Loading...
1986 09 24 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 24, 1986 - Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Ladd Conrad, Howard Noziska, James wildermuth, and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT Robert Siegel STAFF PRESENT Barbara Dacy, City Planner; Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner; Todd Gerhardt, Intern. Request to Subdivide 12.5 Acres into 5 Single Family Lots on Property Zoned R-IA, AgrIcultural ReSIdence and~ated on the-south side-of pioneer Trail, approximately 1/4 mile East of AudUborlRoad (CR~;-Sever Peterson, Applicant. - -- - - - - e Ladd Conrad: This item was tabled last meeting because the applicant wasn't here. Jo Ann, would you like to present Staff's case again? Olsen: If you want I can go through it again. Conrad: We are aware of it. Is there anything different? David Headla: We got the information with the presentation in the Minutes. The Minutes were very good on it. Conrad: Let's not go through the whole report but certainly speak up if there are unclear issues. We did table it because the applicant wasn't here and then if there are any new issues that have to be presented, I would like to hear those. Olsen: We met with the applicant and let him know some of the concerns of the Commission and what you have in front of you is some of the blow-ups of two alternatives for Lot 5. We had some concern about the steepness and whether or not there would be adequate sites for two septic systems and the well and the house pad. These alternatives show that there is adequate area. We also had them locate the area with less then 12% slope where should they ever fail, a mound system could be put in place even though mound systems are not yet allowed in the City, we are currently looking at that. Other then that, Staff is still recommending approval with the conditions of sharing of the driveways, no alteration below the 890 on Lot 5 and the same conditions as before. . Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 2 ~sever Peterson: I would like to address you briefly. As I understood you did have some concerns at the last meeting. I apologize, I was out of town for that meeting and was unable to make it. I appreciate your consideration this evening. I would say that I am a farmer and my home farm is with the County line and that is how I happen to have some interest in Carver County and the County folks just happen to come and farm there which is in the Minnesota River Valley. In the early 70's, the Federal Government, the Fish and Wildlife Service came to me and indicated that they wanted to acquire that property and we felt that it was protected adequately from parking lots and landfills and so on just with public interests that our own private interests, if you will, protecting the valley for wildlife and they said they didn't agree with that and they sent me a letter saying that 1978 would be my last year on the farm. Through that process I began to look for an alternative location for my family and I in the general area. My father was born and raised here around the turn of the century and we have been here for quite a long time and I want to stay in the area so I found this property. In 1979 the Fish and Wildlife Service wrote me another letter and said for certain this will be your last year on the farm, this is in writing, and I'm still there on the home farm but since then I have acquired this property and a couple of things have happened. Farming is the economic pits. I don't think I'm telling you anything that you probably aren't aware of but with this property here, my taxes there were $61.00 per tillable acre. I came before the City Council here on the local appeals board and my local appeals board gave me ~onsideration on that but the County raised it back up so I was having one ~omplication after another with this property that I felt I rather adversely acquired because of plans of the Federal government with what they were telling me in writing was going to be their plan. At this point, I would like to try to make it possible for myself to hang onto the property there from the Jake's family who I bought it from and they were longtime residents here in Chanhassen Township. As I understand it, there were a couple of complications of the septic sites and so on. As Jo Ann indicated the surveyor did blow-up of those two lots and laid out the septic systems with the house pads and so on. He did indicate to me in conversation today that he has two different schematics for each lot and he felt that there would be multiple different schematics that could be arranged. As I understand, Chanhassen has looked into, if you will from the University of Minnesota, mound systems. That has not been addressed in this but as I understand with the topography with the 10% slope there, would enable that. One other consideration as I understand it was a concern of the Planning Commission and that was that one of the lots had 2.37 acres which would require a variance for me because it is 2 1/2 acre minimum. I might address that by saying that when CR 14 was upgraded or widened or whatever transpired there 2-4 years ago, the easement, even though it is an unacquired easement as I understand it, went through and they took a 90 foot easement instead of a 4 rod easement, they now have a 90 foot easement and I feel that, as it turned out, was really a hardship for me to short .13 of an acre on my five lots and I feel that if it would be a consideration to the Commission, I would like to request a variance so that I could carryon even through I did not have the 2 1/2 acres on that. At e=he time that the road went through, I thought, like I think many citizens Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 3 ~eel, look we need roads, we need easements and even if they don't use them and we have to cooperate with them and not make a problem, and frankly I didn't pay any attention to it. I just wanted them to go ahead with as least amount of hassle for me. I felt they had a job to do and the County being the County and I wasn't going to dispute it at all but I do feel that as a result of that, it has created a hardship for me in this situation with the lot and if I could have some consideration of that hardship appeal for a variance, I would appreciate it. I'm not sure that I could answer any questions if you have any, possibly I can. Conrad: Maybe as we go through the Commission we will want to ask you some questions. Sever Peterson: That will be fine. Just remember I'm a farmer, not a developer but this is something that I hope to do to facilitate my situation. Tim Erhart: I asked earlier about pioneer Trail, is that considered a major? Olsen: That is considered a local, as far as the County is concerned that is a local street. What you were asking was Lyman Blvd. is a minor arterial and this is from their 1990 plan and they understand that pioneer Trail is actually probably being used right now until the new TH 212 goes through and TH 169 is upgraded. A lot of the traffic is using that right now. That is why it is actually rated a lower use because we asked for the __990 plan. Dave Headla: I don't understand this mound system. Olsen: The mound system is a septic system that is over the ground so if the soils aren't suitable for a septic system and that fails and there is no other place to place another spetic system, there is a possibility of using a mound system that is above ground but currently the City does not allow the mound system. Headla: Why isn't it allowed? Olsen: They adopted the Carver County Ordinance and at that time the mound system was not allowed in Carver County. Since then Carver County has adopted a new ordinance which does allow those and we are currently working with an expert from the University of Minnesota in updating our Ordinance. Conrad: Sever, have you read the recommendations from the Staff as far as building and restoration of sites and all the different points? Peterson: Yes, I have. Conrad: The name of the subdivision? Peterson: I have an alternative name. e Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - page 4 ~mmings moved, Erhart seconded to recommend approval of Subdivision Request #86-23 as shown on the site plan dated August 18, 1986 with the following conditions: 1. There shall not be any alteration of Lot 5 past the 890 foot elevation. 2. Restoration of each site shall occur immediately after constrtuction is completed. 3. Erosion control barriers shall be required at each site. 4. Specific construction plans and locations for the septic systems shall be provided with each building permit. 5. Access permits must be obtained from Carver county with culverts placed under each driveway. 6. Lots 1 and 2 and Lots 3 and 4 must share a driveway. 7. All driveways must have a 300 foot separation and have a turn- around. 8. Each lot shall provide 10 foot utility easements along the front and side lot lines. _ 9. The name of Hidden Valley must be changed. All voted in favor except Conrad who opposed. Motion carried. Headla: I feel a little uneasy with the it up in the Minutes. The septic system much more comfortable with it in front. on him. septic systems. You kept bringing behind the place. I would feel I don't think that puts a hardship Conrad: They do have an alternative to the side, right? Noziska: There are two alternatives. One is with the house in front and one with the house in back. When the house is in the front, it has to sit to the side and to the right and when the house is in the back, it sits to the side or the front. Conrad: I guess I stay out of some of those technical issues. The more I hear about septic system, I'm not sure that I'm qualified to make a recommendation. I know they can be engineered properly in a lot of different situations far more then I have been led to believe previously. Basically, I think you can design a well engineered system to go anyplace. Headla: Except we don't have control over the weather. _conrad: We don't have control over the weather and right now we don't have Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 5 ~he standards in to control the design which is a concern. Emmings: You do have point 4 under the Staff recommendation and I think that is going to protect us on this one. That is what kind of persuaded me. The Staff has recommended under their point 4 that the specific instruction plans for the septic system has to be provided with each building permit. The only thing, would that include the location? Olsen: Yes, the location. Emmings: Let's put that in there. I guess I am going to amend my own motion here. The condition should be as the Staff has proposed but 4 should probably read, the specific construction plans and locations for septic systems shall be provided with each building permit and that will give Staff the chance to look at it and make sure it is alright. Conrad: Jo Ann, in this case, the total acreage is 12.37 and the minimum for 5 lots would be 12.5. Past examples we have felt as a Commission that if the total acreage was more than that which we would require, we could justify a deviation or a variance for an individual lot. Here, the overall acreage does not justify 5 lots. What type of precedent does that set? Olsen: Again, we looked at it as an individual case. As Mr. Peterson explained, there is that acreage within that easement but that additional acreage is allowing the road there and it looks like it will never be ~omPletelY paved and it is just a minimal amount that we really felt that wouldn't make a difference. I guess I variance is a variance and we just thought it was a minimal amount of acreage that was not meeting the 2.5 acres and that is why we recommended approval. Conrad: My reason for opposing the motion is I feel that the site is appropriate for four lots not five based on lot size and the sensitivity of the area. This will go to City Council October 6, 1986. PUBLIC HEARING: Request to Subdivide 1.16 Acres into 3 Single Family Lots R-l, Single Family ReSIdence and~ated at the Northwest BlVd. and Lake Lucy Road, Loren-Blackstad~A~icant. Olsen: The parcel is located on the corner of Lake Lucy Road and Powers Blvd. Again, the applicant is proposing to divide 1.16 acres into three single family lots. One would be 20,122 square feet, 15,117 and 15,118 square feet. In 1984 the applicant split a 2.6 acre parcel into two units. At that time he also proposed a resubdivision of the parcel which is similar to the one that he is now proposing. There is an existing house on Lot 1 and the remaining two lots are vacant. They all meet the setbacks, the lot lines meet the setbacks from the existing house, each lot has the required 15,000 square feet. They all have the required street frontage and they are available for city water and sewer. Lots 1 and 3 have road frontage along Powers Blvd. but the County will not allow those lots to ..ccess off of CR 17 so they must access off of a private drive that is on Property Zoned Corner of Powers Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 6 ~oing to be proposed to be going up the center of the parcel. Private drives are allowed accessing up to three lots. There is a steep slope on Lot 2 and Lot 1 and the only problem this will cause is having the location of the house so tha tit can pump up into the san i tary sewer. Most 1 i kely the house will have to be located at the higher elevation so that it can flow into the sanitary sewer. We are also recommending that erosion barriers and immediate restoration be applied to Lot 1 because of the slope. We are recommending approval of the lot split with the following conditions: 1. That Lots 1 and 3 access off of the private drive. 2. That the building elevations on Lot 1 shall be reviewed prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. That erosion control barriers shall be placed on Lot 1 and restoration of the land must take place immediately after construction. 4. A private easement shall be executed for connection to the sanitary sewer. Erhart moved, Conrad seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. ~eadla: I went over the looked at it and read the recommendations, I don't ~ave any questions. Noziska: Is the applicant here tonight? Loren Blackstad: Yes. Noziska: Have you read the Staff rcommendations? Loren Blackstad: Yes I have. Noziska: Do you have any problems with them? Loren Blackstad: None. Noziska moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #86-16 as shown on the preliminary plat dated September 5, 1986 with the following conditions: 1. Lots 1 and 3 access off of the private drive. 2. Building elevations on Lot 1 shall be reviewed prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. Erosion control barriers shall be placed on Lot 1 and restoration of the land must take place immediately after construction. e Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 7 e 4. A private easement shall be executed for connection to the sanitary sewer. All voted in favor and motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: Request to Subdivide 9.7 Acres into 3 Single family Lots on Property Zoned R-1A, Agricultural ReSIdence an~cated at the &mlthWeSt~orner of Ly~an Blvd. and Highway 101, Ted Slather, Applican~ Olsen: This property is located at the southwest corner of Lyman Blvd. and TH 101. The property is zoned R-1A, Agricultural District. That is with the minimum requirement of 2 1/2 acres and 180 feet of street frontage. The applicant is proposing three single family lots, 4.5 acres, 2.6 acres and 2.6 acres. On the site there is a large wetland to the south. This is protected by the DNR and would require a permit from both the City and the DNR if there are any alterations done to it. The rest of the site is wooded down the center and then used as agricultural. The wetlands require a setback of 150 feet for any septic system and 75 feet for any structures. The lots are all at least 2 1/2 acres and have at least 180 feet of street frontage. The problem with the lots is that the Ordinance does not allow a lot to have twice the length of the width and all three lots do have this and therefore would require a variance. The intent of that section in the Ordinance is to allow for resubdivision in the future. with the slope and the wetlands to the south, would never allow these lots to be further split 4Itnd Staff is recommending that the variances be approved. Lyman Blvd. is oesignated as a rural, minor arterial and the County recommends that ideally that driveways have distance of 1,250 feet and a minimum distance of 500 feet. The width of the total property would not allow three lots to be located 500 feet apart so Staff is recommending that Lots 2 and 3 share a driveway and that Lot 1 have it's own. Even then, they probably will still not be able to be 500 feet apart but the County has agreed with sharing of the driveways. Each driveway will have to receive a permit from Carver County and must also have a culvert underneath it to allow the existing drainage to continue. Once again, the realignment of TH 212 is impacting some property. It is now cutting across the northwest corner just slightly. There is still adequate room on Lot 1 for a building site to be located more into the eastern side and it should not impact the property as far as development of Lot 1. It is important that the alignment of TH 212 be maintained and Staff is recommending that there is a 100 foot setback and a 10 foot setback and Staff is recommending that the house be located on the eastern side of the property of Lot 1 to keep it as far away from TH 212 as possible. There is no sewer and water and the applicant has provided the perc test. The perc tests are very fast. They are running about 5 which is about as fast as you want them to go to allow the contaminants to be cleaned out. Staff is recommending that specific septic system details be provided at the time of building permit so that we can make sure that they will adequately slow down the perc rate. Also, there is a pipeline easement, Williams Pipeline going across the north part of the properties. Williams Pipeline is requiring 100 foot easement to over this utility and 4IflSO that they have prior approval of the site plan for the building area Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 8 ~efore the building permit can be issued. Finally, there is an existing shed on Lot 1 and there is also some outside storage around it. Because of the 10 foot setback and the 100 foot sideyard setback, this would require the house to be located 100 feet from the eastern lot line. Staff is recommending that the shed be removed over towards the east side so the house can also be located 10 feet of the lot line or close to the eastern lot line and that all outdoor storage either be removed or put into the shed. Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision with the following conditions: 1. That the buiding permit site plans must designate the OHWM of the wetland. 2. That all septic systems must be located at least 150 feet from the OHWM of the wetland. 3. That all structures must be located at least 75 feet from the OHWM of the wetland. 4. That Lots 2 and 3 must share a driveway. 5. That the driveways must have culverts and receive a permit from Carver County. 6. That details of the septic system must be provided at the time of building permit application. e 7. That there must be a 100 foot easement across the 12 inch pipeline. 8. That a site plan and grading details must be approved by the Williams Pipeline Company prior to a building permit being issued by the City. 9. That the shed must be moved to the easterly lot line upon building permit application. 10. That all existing outdoor storage must be relocated to inside the shed or removed from the site. Ted Slather: I just have a couple of questions. One, on one of Staff's recommendations. I don't intend to sell all the lots. At this time I just want to sell the third lot. Now, would I have to get an easement then to the person I am selling to or what is your recommendation? Olsen: Which lot are you talking about? Ted Slather: The third lot. Lot 3. order to share a driveway between ~easement to whoever I sell it to? I just want to sell that lot and the rest of the land, am I to offer so in an Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 9 4Iblsen: You would have to allow access from your driveway. We are recommending, not necessarily an easement right up the middle. Their driveway could come right off. You do have to provide so that there is only one access onto Lyman Blvd. Conrad: I think you need an easement on both parcels, right? Olsen: Right. Conrad: Actually you could put the driveway entirely on one parcel if you wanted to and provide an easement. Ted Slather: The other question I had was to have an additional understanding of what you are asking. Olsen: I probably ran through it too fast. There are sideyard setbacks of lee feet and 113 feet and the shed is located 12 1/2 feet from the westerly lot line so therefore the house would have to be lee feet so with TH 212 coming through, we think it would be best, you don't have to, but it would be better to allow the house to be as close to the easterly lot line as possible. Jay Johnson: The lee and 113, as I understand it, is for future subdivision and as you stated, the property is not amenable to future subdivision so is the moving of the shed a real issue, is the lee and 113 very important in ~his case because you really can't further subdivide this area. It makes ~he applicant the expense of moving the shed for a rule just because it is a rule and that rule in this case doesn't have any real reason. Olsen: Until that rule changes, he would have to receive a variance for that if he wants to do that. Noziska moved, Erhart seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Headla: I'm still not clear in my mind why that shed should be moved. Is there some ordinance that says that shed has to be moved? Olsen: No, I guess that it must be moved is a little bit too strong. Again, we are just trying to advise so the house would not have to go through a variance procedure, can be located toward the easterly lot line. Right now if the shed remains where it is, the house would have to be lee feet in from this side. Headla: The house would have to be lee feet from the easterly side? Olsen: Right, it would have to go in here and with TH 212 is going to be cutting through this corner so we are just providing so whoever buys this property can place the house as close to this lot line as possible without having to go through more. e Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 10 ~eadla: We could really just put that as a recommendation with the understanding that it is an either or situation there. Conrad: The timing, does the motion say right now? 01 sen : No. Conrad: Okay, at building permit application and that is probably a logical thing for the applicant to do unless the applicant wants a variance. Noziska: He can address that when it comes time to build. Conrad: He could certainly address that at that time so the question is do we want it in the motion right now? Noziska: Jo Ann, where is our OHWM line again? Olsen: The best we could determine was that it was between the 884 and 886. We would have to go right out to the site to determine it. It wasn't designated as an OHWM but looking at the aerial, this is all being use] as agricultural right now so the DNR said when the time comes they could go out to the site and designate the exact OHWM because that would require a surveryor to do that when the grading is done. ~oziska: Okay, I guess I was curious because of two things. How that ~ooks up with this 100 foot easement across the 12 inch pipeline. That means 50 feet on either side? Olsen: Yes, I looked at that. They are going to have to be closer... Noziska: That squeezes them in some respects. Olsen: Yes, but actually that is where all the perc tests were taken anyway so that looks like where it is going to go. Noziska: How close to the lot line do we allow our septic systems again? Olsen: I believe 8 feet. I don't know. There is a separation of 100 feet between septic systems. Noziska: When we are squeezed down to 180 feet, that makes it kind of interesting Ladd. I don't think there isn't anything that probably couldn't be worked out but when we have that pipeline coming across there and a narrow lot, that makes it sort of interesting. Wildermurth: with TH 212, will there be enough room for a pad with a septic system behind it? Olsen: It is hard to tell. It is just touching this corner. When I .easured it out there was for total area but it depends on Williams is Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 11 ~oing to allow to happen. The 50 feet, I just don't think they want grading going on. That is what they want to make sure that even when the driveway goes that they are not digging into it. I don't know if a septic system could not still be located up to that. They just want to make sure that nobody is digging on top of that pipeline. Noziska: Of course that would have to be flowing uphill because you couldn't really have it...to the other side. Wildermuth: Do we know how far down the underground pipeline is? Gerhardt: It is 2-5 feet deep. Olsen: That depends because if this has been used to farm, who knows if it is right up to the top now or if there is lots of top soil over it. Gerha rd t: Tha tis why they give the range of 2- 5 feet depend i ng upon wha t types of activities have been occurring on top. Emmings: I'm a little concerned about the driveways because it seems to me with TH 212 cutting across that corner, any driveway for Lot 1 is necessarily going to be to the eastern side of Lot 1 and I don't know what we can do to get that one 500 feet away. It isn't going to be. Olsen: It is not a requirement by the County. That is something that they _OUld prefer and they look at this and they know that TH 212 is going to be going in and they discussed that the driveway is going to be closer then 500 feet but as long as we are minimizing the access, I guess that is one of the major points is not to have three driveways going out and if we can limit it down to two. Emmings: I just wonder if it wouldn't make more sense to have Lots 1 and 2 combined and then have the third one over on the east edge. Ted Slather: There is a driveway that they did put in when they drove out onto Lyman Blvd.. Emmings: Is there something there right now? Is it a field approach? Olsen: There is a driveway here and like a driveway hook-up shown here and this one is like a driveway down to the shack. Emmings: Well, when I heard them talking before about putting in one dr i veway, it would seem to me tha t the dr i veway tha t Lot 2 and 3 share ought to be no further west then on the line between the two. Olsen: I'll make it that they share and that they don't share on Lot 2. Noziska: That makes the driveway about 335 feet. .mmings: That is probably about the best you can do. Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 12 ~rhart: If I remember this shed right, isn't this a metal shed and a metal roof, sort of old, delapitated, ready to fall down. Ted Slather: If we were to obtain a building permit for anything, I'm sure that shed would be torn down. Erhart: Good, then I suggest that we change that requirememt to remove the shed because I don't think it fits in a real subdivision. I don't think the neighbors will be very happy to have it there at all so if you wouldn't object, whoever makes the motion I would suggest that we just change it to remove the shed. The next item I would like to suggest that whoever makes this motion that we start paying a little more attention to septic system and I suggest that the words in here that include design and location. More so, after listening to our consultant here, I wish we had thought of this when Sever's subdivision here. I believe we ought to start stating in here that specific provisions for periodic inspection be included in the design of the septic system because I feel that is, from the consultant, I think that is where we are going and as long as we at least have a little bit of input here, I think we ought to include that in our recommendation. Noziska: Is that not already taken care of by the plumbing inspection? Olsen: Periodic inspections of the septic systems? Noziska: _lsen: Yes. I don't think so. Emmings: He's talking about after it is in. Erhart: When you design it so that you can do periodic inspections without having to dig it up. The consultant, that evening I thought I saw that you can design it so you have provisions that you can just open up the cap and the inspector can look in and somehow inspect it. Isn't that the impression you had? Noziska: Yes, all septic systems, one thing or two things, they have a little plug on top of them where they can be pumped out. Erhart: These even include the laterals from the way I was hearing it. Emmings: That is the important thing to look at the laterals. Olsen: At the end of each lateral? Our building inspector suggested that when we amend the Ordinance to put that in. Erhart: Since we are going that way I guess I would like to see that at least a recommendation to the City Council and since my comments will be in the Minutes, they will see that also to take that into consideration. -- Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - page 13 ~eadla: Can we get into there to police it all the time, once a year or whatever? Conrad: We can if we have the standard but right now we don't. Emmings: You can require that the homeowner supply you with the inspection by someone who is qualified. Conrad: A footnote, it kind of relates to this, based on Tim's comment I think those are really valid points that I would like to see worked in by Staff to feature requests for the rural area. Olsen: Just so I have it clear, you are saying to put in... Conrad: An inspection and a location review. Erhart: I had the words specific provisions for periodic inspection be included in the design of the septic system. Olsen: Are you also meaning to set up to expect annual inspections? Erhart: All we can do is make sure we are capable of doing that if the standard is adopted, which I think it will be . Conrad: Back to this specific issue, Williams Pipeline running through Lot ~, are we in danger, I'm not sure what I'm talking about here, but might we ~e creating a lot that could not be built on based on point 9 saying that Williams Pipeline has some authority on the easement? Olsen: How far they are going to take it, I'm not sure. The easement will be there and he was not specific on what they would be looking for and what they would be saying as far as where the homes could be sited and stuff like that. Conrad: So let's say, they said no. They said you could not put your septic system here. Would there be enough area on that lot to put it outside of that easement area that Williams Pipeline has control over? Olsen: Again, the two perc tests for two site locations were outside of that easement. Conrad: I see three dots. One was right on the line and two were... In Staff's opinion, whether we are creating a lot that can be developed? Olsen: Yes. You can't say they definitely won't but we are confident that it is a buildable lot even with that 100 foot easement. Erhart moved, Noziska seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #86-21 as shown on the preliminary plat stamped "Received September 18, 1986" with the following conditions: - Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - page 14 e 1. The building permit site plans must designate the OHWM of the wetland. 2. All septic systems must be located at least 150 feet from the OHWM of the wetland. 3. All structures must be located at least 75 feet from the OHWM of the wetland. 4. Lots 2 and 3 must share a driveway. 5. The driveways must have culverts and receive a permit from Carver County. 6. Design and location of the septic system must be provided at the time of building permit application and specific provisions for periodic inspection be included in the design of the septic system. 7. There must be a 100 foot easement across the 12 inch pipeline. 8. A site plan and grading details must be approved by the Williams pipeline Company prior to a building permit being issued by the City. e 9. The shed must be removed upon approval of building permit application. 10. All existing outdoor storage must be relocated to inside the shed or removed from the site. All voted in favor and motion carried. Erhart: Might I offer a suggestion at this point? Last meeting we spent considerable time at the meeting discussing Sever Peterson's development and Lot 5. Tonight we had the same issue in front of us and there was almost no discussion. I would submit that probably one of the reasons that it was a little more clear this time is because we were given a pad and septic system location drawing. I throw out to the rest of the Commissioner's that we could request that on all rural subdivisions that require septic systems that as we see the plan, that it include, not big sheets on each one but to take this and before they come in, to show a possible house pad location and two septic with blocks showing the approximate area. I think it would help us in developing our recommendations. Conrad: When they come in Jo Ann, one of the things is the size of the field and they would not at that time, they are going to kind of put a template and box it in and all those drain fields are going to be the same size wise, but I guess that is still good enough that at least we can get a ttallPark idea. They will know the soil conditions at that time and the Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 15 ~erc rates. It won't be engineered however but it will probably be close enough. Noziska: It is better then having to guess. Also when we have such a thing as an underground pipeline and a provision for an easement, we should sure be shown where that easement is going to take us. Otherwise we can only guess. It could be 10 feet one way and 90 the other. I guess that would be kind of dumb too so it has to be split right down the middle but what happens then to the area available for construction. Conrad: That is a good case in point because in the last issue, I don't know that you can drive over a pipeline. I don't know that. I don't know where the house is going to go. I don't know, with that easement, if there is room on one side of the pipeline for not only the house pad but the drain field. That is the reason for my questions. Noziska: I don't know either but I bet when Williams Pipeline takes a look the site plan and grading details, that they should review that so somebody doesn't dig up the pipeline. Gerhardt: In this specific area, they have been driving over this pipeline. They are farming this area now. You have a very heavy tractor with implements behind the tractor dragging over that line so I'm sure this area of the pipeline has to be 5 feet down. When they say 2-5 feet, 2 feet is usually in a residential area where grading has taken place and they ~ave put in a road and they have to get down to the soil. Conrad: Basically, for the point that Tim made though, it is a request that we would like to see. I think we are pretty unanimous on that and therefore we will expect that unless Staff comes back and tells us why not. Site Plan Review for a 23,048 Square Foot Office/Manufacturing Building on 2.09 ACDes of property Zoned P-4, Planned Industrial Development and IOCated at the southwest corner-Qf Park Court and Park Drive, Component Engineering~pplicant. -- ---- --- ---- Gerhardt: What is being proposed here is the construction of a 23,048 square foot office/manufacturing facility located on Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 4th Addition on the corner of Park Court and Park Drive. Present zoning on this area is P-4, Planned Industrial Development. The topography on this site generally slopes to the southeast and has several stands of mature trees located on the site. The applicant has informed me that the trees, that they looked into trying to move the trees but they are just too large for any movement without fear of them dying so most of the trees will be clear-cut and the applicant has also told me that they would try and save as many of the mature trees along the back south lot line. Access to this site would be gained by two driveway cuts. Two off of Park Court and one off of Park Drive. The driveway cut off of Park Drive has a proposed culvert. The Engineer has reviewed this and felt that adequate soil on top of the culvert was not there so he 4ItreqUested that the culvert be removed and that additional grading be done r Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 16 ~orth of the proposed driveway cut and have that runoff down into the street and be caught in one of the catch basins along Park Drive. parking for the proposed development is located on the east side of the proposed building where the applicant has proposed 23 parking stalls for employees and visitors. The second proposed parking lot to the west is being proposed loading docks and unloading would take place in this area and trucks would also park in this area. The applicant has also proposed a future dock and drive along the south of the building to access future storage area in the southeast corner of the building. The Fire Marshall has indicated that an access and exit area be maintained through here year round so if there was a potential fire, that they could get around the building on all sides. That is one of the recommendations. Total number of parking stalls being proposed is 43. That is one more then what the Zoning Ordinance requires. Total number of people to be employed is 26 on the main shift. The next issue is the building site coverage. The building site right now being proposed is at 25% of site coverage, the parking facility on the east and west fills 29% and gives the total site of 54% total site coverge which meets the intent of the City's requirement of 70%. I would like to show you a landscaping plan now. Landscaping consists of a variety of different types of deciduous trees along the north and east areas of the proposed buildings and parking areas. The mixture of trees would be Sugar Maples, Canadian Red Cherry, Red Splendor and Greenspire Linden. At each of the entrances, the applicant has proposed Black Hill Spruce. Sodding would also occur within these areas. The applicant has not proposed any type of landscaping along the west lot lines 4Irnd south lot lines. Staff is recommending that additional trees be placed every 40 feet along these lot lines and also that a year round opacity of 50% of screening be placed along the west parking lot and also along the proposed driveway back of this area. The reason for that screening is to screen any activity to potential developers to the south and to developed project to the west. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan with the following conditions: 1. The perimeter of all parking areas shall be lined with concrete curb except those areas that are to be expanded. 2. Compliance with all of the Watershed District's regulations on new construction. 3. That additional coniferous and deciduous trees be placed every forty feet around the perimeter of the south and west lot lines and provide a year round opacity of 50% of screening along the perimeter of the proposed parking lot to the west and future driveway and dock to the south of the proposed building. 4. Erosion control barriers be installed to prevent sediment from leaving the site during construction. 5. The culvert located under the driveway off of Park Drive be eliminated and additional grading be done to direct the runoff to Park Drive. e Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 17 e 6. provisions be made to maintain an exit-way on the south end of the building. I understand that this is future expansion space; however, exiting is required and consequently exiting surface must be maintained as well. 7. Emergency vehicle access will have to be provided for in proximity to the main entrance. Additionally, clear access will need to be provided to the Fire Department connection which is not located on this plan. Since the water supply will be coming in from the north end of the building, we may be able to provide access to the Fire Department connection and emergency vehicles in the same space. Builder: I would like to make a couple of comments, nothing real serious but the first stall that is right here, we plan on having that as the emergency vehicle stall. Now, the only question I have is does that to be designated by an emergency vehicle sign or anything like that? are willing to dedicate that first stall, which would be the closest need We stall. Gerhardt: I think all that has to be done is stripes. Builder: Second of all would be, I have our superintendent going out there and taking an existing vegetation where that is at on that south line, if it is possible to save any trees, we plan on saving them so we ~on't have any problems with that. The culvert eradication is fine with us and then we are assuming with the ... that the water would just overflow from there and down the street to the catch basin. The only thing that we might have is the idea of the berming, you say screen for the maybe excavation of the lot below. We think we have been kind of over generous in the other landscaping plan with all the other trees and we are wondering if we do save some trees and we berm along that side, is it a problem working with you guys in deciding what trees we are going to keep? That is fine, okay. Jerry Genz: I own Component Engineering Company. Conrad: By the way, would you tell us what it does? Jerry Genz: Component Engineering Company is a manufacturer of hydraulic valves and components. We design them and manufacture them. We started our business in 1982 and it has gone very well so far and right now we are pressed for space. We are currently in Jonathan Industrial Park so we are looking forward to moving into Chanhassen. Conrad: Do you run one shift? Jerry Genz: We run two shifts in our machine shop. Our machine facility is currently located in the Rome Building and the future space that I have designated on the southeast corner of the building may very well be used "for machining facility. I have it built in the design so that we may use Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 18 _he option of leasing that portion out if we decide to curb our growth or maybe we find that it is a big enough building that we can do very well in the space we have. Eventually we would be moving in and using that entire space. We will probably be moving our offices down the entire east side of the building and then the back portion of the south 10,000 square feet. The north portion of the building would be devoted to assembly and testing. The future dock on the south side of the building is only there if we lease out that portion of the building on the southeast side and we are providing a knock-out there which we may well not use. I guess if I see things, I think by the time we get into the building, I think we will probably need the entire space so in all liklihood we will not be putting in that loading dock on the south side. As indicated before, that is a fairly generous landscaping plan. It was submitted from a landscape architect and he loaded it up with everything there. I guess I would kind of like to leave it open as to how it eventually works out. I want a very nice looking building and I want it landscaped nicely. We want to make it look like a very nice building. We might not be able to see the building if we put all those in there. I have not really analyzed that plan thoroughly to see just how that would really go with our building. I'm sure it will be very nice but like I say, it is probably quite a bit more then what would actually be required. Also, on the angled portion of the lot on the west side that borders Roman Roos land, he already has trees along his border there so I don't know how much requirement would be needed to put trees on there. 4Irlsen: I think they just cover up the parking area. Jerry Genz: Would berming be adequate for that? Olsen: Yes, we usually allow berms. Builder: The other thing I wanted to mention is that we made application for rights from the Watershed District and we are working with Bob Janick and Gary Obermeyer and ... Erhart: Sounds exciting. I would probably just suggest that when we change item 3 that we include trees be placed every 40 feet around the perimeter of the south line. I do believe we should keep that in there and the west lot lines to the extent that existing trees can not be maintained. Other then that, I think it is a pretty good plan. Jerry Genz: How far from the south lot line would these be needed, as far as trees go? Erhart: I guess my opinion is that just try to put it back into sort of a natural setting. I would prefer not to have them in a straight line. Jerry Genz: My point here is that I'm not sure just what Lot 2 will ultimately end up with. If they do a lot of landscaping adjoining my property, I don't know how big the land is right there. I guess based 4Itwhat I anticipate this thing matching that line. It isn't going to be on a Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 19 ~udden drop-off. It should be a very smooth land as the property is now. I'm not sure how they are going to put a building on that one southwest of us there because that slopes off really fast and they may want to do some terracing there or something. Builder: When our superintendent goes out there and takes the existing vegetation and marks it on the map, what we are going to try to do is deal with our erosion control, we are going to try, there are a couple of mature trees, whether or not they are in the estimation line or not, if they can be saved, we would save them but also we would denote them on the plans so when we came back to the Ci ty, we will tell them tha t these ex i st i ng trees are going to be saved or not saved but I can't tell you for sure until we go out there and take the existing vegetation and see how close we are going to come but there are a couple of trees there and we can't say we will save them. They are quite large. Conrad: As you can tell, we are kind of interested in the area having some greenery around there. Greenery not only in the summer time but also in the winter time so the Industrial Park looks as attractive as it currently does and it is a real good looking park that we have built there. Builder: We think we will make an aesthetic amenity to that too. One other question is that there is some concern from the applicant around the cul-de-sac area and that is that the parking is being done right now on the cul-de-sac. Will that continue or do you think that will not continue? ~here is quite extensive parking around the end of that cul-de-sac at times and it is probably not even an issue now but we just wanted to bring it up. Conrad: It should not be, right Jo Ann? 01 sen : No. Headla: Can I ask what goes in the building? I have concerns, you talked about your hydraulics, what type of chemicals and what volume are you looking at? Jerry Genz: Right now we are looking at having Safety-Kleen Corporation come in where they come in and bring the new solvent and take the old solvent. The only solvent that we use, like all the parts that we manufacture will go out for cleaning operations and when they come back they are clean. Some of the parts have back oxide where we have to take the rust preventative off so we have an agitating cleaning system now that is full of solvent and then they are just air dried and blown off. We do not use solvent in a real extensive manner there. In the machine shop we use solvents and that is presently Safety-Kleen and will continue to be. We will probably have Safety-Kleen come in and also do our solvent so they will taking out our dirty solvent away from the premises. Except for what is evaporated, we will not be disposing of any solvents. Our oils, we test all of products and the oil virtually doesn't wear out so the only thing ~that we replace in oil gets shipped out in our product. Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 20 ~eadla: what are you talking about in storing oil? 30 barrels? Jerry Genz: Oh no. Oil stored would be one 55 gallon drum that would be stored inside. There will be no outside storage. Headla: I've got a question for the builder. with all of the vegetation you've got here, is that consistent with the proposed plan where trees are supposed to be up 5 feet. It looks like you've got them up at the corner as you come up there you might have a hard time seeing traffic. Did you look at that to see that it is consistent with this plan? Builder: On the northeast corner of the parking lot? Headla: Park Drive and northwest. Builder: the City. We feel it is but again, we were going by the recommendations of We are willing to work but we feel it was consistent. Headla: You are saying Black Hill Spruce, 6 feet. Well, you don't trim up a Black Hill Spruce up 6 feet right now... Jerry Genz: What is your restriction on that? Builder: For trimming up the trees for instance to see vehicles coming onto the street. -Jerry Genz: If you have a recommendation there I would be very flexible. guess I will have a revised landscaping plan. Like I say, when you give a plan like this to a landscape architect he loads it up with everything he knows and I guess it would be fairly extensive for what is normally put in the park there. I Headla: The other one, for all that parking lot, if we have a lot of snow do you just dump it on the side and if you do are you going to have trouble with the trees that are there or do we ask that they haul it away? Builder: Hopefully the snow removal, the concrete curb we will be planning that far enough away. Jerry Genz: I certainly would not design my area around the parking lot that I would have to haul it away. There is a good possibility that we will be blowing this snow off the parking lot rather than plowing it. Wildermuth: All of your waste and everything is going to trucked out. You aren't going to have any holding tanks? Any underground storage? Jerry Genz: No, there will be no underground storage tanks. What makes you think that we would have that? Wildermuth: I would think that in the interest of cost you would want on- eSite storage. Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 21 ererry Genz: We will have, like I say, with the volume of products that we ship I would say that we probably consume and ship out oil at 5 gallons per month. Maybe 10 gallons per month would be a little bit more likely. Wildermuth: Are you planning to use oil to test parts in your building? Jerry Genz: No. For test samples we will have a water cooled process. A reservoir with water. wildermuth: What authority have you been talking with? Have you talked to the Metropolitan... Jerry Genz: As far as the storage goes? The Metropolitan Waste.. Wildermuth: Are they telling you anything or giving you any specific instructions? Jerry Genz: Not at this present time they aren't. Becaues of the small amount of products that the manufacturing company is using. There isn't really any waste that goes into the sewer system at all. What is gone out is shipped out so they have not given us or foresee any problems at all so we have contacted them. Conrad: The reason for the parking lot on the west is for trucks right? Big trucks backing in? ~Jerry Genz: That is correct. We have three loading docks on the back and we do not have a lot of truck traffic. Most of our shipments are actually UPS but we will be getting into some pallet type shipments and there will be some truck traffic. We're not a large company. Conrad: Noise of your equipment? Jerry Genz: There will be no noise. Jay Johnson: Can I ask which of the Safety-Kleen products you are using? Jerry Genz: It would be the solvent. Wildermuth moved, Noziska seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #86-4 based on the plan stamped "Received September 3, 1986" with the following conditions: 1. The perimeter of all parking areas shall be lined with concrete curb except those areas that are to be expanded. 2. Compliance with all of the Watershed District's regulations on new construction. 3. That additional coniferous and deciduous trees be placed every forty feet around the perimeter of the south and west lot lines e Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 22 - and provide a year round opacity of 50% of screening along the perimeter of the proposed parking lot to the west and future driveway and dock to the south of the proposed building. 4. Erosion control barriers be installed to prevent sediment from leaving the site during construction. 5. The culvert located under the driveway off of Park Drive be eliminated and additional grading be done to direct the runoff to Park Drive. 6. provisions be made to maintain an exit-way on the south end of the building. I understand that this is for future expansion space; however, exiting is required and consequently exiting surface must be maintained as well. 7. Emergency vehicle access will have to be provided for in proximity to the main entrance. Additionally, clear access will need to be provided to the Fire Department connection which is not located on this plan. Since the water supply will be coming in from the north end of the building, we may be able to provide access to the Fire Department connection and emergency vehicles in the same space. All voted in favor and motion carried. e Approval of Minutes: Emmings moved, Noziska seconded to approve the Minutes of Chanhassen Planning Commission meeting dated September 10, 1986 as amended by Ladd Conrad on page 5. All voted in favor except Dave Headla who abstained and motion carr ied. Comprehensive Plan Discussion - Land Use Element. Barbara Dacy: Mark Koegler has been hired by the City to assist the City in the update on the Comprehensive Plan. As you know, we have a proposed Zoning Ordinance also in the process and we are undertaking the Comp Plan revision to update the plan to make it consistent with the proposed ordinance changes and to update out-of-date statistical material and to update the plan for recent transportation studies that have been done by the HRA along TH 7 and other i terns that have occurred in the last 6 years since the plan was adopted. Procedure for the Comp Plan update is for Mark to present some of the proposed changes on each Chapter. We will be looking at the Comp Plan probably through the winter until January and forwarding the recommendations unto the Council. Tonight's item is the discussion of the Land Use Chapter and you have received the proposed draft changes in that and I will allow Mark now to go through those and bring up ~oints of discussion. Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 23 - Mark Koegler: Since this is the first section that we really have started reviewing, if it is acceptable I guess I would just run through fairly briefly the changes that have been outlined there and certainly if you have questions or comments on any of those at any time, please feel free to interrupt. The format that we chose first of all, Barb and I looked at this early on and tried to determine how we could do this with a minimal amount of intitial disruption saving the disruption for later for word processing and things, so we simply went through and took the original text and kind of crossed out certain portions and cross referenced where changes were so we will kind of elude to that as we go through. The changes actually start on the first page of the Land Use Section and in that area consistent with discussions that we had two meetings ago, we had suggested that some of the general information that was in there, specifically the climate section, be removed so we would just propose that all that material be omitted. Once you get through that, from page 6 through page 34, there are no changes recommended. That text is essentially much of the soils background information, some of the geological information, some of the wetland information which since it is physical in nature, there is no updating per se that needs to be done. When you get to page LU-35, you will notice the very bottom of that, that we have proposed an addition and that addition is to specifically reference the Wetland Ordinance and map that was adopted by the City after the last plan was prepared and specifically simply referenced that document and to state that the specifics of that obviously can be found in the Ordinance since the ~rdinance may be subject to future revision. There is a comment in there and there will be a map that will be inserted of the wetland map showing the two classes, the A and B so that will be inserted within that portion. Conrad: We have a lot which I like but we have a lot of verbage in here dictated to water and natural resources, is that typical in other communities? Koegler: My perception is that it is typical of developing communities that are more resource oriented and I think this city has had that interest since the first plan was done in 1980. At that time, many of the issues that you have been kicking around were the same issues that were being discussed at that time. Tree cover, soils, water and so forth so I think it is probably slightly in excess of what you find in most but it was judged to be appropriate at that time and I guess we suggest that it is still appropriate now. It does serve as a fairly valuable reference as a general reference for a developer when he comes in if indeed he refers to the plan, there is some soil information there. He doesn't have to go down to Carver County to get a soil map, at least initially. Conrad: There is use for some of this stuff. There were things in there that got fairly technical but it seemed kind of boring. I'm thinking does every city have that but if they are useful to a developer as far as soil types and wetland vegetation types, then. Coegler: It is a help to those of us in this business that do site . lanning to be able to have that information fairly readily available. 23 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 24 e Koegler: The more substantive portion of the changes really begin on about page 36. Specifically starting, there was one minor omission on page 36 and on page 37 there were some minor text revisions just to change some dates and some reference points on the top of 37. When you get into that middle portion which previously had discussed more of the issue that the City faced back in the late 713's was not agreeing with the Metropolitan Council on the MUSA line. Starting on the next page where we have 1, we have somewhat updated that to basically state that this plan was still consistent with that one, showed two MUSA lines because there still are some discrepencies as you are aware in the growth projections that the City is viewing versus what the Metropolitan Council is viewing. Therefore, this document will remain consistent in advocating that the Metropolitan Council's position this moment we realize has to be accepted however, this position is being noted for the record, if you will. There is also reference there under the new Metroplitan Development Investment Framework, that policy 7 basically says that the Metroplitan Council will continue to monitor growth in various communities and will begin to make adjustments in cases where the actual development out paces their forecast which is really what Chanhassen is saying is going to happen by sometime into and later into the decade that starts with 19913. That essentially is kind of an undate of the MUSA line situation itself. On the next page, page 38, obviously it was necessary to inventory existing characteristics to see ideally what changes had occurred from 19813 to 1985. I use the word ideally because it really wasn't unfortunately quite possible to totally ~ollect the information in the same formate that was at the previous time because first of all, all of the prior collection techniques were not known. How certain things were categorized and so forth so we have gone through and Todd had done quite a bit of background work on this and had gone through and looked at the various land uses within the community and tota lly up the ac reages up ca tegory so we had some idea of where the city sits right now. As a part of that that we will get into in a few minutes, to take a look at some of the growth that has occurred and what types and what form that has been in, there certainly is building permit records and some things that we were able to review that will give you that same information that we are after by trying to compare 19813 land use to 1985 land use so the information is there, it was simply derived from basically another form. On the next page 39, you will note that there are a number of maps in here that will be updated as a part of the formal draft copy that will come back to you. Some of verbage is changed. For instance, back in the 19813 the rural area was known as the rural service area and now that has a general rural use area so the Met Council has changed some of their terms and this will simply reflect and update some of those. Starting on page 413, there was discussion on residential development which is noted as a substitute for item 3. That is why I was referencing a moment ago that in counter years, 1981 through 1985, which would be the growth since 19813, the City added 561 new residential units and of those, 398 were single family, detached structures. The rest were doubles and the one apartment building was added to the Meadows complex during that time also. Another thing that we had noted was the composition of the housing ~tock. In 19813 compared to 1985 and the relationship of single family ~etached uses to attached uses to higher density attached uses and found 24 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 25 e interestingly enough that in the decade from 1970 to 1980, the single family, if you will, lost a significant amount of ground on the total percentage of unit bases to some of the more attached forms of housing but from 1980 to 1985, that essentially remained virtually almost to the tenth of a percent constant at 74% and I think that was kind of one of the goals that the Planning Commission had back in 1980 was to promote, if you will, lower density residential development and higher density ceratinly in appropriate areas. Given the market conditions and City policies and so forth and a lot of factors that contribute to that, that those have essentially been met at least in the first five years of the decade so the growth has essentially stablized at about 74% currently and the housing stock is single family detached structures. Total residential land right now is slightly over 3,100 acres which is about 21% of the total land in the area. what I was eluding to earlier is the difference between collection techniques is if you had say a 40 acre parcel, the previous plan may have indicated that all of that was residential where this effort identified probably 5 acres of that as being residential and essentially just taking an area around a homestead. The current collection technique I think was a little more definitive and probably more accurate in terms of how much actual residential and not allowing too much of the vacant land still in there. The second item that was referenced on page 40 deals with industrial development. That simply was a minor revision to note obviously what has occurred within the industrial park. I think it is obvious that there have not been great changes in land that has been allocated to ~ndustrial development in the last 5 years. However, there has been significant growth within the vacant areas of the parks that exist. Over 1.2 million square feet of additional space which accounted to approximately 1,800 jobs so there has been significant growth in the industrial sector from an employment standpoint in the last 5 years period and a fairly substantial square footage and acreage growth as well. Again, the maps that reference the existing uses will be updated. Emmings: Can I ask a question on one of the maps? The one on page 42, if you look at Lake Minnewashta and then go over to CR 117, there is that black area north of TH 5 there. What is that? Koegler: I'm not 100% sure to be honest. At one time there was a commercial nursery that was operating on a portion of that but that would not have had an industrial category on it. That was one of the sites at the time that was optioned I believe, or looked at for Minnetonka Inc.. They were looking at several sites to expand plants out there but again, I can't explain why that showed up as an existing. From the notes that I could find, it was probably a mapping error. There is no industrial use there. There is a very small, and I believe it is still in existence, industrial use along TH 41 north of TH 5. That kind of gets lost in the lakes. Is is precision? It was a small metals operation. That is still there but the larger area I believe was a mapping error. I tried to trace that one too and I couldn't figure out where it came from. _mmings: It had to be Minnetonka Inc.. 25 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 26 e Dacy: I think one of your sites was outside of the urban service area and there was a big, I just remember seeing it... Koegler: There were some changes in the plan that were kind of last minutes changes to accommodate that development at that time. There was establishment of Campus Business category and several things that obviously did not come to pass. On page 43 there is discussion of the commercial sector and again, the commercial in Chanhassen is somewhat the same as the industrial in that there have been some substantial investments made over the years. There is adequate land available in certain areas right now which is where that growth predominantly has been channeled in the last 5 years. There are about 92 acres of total land right now in commercial. within the middle of that section we did add a minor insertion which talks a little bit about where the most significant commercial expansion has been along West 79th Street and that there has been approximately 80,000 square feet added in that area in the last 5 years. Just a few notes on the types of goods that are carried within those businesses. The public and semi- public development area again was updated. However, there was no significant change really in that there was simply reference to some of the facilities that now obviously instead of Fire Station singular there is Fire Stations plural and that kind of thing. There have just been some very basic changes along those lines. Agriculture, 7, we have a note in there it is to be completed at another date. What we are doing is putting together some information, and is this the time when you wanted to review _ome of that? Gerhardt: This is the map lIve been working on all day. Koegler: Just a couple of background notes. What we wanted to do, last time around the agriculture section of the plan presented some information on average farm sizes, some interesting enough statistics however they are not necessarily as relevent as what could be presented to Chanhassen as a growing community. We wanted to do in light of the agreement with the Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Council policies in general is to outline some of the content of the rural area and exactly what is there. Is it farming, is it open space, is it trees and so forth? That is what Todd is working on. Gerhardt: What I did is we have half sections of aerial photos of Chanhassen and I looked at those and mapped out these different areas as areas with nurseries, areas as wetlands, I overlayed our wetlands map and marked out all of those areas and then off their photos I marked down in brown the wooded areas that I thought were wooded. The yellow is the subdivided areas that came in for rural subdivision. The golf course is noted here. On several maps I have noticed that people not adding the golf course into this section here but it does go into there and it goes on your map Tim that this 40 acres here is part of the golf course. Erhart: This is mostly wooded isnlt it? ~erhardt: Just along pioneer Trail here there are some homes. The air 26 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 27 e photo shows probably 9 hole and also the white areas are culpable lands or ag lands or just plain open areas that aren't designated as wetland, that are just grassy areas or prairie. This indicates the MUSA line. Is there something you don't see? Erhart: Yes, mine is predominantly nursery at this point. There are about 30,000 trees out there. I would say it is nursery. Gerhardt: That's right. Dacy: This aerial was taken in 1980 and you hadn't moved in yet. Erhart: This is intended to be a current land use isn't it? Not 1980? Dacy: Right but we just used the 1980 aerials as a guide to start from. Conrad: So this would be an additional map in here just as a rural land use. Koegler: within the general rural use area, the Metropolitan Council defines four types of categories and we will be taking that information and essentially breaking it down. Their categories cover such things as low density residential, large lot residential, they cover things like what they call urban uses which the Aboreteum would be one of those. It is a ~ajor attraction for people who live within the urban area however, technically it is located in the rural area. So there are four categories and ultimately you will be taking a look at those. Conrad: what does that accomplish? Koegler: I think the City has learned from experience that if you can get your ducks in order, if you will, in line with the criteria that has been spelled out by the Metropolitan Council, if you have an issue with them or if you only even join them on pursuing an issue, it is wise to have kind of the same data base and that is all we are trying to achieve. If the information is there. It is fairly easily put into those categories. It is not a laborious task. Conrad: So we are going to divide it into four categories. How do you do that? Are we going to have a map then that divides that into four categories? Koegler: Yes. Conrad: ...General Farm Land, Rural Residential Development, Existing Urban Density Development and Urban Uses. I don't understand any of those four. If you break it down into those four, so what? How is that helping us plan. I'm not sure, somebody must think it is a good planning tool. ~oegler: Again, it is more an informational tool. I can only respond, I _hink if there is any lesson that I learned when I was on the Staff here 27 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 28 e was that the better you have your ducks in order and the better you can say well you said this and here we have it categorized the same way and T,ve can't support your position or not. That is what is of value. Particularly if it is an easy thing to do as it is in this particular case. Erhart: Are you intending to complete the map and put it in the upgraded plan as of 1985 or 1986 or as of 1980? Koegler: It would be 1985. Erhart: So you would attempt to make whatever changes or for example, whatever other subdivision that presently exist and the nursery. I think that makes sense. Otherwise, it would be 6 years out of date which would be closer to the previous plan then the one we are delegating tonight. Koegler: The last aerial photos were simply conincidentally shot in 1980 so we for field verifications needed, that will be done. Emmings: When do they fly again? Don't they do that on a regular basis? Koegler: The last one I know of was commissioned by Carver County and I'm sure there was some other funding involved in that. It was in 1980 and I don't know, they don't do it every five years necessarily. They may have a program now that I'm not aware of but the last ones I know that are _vailable to date are 1980. You could go to some of the commercial aerial companys and get them for certain sites. They certainly have greater coverage. Erhart: Certainly the subdivisions, we just go to our own city maps and find those. Gerhardt: Also, most of them Terry Dean one of our engineering techs updates most of the maps as they come in through the office. He updates all of the new subdivisions. There may be a few that he hasn't gotten to but most of them are on there up to as of January, 1986...1 guess it just a base map that we will be working off of using this data and incorporating them into the four categories. Koegler: On page 46, again, the top of that omits the previous ag discussion and will be substituted along the lines of what we just discussed. The non-conforming use section, which was fairly brief and there was a map associated with that. We have recommended that that be ommitted. It is simply more of a current planning tool then it is a long range tool. The City has good mapping of the uses and let's hope that this body has not approved too many more non-conforming uses since 1980 so there aren't too many more parcels to be added to that particular map so we are recommending that we omit that section. Somewhat the same, no major changes on Page 47 and 48. There were simply some very slight verbage adjustments to change some of the years and some of the tenure that has ~one by and some of the statistics that were cited that were more relevant ~ack to the late 70's. On page 49, there is one minor addition at the top 28 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 29 e which is substitution 8 and again that is simply cross-referencing that 74% number that I mentioned before and the fact that that has remained relatively stable. The next section which will be the replacement and fall in under what is labeled