Loading...
1981 07 15 APPROVED ON )~-~31 e Minutes Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting July 15, 1981 Staff Present: Bob Waibel Others Present: Mark Koegler, Schoell & Madson, Inc. Scott Harri, Schoell & Madson, Inc. Jim Uttley, Metropolitan Council Staff The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Art Partridge with members Jim Thompson, Ladd Conrad, Carol Watson, Walter Thompson and Michael Thompson present. Howard Noziska was absent. e Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan: Mark Koegler presented revised growth assumptions for residential and industrial land uses necessitated by Chanhassen's population projection reduction. He stated that the City's projected additional 1,633 housing units (1980-1990) could be absorbed within developments previously approved or reviewed by the City. Development of the Hennepin County portion of Chanhassen, Park II, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park Phase I and the Minnetonka, Inc. property could fully utilize the city's industrial capacity. Scott Harri presented changes in the revised sewer policy plan. He indicated that growth and sewage flows in the central part of Chanhassen had been reduced as well as minor reductions in the northern portion of the community. Additionally, he indicated that the MWCC plans to construct the Lake Ann Interceptor in an alignment which parallels the existing local trunk along Lake Susan. After further discussion, the Planning Commission indicated that the industrial flow of 2000 gallons per acre per day should be changed to agree with the projections of the Metropolitan Council in order to expedite the review of the Comprehensive Plan. e Jim Thompson moved to approve the sewer plan revisions with the industrial flow change in order to bring the Sewer Policy Plan into conformance with Chanhassen's revised System Statement. The motion was seconded by Ladd Conrad and passed - 3 yes, 2 no votes. Michael Thompson stated that he voted no because he questioned whether or not the Minnetonka, Inc. property and a portion of the Lake Susan west development should be removed from the 1990 MUSA area. Carol Watson stated that she voted no because she previously had voted no on the approval of the plan because she felt it was the Metro- politan Council's plan rather than the City's. Watson felt that the further revisions of the sewer plan made the Comprehensive Plan even more of a Metropolitan Council plan. e Minutes Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting July 15, 1981 Page Two Implementation and Recreation Section Amendments: Mark Koegler informed the Commission that the changes to the park section were minor in nature and had been reviewed and approved by the Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission. In the implementation section, it was recommended that page imp-25 which portrayed improvements to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission's lift station be removed since the improvements were no longer needed because of flow reductions. The Planning Commission recommended that the improve- ments to the facility be indicated in the text of the sewer plan section. Michael Thompson moved to approve the recreation section as revised. The motion was seconded by Jim Thompson and approved unanimously. Michael Thompson moved that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan revisions on August 12, 1981. The motion was seconded by Ladd Conrad and approved unanimously. The Commission requested that the paper publish a map portraying the MUSA Line change. e Open Discussion: Jim Uttley from the Metropolitan Council was present to discuss the Metropolitan Land Planning Act and the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan Draft. Mr. Uttley reviewed the purpose of the Act, how the population projections were completed and elaborated on the steps of the Comprehensive Plan review process. The Commission discussed the need for improvements to Trunk Highway No. 5 stating that the Metropolitan Council classified the road as a minor arterial while the City classified the road as an inter- mediate arterial. Jim Uttley stated that in order for the plan to be consistent with the System Statement, the City should classify Trunk Highway No. 5 as a minor arterial and recommend that it be upgraded to an intermediate arterial. Uttley indicated that the timing of such a request is ideal since the Metropolitan Council is currently revising the transportation section of the Metropolitan Development Guide. After a review of the July 22, 1981, agenda, the meeting was adjourned. -