1987 10 14
e
e
e
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 1987
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad,
James Wildermuth and David Headla
MEMBERS ABSENT: Howard Noziska
STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City
Planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
RICHARD VOGEL, LOCATED NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF MILE
EAST OF TH 101:
A. SUBDIVISION OF 42 ACRES INTO 12 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR A HOLDING POND AND DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS-a-WETLAND. -------
Public Present:
Richard Vogel
Herb Baldwin
Al Klingelhutz
Applicant
Applicant's Landscape Architect
Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report on the Subdivision and Wetland
Alteration Permit.
Herb Baldwin: I'm the landscape architect on the project representing
Mr. Vogel. Can we get a little clarification on your park
recommendation? Your Park and Rec's report, with regard to the
easements, it seemed as though they had, to us, we read the Minutes, that
they had not needed that extra 10 feet in addition to the 20 feet of
pioneer Trail.
Jo Ann Olsen: We're going to try to build the trail within the right-
of-way but we still don't have confirma.tionfromCarver County that it
can be located in the right-of-way. what we'11 try to do is build the
trails within the 'right-of-way.
Herb Baldwin: We understand that the easement granted to the trail would
not take upon the area requirements for the minimum lot size for example.
However, as you know, on Lot 1 and Lot 11, the siting obviously Lot 1 is
on a hill and the trail there is not feasible. The proximity there to
trails to the proposed house where people would be living, it's like 12%.
Lot 11, which is right over here, a drop off, even adding 10 feet is
going to put it out in the air so it would be nice if we could get
clarification as to what Park and Rec really felt they needed and what we
can get. I would just like to add, we've had a long process in
e
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1987 - Page 2
developing this plan. Through the cooperation of your staff, we have
been in and out of here often. I want you to know that the design in
front of you is in response to what we felt was best for the land and
obviously best for the City. There are variances that we're asking with
regard to lot widths .at the street and so on. We feel those are
reasonable in taking into consideration the design of those lots. I want
to thank Jo Ann and Barb for all of their patience. We feel the project
has matured to the point where it has answered as many of the problems as
we could possibly answer. If there are any questions of Dick and Gale as
owners and developers and myself as the designer, we'd be happy to try
and answer those.
Headla moved, Wildermuth seconded to close public hearing. All voted in
favor and motion carried.
Conrad: Al, you didn't talk during the public hearing. I can't believe
that.
Al Klingelhutz: This has been going on since the 15th of January. I
think most of the things are pretty well taken care of. I'm just
concerned about the 20 feet on each side of the road. 10 feet for
additional road surface and another 10 feet for a park trail which is
taking a considerable amount of land without compensation.
e Conrad: As I told everybody up here, I felt that we might want to table
the issue simply because we hadn't seen the plat but I think in looking
at the plat in the last few minutes, the Commission members feel
comfortable reacting to it tonight because generally it's pretty good
looking thing. I don't think we saw anything that we needed to dwell on
a whole lot so with that comment, I think we'll go around the Planning
Commission for comments.
Headla: One problem, item 5, provision of a 10 foot roadway easement on
both the north and south sides. On the cul-de-sac, did you say it's a 60
foot right-of-way right now?
Olsen: Yes.
Headla: Now is the 10 foot on either side, is that in addition to the 60
feet?
Olsen: No, that's on pioneer Trail, CR 14. It's inbetween Lots 1 and 11
and 12. That's the county road. That's what's getting the additional 10
feet on either side.
Headla: The 10 feet is in addition to the right-of-way?
Olsen: Right.
to use.
It's a roadway easement so it's there for Carver County
e
e
e
e
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1987 - Page 3
Headla: You mentioned about the 8% grade and then you said something
right after that that I didn't understand.
Olsen: Because of the slope right toward pioneer Trail, they can't get
that 7% without really grading a lot of the property. We felt that a
compromise with the 8% slope would be permissible to reduce some of the
grading on the site. They still have to provide the way into the area
that allows people to stop properly.
Headla: The safety department have any problem that?
Olsen: No.
Wildermuth: Is our consultant given us any guidelines as far as the
distance of the septic fields from the house?
Olsen: The Ordinance keeps it at 150 feet and she has felt that that is
adequate. Dr. Rockwell and Mr. Machmeier also feel that 150 is adequate.
Wildermuth: Some of these are probably more than 150 feet.
Olsen: Closer?
wildermuth: No further than 150 feet.
Staff doesn't have a problem with that?
within 150 feet?
If the first system should fail.
As long as one system falls
Olsen: None will fall within the 150 feet.
Erhart: I think you asked from the house, not the wetlands.
Olsen: Oh, I'm sorry. The house.
wildermuth: Yes. For example Lot 9, the second system for example is
more than...
Olsen: There's no separation from the house.
system has to be 50 feet away from a well.
It's just that a septic
wildermuth: I guess I don't have any problem with the variance for Lots
5 and 9. It looks like an attractive subdivision.
Siegel: What's the existing horne, Lot I?
Olsen: It's on the other side of this.
Siegel: Is it a little unusual to have a subdivision on both sides of a
major road?
Olsen:
That lot is already created...
e
e
e
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1987 - Page 4
Siegel: I was just wondering about the reasons for it.
Olsen: It's just a part of his property.~
Siegel: Was is that property just south and west? Is that a single
family home? Right next door to him. And that property to the east?
Olsen: That property to the east was just approved as a three lot
subdivision for Dave Hanson.
Siegel: That property goes to the Hennepin County line or is it...
Richard Vogel: Hanson goes to the county line.
Siegel: I just thought it was a little unusual to include the existing
lot with the whole subdivision since it1s on the other side. I don1t
know if that has an effect on the dedication of roadways. What about the
dedication of the roadways from the existing property owner who is his
neighbor right now? We don1t have any requirement on him for the same
kinds of dedication do we?
Olsen: No, I don't believe he had to give anything but Dave Halla did
which is to the west and George Nelson of the Gagne property also had to
provide additional right-of-way.
Siegel: I'm just thinking, are we going to end up with a lot of little
blips in the system where these people have not been required to do this?
Olsen: If they've subdivided, that's the only way we have power to
request that but if they do improve it and there are lots inbetween it
that haven't gone through the subdivision process than we would have to
purchase the property.
Siegel: The government would?
Olsen: Yes.
Siegel: They could condemn it?
Emmings: One thing that occurred to me when I looked at this is that
when we've put subdivisions backing up to another subdivision we1ve been
looking at the issue of how the lots fit with the neighboring
subdivisions and I don't remember what they look like in the Gagne
property and how these will match up.
Olsen: I believe there's a cul-de-sac around here and there's a lots
going like this. It's similar where they have lots that are long and
there are some ponds and wetlands.
Emmings:
So they match up pretty well?
Planning commission Meeting
October 14, 1987 - Page 5
e
Olsen: Yes.
Conrad: Did we have the Gagne property move their cul-de-sac so it might
link up to this?
Erhart: No, you're thinking of Wally otto's subdivision.
Olsen: This was always proposed here.
Emmings: While we're on that, that's my next one I've got here.
imagine why we wouldn't link these up. I just can't imagine.
I can't
Olsen: Again, it was topography.
Emmings: Well, let's talk about that. what is the topographical
constraint?
Olsen: The engineer looked at it and I believe it would be over an 8%
slope. To grade in would totally wipe out this whole area. The
Engineering department looked at it and felt that it would be too steep.
e
Emmings: Didn't Chaffee look at this? I tell you what. My recollection
is that we don't like cul-de-sacs that are this long for public safety
reasons. I've heard that over and over here and here we seem to be
making one and from what I can see here, it looks like it cul-de-sacs at
around elevation 870 and it looks like that other cul-de-sac must be
somewhere, I don't know where it is but I see 900 over there but I don't
know exactly what the distance is. To the extent that the cul-de-sac on
the Gagne property doesn't come over to the line, did we have him reserve
an easement for a possible link up?
Olsen: Again, we knew that this was coming and we looked at it and felt
that it wasn'...t necessary. From safety, the Public safe,t~~epartment did
review thts Sln8., they didn't feel that the connectionwjDJ ~lIt agree, we always
push forPt~~t~and that's the first thing that staff looked at was let's
connect these. In fact I think when we first met with the applicant it
was stated that it would be really nice if we could connect. We could
have the engineering department look at it again and maybe come up with
what the slope would be and look at it one more time.
Emmings: Okay. It seems to me there ought to be a real compelling
reason not to do it otherwise it's never going to be done. I don't have
any problem with the lot width variances for Lots 5 and 9 of Block 1. It
seems the lots, the configuration of the lots seem real reasonable and
granting a variance in that case. On Lot 9, I think it was Dave or Jim
that pointed out that one. I don't know how they're going to build that
house up there without traveling over that septic site and I hope that
our building inspector watches them carefully. I can see that road
getting over. I also don't have a problem with the wetland alteration
permit. It seems to me that there's a significant improvement going on
there and that's a good thing. Other than the fact that a connection of
e
Planning Commission Meeting
October 5, 1987 - Page 6
e
the road because of that other subdivision, I don't have any problems
with this.
Erhart: I'm going to go back to Steve's issue regarding the connections.
I'm not suggesting that we change this subdivision or the plan at all at
this point but I specifically talked to planning about that subject when
the Gagne subdivision came in asking that we at least provide an easement
to the edge of the property not knowing that Dick was going to come in
with this subdivision. When it came to the Commission basically I was
told that engineering had reviewed it and said it wasn't necessary. I
look at it again and say, it's just amazing to me. I don't have a
problem with the 1,400 foot cul-de-sac if that's the only thing that fits
in there but here it was just a real opportunity to make a continuous
through street. I calculate the slope as less than 7.5% and I'd like
someone from engineering to come in here at the next meeting and explain
to us why, what the reasons were and why that street doesn't go through.
I just think it's poor planning. So I can better understand why it
doesn't go through. What's the lot widths for Lots 6, 7 and 8 at the
street?
Olsen: At the street it's 100, 180 and 130 and then at the setback they
all have the 180.
e
Erhart: They're all 180 at the setback except Lots 5 and 9 so it's not
the street? Now the ordinance strictly reads at the street but we're
basically we are interpreting that to mean at the setback which I'm all
in agreement with. I'm also in agreement with on these huge lots in
order to not make them totally wasteful, to allow the 180 feet at the
building site. I guess I'm starting to question why don't we just make
an ordinance change instead of having all these variances.
Olsen:
We are officially...
Erhart: Regarding the trail, the current trail that comes out from Eden
prairie is on the south side of TH 101 all the way out which appears to
be to pioneer Trail to the Hennepin County/Carver County border.
Olsen: And that's what the Park and Recreation Commission first
recommended that it be on the south side and then we met out on the site
as the action has said with Lori with Staff. His home, there's a steep
slope and he would not want a trail right next to his house. Looking at
the site on the Gagne property, which is on the north side of pioneer
Trail, it was decided that to switch it over to the north side and that
they would then have to cross the street most likely on the bridge. They
intitially wanted it on the south side to keep it on the same side but
then looking at the topography, they opted to go on the other side.
We've got trail easements the north side and south side so we could go
either way.
e
Erhart: What's the speed limit on pioneer Trail?
e
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1987 - Page 7
Olsen: They go at least 50 mph.
Erhart: Again I wasn't there with them although I drive the street at
least 3 times a week and I just can't comprehend. It would have to be
some severe reasons to switch that trail. From the notes on the Park and
Rec communication that they expect to have a controlled intersection of
CR 14 and TH 101 at sometime in the future providing an opportunity for
bikers to cross that light. I guess my question is, maybe for Dick I'd
like to address you, I'd sure like to see the thing on the south side.
You have some concerns about the space that you have with that Lot 11 and
you're talking about the additional 10 foot easement. I realize how
close your house is to CR 14, is that a less evil for you by chance?
Richard Vogel: When they were out there, there's a steep bank to the
south which you couldn't go on. So you would be right up to the house.
Any trees or shurbery that we have as a windbreak would have to go.
Erhart: I guess if these trails are going to get built, I'd like to see
a continuation of what we have on the other side.
Olsen: Now we have a continuous trail on the north side where on the
south there is a gap between the Vogel property and the...
e
Erhart: Yes, but that...is going to leave a lot of room between...is
going to leave a lot of room between...and those existing three homes.
That's scheduled for next summer.
Al Klingelhutz: A year from this summer. They're acquiring the land
this year and it will be built in 1989. It was scheduled to be open in
1988.
Erhart: It's still 5 years ahead of the trail program. We're really
down to Dick's house. If you take into consideration that the alignment
there, Dick's home versus crossing the street which is the same problem
with Lot 11, I don't know if we want to resolve here at the Planning
Commission. I'm not sure they've really thought this thing through. I
think the wetland improvements, I always think those are great in this
case. If you can turn a questionable wetland and turn it into
essentially a wetland with some open water. A question, when we get into
a wetland that isn't on the wetland map, what's the City's position on
that? We can essentially, when a subdivision comes in, we can stake our
claim and say that it doesn't legally say it's a wetland?
Olsen: Right. The ordinance gives us that opportunity.
Erhart: That's the only thing I think I've got.
Conrad:
I don't have any comments. It's a good plan.
e
Headla: Jo Ann, they 1 i st the total of 42.1 acres.
pioneer Trail area also?
Does that include
e
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1987 - Page 8
Olsen: No, that doesn't include that right-of-way.
Headla: It doesn't include any of the road though?
Herb Baldwin: It does not include the right-of-way of pioneer Trail. It
does include the north parcel and the southwestern park, the two parks.
