowell Carlson
property case.
6
".- . .......-..,.~:~
I
!
Recommendation
c
(-
.
I recommend that we eliminate contractors' yards, bed and breakfast
establ ishments, and mineral extraction as' allowed uses in the A-2 areas. I
~also recommend that we add temporary retail nurseries, churches, beach lots
and golf courses to the list of conditionally allowed uses in the A-2
./Clct.
Jdi
E t/.
:J
.
7
.
.,.. " :... ~...;
JUN (} 8 1988
Cl ry OF CHANi-lASSEN
.
..-. ....
,-
(-
~'
\..
CITY 0 F
eRANRASSEN
-.
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission ~
Barbara Dacy, City Planner~
FROM:
DATE:
April 29, 1988
SUBJ:
BF, Business Fringe District Discussion
-
This item was tabled from the April 20, 1988, meeting. Attached
is a letter from Commissioner Erhart regarding his aguments to
rezone the current land zoned as Business Fringe District from TH
101 on the west to the eastern property limits of the former
Mobil Station on the north side of TH 212. The following analy-
zes the uses currently existing and proposed in that area.
BACKGROUND
The subject are was rezoned to the BF District along with the
effective date of the new Zoning Ordinance on February 19, 1987.
Originally, this area and the area to the east was zoned C-3 by
the former 1972 Zoning Ordinance (where Moon Valley Excavation
and Rifle Range exist). Therefore, the city upon adopting the
new Zoning Map reduced the originally considered commercial area
to its current size. There is only one other BF district area
farther to the west on TH 212 immediately adjacent to Chaska now
occupied by Gary Brown's mini-warehouse units. The existing uses
on the south side of TH 212 are zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate
and are considered non-conforming. The 1972 ordinance did not
include this area as commercial and had been zoned R-la,
Agricultural Residence. In the BF District area on the north
side of TH 212 east of TH 101, there are currently eight property
ownerships: I} Brookside Motel, 2} the former Lydia Teich prop-
erty now approved for Admiral Waste Management contractor's
yard, 3} Brambilla's property now authorized for outdoor display
of landscape products, 4} the Sorenson/Jedlicki property
authorized for cold storage warehouse units,S} the Vernon Teich
property which is currently in small agricultural usage, 6} the
former Mobil Station site, 7} and 8} two single family homes.
-
ANALYSIS
The City Attorney cautione1 that upon rezoning from Business
Fringe to the A-2, Agricultural Estate District, the city would
(
(
Planning Commission
April 29, 1988
Page 2
.
have to show that rezoning would not be denying the individual
property owner reasonable use of the land. If the property can-
not be used for agricultural or residential purposes, the
property owner may have a claim for a taking.
The Brookside Motel is currently non-conforming. The contrac-
tor's yard and cold storage sites are consistent with the current
uses permitted in the BF, Business Fringe District as well as
Brambilla's outdoor display of landscape products. Of these
four parcels, only the contractor's yard property could be con-
sidered for an agricultural use because approximately 8 acres of
the total 13 acres could be farmed. The rear of the Brambilla
property is less than an acre in size. It is dubious as to
whether or not a reasonable agricultural use exists on that pro-
perty. The former Mobil Station and the Brookside Motel property
have no potential for agricultural use.
Except for the Brookside Motel, the existing and approved uses
require little demands as to septic system and well use because
of the low number of employees needed to run the businesses.
However, in the case of the contractor's yard, in order to build
a substantial building the property owner is faced with require-
ments for sprinklering, installation of adequate well reservoirs, .
holding tanks for pumping, and access improvements.
While it is true that non-conforming uses should be discontinued,
it should also be ensured that the property can be used for some
other type of use. Given that the city established commercial
zoning for the properties on the north side of TH 212 and has
authorized a minimal amount of use in that area, removing the
Business Fringe District, if pursued by the Commission or
Council, should be analyzed thoroughly by the Attorney's Office
before final action. The properties on the south side of TH 212
have not had any type of commercial zoning placed on the property
and have existed as non-conformities. The city is in a better
position in this manner in that it is not removing any develop-
ment rights previously established.
As is pointed out by Commissioner Erhart, there are advantages to
removing any commercial activity along this corridor given the
safety issues involved with TH 212 and 169. It was estimated by
MnDOT that in order to construct a bypass lane in front of the
subject area, it could cost up to $500,000. Further, as pointed
out by Commissioner Erhart, there are visual impacts that do
arise from commercial enterprises in this major corridor into the
community. Eden prairie so far has been successful in preventing
commercial development along its corridor except for the Lion's
Tap which was previously established. However, as one enters
Chanhassen, because of the existence of these buildings and uses .
for several. years, a commercial pattern was created.
,.
.
.
(
(-
Planning Commission
April 29, 1988
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION
These issues should be discussed by the Planning Commission for
further staff direction. This office firmly believes in the
intent of Mr. Erhart's comments and concurs with the general
principles of limiting access onto a major arterial such as TH
212 and preserving a pleasing landscape through this area of
Chanhassen. However, there are potential legal implications from
this action that upon Planning Commission direction should be
pursued in more detail.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location map.
2. Proposed corridor study and proposed transportation element
of the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Letter from Tim Erhart dated April 26, 19~8.
NOTE: I have a larger scale land use and property ownership map
which will be presented at the meeting.
c:::::>
,~ I
I-
4
A2 9
0
,
~~
/
..
A2
r..
~
,
._..;
~.
1
II
.~i
~"
.
"
.J
\.
I
~ ~
':..; :
..N
w..
.-
.0
~_.
~! 8
:10
.
..
:j!
"N
E:
w!
z.
..
.
-.......
<I:
U
~
I>l
:iE
<I:
~:
....
",,,,
l>J _
.......
<I:!!!
~i6
.1
,
"
--....::;:, -
'-,. ~-,
":'. -,
"'-. .......,...
C
I>l
....
Z
::l
,
'(
~ ..-r
'q~i
.....
"
-.-'-,
....
-1oYl
,..
'('.- -_.
~
G>(), .,.
~
If'
-;-'1.
('II
~~
~
\,Y
~
~"
~
-------.
u ~... .
1.10 ,~..fS
. - .:.~ .'.",*
'-
-.
\I.l
0-
Il.