as the projected residential next is an updating of that portion and what we did last time and what we did this time, consistent with that, was to go through and to somehow be able to tabulate some type of land demand based on a set of assumptions that have been mutually agreed upon and that is the section that may take a little more comment. In looking at 9 which is that substitution and that runs for about three pages, first of all we took a look at the residential categories, the density categories that were defined in the plan and kind of took a critique of those compared to the new Zoning Ordinance to determine what changes were necessary. The changes that we would propose there were really ones that fell more in a numbers category then it did in setting up new categories. Our initial impression is that we would look at establishing some additional density categories but in looking at it, there really did not necessarily seem to be a need to do that as long as the density categories that were called out before were consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and how the various density ranges fell. I will get into that in a moment. Essentially, the first one, the lowest density that was established was large lot residential. previously that had more a rural connotation and there is some of that that is probably closer to the developed areas and we just changed the name on that slightly. The other big change on all the density categories is they have gone from reference ~f a gross density number to a net density number. I think the perception that I have gotten, that I have seen and that Barb had indicated was that when you are looking at PUD's and you are looking at preliminary plats and typical subdivision that that perhaps is more of a bottom line number that is more meaningful then what the gross is so there is reference to that. Sort of a cross reference to an approximate gross on each of these. Conrad: What is the difference between the two Mark? Koegler: Gross density is when you look at a proposed development and you look at all of the land within the perimeter boundaries, you total up the number of units and you come up with a units per acre. That is on a gross basis. Net density, what you do is you go in and extract out all the street right-of-way, any required wetlands areas or anything that are going to be dedicated parkland, if you have any major utility easements or something going through, Williams Pipeline or something that excludes development, that kind of thing may be factored out depending upon the site characteristics so it excludes all of that to get to a net number of lots per developable acre of land without the streets and so forth. For single family development, typically that runs plus or minus 25% difference. You can take the gross and add about 25% and recalculate and you wind up with the net number. It is about 25% of the area is dedicated to those public purposes. Conrad: So to make conversion from gross to net, before our standard was 4Ifor gross. Was our standard for gross in residential 2.4 units per acre? 29 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 30 e Dacy: It was a range from 1-3.4 and I believe the existing Comp Plan stated something to the effect that a gross of 2.2 units per acre should be looked at as an average but it did establish our range. Conrad: So what you did then, you took those number Mark, you took 25% off of those numbers to get the net? Koegler: Approximately, yes. What I did, may I highlight those as I go through the categories? I will take each one of them and tell you how those were determined. That may be more meaningful. The net density of 1.1 dwelling units per acre for the large lot is based upon essentially an average lot size of 2 1/2 acres. The way the 1.1 came about was to look at the Zoning Ordinance specifically and see which of the proposed zoning categories fall within that general large lot categories. They specifically were the developments within the R-1A, R-1C and then some of the A-2 developments have occurred also. Those then were tabbed as everything requiring development of at least a density less then 1.1 per acre so again, all of the density categories are tied to those zoning categories. The lot sizes that you specified in your zoning ordinance draft, were essentially the criteria that was put into each of these categories. So low density includes the lot size range that is permissible which is the net density of the R-1A and R-1C. The R-1C is where the 1.1 comes from specifically. R-1C requires 40,000 square feet. If you take 40,000 square feet and multiply that by 1.25, allowing again about a 25% ~verage for the streets and so forth and then divide that by 43,560, which is the number of square feet in an acre, you will end up with 1.1. That is where that number specifically came from. The low density category establishes a range from 1.2 to 4.5 dwelling units per net acre. The low category includes the land that is proposed to be zoned R-1B, R-2 and then the PUD R category which is the lower density of the PUD restrictions so that covers those categories. The average that is being used there is a net of 2.9 which equates to a 15,000 square foot lot. So what we have set there for a target, and we will be looking for that essentially as an average. Again, keep in mind the Comprehensive Plan is a fairly generalized structure and the zoning becomes more specific. In the zoning, obviously you are looking at some PUD revisions and so forth which will qualify that. Conrad: How can you get to 4 points so you... Koegler: The R-2 density that is allowed under your ordinance right now, if I remember my numbers correctly, is what equates to a net density of about 4 1/2 dwelling units per acre. A minimum lot size in the R-2 is 10,000 square feet per lot for doubles and that equates to a net of about 4.5 so the R-2 establishes the high in the net category and the low end is established by the R-1B. The medium category is 4.6 to 10 and again, that relates to specifically the zoning categories R-3, R-4 and PUD R-3. That range of 4.6 to 10 is from the lot requirements for those zoning categories so that is what establishes that range. For the purposes of just simply Mooking at some numbers in land that will be needed, we used an average of "".8 and that 5.8 is just slightly lower mid-figure. There is nothing 30 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 31 e sacred about that but it was fairly consistent with what we have done in the past. The high density category is everything over 10 units per acre which is the R-5 as it is outlined in the proposed Zoning Ordinance. We used 10 as a rough number and then as we mentioned in there, that it may be appropriate in other areas or in certain areas of the City, to build significantly higher then that. I think the downtown area is probably an example of that where you would be looking at densities that would be in excess of that. Just for a land projection basis, 10 was a number that we hit at length. There is some information there, specifically the breakdown on all of the low density is 77% of the land that is allocated on the Comprehensive Plan and of that 23% is single family detached uses so there is about 3% of the double type units in there. The 23% remaining then falls in the medium and high category. The previous plan and this one as well, makes an assumption of kind of a desire type of housing mix and under the categories that were defined, the underlying assumption has been made that since it was a position of the City back in 1980 to basically kind of stablize the relationship between attached uses and the single family uses, and since indeed that seems to have occurred within the last 5 years, that is the underlying assumption that it is the desire of the City to see that trend continue. If that is something that any of you take issue to, that certainly is something that needs to be addressed. If you think the City is not in a position of advocating for enough attached forms of housing, for instance that has some bearing on what we are doing here. The assumption that has been made for land projection purposes is that in ~990 and the year 2000 that of the lots that are developed, the large lots will constitute about 1% of the total area, 77% will be low density, 18% medium and 4% high and that is simply of the residential land, not of the total land of the City. Those consumption forecasts then we use to compare that with some of the household projections that are being offered by both the City and the Metropolitan Council as well as some of the household occupancy characteristics. How many people per dwelling unit in order to come up with a rough idea of how much land is going to be needed between now 1990 and between 1990 and 2000 to accommodate Chanhassen's residential growth. Two sets of numbers were presented in this portion because again, there is not total consistency between the City's position and the Metropolitan Council's position. Just to briefly review the Metropolitan Council's position is based upon 1990 and the year 2000 population projections of 9,000 and 10,000 respectively. The Chanhassen projections are for 9,480 people in 1990 and a 2000 population of 14,750. As you can see, the 1990 numbers there is not a great deal of disagreement. We are under 500 but by the year 2000, at least as we sit here in 1986, the City see the growth being more optomistic then what the Metropolitan Council does so we see that those numbers were reflected in the line projections that we have done. Correspondingly, the household projections are tied into that. The City anticipates that in 1990 there will be about 3,350 dwelling units and by the year 2000 there will be about 5,360 dwelling units within the City. The Metropolitan Council sees that will rise to 3,200 in 1990 and 3,700 in the year 2000 so again there is a corresponding differential there. In applying then the mixed percentage to .he household growth, we came up with an idea of the amount of acreage tha t ould be required by category. The first numbers that were presented, they 31 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 32 e are reflecting the Metropolitan Council's projection which again, are the ones that are slightly more conservative in the first 5 years and significantly more conservative in the second period of 10 years. If I breakdown in categories that are listed there, in the next five years it will take about 327 acres to accommodate the residential growth. From 1990 to 2000, if the growth occurs consistent with the level of population growth projected by the Metropolitan Council, which is only an additional 1,000 people, an additional 309 acres will be needed between 1990 and 2000 so we are looking at 630+ acres over the next 15 year period based upon their projections. Simply taking that and getting some idea on annual basis what will be required and again, consistent with the last time we assumed an even incremental growth which mayor may not be valid, did actually occur, the totals really are probably the more important thing because as you know, building permit activity is cyclical and one year is up and hopefully it will continue, one year down another year up and so forth. But looking at it as being amortized over the 5 and 10 year period, about 65 acres per year, between 1985 and 1990 and then about 31 acres per year between 1990 and 2000 to accommodate the kind of growth envisioned by the Metropolitan Council. Starting about midway down that page, the presentation then is of Chanhassen's projections. Accordingly, with the household growth, population growth, Chanhassen sees that between 1985 and 1990 that about 425 acres of residential land will be required and then correspondingly between 1990 and 2000 where the significant growth spurt is proposed to occur, there is an additional 1,234 acres on top of the 425 __hat would be needed so we are dealing with about 1,600 acres instead of about 600 acres as was advocated by the Met Council. Again, there is a breakdown of what that means on annual and 5 year total basis. With about 84 acres for the first 5 years and then about 123 acres per year for the next 10 year period if indeed those projections are going to come to pass. The importance of this, and I will get into that as we get a little bit further along in this, is simply to show and to be able to exhibit that if growth occurs consistent with the City is advocating probably will occur, that there will not be adequate land within the existing defined MUSA area to accommodate that. The City is not arguing in this text that that is going to happen by 1990 but there is argument that that will be happening later then 1990. Since this plan update is geared toward the year 2000, it is appropriate to note that at this time. Conrad: What is the total area available within the MUSA line right now for residential? Koegler: The only way I can answer that, the numbers that I have at my beck and call is the 2,440 acres that is called out in the Sewer Facility Agreement is the amount of total land that is available, that is vacate within the MUSA line. That is not only for residential purposes. That would be for industrial and commercial purposes also. I can quantify that in a few minutes a little bit more because there are some numbers in here that I can work with so I can refer back to those numbers on that the next time. It 32 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 33 e Conrad: I think it is interesting when we talk about the total acres 1,600 as compared to what the inventory, how much do we have? Koegler: There is a comment that I will make shortly that eludes to that but it is still doesn't quite get to the point. I will collect that for you. Again, the substitution covered pages 50 and 51, the substitution will be just a review. Page 52 is a brief narrative on commercial and as I think I eluded to, the commercial developments, at least as shown in the plan right now, is projected to be within largely the areas that have been developing over the last 5 year period. There mayor may not be some exceptions to that but we will want to talk about in a few minutes but essentially, commercial as the industrial growth, is fairly well defined. Note 11 agains relates to the industrial component that business presumably will continue to be concentrated in the Business Park and Park One on the eastern portion of the community. Page 53 there is reference to sanitary landfills. In looking at that issue, at the time of the 1980 plan we will have completed the whole landfill issue which has just bearly is in it's infancy. Since that time, you are aware, there has been considerable focus in this community on landfill as well as in Carver County and all of the other metro counties. As a result of that, what is proposed to be done is to remove this from the land use section to establish specifically a solid waste chapter in the Comprehens i ve Plan. Jo Ann is go i ng to be the one who is going to be putting that together so there will be a separate text section on that particular topic. On page 54 and continuing ultimately tlrith 54A and B, there was discussion under the future growth which is basically the land use map. Note 12 covers that, first of all with the presentation of the comprehensive plan and the total acreage which gets to part of the issue that you were bringing up a minute ago but it still doesn't completely cover that. That map is referenced there ultimatley will be a version of this. Essentially all we have done here is taken the zoning map and looked at putting that into the density categories that are protrayed in the land use narrative and show them topographical. The plan then shows that at the present time, under this comprehensive plan there is about 3,700 acres that are labeled as residential. There is about 280 that are commercial and it goes on down the list and I don't I necessarily need to run through those. It is important to note though that the areas that are shown here are consistent with all of the zoning dialogue that you have been going through in the ordinanc update. The only things that are possible exceptions to that, that ultimately may be clarified, is in CR 17 and TH 5 area east of Lake Ann park. The zoning map at the present time has a boot shaped blip there, for Comprehensive Plan purposes for right now has been shown as the south half as commercial and north half as medium density. Another area that needs some comment back to the Commission on is probably right down here. What your philosphy is on what will be the interchange location of TH 212 and TH 101. It would be shortsighted for us not to indicate at this time that you are going to get pressure, probably substantial pressure for commercial land uses in that area. Is that something that is of any interest? Is it of any interest to look at that for any higher forms of residential development then what has been shown so <<ar in the zoning ordinance which is essentially the low density category f 15,000 square foot lots? Maybe we could come back to that as it might 33 be more prudent to continue with some of the land use discussion and then corne back and focus on that particular issue. The chart on the next page ~ets a little bit closer at answering some of the points. particulary it Wlooks at the additional amount of acreage that is going to be required and it summarizes that by land use category. Again, it takes the residential numbers that I quoted before and expands on the commercial, the office and so forth. You will note, a couple of cases like the parks particularly and the parks on the map, we have really not shown future park space. The park is limited on that map. So far to existing facilities and major federal and state facilities that are under acquisition, which would be the parcels on the extreme southern end of the City. It is our intent to go back and supplement that after going through the park section with the Park and Recreation Commission. We will come back to you then ultimately. What the numbers all sort out to mean and the reference that I think I can provide to quantify a little bit on Note 12, between 1985 and 2000 Chanhassen's projections call for 1,654 additional acres of land for residential development within the MUSA line. This particular plan allocates about 1,578 acres within the MUSA line so therefore we begin to get that shortfall identify and we are going to be taking another look at that and making sure that we have, in coming up with those totals, have extracted all of the areas that the Metroplitan Council, under the Sewer Facility Agreement has permitted to be removed. Specifically wetland areas, undevelopable parcels, street right-of-way areas, developed parcels and things of that nature so we will be double checking those figures. The shortfall at the present time is relatively minor however it is there. The 1,654 versus the 1,578 is the kind of number comparison but it probably could be spelled out a little bit clearer. ~rhart: You are using Met Council's MUSA line in this discussion? Koegler: Yes, we are. That is a good point and I omitted mentioning. The Plan as portrayed there certainly does still show both MUSA lines and as elaborated in the text, it is still the intent to do that. However, the bottom line is the only one that will be accepted, just as it was the last time around is the Met Council's. They will allow you to make your case and make your notes but for day to day planning decisions, the MUSA line has to be observed as the one that has been approved by the Met Council. I think you have been involved with adjustments to that and presumably the adjustments mayor may not occur in the future but by and large, that line is the only. Starting on page 55, the text on the sewer expansion. There have been some fairly minor changes to that so far. Erhart: I'd like to make that clear again. year line is the lower line? Metropolitan Council's 2000 Koegler: No it is not. It is the top one. It is this smaller one up here that excludes all of this area in here. The City's line obviously incorporates most of that and the City's line was based back in 1980 as it is now, on the fact that all of this land was able to essentially be sewered without any major interceptor or trunk extensions. Conrad: Just going back so I understand what you told me a few second ago, Chanhassen's plan on your Attachment 12, our projections call for 1,654 ~cres need between now and the year 2000. There is inventory of 1,578 that ~s available. 