Conrad: I do feel, even though I said I had no comments, I do feel as a
few commissioners have said. The road connection is intriguing to me. I
would have liked to have seen it in the engineers report which it's not
there. Why? And I would certainly like the engineers to volunteer a
comment to City Council when this goes to them and if it's decided that
we don't need to connect, I think we should berelooking at some of the
standards that we have set in terms of cul-de-sacs because I know on the
Gagne property we were thinking of connecting and we had, whether it was
the cul-de-sac's lined up or the right-of-way's allocated, we're
concerned about that. Public Safety is concerned about that. I'm
hearing staff say, we're not concerned about that. We need input
therefore. So, it just seems like a logical connection to make and I
don't understand why it's not there. Staff is saying trust us and I want
to have some information to trust you with. So again, I'd like to
process this but I need some return information coming back Jo Ann and I
would like that on our upcoming Commission agenda.
e
Emmings moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision Request #87-5 Lake Riley Meadows as shown on the
plat dated August 28, 1987 subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of lot width variances for Lots 5 and 9, Block 1.
2. Submission of covenants restricting the resubdivision of Lots 5
and 9, Block 1.
3. All approved soil absorption sites must be staked, roped off and
approved by the City Engineer prior to final plat approval.,
4. Approval of the wetland alteration permit and compliance with
all of the Wetland Alteration Permit conditions.
5. provision of a 10 foot roadway easement on both the north and
south side of pioneer Trail.
6. provision of a 10 foot trail easement on the north side of
pioneer Trail.
7. The applicant must receive an access permit from Carver County.
8.
The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the
City and shall provide the necessary financial sureties as part
of this agreement for completion of the improvements.
e
e
e
e
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1987 - Page 9
9. The applicant shall obtain permits from the Watershed District,
DNR and Office of the Carver County Engineer and shall comply
with all their conditions of approval.
10. All improvements shall conform to City standards for rural
construction.
11. The road profile shall contain a 0.5% grade for a minimum
distance of 50 feet prior to the intersection of CSAH 14.
12. The driveways of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 11 shall have adequate sight
distance for a 25 mph design speed according to the standards of
the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
13. No private accesses onto pioneer Trail shall be allowed.
14. Additional erosion control (hay bales and snow fences) shall be
placed as per Attachment 2.
15. Each lot shall be required to submit a Grading and Erosion
Control Plan as part of the building permit application.
16.
Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used on all slopes
greater than 3:1.
17.
Drainage shall be directed away from the house pad of Lot 4. A
revised plan shall be submitted for approval by the City
Engineer.
18. That the City Engineer or applicant make a compelling case to
the City Council that there is good reason not to connect the
cul-de-sac in this subdivision with the cul-de-sac in the Gagne
property.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Erhart: I think there is a compelling reason. The other subdivision has
already been approved and basically going in with no easement provided
from the other property bringing that cul-de-sac through. I think it's
too late. Am I wrong?
Olsen: I believe the cul-de-sac is located right here.
Erhart: There's no easement through the property?
Olsen: Right.
Erhart: Am I wrong? Isn't it too late?
Olsen:
If the city wants to, they could buy itt,
e
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1987 - Page 10
Emmings: I guess the point is Tim, I want that issue aired in front of
the City Council. That's the only thing. Otherwise I think it's a
perfectly good project but I think that should be looked at. We can't
because we don't have the engineer to really layout the reasons. He
didn't think it was important to do it. I don't want to hold up another
week or two weeks or month or whatever.
Erhart moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #87-12 for the construction of a
holding pond and for the filling of a portion of the Class B wetland for
the construction of a street with the following conditions:
1. The holding pond be designed to the six specifications from the
u.s. Fish and wildlife Service:
a. The basin will have free form (no even-sided) shape to
increase shoreline length and provide isolated areas for
feeding and resting birds.
b.
The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of 10:1
to 20:1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to enourage
growth of emergent vegetation as refuge and food for
wildlife.
e
c.
The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for
variable water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for
species of wildlife feeding in shallow water (0.5 to 3.0
feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent vegetation in
areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion
of open water with emergent vegetation.
d. The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an
existing wetland being filled) on bottom of basin to
provide a suitable substrate for aquatic vegetation.
e. The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser
pipe, etc.) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the
wetland.
f. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding
the basin to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the
wetland.
2. The applicant shall receive a permit from the u.S. Corps of
Engineers prior to any filling of the Class B wetland.
3.
All septic systems shall maintain a 150 foot setback from the
proposed wetland boundary as shown on Page 1 of the preliminary
plat and all structures must meet the 75 foot setback.
e
e
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1987 - Page 11
4. No alteration of the wetland will be permitted other than for
the construction of the pond.
5. The wetland shall always be preserved in it's natural state.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Al Klingelhutz: You were talking about the CR 14 and TH 101
intersection. I discussed that quite thoroughly with the County Engineer
and there are going to be improvements made on four lane and I think
maybe we should have the Planning Commission and City Engineer take a
look at that intersection. I would like to have a resolution from the
City Planning Commission and City Council shortly asking that the State
Highway Department cut the hill down on the Halla Nursery side for better
sight vision at that intersection. It is probably the most dangerous
intersection in Carver County or the City of Chanhassen. Down here at
Chanhassen Hills there was a slight hill before the driveway going into
the new subdivision and the Highway Department has made Chanhassen Hills
cut that hill down to have good sight vision there. In fact the road is
closed right now. I think it would be a good opportunity to do something
on the hill at Halla Nursery.
e
Conrad: Jo Ann, based on what Mr. Klingelhutz said, how would you like
us to address that issue?
Olsen: We could bring it back. The City Council will review it on a
resolution. We could bring it back and have you comment on it.
Conrad: Okay, let's do that.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Headla moved, Conrad seconded to approve the
Minutes o~the Planning Commission meeting dated September 23, 1987 as
amended by Andrew Hiscox by his letter dated October 4, 1987, by David
Headla on pages 3, 23 and 28 and by Ladd Conrad on page 4. All voted in
favor of the Minutes as amended except Erhart, Wildermuth and Emmings who
abstained.
OPEN DISCUSSION:
REVIEW 150 FOOT LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENTS.
Barbara Dacy presented a staff report on the 150 foot lot depth
requirements.
Mr. Delancey: The only thing I'd like to say is that under the Plan A
concept it really does play havoc with the topography of the land and the
trees of the land. What I'm saying is that number one it would require
the east part of the lot the road would be moved over 25 feet which would
e
e
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1987 - Page 12
put it into an area where you would have to cut down about 30 feet of
trees. The other thing is on those four lots on the side, I think Barb
pointed out, you've got a steep grade in there and you have to put the
houses counter to that contour of the property. I'm not certain but I
wouldn't be attracted to that if I were a potential buyer. It's forcing
you to build in the opposite direction of where it should really go and
that is the point that I want to make. That you're really not only
losing two lots but you're losing those four lots due to the way it's
laid out. Am I making myself clear on that?
Conrad: Actually I would prefer not to even react to your layout. It's
a good case history for us to react to. Do we want to change our
ordinance? I don't even want to react to what you've got here. It just
gives us a sample of something.
Mr. Delancey: I guess what I'm saying is that we meet all of the
requirements as I understand it prior to the first part of it here when
that 150 feet is put in and because of the constraints of the property,
some lots just don't...
e
Conrad: It is a recent ordinance and maybe the Commission didn't come up
with the 150 but the Council paid attention to it and it's one of those
things that do we want to challenge right now something that just went
in? I think there are some good arguments for the 125. I guess again,
I'd like to take you out of this particular, I think the Planning
Commission, Mr. Delancey, don't worry about his plat. It just shows some
samples. Don't use that as leverage to change one thing or another. He's
got to deal with our ordinance as they are but given Barbara's examples and
maybe a philosophy of distance between homes, what do you think? It
obviously is giving a developer a chance to minimize the depth and maximize
the distance between houses. There's a better feeling, an airier feeling.
Whether residents want that or not, I don't know but what do you think?
Wildermuth: I guess I'd be inclined to let the ordinance stand for a
longer period of time to see what kind of reaction we get. Getting back
to this particular one, I see some really odd things here. Lot 8 for
example is not 15,000 square feet.
Conrad: Don't pick that one apart.
a temptation to do that.
I guess you could.
I think there's
Wildermuth: I would really want to resist the temptation to change a
recent ordinance to tailor it to a situation like this but I think we
ought to see how many more come up before we make a change.
Conrad: And I don't want to tailor our ordinance to Mr. Delancey. He's
saying, hey here's a sample. When the zoning ordinance went through here,
we didn't talk about this that much. City Council did and maybe Bill
that was before your time there. Jim, do you have a reason not to like
e
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1987 - Page 13
e
this spacing houses out? Do you have a feeling like Council did when
they passed the ordinance? Do you have a feeling that the backyard is
more important?
Wildermuth: Right. I feel lot depth is quite important.
Conrad: So you'd rather see the houses packed side to side?
Wildermuth: with a minimum of 90 feet isn't packing them side to side I
guess to my way of thinking.
Emmings: I've got two things. One is, I have no problem with it at all.
I think it's fine. If they want to decrease the depth to 125, I think
that's fine as long as we still have our 15,000 square feet but I think
that if they're going to, and I think it depends on where the houses are
but if we're going to only have 125 feet in depth, then it seems to me
that we ought to figure out, when the house goes on there, they ought to
try and equalize the sideyard setbacks. If you're going to have Barb's
example of a house, a 48 foot rambler and if this lot is 125 feet deep,
how wide is it?
Dacy: 120 feet.
e
Emmings: So if you've got a 50 foot rambler there, you've got 70 feet
and rather than sticking it on one side or the other, we ought to
equalize those sideyard setbacks if what you're trying to do is get
spacing between the houses or get a neighborhood that looks like it's
more spread out. So I guess if they're going to have that option, then
if they elect that option I think that they ought to equalize the
sideyard setbacks. Maybe not perfectly equal but at least strive toward
equally it out. The other thing is, maybe what you could do if you want
to preserve more of a backyard is say, if you go down to 130 or less feet
in depth than you've got to increase the rearyard setback. The building
setback in the rearyard and that would preserve more separation between
the backyards of houses. Houses that are backing up to each other. That
would give them more space in their backyards. I guess those are the two
things. Otherwise I think it would be fine.
Erhart: This was changed at the Council working session on the zoning
ordinance? Do we have Minutes from that meeting?
Dacy: From the working session, no.
Erhart: So we don't know any discussion that took place when they
changed that from 125, which was our proposal to 150.
Dacy: Bill, I recall you being in the audience for the meeting. I
clearly remember that the reason was to increase that rearyard play area
for the children. Maybe one thing that I could do also is I know there
are a number of lots in Chanhassen that don't even meet the 125 foot
depth. Maybe we can also come back next time with a map showing those
e
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1987 - Page 14
e
that are 125, those at 100 and those that are deeper and then you can
visualize those neighborhoods and see how you feel about them. Some
people don't mind just having their own little space back there and
that's it.
Erhart: In your comparative analysis you're saying that in Eden prairie
if you have a one acre lot, that's the only time they require the 150
foot depth. Otherwise, we are really a little out of line in comparison
to other surrounding cities. I guess if our initial proposal was 125 and
staff thinks it's a good thing to go back to it, unless you can come up
with, I don't know if that makes the backyard that much different, I
wouldn't have any problem with it.
Conrad: There are pros and cons to both ways. There really are. The
Council had a good reason for play area in the back. You don't play in
the side of your house period. If you're looking for area for your
family it's in the back of the house so there's good reason. But from an
open, from a distance and house to house deal which we kind of like out
here, there's also reason to separate houses.
Erhart: Backyard setback is what?
Dacy: 30 feet.
e
Erhart: So even on a 150 foot lot a guy can put the house 30 feet from
the back. I don't know if you really have that much control over how big
the backyard is by setting 150 foot minimum.
Dacy: You have anywhere in that buildable area to put the house.
Siegel: Have we gotten any subdivisions approved with this requirement?
Dacy: The Saddlebrook subdivision was the one that contained the 150.
Again, part of their single family lots in the R-4 district with 80 foot
lot widths so de facto they had to end up being 180 feet deep. Again,
the difference between the two, it provides some flexibility for
Saddlebrook's and for this application.
Siegel: You mean changing it to l25?
Dacy: Yes.
Siegel: Did we grant any variances along with that?
Dacy: On the Saddlebrook one, no. In Centex development there were
about six lots.
Siegel: I think we have to take a little perspective. Switching so soon
after we made the requirement, based on the knowledge that those
subdivisions were going to be brought before this body and the Council
and then to react within less than a year to another one to decrease
e
e
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1987 - Page 15
that. I really am not against going down to 125 but I think some
perspective has to be given to what we've done in the past 12 months and
bring the whole picture before this body and the Council.
Dacy: Maybe, could you go along wi th the idea that at the next meeting
we can come back with a map depicting which areas are what depth so you
get a feel for the ones that we approved wi thin the last year and ones
that are existing.
Siegel: Yes, I think it would be best to have a perspective of where
we've been and where we may go and what has existed even before 12 months
ago.
Emmings: If you came out with that map as early as you could, maybe we
could drive around and see what it means.
.
Mark Koegler: I understand your aesthetic concerns. The spacing of lots
and so forth and I guess my comment goes to the practical side of it. I
had the good fortune I guess to design a subdivision at Kurvers Point
under your new ordinance within the last 12 months and I can tell you
that I did eight different layout scenarios to that property but if
there's anything that contributed most to my baldness of me pulling out
my hair was the 150 foot lot depth. In a practical sense with some of
the topography in Chanhassen and trying to space and get a good
relationship with streets, trying not to have double frontage lots and so
forth, that was the biggest constraint that I ran up against. And 125,
the 25 foot difference doesn't sound like a lot but when you're working
with it on paper it is. That's not to say that you're not going to use
everything at 125 but if I would have had the flexibility to downgrade
one of those lot depths even 25 feet on one side of them on a double tier
of lots would have helped immensely. Obviously it would have made the
difference because we had a lot size of about 28,000 on the average so
it's not a difficult lot but that flexibility would have been very
beneficial.
Head1a: Just so long as they stay 15,000 square feet... I disagree
with Steve's comments. I don't think we should locate a house dead
center. Chanhassen has a history of a lot of private easements going on
and if I want an easement going past my place, I don't see why I can't
move it north or south to adjust for that.