~;'-'"
...
cj~
~,.;
<I:~
Z'"
~
~ ",
b
"'r"
,"
M"
"'-
:'~
N$
II
, OOow
1.C 1II
t.
..
ci
..,
%.
~.
4:11
~..
rr..
..
rr.~
~CD
Q.
z
~
rr.
"'...
r:,:II
"'..
J.
..
"'-
~~
~
.t'-.
~
1:1:
<II
CX:'"
::l'"
Ill'"
..
III -
:l>J1
Cl"
cx:'"
o
uJ
Cl
.,.
4
"
:-.,t,:t:-if
.~
, ~ I
t 0 I
oJ
\---. -
NO/J./OOtt
(
-0,
.,..
_"l~~~ .",',-s;"
.J
.';;-,"
.~ ~'~~.;.~-
- ...._ ".,_A.
~ ....~~.i..~ ~-,~~
. .' ','
~t;
~~~-~:~tlt~1
.~ .A"r '~P""~~l"-'-"'f-.~~
" ...:."~~.<>;~,'~~:~~/"'j..;..li .'';>''-~
.~. /. -~" f '''~-'''l ~+fiii:\
:. _,.....J~ p'J ~<v..~~. _ ...
~-
'. ',~:1j::. ~.k.;'.: i.i~;~
.C.;. ; r ....~T
.._.-:~..';'h::-'M ~~~~",:I-
'" "_',",W' 1 ,'.'''~.~.,
". ~'--:-"";"~" .:;~.-_J'{'t.'" ...,_!..-:;-
- '0''''
{
(
,
Tim A. Erhart
775 West 96th Street
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
.
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Minnesota River Valley Plan
Date: May 18, 1988
As a member of the Planning Commission and living close to the Minnesota
River Valley area, I have come to appreciate the unique resource which
exists in our city. Unfortunately, our current approach to planning in this
area guarantees both a missed opportunity and the extenuation of dangerous
traffic conditions by encouraging commercial development within this area.
The area in the valley from Flying Cloud Airport to Chaska north of TH 212
consists of severe terrain with bluffs and wash outs as you go up the
valley wall. The severe erosion and numerous streams flowing down the
valley wall give the area both a unique appearance and environmental quality
unique to our area. It also poses substantial danger any time development
occurs due to the unavoidable erosion of the steep terrain. The valley in
this area south of TH 212 lies within the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife
Refuge. .
In addition heavy traffic, much of it trucks, combined with a three mile
downhill grade, makes any stops or turns in the area extremely dangerous.
Since no service roads exist on TH 212 businesses in this area must access
directly onto TH 212.
The City of Eden Pra i ri e has already seen fi t to preserve the vall ey by
maintaining much of the area north of TH 212 as Aqricultural. In addition,
an overlay Conservancy District limits development in both the Minnesota
Valley as well as the Purgatory and Riley Creek watershed. The Eden Prairie
ordinance allows only Ag and large lot residential uses. The only non-
conforming structure in Eden Prairie is Lyon's Tap.
Over the years, a few businesses have sprung up in the Valley in Chanhassen.
Many of these have gone out of business due mostly to the fact that the
area really doesn't lend itself to a business environment being just across
the bridge from Shakopee. In addition, the heavy traffic and high speeds
discourage stops by motorists along this route.
The remaining businesses on the south side include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hotel
Super America
Junk yard
Vacant restaurant building
1
.
,e
.
.
t
(
'-
All of these are non-conforming since this area is designated A-2 and all of
the area south of TH 212 is included in the Minnesota Valley National
Wildlife Refuge.
We have designated a portion of the valley in Chanhassen as BF (Business
Fringe) which is a commercial use. Existing businesses located within the
BF district in the TH 101/212 intersection area include:
1. Brookside Hotel
2. Vacant gas station
The hotel is legal non-conforming since hotels are not allowed in the BF
district. No sewer and water exists or is planned for this area, therefore
commercial use is limited to low water usage businesses.
-
We have recently allowed three new business in this area: Cold storage,
garbage truck storage and cleaning, and outdoor display of merchandise
(landscape business). Fortunately the garbage truck business is not located
directly on TH 212. The cold storage and landscape businesses however pose
a definite safety hazard for all customers of these businesses.
There are a number of issues which cause me to urge the members of the
Planning Commission to recommend that the zoning in this vicinity be changed
from BF to A-2 Agricultural Estate. (I am not suggesting we change the BF
area existing next to Chaska.)
1. We have an immedi ate opportunity to provide a truly uni que green
area within the metropol itan area for future generations. If we
delay, we will probably miss this opportunity altogether. Much of
the area (south of TH 212, all of Eden Prairie, and most of
Chanhassen) is already restricted from development.
The landscape is delicate and surely doesn't lend itself to
development due to severe erosion potential.
2.
3.
We are encouraging business to develop along a highway where a
long downhill run causes traffic to travel at speeds ranging from
55-70 mph. The density of traffic in this area averages 20,000
vehicles per day. Much of this is grain trucks which simply
cannot stop when coming down the hill. To encourage more direct
access onto TH 212 is simply going to directly cost lives. On the
one hand, the city is taking the responsibility to encouraging the
growth of a commercial area but we are not providing the access
roads which are required for safe ingress and egress for these
businesses. 1 have voted against each of the two proposals
because 1 cannot in good conscience agree to creating such a
dangerous situation.
2
(
(
4.
A commercial area requires sewer and water. Sewer and water is
not planned for this area for any time within the next 30 years.
5. Designating the area A-2 is totally appropriate in that a certain
amount of agriculture use occurs in the area today. The Valley in
Eden Prairie and most of Chanhassen is already designated
agricultural and low density residential. In addition, the area
includes two homes which would conform nicely to the allowable
uses in the A-2 area. Lastly, the one unit on 10 acres and large
lot requirement of residential development in the A-2 district
would conveniently limit the growth of homes preventing increased
density, further erosion and traffic problems.
.
6. Changing the zoning to A-2, Agricultural Estate allows reasonable
use of the property: Agricultural or residential lots. We've
seen that the area is not a viable commer~ial area, therefore it
is arguable whether the property is worth more or 1 ess zoned
commercial. Zoned commercial restricts the owners from selling
residential lots.
I believe the urgency of this matter should cause immediate passing on this
recommendation to council before any additional plans are submitted for the
commercial use of this area.