34 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 35 e Koegler: That is correct. Noziska: That's on the north end of the MUSA line. Conrad: That's on Met Council's MUSA line. Really for adequate development, if we were going to plan for 1,654 acres, did I hear you say that there should be 50% additional acres? Koegler: No, that is included within that. What we have done in 1980 and stayed consistent, obviously the residential development market is not something you can pin down. If you have 5 acres and you have demand for 5 acres, you can't direct exactly where that goes. In order to accommodate for that and to allow flexibility and not impact land prices, we had used a 50% overage. So that 50% overage is incorporated within that 1,654 number so the 1,578 is an absolute. That is what is available. The 1,654 is a projected demand number which includes the 50% overage. Conrad: You may want to clarify this page. It is foggy. Now it's clear to me but I think you may want to add a few words there to make sure we know what we're talking about. I read it over four times and I had a little bit of a problem. Noziska: ...which is in fact a little more than 1,578 but all that 1,654 then is to give you the 50% overage on what you need. Then the 1,578 would ~e plenty it just won't give you quite as much over. What will it give you 43% or 47%? Koegler: The percentage could be calculated but there was less flexibility there. Noziska: So then there is nothing really holy about that 50%? Koegler: No, there's not just as there is nothing holy about 74% low density. They come in higher then that which would have a impact on that number also. Noziska: I think Ladd's right. That whole thing needs to be clarified, at least somehow to outline the basics on how that number was arrived at because it is misleading. Koegler: That can be done. The second to last section on the Land Use portion dealt with the relationship between land use and sewer service expansion. What we've done so far is gone through and made some text updates in here. However, this corresponds quite closely to the Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan which will be updated. That was going to be updated by Mr. Monk and now some other arrangements ultimately will be made but again part of the requirements of that Sewer Facility Agreement was that that be done so it has to be done in a fairly timely fashion. For the time being though, we have simply have gone through and updated this. ~here is nothing in there that is of any real major change. The acreage W1umbers that we just talked about are referenced in here and when you get 35 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 36 e to the future trunk expansion, which is on page 57, the map of which is on page 58, the previous phasing category's have been changed to reflect the 1980's and 1995 and then the 1995 to 2000 time period. What those show is that for the areas that were labeled on the map as A, Band C, that those were labeled between essentially 1980 to 1985 for A, 1985 to 1990 for B and C is looking at the long term which is 1990 to 1995 and then the remaining parcels, since they are outside of the MUSA line now, would have to wait until at least the year 2000 to receive any sewer service expansion. So those are trying to be responsive to a couple things. The biggest factor is where the existing utilities are right now, where the logical extensions of those occur and then again, we would probably be a little remiss if we didn't say they are also where more of the current development proposals are happening and the needs within A and B, perhaps more so then C. Again, the numbers, the areas and so forth will perhaps be quantified in perhaps a little bit more specific form after the Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan has been updated and for any of you that are not familiar with what that is, that is another section of the plan that is required that goes through and takes a detailed look at sewage lines and the capacity of certain areas and what ultimate flow will be, what the population growth is and whether or not there are additional physical improvements that need to be made. There is a note in there which is referenced on page 57 to the rural service area. Again, the rural service area is now called the general rural use area and that note specifically references to provisions of the Sewer Facility Agreement that e=his City has agreed to with the MWCC and the Met Council that says you will allow one residential unit per 10 acres with a minimum lot size of 2 1/2 acres within the general rural use area. For agricultural preserves which are considered commercial agricultural under the Metropolitan Council, the City has to have zoning in effect that will allow a density of one unit per 40 acres. There presently are two sites which will be shown on that agricultural map in ag preserve that total 120 acres so there is just an attempt here to make the language a little more specific to the agreement that has been executed which is another controlling item in the preparation of this plan. Erhart: On that particular plan, I have been reading this and the thought carne to me that the way that the Sewer Facility Agreement was imposed on the City and the overall feeling of everybody associated with it, I guess I question whether we should refer specifically to that in our Comprehensive Plan and I guess it sort of just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The Agreement itself, Barb do you remember specifically, I know it requires us to conform to these things but did it state that the Comp Plan actually had to include? Dacy: Yes, as a matter of fact, last March the Commission and Council did pass a text amendment to the Comp Plan to reflect the 1 for 10 and the language that you see here. However, that amendment, I don't believe that it specifically stated the Sewer Facility Agreement says blah, blah, blah. The requirement on that agreement was that we include language in the plan 4Itthat refers to and establishes a 1 for 10 and a 1 for 40 policies of the 36 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 37 e Met Council. So are you saying that you would like the words Sewer Facility Agreement? Erhart: No, if that is the reason why it is here and the those words have to be in this Comp Plan, then I would just as soon prefer that the reason that is in there is referred to. Koegler: There is the requirement that the density standard be referenced. There is not the requirement that the Sewer Facility Agreement itself be put in here. If that term raises a little bit of fire, it can be pulled out of there. Erhart: No, if the terms have to be in there then I think it is just fine to put in there. That would be taken to mean that we may not necessarily whole heartedly support it. Noziska: As I understand our Sewer Agreement, somehow we have to comply with that whole thing whether it is a drafted word or what, it has to be a part of the whole Comp Plan. It's not for you and I anyway and it doesn't matter whether we get excited about it or not, just so we get some goofy developer who comes along here some guidance as to generally what is going to happen and the more background information we can give, I think the less we will have to mess around with him. ecoegler: On page 59 there are two more very minor notes and there was language in there on just kind of a closing recap of some of the land use policy and those subtitution notes simply are references to some of the discussions that we have had previously on updating some of the policy statements. The final item also on page 59 is the solar access chapter which was a requirement that was added at kind of the 11th hour last time around. We're not proposing that there be any change to that. That remain intact. Emmings: In the Policy Recap section, four times appears and then substitutions. "rural service area" Koegler: It is hard to get rid of old habits. Conrad: Do you want to revisit some of the issues that we went over? Koegler: Specificaly, I think the major issue that we need some further discussion on is the TH 212 Corridor and how the intersection of TH 101 may impact, thinking of land use. Noziska: We already have some kind of direction when we're talking about apartment buildings style on TH 212 so that would mean that would sure insure that end of the plan and it would just make sense that there is going to be some logic in planning commercial development around there because that is the major access into the city. The closer you can get 4Ifll those facilities to the major route into the city will be better yet. 37 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 38 e Conrad: Plan? again. 1992. When is the next time we are going to update this Comprehensive In 5 years? After what we do right now. In 5 years we may update That road, TH 169 and TH 212, the best it can do is come in in The best. Noziska: What is the word on that? Conrad: The best it can do. The soonest. Noziska: Who do you get that from? Conrad: Jim Curry who owns property right next to it and I guess I am using him as somebody who has kept his ears to that. He's got property to sell so he has property to make money on there. I think he is paying attention from what he told me a couple days ago. 1992 was the best. Noziska: I thought we were talking 1990 or 1991 the last I heard and now it is 1992 at best. Conrad: Barbara, you may have other things to add. We can't depend on a developer as the one that we are getting all our rumors from. Dacy: As far as TH 212 is concerned. The dates that you heard from him are consistent with the time frames that have been made available to Staff. ~etween now and 1990, the official map process has to be completed. The Environmental Impact Statement has to be completed and in 1990, 1991, MnDot has set that time period to establish funding for that improvement. Where the funding is going to come from still remains the issue. To answer your original questions about when the next plan update would occur, it would be after 1990, after the census is taken. Usually census data takes about a years time to filter back in so it probably will occur I would envision a full blown revision in 1991, 1992 when they get the revised census. Conrad: The other questions I would have is do we know for sure where TH 212 will dump off into Chanhassen, for sure? Dacy: The official map process which is to be conducted by MnDot is a process where each community, Eden prairie, Chanhassen and Chaska will agree to a center line alignment of that corridor and establish a right-of- way through the communities and establish an alignment. That is supposedly to be underway and completed by the first of this year. I have not heard anything from MnDot recently as to that process but that official alignment process should be underway in the immediate future and as you know with Benshoof and Associates and the HRA, we are working on where intersections occur along with that. Conrad: The only reason I'm asking is because it is an important issue for commercial development but do we know enough yet to put anything in the plan? e 38 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 39 e Dacy: We wanted to bring it up to the Commission because it seems like MnDot and the work with the Boardened Study Area is very receptive to at least some type of interchange at TH 101 and TH 212 and we fel t since we were going through the land use plan revision process, that it may be wise to set up, maybe not specifics but general policy statements like as one option, Chanhassen has x amount of acres in commercial land provided in the downtown area. We want to encourage development in the downtown. We do not feel that this particular location would be appropriate for a commercial development if indeed that is the feeling of the Commission and the Council. I see two options that I think you could pursue. You could leave it in a low density category and wait until a specific proposal comes up or a second option would be to allow for a higher density which depend i ng on how you feel for it, tha t would be another area for Chanhassen to provide more of a housing mix on the south side of that alignment. Those are the two options that I see the City taking but I think it would be good to establish a policy now of whether or not the City wants to see commercial at that intersection recognizing that it will be in direct conflict to the efforts that we have been making in the downtown area. Conrad: On the one hand it is like advertising for high density if we put it there for commercial yet on the other hand, if that is the way it might become sometime, it is kind of fair to people who are buying their homes to know that we are thinking that we know that there is a highway going in. It is a real interesting conflict. Do we know enough now that we want ~omething there when we have downtown pretty well set and we want to encourage there? Noziska: How far from that TH 212 realignment is TH 5? Dacy: A full section and a half. About 1 1/2 miles. Noziska: It has always struck me, as far as getting into and out of downtown, to totally redo TH 101 there. TH 101 is nothing but a total mess. You can't keep enough slope to save their souls because there are no banks and with all those curves. We've seen some weird shots that sort of run along TH 5 and exit off of TH 212 to the east but as far as getting into and out of downtown Chanhassen, it never made a heck of a lot of sense to me. It seems like it shot up north or if you want to go into town, go south and hit TH 212 and it just didn't make a whole lot of sense. Even MnDot taking TH 101 both north and south, when you take it to the south of TH 212 and north of Chanhassen to make a decent road like TH 41 where you've really got some reasonable speed and roads to drive on instead of this disaster. Conrad: The indication is Howie that TH 101 will be straighten out there. That is pretty well set. At TH 212 there is an alternative of putting a full diamond interchange. That is being considered which is a major interchange which would hook up straight if TH 101 got realigned straight north into downtown Chanhassen so that is potentially what could happen. 4IfUll diamond interchange, TH 101 realigned to go straight into Chanhassen. 39 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 40 e Noziska: It seems to me that would give Chanhassen a heck of a boost. Are we proposing that with MnDot? Dacy: Yes. Conrad: So given that that is possible, do we play around with the land area around that? The only thing that you could encourage would be highway business. Gas stations. Noziska: Catch them before they get into the Cities deal. We would just as soon keep the bucks in Chanhassen then let them go into Bloomington. Conrad: Would it take away from the Industrial Park, would it take away from the retail area but would possibly put some money into Chanhassen. Noziska: I don't know. I certainly think it is something well worth thinking about. It seems like it is a natural to catch all those South Dakota farmers before they get to Bloomington. Emmings: It does but then too we have a hotel here, there is a hotel being proposed for downtown and we're undermining that plan and that existing business with putting a motel out on the highway. Headla: Are you talking about two different areas that you would be _ervicing? Emmings: I don't know. Conrad: Two different sets of traffic. Noziska: It is a whole different situation but I wouldn't look at that as an undermining operation. I would look at it as complimentary. Emmings: If I owned the hotel in downtown Chanhassen, I don't think I would look at it that way. Conrad: Not necessarily. Your motel traffic is catching traffic off the road. You drive by it, you get a good half of your business that way. If they aren't going to drive by at TH 169 and TH 212, they're going to miss us. The other way they are going to get their traffic is through the dinner theatre. Well, they are the closest motel to the dinner theatre right now so they still have their little nitch until the new hotel goes up in town and then their nitch will be probably on price but I'm not sure it is really competitive. I think it will bring up part of a certain market for them but certainly not a bulk of it. Emmings: It is clear what we will have to do is stop all the traffic on TH 212. .