Conrad: Okay, why don't you bring it back. Why don't you show us a map
of what we've granted recently. I think it's worthwhile talking about.
I think it gives developers a little bit of flexibility. It may add some
variety and I guess I can see both sides. I can see a need for depth. A
need for width but I'm sensitive to the fact that we just did this within
a year. Council had a reason for doing it and I guess what I want to do is
I don't want to spend a whole lot of staff time. I don't want you to crank
in a lot of staff time on this one because the City Council may just say
folks, we just talked about this and we like what we did. So I
e
-"
Planning Commission Meeting
iljober 14, 1987 - Page 16
guess that means put in the appropriate amount of time Barbara and Jo Ann
and bring it back to us so we can take a look at it and then we can
forward up a recommendation to City Council as to whether to review an
ordinance amendment or not. Then why don't you inform the DeLancey's
when it's coming back to us and if youlre interested in watching this go
through you can participate. I think Mr. Koegler has some interesting
comments on that too and that would be other information that would be
good to process up to City Council as we talk about this.
Headla: ... Ilve seen it on another one where the ar i thmetic doesn I t
necessarily add up. When we say 15,000 minimum, what does minimum mean?
There seems to be some very convenient rounding and unless we check it, I
think maybe the City Engineer or someone should be checking that.
Conrad: What happens when the final plat comes in?
meeting that? Who would do that?
Is it reviewed for
Olsen: We would do that.
Conrad: So you sit there with every lot and you multiply out?
Olsen: What we do is check the measurements. A lot of times they are
-= exact same size as the preliminary plat that was approved and on the
~eliminary plat you do get the measurements.
Conrad: It's not checking that the final is the same as the preliminary
but simply verifying.
Dacy: We don't check each and everyone. We do spot checks to be honest
with you.
Headla: That particular one we just looked at had a real obvious error.
On plan B. They had one leg at 130 feet and just to the right of it,
they had a leg going off at an angle of 128 feet. Now that 128 has got
to be an error if the 130 is correct. I just don't believe the numbers
you p e 0 p 1 ear e tell i n g us an ym 0 r e . How can t his be 12 8 and t his 13 0 when
these are essentially parallel?
Dacy: Yes, this is actually 132.
Headla: That's the point. I don't believe the numbers anymore. If
somebody signs that, that says it's supposed to be correct.
Dacy: Weill be more careful.
Wildermuth: How do the rest of you feel, I feel there is going to be
some property that there is going to be some land that's not going to be
~elopable. Welre granting so many variances...
~rad: Absolutely.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1987 - Page 17
Wildermuth: This may be one of them.
Conrad: Yes and it wouldn't go through.
Siegel: Or much fewer lots.
Conrad: I did want to take it out of the aspect of reacting to that
particular plan.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - TRANSPORTATION.
e
Mark Koegler: I'm kind of kicking off tonight getting back into things
after quite a prolong absence. What we want to do tonight is kind of
roll up your sleeves and have a work session discussion on several
topics. Some of them are a continuations of previous discussions we had
a number of months ago. Some is new material and some is updating what
has transpired during a portion of that time. As I referenced in the
memo that's in your packet, the thing that we would like to start with is
picking up really on the one section of the land use portion that we kind
of left without completing and that specifically was how we were going to
handle the areas of the plan on agricultural and rural. However you want
to label it. You recall the future land use plan contains various
categories of use and one of them was agriculture. When we went through
the previous text addendums, we crossed that off and I think we had a
little note in there that said that that would be completed at a later
date. That later date has now arrived and we will complete that part. I
think Tim actually was one of the ones that started the discussion on
this. Specifically by talking about a breakdown of some of the types of
lands that were within the rural area and that's what is shown on this
map which is an expansion of the map that I think he actually even
started that staff completed. You're looking at the entire rural area
and what's a breakdown of the types of landscape that's there. For
instance timber, cultivated land, wetlands and so forth. What's likely
to be developed into a rural subdivision. What may never be. What's
coming in as other uses, golf courses or whatever that might be. The
general posture or the plan as it sits right now, which is consistent
with the earlier plan, is the development in the rural area is certainly
not encouraged without meeting at least the minimum ordinance criteria
which you recently established under a 1 per 10. The question back to
the Commission is how you want to handle the discussion of the rural
portion in the Comp Plan. My position right now with regard to the
narrative is to be fairly neutral. Neither advocate nor come out against
the rural subdivision as long as they comply with what the ordinance has
come in with. Is that a position you would like to take or you can
identify that there might be areas where it is appropriate? How do you
want to handle it?
Conrad: Give us some other alternatives. The 1 per 10 seems easiest.
Do you see anything that would be...
..
Planning Commission Meeting
e October 14, 1987 - Page 18
Mark Koegler: It depends I guess on how you want to define the general
rural use area and look at that as a resource. What is it supposed to
do? Is it suppose to be agriculture? It is suppose to be quasi-
agricultural? It is suppose to be rural urban and you can continue to
escalate from there? I think part of the discussion we had before was
undoubtedly throughout the southern areas, there are areas with probably
marginal soils. Be that due to slope, actual soil itself, timber cover,
whatever. Where agriculture per se is not going to occur and has not
occured and is not likely to in the future. Should those areas be left
as essentially an open space kind of resource as a part of this 1 per 10?
S h 0 u 1 d tho s e be are a s w her e we s h 0 u 1 d have t e x tin the p 1 an sa y i n g t hat
at least clustering of some of these rural developments may be allowed?
Do you want to leave it? Again, consistent with past practice the City
really is kind of trying to de-emphasize in th.e rural area to a certain
degree. My position with the text was going to be pretty neutral. Yes,
it is allowed under certain policies. Decisions have been made which if
translated in the ordinance under the 1 per 10.
Conrad: Anybody have any thoughts? Feel free to express them. What
Mark's going to do if we don't have comments, he's going to be real
neutral, as he said, on it's agricultural and that's the way it's going
to be and we're not promoting anything there other than that. That's the
use of that property.
e Erhart: One thing that's been stated many things in the past that I
would like to see us discourage, the subdivision of property along the
arterials and avoid having people having house frontages on the arterials
and individual driveways. I think we've all agreed with that in the
past. These subdivisions to have internal streets. The example is on
pioneer Trail. The good example is the Halla, pioneer Hills, the Gagne
where all the houses are accessed by internal streets. A bad example is
1 i ke the Bl uff Hi 11 Greens where you have to buy houses each with a
separate driveway coming off of pioneer Trail. I think we want to avoid
that like the plague and make some statement and say that's our position.
That's one thing. Anybody want to comment about that particular one
before I dream up some more? The next question is, what's our position
on the commercial use given intersections like TH 41 and TH 5? I know
you guys talked about that recently but also the next one is going to be
pioneer Trail and TH 101. First thing you're going to get some street
lights in and then the next thing a SA is going to come along and put a
gas station in there. What's going to be our position? Are we going to
discourage commercial use? I guess the big one is on TH 41 and TH 5.
Aren't we dealing with that issue right here now right?
Mark Koegler: Yes. As a matter of fact that is also a part of the next
item that we're going to go in more detail tonight. I did want to bring
up one comment that there is a policy in the plan right now which remains
unchanged which states the City will discourage the expansion or
construction of commercial or industrial facilities within the rural
_service area so the point you raised Tim regarding, is there any level of
commercial that might be appropriate? If the answer to that is yes, we
Planning Commission Meeting
_ October 14, 1987 - Page 19
need to rethink some of the policy.
Erhart: I'm not saying that we should be avoiding commercialization of
the intersection of TH 41 and TH 5. I'm just saying I think that's an
issue. I find it's kind of sad that we're in a position that we can't
layout a plan for TH 41 and TH 5 because of the MUSA thing. Because we
would have the opportunity to do some good planning there but we're kind
of restricted right now. And along TH 5 for that matter. The other
thing is I guess I've always felt that in wooded areas where it's
currently not used for agriculture, I thought we shouldn't be
discouraging development in those areas. If land in wooded areas is
valuable for somebody to build a home site and if he wants to do that, I
think we ought to be somewhat supportive. I don't know if you want to go
around and try to develop every wooded site. More so though I think I
would really like to discourage large lots. I think these 2 1/2 acres is
a waste of land. The concept that Met Council has where you draw a line
around a city and we keep everyone inside and try to make our public
utilities efficient and public service efficient, I think applies to the
transitional areas as well. Given maybe 2 1/2 acres is required for two
septic systems but then I don't think we ought to discourage anybody
taking 20 acres and dividing it into 5 acre lots. To me that's just
double the waste of 2 1/2 lot is in terms of taking the land and wasting
it and spreading out the requirements to service those buildings. I'd
~like to see us discourage larger than 2 1/2 acre lots. I think a lot of
"'cities around here, some cities say that you can't have larger than a
certain size lot. You get a lot of problems when you get 10 acre lots,
people don't take care of them. They park cars up there. They pile up
junk and you have something that's not really an agricultural farm and
it's not really a lot. It's something in the middle and many times I
think they are poor in appearance and I'd like to see us discourage them.
Conrad: So given our 1 per 10 standard that we have right now, which is
legal, how do you discourage? You're saying you don't like 10 acres but
how are you...
Erhart: We're in the Comp Plan. We're just making general statements
here right Mark? We're not trying to set any zoning?
Conrad: These are not zoning but...
Erhart: The City discourages large spread out houses, that's the
position we ought to take and discourage a bunch of 10 and 20 acre lots
spread around wasting our land and making the potential for irregular
development. Whereas the 2 1/2 acres that we've seen are consistent,
regular developments. They are going to be a consistent pattern of
homes and because they're consistent people will keep the lots up. Any
more than 2 1/2 it's getting to the point where it's difficult. You take
an area where you've got a 10 acre lot and then a 2 1/2 acre lot and then
a 20 acre lot and you just get a mish mash of inconsistent things. I
_just don't think they belong out there.
I
J
Planning Commission Meeting
_ October 14, 1987 - Page 20
Headla: We ran into the other night before we approved the cul-de-sac
and now we've got another cul-de-sac. They don't meet. We can't get a
through street. Is there someway we could better organize the places
that they go together so we can't get some type of through traffic rather
than everything ending up in a cul-de-sac dumping out unto an arterial.
Erhart: I agree. The wording I would use on that one, is that we should
encourage anytime there is a cul-de-sac, encourage to provide an easement
to the end of that property so the next property can pick it up if they
want it if the opportunity exists. What we did here is we designed
ourselves into a hole. The applicant just ought to extend it.
Headla: Over there on the Worm property on Minnewashta. It seems like
every time a whole subdivision we realize we got another gotcha but we
never solve the problem. Maybe this is the time to start solving the
problem.
Erhart: The other reason it might word that in there Mark is not only to
avoid cul-de-sacing but also years down the road you do want to increase
the density because sewer and water is available, you may want to have
opportunity to run additional streets in to increase density. If we're
looking at the subdivisions, the engineer ought to look at things down
the road and say we could put this here now in one or two locations and
~later on we could increase the density. Maybe that isn't practical.
"'There's lots of room to provide easements.
Siegel:
I don't think you mean to say you're against cul-de-sacs.
Erhart: No, I'm not against cul-de-sacs but if we can avoid them and
have a through street when you've got two abutted up against each other
is ridiculous.
Headla: I live on the western edge of Chanhassen but there's a lot of 10
acre lots there that are going to be developed. Everybody does it
piecemeal. Somebody comes in 20 to 30 years from now, they're going to
wonder what were they thinking. Obviously they weren't thinking.
Conrad: Barbara, when we extend the MUSA line, where will it go?
Dacy: The first area will be the Lake Ann Interceptor extended into this
area.
Conrad: And where would you guess it might, draw me an imaginary line
you think might be.
Wildermuth: Would it cover the whole north side of TH 5?
Dacy: It would go along TH 5, down TH 41 and up maybe about half way and
then jog in around Galpin and back over to TH 5 again. But remember from
_our last meeting, we talked about the TH 5 corridor and the Lake Ann
Interceptor Sewer Service Area serves primarily just the eastern half of
Planning Commission Meeting
~October 14, 1987 - Page 21
TH 41. This other western half here will have to receive sewer service
from another interceptor or we have to evaluate whether or not sewer can
be brought down TH 5.
Conrad: And when do you think that MUSA change will take us to in terms
of area capacity? What year do you think that area will be filled up and
we'll expand it again?
Dacy: I can say that our existing MUSA we're looking at around 2005 or
2010 so beyond that, just taking this area, as I recall there was useable
acreage really wasn't a heck of a lot of land. Probably 300 to 500
acres. We've got a lot of areas in parks and lakes and through Prince's
property there's about 175 acres of wetlands and it's very hilly in this
area so as far as the saturation, it really depends on the economy. It
could be another 15 to 20 years.
Conrad: After 2010?
Dacy: 2010.
Conrad: The only reason I bring that up is there something that we want
to do? The next MUSA jump, what kind of signals do we want to send in
the Comprehensive Plan that protects the land from being divided up so
~it's not efficient? We know the MUSA line is going to change. Maybe I'm
.suggesting something that, I don't know how to control it. I really
don't know what I'd be saying here but we know it's going to change. We
know it's going to go out. Is there something we should state in our
comprehensive plan that we're trying to anticipate where the MUSA is
going to go and therefore we don't want certain things happening into
that area?
Dacy: I recall when we were going through the whole 1 per 10 discussion,
another reason why you're settling on our method for administrating 1 per
10 was that you could have a lot size of 2 1/2 acres. You just had to
meet the 1 per 10 density requirement so you could cluster five 2 1/2
acre lots with an internal street and if you had a 15 acre parcel, that
would also provide, if you clustered all around the one street, would
have area left over that for resubdivision purposes there was more
flexibility there whereas if you just had five long 10 acre parcels. It
presents a whole different scheme as far as ownership and possible street
patterns and where do we put easements and so on. As I recall when we
talked about this there was agreement on the Commission that you wanted
to have a statement in there that when subdivisions carne into this area
that you wanted to look at a potential ghost plat or resubdivision so I
think putting a statement in the Comp Plan would be excellent.