If,
J!k~
TAE:j
.
3
.
'.
.
. ,
.
(
(
u.s. 169/212, (Flying Cloud Drive)
Corridor Study
LOCATION AND LENGTH: Fran Chanhassen's eastern border (Eden Prairie) to the
western border (Chaska). Approximately 2.7 miles.
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: Minor Arterial (1987 Chanhassen Comprehensive
Plan) .
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 20,000 (1984) East of T.H. 101
19,600 - 35,400 (2005) Depending upon Construction of
New T.H. 212.
oe:sC1UPl'ION: u.s. 169jU.S. 212 is a combined roadway traversing the extreme
southern section of Chanhassen. The two lane, undivided highway carries
substantial traffic since it is a segment of a route connecting western
Minnesota to the TWin Cities.
PROPOSED LAND USE: Southern Chanhassen is not served by sanitary sewer.
Consequently, no new urtan scale development has occurred in recent years. A
series of "grandfa thered" businesses exists east of the intersection of u.S.
169/212 and u.s. 169/I'.H. 101. Of these lJses, some are conforming to the
business fringe (BF) zone while others are non-conforming.
The land use element of the 1987 Canprehensive Plan acknowledges the existence
of the conforming uses, however, land use policies discourage their expansion.
Non-conforming uses by ordinance are prohibited from enla rging or extending
their operations.
.', ~ ,~..... ,- ...............
-~
r
(
Proposed land uses along the U.S. 169 & U.S. 212 Corridor have been identified .
as a statement of long term city policy. In this case, long term is defined
as being post 2000, possibly 2020 or beyond. The City of Chanhassen does not
plan to expand the business fringe (SF) zone, hence, development will not
Occur prior to the availability of sanitary sewer service. Long term land
uses follow a theme of diversity in order to ensure a future balance of
fll'1ction and aesthetics.
When urban services become available, the north side of the U.S. 169/212
corridor is expected to develop as medium densi ty arrl high densi ty -residential
with the exception of the existing commercial area. Property on the south
side of 169/212 is within land designated as part of the Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge. One small existing area of canmercial (business.
fringe) exists at the Chaska border.
PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS: Currently, there are no major
transportation improvements planned for existing 169/212. Topography and
floodplain areas in eastern Chanhassen and western Eden Prairie preclude
significant future expansion. The pending improvement most affecting existing
U.S. 169/212 is the plsmned construction of new T.H. 212. When the new route
is built, it will substantially eliminate increased traffic along the existing
route. Existing 169/212 is not adequate to handle existing traffic flows.
Improvements will be needed to reduce accident rates and enhance public
safety.
.
.
.,. - ,; ~'''':_-'''--'''
.-'. a .._', .
...... '......... . ;;,. ...... .
,_.._......_,~ -
~:._..:~, ~
.-"'- ..
'.--
7~ --- j ~~~' i
,,\ "'" ~~ ....J ~
LAKE $USA" ~ IlL. -.. - / -
\ ,. _~tJ I . ~ ",CE II~"S
~"/i ~ ~~. ".... '"-~' ~
II t. 11 -<-)} ,
'-
~ 1 - -- -
I
I I
~-I
I ~ ~'\ I Il ,"-Ld
_...J r- 0 _)..:::j( - )WX,,,
. I /- -'-~~l~'~Y-T c Z
/ &~.~~ .~. ffi' \i
i .. _'\'L-. ~ ~
, I .-~1 \L - '.' \ - I I I .;;"Li, - f-t111 ~ -
. Proposed Land Use IJ:L.~ 1T
t \\'9'~/II'0~ t~ ',- J
I ,__1~_' ~R~IMD
:. . \ I"~ ~ /,
. . ..... R-MD....1 !'/." 0- ~ ~
~ '~~" ~.
~ ~ ~/r\ I
,,~~/F' PIS' .
I ~=-~
L~.".. t~. "\...~
- ,
~....
~I
"
..-q ,:::5'~' ft-.
I .", I I . j (
. ~ ~ : .
~ -- --l_ --.j ..',,_. I
~ I
~
Ii
~ \ -/ :,. jEhi
"if' ! ! n..~ ---r ~
.~ (re--1
\\ _J ~, ..1-__
i '
.- ;
..
..
i
i
ono.. 'vAll"
1:
, 1
I
.' ..,"
..
~
~
'-
...
,-
I
..
i IC~ III ~-.
o~_ -
ll' b7i ~ ..-
I \"
,
,-
o
I
I
d~ ~<:?
t H~P' '~ LAKE_
~ ." fgj . ",LEr
~~ Jr
T J -
,
~-
-s.- t
.. '-/../ JI
'.~
]5\)
lQ
,-
I
-
-H~ ~
~ ~, y-
~I ~f.j
'A",CE -
P/~~'_~' :=
~ ~- -=.. :::::;:::::: ~
)~
. ~
-- ~ CITY Of iHAIlClf'U -_.
-
.......
I
,t
'..~ '0
,. '
(
(
City of Eden Prairie
City Offices
.000 Executive Drive . Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3677. Telephone (612) 937.2262
June 13, 1988
Barb Dacy
City Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: DEVELOPMENT CONTROL ALONG U.S. HIGHWAY #169
Dear Ms. Dacy:
With the exception of the Lion's Tap, all development along U.S. Highway #169 west
of the landfill is Low Density Residential. This is controlled by the Eden Prairie
Comprehensive Guide Plan and City Code Chapter 11, Zoning Regulations.
The Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts all property north of U. S. #169 for Low
Density Residential development (up to 2.5 units/acre), and all property to the .
south for Public Open Space. It is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service intention to
acquire all property south of U.S. #169 as shown on the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
They currently own approximately 200 acres and plan on acquiring an additional 1500
acres.
The majority of the property in southwest Eden Prairie is currently zoned Rural.
The purposes of the R-Rural District are to: (1) Prevent premature urban
development of certain lands which eventually will be appropriate for urban uses,
until the instanation of drainage works, streets, utilities and cOll1Tlunity
facilities and the ability to objectively determine and project appropriate land use
patterns makes orderly development possible; (2) Permit the conduct of certain
agricultural pursuits on land in the City; (3) Ensure adequate light, air, and
privacy for each dwelling unit, and to provide adequate separation between dwellings
and facilities for housing animals.