-pacy: Our intent this evening was to alert you to that fact and to alert ~ou that Staff is concerned that we should be addressing it at this time. 40 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 41 e At the next review we can come by with more defined options. Conrad: I think that is what I would like you to do. We will shoot the breeze here for hours and I'm an 1 1/2 hours behind when Howie wanted to get home so what I would like you to do Barbara for the next time we review it is give us a potential way to treat the TH 212 Corridor in terms of limited use commercial, the highway commercial, higher density residential in that area and making the assumption that we are going to be dumping off people on the TH 101 highway. Jay Johnson: What type of commercial would be involved? What type of stuff would we put there that would draw people that they would want to come to downtown? They aren't going south to Shakopee to the race track. We looked at that once before. Conrad: I don't think there is a draw to tell you the truth. I think what there is is take advantage of a need at the time and that is primarily your gas station type of facility. I'm not sure that there is a draw that we can shift, move people to see all the signs, major commercial investment will lead them up TH 101 to Chanhassen. I don't know if that is possible but I can't take it that far. Jay Johnson: Is a rest stop or information center for Chanhassen like at Chanhassen Hills that you can stop and see which hotel has vacancy. _oziska: We have all this activity going on out in this area and to me with a decent access, TH 212 seems to me like we would be able to pull in some race track business and some Valley Fair business and even some Renaissance business. I think there are a lot of things and if they were staying out there they might get lost and go north on TH 101 and actually spend some money in Chanhassen because we don't have anything here but maybe if we develop some additional base down there. I don't know. It is something to consider. I see what is going on, and for the life of me I don't know how the politicians in Eagan and out east of the Cities. They have all of the roads built and absolutely no people and we've got roads that you can't drive on. TH 5, TH 212 and TH 169 are impossible. They have all these roads and no people but you see all kinds of office buildings sprouting up around these roads in the middle of what used to be alfalfa fields and corn fields and I can see in that particular area having it be some really incredible major intersection if MnDot will just complete something down across from Shakopee, we could take advantage of Shakopee's ineptitude and catch them off of TH 212 and keep them here in our communi ty and let them spend a few bucks then ship them off to the race tracks or whatever they are going to do but I think it makes a lot of sense to consider some development. Conrad: Well, there will be pressure for it if we put the highway in. We know the developers will be there so we might as well consider it. ~oziska: If we are going to sit here, we're not planners, we're reactors. ~f we want to do that and if we think we are going to weaken with some high 41 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 42 - dollar roller comes flying in on his white horse and drops a great big plan on our laps, we might as well have some kind of land designation for him to think about because if we don't he will take some A-l land and turn it into whatever he wants to turn it into. I would like to plan it rather than having it shoved down our throat. Emmings: I agree. I don't think that there is any question that it is going to wind up as commercial development. It is just like that corner on TH 7 and TH 41. It is so logically commercial, you can't resist the logic of it but I do think that to the extent that we can develop it... Conrad: I think it has to be complimentary. If we do our job we could have them in downtown. Noziska: I know that as long as I've been in Chanhassen, we've all been concerned about downtown. That always confused me because we don't have anything going. I take a look at Bloomington and they have these little commercial, industrial little centers scattered allover everywhere. They don't seem to be hurting too badly. They seem to be cranking along and I think unless we start to develop that mentality and think of it as something that will assist downtown in creating additional people and traffic and money, but if we don't do that we will just remain a bedroom community and that is it with no services. _onrad: Let's take a look at it and if we don't like it we don't have to push it. I think we should consider it. Mark, what else. Koegler: That pretty much covers that. It isn't the final shot by any means with this. This is what is in the draft so far. With the changes that I have noted from you, I will ultimately take this and get this into one cohesive form which we will continue to review. The park elements and the other elements will be added to this as we continue on. Conrad: I have only one comment. It didn't seem like we talked about the commercial district a whole lot. There is nothing wrong with what was there and it said what we have been doing. Said our intent is to focus business down there but it fit on a quarter or half of a page and it seems like all the energy we have done that we have put into downtown, it seems like downtown deserves more then that just because we are encouraging that kind of a planned growth down there. The only reason I would change it and add more, not for bulk because we don't get rewarded on bulk and if anything I like how we are reducing stuff so you can see what you need, but is there any reason to bulk up the downtown area in here because it might encourage a developer who is reading this that we really are trying to improve downtown or is that just sort of a fantasy that we really aren't going to sell anybody based on the Comprehensive Plan? Koegler: The Comp Plan in my view is not largely a promotional sales tool .pocument. It is a statement of policy and desire and intent within the ~ity. It is the foundation for some of the ordinances that we subsequently 42 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 43 - have. There is room to expand that perhaps along the lines of what we have just been talking about. If we now determine that there is need for some additional commercial space along TH 212 and TH 101 Corridor, there is going to have to be some supportative narrative for that. We will probably have to go a little further in elaborating if appropriate types of uses that are envisioned in those specific areas, again if that is appropriate. I don't know beyond that, I can't sit here and recommend that it needs more words. I don't think it does. The Ci ty's posi tion has not changed. The Bloomington example was cited before, Chanhassen is obviously a totally different animal. Bloomington built a number of these smaller satellite commercial centers and is just now through tax increment over the last two year period, developing a "downtown" so it has reversed the process and they are right now making their 98th Street official a downtown area. It's not a downtown in the classic sense but this City has a very compact commercial core and has chosen to pursue that. Perhaps it is appropriate to let's see where we go with the TH 212 issue and maybe there are some things that would... Conrad: I just wanted to bounce it off of you and see what you felt because for all the energy we put in there, but if the words that you have used are the right words in how we have addressed the downtown issue. Koegler: There are a lot of other tools for promoting the kind of thing that you are talking about that go along with this. I think they are more 4lEffective in doing that. Whether that be going into the Star City's program or just with the Chamber of Commerce, there are other ways. Conrad: What else? Koegler: Housing. Conrad: How much time do you... Koegler: very brief. To be quite honest there's not as much to talk about in this as there was 5 years ago. All I want to do tonight is just highlight what we will be doing in that we are looking at an update of the housing section. The previous housing section was based on again, requirements both numeric and policy from the Metropolitan Council. Many of those are no longer valid given the change that has occurred politically over the last 5 year period. Some of the Federal Housing programs and the State Housing programs have gotten their money primarily from Federal sources are no longer available. As a result of that, the Metropolitan Council has simply lost it's clout, if you will, in implementing a number of their policies because previously they had review authority. Everything from park grants, interestingly enough where you can tie to your housing performance. How well you have done meeting your low and moderate income housing goals. Since the Federal government and Department of Housing and Urban Development by and large has done away with those program, the monies are not as readily available so the Met Council has taken a more reasonable ai}?osition in suggesting that the Cities kind of look at their own local ~ituations and develop their own localized goals and what they want to do 43 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 44 e with their housing mix in providing a housing to a broad spectrum of income and residents. That is more the thrust of what we will be coming back with the next time. The only other things I would like to know in here is basically part of the housing chapter contains a number of statistical type entries. Those will be updated as per the 1980 census. This was all based on 1970 census data and the other thing I note in the memo that was in your packet, that the previous section also contained what again is going to be some verbage that I would recommend would be removed. Specifically there is a fairly elaborate section that goes into various housing types. The Commission back in about 1977 and 1978 was in a position of seeing housing that this community had not seen before. New Horizons was looking very closely and ultimately developed, Orrin Thompson was looking at areas within the community and the quads and all this were coming in and nobody knew what quad was compared to a condo and this and that and so forth so there is a fairly lengthy description and graphic in there about what housing types are and I think that is totally unnecessary today. I think this Commission and the general public is much more knowledgable of housing types that are available which and includes what that meets. Again, we will remove that text. That is really the only thing that we need to specifically highlight tonight. The numerical goals for modest cost housing and for low to moderate income housing are no longer valuable because referring to Metropolitan Council on some of their requirements because they are in the process now of revising their housing chapter of the Metropolitan Development Framework just as they when through _he MBAS portion right now so we will be coming back to you with informaion probably that will have a much more local theme then the last one that is less of the required information that has to be there. Conrad: It sure makes sense to me to get some of that stuff out of there unless we seriously intend to carry out some of these things. I would hope that we could get all of that out of there or as much as we feel we could where the Met Council wouldn't react negatively to what is left. I see some things like in your goals and policies Mark that says efforts should be made to provide subsidized housing where needed to provide balance to the generally high cost of new housing. I'm not sure why but even if that was a goal, how are we going to do that and I would like to see the hows. In this particular case I'm not sure that I would feel good about something like that as a goal or policy statement. The same with the City should promote the use of existing programs designed to reduce land cost to developers of low and moderate income housing. I'm not sure what that means and if we decide that we want that there, we should really identify how we are go i ng to do tha t. One of the ways to do tha tis make the sys tern work through City Hall quicker and what have you. That is one way of doing it. Another way is to increase the density. Okay, well we're not really doing that so therefore that particular statement should be eliminated or we should figure out what we are really talking about there. Are there other comments on goals and policies that would provide Mark and Barbara with any guidelines? Do we agree with getting rid of some of the Met Council's? e 44 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 45 e Wildermuth: their plan? What does someone like Edina do to satisy the Met Council on Koegler: That is a good question. The only thing that I can respond is recent developments like the Edinborough development on 1-494 does provide some very modest cost housing and some low interest loans that are subsidized in part through the City to accommodate that. The City consciously has tried to bring in young families and they have done that by trying to make housing more afforable and more attractive to those lower income so even Edina has done some of that. There is subsidized housing projects within Edina also along York Avenue that were Section 8 projects so there are examples of that. I don't know what there numbers were as percentages compared to what Chanhassen's were identified by the Council. The only other kind of red flag that I will wave a little bit is that I have highlighted exactly what we are going to need to focus on and that is what is your perception of how this community wants to treat housing. The previous position has been that the attempt has been there to make this community available to people in a range of incomes so you get people to move into the community that can move up into housing stock and so forth. Just be thinking between now and next time about those kinds of thoughts that instill where your interests lie and if they are, I agree we have to label specifically as the previous plan did what tools are available to accomplish that. If there aren't reasonable tools to accomplish then there is no reason to make such broad based statements. -- Conrad: We assume that that is going to happen by the marketplace, so if we assume the marketplace needs some help, then we should put it in. Koegler: There are local tools that you have. You obviously have the HRA which is has focused for years on the commercial segment. The word housing is part of the H and the R and the A so there are things that can be done there. I will be elaborating on some of those. Noziska: We're going to have to state the policy and encourage it on housing right? I guess whether we do or don't, we will have to make a decision ...but we have to make that statement one way or another so we can't draw all the way down. Koegler: The boards have to be modified to reflect what your policy is to be at. Noziska: You're talking now we don't have to follow what Met Council dictates. Koegler: They previously gave you numbers and if you were achieving some kind of progress towards those numbers, they had some tools to kind of pull you up short. They could perhaps short circuit one of your grant applications or something. That can't be done any longer. -- Conrad: So the next time we come back on this Mark, you will have proposed goals and policies? 45 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 46 e Koegler: I think in order to probably keep us moving on a schedule, as was mentioned before, get this thing updated before 5 years down the road, we will come back with a draft for the housing along the lines of what we did for land use and put it more into critique mode. Undoubtedly there will be changes that you will wish to make to accommodate that but let's start with something. RURAL LOT SIZES. Dacy: We wanted the Planning Commission to be aware of what Staff had prepared in the interim between Planning Commission recommendation of the Zoning Ordinance to City Council. The Council is having a work session all next week, Monday through Thursday from 5:30 to 9:30 to go through that proposed Ord i nance page by page. We know tha t some of you on the Commission were concerned about what was going to be proposed. Jo Ann is prepared to review each of the requirements that Staff has come up with based on her research on other communities and other Ordinances. We have some clarification from Met Council on some basic enforcement guidelines and so on so if you have specific questions, we are prepared to answer them. Conrad: This is being incorporated in the packets that City Council is looking at and when are they looking at it? e Dacy: Next week. Conrad: Then we better review it tonight. I was thinking that we could postpone the review until the next meeting because we don't have that many items on the agenda but Tim I'm sure you might want to go through this before it gets reviewed by the Council. Jo Ann why don't you lead us through it. Olsen: It doesn't get into the lot size. I have been contacting some of the surrounding communities about what their minimum lot size is and if they enforce it for the density and I haven't found too many cities that have done this but on this note, those are the ones that I did find. We are getting, hopefully from Met Council, they are going to provide us a list of cities that have a MUSA line right through them and then we are going to contact each one of those and find out what their minimum lot size is and what density they enforce, if anything and try to come up with some better numbers. What this really is for is for the enforcement of the 1 and 10 density which we are going to have to enforce. What I did was just go through different regulations for that. Do you want me to go through each one? Conrad: Sure. Olsen: I'll start with 6-7-2 that says a new single family building site may be established or a site containing an existing single family dwelling may be subdivided only if the following provisions are met: tit 46 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 47 e a. The one unit per ten acre density is maintained using the following guidelines and we just set it out so that somebody who comes in with 17 acres understands that they only get 1 unit for that and not two. b. For existing parcels of records established prior to the effective date of the Zoning Ordinance shall be deemed as buildable lots. c. All lots shall have a minimum frontage on a public road as regulated in Article 5. I'm going to look at that closer by we will probably be using the County's requirements of 300 feet with a collector and 500 feet for the minimum minor arterial. Right now we do not have any driveway separation regulations and again, the County has them but since we are incorporated, they can't enforce them with us. We can only use them as recommendations. Erhart: Enforce our own more strict? Olsen: Yes, so we can definitely look at that. d. All lots must have soil and water conditions that permit a well. e. All lots must have standard on-site sewer systems installed in conformance with the Chanhassen Ordinance No. l0-A. - That is somewhat what we are doing right now to make sure that soil and perc tests are meeting standards. Conrad: On that one, must have a standard on-site sewer system. What does that mean? A standard on-site sewer system. Dacy: One that meets our Ordinance requirements. The terms standard works. It is referring that anything that is allowed in the Ordinance in No. 10-A regulation. Ernmings: So the word standard doesn't add anything. Olsen: It's not necessary. Dacy: That is a good point. Erhart: If you are talking about an Ordinance that regulates subdivisions, you can't assume that someone, you can't say that it's going to have a sewer system at the time the guy is subdividing. You really need to state all lots must be, if developed, be designed such that. It isn't worded in there.. . e Olsen: Conditions for an on-site or must have conditions that will permit an on-s i te. . . 