Conrad: Philosophically I'm against all commercial development in the
agricultural area. Dave, how are you on that issue? Do you want to look
at it? Do you want to entertain it? Fleet Farm wants to go in at TH 5
~and TH 41. Do you want to look at those? Should we be looking at those
-things?
Planning Commission Meeting
4Itoctober 14, 1987 - Page 22
Headla: I think what we agreed before. That's good. I think we ought
to just stand behind that. Not to allow that to happen along TH 5.
wildermuth: I agree.
Siegel: I'm a Ii ttle concerned about taking a broad approach on that
especially with the physical nature of this community and the possibility
that we're going to get more applications from property owners to be
annexed into Chaska and possibly other neighboring communities. It seems
to me we're sort of caught between a rock and a hard place on that issue.
Whether we can react to good growth in areas that are not within the MUSA
line. I don't what other communities have done. Are we alone in this
kind of dilemma where we're constricting by the requirements of the MUSA
line?
Dacy: No, there are other fringe communities. Blaine, Coon Rapids and
so on that have the MUSA line crossing through them.
Siegel: But you have used the term that we are committed because of the
Agreement with the Lake Ann Interceptor to the Metropolitan Council. I
keep on getting the impression that we have a judge and jury who has
already decided that we can not do anything so why are we even bother ing
discussing it if that is the case. We can not do it based on that kind
~of a judgment. I don't know what they can do to Chanhassen if we did
~something to encourage development below the MUSA line. Does anybody
know or has anybody experienced what does happen when the community goes
against Met Council?
Dacy: Yes. Very recently in fact. We are unique in that we have this
Agreement with the Met Council. The cost sharing approach to the
installation of the interceptor is completely different. They can, if
they have concrete proof that they feel that the City of Chanhassen is
doing an end run around the agreement, there is a violation put in that
agreement to force the City to pay upfront instead of over a long period
of time. To pay upfront for the installation of the interceptor and/or
if that pipe is not even in the ground yet so they can still hold up the
process. That wouldn't be to their advantage because everybody else in
the Southwest area would suffer because of that. I think some of the
things that Chanhassen is dealing with is like along TH 212 or Merle
Volk's property at the edge of Chaska. We've got existing uses that have
been there for a number of years and then again they can't farm. They
may not be suitable for single family estate development on a 2 1/2 acre
basis so I think that was one of the things that Mark had wanted to talk
to you about. How do we deal with those without trespassing on Met
Council's toes or whatever? In my mind Fleet Farm is a clear violation
of the Agreement. It's one thing to allow Moon Valley Excavating that
has been there for years to continue along TH 212 whereas having a
complete new retail use being located in the rural area.
_siegel: What do we do with all this land that is not useable for
agricultural but is zoned agricultural? Do we just leave it lying there
Planning Commission Meeting
~October 14, 1987 - Page 23
for 30 years? 20 years?
Dacy:
area.
Until everything else fills in within that circle around the metro
Siegel: You know, to me it kind of reeks with what is wrong with
planning in general. You're sort of in a situation where you're limited
by parocial points of view which cause poor planning to pop up and
dominate a given area for years afterwards because of a parocial issues
that are present at the time. That the decisions are made. You see it
allover the Twin Cities. Especially with roads. The only way you get a
street light at an intersection is after two people have been killed
there so we have to wait for all this area to be in demand before we can
react to it.
wildermuth: Except there have been enought fatalities on TH 5 to react.
Siegel: Yes, which is a decent point and it's too bad but it seems to me
I don't know where we could go with this other than to say we have no
alternative but to leave it agricultural and wait for the bodies to fall.
Unless somebody else can come up with some solution. That's why I mean,
I don't understand why we are really getting too involved in opinions
about what we should do when we have some constraints that are there
Alimiting our alternatives. So it's a moot point in my mind. Idon't
-like to see residents of Chanhassen coming in and asking to joining tle
city of Chaska because they can use their land. From a purely selfish
point of view that person is making a legitimate claim to develop his
property in the way he sees fit and Chaska see fits but if he's in
Chanhassen he can't do it. What do we do? Swap the good land for poor
land with Chaska and end up with all this unbuidable stuff? I don't
know.
Wildermuth:
Chanhassen?
Doesn't Chaska have the same constraints from Met Council as
Dacy: They have a treatment plant and they are considered a free
standing city. They have a whole MUSA line around their city but they
have to abide by the rules and can't extend beyond that line that Met
Council has drawn.
Emmings: I think the original question was commercial uses in the
agricultural areas and I think we talked about that when we talked about
TH 5 and I think the Comprehensive Plan is exactly the same place where
we want to make a broad statement that we don't want that. A secondary
reason and maybe even a primary reason in my mind is that I really think
a downtown is important and if let these kinds of commercial uses spread
out, they're not going to have that downtown. We want to concentrate
those commercial uses right here so for that reason I think commercial
use should be discouraged.
~
Planning Commission Meeting
4Itoctober 14, 1987 - Page 24
Conrad: Mark, going back to your note to use talking about designating
areas as pure agricultural versus hobby farm. Is there any logic that
would be? As I looked at that map I couldn't see anything that would say
anything to me that I could figure out an area that is better than
another area.
Wildermuth: How could you review this?
Mark Koeg 1 er: There is one method to do tha t and you will have to show
it on a land use that that is agricultural preserve. If I'm correct
there are two areas in the city that are under that which means you have
1 per 40 category. That I guess is the only area that you would call
pure agricultural because that falls into the Met Council's definition
according to agricultural. Their definition of the general rural use
area takes in a lot of things. It takes in exactly what Bob was talking
about. Part of the definition includes to quote, land that is often
called unused. It has no particular land use is exactly what you're
referencing. ...beyond that everything gets down more into the hobby farm
type of thing.
Erhart: I might point out those agricultural preserves are in there,
they're not in one area by themselves. ...you can't even call that a
particular zone.
tlbonrad: You've got to apply for that right?
Erhart: Yes.
Conrad:
Is that going to raise your taxes? What does ag preserve do?
Erhart: Basically what it says a rolling 8 years will not divide that
property in exchange for remaining at the average tax rate for all farms
in Minnesota. You have to notify them 6 years in advance. Regarding the
development of TH 41 and other intersections, I'm not in favor of
allowing Fleet Farm in there currently myself but I still think from a
planning standpoint, I'd like to see us get together maybe a 10 year
rolling zone plan where every year you update it and this is what we
expect 10 years from now in the City as far as the zoning. So you could
take the intersection of TH 41 and TH 5 and say okay, in 10 years we
expect a certain area around TH 5 to be commercial but before that 10
years it won't be. Don't count on that. What that will do is allow the
landowner and people who buy and sell, it allows them to plan what to do
with their property. It gives them a plan. I think that's what the Comp
Plan is intended to do is allow people to make plans. Not just us but
everybody. Citizens of Chanhassen. I think what this MUSA line thing
does is it really screws up the mechanism because it takes arbitrary
rules and they supersede market type natural things so I think the least
thing we could respond to is provide a rolling 10 year plan, a rolling 5
year plan. At least it's something to look at say I think this is what
~he City is saying today about what they anticipate that intersection is
~oing to be in 10 years and then update it annually or update it
Planning Commission Meeting
~October 14, 1987 - Page 25
every time you do the Comp Plan which is what, bi-annually? 5 years?
Well, on a cycle. That's an idea.
Siegel: Or elect somebody to the Metropolitan Council who has an
interest in the southwest corridor. There hasn't been on there I don't
think ever. That's why this whole corridor has been getting the dreggs
of all the action.
Conrad: Why can't we put Fleet Farm out at TH 5 and TH 41? Period, no
sewer and water?
Dacy: The last time that we talked we went through as the plan currently
states. The issue was, when do you allow urban scale development in the
rural area and urban scale development is shopping centers, commercial
strip centers, industrial parks, subdivisions of 15,000 square feet.
That's urban scale development. When do you want that to occur in the
rural area or should you allow that to occur in the rural area without
water and sewer. Typical urban services.
Erhart: But Barb you're making an interpretation of intent of that
agreement. That agreement does not say that we can't put a Fleet Farm...
Dacy: No, I'm saying that the Comp Plan says that right now.
~rhart: No, I'm talking about the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement with
Met Council does not say that we can't put a Fleet Farm on TH 41. What
it says is that you can't have density greater than 1 per 10. That's
what it says.
Dacy: That's one of the things it says. It goes beyond that and says
that the City can not be allowing developments of higher intensity than
was originally planned for that could potentially increase demand on
sewage flow or cause a demand for extension of public utilities beyond
that which that was originally anticipated. Allowing commercial
development could trigger that. That's what they're saying. If we allow
clusters of commercial areas all the way through the rural area, septic
systems fail, we're going to have to extend out the sewer and water
lines. It comes back down to the growth and the principal of the MUSA
line.
Conrad: So that's a function of the agreement is what you're saying? If
Fleet Farm could persuade us that they could put in their own septic
system that would take care of them, what else would prevent us from
allowing them to go out?
Olsen: They would have to get a Land Use Plan Amendment and Met Council
would comment on that.
Conrad: And again, intensive use and that kind of stuff?
e
Planning Commission Meeting
tlfctober 14, 1987 - Page 26
Dacy: The Agreement is one of the issues but right now that plan states
that commercial uses shall not be located in the rural area. In allowing
Fleet Farm or any other developments of that intensity, than we need to
change the plan and there's no assurance that that's going to be approved
by. . .
Conrad: You've heard me say I'm not for commercial development out there
but I'm trying to get a feel for the why nots. In terms of the legal why
nots. As a point, you put a Fleet Farm out there, that solves a whole
lot of other problems that Chanhassen is dealing with in terms of
promoting downtown growth. In terms of promoting any kind of movement
from the new highway that comes in. A Fleet Farm in itself would do a
whole lot for Chanhassen. I think it's an intriguing opportunity. I'm
still not for commercializing that intersection and putting them in an
agricultural area. I really do feel that that is not smart to do but I
find it real interesting what it could do for Chanhassen.
Erhart: Do you want it downtown?
Conrad: That's where I'd prefer to see it, absolutely.
come into this marketplace, that's where they got to be
some land someplace. If you want to stimulate downtown
place that can bring in that kind of traffic. Mark, in
tlf12 corridor, ask us some stuff?
Mark Koegler: All of the comments that you have made in the last 15
minutes have been a leadin to the second area that we're going to review
and that does pertain to the corridors themselves. A little bit of
background. This issue came to light recently when the garden center
proposal came up and when I think concurrently you started discussing
Fleet Farm with a potential location for that site. We had prepared some
materials just for discussion purposes for this body and to City Council.
I wasn't here for the Planning Commission discussion. I was at the
Council and I would guess the Council had a bit more discussion on it
than perhaps the Commission did. This really brought to light the whole
potential, and I'll label it as that right now, of having a section of
the Comprehensive Plan and the update, it kind of crosses the boundary
between the Land Use and the Transportation element and it marries them
for the sake of maybe doing some corridor studies that are kind of little
vinettes as a part of this plan. The potential is there to meet what
Tim was talking about and it's there to also meet what I think some of
the City Council members were bringing up in that looking at some kind of
plan as to what we maybe ultimately want to do with some of these areas
even though it may be 20 years out and we change it every 5 years or
whatever. The scenario that we played out for TH 5 is the kind of thing
that could be accomplished for that corridor as well as some of the
others. The discussion that occurred at the Council level took kind of
an interesting turn in that they started talking about the possibility of
interim land uses along TH 5 that may be acceptable for 10 to 15 year
Aeriods of time after which, given the nature of the use, it would cease
~nd decest. That came to light as a part of the Natural Green Nursery
If they want to
and we'll find
growth, you put a
terms of the TH
Planning Commission Meeting
~October 14, 1987 - Page 27
which is there now and as you know has to be out by 1992 and they
auctioned all the trees off last Friday so you know they're going to out
sooner than that. That kind of a thing. There were a number of uses
that we kicked around and I think they were just spontaneous comments
from the various people about mini-storage facilities which came some of
us a bit of a shudder to think of mini-storage units along TH 5 but
thinking that type of use. So it's not a real investment intensive kind
of thing. I think the concept is valid. Is there any room for any of
that and I think if you look at it along TH 5 we can say, well, we've got
other areas. Certainly the new TH 212 and the intersection over there.
Old 169/212. We've got business fringe uses that Barbara referenced
before that the previous plan kind of ignored for a variety of reasons,
most of which I don't recall. This time around, in order to make sure
that the Plan is closer in sync to the zoning ordinance structure, we're
going to have to provide some verbage on that. Maybe just acknowledging
the fact that there are existing uses there, some of which are non-
conforming. Some of which may be conforming due to the zone which will
be there and will not be expanded. Something like that. Down again to
the comments that were made earlier that there are some uses that are
suitable for agriculture. Maybe one of those gas stations or one of
those old restaurant sites or something down there might be an example
where you can't retrofit that to agricultural. How do you use those? Do
you allow them to continue? Do you not allow them to expand?
~ssentially they are non-conforming uses even though they are conforming.
~o those same issues are going to happen along that corridor. TH 101,
there's been some conversations that have occurred outside the framework
of some of these meetings of what TH 101 should be. Most of those have
focused on the portion of it between TH 5 and where the new TH 212 would
intersect. You could extend that argument southward. It becomes a
little less critical from a time perspective that you could do that. So
what we'd like also to get is some feedback as to how the Commission
reacts to some of those kinds of thoughts and any specific comments
you've got on these or any other corridors. It seems that any time you
talk about Chanhassen, we talk about two major things. Sewers and roads
and perhaps we need to pay a little more attention to the road side of it
and correspondingly the land use that goes along with that. So any
direction that you have in that regard that you would like to bring forth
tonight would certainly be appropriate.