Permitted uses within Rural Districts are as follows:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Agriculture, accessory and related uses.
Public facilities and services.
Single family detached dwellings and accessory structures without
platting on parcels of not less than 10 acres.
Single family detached dwellings and accessory structures without
platting on parcels of five or more acres, but less than ten acres,
as of July 6, 1982.
Commercial stables.
Golf courses.
.
E.
F.
... ...- " -~~
JUN 1 '1 1988
CIT-Y. OF. CHANHASSEN
. .
I.
.
.
(
(
Barb Dacy
June 13, 1988
Page 2
As you can see, the key to controlling development along U.S. #169 is through the
use of the Comprehensive Guide Plan, which designates the property as low Density
Residential, and the zoning regulations.
If you require any additional or more detailed information, please feel free to call
me.
Sincerely,
City of Eden Prairie
~O42, lliBVYl
Donald R. Uram, A.I.C.P.
Assistant Planner
DRU:bs
,. -...,.....-. '.,
(
(
Planning Commission Meeting
May 4, 1988 - Page 57
.
Resolution #88-1: Emrnings moved, Batzli seconded that the
ommission adopt Resolution 88-1 as shown in Attachment 1.
fa or and motion carrie .
DISTRICT DISCUSSI
Planning
All voted in
C rad: Rather than Ba b ra iving a report, which will wait, I think Tim
why don't you sort of cover your memo and get us thinking on this.
Erhart: Here's an area that's probably closest to me because I live in
the area and I really enjoy the outdoors and just green areas. I think
what we have here is an area that's unique and it's been kicked around as
sprtof a pseudo commercial area through the history of the city and it
doesn't quite lend itself to the commercial area. It's got some real
. problems. For one thing there's no intention, as Barb always says, within
the next 30 years, that's her standard length of time I guess here, to
ever have sewer and water so yes, it may look obvious to you Jim that
someday there will be a Hilton Hotel to replace the existing one down
..there but the thing is, there's no plan for sewer and water there. If
that was not that way, I'd say yes there's going to be a major development
possible and all that stuff but in reality there just isn't that much room
there either because of the...
""
Wildermuth: My point was though that I think all those little houses
will...
Erhart: Will eventually rot down.
.
Wildermuth: But I didn't want to say that in public.
Erhart: So it's never really going to be a commercial area and we sort of
slip in a business here and 5 years later another one slips in while the
other one runs down and it's not really a commercial area. Secondly,
there's not enough room to put access road on there to make it a safe
business area and we certainly don't want to seem to spend the money. We
can keep letting it go on that way and keep doing what we're doing or we
can look at what we're really doing here from a broader perspective and
say, we have a unique opportunity within the city to preserve this area as
a green area for when the rest of the city is all built up in subdivisions
and industrial parks, that we have some unique area that people can get to
the trails and go cross country skiing, horse riding, hiking or whatever.
To support that we find that what the State south of TH 212 has reserved
that as some sort of park. Barb what do they call it?
Dacy: That's part of the Minnesota River Valley Wildlife Refuge.
Erhart: In addition, Eden prairie has alre?dy basically, I think they're
consciencely trying to prevent development in that area. It really is
consistent with what our neighbor is doing so I think there are two
purposes to be served. I think it's a good time to do it.
,-
.
Conrad: Excuse me, are they really doing it from that standpoint? Is
Eden Prairie really preserving and protecting that area for a very pure?
."
(
(
Planning Commission Meeting
May 4, 1988 - Page 58
,e
Dacy: South of TH 169/212 is the Minnesota River Valley and it's flood
plain all the way through there so nobody would be able to do anything
there anyway. Their zoning in that area is ag zoning. They have a 10
acre minimum lot size. No commercial uses allowed. The only thing
commercial in Eden prairie is the Lion's Tap and that's grandfathered.
Headla: But they really expanded that?
Dacy: Yes, they did and it's interesting, it's kind of the same issue as
Brookside Motel. It's an existing business and it went through their
process and Council allowed it to expand over the objections of staff so
it happens in every community. Eden prairie doesn't have the existing
commercial uses that we do and they have been successful in getting that
to happen.
Conrad: But they don't have a strategy with this area that says we want
to preserve it. It's in ag right now which is not a strategy.
Dacy: It's probably a policy. I know it is in their Comprehensive Plan
it's rural area. There's no urban services out there. That there
shouldn't be urbancized development in that area. Plus with the
Minnesota River Valley plan and so on, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife,
that area along the river is...
.
Conrad: To our knowledge they don't have any trails or things that are
planned to go into that area. They're not intending to make it a park
sort of trail system.
Dacy:
plan.
The trail and the park area is part of that Minnesota River Valley
North of the highway.
Erhart: And I'm not suggesting that we go in to some big plan to buy
property and try to make some part for that. That's just not possible but
by making a change from BF to A-2, we can effectively put that area on
hold as a green area, 20 years down the road where maybe you can go back
and acquire these places or these properties below the bluff. Secondly,
is we could stop this propagation of this traffic problem that every time
somebody, we're essentially encouraging businesses, because we've zoned it
commercial, every time you come in here you're adding more access problems
onto TH 212. We are not solving that problem and I think we ought to just
eliminate.
Emmings: Is there anything else north of TH 212 to the east and to the
west, is it all A-2 now except for the BF?
Dacy: The BF area, from the vacant old Mobile station, that old gas
station that's vacant, that eastern property line is the eastern line of
the BF district and the western limit is TH 101.
. Emmings: Where is the Chanhassen border?
Dacy: Way over here on the east side.
(
r
..
"
Planning Commission Meeting
May 4, 1988 - Page 59
.
.
Emmings: What's that zoned there?
Dacy: A-2.
Emmings: That's A-2 and then going the other way?
Dacy: Is A-2. The only other BF is where we put the mini-storage.
Erhart: A few meetings ago we talked about the concept of having business
on TH 41 and TH 5 and everyone said, how despictable. We can't have that.
This is the same thing. You're talking about a rural intersection. The
reason again is no sewer and water planned for a long time. It's the same
thing that lies there only here, in addition to that, we have this, I
think a real unique area within Chanhassen that I think we ought to be
doing a few things to preserve.