47 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 48 e Erhart: You're talking the Zoning Ordinance here right? You're putting a line in here that you would want to find in building codes or perhaps in Ordinance No. l0-A there. Olsen: We have to have something in there that they can prove that an on- site septic system will do just like we do now. Headla: Can two lots share have a mutual sewer system? Olsen: Right now, no. Dacy: We haven't to my knowledge, haven't had that opportunity presented to Staff. We would have to look at the size of the tank would obviously have to be based on the number of bedrooms for each house. Headla: So it is possible to have? Dacy: It is possible. The City would have to look at that in detail to make sure that would function and we would probably also want to insure that a section site was available because once that site goes, we would want a back-up site so it is not the typical occurrence and we would hesitate to issue it right away. We would really look at it. Headla: So in other words, ours is the most capable means for a sewer e system. Dacy: Yes, we can change the language similar to D. All lots must have conditions capable.. Erhart: All lots must have adequate area and suitable soils for. Words like that for the potential installation of a suitable septic system. The words need to be worked on a little bit. Emmings: Or should it say right there that all the lots must have necessary soil conditions and area to support or to have two, a primary and a secondary site. Dacy: Yes, that's a good idea. You are bringing up a good point. The subdivision ordinance does cover it but we may have a parcel records situation that we would want to apply these standards so that is a good suggestion. We will go with that. Conrad: And we will take the word standard out of there? Olsen: F. We are looking at transfer of development rights. The one unit per 10 acre density applies to contiguous property under single ownerships. Acredage under single ownership that is not contiguous can not be combined for increased density building or building eligibility on one of the parcels. What we are trying to prevent with that is if somebody has 10 acres and then has a road separating it or 10 acres a mile away that they can't say that I won't build on it so the 10 acres allows to transfer my e 48 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 49 e density over to the other 10 acres. We are just not going to allow density transfer. We talked it over with our Attorney and we conferred with the Met Council and that kind of defeats the purpose with the density... Erhart: What does the term contiguous mean? Conrad: Next to. Erhart: Does that mean? Conrad: On one piece of land. Erhart: Okay, but if it is a 40 on one side of road and 40 on another side of the road but they are right next to each other, is that contiguous? Olsen: No. Wildermuth: The road separates it. Erhart: Okay, if 40 is on one section but there is a section line between the two, is that contiguous? Olsen: That is contiguous depending on the separation. e g. Once a building eligibility has been used for a property, a development contract must be recorded with the County establishing the number of building eligibilities remaining or documenting that no building eligibility remains. Tranfer of development rights from one parcel of land to another is not allowed. We are just trying to establish a way for this to be recorded so if we are gone, sombody knows that those building right eligibilities have been used up. That the owner, whoever is looking into buying that property knows. What we are going to do is set up a standard development contract. h. Each site must have at least one acre of building acre with a slope of 20% or less. What we are trying to do there is to not allow the 10 acre parcels with only a little bit of building area. We are trying to catch that where we don't have that and that's it. wildermuth: Why do we need h? Olsen: We just have been having some difficulty with subdivisions being proposed in a rural area where there are the 2 1/2 acre the meets the requirement but maybe it only has a small portion that won't require a large amount of alteration. e Wildermuth: This will apply to a 10 acre? 49 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 50 e Olsen: Anything could happen. You could still have 10 acres. We are trying to maintain an area that really is suitable for septic systems, building sites. Noziska: On 10 acres it seems a little far fetched, I agree with you but it doesn't hurt anything. Wildermuth: Wouldn't we have to define buildable then as being the one that will accommodate septic systems...? Erhart: Is the term buildable area defined someplace else in the Ordinance? Dacy: No, I don't believe that we do have a specific definition for it. Erhart: Buildable area. The area of the lot remaining after the minimum yard and compliance of regulations of this ordinance have been met. Dacy: Again, our major intent is as you saw with the Bluff Creek Green plat is that we ended up with 15,000 square feet of area in a rural area supposedly to accommodate two potential septic system sites, a well and a house pad and even the property owner in that area, a very large house could be built and the slopes were just tremendous. We just want to make sure that there is adequate area. - Conrad: Do we need to define buildable though in terms of a pad, a well and two alternative septic fields? Dacy: I think that is a good suggestion. It wouldn't hurt to spell that out and follow that up with meeting Ordinance requirements for separation and setbacks and so on. That is a good idea. Noziska: What are we looking at as far as our time table on this? Dacy: The Council has set aside all next week to go through, this will be part of the proposed Zoning Ordinance discussion. They will be determining what the minimum lot size is, 2 1/2,5 or 10. They have a recommendation from the Planning Commission that says 5. Their goal is to finish up review of the Ordinance next week then the next step would be to hold another public hearing, heading for adoption by the end of the year. Whether or not that happens all depends on next week. Noziska: Interesting. We get the meetings from Met Council and then we fiddle with it for a year and a half. Meantime we got guys coming in here like crazy with 2 1/2 acre deals or less. This is the craziest thing I have ever seen and that was only part of the craziness. We preceeded it with several years of moratorium that was illegal. I don't understand how we can ding around with this for as long as we can ding around with it. I think we have been squeezed by this goofy 2 1/2 acre thing into some less then desirable developments which, that's what the City Council did to us or did to themselves which was eventually they are going to be doing it to e 50 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 51 e the poor slobs who move into these places and then try to figure our where they are going to put their second septic system. On the other hand, we just throw out never mind, we just go to the Federal government and we will dig them up again and fix them like we have done. How many people have we fixed? A dozen, l4? So now we go for some more. As long as the Federal government has money we can go to them to fix these septic systems. Erhart: The people up there are going to pay for those septic systems. Dacy: That's not under a Federal program. Erhart: The problem with those septic systems has nothing to do with the size of those lots. Septic systems were not installed to our current codes so the problem involves soils and the way the septic systems were installed. It has nothing to do with the lots. Lot sizes or soils? Noziska: Soils for the lots were inappropriate. Some were too steep, some were too flat. There were a lot of things wrong with them but all of which were turning around and doing the same thing again. Erhart: They were not designed in accordance with our current Ordinance No. l0-A which regulates the installation of septic systems so I don't think you can say that we aren't doing it again. I think we have an issue here and I think what this Commission, I realize that it is getting late but we e ought to take a minute and see if we really want to go in and do something about what is going to the City Council on Monday. I think we received a lot of data and information about this whole subject since we passed the Zoning Ordinance in April, I guess. I think the issues that are going to be dealt with that haven't been settled are the lot sizes. Do we want to deal with that again here or just leave it. The issue with the density. There are some things here that relate to that. Do we want to deal with that or just let the City Council deal with it. The issue that I sort of have been trying to get to and that is my objection to down in my area lopping off lots off streets and having driveways every 300 feet. I sort of have a vision just like people living in the northern part of the City have a vision for their nice community with trees and shrubs and so on. I have a vision for our area down there too and it is a combination of rural area and those areas that are wooded and not productive, that people can come in there and live in nice houses that maintain and increase in values even though more people are coming in, there is a good plan. I don't think we ought to just simply say no development. Nobody can move down there. I think the market wants people in there and I think the lawyers back a few years ago said that we just can't stop it. I think we ought to really look at how do we allow people to use the land that is not agricultural and yet make it into a nice place to live? Both complimentary to the people who live in the northern Chanhassen as well as the people who live in the south. I think that issue is how do you allow people to develop this wooded area in a sensible fashion that when it's done it is neat and has uniform housing. It doesn't have stuff and junk stored allover the place. A We are sort of out of time, either we have to do it tonight or not do it at ., all. 51 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 52 e Noziska: Aren't we sort of locked into this 10 acre thing that we are looking at? Dacy: The density, that 1 for 10 density issue, yes. However, the lot size and driveway issues, your recommendation on lot size in April was 5 acres. Stuff about how far driveways are separated is exactly what we are doing now. Erhart: The kind of issue that we have to grapple with Howard is allowing people to use the wooded area in places not using agricultural and to look at what I think is 2 1/2 acre lots because the bigger the lot gets the more liklihood that you are going to have lack of uniformity in building and the more liklihood that you are going to have open storage of junk and stuff on the lots. The way to control it so you don't get people lopping off the street is to get real strict on the accessibility to streets. Personally, I think we ought to go back to the 2 1/2 acre but I think we ought to increase the access to on anything above, again if we are going to spend some time to define what these streets are, I don't think we are consistent with this stuff. A minor street, that's one thing. The minor street is where you have people just back out onto the driveway. The next thing above that, it ought to be 600 feet and I'm just pulling numbers and I may be wrong. Right today it is 300. I think it ought to be 600 and when you get up to a minor arterial such as pioneer Trail, it ought to be 1,000 feet or more. In that way regulate what is this going to look like 10 years 4It from now? We are going to have a bunch of inconsistent, non-uniform lots, one right next to the other with driveways randomly located on pioneer Trail. That is a long road. It is getting to be a lot of traffic. I personally don't like what we have passed today for Sever Peterson. To me what should have happened there with those five lots, there should have been one access there. He should have been required to put in either a common driveway for the five lots or a frontage road or something because I think that is what we are going to get 15 years down the road and look back and say. For example, take TH 169 down by Modern Tire, you have these houses along the highway now which is four lane and these people are essentially entering the highway from a house. Now it is actually getting to the point where we are moving the houses out and that to me is poor planning. Conrad: Tim, you have a good point. I think the mentality has been discourage the development so we don't have poor development up there. Reality now is that it is going to be possible based on the lower numbers, there is going to be some development out there. Maybe not as big but there is still going to be some so the question is, given that change that there is going to be some, how do we want to control it and I think you are right, we haven't done a real good job. We haven't looked at a lot of issues like what you are bringing up and I don't think we're going to tonight but you brought up some really good points. e Dacy: As to the driveway issue, the lot sizes and the density I think are going to be decided by the Council. However, specific enforcement standards like driveways, Staff can come back based on the functional 52 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 53 e classification of the roads in the rural area, we can come back with the recommended engineering standards such as we did already tonight with the 31010 and 51010. We can relook at those at the request of the Commission between now and next week. I can eas i ly express to the Counc i I tha t the Commission wants that particular issue researched further. They may have the same questions and concerns. I'm not absolutely positive that by next Thursday they are going to be saying, well we've got the new Ordinance so there may be some time here and feel free to say that these are things that we want Staff to look at in conjunction with the Council and if you want us to come back, we certainly will. Noziska: Are you eluding to the Covenants of some sort or another as far the storage of uncovered stuff even including extra vehicles sitting around and this and that? Erhart: I don't know if you can go that far in the rural areas but the thing is I feel as the lots get bigger they tend to encourage that kind of thing and I would prefer not to do that. I love it out there because I have 8 acres and I don't have junk sitting around outside because I think we have a neat place but I have neighbors out there who have 5 acre lots and it is an eye sore. Noziska: I know in our little area we have Covenants that it look good and we help police the area. We don't get somebody kicked out, you tell them e to do this or that but everything by and large is pretty well taken care of. Conrad: I sure wouldn't mind opening up this issue again. I think Barbara is right. The City Council is going to go through so much stuff that maybe want we should do Tim and if you could compile a few, and I don't know if you went through your laundry list of things to look at but what would be a good way to review it. We meet in two weeks and we don't have a full agenda and we could certainly talk about it and hopefully Barbara can incorporate it if in no other way other then just communication with the City Council. Let's plan on talking about it. Dacy: It seems to me the driveways is a major things. Erhart: I think it is an integrated thing. I think either you deal with it as a total integrated thing. How do we want to direct development in the rural area? If we are just going to deal with driveways, let the City Council do it. I don't think it is just that easy. One group or the other is going to have make an integrated plan. Dacy: Maybe Commissioner Erhart and Staff can talk about the issue that he has in mind and we will have something prepared by next meeting. Conrad: Actually, after reading this I felt uncomfortable with the 5 acres because I don't think that is good planning even though when we submitted 5 acres to the City Council, again, we wanted the big lot sizes. The bigger the better in the rural area but it didn't have anything to do with good e 53 Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1986 - Page 54 e planning and how those should be and I might change my mind on the lot size because it might be appropriate to cluster them together and do a couple of other things. Tim, if you can spend a few minutes with Barbara and let's bring it up in two weeks and see what we can do. Emmings moved, Noziska seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m.. Submitted by Barbara Dact, City Planner. Prepared by Nann Opheim e e 54