Erhart: What are you suggesting with your hash lines there?
Mark Koegler: All I had done there was simply to identify some of the
corridor areas that I think are particularly likely candidates if the
City is to adopt a philosophy of saying, we've got the land use section,
we've got the transportation section. Let's combine the two for certain
areas and let's look at them in a little more detail. This area came up
recently as was referenced before and essentially not as concerned with
TH 5 when it's in the MUSA line because I think you have more control
over what happens there. You've got existing developments. You've got
aUD's happening to the south. You've got industrial pattern that's
~retty well set.
Planning Commission Meeting
4Ifctober 14, 1987 - Page 28
Wildermuth: What are the kings of things Mark that would go in there for
interim purposes?
Mark Koegler: That's a tough question. To be honest with you, I am
somewhat at a loss to pose you a whole list of suitable interim uses. I
don't think there are that many. I don't think anybody argues that the
nursery that was there was a problem. Especially being a business
nature. It was not a retail oriented type of traffic generated kind of
thing. Certainly from an aesthetic standpoint to see the trees along
there I don'~ think proably bothered anybody a great deal. That kind of
use I think clearly falls in that category. Once you get away from that
I think they become a lot more difficult. The concern that I have that I
have experienced a number of times over, in terms of thinking of interim
uses that are, if you will, cheap to put on the site that can be removed
later. I don't see very many things that are ever cheap to remove later.
When you want to acquire property or relocate someone, the expense is
always a factor. So I don't think there is a long list of things that
fit that category. Particularly when you have to be so sensitive to your
sewer needs. Growing ranges for nursery stock certainly is one of them.
Beyond that, where do you go? Drive-in theaters. I don't know what fits
that bill. Driving ranges? Those kinds of things do tend to be holding
pattern, if you will, for land use. I think if you look at some of the
northern suburbs now, drive-ins now are being converted to more intensive
_sese
Erhart: Do we have any contractor yards in the City of Chanhassen now?
Dacy: We've got three at Merle Volk. What's the name of the landscaper
at TH 1131.
Erhart: That's not a contractor. That's a wholesale nursery.
Dacy: It's doubling. They store vehicles there and so on.
Erhart: Northwest.
Siegel: Barb, this is a question I've been meaning to ask you for some
time. Who decided that MUSA line?
Dacy: You can help me on the history. Schoell and Madsen did an interim
sewer study in 1978 to determine gravity sewer flow areas and as to the
comprehensive plan process, that line was defined a little better in
conjunction with Met Council on population projections.
Siegel: Did a lot of it have to do with what existed then there? Like
that jog north of TH 5. It had to be because that was county park. The
big chunk in there that's Minnewashta Park Reserve right?
Dacy: North of TH 5?
.iegel: Yes.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1987 - Page 29
e
Dacy: Yes, that's correct and the Arboretum's land.
Siegel: And most of that area has nothing in it.
Dacy: I think the primary consideration was gravity sewer flow and then
existing land uses also.
Mark Koegler: Back in the late 70's the Met Council did, as a preview to
all of this activity, they did the Metropolitan Development Guide which
is the Regional Comp Plan. It is two documents with a whole series of
sections which since now some of it has been rewritten. Back in about
1977, there was a document that was issued to every city that was known
as a system statement. The system statement specifically went into the
regional systems that would be provided to all of the various
jurisdictions throughout the metropolitan area. Sewers, highways,
airports and so forth. The MUSA line, there were a number of drafts of
the MUSA line that came out as a part of that system statement document.
A great deal of the heavy lobbying and almost referred to as an all out
war that occurred at that time precluded my involvement with the City but
from discussing information with my predecessor at the time who was the
City planner as well as some of the council people, there were some
extremely heated debates that went on between this city and the
Metropolitan Council as to what the MUSA line should be. Barb's correct,
~he quantification actually of the MUSA line did corne about as a result
~f the Comprehensive Plan but realistically that was pretty well set by
the time the Plan got into effect. There was a map that was done in 1977
or 1978 that was done by the City Engineer at the time that showed the
existing sanitary sewer service area to be serviced by gravity flow to
either trunks that were in the ground now or extensions of the existing
systems. I think you've probably seen that in the old plan with the
pink shaded map, the water is blue. To a large degree it did look at
what was there. The Met Council coupled that with capacity that they had
to treat at the various treatment system plants. This one, Blue Lake
obviously is more sensitive to Chanhassen to a certain degree and now
they have backed away from that and said here's the capacity we've got
now. Here's what we anticipate in 1990. Here's the amount of growth we
can handle. Here's where the line should be drawn. Now back around 1980
the word allocation was absolutely a dirty word. They would never use
it. They weren't allocating sewer capacity. They were growth management
issues and those kinds of words were thrown out. More recently you do
frequently now hear the word allocation with regard to sewer capacity. I
think they're finally stating that that's what we're really dealing with
and that is not only Chanhassen but many of those other communities that
have a very limited amount of capacity you're going to be allocated. How
are you going to use it? So the whole MUSA line did develop as a result,
to a certain degree I think, a doctrine saying here's what it is. You
guys make some minor adjustments to make it really fit what actually
occurs. Bear in mind that neither Chanhassen nor the Metropolitan
Council really had the benefit of definitive topographic information to
4Itome up with that line. Even to look at what is serviceable and that's
why you've seen some of the amendments and some of these things that have
Planning Commission Meeting
~ctober 14, 1987 - Page 30
happened in the last 5 to 6 years. Parts of it were on the fringe and
really should have been in the line or the line was fat and went across a
lot and was that lot in or was it out? We had to clarify that in some
cases so that's a long answer and probably a simplistic answer to the
comparative complexity of the question and it still is evolving.
Siegel: But it gives us a little perspective on what happened and why
that line exists in the manner that it does. I would support that I
don't think it's necessary to base that just simply on gravity. Useage
of that property that existed at the time the Plan is acceptable. More
so than gravity. And of course now we're strapped to that. If somebody
wants to come in and develop that, we can't make an independent decision
based on that decision.
Erhart: Barb, did you calculate how many acres remain within the MUSA
line that isn't committed to subdivisions?
Dacy: I certainly did.
Erhart: Can I have that number?
Dacy: The number is 1,200 acres.
~rhart: And what is that they like to see to have in
~s a number that said there was some number.
reserve?
They gave
Dacy: In 1980 there was 2,440 acres available of developable land.
Erhart: Seven years later that's dropped by half.
Dacy: That's correct and that number includes subdivisions that had been
approved but not built. A major tract of that was Lake Susan Hills so
the overlay shows what has been added since. You can see what is left.
The Eckankar piece north of TH 5. The area around TH 212 and TH 101 and
basically infill around the Lake Minnewashta area. You were talking
about the 10 acre strips. There are a few parcels of those on the west
side. And there is a significant amount of industrial land left so that
occupies a great portion of that. Everything around Lotus Lake is almost
done. Again, the Eckankar property is a big piece north of TH 5.
Erhart: Of the 1,200 acres left, how much of that is industrial?
Dacy: I would guesstimate probably 200.
Erhart: In the 7 years, if you were to divide that in two, say the first
3 1/2 years and the last 3 1/2 years, did the rate increase? Did the
rate of consumption of that land increase in the second period?
Dacy: In the second period yes because in 1981 and 1982 we had the
"'conomic recession so since 1983 the rate of growth has increased
~ramatically.
Planning Commission Meeting
4Ifctober 14, 1987 - Page 31
Erhart: Dramatically? Like 2 to I? So we really could not extrapulate
to say that the 1,000 acres remaining would be used up in another 7
years? It could be 3 years. Maybe 4 years if the economy continues.
Dacy: I think we're predicting that we may be able to even beat the year
2000 in using that area up but then again everything depends on the
economy.
Erhart: Even if it takes us 7 years, that still only gets us to 1994 and
it's used up and if you're saying that the second half was three times as
bad as the first half, we might say that it will be all used up in 1992.
Dacy: It really depends on the economy and landowners wishes.
people maybe want to sit on the land for a while.
Some
Erhart: I realize there's going to be some point like unemployment, you
just can't get it below 5% and then all of a sudden the city will stop
developing because you can not change that MUSA line. You're right, some
of that people are probably going to sit on. At what point do you get
where essentially you stop growth because of the MUSA line location? Is
it 500 acres left? Let's just say for example it is, I guess the way
it's going here I see that we will restrict growth at some point in the
next, if the rate continues going the way it has, we will restrict growth
.n the next 2 or 3 years. Then what happens? Do we just stop growing or
o we tackle this Met Council and say we can't wait for 2005?
Dacy: Currently we're tied to the year 2000 minimum. If we wanted to
attack that, we'd have to apply for an alternative limit but I recall a
couple of months ago the Commission was talking about whether or not we
should look to generating interest in pushing that line out and I heard
comments like do we really want to do that. Do we have the
transportation systems available? Are we sure that we want to grow that
fast so that's a topic that we should be talking about.
Erhart: Can we list the benefits of growing fast versus restricting
growth?
Dacy: Yes.
Erhart: I don't know. Isn't that a good way to determine whether or not
we want to tackle the issue?
Siegel: If you want to relate that to what Mark was mentioning, speaking
to the question of roads. You're not going to get roads until there is
something there to force development of roads. Anyone who is familiar
with the Department of Transportation and the State of Minnesota's
reaction to roads is, you can see it all around the Twin Cities, look at
Eagan where all the big roads go through. Those have complete roads.
They are more agricultural than Chanhassen is out in Eagan and in those
~reas where they have 35-E going through. We don't have any major roads
~hat are going through the southwest corridor and you're not going to get
Planning Commission Meeting
4lictober 14, 1987 - Page 32
them unt i 1 you ha ve someth i ng there tha t people ha ve to get to and of
course that's the whole object. There's a lot of politics wrapped up in
it but you can see St. Paul. You can see the northern suburbs. They've
got freeways and four lane roads going every which direction and you come
out here and it's bottle necked in every direction. It is there too but
much worse in this corridor and the reason is, there is nothing allowed
out here.
Erhart: Might we also conclude that we've invested a lot of money in
this downtown and since that's such an obvious hook in there that it
doesn't make a lot of sense that that would be... in the completion of
downtown. I would rather see homes built out there than Fleet Farm on
TH 41. Not only doesn't compete, it would support the downtown better if
it were right next to downtown.
Siegel: What are we looking at as far as the Comprehensive Plan? Are we
looking up 5 years? 10 years? What is the Comprehensive Plan crystal
ball looking at?
Mark Koegler: The year 2000.
Siegel: Here we're sort of talking about things changing in 1994, 1993,
and we can't plan anything.
t1tr h art: Wh ere i sit go i n g ? In 2 0 0 0 you s how ed up her e t hat i t doe s m 0 v e
in 2000. The question you were asking is whether we want to take some
action to try to accelerate that?
Dacy: That's what I was saying. That we discussed that a couple of
months ago. We talked about that just briefly.
Erhart: You got the impression that we weren't interested in doing that
and in a quick poll, I think we ought to take some action to the
southwest. That's my position. By the same token, I think we ought to
not allow any commercial development along TH 5. That's the position I
would take. To accelerate the residential growth in that area by
extending the sewer and limit commercial until such time as sewer is
there to support it.
Mark Koegler: Tim you made a couple of comments that I've got to
highlight. First of all with regard to the MUSA line. I would caution
you not to assume that the line is going to move just because the
calendar finally gets to the year 2000. The MUSA line that you see on
that map that is now called the year 2000 MUSA line is the same one that
6 years ago was called the 1990 MUSA line. The same exact line. It
hasn't changed. The 1980 plan had the same philosophy that I think I'm
hearing. That Met Council has their position and the City realizes it
has to adhere to that position if it's going to get it's plan approved
which it had to do to comply with the law. It did take the tack that
Ahere are two plans to a certain degree within the one plan in that the
~980 plan continued to advocate that the City had a MUSA line and the Met
Planning Commission Meeting
4lictober 14, 1987 - Page 33
Council had a MUSA line and for purposes of meeting the requirements and
allowing yes, it acknowledged the Met Council one but wanted to keep the
other one in front of their noses if you will. Now we referenced what
happened in terms of the economy and various points in time. As a
comparison the City issued 22 single family building permits in 1981. In
1986 they issued 246 so we're dealing with a 110 fold factor of increase
and it's not fair just to target certain years but that's still somewhat
of an indicator. In terms of the accelerated growth that has occurred,
yes it has been within the last 3 to 3 1/2 year period. Had that
occurred in the early 81O's and been sustained, perhaps there would have
been a stronger argument that the City's position was valid. The way it
turned out, it did turn out to be the year 2101010. That's not to say the
same scenario isn't going to be played out over the next 110 years between
now and the year 2101010. So again, back to the framework of the plan, the
way we proceeded so far is that's not going to be changed. That the Plan
will continue to advocate two MUSA lines. Two different population
projection levels and so forth just as it did before. The City's
population projections for 2101010 are not as optimistic as they once were
for the year 19910. Those have all been pared back a little bit. Not
back to the degree that Met Council has so we're still proceeding with a
plan within a plan philosophy which I think at least leaves that scenario
in place that you have a base to argue from should you get to the point
in another year or 2 years or 5 years and you think you've reached a
~onstriction in growth. Now maybe you say that's fine, we want to get to
~at point. I recall the same comments that Barbara referenced. I think
in this body we discussed how much growth is too much growth until some
of the transportation efforts are in place?
Dacy: Did you want some kind of concurrence about the corridor studies?
Mark Koegler: Yes. First of all, do we want to look at all beyond the
year 2101010 for any of those corridors or do we want to simply take the
position that's been taken to date and say here's our plan for the year
2101010. It only goes up to the MUSA line and then it stops. Beyond that
we expect nothing to occur outside of some very low density, low
intensity residential development over the next 110 to 12 years. Is that
still the appropriate position to take? Is there any value to looking at
longer term land use or does that just give people false hope?