Conrad: Is it unique enough
aggressive with it but is it
park. Is it park potential?
Chanhassen residents off the
characteristic about it that
to make it, you're saying don't do anything
unique enough to make something? Make it a
Is it someplace that we want to get
trail system to and develop? Is there some
we feel should be protected?
,
Erhart: Yes, I think there are a lot of characteristics of it. There's.
lot of lakes and there's the bluffs. The reason I'm saying not do it
today is one, financial and the secondly there probably is not enough
people living here that would really use it but when you consider 20 years
down the road when you've got twice the population and a lot of it filled
in, then I think it will be very useable. And our trail plan will be
complete. I think it's something really worth going for. And there's a
railroad bed that goes through it and it will be abandoned. There will
either be light' rail transit...
Dacy: That's been challenged to my understanding.
Batzli: But that's a big issue I think in that you're going to have
probably is going to be a very major freeway running right alongside
thing. You might have light rail transit running right through it.
kind of a park is that going to be?
what
this
What
Erhart: It'd be real nice for the people riding the transit.
Emmings: I don't think Tim is saying let's turn this from a commercial
area into a park. I think he's saying, what I hear you saying is let's
maintain sort of the natural so that whole bluff area that borders that
river area will sort of be left in it's natural state rather than having a
bunch of...
"
Conrad: Hodge podge.
Headla: That would be consistent with the way the river is used further.
upstream. You take TH 169 southwest, gee it's beautiful. There's a lot
of green. It'd be kind of nice to see that leaving the Twin Cities.
(
(
,.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 4, 1988 - Page 60
Conrad: I think next meeting I'll have Barbara go through the staff
report. Talk about the uses of that property and I think obviously there
are some problems with that. Let's continue the discussion next time.
Erhart: I did want to make one other point. I did talk to the Mayor
about this and he welcomes a proposal from us on this issue.
Conrad: I could see it if there was something that we wanted to do with
it rather than just being there. Being there is really good. I like that
but I don't know that we can make a rally around that.
Erhart: There's a balance. One is we can preserve it by making it A-2.
We can better preserve it by making it A-2 but ~n the other hand we have
this problem that every time somebody wants to open a business in that
area is you've got this traffic problem. So we can solve both problems by
making it A-2. You've got to remember, what do we say, almost every
business down there is non-conforming anyway except the two we just
approved.
Conrad: No, they're all conforming in the fringe business district except
for the motel. They're all conforming. We created that district to make
them conforming.
. Erhart: Is that correct? I thought we said they were non-conforming.
Conrad: Only the motel is.
Dacy: The things that are non-conforming are the existing motel which is
in the A-2 district, SuperAmerica and that vacant restaurant building.
Non-conforming in the BF district is the Brookside Motel and the RV
campsite. The recently approved contractor's yard is conforming. The
outdoor display of landscape products for Brambilla is conforming. The
cold storage for Mike Sorenson is conforming and the rest is vacant or ago
Of course the auto salvage is non-conforming as well.
Headla: I'd like to bring up two other subjects. Lowell Carlson, our
friend, he's positioned himself to put up a building. He's been hauling
in dirt. It's all graded.
Conrad: I thought he had to come back here?
Dacy: Yes, that was the Council direction. Dave gave me a call
yesterday. I haven't had a chance to follow up on it.
Headla: A neighbor called me up rather hostile about the whole thing.
Conrad: What's Lowell doing? He's doing it without coming back here?
.
Dacy: And that's unfortunate because I thought that I had an agreement at
least from his Attorney that they seemed willing to come back to the
Planning Commission with a proposed plan. Maybe something happened
between the Council meeting and now that ticked him off, I donlt know.
(
r
,
Planning Commission Meeting
May 4, 1988 - Page 61
~
.
Conrad: So what's he doing? He's out there building?
Headla: He's got it all graded and I don't know when he hauled in the
dirt.
Emmings: You may want to contact the City Attorney because they may well
have made the decision, let's do it and see. That's not irresponsible
advice. He may well have gotten that straight from his.
Headla: Then the other point I wanted to bring up, Barb, why don't
give them about 4 or 5 sentences about our meeting with Peter Owen.
luncheon meeting with the director of the Arbor~tum. Tim, Barb and
there.
you
The
I were
~
Dacy: We talked about a couple of issues. One about Mr. Owen actually
providing assistance as to looking at our landscaping ordinance to
determine whether or not that was adequate. Secondly, we determined that
they really couldn't provide a site plan review function for us. The
third item was, as far as the ability for them to provide landscape
products, they really are not in that enterprise. They're growing
different types of species and so on as opposed to distributing them.
Headla: He might be interested in critiquing, if we have a major .
development come in, he'd critique the landscaping plan. And he pointed
out things like the way things are now you have like conifers in an area
that just isn't natural for conifers. He would like to see the direction
more than actual trees going up where they wouldn't normally rise.
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m..
Submitted by Barbara Dacy
City Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim
~
.
(
.r
I
,
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 32
NTINUE SF DISTRICT DISCUSSI~
art: All I want to do is, if we can settle the question of whether we
want to deal with planning issues or we want to get into the legal issues.
If we want to get into the legal issues, we'll never get this through
here. We'll never get this out of here.
Emmings: I mentioned to Tim when we were sitting here that maybe we
should find out the legal problems involved before we spend time working
on this. Tim's point was that we should ignore the legal issue. ...move
it onto the City Council, we should do the planning decision and let them
worry about the legality and I think that makes a lot sense.
Dacy: As a matter of fact, Roger went out and looked at these sites today
and we had a talk about it in preparation for tonight's meeting.
Emmings: Why don't you tell us about that.
.
Dacy: He is really concerned about changing the zoning to ag on the
majority of these properties where it can't be proven that it is an
economically reasonable use of the property as an ag use. For example,
the cold storage. That will be non-confomring. Maybe a better example is
the Jack Brambilla's lot where that small building was. If that's vacated
and we change it to A-2, it's really dubious that the City can prove that
that's a viable lot for either ag purposes or for a single family home.
Erhart: He's already there right? He's grandfathered in. We're not
economically changing that.
Dacy: It's just a vacant building.
Ellson: Then he comes in with a new person as a renter.