Conr ad:
I'm comfortable with that philosophy.
Erhart: Which one? The one showing the long term plan or now showing?
Conrad: Not showing. Saying what we're going to do within the MUSA line
and I guess Mark has recapped some things real interestingly in terms of
growth and our projections and their projections. The dialogue could go
on for a long time on that. It's real intriguing. I'm not totally
informed on that but I think Met Council had some perspectives on certain
things. I'm not real sure how things are going to grow. I'm personally
Aot an advocate of growth just for growth sake. I want well planned
~rowth and I want it planned out far enough to precede the natural growth
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1987 - Page 34
e
but I'm not sure that we're wise enough to figure out, when we start
talking about 10 to 20 years down the pike, I don't want to tell somebody
that that corridor is going to have something in it that I don't even
know what it's going to have in that corridor. I still don't even know
that there's going to be a highway there. I guess certain long term
planning, at least in my mind, I prefer to keep those corridors clean and
say they're agricultural outside the MUSA line. That's the way I want
it. That's me. I'm real comfortable with TH 5 having no interim uses.
Real comfortable but that's just me. I'm real comfortable with the TH
169 corridor accomodating current uses and just accomodating those
current uses, period. I'm real interested in the corridor within the
MUSA line on the other hand for TH 212. That's a real interesting land
use situation and the TH 101 going north from there and I'm kind of
interested in the TH 101 going south from there. That's a fascinating
one Mark and I don't know, when you think of what Shakopee offers and the
population that's coming in here, when you think about the things that
lure people down south in terms of the Valleyfair's, the racetracks and
the other things that are in there and planned to go in there, what's the
corridor going to be like for getting down to that area? How do you do
that? I'll ask you the question. How do we get down south? What are
the roads that will be taking off of TH 212 that a person would use to
get down to the racetrack or would we continue to use TH 101? Is that
the best? Is that the road that will be the prominent use?
4Itark Koegler: That's obviously a question, one that I would like to hear
somebody from MnDot answer. My personal reaction would be that TH 101
will continue to function as best it can in that capacity for people
particularly within the immediate Chanhassen. Beyond that CR 18 is about
to be improved with a new bridge going across the river in the next few
years. The design is out right now. That certainly would be a prime
corridor down there.
Conrad: So literally you could drive and get onto TH 212, if it goes in,
and over to 18 South. That may be the thing that relieves some of the
traffic.
Mark Koegler: That will tie into a bypass around Shakopee. The only
alternative is to look a little further west on TH 41 and I think as you
recall previous plans have shown the TH 41 as the corridor for the bridge
crossing. Some of the meetings that you had on TH 212, I know Evan
Greene's comment on that TH 41 crossing is just so far in the future that
MnDot's not even thinking about it but the long, long term that may be
another potential reliever.
Siegel: Are they thinking about TH 212?
Mark Koegler: Yes.
Dacy: We should be getting the official map within the next couple
.nths.
Planning Commission Meeting
4lictober 14, 1987 - Page 35
Conrad: Any changes on that or anything? What do we know?
Dacy: We're proceeding with the mapping process and I have a stack of
propsals from consulting firms on the EIS.
Erhart: Are we onto TH 101 now or are we still back?
Mark Koegler: I guess let me summarize at least as far as the general
rural use area outside the MUSA area, the direction I'm hearing is we
don't need to go with a specific plan for those corridors showing a
longer range land use than 1990 to 2000 perspective?
Conrad: That's me.
I guess everybody else should say?
Mark Koegler:
Is that a consensus?
Siegel: No, I feel a little bit differently. I think we should look at
the land uses along the major corridors and have some idea as to where
we're going with it. Especially at key intersections which are going to
be stressed, so to speak, in the near future.
Mark Koegler: How do you tie that into, using a current example let's
focus on the department. If we have a little land use-transportation
~lan that shows the TH 5 corridor and designated that as commercial. If
.. was a developer it would come in and I would argue that you designated
it commercial, it's going to be that eventually, what's stopping from
building my facility now? I can do an on-site system with reasonable
probability won't fail. what other factors are prohibiting from doing it
now versus 20 years from now?
Erhart: Aren't you saying that this is the plan that we're showing and
there would be a year 2000 plan. It isn't commercial now. It's only
planned for 2000 so you're welcome to buy the land and in the year 2000
come in with your plan. Isn't that what we're saying?
Siegel: Just because it's concepted as being used commercially doesn't
mean you have to allow it to be used commercially does it? If a guy
comes in and argues that point he's arguing sort of a possibility not a
real thing.
Headla: Why do your planning then? Aren't you trying to give out
information.
Siegel: I think a lot of that traffic relates to what happens at those
intersection points where you have, the MUSA line goes to this corner and
that corner and up in that corner. It goes crazy. How do you relate to
the other side of the MUSA line? If you don't allow something on the
other side, what do you allow on the other side that affects a great deal
on what you allow on the other side. If that makes any sense but I mean,
.-rou have to have some sort of planning. You can't just say you're going
~ have industry here at this point in the MUSA line because it's within
Planning Commission Meeting
tjftober 14, 1987 - Page 36
the MUSA line and then on the other side you're going to have
argicultural.
Erhart: The 2000 MUSA line, does that include the sewer then for TH 41
and TH 5 or is that still exclusive? It's still excluded. I'd sort of
like to see us put a 2000 plan along this corridor that shows
commercialization and use that as a lever to get some of this sewer out
there. I agree. I don't think we need anything out there today but in
another 12 years when the downtown is built up and industrial parks have
built up and to sit here and not show people that sort of plan I think is
just not planning.
Conrad: But this plan is for the year 2000. We're doing the plan today
showing what it's going to look like in the year 2000.
Erhart: So some guy can't walk in here and say I want to build and you
say no, come back in the year 2000.
Conrad: But in the year 2000, what you're saying Tim is the year 2000 we
want that plan reads commercial at that intersection.
Erhart:
have to
enrad:
2000.
If we decide that's what we want. That's the whole process we
go through if we all decided we wanted to have it.
But Met Council is saying that we can't have that until the year
Erhart: We're already going against what Met Council is saying by the
fact that we do have two MUSA lines. Mark just said that we're going...
Conrad: Their's is the real one and ours is the phony one. I don't
know. Who's got the energy to play games and maybe there are people that
do but that's just real phony. I don't know if it works. Maybe Barbara
can tell me if it works. Every community wants to do exactly what we're
talking about who has a MUSA line problem. They are all doing the same
thing so I guess you're telling me, well we better do the same thing
because everybody else is doing it and I don't know that it's working at
all. I do know that Met Council probably has some more accurate figures
in terms of growth than what Chanhassen has proposed.
Erhart:
ours.
I don't know that their figures have been any more accurate than
Conrad: I have more confidence in Met Council than and obviously they're
not right in many cases and have different guidelines than what we're
looking at than we'd like to see. But what you're asking for is to say
you'd like to see some zoning that is really contrary. You'd like to see
some uses that is contrary to contractual agreements. Contrary to where
~ilosophically, you want to use this as a political thing rather than as
4I'realistic thing. That's what I'm hearing from you.
Planning Commission Meeting
tlJtober 14, 1987 - Page 37
Erhart: I can substantiate that in my mind because that1s good planning.
I think Met Council1s MUSA line is just terrible planning. That1s where
we disagree. The concept of drawing a line around and saying we1re going
to sewer inside and not sewer outside is ridiculous. That1s communism.
That1s how communist plan their socities. You've completely eliminated
the market forces from acting naturally. What you get is what we've got
here now. We1ve got lousy planning just like communist countries that
are much better off to say...
Conrad: Don1t other cities come to the Twin Cities and find that the Met
Council is a model for planning in the United States?
Dacy: The Met Council1s organization and MUSA line is a Minnesota
example of growth management. Other metropolitan counties and
municipalities have other growth management tools.
Erhart: I think there are other ways to limit the size and rate of
growth.
Dacy: It is a unique example and there are a number of studies comparing
growth management.
Erhart: The whole purpose of the MUSA line is to restrict the growth for
eeir sewer system because the intrastructure won't support just rapid
rowth. The fact is, the real problem is the reason the intrastructure
won1t support it is the lack of dollars. So then why don't you just use
dollars to restrict the growth than drawing a line around in a circle.
Just say, hey if you want that sewer line out there, it's going to cost
you a ton but if that land is so valuable around Lake Riley today that
Vern Gagne or whoever1s developing that will go in and put those
expensive streets that we're requiring to put in there, then he ought to
have the option of extending the sewer line a few hundred feet, very
expensively but instead of wasting the land in 2 1/2 acre lots, if the
land is so valuable, let somebody go in there and put some 15,000 square
foot lots which is practical. Today we are just wasting that valuable
land. It's not used for agriculture anymore. We've only got about three
farms south of Chanhassen that are working the land and this artificial
communist way of planning is just forcing us to waste our space. That's
my problem.
Dacy: Just one point so that you know also that another factor that is
coming up is the waste load limitation on the Minnesota and Mississippi
River from the treatment plants in the metropolitan area so there are
some ties between how much land can be sewered. How much capacity goes
into those plants. They are beginning to look beyond the year 2000. EPA
has certain load levels too. I don't think it1s communist but I just
wanted to let you know that there are some other reasons for it.
Erhart: Why do we have to restrict the growth of the sewered side.
~herwise the whole thing would just get spread out allover the place
~t I'm just saying the capitalistic way to do that is to use the dollar
Planning Commission Meeting
4Itctober 14, 1987 - page 38
to do it rather than what I consider the socialist way to do it is to
draw a line. Bureacrats draw lines and here we sit facing a bureacratic
created problem. If we let the market drive it, I think it would have
been more sensible.
Siegel: You said you were going to give an example of the Met Council's
athority. Did you or did I miss it? You said there were some but did
you name any?
Dacy: What's been happening is the Met Council has been, remember the
Land Use plan Amendment for Mr. Herbst on the Worm property. When that
went through the Met Council offices, that triggered their inquiry as to
when we adopted the 1 per 10 acre ordinance. They are looking at a
number of subdivisions that were approved under the old ordinance
standard. They are questioning our provisions or our efforts for
controlling... They are questioning our requirements on septic systems
and so on so they kind of use that application as a lever to do a little
more investigating into what we've been doing.
Siegel: How would that reach their attention?
Dacy: By the Land Use Plan Amendment process has to be approved by Met
Council.
~egel: That's the first time that's come up was on that property? Was
it because it was on Minnewashta?
Dacy: I think it was because it wasn't on sewered property.
Conrad: Bob, your opinion in terms of the Comprehensive Plan, do you
want to use the guidelines, the constraints and contractual agreements,
do you want to assume they are there and develop a plan that fits within
that framework?
Siegel: Yes, without actually rezoning the land but have a plan. I'm
not talking about rezoning all agricultural land into industrial,
business, commercial. I'm talking about having a plan for that land
because in my opinion, and we're dealing with opinions right now, is that
before the year 2000 we're going to be doing something with this land.
Conrad: But my point is contractually we can't. Contractually we can
not use that land.
. Siegel: I'm not saying we're going to use it. I'm saying we've got to
plan for the use because things change. You don't think Met Council's
going to change?
Conrad: That's right.
~egel: I tend to thing before the year 2000 something will happen where
~e will have to go before the Met Council and make them change it.
Planning Commission Meeting
4iJtober 14, 1987 - Page 39
That's my opinion and I think we should have a plan to address that
issue. Not sit here and say TH 5 is going to agricultural from whatever
that point is to that point and TH 212 is going to remain whatever it's
zoned down there right now.
Conrad: But it is. You saw Barb's two tiered MUSA line extension and
the first tier, the next addition of the MUSA is not going to affect TH 5
and that's going to take us to the year 2030.
Siegel: My contention is that things are going to happen that are going
to affect it. I don't think we're going to have that as undeveloped
land.
Erhart: The thing is, as Bob and I look at that, we say that's poor
planning and we'd like to strike up better planning.
Siegel: I think you're sort of saying that we should ignore the
possibility and I don't think ignorance is the answer here. I think we
should be looking at it as an opportunity to do some proper planning of
that corridor which is the primary area of concern here. The rest of it
is almost all already zoned.
Wildermuth: Realistically I don't think we're going to be able to change
~t Council's mind. I think we ought to concentrate on the issues that
~'ve got inside the MUSA line. Channel our energies in those directions
because I think the time and effort spent in trying to plan land use
outside the MUSA line now is...
Conrad: I'm just not sure what it's going to get. That's my point. I
don't know what we get if we do that planning. I was here in 1980. We
went through this exercise of Plan A and Plan B and I don't know that we
got anything out of it. You say let's do good planning and I'm
wondering what is. We do have corridors. I don't know that sewer is
going to change and maybe it might but we do know where the major traffic
corridors are and I think there assumptions that things are going to
happen there and I don't know what our planning efforts are going to do.
I literally just don't. I do know that there are some rules that we are
under right now and those rules say we can't go out there for many, many
years so to develop a plan that says we are, then I get faked out. I
don't know what we're doing anymore. The Plan says we are. The rules
say we can't and I don't know how to perform inbetween.
Siegel: But we have a plan right now that says that it's all
agricultural. That's sort of sweeping it under the carpet in my opinion.
The possibility of that area being developed, in my opinion, are very,
very high before the year 2000. Now it's easy to say let's leave it
agricultural and not look ahead or do any kind of concepting of what
could happen there. I'm not saying rezone it. I'm saying it should be
part of our Comprehensive Plan on what is going to exist in those areas
. when we get to the point where we have to make a decision we have
~mething to look back onto where we gave a perspective to. The reasons
Planning Commission Meeting
4iJtober 14, 1987 - Page 40
why. Then if they have to be changed they have to be changed.
Conrad: That's much easier when somebody says I'm moving the line out
and then I can go in and say, okay now that we're moving the line out I'm
going to figure out what should go in there. I have a real easy time
doing that. When the line's not moved out, I don't know where the line
is. Bob, you're assuming the line is going to be someplace and I don't
know where it's going to be. Barbara is telling me the line is going to
be a little bit south of where it is, that northern portion right now but
we don't know. So we're determining land use patterns based on the fact
that we don't even know where the MUSA is really going to be and I'm not
sure how it's going to help me do planning and communicate to people for
the next 10 years. All we can say is well maybe if they move the MUSA
line out, this might happen but the MUSA line may not move out that way
and I guess I'm not sure of how effective the planning is going to be.
Erhart: Isn't that the same to say that so many years ago there wasn't a
plan on the map for TH 212 and it wasn't the State coming out here
telling us they wanted to TH 212. It was the people in the city
organizing and going to the State and saying hey, we need a freeway out
here.
Conrad:
_hart:
We didn't put TH 212 on there.
Who did?
Siegel: Here's another example. You talk about there's no reason for
planning but if you don't plan for commercial and then you get to the
point where there are influential people who can make an impression. Say
the Dayton boys want to build ChanDale at the corner of TH 41. Do you
think they have enough sway with the Metropolitan Council to get that
MUSA line real quick south of TH 5 and I'm talking about there are
influential political people who can move mountains in this state and
cities. And if they have interest out here and if you don't have a plan
because it's all agricultural, you don't even have an inch that they can
get into but if you have say a real influential person who wants to do
something out here, they can make a real good point in front of the Met
Council to sell the point and Barbara Dacy doesn't even have to go up
there maybe. That politician will do it all and you'll get that MUSA
line changed south of TH 5 real fast and it won't be dealing with kind of
reasoning. That's my point and I think it's a possibility.
Conrad: The only difference in what we're saying is, I'm dealing with
the rules that exist through that year. I'm saying that those rules are
not going to change. You're saying they are and let's plan for that
change.
Siegel: Right. And I'm not saying that there's only point of view on
this. There are several. We just show it.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
4ittober 14, 1987 - Page 41
Conrad: What you suggest then is that Mark do a corridor study. I'm
trying to convert this to action that we leave here tonight with and
basically when I talked, Mark said there's no job for me or there's job
to do that sort of study. I don't know but you're saying we should hire
sombody to do a corridor study and figure out what goes where.
Siegel: Yes if one hasn't already been done.
Conrad: It's not. Mark is saying should we do a corridor study? We
need some direction or Barbara needs some direction that we should start
doing those types of studies.
Siegel: I think they've already come up wi th a couple of possibil i ties.
I saw that map on the board where all these little circles were for
different types of development. We're not asking them to put everything
in the refrigerator and keep it frozen solid until we have to act on it.
Those things I'm saying are going to change as you take them up one by
one as the need ar i ses bu t we should be prepared to meet them with a firm
plan of some kind addressing this situation. Obviously there are things
along that corridor on TH 5 that are going to result in either good
planning or bad planning and I'd rather be in a situation where we have a
little insight and perspective on what should go there.
~nrad: What do you think Mark?
Mark Koegler: Here's my specific question and it is focusing on areas
outside the MUSA line because inside the MUSA line we will be covering
all that we talked about. The specific question is, do you want to do
the expanded corridor studies as a part of this Comprehensive Plan and if
so, which corridors do you want to include in that? We need a consensus.
What direction do you want to give us? We can come back, this was
referenced, there has been some doodling work that's already been done on
some of these. We can come back to you with some things to review that
can be incorporated into this plan.
Siegel: When you say corridors, you're just talking about TH 212, TH 101
and TH 5.
Mark Koegler: And existing TH 169/212.
Headla: If we said yes, we want you to do a corridor study, are you
going to come back and say what assumptions shall I make? It seems like
you'd have to make many assumptions to accompany that.
Mark Koegler: We will make probably several different sets of
assumptions for you to review and see if you concur with any of them.
Just the same way we approach land use in any other area. It's kind of
what we did on TH 5. Barb, Jo Ann and I sat down and looked at several
different views of what can happen here. What would seem to make some
~nse. That's the same thing we would do with TH 5 and the others and
~me back with 1 or 2 or 3 corridors for you to review. I think if we do
Planning Commission Meeting
4iJtober 14, 1987 - Page 42
that, I can assume you there will have to be language in the plan that
will point to things that I think I'm hearing that this is a future
scenario. It's not tied to what we anticipate is going to happen between
now and the year 2000 unless this change occurs. I'm concerned that we
have some protection language in there. As I say, if I were a developer
that would give me some room to argue. I think you have to protect
against that and I think we can do that. The bottom line is, do you want
to approach it in that way or do you want to approach it by leaving it,
everything outside the MUSA line agricultural?
Siegel: Is this a decision we make or the Council makes?
Conrad: We make it.
Mark Koegler: You're the one right now that is driving the planning
process.
Conrad: Mark said something that's real important. I think we
potentially could do Plan A and Plan B out there. One, the Comprehensive
Plan is used by people to see where we're going and what we want to do
and to do a good job on tha t, tha t' s got to be based on the rules and
regulations and contractual agreements that we see existing through that
time period and to put anything else out there is real deceptive unless
~ have Plan A and Plan B. Plan A saying this is what will happen if
~thing happens in terms of the contractual agreements with Met Council.
Plan B is if those contractual agreements are changed or altered or
whatever but remember that Plan is something that developers come in and
see and it says that will happen, that's what are best guess if by the
year 2000. And our best guess means we know what the agreements are that
we're bound to. We know what those things are and that's our plan and
you guys are saying we're going to second guess that. You're saying, dog
gone it, that's going to change. Therefore, let's send a signal that
that's going to change. That's what you're doing.
Erhart: But doesn't that 2,400, somehow I saw someplace that this MUSA
line is based on every 10 years they review how many acres are left
within the MUSA line that hasn't been subdivided.
Dacy: That's true. They do that. The point that Mark was making
earlier that the 1990 translated into the year 2000 line, are we able to
change that date? Everything again goes back to sewer treatment
availability, how much growth is occurring within the MUSA line and so
on. They could conceivably when the year 2000 rolls around say sorry,
we're talking 2010.
Erhart: They could also come back and say your city is growing far
faster than we projected and you need more space where Anoka hasn't,
therefore. Couldn't they conceivably do that as well?
~Cy: If the treatment capacity is there.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1987 - Page 43
e
Siegel: I agree that putting it down on paper gives some sort of leeway
to developers but I don't see the danger. I don't see that as a real
problem. It's going to happen anyway. For instance, how did Fleet Farm
come in with an interest. What started Fleet Farm at TH 4l? I first
heard it here. That sort of prompted a lot of questioning. Did it come
into the City office? No they go around the Twin Cities area and they
have special marketing people studying different geographical areas for
their locations. They didn't come in here and ask us first if that was
commercial out there. My point is, if they came in and said, well it's
not commercial, it's agricultural, would that stop them from making an
application for their facility or anybody elses facility. Here we get
into the situation of having different people coming in with different
applications. So this little guy with the nursery, no we don't want him.
Not today. A year from now somebody else comes in with a bigger, more
grandiose plan. Well, maybe. Maybe we should think about doing
something. Then somebody else comes in. I'm talking about, we can do
this piecemeal or we can have a plan. If you have a plan, at least they
know that there is some future there and you might keep that developer's
interest for the future as things change. Whether it be economics,
politics, whatever in the area but I don't think just doing nothing about
it is a waste of time or money. I think it's good planning to do
something.
_nrad: Is it good planning to do something that you contractually can't
? It's sort of a challenge Bob and there are ways around it.
Siegel: What's the difference between good and bad planning? Was it
good planning to plan the crosstown and 35-W interchange or was it bad
planning? That was contractually done.
Conrad: Let me pose it a different way? To say that the intersection of
TH 5 and TH 41 is going to be commercial in the year 2101010, even though we
know contractually that can't be right.
Erhart: We're not saying that. We're saying it can be commercial if the
Met Council changes.
Conrad: So you'd like to have two plans wouldn't you Tim?
Siegel: We're not saying that it's necessarily going to be commercial.
That was the whole purpose of the plan. Maybe the plan should say
something else.
Conrad: Bob, you want two plans?
Siegel: I'd rather have something like that.
Conrad: Jim? Two plans? One plan?
_eldermuth: I'd like to see you do it for two plans.
Planning Commission Meeting
4Ittober 14, 1987 - Page 44
Conrad: Dave?
Headla: One plan.
I don't think a second plan gives enough value.
Conrad: Could I do this? Could we pass this up to City Council and see
what they think on this issue? Because they're the ones that have to
carry the ball on Comprehensive Plan or go through it.
Dacy: In a sense that's true. In another sense, you're going to be
driving, as Mark said, the whole draft and review process. We can keep
them informed along the way.
Conrad: But the point is, I don't want to race forward with two plans
and they say that's garbage.
Erhart: I agree with that.
Conrad: If they tell us, live within the constraints of the current
agreement, because they've gone through the sewer signing agreements and
all that stuff with Met Council. Do they want to fight us? I'd prefer
before I tell Mark to give us two plans or one, whatever, I think I'd
like to bounce the whole issue off of them and see what they think. I'm
not disagreeing with long term planning. If we feel we have some good
~ight that Met Council does not have. I'm not aware we do because I'm
~are that we haven't been really on the mark in the past totally. But
again, if we could spring that up to them on that issue.
Siegel: Barb, is there a clear directive from the City Councilor
adminstrator in that area?
Conrad: We're driving the planning process right now. They're not really
totally tied in.
Erhart: I think it's time to get some feedback from them on what they'd
like to see.
Conrad: You understand what we've shot the breeze about over the last
hour? Can you draft a note to them?
Erhart: Let's get to TH 101.
Conrad: What do you want to talk about on TH l0l?
Erhart: In a number of different sections we've talked about realignment
of TH 101 south of TH 5 to the TH 212 intersection and I don't think
we've ever actually taken that up as a subject with this group. I've
seen Barb come with the TH 212 meetings and the plans about the
realignment and right away everybody is asking questions but I don't
think it's been discussed specifically has it Barb? TH 101 where you
Ave whole new right-of-way from TH 5, east of the existing houses.
~~t's never corne to this group yet that was shown to a group that was
Planning Commission Meeting
~tober 14, 1987 - Page 45
here one night for the TH 212 freeway. Now, I think it's a great plan
but it's really time that I think we review that in this group.
Conrad: Say it again? North or south of TH 2l2?
Erhart: South of TH 5 and east of the current alignment, a whole new
right-of-way.
Conrad: You're not concerned with where I was talking about south of TH
2l2? You don't care about that?
Erhart: No, south of TH 5.
Dacy: Just trying to take where the TH 101 interchange is, try to depict
a straight shot and avoid those snakes south of TH 5 and look at a new
alignment through...
Conrad: That's a real valid issue to look at. That's really important.
Erhart: And I think we ought to show it in our Comp Plan because I think
it's a great idea.
Dacy: As a matter of fact we have MnDot looking at it also.
~art: So I think staff is getting ahead of us and I think I would like
to see our group deal with it and either support staff or say, this is
not what we want.
Siegel: Is that suppose to meet at the existing intersection of TH 5 or
further east? The proposed new alignment of TH 101.
Dacy: We were just looking at the existing touch down point with TH 5.
This is separate than the other new intersection issue.
Siegel: Connecting TH 101 north?
Dacy: Right. So what would happen is as you proceed north on TH 101 you
would angle right at Lake Drive East and go across at the intersection so
there would be a jog in there. As a matter of act, we're having BRW do
some more detail study on that intersection to see if, traffic
engineering wise and geometrically wise.
Erhart: That would eliminate the conrete plant right?
Conrad: Any direction that we need on that? What do we do?
Erhart: Staff has gone ahead with some proposals on it apparently and
probably has some drawings on it.
~gel: I thought we already were sort of in favor of it. I mean
"aligning TH 101 from the interchange of TH 212 north of TH 5. I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1987 - Page 46
e
thought that was already sort of agreed to or maybe I was in another
meeting.
Dacy: I don't know if we really sat down and talked about it.
shown on the maps in the redevelopment plan also. Maybe in the
transportation chapter some definitive statements about the City
actively supporting realignment of certain segments of TH 101 to
efficiencies and so on. Something of that nature.
It was
is
correct
Erhart: When are you trying to get this transportation complete?
Mark Koegler: The key elements outstanding are completion of some things
on the land use. The major thing outstanding really is transportation.
Our overall goal is to have the whole thing wrapped up by the end of the
year so really in terms of getting transportation done and through it,
the remainder of this month and the month of November.
Erhart: Okay, if you're far enough along to actually show some
alignments, I would like to see this group evaluate that alignment and
say yes, let's put that in the plan or no, let's not put that in the plan
and give it to Mark and have him put it in there.
Siegel: While the land is mostly vacant.
4Ifrhart: It is all vacant now.
Dacy: Even taking it a step farther, ahead of the plan a little bit, is
to initiate an official mapping proceedings. That's one way to set the
corridor.
Headla: I think you've got a good idea Tim.
Siegel: How does the State feel about us realigning their highway.
Dacy: They'd love it.
Siegel: They want us to own it right?
Conrad: Two other things. I'm still at a loss for south of TH 212 on
TH 101. I don't know. Is everybody comfortable that we've got the
access for the 10,000 people that are going to fill in that area? Do we
need an upgrade to TH l0l? What do we do with that? I don't know.
Erhart: Ladd, what can we do in the Comp Plan consistent with that
question you're asking? Can we go in there and say we need a plan to
replace the railraod bridge where only one car can go through? Get
specific?
Siegel:
that in
e
Does Eden prairie plan to extend Dell Road to TH 169?
their plan? Their Dell Road interchange on TH 2l2?
Isn't
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1987 - Page 47
_acy:
It's supposed to go down to TH 212.
Siegel: Doesn't it also go south to TH 169? I mean if you're talking
about relieving about some of the bottleneck that's going to occur, I
think Eden prairie is making plans.