Dacy: How about. if I just finish. He followed that up by saying maybe
what we should do is the City has used an appraiser in the past and not
having the appraiser do a formal report but just going out there under
site inspection and look at ~alues of some of these properties because the
Attorney is concerned that by rezoning we may be taking. He said that's
fine if you're willing to pay for it. That kind of gets to the issue that
you're talking about. The Council is the one that authorizes, especially
the rezoning and authorizes acquisition of the property. Another
alternative other than rezoning to A-2 is that the City become a little
more ambitious in creating...for this area. Either frontage road or some
set of standards that are going to try and resolve the traffic issues and
the zoning issues. That is possible. That means a public improvement
project and assessments back to the properties. They have to have some
type of use of the land that's going to enable them to payoff the
assessment. It's like between a rock and a hard place.
.
Emmings: One question. Is the BF zone that we've got down there now, as
small as it can be to cover the properties that are already there?
(
f
,
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Page 33
~
.
r
Dacy: Yes. As a matter of fact originally it extended over to the
municipal boundary. I can have Roger write his feelings up for you. His
main concern is the taking issue. That's fine if we're willing to buy it.
Erhart: Someone would have to corne to the public hearing and then... Is
it important enough that we want to do anything about it? Long term land
use.
Ernrnings: I don't know if this would make sense. Do
let the City Council, do you want to just pass this
or should we ask them to give us direction on this?
take a look at it.
you think we ought to
up to the City Council
If they want us to
Dacy: What I could do also, if you want, kind
analysis of, there are 8 properties in there.
it. Have Roger analysize it and then you have
entire history.
of a parcel by parcel
Have the appraiser evaluate
a better feel for the
Ernrnings: Shouldn't direction for something like that corne from the City
Council?
Batzli: I guess what I'd propose is that we make a resolution that we
would like to see that preserved in A-2 and we want the City Council to .
look at it then give us direction. Just make a resolution.
r
Erhart: If the Commission thinks what we're proposing here is a good idea
then let's go to Council and say we think, without getting into details at
this point, we think it's a valid and good planning proposal and we'd like
them to look at it.
Ernrnings: Let's send Tim's updated letter along and that further
consideration be made.
Erhart: I calle9 Eden prairie on this subject, the Minnesota Valley, and
what I got from this phone call, they have what they call a conservatory
district. It covers this area down there, the Minnesota River Valley.
The Purgatory Creek Watershed and the Bluff Creek Watershed. What it says
is you've got your zoning districts but within this conservatory district
there's also a condition and it's on density and types of use. It's sort
of like a...that overlays these special areas. I consider the Minnesota
Valley and the Bluff Creek area is the same potential for that so that was
kind of, I was talking to Barb about this, about getting someone to corne
over and just talk to us about preservation of green areas and these areas
in general. Try to give us some direction on what to do to get those
areas preserved. During the small time I've been here I've seen where
it's been easy to corne in and the next thing you've got a subdivision
corning in and it doesn't hit you that night, it's inconsistent with the
real long term opportunity to have a green area. We don't want it right
on Bluff Creek which years ago we already sort of planned to make it as .
( green area but it never really got official so we missed it. ...Bluff
Creek Green's did. Carne back and negotiate to get some easements.
Dacy: For?
(
i
,
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1988 - Pag~ 34
,.
Erhart: It was a walking. For Bluff Creek for the golf course. That
subdivision along pioneer Trail. We approved it all the way through. I
remember Thompson asked a few questions and the developer caught on to
plot within this.
Batzli: Is that something that should go in the Comprehensive Plan? Our
overlay?
Dacy: Our wetland, your floodplain and shoreland ordinances all are now
overlay districts right now Don called me back and he said that that
conservative district did not apply to the Minnesota River Valley. I
asked him to write a letter to us clarifying what are the regulations for
the the land immediately abutting TH 212.
Erhart: Anyway, their whole valley area is zoned agricultural.
Dacy: He said what they have besides the ag zoning is they do have
restrictions on steep slopes which is similar to our zoning.
Batzli: Are we unanimous in wanting to implement Tim's plan?
.
Ernrnings: That's what I wanted to ask.
resolution or something?
Do you need a formal motion or
Dacy: Why don't you go ahead and move.
Erhart moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission would like to
change the BF district to A-2 in the location east of TH 101. The City
Council should take into account the comments of the City Attorney and the
appraiser to give direction on whether or not to pursue with that
application. Also, that the City Council take into account Tim Erhart's
letter regarding, this issue. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Erhart moved, Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m..
Submitted by Barbara Dacy
City Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim
.
CITY OF
eHANHASSEN
~
.
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Park and Recreation Commission
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator
DATE: October 5, 1988
SUBJ: Capital Improvement Budget
At the last Park and Recreation Commission meeting, the Park and
Recreation Commission recommended that the Council adopt a 1989
Capital Improvement Program budget of $158,250. The Council
acted to approve that amount in the budget at their special
. budget meeting.
The Park and Recreation Commission had a number of questions
regrding how much money we currently have in the capital improve-
ment program budget, including reserve funds, park and trail fees .
collected, etc. The Commission also asked how much money has
been collected to date in each area.
The City's records show how much money in park dedication fees
were received in each area from 1986-1988. Before that time a
grand total was kept but totals in each area are not available.
Attached please find a breakdown of those totals since 1986.
Also attached please find the 1989 ClP Budget showing all the
funds available in the 1989 Budget. Below is a simplified
explanation.
Unemcumbered Balance Forward
Expected 1989 Revenue
$352,260
+ 173,000
$525,260
1989 CIP Budget (expenses)
Other projects
Reserve Fund
Total
- $169,250
35,000
300,000
$504,250
$525,260
504,250
.
Unemcumbered Balance
$ 21,010
FUND: 410 - PARK AOOUISITION & DEVELOFMENT
FUNGrION: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
1989 BUOOET
E Comment: Park fees (charges established on new construction) are receipted
to this fund. All major park improvements become a 1:udgeted expense of this fund
Note: To insure multi-year accotmtabili ty for individual projects, a separate fund
is typically established to account for the assets/liabilities of that project, i. e.
Lake Arm :&>at Access. In instances like the boat access, the City share of the pro-
ject cost is "reserved" until final approvals are received. At time of receipt of
federal/state dollars, the City share (1:udgeted amount) is "transferred" to the indi-
vidual project fund. All of the revenues/ expenses associated with the project
thereby become easier to monitor - with final balances being "transferred" back to
this fund). As such, this fund represents the master fund reflecting current and
future obligations for major park projects, as well as minor park improvements within
our cormnuni ty .
.
.
4130 - Supplies, Program 2,600
4300 - Fees, Service 15,000
4701 - Lake Arm Park - Sewer & Water Connection
- Totlot Replacement 5,000
- Totlot Addition 3,000
Greenwood Shores - Hand Launch, Lk. Lucy 500
- Landscape Parking Lot 1,500
- Totlot 5,000
North Lotus Lake Park - Tennis Windscreen 600
- Boardwalk 2,200
- Shelter 5,000
South Lotus Lake Park - General Impr.
- Ballfield
- Totlot
- Tennis Court
Carver Beach - Totlot Equipnent
- Offstreet Parking
- Park ID Sign
Carver Beach (Lotus Trail) - Genrl.
Meadow Green - Shelter
- Pave Parking Lot
- Tennis Windscreen
Bandimere Heights - Basketball Court
- Offstreet Parking
Minnewashta Heights - Ice Shelter
- Park Sign
- Park Shelter
Chanhassen Pond - Parking/Sign
- Wood Duck Stand
- IlIlP,lement Master Plan
City Center - Tennis Windscreens
- Hockey Improvements
- Play Surface
- Warming House
. - Totlot
Bluff Creek - Interpretive Signage
- Access Road
Chanhassen Estates - Pave Parking Lot 1,500
Archery Range - Location to be detennined1,OOO
Chanhassen Tree Farm - Restocking
Sidewalks (Carver Beach;Laredo)
Miscellaneous, Tables, Grills, Benches
Exoendi tures
-80-
.la8.a
.laBa
10,000
6,000
500
1,000
5,000
10,000
15,000
10,000
25,000
3,000 350
3,000
5,000
Impr.
2,000
2,000
600
2,000
1,500
1,400
400
1,000
20,000
400
2,000
500
1,500
1,500
2,500
40,000
1,000
10,000
3,000
25,000
5.000
159,750
72,700
FLND #410 - PPA< PCGU I SIT I 0\1 P4\ID DEVELCFf'iENT
1989 B.JDGET .
aJDGET ESTlmTED aJDGET
RE\IErIlE 1988 1988 1989
Charoes for Service
410 3303 Park Developnent Fees 100,000 125,000 110,000
410 3304 Trail Fees 35.000 30.000
410 'S599 TOT~ D-iARGES FCR SERVICE 100,000 160,000 140,000
Int ~ Other Revenue
410 3801 Interest 18,500 22,000 23,000
410 3807 Donations 10.000 11.100 10.000
410 3899 TOT~ INTEREST & OTl-ER RE'vEN..E 28,500 'S5,100 'S5,000
410 3999 TOT~ RE'vEN..E 128,500 193,100 173,000
EXPENDITl.RES:
Materials ~ Succlies
410 4130 Supplies, Program 2.600 2.600 ---2
410 4299 TOT~ mTERI~S & SlFPLIES 2,600 2,600 0
Contractual Services
410 4300 Fees, Service 15.000 15.000 10.000
410 4599 TOT~ CD\ITRPCTl.JfZL SERVICES .15,000 15,000 10,000
Caci tal Outlay
410 4701 Land or Building Improvement 74.700 72.700 ~
410 4799 TOT~ CAPIT~ U1TLAY 74,700 72,700 159,
Debt Payments
410 4801 PrinCipal 0 0 0
410 4802 Interest 0 0 0
410 4899 TOT~ DEBT PAYl"ENTS 0 0 0
410 4999 TOT~ EXPENDITl.RES 92,300 90,300 169,250
Revenue over (under) Expendi tures 36 ,200 102,800 3,750
Other increases ( decreases) :
Transfer from (to)
South Lotus Lake -15,000 0 0
Saddlebrook Trails -18,000 -26,000 0
Trails -35.000
Total increases (decreases): -33,000 -26,000 -35,000
Fund Balance Forward 304,810 275,460 352,260
Less Reoui red Reserve
Lake Ann Phase I Grading 100,000 0 0
Lake Susan Park 50,000 50,000 110,000
Lake Ann Shelter 0 0 55,000
Fund Reserve 100,000 100,000 a
Herman Field 35.000 35.000 35
TOT~ RESERVE 285,000 185,000 300,
Total Resources over (under) Expenditure 23,010 167,260 21,010
-81-
. ._-.,..~:.-~.~".t-!'1:";.,-,-i.
.
.
.
CITY OF
CHAHHASSEH
10
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Park and Recreation Commission
FROM:
Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator (~_
October 14, 1988 ~
DATE:
RE:
Trailway Task Force
.
The Trailway Task Force has been working hard to meet with as
many groups as possible to talk about the Safe Sidewalk and
Trailway Plan. So far they have received a mixed reaction to the
plan. There are two general information meetings scheduled for
7:00 p.m., October 25th at Minnetonka Intermediate School; and
7:00 p.m., October 26th at Chanhassen Elementary. The task force
would appreciate your support by attending one or both of these
meetings, as it will be necessary to mingle with the audience
before and after the meeting, answering their questions.
Also, as we near election day, Commissioners should be talking
with their neighbors, encouraging them to vote for the trailway
plan. If you run into any questions you are unable to answer,
please feel free to call me at 937-1900.
.
CITY OF
CHAHHASSEH
1
.
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Park and Recreation Commission
FROM:
Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator.
l?
DATE:
October 13, 1988
SUBJ;
Next Meeting Date
Staff would like to change the next scheduled meeting from
October 25th to November 1st. There are 2 reasons for doing
this. One is that an informational meeting on the trail plan has
been scheduled for October 25th, and Election Day is November
8th. Moving the meeting to October 1st would allow us to keep on .
schedule without conflicting ~ith the other activities.
Please review your schedule and let me know if November 1st will
work.
.
.
.
.
FYI
Tim A. Erhart
775 West 96th Street
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
To:
Parks & Recreation Committee
City Council Members
Tim Erhart
From:
Subject:
Date:
Nature Trails
October 5, 1988
As a new member on the Planning Commission in early 1986, I was concerned
that sub-divisions were being approved with no thought given to nature
trails or wildlife area easements. About this time, the Parks and
Recreation Committee started the process of creating a city-wide trail plan.
The original trail plan for South Chanhassen included only paved trails
alongside the routes of existing arterials and collectors.
I had previously lived in the Preserve in Eden Prairie and had observed the
popularity of pedestrian and nature trails. I therefore introduced the idea
of nature trails to the Parks & Recreation Coordinator, Lori Seitsema. The
idea was received favorably and with Lori's encouragement, I made extensive
hikes throughout South Chanhassen including one hike along Bluff Creek from
Highway 212 at the southerly extreme of the city to Highway 5 West of
Chanhassen. Correlating my field notes with aerial photographs, I submitted
a nature trail plan where pedestrians could enjoy our natural amenities
while while hiking or skiing.
The plan essentially follows Bluff Creek most of which is very steep or lies
within a protected wetland. The nature trails system also runs adjacent to
all the major wetlands south of Lyman Boulevard. The Chanhassen Trail Plan
completed in June, 1987 included the nature trail plan which I submitted and
specifically states on page Tr-3 that "Nature trails are designed solely for
pedestrian usage." The nature trails as stated in the City's Plan are
intended for the use of all people in the area to walk or ski and quietly
enjoy nature with minimal environmental impact.
Those portions of the nature trail system identified on our property, have
been opened to the public for several years. My wife and I have maintained
the trails by mowing and planting trees alongside the route. Today, over
seventy households have immediate access to these trails. Included in
todays users are three day care centers, each located within 300 feet of the
existing trail system.
When originally opened, the upland portion of the trails were used mostly by
horse riders. (We have never allowed horses near the wetlands.) However,
when the Pioneer Hills sub-division filled in, we started seeing a lot of
hikers. Due to horse the traffic (including or own) the one trail used by
1
')
there simply is not enough room to place a wide trail between the .
wetland's ordinary high water mark and the hill which normally lies
adjacent to the wetland. I believe in these' areas, a practical width
is about eight feet. Any wider trail would have significant adverse
impact on the wildlife and plant environment which is the very thing we
are trying to preserve. In addition, any wider trail running between a
potential homesite and a wetland would have adverse economic impact on
the property and would be resisted by developers and land owners. We
have already experi enced concerns from exi st i ng 1 and owners over the
proposed nature trail plan. An eight-feet wide trail is not adequate
for both pedestrians and horses to meet and pass each other safely.
6. When placing trails next to wetlands, we must consider the disturbance
that the user has on wildl ife. A pedestrian is pretty well shielded
from ducks, geese, etc., by the grass between the trail and the
wetland. A horse's rider, on the other hand, is eight feet or more
above the ground. I believe that horse riders would have a
considerably greater impact on wildlife than pedestrians. Ducks and
geese will not nest where they are continually disturbed.
7. The presence of horse droppings on any trail has a negative effect on
pedestrians. In addition, when children use a trail, there is a
cleanliness issue. As the droppings disintegrate and spread out, the
trail surface becomes a concentration of horse feces which eventually
spreads out over the entire path.
Approximately 7-8 miles of nature trails are currently shown on the attached .
map. Almost 100% of the nature trail on the City's current plan is either
on the fringe of protected wetlands or is in areas of steep grade. Quite
frankly, I am appalled that we are considering turning these nature trails
into horse trails without any thought given to the environmental and social
impact this would have.
I would like to clarify that I am not opposed to horse trails per see If
the City feels that a horse trail system should be incorporated into the
City's trailway plan, an alternative to simply adapting the existing nature
trail plan should be taken. Horse trails should be identified as a separate
component of the City's trail plan and be completely separate from what we
now term nature trails. The plan should state that horse trails must not
adversely affect the environment and shouldn't interfere with pedestrian
trails which service the majority of potential trail users in the area.
s rongly urge that this clarification be made prior to the Parks and
reation Committee taking this plan to the public.
-.{~
3
.
..
"
.
.,
. .....
, .
, .
.,-
-
.
CHANHASSEN SAFE SIDEWALK AND TRAILWAY PLAN
.,-
WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED?
The Chanhassen Safe Sidewalk and Trailway Plan is 29 line~f-mries of
trails and sidewalks of which the majority is separated from the traffic
on Chanhassen's busy streets and roads. The trail plan offers safe
routes for people to get around our City and connect to neighboring Com-
munities.
This entire proposal, as shown on the attached map, involves over $1
million in trail construction. Other funding sources are available
however, bringing the amount needed to complete the plan to..$800,000.
A .yes" vote for the Safe Sidewalk and Trailway Plan will not increase
your taxes. That is not to say that it will not cost anythi~g, however.
Because of debts that are retiring and the increased growth Chanhassen
is currently experiencing, the City will be able to take on new debt
without raising taxes. In other words, some of the City's loans will be
paid off soon. The taxes used to make payments on that debt will be
available to pay for the sidewalks and trails, along with the new taxes
generated from residents moving into new developments.
WHY IS A SIDEWALK AND TRAILWAY PLAN BEING PROPOSED?
.
The Safe Sidewalk and Trailway Plan was developed following an extensive
random survey conducted in Chanhassen regarding park and recreational
needs in 1987. This scientific survey involved lout of every 100
homes in Chanhassen, roughly 300 participants. Survey participants were
asked if they felt there were too many, just enough, or too few of a
variety of facilities and programs. Four of the top seven items listed
as "too few" were related to trails and sidewalks, i.e. bike paths,
walking paths, jogging trails, and hiking trails.
The Park and Recreation Commission responded to this overwhelming need
for sidewalks and trails by developing a comprehensive trail plan that
would connect the entire community to areas of interest. Why is this
being proposed? Here are a few good reasons:
*Chanhassen has expressed a need for trails and sidewalks
*The plan separates pedestrians from traffic safely.
*The number one participant form of fitness is walking or jogging.
*The plan provides a means by which to safely connec~ ~eighborhoods to
each other, schools, p~rks, downtown, other commun~t4es, etc. .
*Chanhassen is a desireable place to live in the Twins Cities area, and
the sidewalk and trailway plan makes it a more appealing place to come
home to.
*Improving the quality of life in our community, increasing the value
of our homes.
.
*Preserves nature trails to allow the enjoyment of the rural country-
side in the community.