Conrad: When you just take a look at where the population is going to
fill in Bob, it's filling in. with TH 212 coming in and with the
development just on the other side of TH 101 south of TH 5, we all know
that TH 101 sort of winds allover the place and is not a real good road.
Kind of charming but how many cars can go under that bridge. There's
going to be a lot more traffic on that road. There's just got to be. I
don't know how much traffic. What do we do?
Dacy: The broadened study area, Benshoof Study looked at TH 101 just
north of TH 212 and that study recommended that TH 101 be designated as
minor arterial. Right now it's a collector. There was no discussion
about south of TH 212 so maybe that would be a starting point for the
Commission to make some policy statements that this is a minor arterial.
It's forming a regional function for traffic from Chanhassen to points in
Shakopee and so on. The State needs to look at continuing it...
Mark Koegler: The only thing you can do with the plan is to essentially
spell out your philosophy as to what you want it to be. That puts
~echnically everybody on notice and you can at that point determine if
.-rou can get some work from the county or counties in this case.
Conrad: I guess given that, I think we have to put that type of wording
in there Mark to say with the population expanding in Chanhassen and the
fact that the activity south of Chanhassen and Shakopee in terms of the
things that attract people for play, the immediate corridor through
Chanhassen is TH 101 and that area has to be looked at in terms of it's
capacity of delivering people south.
Siegel: I don't have a problem with the deep south of that TH 101
corridor remaining a collector for residential use only. Being left in
that condition as a two lane road. Maybe some straightening out would be
okay but if we did the realignment north of TH 212 and made sure that TH
101 did not end on the north side of TH 212, there was a bridge or access
hoping that the south was actually capturing that residential area to
businesses and industry in Chan in our commercial district and also
allowing that plenty of access to improve the TH 212 corridor. The few
people that would use that TH 101 south to Shakopee would still be doing
that.
Conrad: One other thought in transportation. The railroad tracks.
Those tracks are connected to what? Are they the same tracks that Met
Council is talking about that are going to go through Hopkins in terms of
the light rail? The 94 connection between Minneapolis-St. Paul, extended
out through Hopkins or whatever. Is that rail corridor that same line or
~s it a different line altogether?
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1987 - Page 48
4Itiegel: It's the one that goes past the cement plant and downtown
Chanhassen.
Conrad: And where does that go?
Siegel: It goes to Chaska.
Conrad: But going the other direction, where does it go?
Siegel: It goes into downtown Minneapolis.
Conrad: Is that the same one that they're going to run the light rail
on?
Siegel: That's the one they've been contemplating using for the past 20
years.
Conrad: Same track?
Siegel: Same track.
Conrad: Do you care? What do you want to do with that?
Siegel: Like you said, planning doesn't happen overnight. It takes a
.ong time. I was always for it. I was for it years ago.
Oacy: You want us to look at the light rail issue then and maybe we can
do some things.
Conrad: Yes and I think the density out here is low enough that they're
not going to bother with Chanhassen in terms of the connections but in
terms of stimulating growth of downtown and in terms of stimulating
tour i sm to the oi nner Thea ter and the hotel s tha t go in, it would be a
terrific connection.
Erhart: Where is it going to, Excelsior now isn't it? Hopkins to
Excelsior?
Conrad: It's going to Hopkins.
Siegel: You're thinking of the Wayzata train.
Conrad: So in terms of the Comprehensive Plan, I'm not comfortable that
we make the statement yet that we pursue the course of being included in
that project but on the other hand, we're doing a long range plan here
and I guess want somebody to tell me that it's foolish. I guess I'd like
staff or Mark to look into it just a little bit. Tell us a little bit
more about it and whether it should be a concern to us or we should just
say hey, not worth bothering with at this time.
4IJiegel: There's been a lot of talk about that recently.
I"
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1987 - Page 49
.onr ad :
A whole bunch and it's going to happen.
It's going to happen.
Siegel: If it goes out to Minnetonka, we should be in there lobbying.
Erhart: I keep looking at this plan as one of the tools to stimulate
things to get for the City. I would say, if we wanted to put up a plan
and then we go to them and say look.
Conrad: Trail system.
Mark Koegler: Do you want an update of where that sits?
Erhart: Going back, Ladd did you also consider it a good idea to discuss
the TH 101 rerouting at a future planning meeting and try to get it into
the Comp Plan?
Conrad: Yes, I'd like to do that.
Mark Koegler: Trail plan. There was a copy of the draft of the plan as
it exists right now in your packet. The Park Commission has not
finalized that plan that you see however I would state they are getting
close. The joint meeting was held a week ago"with the City Council which
to a certain degree focused more on the funding aspect of the trail plan
than the trail plan per se but the trail plan I felt got a very good
~eception from the Council. The general philosophy O.f the plan that they
.ave come up with is to connect all the major points of interest
eventually in the City. Whether it be residential neighbors, commercial
sites, parks, regional parks and other trail connections. In order to
do that they have come up with a system that they see being implemented
over roughly a 15 year period. The first 5 year period is the most
intensive. The plan right now calls for about 1.3 million dollars worth
of trail development over the next 5 years. Of that there appears to be
funding for approximately $500,000.00 from sources that can be very
easily determined. Tax increment being one of them. Trail dedication
fees that the city will collect over the next 5 year period is accounting
for about $200,000.00. That left an outstanding balance of about
$800,000.00 to get from other sources. The reason for the joint meeting
is one of those prime sources is a special referendum for a variety of
facilities and exploring whether or not this was a reasonable thing to
add to that list. So the Park Commission feels that some plan is valid
regardless of what monies are available. Once the plan is in place it
becomes a tool the City can use to help in making decisions on current
developments.
Headla: What was your opening comment about that Mark? About priority?
Mark Koegler: On this map the heavier lines in red are the first phase
which is the trail segments that they have designated as the highest
priority. Highest priority came out of a process of reviewing a number
of factors. Safety issues. Basic connections they wanted to make.
4Itonnection to schools being one of those that stood out quite strongly.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1987 - Page 50
_eadla:
Why schools?
Mark Koegler: There is concern for example along Laredo as to how safe
that is right now for elementary school children to walk. They're not
bussed if they are less than 1 mile from the school at the present time.
Headla: So people in all the other areas will fund for that trail.
Mar k K 0 e g 1 e r : Th a t t r ail w 0 u 1 d be a par t 0 f the 0 v era 11 net w 0 r k for the
entire city. If you use that argument you could say why should the
people downtown pay for the segment of trail out there on Minnewashta.
Headla: That's right. I don't particularly agree with the priorities.
Safety I agree. Safety first but I think you should be looking at, like
there is no mention of anything going out to Carver Park. Down here
getting a trail over here into Eden Prairie. Tie into that. The other
one I think you should really put a priority on is, we're a very
segmented town. Why can't we tie this here and this down here? Why
shouldn't that be a first priority to make it one community?
Mark Koegler: That concept has been thought of. Trying to link major
areas of the community. I don't think anybody would argue that a trail
alone will pull an entire community together but certainly is a
contributing factor. That's why the area to the west, the area to the
.outh central, and the area up north have been tied together as a part of
hase 1. Extreme south has not. The philosophy essentially was to do a
number of things one of which was to capitalize on the existing trails
that are in place in the ground right now and make connections to those.
Do those connections in the area where the heaviest population exists for
the Ci ty whi ch is nor th of Lyman Bl vd.. At the same time there was
interest in supplying some kind of a connection down to the school
area of Chaska. This is the connection to the trail in Chaska. This is
going to Eden Prairie. Over here to Eden Prairie. There are two trails
to Eden Prairie. So the philosophy of connecting to existing trail
system links was there as well. Phase 2 or Phase 3, there's a link down
to the Minnesota Valley Natural Wildlife Trail. That's a part of it. It
just isn't considered to be in the cards for phase 1 which is the first 5
years. So those are the kinds of things they were thinking when they
laid out what their highest priorities were.
Headla: You say your highest density, what is that? 30% of the overall
population?
Mark Koegler: I would guess probably it closer to 70% of the overall
population or perhaps higher than that even. We're virtually connecting
all of the concentration of the population that exists within the City.
Headla: How do you feel Tim about your area not being included?
Erhart: My real concern was getting these subdivisions. I'm going to
4i'gree with you. I would like to see TH 101 and pioneer Trail. I have a
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1987 - Page 51
4IRard time envisioning why that trail along Lyman Blvd. is a higher
priority than TH 101 and pioneer Trail. I was surprised to see that in
the final phase that Lyman Blvd. was part of phase 1. I didn't realize
there was a connection to Eden prairie there.
Headla: I think that's great. I didn't know they tied in that well with
the surrounding communities. I look at this. I look at us having one
post office for all of Chanhassen and then eventually getting into a
school district. I think those three things can tie the community
together.
Erhart: I'm just real happy that we have a plan.
Siegel: You mean our own school district?
Headla: Separate from Minnetonka. We've got to tie this community
together.
Siegel: Well you're not going to do it by school district.
Headla: That's one step. Post Office is another step.
important plan that they have here.
This is a very
Conrad: Dave, in terms of priorities, are you still concerned after
~ark's discussion and rationale? Are you comfortable with priorities?
.re there things you would like to have somebody carry back to Park and
Rec?
Headla: I guess the main thing I have on priorities, a deliberate tying
of all of Chanhassen together. A conscious effort to tie Chanhassen
together. In my mind that has to be a high priority.
Conrad: And this does not do it? The phase l? What's missing?
Siegel: Is all that in the heavy red phase l? That's quite a chunk. If
we can achieve that in a short period of time, I would think that would
be really good.
Headla: You don't achieve all that in a short period of time.
suspect that's overly ambitious for one shot.
I would
Erhart: Going back to Park and Rec, the one question I have is, given so
many connections to south of Chanhassen, I question this would be the
first phase along Lyman Blvd. to CR 17. There isn't a single subdivision
on that entire road except for maybe a few houses over there. If the
object is to serve a number of people and at the same time allow...TH 101
and pioneer Trail. There's a tremendous amount of people in Eden prairie
that ride right on roads and TH 101 because of all the curves, it scares
me to death.
.eadla:
And people from Minneapolis.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1987 - Page 52
4Itiegel: Does this plan also include the TH 212 corridor as a
consideration for a route?
Conrad: How do we pursue that? Let's talk about that because I don't
understand, I think Tim's point is real valid. I'd love to have a way to
get down south on a trail from somebody who lives up north and therefore
I can see a use for getting me down to the river. I'm not sure the east-
west priority is there. I don't understand that.
Mark Koegler: I don't know if that alternative was ever specifically
reviewed but I'll certainly take that back to them to discuss that.
Conrad: In terms of final format Mark. What we're looking at here, it
says introduction but it's 1980 and then you get into existing system and
then you get to proposed system. Is that the format that goes into the
Comprehensive Plan or is that for our purposes right now in reviewing
what's changed?
Mark Koegler: The trail plan is going to be used in two ways. First of
all it's going to be modified to some degree and woven into the
Comprehensive Plan. Be a part of the plan. It's also going to be a free
standing document and what you've got in front of you is leaning more
toward the free standing document version. So there's some background
material in there and so forth and some information on existing systems
4Ifhat probably will be covered in other sections of the Comp Plan.
Conrad: Okay, the wording under proposed system in the intro is good and
it tells me stuff. It tells me what our philosophies are. The wording
under introduction on page TR-l doesn't tell me much of anything. It
talks about intent. The intent of the system was to connect major points
of interest throughout the City. I'm picking things apart here and all I
want to do is make sure that the words that are used in terms of a
proposed system are instrumental in wherever we put it. I don't like
major points of interest. The things that are of interest to me are that
this trail system ties the community and residential areas together. Not
that somebody gets to a major point of interest. It ties the entire
community together so I can get someplace on a trail within Chanhassen.
That's what I'm trying to do. Specifically downtown. I think people
should be able to take a trail downtown. I'm also trying to tie the
whole city together per Dave's comment but I want to tie residential
areas to points of interest to the City. To the areas that people want
to go. To the lakes. And I want to make that real clear. Also I care
about how we integrate with the other communities around us. It's worded
to that point on the proposed system. I just don't want that to get
lost in format here. I want that to be front end type of wording.
Erhart: Is there going to be any public input to this thing?
Mark Koegler: There has been and there will continue to be, in fact the
most recently we had the Southwest Trail Association... The additional
~Ublic input on the whole thing will come at the public hearing where it
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 1987 - Page 53
4Itill be official.
groups.
There have been comments from various people and
Erhart: Is there a particular meeting we could attend if we wanted to?
Siegel: If there's going to be a referendum I would suspect that the
Park and Rec and whoever's going to be behind this is going to stage some
sort of rally for the public?
Mark Koegler: In terms of specific dates, I don't know what Lori's
anticipated schedule is. It would be back I assume on the next Park
Commission meeting. If not that, the one after certainly.
Erhart: Regarding that issue, I would be more than happy to attend to
answer any questions on why...
Headla: Mark, I would really like to see you break that down into better
priority. That isn't any type of priority system you've got there.
Mark Koegler: I should indicate that within the 5 year time span they
have further broken that down to annual increments.
Headla: Okay, I think that's fine if you've got annual increments,
that's great.
4Ilark Koegler: They're not saying this is all going to be constructed
within one year by any means and I don't know if the annual increments
would boost your position or be counter to your position because it
starts building off the existing system essentially and works it's way
out. So the segment along TH 5 for example, I recall is in year 4 or
maybe it was year 3. The Minnewashta segment was one of the first ones.
Headla: Do you think that will happen?
Mark Koegler: The indicators are there that it probably will.
Headla: That's going to be a bitter fight.
Mark Koegler: We're dealing with two issues. The first issue is the
city deciding if it wants to do it and how it's going to pay for it. The
second issue is physically how we're going to do it.
Siegel moved, Conrad seconded to table the discussion on Planning
Commission goals for 1988. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Erhart moved, Siegel seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m..
Submitted by Barbara Dacy
_i ty Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim