1989 04 05
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
WPRIL 5, 1989
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Jim
Wildermuth, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli and David Headla
STAFF PRESENT: Steve Hanson, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Asst.
City Planner and Mark Koegler, Consultant
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Wildermuth moved, Ellson seconded to approve the
Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings dated March 1, 1989 and March
15, 1989. All voted in favor except David Headla who abstained for
the March 1, 1989 Minutes and the motion carried.
ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS:
Erhart: I recommend that the Planning Commission get feedback from the
City Council whether we take up the issue of banning plastics that are non
recycleable. Similar ordinance that Minneapolis passed. I as a Planning
Commission member which is very environmentally conscience would like to
take that issue up and see this City coordinate our efforts with the City
of Minneapolis and try to get, ultimately try to get a statewide law.
eEmmings: Does it ban the sale?
Erhart: It bans the use of plastics for use and packaging which are not
recycleable or environmentally biodegradeable. They expect that St. paul
is going to pass such an ordinance and Hopkins has indicated that they
are, the Mayor of Hopkins has indicated that he is in favor of passing
such an ordinance. Essentially Minneapolis requested that the suburbs
take up the issue because they're afraid if the State gets it first, that
the lobbying is going to dilute it down so much that it won't be
effective. And I'll repeat an experience I had 3 years ago when we bought
the additional 40 acres there. Part of it was kind of crap, junky weeds
and so forth and we took it and tilled it all up and planted it in trees.
And this was behind some houses but it was undeveloped land. I'd say in
an area of about 4 acres we probably pulled a third of a pick-up load of
plastic and metal and junk. It was underneath the grass but it had
accumulated over the years. It was just amazing. A lot of it was bags.
Conrad: That's a good issue. What direction would you like us to take?
Erhart: We should either express our interest. If we have interest in
it, we should go to the Council and say we'd like to take it up as an
issue I think. It seems to me that would be the appropriate way to
proceed. If Council says they don't us to...
aConrad: Would you like to get the Council feedback or would you like to
~ave staff do some research on the issue?
Erhart:
I really don't have any.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 2
e
Conrad: Steve, what do you think is most appropriate? Should we just
start the process here and have you do some research on this or should we
get City Council feedback on the subject first?
Hanson: I think you could go either way. If you'd like I could get some
information from the City of Minneapolis... I haven't seen specifically
what they've adopted and the timeframe. I know it's phased in over
several years but I don't know the specifics on it.
Conrad: Why don't we instruct Steve to do a little bit of background so
when we send something up to the City Council, they have something, a
little bit to react to so there might be more of a chance to get them
interested in the subject.
Headla: I'd like to see it a little more in depth to the extent that one
way or the other we end up with a public hearing. Either put in a ban or
not put in a ban but give the people of Chanhassen a chance to voice an
opinion.
Ellson: What about our current recycling? It fell through whoever we had
to do it?
Conrad: I had all my recycleables out today. And the dogs went through
~it. I can't believe it. Horseshoe Curve is not real pretty.
Ellson: I heard that the company that we had hired had backed out and
said they don't want to do it anymore.
Hanson: They did. We only had gotten two bids.
Ellson: But the other one was those people that were here that wanted
that other site. Admiral? I'd like to see them get it.
Hanson: No. They didn't bid. There were just two bids and the low
bidder, they had decided to award it to them and they were putting some
stuff together and we didn't hear from them for a while and Jo Ann called
and said hey what's going on. Actually through the County found out that
they had decided they were going to back out because of what they said
were personal problems. The background on that. Then we contacted the
other bidder and they said that they would step in and do the service.
What it's done is it's pushed it off a couple of weeks. The difference
between them as far as pick-up and that, as I recall, the present
contractor will do it every 2 weeks whereas the other contractor was twice
a month.
Conrad: What's the difference?
Batzli: 24 and 26.
~Hanson: Yes, it's 2 more pick-ups during the year. There's always been a
question on which is easier.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 3
e
Ellson: Like first and third or every other or something like that.
Conrad: Is there a plan to put out little signs to remind everybody?
Hanson: Jo Ann's going to be here a little later.
Conrad: I think we want Jo Ann to coordinate that effort just to remind
people.
Hanson: She can go over it with the promotional campaign and so forth for
the recycling.
Wildermuth: Are we going to have little containers like Excelsior?
Hanson:
I don't think so. Just paper bags.
Conrad: Some communities they just put little yard signs out on the curb
before the day of the pick up or a couple days before just to remind
everybody and that's really a good idea.
Hanson: We may have to amend the sign ordinance.
Conrad: It may be temporary but that's really a real good way to do it.
~COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - WORKSESSION.
Mark Koegler: It's amazing this item isn't under old, old business.
We're on a schedule that hopefully Steve and I are going to be able to
meet. We have every intention of doing it. Of getting a draft of this
thing finally roped in by about the 17th of May. As a part of getting to
that step, we had a couple of different topical areas that we needed to
review with the Commission this evening. There's really about four areas.
The first deals with goals and policies. The second thing we want to go
into and cover a little bit is the supply of commercial/industrial
property. The third item is some discussion of land uses and policies and
such in the rural area. Fourth is to focus on corridor studies and that's
going to lead into a more specific discussion of some land use and
alignment alternatives for TH 101 around the new TH 212 interchange. I'd
like to start with the goals and policies section. The material is really
nothing new in what's been presented there. It's simply though, in some
cases, it's the first times you've seen some of the comments that you had
made previously over about the past, probably about the past year. Just
kind of wanted to bring together a composite copy of those to allow you to
look at those one last time or one other time and I don't certainly intend
to go through those item by item or even section by section but perhaps if
you see anything there that you want the language worked over a little bit
or you want to add something or delete something, feel free to point those
out. I suggest we start with that and then move on into the other
_sections of discussion.
Conrad: Commissioners, anything on page l? Any comments on page l? Page
2?
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 4
e
Erhart: Yes. Under goal. I would like to see us include, where we say
protect and preserve those items that we listed above which is open space,
natural tree cover, wetlands, variable topography. In addition to protect
and preserve, I would like to also see add the word enhance.
Koegler: Where are you Tim?
Erhart: Under goal on community development. Enhance these amenities.
Maybe even to the extent of including words like increase urban forest.
Zero lose of wetlands which is now I think a national goal. If you can
get the meaning in there, I don't want to clutter this thing up with a
bunch of wording. You're much better at words than I am but I guess a
little stronger on the, increase urban forest enhancing those things and
minimal environmental degregation.
Emmings: Minimal?
Erhart: No stop environmental degregation. Something.
Conrad: Minimal's not bad.
Erhart: I don't think we can, realistically.
~atzli: How about minimize?
Erhart: Minimize or something. That's my only comment.
Headla: I don't see that as a goal. Chanhassen is a high amenity
residential community containing large amounts of open space. To me that
isn't a goal. I don't think it's structured right and I don't kndw that
it should be a goal to contain large amounts of open space. Are we saying
we don't want people to build here and there?
Batzli:
I think that's a good goal personally.
ElIson: I think it's defining what it's trying to achieve. You have to
say what it is first and then you say, now this is what we're trying to do
because of that.
Headla: It's a high amenity residential space. As a goal, that isn't a
good sentence.
Erhart: I think if you take the whole paragraph as a whole, I think the
first sentence sort of defines.
ElIson: Right. You could say it's the City's overall
qualities and then name the first line but it says the
ha ve . . .
eHeadla:
amounts
that is
goal, these
same thing if you
But then I disagree. I don't think our goal is to contain large
of open space. If that is a goal, I'd like to hear somebody say
a goal to contain large amounts of open space.
..
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 5
e
Batzli:
I'll say it.
I think that's a goal of Chanhassen.
Headla: Then I'd disagree with you.
ElIson: What is the opposite of large amounts of open space? There's
very little of it.
Headla: Not large.
Erhart: I would agree with Dave. That should not be a goal of the City
to have large amounts of open space.
Headla: To me the only place you have large amounts of open space is the
lake and swamps. The other land, it's going to be used.
Batzli: Do you want parks? Parks. Backyards.
ElIson: Lakes are open space.
Headla: What I'm really asking is, and I was trying to think how can we
state that better and I don't have a good suggestion on it but I don't
think the way it's worded now is what we're really after.
_Koegler: This is a fairly critical goal so we probably should try to come
to resolution about what you think you are after.
Headla: Do you think I have a point there Mark?
Koegler: Dave, you always have a point.
Erhart: I agree entirely like you say because as we go later on, I have
another problem with another thing that kind of goes along with that
that's been added I think since the last time and that is that there's a
goal somewhere I've got it. Here it is. Discourage development in rural
wooded areas. How do you do that?
Headla: I've got that underlined.
Erhart: I mean I don't understand how that's a goal.
Koegler: It was a statement that I took out of comments that were made by
the Commission.
Wildermuth:
I'd like to do that but I don't know how we'd do it.
ElIson: You make it a goal and the goal is just that.
Erhart: But then the goal means, if you want to do that, then the City
~has to buy that land. That's the only way and the same with open spaces.
~If you want to somehow...
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 6
e
ElIson: I would say the lake is an open space and stuff. I mean if you
were to fly over, I don't think you need to take it literally. Like an
open space is 100 x 100 x 100 and anything smaller is a small open space.
That's spliting hairs.
Erhart: I guess I would be more comfortable with a word like a balanced
amount of open space rather than just have an open ended. It's our goal
to have as much open space as we can. That's sort of what it says now.
Headla: Like we wouldn't allow any building.
Elison: We're trying to give the same feel that Chanhassen has always had
when people come in here. We want to have growth but we don't want it to
feel like change from one city that had this feel to it to a city that has
a whole different feel so you're defining what the feel is. When people
come in now, they think of it as open space. A lot of tree cover. A lot
of wetlands. A lot of different topography. What we're trying to achieve
in a long range plan is to get that same feeling but allow growth. That's
basically what I see this statement saying.
Koegler: Does it get to the point if you just simply remove the words,
large amounts of? If you have that lead in sentence saying the City has
open space and then to the qualifier second sentence that says we're going
to protect, enhance and preserve that amenity.
-Erhart: Yes, if we could get rid of the large amounts.
Emmings: But that's already what it says. It looks to me like that first
sentence it simply says what exists. The second sentence is saying the
goal is to protect, preserve and enhance those things. I don't think that
first sentence is a goal. I think it's more of a description.
Headla: It's a preview first.
Conrad: But it sets up the second sentence.
Emmings: I don't really have much trouble with it myself.
Conrad: But it doesn't mean anything. I guess I do agree that if we
wanted to protect, if we wanted to keep open space, then we wouldn't allow
new residential development. And I'm wondering, are we promoting
clustered housing and we're not. What else do we want to do to promote
open space? I think the things to do are the wetlands and the key natural
environment is what we want to preserve so I think if we do that, then
that's what we're talking about. So the open space is going to be eaten
up by residential and we're not trying to prevent that, to my knowledge.
Erhart: I
and leave
_Elison:
think I'd be comfortable, just take the words large amounts out
we want to preserve open spaces.
How does that sound to you Dave?
Headla:
I like that.
If you delete that.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 7
e
Koegler: Okay, we'll do that.
Hanson: But that one is an overriding premise for the ones that follow.
The ones that follow I think are trying to clarify and define that.
Emmings: I have another one on that page. In the goal under natural
resources, it says promote rational planning which correlates growth and
the preservation of a high quality environment. And I'd change that to
say the preservation of the natural environment simply because
environment, like in the goal at the top of page 3, Chanhassen should
provide an environment. Sometimes environment is used broadly to include
people things and here I think we're talking about the natural
environment.
Koegler: Yes, I think that's a good point.
Conrad: Then when we get down to policies under that point, we say review
shall include but not be limited to soils, vegetation, drainageways,
topography. In your mind Mark, does vegetation cover any kind of
forestation? Is that all encompassing? Okay.
Koegler: I think that's a carryover from the '80 plan. Given the City's
increased awareness in wetlands since that time, we may want to
specifically add that also. That's certainly an item that's key to any of
_your reviews.
Conrad: Yes, we talk about it every week. Every other week. Anything on
page 3?
Headla: Just one. Mark, you'll have to help me. I think it fits in here
because we talk about things going in the water for the farms. What I'm
trying to get in here is, I've brought it up before. It really didn't get
to first base but the subject is what do we do with all our wells. I've
got two wells on my place. One's a shallow well. One's a deep well.
Sooner or later those are going to leak, just like everybody else who's
got city water now.
ElIson: They're going to leak?
Headla: They're going to leak sooner or later and if we wait til later,
we stand a great danger of damaging our water supplies.
Erhart: You're saying like fertilizer would leak, go down in the well and
get into the ground water?
Headla: Right. Sooner or later it's going to happen. I'd kind of like
to see that addressed in this thing first as goals and see what we can do
to work that. I think it's a time bomb problem. Just see what we can do
to work that over a period of time and maybe we can't work it this coming
Ayear. We may have to do just a lot of investigating. Find out what
"'should be done but I would like to see that as a goal that we address.
Conrad: And how would you work that or what would your intent be?
Planning Commission Meeting
AprilS, 1989 - Page 8
_
Headla: The intent is to come up with a policy on how we handle...
ElIson: Like monitoring the ground water?
Headla: No. How we handle vacated wells. In my own mind, and I'm not
that well versed on how to handle it but anytime, let's say I came in for
a building permit for anything on the place, that then would allow the
City to come in and say hey, you've got a well here that has to be taken
care of.
Emmings: What can they do Dave, do you know?
prevent the problem?
What is a person to do to
Headla: I don't think I have anywhere near the knowledge to say this is
the best thing to do. I know the State's looked at it. People are
wringing their hands yet. I don't think there's a, this is an absolute
way to handle it. I think we should be addressing that.
Erhart: You could pull the pipes out.
Headla: You pull the casing out but you've got to backfill. What do you
backfill it with? Is it concrete?
_Erhart:
Headla:
I've got
Yes, you could just run concrete down the casing.
Maybe it's sand and yes, maybe you don't pull the casing. Like
a jet pump, maybe just pull the pipes and backfill with sand.
Jay Johnson: I've been working on a hazardous waste problem here in the
City today. I just discovered some abandoned hazardous waste but I
overheard what you're talking about. The State has standards on the State
and National standards on how to abandon a well. State Health Department
standards. The Health Department's in charge of wells. Basically it's a
bentenite concrete slurry that is pumped into the well housing.
Bentenite's a clay that expands. Concrete shrinks when it dries so if you
pour concrete down, it shrinks and you've still got a hole so with the
bentenite mixture, it expands completely filling the hole and becomes
impermable. You put bentenite plugs in and things. Most of your well
drillers that are licensed well drillers know how to pull. Then they have
to certify it properly to the geological survey and everything. Of the
places that we have seen wells, we've made them so far say you have to
abandon that well per State Standards. I didn't get the first part of the
conversation. I just.got here and heard you talking about wells.
Headla: Like all along
They all had to hook up
are just sitting there.
ground water.
_Jay Johnson:
water?
Minnewashta where the sewer and water went in.
to city water. We all had wells. Those things
Sooner or later they're going to leak into the
An abandoned well, what's going to leak into the ground
Planning Commis.sion Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 9
e
Headla: The surface water.
Jay Johnson: The main problem are septic systems too close
That the septic system leach gets to the well and leaks in.
with hazardous waste that say, here's a convenient place to
and down the well. Those types of problems.
to wells.
Or people
get rid of it
Headla: My point is, I'd like to see it addressed in our Comprehensive
plan as making a policy statement for the City.
wildermuth: As areas become sewer and water, wells should be properly
capped or maintained.
Conrad: Does that seem like a reasonable policy statement? I don't know
that that's a goal statement Mark. Is it a policy?
Headla: Yes, I think a policy. Maybe one of the things under the policy
here.
Koegler: Yes. I think we can insert that as a policy item. I don't know
right at this moment where it fits the best. Whether it's under this
section or utilities or where it goes.
Headla: I went through there and I couldn't find one. Say hey, this is
_the place so I just put it under this one because you mentioned about
fertilizer for farmers.
Conrad: I guess there's some ramification. It's easy to put some words
in here and then there's another thing of enforcement or whatever so I
think if we put it in, we should really flag it as what are we doing about
it? Are they just words or is there something that the City wants to
aggresively go after? I don't have a cluse whether we should be. I don't
know that it's a problem because I have a well on my, we converted to city
water, I've got a well and I haven't done a thing and I just don't know
what to do.
Headla: And I think it's just a time bomb that's all.
Erhart: In keeping the correct approach to what we have here in this Comp
Plan, I'd like to keep the statement more general and in terms of putting
words to the effect to say that protect ground water by strict enforcement
of standards relating to well abandonment, use of fertilizers. Make it a
more general statement as opposed to just honing in one paragraph
specifically relating to wells. Let's just talk about ground water
protection in general in one pargraph and I think it would fit more with
the design of this document.
Headla: That would cover what I think we should be looking at.
~Erhart: I have another one. I'd like to see us, on page 3, insert it's
"'our goal to reforest, re-establish urban forest or reforest unused ag
areas. I do believe that that is going to become a national priority. I'd
like to see us, and I'm okay with the hardwoods too Dave. I think it
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 10
e
ought to be a goal and I think this city is doing something that I've been
involved now for the last 3 years in tree give away programs for Arbor
Day. I think that's a very, it's an important thing that we need to take
up and start doing because trees do balance against the pollutions that
are contributed to the air from automobiles. In fact I heard one
statistic was it only takes 250 trees to balance 1 automobile which I find
a little hard to believe but there is an amount of trees that will balance
it.
Conrad: That was the jet plane.
It's 250 trees for a jet plane.
Erhart: Is that what you heard?
Conrad: Yes.
Erhart: Well that's even more unbelieveable.
more like 10,000.
I would think it would take
ElIson: 250 what size trees?
Erhart: I don't know but there is some number that the Americans could
keep driving their gas guzzlers and pollutants if they had a certain
number of trees that you could have an environmentally balanced situation.
So the solution is to find out what that is and get that many trees in the
.round.
ElIson: You'd like to see us spearheading...
Erhart: I'd like to see it simply as a goal is to support reforestation
of unused areas. It's something that Europe's been doing for years. They
have actual government programs, reforest any unused piece of land.
Conrad: But what does that mean? Now break it down into something that
would actually happen here in Chanhassen?
Erhart: For example what we do is we give away trees at Arbor Day to
anybody that comes up to the Kenny's.
Conrad: The City of Chanhassen would?
Erhart: We do. We do that now. We're going to give away 6,000 trees.
ElIson: About this size?
Erhart: Well yes. We're not going to give out 40 foot oaks. We just
take those down.
ElIson:
Say it as a statement as you have it in here.
_Erhart:
.areas.
Just that it's our goal to re-establish forest in areas, unused
Planning Commission Meeting
AprilS, 1989 - Page 11
e
Conrad: Is it a policy? It's a policy to promote the reforestation and
unused. . .
Erhart:
Ag areas and the urban forest.
Batzli:
Urban forest?
Erhart:
wetlands.
Urban forest yes. And the last one was the zero net loss of
I don't see that in here specifically. Maybe I missed it.
Koegler:
No it's not and I noted that.
Batzli: Speaking of wetlands, on page 3. Fourth paragraph up on page 3.
Construction activity will be permitted in floodplains, shorelands,
wetlands. I'd like to reverse that so it reads, construction activity
will not be permitted in floodplains, shorelands and wetlands unless
consistent with adopted ordinances and standards.
Emmings: And the way I wrote it, for what it's worth. I left it the way
it was and I said construction activity will be permitted in floodplains,
shorelands and wetlands only when in strict compliance with adopted
ordinances.
eBatzli: Yes.
Conrad: And
permitted.
Anyone of those would be better than the way it is now.
the way I wrote that was, construction activity will only be
Batzli: The essence should be.
Emmings: Change your emphasize.
Batzli: Shouldn't be permitted unless in strict compliance. The other
one I had, the last pargraph on that page, actually two things. One, in
the goal, the needs of man. It seems kind of sexist for the 80's. Maybe
persons or something. Last pargraph, urban development is appropriate.
Is that a statement that urban development will always be appropriate in
prime agricultural areas and that you won't have any other kind of
development? That's kind of like saying it's inevitable that this is
going to happen?
Koegler: Perhaps it's just a matter of how you're defining that term.
I think in the way this is implied and whether or not it's clear, you
either have agricultural development in this context or urban development.
Urban development is a homestead if you will sitting in the middle of ag
land. Suddenly it becomes more urbanized.
Batzli: I don't know, I always picture that as being like residential and
not urban and maybe that's just my own.
'e Koegler: Maybe the problems wi th the word urban because it's intended to
mean development. Not necessarily high density. If any..high intensity
land use.
I
J
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 12
e
Emmings: You could say other developments instead of urban developments.
Batzli: That just struck me when I read that that this was kind of like
inevitable like the city was going to end up concrete city blocks and we
couldn't do anything about it.
Erhart: I think in other documents that we use frequently, the word urban
is used to describe all development.
Batzli: Do we ever define what the word means in our Comp Plan?
Koegler: No. Not really. Only in the context of it being used in
metropolitan urban service area. Then urban comes in to it again which
implies every intensity development as long as it has sewer.
Batzli: If it's a term of art that means any development other than
agricultural, I'll buy it. I just had a problem when I read it. If it's
in the planning industry. It's a term of art to mean to any development.
Koegler: That's the intent. In this statement, there's no problem. We
can substitute. Instead of urban development, just non-agricultural
devleopment.
eBatzli: I like it better but the other commissioners didn't seem to have
as big of a problem.
Emmings: I had a comment about the second sentence in that one. I can't
figure out what it means.
Batzli: Urban uses?
Emmings: No. It just says, the conversion will be governed by the
provisions and restrictions of the Comp Plan. This is the Comp Plan and I
don't know. I didn't know what that meant.
Koegler: Really in terms of strict application, shouldn't probably read
the Comp Plan but should read the Codes and Ordinances of the City because
that's really the governing entity versus the policy entity.
Emmings: But couldn't we take that for granted? Isn't that true of
everything that's on here?
Koegler:
I think so.
Emm i n g s :
I think you could probably just knock that sentence out.
Conrad:
It doesn't mean much to me.
e Koegler:
Conrad:
Consider it scratched.
Anything else on 3?
Planning Commission Meeting
AprilS, 1989 - Page 13
e
Batzli: One other thing while we're talking about this stuff. We talked
a little bit about runoff and what the downstream stuff can handle.
Lately we've run into a lot of situations where they're going to take
drainage off of a roof or a parking lot and something and we talk about
putting in skimmers and traps and all that other good stuff. Do we need
to say anything in here about that? I just had a little note and I didn't
really see much about it except for the fifth paragraph up about storm
water runoff storage sites are unavailable but, I think you elude to it
when, maybe even when you talked about Dave's preserving ground water and
such. Maybe it would best be fit into something like that. As long as
we're encompassing handling pollutants that would enter the runoff or
something.
Erhart: You could beef up that second paragraph under policies on page 3
there where it says water and storm drain systems should be routed and
constructed to minimize permanent damage to natural resources. You could
beef that paragraph up a little bit maybe.
Koegler: Yes. Put something in there pertaining to the control of water
quality.
Headla: How are you going to word the fourth one up? Did we have
agreement on that?
eBatzli: I think anyone of the three.
Koegler: I wrote down essentially Brian's comments and I think the theme
was the same on the other two.
Conr ad: Page 4?
ElIson: I had something about recycling. Since we're talking about using
biodegradeable, non-polluting chemicals. Did we want to say something
about or maybe encouraging recycling, because it seems to be in the same
vein. So let's put it in the plan that we want recycling.
Koegler: Do you want that to carry forward and say, arid use of
biodegradeable or recycleable products?
Erhart: That's what I was thinking. We could add plastics in that first
one. Or products. Maybe at this point products are safer.
Emmings: I had if you go down to housing and then count up 4 where it
says, construction plans and specs should contain provisions for adequate
on and off site protection of existing vegetation. If we wanted to be a
little more aggressive there we could add that they should also show a
plan for replacement of trees which are removed for construction purposes.
I knew you'd like that. I actually thought of you as I was writing that
one.
eHeadla:
I like that one.
That would just reinforce that.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 14
_
Emmings: Then I just had a question. On the pargraph right at the top of
the page it talks about the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Act and
I have no idea what that is.
Erhart:
I can explain that.
If you're in ag preserve.
Emmings:
Is this the green acres?
Erhart: No. This is another one similar to that. If you're in that, I
think the City is required to have their zoning be consistent with that.
Emmings: with what?
Erhart: In that you can't develop it if you're in the ag preserve.
Emmings: Oh. Okay. So it's an election that you make if you have 410
acres.
Erhart: Yes. I've got 810 acres. It's in ag preserve so it has to be, I
think it has to be zoned agricultural. Until that's not in the ag
preserve, you can't change it.
Wildermuth: Can you take it out at will?
_Erhart: No.
Conrad: You sign a contract don't you.
Emmings: Do you get a tax break?
Erhart: Yes. You used to get a tax break. It's another trick you know.
They make you sign up for 8 years and then 3 years in they take your tax
break away but it takes you 8 years to get out of the contract.
Conrad: They didn't do that did they?
Erhart: Yes they did.
Conrad: The point was to reduce the taxes...
Erhart: In exchange for a contract.
Conrad: They didn't increase the taxes all the way back up to where it
was?
Erhart: This year it's virtually back even, yes.
Conrad: That's really tacky.
A Erhart: I was lucky thought because I put it in just for 8 years and
"'immediately terminated it so that I have a 8 year block so it comes out in
1991. But for the poor guy who put it in indefinitely and now he's stuck
with this minimum of 8 year contract and now there's no tax benefit.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 15
e
Conrad: That's just terrible.
Koegler: That's 8 years from time of notification of the cancellation.
Conrad: Okay. Anything else on 4?
Erhart: Were we going to do something on that replacing existing
vegetation? If we do that, I think we also have to say valuable
vegetation. I don't think replacing 1 inch trees and 2 inch trees, and
I don't know what the word you choose Mark but.
Headla: I think you've got to be careful on that because we had a
forester go through and take a look at a lot of box elder and said, well
those are trash trees. Then a bulldozer comes down and scraps it clean.
If I had my choice of looking at bare ground or box elder, I'll take box
elder.
Erhart:
I agree.
ElIson: So you're concerned that they say equal value? Then people will
say, that's worthless according to Mr. Forester.
aErhart: My point, I wouldn't want to see somebody go back and replace the
.prickly ash.
Conrad: We've got to be careful here. You're designing an ordinance.
You're really designing an ordinance here versus a policy.
Erhart: No. That's why I wanted to use the real broad marketable or
valuable. If our goal is to replace existing vegetation, I don't think
that's really our goal. I think our goal is to replace existing valuable
vegetation. I'm just adding that one word. I'm not trying to get
specific.
Conrad: Any problems with that?
Emrnings: It's just something to cause arguments.
Batzli:
It is. An attorney would pick up on that like.
Emrnings: Valuable to who?
Erhart: But all these things. All these things are broad.
Koegler: ...enact a city ordinance somewhere down the road that clarifies
what that value is, then you're okay.
Erhart:
-ElIson:
There's nothing in here that you can...
That you can take to court.
J
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 16
_
Conrad: Just so you know that if this goes through, then it's up to you
to spur some kind of ordinance. Otherwise it's nothing.
Erhart:
I think we are talking about putting ordinances.
ElIson: Right. For like diameter to diameter.
Batzli: We've got tree mapping.
Erhart: Yes. I think there's a lot of work going on in this city right
now that's consistent with defining what's a valuable tree and then
requiring it to be replaced. Eden prairie does it.
Conrad: Okay. Anything else on 4? On 5?
wildermuth: On the first paragraph. Existing housing within the city
should be maintained and improved. How do we do that? How do we promote
that?
Hanson: Through a couple of things. One of the things is, some of the
block grant money that the City gets, goes back into a rehabilitation
program to rehab existing homes that are below code.
_Wildermuth: Do we have any block grant money?
Hanson: The block grant, the Council just went through the hearing on
that and they allocated for the next block grant period about $19,000.00.
And the City's done that historically over a period of time.
Wildermuth: $19,000.00? That ought to do a lot.
Hanson: It's $19,000.00 out of a budget of about $33,000.00. What
they've done in a lot of the homes is, the range in the cost of the
improvements to upgrade them have been from $5,000.00 to $7,000.00 so
they're looking at out of that fund maybe being able to do 3 or 4.
ElIson: So you're saying that's one and we're just basically encouraging
any others that might come along.
Koegler: Just to add one other thing. There are still a few State
programs available through housing finance agencies and things based on
financial need. For weatherization and those kinds of programs so there
are some other compatible programs. They are few and far between these
days but there still are a few.
ElIson: Does this, by saying the City will provide adequate land for
projected housing growth, is this basically saying that if we see that
there will be a lot of people moving here and we don't have enough area
zoned residential we'd be forced to say then the minimum lot size should
~be smaller or we should find more places? What is this encouraging us to
"'do? How much strong arm is it to have us, force us to find places for
people to have homes? I don't know.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 17
e
Koegler: The reason it's in there is it's kind of a lead in to some of
the land use plan later on where you're allocating various spaces in the
community for various land uses. It's just saying that based upon the
City, and that's an emphasize. The City of Chanhassen's projections on
what will be needed, and that again is tied to what goals you want and
what type of housing you're after. We'll make every effort to provide
that land and then of course the caveat consistent with the regional
policies which are the folks in St. Paul.
Erhart: Where does it say consistent with regional?
Koegler:
MUSA.
In that sentence. Regional policies primarily is reflecting
Batzli: Are all of these policies on this page?
Koegler: Yes.
Batzli: Why did we change from should, might, could, wants to, to will,
will, will, will, will all of a sudden on this one?
Koegler: Not specific reason.
.-Batzli: I'd like to soften those.
~ays the City will. The City will.
further.
Each and everyone of them where it
The City will. The City will down
Koegler: Wills to shoulds?
Batzli: Yes. If it's a policy. Unless we're writing an ordinance that
we're going to do this.
ElIson: You've got a little more breathing room with the word should is
that what you're saying?
Batzli: Well, soften it somehow. Maybe should isn't the right word but.
Wildermuth: There are a number of shoulds in here.
literary variety.
I think it was
Batzli: will is like a command to do something.
ElIson: That's true. That's why this one probably struck me that way
too. It sounded like someone could come in and say we have a commune. We
want it to be here and we want you to find a place for us. Almost makes
it seem like that so you're right.
Hanson: The should reads more as being an intent.
4ItErhart: You go through this, there's a lot of wills.
Batzli: That was my overall comment when I hit this page. This is where
it started. And maybe we want a will.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 18
e
Erhart:
question
they use
I always
say it.
I'm more comfortable with the wills. I don't know. It's a good
because nothing bothers me more than writers in our company when
these soft words. What would and could. It just drives me nuts.
scratch them out and say, if this is what you're going to do than
Batzli:
Well we could say, see if Chanhassen might if it feels like it.
Hanson:
At some future date.
Emming s:
And a time to be determined.
Koegler:
We will or we won't.
Erhart: My feeling of it is, if you're going to spend the effort to write
it down, by goll then say you're going to do it or you're not going to do
it.
ElIson: It's also, it can be taken from a person who comes after us too
saying, you say you will do this. I don't see a revitalizing program that
helps me or what have you so it can work both ways.
~KOegler: So what's the consensus?
Batzli: My vote is to soften.
Soften them?
ElIson:
I like should.
Conrad: I don't like will but I also am not real wild about the second
and the fourth paragraphs. They make sense that we should have
residential area but I think, does that mean that we're just flat out
going to zone everything we want into residential just so any developer
can come in here and we'll expand the MUSA line to put whatever? I'm a
little bit nervous about. It says to me, no matter what, if a developer
comes in we will find land for him. That's what those statements tell me
and I don't agree with that.
Erhart: I don't think it says that.
ElIson: Tell us why Steve.
Hanson: I think you're reading it wrong and I think that's what Mark
eluded to. When I read the policy, what it's really saying is that the
City of Chanhassen in determining the land use that it wants to have
happen within the City, will provide adequate land for the housing growth
to go along with that. What I see is that gets back to is how much
residential. How much industrial. How much open space that we talked
before within the whole framework of the City do you want to have? The
_intent in my mind is not that a developer can come in and say, hey it says
"'you're going to provide adequate and I'm going to tell you what adequate
is. I think the Planning Commission and the Council are going to tell the
developer what's adequate through the rest of the comprehensive plan.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 19
e
Emmings: It also, it's not as if you're almost reading it like the City
owns all the land in Chanhassen and we have to give it
when he comes in and that's not the way it is at all.
in is going to have to come in in an area that's zoned
development he wants to put in.
to the developer
A builder who comes
for the type of
Conrad: But a case could be made...
ElIson: For us to change the zoning is what I was thinking when I first
read that. He's going to come and say I want that business fringe to be
housing because you say you will provide it. And I think if I said
should, I wouldn't feel it quite as hard as will.
Erhart: And I think you go down to paragraph 5 where it says plans and
ordinances for the City of Chanhassen should ensure that adequate amounts
of land are designated to accommodate projected residential growth which
is the same as paragraph 2. I don't know why we need both those
paragraphs. Paragraph 5 reads the best I think. I think what you're
obligated to do has nothing to do with the builders at all but if you read
paragraph 5, I think that's accurate. If the market out there, if there
are people who want to move to Chanhassen, if the market dictates, then I
think we owe it to the market to increase the residential area to allow
_those people to move in here. I think you're legally required to do that.
Elison: I don't agree with that.
Conrad:
I don't agree with that.
Conrad: That could raise my taxes. Every new resident that comes to town
basically is requesting more services and basically is probably costing me
money so the question is, if we've allocated enough commercial, industrial
to offset the increase in the residential cost. I really do disagree. I
am not committed to allowing everybody who wants to out here, unless I am
convinced that taxwise it's feasible to do that. It's an impact on me.
It's an impact on highway services. It's an impact on utilities that we
provide and I just don't think that, at least personally I don't feel
obligated to allow anybody out here that wants to because it's costing me
something. So I think the challenge to the City Council is to have this
appropriate balance where as you allow two more residential developments
in, we have compensated or we've decided that it makes sense to allow
another company. We have room for another company or 2 more employees of
a company to increase the amount of work that's produced and maybe the
taxes generated out of the community. So I have some problems with this
because I do think there is a financial impact as we promote residential
growth.
Erhart: But it can go either way. Taxes could down too with a larger
population.
-conrad: How? I just don't think it's ever been proven that a new
resident brings in more money to Chanhassen. It's costly. The only thing
that offsets a new resident is commercial/industrial. That's the only
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 20
e
thing. A new resident is a net negative.
Tim.
It's an impact on your taxes
Emmings: And it stays that way essentially forever.
ElIson: Yes, you were saying even after 30 years they haven't paid for
themselves.
Erhart: Then maybe that word ought to be urban growth so you do include
commercial then instead of residential there. I don't think it should be
driven by the developer. I think I agree with you there but I think, the
question that arises is, can you then, let's say you don't want any
growth. Can you just put a moratorium on growth and say you're going to
keep the MUSA line where it is for the next 50 years? Can you do that?
Wildermuth: You could.
Conrad: Sure you could.
Erhart: I don't think you could.
Wildermuth: They're doing it in California.
aBatzli: But then we've got to change our first goal back to large amounts
..of open space.
Erhart: I have a problem with a growing population to be so self centered
as to say...
ElIson: We're not saying we're not allowing to grow but we don't want
them to dictate how it's going to grow. That's exactly what I was saying.
Koegler: So is there a consensus out of this? I would agree that I think
2 and 5 maybe are too much repetitious of one another.
Batzli: I like 5 better than 2 but I would agree with Tim to change
residential to urban if we're going to use urban as growth.
Erhart: Because commercial brings in the taxes that are needed.
Koegler: Change 5, residential to urban and scratch 2?
Conrad: Yes. We'll do that. Do we want to say anything about financial
appropriateness of some of these decisions? The word financial is not
thrown in here. Maybe that doesn't make any difference at all.
ElIson: Aren't you going back more to an ordinance than if you're saying,
1 for 2 or something like that? Where it's just your policy is in general
and then you can spearhead that new ordinance.
~Wildermuth: You could have a policy statement promoting a balanced growth
between commercial/industrial and residential rather than one at the
expense of the other.
Planning Commission Meeting
AprilS, 1989 - Page 21
.
ElIson: I like the word balanced and that interpretation of balance is
decided by us and the City Council and the people on referendums and
things like that. So in 15 years it might be a whole different group
who's decided what balanced means which is fine. They'll be the people
who are here 15 years from now.
Koegler: Some of that is referenced later on. For example the land use.
There's a policy that states, encourage development of additional
commercial/industrial uses in order to balance the communities tax base.
The section we're in now is really focused more on the residential
component. It's under housing.
Batzli: Well this is interesting though because this is provide housing
opportunities for all residents. That implies the people already live
here. I would assume if they already live here, they already have a
house. What's their housing opportunity are we providing? I'm moving up?
Trading up?
ElIson: You're so good at semantics Brian. You catch these wills and
shoulds.
Batzli: Well I don't know. I don't mind if we just want to improve our
~~wn residents situation. I'm must curious about that after re-reading the
'W9oal when you said that.
ElIson: All residents and potential residents? So reword it Brian.
Batzli: Well I'm not going to say all man this time.
ElIson: Mankind.
Erhart: Housing opportunity is consistent.
Batzli: I think the reason you have the word in there where it's for
people moving into the community and I think that's what you're trying to
say so I think that needs to be redone somehow to reflect that.
Ellson:
Do you want to say the word new residents?
Emmings:
No.
ElIson:
Incoming residents?
Erhart:
Just drop for all residents.
ElIson:
To provide housing opportunities for all?
Hanson:
.Batzli:
No.
Housing opportunities consistently identified.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 22
_
Conrad: The sixth paragraph, consistent with established housing goals
the City should promote the use of applicable programs designed to reduce
land cost for developers of low and moderate income housing. We're not
talking about subsidized housing. We're saying we want to promote, we
want to use programs that are there to subsidize.
Koegler: That particular policy statement is a carryover from the '80
plan. At that time there were more programs available for those types of
options but there certainly still is a program available in the form of
the City's HRA. If the City ever so chose to do it, you could enact a
housing district and that through a land write down or whatever, assist in
the construction of elderly housing or low income housing or whatever it
might be. That's a carryover from the '80 plan.
Conrad: Well do we want to keep that in?
haven't promoted it yet. It's been there.
subsidy of low and moderate income housing?
Do we want to promote, we
Do we want to promote the
Batzli: As long as it's consistent with established housing codes?
Conrad:
anybody
Well
care?
we're
probably not going to do anything about it.
Does
_Ellson: It looks like our heart's in the right place I think.
Conrad: The trouble is, when you get a lot of policies and you don't do
anything and they're kind of meaningless so it's nice to have real good
policies.
Ellson: Don't people sometimes say, does your city have a policy
regarding low income housing and you go absolutely? How many do you have
is another subject.
Koegler: That's still a topic that's of great importance to the Metro
Council folks. It's just a fact that their authority to encourage that
has diminished over the last 8 or 9 years. That used to be a requirement
of their signing off on LAWCON grants was that a city had to have made
progress towards meeting their identified housing goals. That's no
longer a requirement. So I think their thinking is still there, they've
just lost some of the reinforcement tools.
Conrad: Okay, nobody has a problem with that one. We'll move on. Fourth
from the bottom, the City will promote the construction of senior citizen
housing... Do we want to temper that with based on? I would say the City
will promote based on need the construction.
Headla: I was thinking we should make it a lot stronger.
Wildermuth: I don't have any problem with just as it reads. I think we
_ShOUld promote it.
Batzli: I would change will to should.
Planning Commission Meeting
AprilS, 1989 - Page 23
e
Koegler: It's already been done.
Conrad: Promote which means you want to bring it in.
Batzli: I would insert the words, consistent with established housing
goals.
Conrad: Everybody else feels comfortable with the way it's worded? The
delete my comments.
Batzli:
I was backing you.
Conrad: You were. I appreciate that Brian. The only other comment that
I have here is on construction quality.
Wildermuth: Right. There's nothing in here about that.
Conrad: And that bothers me. I don't think anything should be
sacrificed. All of these things, I think we need some kind of statement
talking about quality construction so we're not talking about an urban
renewal because we're promoting some of these low income projects. So
I think Mark, if you can find a place to talk about construction that,
Howard Noziska would just love me if he heard me talking right now.
eHeadla: Couldn't we make this consistent with something?
Batzli: I think like on the last paragraph, notwithstanding everything we
just said, we want standards. We want quality.
wildermuth: Consistent with the building codes and ordinances.
Batzli: Of Edina.
Wildermuth: So we don't get anymore blank, blank developments.
Conrad: Anything else on 5? On 6?
Koegler: The recreation ones have been reviewed by the Park Commission
and they probably would welcome your comments.
ElIson: Did they change them or they just went through them?
Koegler: No. They have been through these a number of times. If there
are things that you think are inconsistent with some of the land use
policies, those should be pointed out.
Emmings: You seem to have changed all of the wills to shoulds. I don't
see any wills.
AHeadla: I've got some comments for the Park and Recreation. Let me tell
~you where I'm corning from first. It really started, a while ago I was
swimming over in Eden prairie where they've got a communcity center and
this lady lives south of Chanhassen. She'd been not too complimentary
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 24
e
about the way we operate. And she said, you know when TH 212 goes
through. Here we are in the Chaska school district. We've got a Chaska
mailing address. The highway's dividing us. Why aren't we not adopted by
Chaska? She we're a totally different community. We aren't part of
Chanhassen. Well that same thing is true with Chanhassen west of TH 41.
We aren't part of Chanhassen so what my point is, I'd like to see
something, and a good way to get us united is with this park and
recreation to have trails uniting us. The other thing that keyed me,
when I read all these minutes on Eckankar, people are really high on
buying this 174 acres. Give me one reason why I should put my city taxes
towards buying that property? My family, nobody around me will ever use
that. It's too far away and the Village isn't doing one thing to give us
any parks, recreation or trails out in our area of the City or down south.
We're totally divorced. The City doesn't show any interest. I would like
to see this goal, the goal here is to get an equitable distribution of
parks and trails throughout the city on a consistent priority. And if
they put in trails, I don't want to see first priority downtown. I think
it's got to get out to some of the other areas where people can say, hey
we are part of Chanhassen after all. I would like to see the City, how we
can do something to better unite this city.
Conrad: So really you're looking for a word called equitable someplace in
one of these?
.eadla: Yes.
Wildermuth: The third one from the end talks about providing a balanced
park system.
Ellson: Yes, you could say a balanced, equitable park system.
wildermuth: Neighborhood parks, community parks, special use, etc., all
interconnected by a linear trail network. I don't know what the word
linear means there.
Headla: You go to the Park and Recreation, they don't even know where
southern Chanhassen is or where. Well that isn't quite true. Tim's wife
is on there. She knows where she lives.
Erhart: I might add Dave that I think there's some rethinking of this
whole trail plan and to reverse the priorities. I think there's a lot of
discussion about putting the trails along TH 101 first now.
Headla: I think that's healthy. Stuff like that can unite our whole
city. I think we've got to really work that one. I think it's a major
subtle problem for Chanhassen.
Wildermuth: One of the things that bothered me as I read this part on
recreation is that there really isn't anyplace where we talk about whether
~we're going to promote large regional parks or whether we're going to
"'promote a number of small neighborhood parks. It has pretty dramatic
implications for City costs. If we're going to have a lot of little
neighborhood parks, it's going to be very expensive to maintain.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 25
-
Batzli:
Isn't that the one you just read though? Provide the balance.
Wildermuth: Well they're talking about a balanced system so that means
we're going to have both.
Batzli: Yes. Balanced. Whatever that means.
Wildermuth: We're going to have big parks and a lot of little
neighborhood parks. We're going to have a pretty expensive program to
fund. I think the Council's going to have to think about that.
ElIson: They've basically only got like 4 or 5 more designated areas that
they feel they're park deficient in or whatever. I don't really know that
it's that much more that they're looking at but I like the idea of a
neighborhood park. It just is impossible, especially with little toddlers
and stuff. You'd like to be able to take a stroller to a park. I think
every neighborhood should have a park. If we have to support that, then I
would because I think it's that big a deal. Not everyone can come into
the city. It's just should be something that's part of your neighborhood.
Batzli: But you can have homeowners associations and developers put them
up.
_ElIson: Well aren't we having developers put money toward that sort of
thing right now?
Hanson: Yes.
wildermuth: Park fees.
ElIson: Right. So if a new development is going in, then these
developers are either giving land or they're putting money towards this so
maybe it isn't as much of the City's money. I don't know. I guess I
don't agree that I wouldn't want a lot of little nieghborhood parks. I
would want a lot of them.
Wildermuth: If that's what we want to do, then we ought to talk about
stressing neighborhood parks. We've got 2 to 3 major regional parks in
the area. We've got the Arboretum. The Preserve and Minnewashta Lake
Park.
Headla: Now you want to take away all my neighborhood parks.
Wildermuth: No, I'm just saying, if we're going to promote neighborhood
parks then we ought to say that but I don't think we ought to do both.
Koegler: The recreation text section is fairly specific and it does
advocate a balance system of all components. Typically the facilities in
4Ita regional park do not necessarily overlap those in a city park because
they're more the large scale picnicing, camping in many of the regional
parks. Those kinds of things that you don't find as normal city park
facilities. Then the next scale in the recreation plan is that of
i
J
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 26
e
community parks which are really more actively oriented plus the provision
of large picnic spaces. That's what usually identifies them as a
community park. Lake Ann obviously being the example in Chanhassen. The
plan does specifically callout continuation of the City's policy of
providing neighborhood parks within about a half mile radius of virtually
every homestead in the city is the goal. That's not quite achieved but
the City does have a goal of providing neighborhood parks which again is
kind of a notch down then again on the echelon of providing a play
structure for kids. Some casual open space for pick up baseball game or
whatever it might be that's convenient to the users. You're right, there
is more maintenance cost with that. There's more maintenance cost with
every public improvement that ever occurs but those maintenance costs tend
to be of a less order than like Lake Ann Park where you have to have
manicured turf and fields maintained and so forth. But the recreation
section right now does advocate those full range components of the
municipal system and then certainly recognizes the value of the regional
facilities that happen to be in the community also.
Headla: When you say neighborhood parks, are we talking something like
300 feet by 300 feet?
Koegler: No. Generally they're about a 5 acre size because a softball
field can take up an acre. There's usually the provision possibly for a
~~ouple of tennis courts. In some cases there's small parking provided for
~ust a few off street. Again the scale is usually low intensity. I think
the ideal is non-organized play activities but that sometimes is not
possible given the number of fields and things in developing communities.
Conrad: Can't you folks over there just use the Excelsior parks?
Headla: We're into Shorewood stuff. Cathcart field and their tennis
courts and their warming house.
Conrad: Jim, do you want to pursue anything here?
Wildermuth: I think we oUght to stress one or the other. Neighborhood
parks or the regional parks.
Conrad: But the regional.
problem?
I guess I don't have a problem. Brian, any
Batzli:
I'm not saying a word after the heat I took last time.
Conrad: Steve, anything on balance or whatever? So Jim is sort of by
himself on this one?
ElIson: Sure. He doesn't have kids that are tiny and need to walk to
their little park.
4Itconrad: What is the word linear trail in that sentence mean?
Wildermuth: My road is deteriorating but by golly I've got a neighborhood
park.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 27
e
Koegler: I think we can strike that word. Trails by nature tend to be
somewhat line like.
Conrad: Anything else on 6 or 7? Mark, we really didn't talk about
people movement. We talked about space but we didn't talk about people
movement. When you get to transportation, you talk about cars.
Koegler: We talk about, if I remember right, we talk about non-motorized
vehicles in transportation also. I hope we do because I thought I
r,emembered we did.
Erhart: Did we not say anything about trying to put safety into this
system? I'm thinking in terms of getting the bikers off Minnewashta Blvd.
and TH 1131.
Headla: What do you want to do, put me in jail?
Erhart: No, I mean as far as providing alternatives.
Ellson: You're saying the trails are an alternatives for safety as well
as recreation.
Erhart: Yes. Do we have anything in there on safety?
eBatzli: Page 12, second paragraph down they talk about some people
movement.
Koegler: There's also a couple references on 11. One of our mutliple use
of right-of-way areas for accommodating various modes of transportation of
which non-motorized is one. Then two-thirds of the way down there's one
of promoting increased development of bikeways and pedestrian facilities.
Then the reference on page 12 also.
Conrad: Okay, anything else on 6 or 7? On 8?
Batzli: On 8 I had one. The last policy. Right before the second goal I
guess. All new utilities should be placed underground. What kind of
control do we have over what they're going to be putting along the
rerouted highways if anything? Do we have any say in that? For instance,
as they redid TH 5 and they put the superconducter wires all the way out.
Koegler: You had something to say about that one.
Wildermuth: That's different. You don't have anything to say about that.
Koegler: You picked the location.
Hanson: They did an alignment corridor study for it.
_Wildermuth: We didn't.
Hanson: The City did.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 28
_
Wildermuth: The City did? As opposed to cutting across land?
Koegler: Going along the new TH 212 corridor.
Batzli: And we picked TH 5? When did we do that? I wasn't here was I?
ElIson: Before you and me Brian.
Conrad: I think it made sense. Didn't it?
Emmings: At the time.
Wildermuth: What's the difference whether it goes along TH 5 or TH 212?
Emmings: Wasn't there also an option to go along the railroad?
Conrad: Yes.
Batzli: It kind of jogs for a little bit there.
ElIson: So what are you getting at Brian?
Batzli: My only question is, when we're talking about new utilities,
awhich utilities are we talking about? Do we have any control over the
~public utilities? We can tell them to do certain ones underground and not
others?
Wildermuth: I think you have control over the residential utilities but
something like those major distribution lines.
Hanson: You can't put the major distribution, well I shouldn't say can't.
You can but it's...
Emmings: It's too expensive. We asked at the time.
much.
It just costs too
Koegler: There are other cases where the only way to do it is to somehow
be able to finance it. Audubon Road is an item that comes to my mind of
an improvement project that's coming up and I don't know if a decision's
finally been made but it's been looked at. Underground versus leaving the
existing overheads along the east side of Audubon. This is really aimed
more towards local service type of lines for commercial, industrial or
residential.
Batzli: I was just curious about that.
Emmings: Do we insist at this time that, for example if you build a new
house, does everything have to be underground? Electric. Phone. Every
new subdivision it's all underground? Is that right in our subdivision
_ordinance or is it just something they do? Because it does cost more
every month on your bill.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 29
e
Wildermuth: I think if you have a lot in an existing subdivision where it
is above ground, you can still have it above ground.
Emmings: But all new subdivisions it's underground?
Hanson: Yes.
Erhart: On goal, this is the one time I agree with Brian. I think the
goal, I think the words ought to be toned down a little bit. Where it
says in the General Rural Use Area, Chanhassen will discourage premature
extension of the utility systems. System extension should be consistent
with the comprehensive sewer policy plan because the way it is now, it
reads like an ordinance as opposed to a goal.
Koegler: You did say should discourage right Tim?
Erhart: will I don't want to get that, I'll just say. Discourage is soft
by itself so I think will discourage and should be concistent because I
think it reads like a law and I don't think that's what this is.
Emmings: I guess I'd ask on 8, the first policy under that one. It says
that septic systems must be compatible which seems like awfully soft
language to me. It must comply. But still, I don't even know why, do we
~want to have as a policy compliance with ordinances? Does that make
.sense?
Koegler: Probably not in that specific of a case. I don't think this
exact statement but I think the tone is somewhat of a hold over and back
when it was originally drafted, the only thing in effect was that WPC40 of
the Metro Standards and the City hadn't enacted anything yet.
Emmings: Well we've got it now.
Koegler: But now that's it there and in place now.
Emmings: Maybe we don't need that.
kind of addresses the same thing.
properly constructed and operated
that's okay but I think that'd be
Plus the last one on that page really
Non-urban land uses should be served by
septic and well water systems. I think
kind of tough to do. .
Erhart: Are we on page 9?
Conrad:
I don't know yet. Yes, page 9.
Erhart: I just wanted to point out that the last paragraph there, the
City will discourage expansion or construction of commercial or industrial
facilities within the General Rural Use Area and I think in the last two
years I don't think that we have done a very good job of following that
policy and hopefully we're doing some things next meeting to change that.
_That's all.
Conrad: I just philosophically think it's good to think about this one.
The fourth policy. Residential neighborhoods should be planned and
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 30
e
developed with pedestrian ways on major streets connecting to schools,
open spaces, commercial areas, industrial centers and significant
features. I think that's a real important statement there and I just want
to make sure, you can make it stronger or you can make it weaker but I
think that's a neat philosophy. David, it accomplishes some of your tie
together type of things. I believe in that one a whole lot. Page 10?
Headla: How about at the very bottom? Policy. Provide a local
transportation system? Baloney. I don't want to be involved with
providing a transportation system.
Emmings: Encourage?
Wildermuth: Even in the goal, I think we ought to change create to
promote.
Headla: Yes. Put in promote and encourage in both of those, that's fine.
But provide is rather absolute.
Conrad: Page II?
Emmings: Next year we can go back and change all those shoulds to wills.
Probably change everything because we've done this before.
tltonrad: I think Mark did it the way we told him to do it. Now we see it
in print.
Emmings: Yes. I just wonder what it was before. We're probably just
changing everything right back to the way it was.
Koegler: I save the original copy.
Batzli: It was way back page 9, the second one down, continually update
the Comp Plan. We're following that one.
Headla: At the very bottom, the City will continue an ongoing maintenance
program in order to maximize the community's investment in transportation
facilities. We've got to invest in a transportation facilities?
ElIson: The streets is basically what we're talking about.
Headla: If you say facility, I think of a structure.
I think of a road.
If you say a road,
ElIson: So you'd like it to say road?
Headla:
If we're talking about roads, let's say roads.
Koegler:
~conrad:
We're talking about roads, trails, sidewalks.
Anything.
System?
Headla: If you say system, fine.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 31
e
Batzli: Are we going to encourage light rail in here somewhere?
Koegler: The last policy on page 12 in transportation is addressing light
rail. Right above community facilities.
Batzli: I'm sorry, I missed that one.
Conrad: Anything on 12?
Emmings: Yes. In the third paragraph down, do we mean to say timely
construction of TH 169/212 or just 212?
Koeg ler : 212.
Erhart: 169 is not in Chanhassen anymore is it? They changed TH 18 to
169. Now doesn't that go all the way...
Emmings: That's only in the city.
Made 18 to 169.
They moved it over from 100 onto 18.
Erhart:
Okay, but then where does it turn?
eEmmings:
Erhart:
It turns.
At crosstown there at 169 then?
Emmings:
But here we're talking about the construction of TH 212.
Koegler:
Old 18 to 494 now is 169 that picks up 101.
Erhart: Is it the intent when they put the 18 bridge in that 169 then
goes all the way through across the river there?
Koegler: I don't know.
Batzli: They probably should have already done it if they were going to
do it to get federal funds.
Erhart: On paragraph 5, within the urban service area, Chanhassen will
provide a system of hard surface streets. Within the general rural areas,
the City will provide a transportation system consistent with the needs of
agricultural uses. What does that mean?
Emmings: Cartways.
Koegler: That's a remnent from the '80 plan again. At that time, I think
this is reflective of basically the development prohibition and at that
time the City's position was the roads will be gravel basically.
4ItErhart: will you look at that?
Koegler: Yes, that's come a step up since then.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 32
e
Headla: How about in the middle of the page. Chanhassen supports county,
regional and state efforts to establish a light rail transit system. I
don't think we know enough to say light rail. A transit system, yes.
Light rail, no.
ElIson: I remember talking about this.
Conrad: We asked Mark to put it in.
ElIson: We said we definitely want something to show that we're behind
it. I don't remember too many of these things but I definitely remember
this one.
Headla: When you say light rail, you're negating any other system.
ElIson: We're just saying, if a light rail comes up, we're telling you
right now we're supporting it.
Emmings:
I don't think it excludes others.
ElIson:
No, I don't think so either.
eHeadla:
Conrad:
I think that's too explicit.
Any other support for Dave's thoughts on that?
Erhart:
Could you say mass transportation?
Emmings: No, I think we ought to get behind light rail. Light rail and
other forms of mass transportation is you want to but I think we ought to
leave light rail in here because it's something that's actually out there.
Headla: Where?
Conrad: Any other comments on l2? Anything on 13? Solar Access.
Erhart: I would suggest we take that whole thing out. I just don't, I'm
not against, I want to get it perfectly clear, I'm not against solar
access. However, when you read this, it's just out of date. The whole
thing and do we really, things have changed and do we really want to be in
the business of regulating shade?
Emmings: We just talked about re-establishing the urban forest and now we
want to protect. In new subdivisions they've got to provide restrictive
covenants which prohibit shading of adjacent properties.
Erhart: Yes, do we really want to do that?
~conrad: Do we see any problems with that?
we anticipate in the next 5 years?
Are there any problems that
Planning Commission Meeting
AprilS, 1989 - Page 33
e
ElIson: What was the reasoning behind wanting to do it? I wasn't here.
There was probably some really good basis for it.
Conrad: It was energy.
Emmings: The oil crisis.
ElIson: He said it was required you guys.
Koegler: No. Solar access was a required element of the Comprehensive
Plan last time around. I can't honestly tell you that that's still a
requirement under Met Council's review procedures. I'll find out because
I had the same reaction. Now I took a number of statements out but a lot
of the statements were more towards the, not just the passive but the
active solar collecters and things that really have gone nowhere.
ElIson: Or at least in Minnesota they don't go very far.
Conrad: Does anybody see any reason for keeping anything relating to
solar access in here?
ElIson:
If it's required I would.
~Batzli: If a couple more Exxon ships hit the ground, you may want this
.back in here.
Wildermuth: I think we ought to have something.
maintain some of it.
I think we ought to
ElIson: There was probably good reason at one point. I just kind of
wish I knew more about it.
Wildermuth: That problem has not gone away.
Batzli:
It's gone away artificially, temporarily.
It's going to be back.
Wildermuth: It will be back. I think we ought to rethink some of these
individual policy statements in here.
Batzli: Can you imagine how forward thinking we're going to be looking
like in the year 2020 or whatever when people look back on this and they
thought, hey these guys were on top of things.
Conrad: Or they're going to say, well they took that whole section out.
Emmings: I don't mind the goal. I think the pol icies aren't real
important somehow but I don't know if it makes sense to have a goal
without some policies.
4Itconrad: So maybe Mark you can take a look at what's required and I guess
. the sense is to keep something in there. Maybe not quite as specific.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 34
e
Batzli: I think we should encourage it somehow but not necessarily to
some of...
Erhart: Why don't we just encourage use of solar energy. Forget the
shade stuff because I think you're in an area...
wildermuth: For example, the third policy statement in there. That can
certainly stand. And the fourth one could probably stand.
Batzli: And both of those are encouraging use of solar energy.
ElIson: But when we're getting down to regulating planting and stuff,
that sounds like pretty strong words.
Koegler: I'll verify requirements on that now and then we'll rework that.
Conrad: Page 14.
Erhart: Yes. This one I feel we have some real work here when you look
at these numbers.
Koegler: Can I walk through some of this real quick because this is
getting out of the first discussion area and now going into the second.
~You should have found on the table in front of you a page 14A that somehow
~as omitted out of copying when this thing was originally put together so
if you find that amongst all the materials that are scattered there. I've
got a few extras. As kind of an orientation to all of this, you have to
keep in mind that in Chanhassen's Comprehensive Plan it still advocates,
as it did in 1980, the existence of two MUSA lines. One of which is only
formally recognized. The other one has been stated for policy purposes,
if you will. The dashed line on this exhibit is the Metro Council's
officially recognized MUSA line or very close to that. Where the City
deviates and where it has deviated for the last 8 or 9 years comes through
this section of the community which the City has always advocated should
be in the MUSA line and is pretty much consistent with the surface area
for the Lake Ann Interceptor but to date that's not formally recognized.
In looking and introducing the topic of adequacy of commercial/industrial
lands apply, it's interesting and we'll get into that in a few minutes
that even with the area that Chanhassen has shown as far as the expanded
MUSA line, that really is not prime commercial/industrial property. In
all likelihood it's a continuation of a residential pattern that's being
probably even more entrenched with some of the rural subdivisions that
have happened recently. Focusing on industrial first of all, at the
present time the City has about, and these are pretty close numbers, 290
plus acres of vacant industrial land. Over the last 10 years, on average
the city has absorbed about 27 acres per year of industrial property. As
I point out in some of the text, just looking at that average is somewhat
misleading because the growth trend was fairly slow through the first part
of the decade and picked up substantially over the last 5 years or so. In
~the early part of that time period you had the Chan Lakes Business Park
~and the Park One areas established south of TH 5 and on the east end
respecitively. You had a lot of the small machine shop businesses and
things that came in at that time and there were 30,000 square foot
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 35
.
buildings here and there. That pattern has changed quite a bit with some
of the developments. Oh the Instant Webb facilities and the related
businesses there. The Rosemounts. The McGlynn Bakeries coming in. Some
of those that are a lot larger facilities and a lot larger land users. If
even the average that's occurred over the last 10 years continues to the
year 2000, this city would need about 324 acres of property just to
maintain that pace. Obviously there's not quite that supply left at the
present time. Factoring in some of the large users that I just
referenced, I think leads you quickly to at least have a level of concern
as to whether or not the city has additional or has enough industrial
property zoned at the present time or available. The same thing is true,
and I don't know if we should stop and talk about industrial or maybe just
introduce commercial also and then go back and discuss both of them
because they perhaps come somewhat interrelated. The same thing is
somewhat evident in the commercial land that's left. The numbers that are
in these little circle incidentally are vacant acres that are remaining.
Emmings: Not the number of acres in the circle but the vacant?
Koegler: The vacant acres remaining, yes. At the present time the
commercial land supply that's available is 52. Of that total, 16 is
within the circle that's in the center there which really is downtown
Chanhassen if you will. It's the area that's received the most focus of
~the redevelopment effort over the last 10 or 12 years. Then there's 20
Wacres immediately west of that which is still to some degree certainly
associated with downtown so the predominant availability certainly is in
the downtown area. In addition to that the only other two areas of any
commercial concentration at all are the very limited area up at TH 7 and
TH 41 and then the business fringe area down in the southern part of the
city. Obviously neither the north piece nor the south piece have much
potential to provide future expansion of commercial so it gets back to the
downtown area. The concern that this I think brings to light is that
pieces of property such as what I've referenced in the report as the
High Path Farm which also is Eckankar, it's the same piece. One is the
historic name and one is the current name. That piece has always been
looked at as kind of a reliever for the City of Chanhassen. That's had
quite a variety of zonings that have been applied to it over the years
depending on really who had interest in it to be honest with you. A
number of years ago Minnetonka Inc. was hot to build a new corporate
facility there and suddenly we rewrote the ordinance. Rewrote the
Comp Plan and put in this campus business category because that's what
they wanted and it would have been a beautiful facility but it didn't
happen. So then the zoning reverted back to something else. So that's
been kind of allover the board but at least it's been a large vacant
parcel, some of which may have had long term commercial possibilities. At
the present time with that being developed as a church site, I don't know
what that does to that but perhaps that's a public, semi-public land use
now instead of commercial or a housing site or whatever it might have
been. The key point though is that there really is no land available for
4It any large users. We're not trying to define what large users are.
Whether they're Cub stores or K-Marts or whatever because that's not the
issue. But the issue is whether it's a shopping center or land intensive
user, there are no alternatives that exist outside of really seriously
Planning Commission Meeting
AprilS, 1989 - Page 36
e
going to another community. So we're really just bringing into discussion
this evening as to whether or not that should be addressed in the
Comp Plan and if so, how we'd want to do that. I referenced a minute ago
that the MUSA lines don't really provide any assistance. Graphic evidence
of this is the only place that we really address the future expansion of
commercial and industrial property to any degree is in these corridor
studies that were done for the various areas and those were looking at
long term land uses. They didn't have any time frame attached to them.
That's the one that was put together for the western portion of TH 5. The
dotted line that runs through there is the City's MUSA line so everything
to the north of that line, if you will, is what the City was advocating
should be serviced prior to 1990. I think you can see that any parcel
that we ever looked at as maybe having some long term potential in
commercial or industrial is outside of that line still so that's not
something really that we can point to and say, well here's where it should
go to next because that is really much longer term. Future land use kind
of thinking. What this has led to is Steve and I have kicked this around
quite a bit and are of the opinion that it's probably in the City's best
interest to look at the designation of land use for the entire city of
Chanhassen. Previous efforts from the Comprehensive Plan have really
focused only on the area that's encompassed within the MUSA lines. Plural.
The City's and Met Council's. THe overlays that are here simply put on the
land use that's been talked about previously as part of these corridor
_studies and suddenly you end up with really only a few isolated areas that
~we haven't discussed what the long term land use should be. We're
thinking that probably we should look at land use as a whole for the city
and then discuss the timing aspect of that related to the provision of the
Metropolitan Services. Specifically where the MUSA line is now. Where it
will be in 2000. Where it will be potentially beyond that. As I indicate
in some of the narrative, the MUSA line is really a growth management tool
that's used on a regional basis. It's a control that's here and now but
it's not something that 50 years from now may make a lot of difference to
Chanhassen. The development pattern will occur. It's just a question of
when. Our thinking is if we have some concept of future land uses, that
perhaps the City is in a better position that if the commercial supply or
industrial supply appears to be getting seriously deficient by the year
2000, that there's a stronger argument that can be built to say here's
where we think the next area should be. Here's how we can serve it. We
need to get Metropolitan approval to do it. So that's some of a brief
overview of the rationale and the introduction of this topic as to whether
or not there's enough commercial/industrial land and if not, how should
the comprehensive plan approach that.
Conrad: What we're looking at on that overlay is based on the study that
was done, the long range study.
Koegler: What's on that plan right now is the land use element that has
been consistently offered to date as part of this plan. Then the overlay
sections incorporate the land use that was part of the corridor studies
e that are in the packet. Now I should indicate there will be some changes
to those and one of the items we're going to discuss later is some of the
changes to the TH 101 area but that in essence was what was reviewed as a
part of the corridor study process.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 37
e
Conrad: And basically the biggest increase in that plan for commercial
industrial use was at the intersection of TH 41 and TH 5.
Koegler: It was envisioning some commercial expansion... Again, we'll
get into that a little bit later but we had talked about some commercial
expansion then in a couple of areas along TH 5. The thrust of that was
that the business fringe area was, at least in a shorter term context, was
non-conforming land uses by and large and would remain so but that there
would not be any expansion of that area until much longer term. But again
that's part of the language that if we take an approach of looking at land
use as a whole, we'll need to build into the plan. We'll need qualifiers
in there saying that this is not going to happen by the year 1993 or the
year 2000. That this is long term but it's intent to indicate the City'S
thinking. Subject to change over that period of time too based on market
conditions and so forth.
Wildermuth: What is PS?
Koegler: Public and Semi-Public. Things like the Arboretum. Legion
clubs. Any number of uses that are not private nor totally public.
Conrad: Mark, your opinion is we don't have enough, based on your
~calculations and they're all based on assumptions and whatever but we
~don't have enough industrial land based on your comments.
Koegler: Those feelings really weren't probably specifically spelled out
in this report. This report is more just a statement of here's the facts
and here's what's happened and here's what's happened and here's what we
got. I think though you summarized my concern is that the supply of
industrial land and possibly, I think again back to large scale commercial
land, is very limited. Under certain growth scenarios, it certainly may
be adequate but it very well may not be. That may not sound like it is a
position on the issue but I think it is because I think we need a fallback
to be looking at if the supply is inadequate, where are we logically going
next. The City has a rather specific agreement in the sewer agreement
over the Lake Ann interceptor and I don't know if that will actually stay
in place until the year 2000 or not. If it's enforced the way it's
written it will. But after you get out to say 1996 or 1997, things may
look quite a bit different than they do today and I think this plan needs
to be in place to be advocating where are we going from here and I don't
think we're really quite there yet. We've taken a quick shot through
these corridor studies of long term land use and I'm not sure that even
those designations are appropriate. What we would like to do is spend a
little more time putting some background material together on a scenario
for the entire community and bring that back.
Erhart: You calculated that there are only 52 acres left designated for
commercial.
tltKOegler: There's 293 vacant acres of industrial.
Erhart: That's the one. I disagree with that entirely. If you look at
this map here, that's the industrial one right? That whole 109 acres,
Planning Commission Meeting
April S, 1989 - Page 38
e
that's completely used up.
ElIson: You're saying it should be less?
Erhart: I think it's only 50 to 60 acres. The 109, that's gone.
ElIson: For anything that could go in there?
Erhart: Well between Rosemount, Empak and our firm, that's completely
gone.
Koegler: With any comp plan efforts, it's as of a point in time and these
numbers were current as of August of 1988.
Erhart: That 109 acres is gone.
Conrad: What about the Ward property?
Erhart: You're right.
acres on the east side.
There might be a little bit on the east.
The Ward property there.
A few
Koegler: The
~iscussion in
.ward proper ty
any longer.
point is valid though Tim because we're going to get into a
a little while on some of the land use in and around the
that may suggest that portions of that are not industrial
Emmings:
this.
If anything the problem is worse than it's characterized in
Koegler: It may compound the industrial problem.
commercial problem a little bit.
It may relieve the
Erhart: That 100 acres that you show there, essentially everything north
of that railroad, most of those lots north of the railroad currently have
something on them or are under construction so I think you're only talking
about 30 acres there. Maybe 20 acres on that 109 and over on the 31,
doesn't the old CPT building take up most of that? Where's the CPT
building?
Hanson:
I think that's taken out of that.
Erhart: Okay, so it's 31 acres left. And that 25, of course that's gone.
Mostly gone with McGlynn.
Koegler: That's 25 remaining. That takes McGlynn out of it.
ElIson: But the Empak isn't taken out and the Rosemount isn't taken out?
_Koegler: As of August of last year when the survey was done, there were
100 acres of vacant property within the confines of that line.
Erhart: Okay, so it's somewhat less than the 200 but not more than what I
was calculating.
Planning Commission Meeting
AprilS, 1989 - Page 39
e
Emmings: But it's certainly less though even just with Rosemount would
have a significant impact on that number.
Erhart:
I'd say there's at least 100 acres less.
Koegler: Rosemount is factored out
I had a site plan on and I knew the
one was deducted. That and McGlynn
know were the updates if you will.
approximate ranges but I think the
we're talking about and possibly a
of that 109 also. That's the one that
specific acreage of that one. That
and the other one that I happened to
So the numbers we're speaking in
impact is at least the degree to what
little more severe.
Wildermuth:
What are you proposing Mark?
Koegler: I guess we're advocating to the commission that the plan should
take a little different tact than what it has. You'll find really is only
focused on land use in the MUSA line. Everything outside of that we've
been treating as the "rural area"...
Wildermuth: So now we should refocus outside the'MUSA line as well?
~~oegler: We need to have more focus on that and we need to qualify that
~hat mayor may not happen prior to the year 2000 but we need some orderly
progressions to how that's going to occur so that I think the City'S in a
better position to argue, if it so chooses down the road, when the land
supply becomes even tighter that we need some expansions.
Erhart: Also with the freeway now, that is going to be, that's coming on.
The official mapping process is going to happen here real shortly isn't it
so we now have to consider that in any land use issues that come before
us. Is that correct Mark?
Koegler: And that's a factor certainly in the planning. That's to a
certain degree, I don't want to say that's what we've been waiting for but
we kind of have been. Knowing what the TH 101/212 interchange is likely
to be like has an impact on how land uses relate. Again, you'll see that
in a few minutes.
Emmings: You said before, what do we need to do tonight? I'm not quite
clear on what we should do.
Koegler: The item tonight was really to bring this if you will to your
attention. That we don't think this has been treated heavily enough in
the plan to date. We think we need to departure from that course that we
were on and look more specifically at future future, if Y0U will, land use
which may be sooner than we think.
~Ellson: And you want our okay to go ahead and do that?
~research.
To continue
Koegler: Yes. That that's the policy direction the Plan should go in. I
think that's the key question.
Planning
April 5,
-
Commission Meeting
1989 - Page 40
Emmings:
to do it.
Identify areas for future growth. Gosh, I think we've just got
I don't know how we could ignore it.
Conrad: But the Comprehensive Plan is to take us up to the year 2000.
That's the point of the plan right?
Koegler: And in some cases beyond. Certain elements of the plan now go
beyond the year 2000. The sewer element for example has always been a
long term, full growth item because it's looked at, not only at the
staging of development but it's looked at maximum capacity of the system
and various areas of the community which has run literally border to
border so there are elements of the plan right now that go beyond 2000 and
there always have been. So in that respect, it's not new ground. It's
just that we haven't really looked at land use in that regard. Corridor
studies kind of opens the door to that and if you recall, there was a
certain level of controversy as to whether or not we should do that. And
it went to the Council and the Council said yes, that seemed like a good
idea. Why don't you do that and they were put together.
Emmings: We've got that work and it really provides an opportunity to
fold the comp plan and the corridor studies together. The basic work has
aalready been done. It's just a matter of kind of updating it. I think
..,it's a real good idea.
Conrad: But it doesn't and I don't have a problem with that. I do have a
problem with between now and the year 2000. Do we have enough commercial
industrial land right now to take us? If we fill in the residential areas
that we've got, one, do we have enough commercial/industrial and you can't
just have the absolute amount. You have to have extra because you need
more because things got to fit. So my biggest concern right now, I think
that's nice...
Ellson: Solving long term but also short term.
Conrad: But I've never known that things beyond 10 years come to pass.
I'm not sure what the benefit of that, to be very honest. I'm not sure
what the benefit is. I am very concerned with what's happening in the
next 10 years. Do we have enough, consistent gross for financial so that
we keep this balance between residential and industrial. I'm more
concerned with that. Does the Eckankar parcel, taking that out of
circulation, does that put us in a bad situation in the next 10 years?
I'm real interested in those types of comments more than beyond the year
2000.
Erhart: I think the point Mark's making, realistically if that freeway
goes in, even if it doesn't go in I think the possibility of the MUSA line
moving before the year 2000 is gaining probability every year as it fills
_in. I think what I'm hearing you say is I think we ought to start looking
at some of these things in the event that pressure is there to move that
MUSA line and in fact it does so we have some pre-planning done.
Wildermuth: We've got to be looking within the MUSA line too.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 41
e
Conrad: I'm saying I'm more concerned right now than I am 10 years from
now. That's my point.
Koegler: Ladd, my comments have focused more on the long term and I don't
mean to imply that we're going to ignore the time period between now and
the year 2000 because that's not the position the plan would be taking
either. What the intent would be, to update these numbers which is not
difficult to do, I think as was pointed out the information is available
and to really get an up to date look at what the supply situation looks
like and then to certainly focus on between now and the year 2000 to
within the confines of what we have to work with. There are some
alternatives. It's just that realistically maybe some of them don't make
very good market sense until things like TH 212 happen. The City has land
that it could designate as commercial within the MUSA line. It just so
happens it ends up down around the 212/101 intersection because that's the
only area that's in the MUSA line. It doesn't necessarily make the most
sense from a market sense where people are going to be and where
concentrations of people are going to be moving.
Wildermuth: But I think now is the time to start looking at zoning.
Emmings: I think this is scarier than scary because you know a year ago
~e didn't know anything about Rosemount. They came in and what is the
size of their site?
Koegler:
It's just under 60 acres.
Emmings: If we were lucky enough to have a couple of other developments
like that, we'd be exhausted at which point anybody looking for a place,
Chanhassen will simply be thought of as a place where you might as well
not even look because they're filled up. Their industrial acreage is
filled up. That is frightening. It could happen real.fast. This is
really a small amount.
Conrad: Then the point is, if you don't have access to sewer, you can't
have it anyway.
Emmings: Right. But I think you've got to look at both.
Conrad: That's a real economic situation.
It stops development.
Emmings: It stops the development you want. We've just been talking
about the fact that residential development doesn't pay for itself where
commercial and industrial....
ElIson: Have to support the rest.
~Emmings: So you want some of it.
Conrad: I'm really interested in knowing, and I don't know what I'm
asking here but I'm really interested in knowing, as residential folks
fill in here, if we have enough. I do believe we have enough commercial
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 42
e
property for the short run. If we can't lure a supermarket in right away,
we don't have a problem there but I'm kind of concerned as more and more
reisdential moves in. Are we going to be restricting? Is that going to
harm us economically in the next 10 years. I'm real intrigued with that.
That's one of those things that it would make a case to go to, well I
don't know if it would make a case to go to Met Council to change the
MUSA line. I'm not sure what the leverage is.
Hanson: I think where we're talking about heading is consistent with what
you're saying. It's trying to strike where that balance is within the
service area. As the community develops, where some of the shortcomings
may be and I think the other thing to keep in mind, 2000's not that far
away. We're getting a lot of calls now in anticipation if you will of the
MUSA line being amended down the road. 10 years, if it's not amended
before that, it's still not that long. I would venture to say it's
amended before that.
Conrad: Who's the biggest benefactor of saying here's where we're going
to be in the year 2000? If we do this type of planning for the
comprehensive plan and we have these globs of districts, who benefits?
Hanson:
I think everybody does.
4Itonrad: Landowners benefit because they kind of have an idea of where
we're going to go. Developers have an idea of where they can start
messing around and getting their paws in, or at least their feelers in.
What else. What other benefits are there?
Hanson: Some benefits to the city is it allows you to start programming
for the capital improvements that are going to have to occur along with
that development rather than reacting to it when it comes in on day 1. It
allows you to start scheduling those. If you're looking and you want
trail systems out in that area, it allows you to determine that now. It
allows you to determine the park needs that you're going to have. It also
allows you to be able to do the projections on the water and sewer
services that you're going to need for that area. Right now if you were
to ask that question, it's agricultural. We don't need. You don't have
anything that's telling you what kind of service you're going to need for
that area.
Conrad: I'm saying a lot of this stuff makes sense and that's what we're
around here to do is do some planning. In terms of economics and hiring
Mark to do that, what kind of approval. Do you take this type of request
to the City Council? Is this a big deal to do some of this updating or
are we talking about a small deal?
Koegler: It's minor. It's just a departure in focus and policy from what
we've done. The actual work to do it is not significant.
~conrad: And as part of that you're going to try to help us decide in the
next 10 years whether we have enough space, based on some kind of ratios
and guesswork. Might that impact in any way the Eckankar parcel, just out
of curiousity?
Planning
April 5,
e
Commission Meeting
1989 - Page 43
ElIson:
Making it commercial you mean?
Conrad: Yes. Looking at it for other uses. Commercial/industrial.
Hanson:
I would venture to say...
Koegler: That really is a continuation of, as I referenced, what has
happened historically. That parcel has bounced back and forth and has
been envisioned as all kinds of uses and it just so happens it has h~gh
density zoning now, I think on the south end and it gets lighter as you go
north but it's been looked at as being a commercial piece. An industrial
piece. Not the entire thing but perhaps the south end so I think it's
fair to say that it would be looked at to see how it fit the land use
scheme of the city.
Conrad: Any disagreement with the direction? So to do that, what's the
timing to come back? It'd really be nice to get this stuff shot up to
City Council. What was the timing, May 17th?
Koegler: We're looking to have a draft available to you for the meeting
on the 17th of May. Depending upon your availability of agenda time
between now and then, we may try to come back for another review session
eon this topic. I would like to do that if it can be accommodated.
Headla: We've always agreed with whatever you've written.
Conrad: I think it is worthwhile. I think it's real important because
there's so many issues that are affecting this. Mark, what else do you
want us to talk about?
Koegler: There's two more areas that we need to address. One is the land
use in the rural area. The second one is kind of a follow up on some of
the corridor study information. Specifically focusing on TH 101 and I
would suggest maybe we reverse the sequence of those, since we've just
been talking about land use, and talk a little bit about land use and the
TH 101 corridor specifically at the TH 10l-new TH 212 interchange. Fred
is here this evening and I think we're going to kind of turn things over
to him because he's put some material together as part of the broadened
study area and the three of us have met and reviewed and feel it fits with
the context of the Comp Plan.
Fred Hoisington: We have been commissioned by the City to address a
couple of concerns having to do with the TH 101 alignment on the first
hand and secondly one that was precipitated by this body indicating some
concern for aesthetics of that roadway as a south entrance to downtown
Chanhassen. So what we did after we were here probably two months ago and
after some discussions with Gary Warren and Don Ashworth and so forth,
"concluded that we should try to pool all of those concerns into a single
~study. Really it's turned into a land use study as well and feeding into
the comprehensive plan. Some of the things I'm going to be talking to
you about tonight about land use, think of them in terms of potential for
land, various kinds of land uses. Not necessarily want you would or will
Planning Commission Meeting
AprilS, 1989 - Page 44
e
consider as you put together the land use plan. Mark has to deal with
land use in the sense, and you do in a sense, what do you need between now
and the year 2000. What we're going to show you tonight are some of the
land uses that seem to make some sense here given the new roadway system.
Now the total study area eventually that we'll be asking you to look at
includes TH 5 as well so this whole study includes all of this corridor.
It's just that in order to respond to another concern yet and that is the
official mapping of TH 212, we had to concentrate on the south end of the
study area rather than deal with the TH 5 portion of it right now. We'll
get back to you later but for the time being we are really primarily
dealing with the area between TH 212 and between the Ward property. So
kind of looking at this central portion but it gives us an opportunity to
talk about the Ward piece and the kind of land uses that might occur there
and the land uses to the south further. Now what we've done is look at
three different alignment alternatives for TH 101. What we would like
from the Planning Commission tonight or the 19th, as soon as you can, is a
recommendation as to which alignment you prefer because we are going to
hold a hearing on the 24th with the City Council and they would like some
input from the Planning Commission before we get to that point. This
alternative is one that would bring TH 101 just to the east of present TH
101 which is located here. What it would involve would be only about
250-280 feet of separation between the two and would bring TH 101 almost
~directly into the interchange that MnDot presently proposed the loops here
~and the on and off ramps located here. Of course that interchange has all
of it's ramps, the way it's presently designed, on the east side. For
spacing reasons, the spacing being between TH 101 and CR 17 so MnDot was
relunctant to put any of the ramps on the other side. Some of the
advantages of this alternative are that it doesn't disrupt existing land
use. For example the Bart's property and a house and barn and so forth...
and detaches however the road from the residences that are on Lake Susan
and that was one of the reason that this whole study was begun. Barbara
started it and Mark started it quite some time ago trying to find an
alternative alignment for it. One that would take the traffic off from
present TH 101 and satisfy the concerns of those who live on Lake Susan.
You begin to put together some land use around that, what you end up with
is residences backing up to the future TH 101. Now remember TH 101
probably won't be built in 10 years or at least until such time as 212 is
ready to be built. Then you would have single family along present TH 101
all facing into it and creating, have a neat cluster of single family and
rather divorcing it from the traffic that will be on this highway. The
other side, we have a rather substantial piece of the Bart's property and
a portion of the Klingelhutz property that have to interface with the
residences on these large lots further to the east so we have a chance to
create a transitional zone, single family. Some multi family
possibilities. Medium density and we have obviously, with this
interchange going in here, some potential for commercial at virtually all
the quadrants where visibility is good and access ability is also good.
At the north end, just for the purpose of discussion, this is Market Blvd.
~and this is kind of a done deal. This will be built this summer down to
"'the Rosemount entrance and then we have a phasing in of a temporary
connection to TH 101 at a later date but still undetermined when that will
be and then a future alignment. But what we would have again would be a
roadway coming off from TH 101 and having single family interfacing with
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 45
e
single family. Office for the property's zoned for that presently.
Perhaps multi-family but it could be an office devlepoment on the lake or
just off the lake and then one of the best sites in the City of Chanhassen
for commercial is that which would be located north of future Lake Drive.
Now Lake Drive presently comes in in this fashion on the north side of
Rosemount. There would be a separation of an off-setting of Lake Drive.
Then it would pick up and be continuous throughout the rest of the City
all the way over to l84th. I don't remember if we've ever discussed, we
have that off-set have we not in the plans? One of the things that we
looked at was trying to get a bigger site in here no matter whether it was
commercial, industrial or office. We just felt it was important to get a
bigger site in here and if we ran Lake Drive straight through, we would
end up with a little area that would be ideal for fast food restaurants or
probably several of them and we decided maybe that wasn't the most
appropriate use there. At least we ought to have flexibility in that we
could have other bigger things occur at that location. In addition,
because of the turning movements that would occur at this intersection, we
felt that the detachment would help immensely in getting people into that
side without having to have them come in and immediately make a left,
which is one of the things we experienced at a number of the intersections
along TH 5 and will continue to do so but we'll have to live with some of
them. We've corrected some but we're leaving some. We think there's a
lot of potential for that site. It's about 20 acres and something
eat least you should be considering as you continue to look at land use
here. The second alternative is one that is more in conformance with what
we originally intended this stretch of Market Blvd. to do if it were to be
continued and then connect down to the interchange here. In order to get
the right geometrics, all the right curves and all the right super and so
forth, it requires quite a sweeping roadway and what it does is, if you
recall, what it looks like down here, this is all open space or should be
committed to open space. It's marshy. Wetland areas but there's a knob
or a hill that sticks up right in the middle of it and it's wooded. It's
quite attractive but this one would propose that the road would swing to
the east side of that avoiding it by putting about this much of road in
the wetland and a fairly valuable wetland. I have some real hang-ups with
alternative. To say nothing of the sweeping curves, it would have missed
Bart's property. It would detach the traffic from the Lake Susan
residents again but would get it closer to the residents here. It would
create a peculiar piece of land, a triangular piece of land in this area
that will be very difficult to use. Not impossible but difficult to use.
It will change minimally the configuration of the interchange. Really
only change these areas here as far as alignment of the ramps and so forth
is concerned. Would leave a connection for existing TH 101 to the future
or new TH 101 at the north end and you can see then the land use pattern
would be to again have a cluster of residential. The open space. Probably
more multi-family in this concept because none of the dimensions work very
well with the single family in these zones between the two, the present
highway and the future highway. A very small triangular piece of land
"that could be used for single family probably connecting the cul-de-sac
"'that's at the end of 86th and bringing it back down through, not
absolutely essential but quite probably to get good circulation there.
Some commercial potential here. Excellent commercial potential and very
good commercial potential in this location as well. This multi-family
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 46
e
would have to have access back through this area. There would be no other
way or it would have to have access directly up to this extension of the
ramps as such.
Headla: Fred, on the very northern part of the multi housing, just down
one color, how would the people there get out to TH 101?
Fred Hoisington: That's a good point. We are showing all of the accesses
that would ever be provided onto TH 101 on these drawings. On these
scenarios. In other words, this would be an intersection. This would be
an intersection. This would be an intersection and there would be no
others so the people that were to live here would have access to this road
here and would have no access to TH 101. Everything would have to be to
this roadway inbetween.
Headla: Is there room there for a road going down the center of that
multi housing?
Fred Hoisington: Yes. I'm not sure you want to do that exactly. It
would not be a road probably. It would be an internal driveway system
that they would simply link up so that everything connected back to this
south end. This one is sort of an intermediate concept and it's purpose
was to try to divide the Bart's piece up into two parcels that were more
4IbasilY developed and perhaps more easily developed into single family.
Especially as we interfaced with this area further to the east at the end
of 86th. What it does through is it goes right through this hill,
demolishes it. It stays out of the wetland a little better than the one
that swept further to the east. It eliminates at whatever time this is
built, the Bart's property has to go. It does not under the other two
alternatives. What we found from this was the dimensions come our rather
peculiarly and it also suggests more multi-family than the first
alternative in this case. What it does do is it pulls the ramps out of
this quandrant and it puts them on the other side of the highway, of TH
101. A rather strange thing though because what it does, it does allow
you to come and go necessarily with the same pattern. It's a rather
strange sort of pattern. It makes it a little more difficult to get
downtown because when you come off, you have to make additional turns in
order to be able to get down there and that's always been one of the
concerns we've had in that case. If you pull the ramps out of this
quadrant, as you know, this is all a wetland that the interchange is going
to go in. You would want to protect the remainder of the wetland that
would be outside of the highway right-of-way itself as open space. What
you see in this concept then is very much the same residential cluster on
both sides of existing TH 101 and in this scheme and in this scheme,
pulling TH 101 or the existing TH 101 back so that it does not use the
present alignment. So what you would have would be houses backing up to
houses back here rather than having these have a roadway directly behind
them. It would just create more of a neighborhood kind of feel in this
~particular case. What you end up with is a rather peculiar piece here and
~only used for multi-family and that will make the problem more difficult
than it will be in this because you have a narrower piece of land to
serve. Not that you can't cluster and do with your up to 8 units per
acre. You can cluster everything near the south end and probably do it
Planning Commission Meeting
AprilS, 1989 - Page 47
e
anyway. I mean you can do it there without too much difficulty but the
dimensions are not ideal. Multi-family here. Multi-family again on the
south side of 86th. Then we show some commercial. This would be a good
commercial site on the west side of the ramps. This commercial site I'm a
little concerned about because this road is low and the grades are high so
you'd have to really have some rather severe grades to go up that slope.
So I'm having some difficulty and that's why we're saying that it could
either be commercial or it could be multi-family. It probably would be
multi-family. Would have an extension of this down in this fashion.
Where I'm after some considerable evaluation or looking at this, I'm
tending more towards alternative 1 than I am towards alternatives 2 and 3
for a lot of reasons. Because I think we can interface better with the
residential areas that are there. Because we can accomplish I think
everything we need to accomplish by providing some additional commercial.
We're just coming now to the point where we think this probably works
better from a land use standpoint than the other alternatives. One of the
things it does for us as well is provide us with the possibility of an
expanded right-of-way concept here. Getting more right-of-way than we
really need. Based on the geometries of this alignment, we can either
build or have lots that would come all the way back to the right-of-way,
future right-of-way of TH 101 backing to it or we could leave some
openings in there where the City could be involved or the County or
whoever builds the road, with landscaping and so forth within those
.xpanded right-of-way areas. It reminds me a little of Hwy. 100 in Edina
where we did an expanded right-of-way plan 20 years ago. Where MnDot, in
that case, had a great deal of interest in having that look good and would
allow the city to provide additional landscaping and so forth. It could
well mean a greater commitment of dollars on the part of the City in a
case like this...MnDot will have in this roadway at the time it's likely
to be built but there's some implications here. One of the things I
especially want to talk about with you tonight is the whole issue or
question of a landscape median. The same thing we talked about last time
I was here. This roadway will be designed now as one that can accommodate
speeds of 55 mph. At the time it's built, if there isn't a great deal of,
in other words, if it were to be built today, you would in fact be able to
travel 55 mph on that roadway. I'm quite sure in my mind about that. If
it were to be built 10 years from now and a lot of the development that
you see here has already occurred or is about to occur, at the point that
it has occurred substantially, this roadway will no longer function at 55.
It will probably function at 45. It would be important to the City not to
try to make it function at a lower speed than 45. This road will be
extremely important as a link through here and one that you have to
maintain a certain level of speed on. You have no choice but to do that.
One of the things we're trying to explore, that we were exploring was,
whether at the time it's built we could reduce the speed enough that we
could in fact do more landscaping there. One of the reasons we can do it
downtown is that the speeds are low enough and the road is straight
enough, with the exception of the one curve, that the clear zones adjacent
Ato the curbs don't need to exist. Minor clear zones in that case, at 30
"'mph. At 45 mph, the speed below which we would not want to go ever on
this roadway, you have to have for a median a clear zone on the side of
the curb that the person could lose it into the median. You have to have
a clear zone of 37 feet from the travel lane. The inside travel lane.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 48
e
Now you could take, if it happens to be an urban section, a curb section
here, then you've got to figure 37 feet and then on the other side, you
don't have to have 37 feet. Let's say you have to have half of that.
You'd have to have a median at least of 50, 60, maybe 70 feet wide in
order to accomodate the trees in a median of such. You can always have
shurbs there but it would be very difficult to put trees in the median
under any scenario. I guess what we're beginning to think here is if
you're going to do some landscaping and want this to be kind of a very
pleasing entrance, you have to look for other ways to do that. One of the
ways you can do that is to expand the right-of-way concept. Another way
you can do that is to have some areas along the road. For example in
front of Rosemount where we know we're going to have some additional
right-of-way anyway. Where you can create pockets of landscaping. Kind
of frame a roadway and make it attractive. Other areas where you can do
that are up the slopes for example where you have steep cuts because the
answer in point that a car can't travel anyway so there are things that
you can do about those where you'd have major cuts in the way of
landscaping with trees and not shurb material. In fills, you have another
problem because those slopes have to be flatter so you have some rather
significant clearance zones in fill areas that mean you're very limited in
what you can do landscaping wise close to the roadway and such. What I'm
telling you is we can continue to look, we must continue to look at what
~ill create or establish a pleasing entrance into downtown Chanhassen
~long this roadway but probably trees in the median are not one of the
things that you're going to be able to do unless you were to reduce the
speed to considerably below what we think the speed limit must be on this
road to carry the traffic that will be necessary in the year 2000, 2005 or
2010. So with that I'll just open it up to questions. We would like
some suggestions or recommendations from the Planning Commission as to
which of the alternatives you would like the City Council to consider.
You will get future shots because it does have to come back for official
land use.
Headla: Before he gave the pitch, I favored 2 and I had all sorts of
reasons. I think he gave some very convincing reasons why it should be 1.
Right now, with everything he said, I would go with 1. Just one thing,
that line of sight, did you say that had to be like almost 60 feet?
Hoisington: The clear zones, that line would be...
Headla: What is a clear zone? Is that line of sight?
Hoisington: No. The clear zone is the distance between the travel lane
and the nearest fixed objects which are things that a car could hit and do
damage or a driver being injured substantially. So when I talk about 60
feet, I'm talking about, in the median area, when I talk about the clear
zones on the edges, you only have one exposure and that's the car on the
outside lane. So in those cases, your clear zones are only let's say the
~37 feet from the traveled edge. Where the curves I believe are 4...30
~minutes. So in the median you'd have to almost double it.
wildermuth: I really favor alternative 1. I like the creation of large
commercial zone in that area to the north there that Fred was talking
Planning Commission Meeting
AprilS, 1989 - Page 49
_
about. The potential for an office building or some other commercial use.
That could be a really prime piece of property out there. Has minimal
impact on the wetlands and the topography.
Hoisington: Just a couple of points. This of course would be the same for
all three alternatives. There would be no difference there. Each one of
the alternatives does have, and I don't want to suggest to you that it
doesn't have a wetland impact. I think this one has by far the greatest
wetland impact because we had such a major exposure there to the wetland.
Wildermuth: Well 1 seems to have the least wetland impact.
Hoisington: I think you're probably right but nonetheless, the creek does
exist in here and it kind of winds down before it comes out at Lake Susan.
What would happen under this scenario is you probably have to put, you'd
straighten it out and bring it across the street and put it under in one
place. So you would lose that, you can't help that. Unless you leave the
road where it is, you're going to have a wetland impact.
Conrad: What about to the south Fred?
intersection.
The wetland at the TH 212
Hoisington: That's a real concern. Under any of the scenarios, you're
_going to have just a major impact on that wetland.
Conrad: Is it an A and a B wetland?
Hanson: I think it's an A.
Hoisington: I'm sure it's an A. And just because we're able to save a
portion of it here, there's still a lot of it lost. There's going to be
an interchange there. There isn't much way you can avoid it. The only
thing I can think of is to, and MnDot is relunctant to do this, is to plot
this whole interchange on the other side and you just about can't do it
now because of the subdivision that have already occurred further to the
west. That option is precluded. I guess in the whole scheme of things,
in looking at all the alternatives that MnDot has looked at for that
roadway, they are coming to the conclusion, at least I think the EIS is
coming to the conclusion that this represents the lesser of the total
impacts of the other, south Riley and the other alternatives that would be
considered. No matter whether you have the interchange or not, you have
to go through a wetland. That's just where it's going to go.
Batzli: Three minutes ago I would have said I like option 3 because we
save part of the wetland. I don't think I like 2. Number 1 on the other
hand to me, it seems like we have a lot of single families abutting TH 101
there don't we? If that's a 55 mph road, I don't know that that's really
the kind of use that's going to go in there or would be appropriate. I
_don't know that a lot of people want to be up against TH 7 kind of
"'arrangement if they knew about it in advance. That's going to be a
heavily traveled road. That would be the drawback that I see on 1 besides
the fact that we're going to put the interchange in the wetland. But of
the three, I think that might be the most realistic.
Planning Commission Meeting
AprilS, 1989 - Page 50
e
ElIson: Isn't it true that you can actually like move a wetland? I hate
the idea. We just a thing in our comprehensive plan, we are not going to
do anything to wetland and here we are not even 2 hours later saying how
we're going right through one. We're just so inconsistent. Maybe we'd
have to give up some residential medium density but can't you like
literally move a wetland and put it somewhere else? I've heard of that
sort of thing and I'm just saying, I hate the thought of doing that.
We're basically trying not to, in any way we can, so I'm saying if we have
to can we move it and forfeit some of this other zoning in order to put a
wetland there or something. But as far as the three alternatives, I would
go along with 1.
Hoisington: Annette, let me just say that MnDot, if and when it builds TH
212 here, will have to consider mitigating loss of the wetland. One of
the alternatives is to put it someplace else. It's never obviously quite
the same as where it is but it would function in the same manner that it
does here. One of the things they are talking about though, and I'm not
sure how effective that would be, is in their concepts they do, which is
really this concept right now, they are talking about ponding in all of
the quadrants in this interchange. So there is going to be an effort to
either retain as much of it as they can or if there is some loss, they'll
~try to figure out ways to mitigate that loss so that's required that they
..,address that in the EIS.
Erhart: I'd like to emphasize that I like, if we can't have a central
median which wasn't really the point of my last discussion as it is just
to make it a very aesthetically pleasing entrance to Chanhassen. If the
way to do it is to expand the right-of-way, I think that's a great idea.
So I fully support that. In addition, I had the same problem that Brian
had with backing lots up to a private street or even up to TH 101. I have
a concern with that. I'm glad to see you changed that drawing from the
one we had out here because that was one of my points on the old one. I
wanted to cut it off there so we don't have that. I think one of the
things you can do is you can combine this landscaping to also make it a
barrier between those lots that back up to TH 101. In fact I think in the
long run, I think if we would have done some of that on some of our
freeways here, we could have saved a lot of money and have a lower
maintenance cost, sound barrier than we have with these wood and concrete
things that are all starting to get cockeyed and tipping over and really
question how long that's going to work. I don't like number 2 at all. I
think it makes the distance further that you have to travel. For number
1, from a person who lives in the south, it's really exciting to see that
someday we'll have a decent way to get into town. Otherwise I'm going to
Chaska too. It's really exciting to see something like this on paper
anyway. Item 2 just goes against, I think the benefit is that now you're
back in fairly sharp turns. Going way out of your way to get from Point B
so I would like to see that one rejected somewhat out of hand. Again, it
~does adversely affect the wetland. My question relating, and I like 1
"'best of the alternatives, but why when traffic comes down this way and if
you want to go west, and essentially you're going in somewhat in the same
direction, why do we have a guy in the left turn to go right? The
intersection I think about, and I use it frequently is the intersection on
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 51
_
all around the Eden prairie Center. It is so ridiculous. All the turns
and lights and things you've got to do just to get from downtown, down
pioneer Trail. It's so ridiculous. You've got make left turns to make a
right turn and I don't understand why in either of these, particular in
this one here, you're corning down, why can't you just have the entrance
going west just basically go off? And the same here. It would take
almost zero space and this in fact is not developed. I'm talking about
just a gradual lane going down there. If you did that, then you could
bring this one into here and out of the wetlands and reduce the whole side
of this intersection. It would make it less expensive and I think a lot
more handy for people to use.
Hoisington: They would still Tim bring this one out. What they could
avoid, if they were to do that of course, would be that they wouldn't have
to build whatever barrier within the wetland, back here but they will have
to build this...
Erhart: Yes, that would be fine but it would be bring it out of the
wetland and that would be great.
Hoisington: But what they're concerned about is the spacing of the end of
this ramp to the beginning of the CR 17 ramp. That's the reason they use
this folded diamond concept. My understanding is that they originally
_considered a number of alternatives here. Their conclusion was that the
spacing was just not adequate.
Erhart: I guess probably the major reason why I don't like this plan, if
someone corning off. They have to make a right turn. Stop. Then a left
turn to get into town. It's real cumbersome although I think it solves
some of the problems with getting some of the intermediate zones between
the highway. I think you need to have the exits. What is OS?
Hoisington: Open space.
Erhart: Maybe you could have the exit coming up here.
Hoisington: You could. The only disadvantage of that is that for the
most part people who, what MnDot like to do is they like to bring people
off and then get them back on basically at the same point if they can.
Erhart: So they don't get lost.
Hoisington: Exactly. That's the reason. So that's a possibility but one
that we don't think they would look up to right away.
Erhart: I guess I would favor 1. If the left turns are unavoidable, then
I guess that's... I think we ought to emphasize too to MnDot is the zero
net loss of wetlands. That they try to mitigate as much as possible.
_conrad: Fred, I don't have anything new to add. I think 1 is the best
alternative. It's great on the upper part for sure. My only comment is I
think we should be talking to MnDot about minimal impact on the wetland at
the interchange. Whatever that access method is, that's the one we should
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 52
e
use. But it's got to be an easy access for downtown Chanhassen period.
Number 3 does not do it the way it's designed. We just can't have that.
That's not an alternative at all. So it's got to be an easy right hand
for westerly bound traffic and that's real important.
Hoisington: We will be holding a public information meeting on the 17th
so if you don't have enough meetings to attend now, please feel free to
come out and spend some time.
Conrad: Okay, thanks Fred. Mark, you're back on.
Koegler: Okay. We have essentially one last component of the plan
discussion and that deals with land use in the rural area. When the 1980
plan was put together, as I think I've stated earlier tonight, it was a
very easy task because at that time there was an ordinance essentially
prohibiting development without sewer. As you know that didn't exactly
stand the test of time so now this plan needs to take a little different
approach and the only approach that's been really taken to date, outside
of the discussion we just got through a little while ago on looking at
long, long term land uses, is really from a policy standpoint. Goal and
policy standpoint and some of those you reviewed earlier dealing with the
general rural use area and how that's going to be handled. There have
abeen discussions in the past as to whether or not that approach which is
wkJnd of more passive and to just let those statements dictate what the
policy is along with the existing ordinances. If that's the right
approach or if it's appropriate to take a more active approach in looking
at land use. Some time ago Tim is the author of this map. There was a
reduced version of that in the packet but what this did was identify
various types of uses in the southern part of the community. Agriculture.
Wooded. Existing residential development. Wetlands and so forth and
there was discussion at that time as to whether or not that kind of
thinking should be expanded through the entire rural area and then should
we be looking at land uses, either permanent land uses or interim land
uses that were compatible with those various types of use areas. The
Planning Commission, according to my notes, even considered at one time
should we be designating areas for "pure" agriculture versus hobby farm
areas. Were there areas where the agricultural quality were not
necessarily suitable to the highest level of production of rural crops or
whatever. Should we be looking at hobby farms in some of those kinds of
areas as being more of a permitted use? Again, this item is brought back
to you tonight for your thoughts and kind of policy direction. Where do
you want to go with talking about the between now and 2000 use of the
general rural use area. How specific do we want to get? We have a number
of policies in part of the plan right now that basically say development
only in conformance with ordinances. No expansion of the commercial,
industrial and so forth. Is that sufficient or do we need to go further?
Conrad: Well Tim, why don't you start us off.
-Erhart: Okay. This item 2, discourage development in the rural wooded
areas. I remember that now. What I thought I communicated was to
discourage agricultural development of wooded areas. In other words,
going in and cutting down all the trees and converting it to crop land.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 53
e
That's what I meant to say that time because wooded areas is the most
valuable, as Dave will know, most valuable area you can get for future
residential use. Maybe this is someone elses idea but if this was my idea
then that's what I meant by it. Was discourage conversion of wood lots to
agricultural use in the rural area.
Headla:
I've got the same thing circled.
Erhart: Is everybody okay with that one? Item 1, identify pure
agricultural areas vs. areas suitable for expansion. The first part of
that, I tend to think that the area west of that freeway will be pure
agriculture for quite some time unless it gets adopted by Chaska. I think
it will be agricultural for some time. There are some people there that
want to stay farming. Essentially if you look at the map here, on the
northwest part of that TH 212. I'm looking at this item number 1.
Identify pure agricultural areas vs. areas suitable for expansion. I
don't think, was that my idea too?
Koegler: I can't tell you who. It was just a comment that was discussed
briefly.
Conrad:
It had to be yours.
_Erhart: I don't remember that one. I guess in looking at that, I would
~just go back to what we do and identify pure long term agricultural vs.
transitional areas I guess which is what we've said previously already in
this document. From what's happened in the area down there by me, that's
almost all lots are wooded at this point. So it seems to me that's not a
transitional area, then I don't know what a transitional area is.
Koegler: That proliferation of residential that's occurred over the last
several years needs to be called out in the plan and discussed as being
the existing situation. I guess that's kind of the direction that I was
assuming we would probably go. A brief discussion then of what's left
that is "agricultural". The fact that the slat of the plantings preserve
that, at least what, as long as practical? If it is productive farmland,
to allow it to remain that and not go into a great deal more comment on
it. Let that kind of narrative and the policies basically portray the
City's policy in the general rural use area.
Conrad: Tim, I don't understand your map. Now why did you do that? You
had some reason for drawing that map and are we paying attention to those
reasons?
Erhart: I've done a number of these maps over my 3 years on the Planning
Commission. I think one of the frustrating things is just like up on TH
41 and TH 7. To me that's just an area that I really don't have a vision
for. So many times we've talked about south Chanhassen.and everybody
_ thinks of it in terms of it's just farmland. I was trying to get people
~ to communicate that hey, it's not just farmland. In fact I think there's
two distinct separate areas in south Chanhassen. One is rural residential
as we call it, which is that area essentially, at this point everything
east of extended CR 17 is really rural residential. Then everything west
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 54
e
of that is really still agricultural. I think in doing planning, you've
got deal with data. Real facts and that's the real facts and that's why I
did that.
Conrad: So it makes sense to me what you're talking about.
agricultural being to the west but do you think we should be
land to the east that is hobby farmish or bigger, do we need
anything?
The
treating the
to do
Erhart: Well yes. For example when we talked about contractor's yards,
it's still up in the air whether we want to just separate south Chanhassen
and allow contractor's yards out in the ag area. That's still going to
come up. As opposed to allowing contractor's yards east of the extended
CR 17. I don't care, we can either eliminate them completely which is
fine with me. On the other hand, if there's a sentiment that somebody
own~ 100 acres out there and he wants to be in the contracting business,
then if he's in that agricultural area, then maybe he ought to be allowed
to have a contracting business. I really don't care as long as we don't
have these industrial sites in the middle of which is now a rural
residential area with really expensive homes. In fact, I think that's the
reason why I drew this map the last time was to communicate the fact that
it's not just as simple as it's just a bunch of farms out there. There's
~really two distinct separate areas and I think in our terms of planning,
~e've got to at least start thinking of it that way. Hobby farms, to me a
hobby farm is somebody who wants, has got 10 acres. You can have a hobby
farm. I don't know where that came from. I don't remember that I brought
that up and don't know that it has to be in there. Does that answer your
question?
Conrad: Mark's comment on the bottom of page 20. Another alternative is
to take a more active approach in specifically address land uses in
southern Chanhassen. Listing of existing land use types and natural
conditions and the corresponding statement of appropriate use in those
areas. Tim, you would not feel we needed to do that?
Erhart: Say that again.
Conrad: Read the bottom paragraph on page 20.
Erhart: Are you suggesting you do that by micro areas or macro?
Koegler: There was discussion in the past about a more micro approach. I
think my thoughts and what I think I'm hearing this evening is really, if
you want to use the term more macro in that we've got a couple of distinct
areas with different characteristics and those need to be recognized.
We've got agricultural and we've got rural "urban" land use. We've got
housing and so forth and they do set up two distinct zones and just
coincidentally, virtually almost bisected by the TH 212 alignment.
~Erhart: Yes. Your map corresponds a lot with what already exists.
Koegler: That's the approach that I would suggest we take. Right now
we've got a blank spot in the plan where it says that's to be filled in
Planning Commission Meeting
AprilS, 1989 - Page 55
e
and I think that's the way we should fill it in.
Erhart: I think we should proceed along with what you are proposing there
which deals with the identifying long term ag on a macro basis. I think
that's what you've got on your map.
Conrad: Any disagreement with that?
Headla: I was questioning this very last sentence. All development would
be discouraged. How do you discourage?
Koegler: This is only really speaking in a policy context because if your
ordinances allow development at a certain density, which they do, that is
permissible.
wildermuth: Couldn't stop it right?
Koegler: No. Short of going to another density category which given the
amount of land that's remaining is probably not in the City's best
interest. But just from a policy standpoint, to preserve that
agricultural useage as long as is practical and until such time in the
future as sewer and so forth comes in and the property ultimately
develops.
~wildermuth: It's pretty restricted now with the 1 unit per 10 acre
requirement. I guess the only comment I would have is I don't see any
need to identify pure agricultural areas vs. hobby farms. I think the
economics in the situation, soil types and that sort of thing dictate what
goes where.
Erhart: I guess I assumed we were taking this paragraph out in exchange
for what Mark is proposing to do.
Koegler: The macro approach just looks at agriculture period.
categorize.
It doesn't
Conrad: This point number 3, for rural subdivisions require ghost plats.
It kind of makes sense.
Koegler: That certainly could be a valid concern in any number of areas
and maybe now in light of what has happened in recent history with zoning,
it's not as critical as it might have been January a few years ago when
suddenly these developments came in. But the area that's of most concern
to me in that regard is the area north of TH 5 between the two MUSA lines.
That's kind of really the transitional area because that's the next area
that according to the sewer plan will be serviced. That's the area where
it's most cd. tical in at least the shorter term that the development
pattern that goes in fits some long term scenario as to how properties
a. ultimately could be red.ivided. That same concern is evident in the south
~also. It's just potentially a little further down the road. But perhaps
the passage of time now and the ordinance that's in effect with the 1 per
10 standard, that's maybe not as critical as it was with the 2 1/2 acre.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 56
e
Conrad: I don't know. Steve, you've got to tell us. You're the one that
has to deal with all this junk. You divide it into 1 per 10 and then
pretty soon you divide it to 15,000 square feet. It's more of a planner
problem.
Hanson: I guess I see part of it as determining what, again that's why I
go back to the land use, that land use ultimately is...interim steps...
The decision has to be made for larger lots in 2 1/2 acres or... I think
that northern area would have a fair amount of that has gone 2 1/2 acre
lots and now we're faced with an area... On the other hand, if you've got
an area that's developing along a different character... I don't have a
feel for that. I'm not sure if I answered your question or not.
Conrad: Well, some of this stuff, we literally don't know. We're kind of
trying to help provide orderly planning because the reality is, there will
be resubdivisions and previous city planners have gotten real concerned
about some of this. So if ghost platting is important to do, because we
know there's going to be a sequence, then we should be working some of
this into policies or ordinances. As Mark says, he's not real concerned
because maybe the changes recently in the 1 per 10 and whatever and maybe
we don't have a problem there and I guess I don't have a real sense. I
don't know.
~oegler: Ladd, my level of concern is still there. It's just I don't
think you're going to see as many cases now where this is going to become
an opportunity to do that as you would have a couple of years ago when the
door was open to all these rural subdivisions that came in. I think just
simply the numbers of these things over the next few years are going to be
pretty minimal with the 1 per 10 standard in effect.
Conrad: Then my sense is to leave it alone and not deal with it.
Erhart: Let me ask you this. Let's say on Riley Lake south there, let's
say sewer was extended into there, would you actually go in and put that
sewer in on all those 2 1/2 acre lots and force those landowners to hook
up when their septic systems are working?
Hanson:
I can't imagine that you would.
Erhart: I can't either.
I can't imagine that.
Hanson: The cost of that would be too great. On the other hand, if you
have a lot of failing septic systems then that situation changes. My
understanding of that area is that has pretty well gone under the new
regulations that they got two sites and so forth so I wouldn't see "that
that's going to be the case. That you're going to have a lot of failures.
Erhart: Let's say sewer comes by on TH 101, who's going to pay for it to
~run it into that whole subdivision when there's no urgency to do it? I
~would just find it, unless things are failing, I just can't imagine that
ever being subdivided. Maybe someday but boy, not for a long time. I
have a theoretical question. What is our position today realizing, I
think as we do, the 2 1/2 acre lots are really uneconomic from the
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 57
e
standpoint of providing services. Streets and so forth and everything. If
we had this guy in here who wanted to hook in from the north end of town.
Who wanted to hook in and could hook in in a gravity flow even though he
was outside the MUSA line, I've got to believe you're going to see some
more of those coming in here. First place, he's close to a wetland. The
second thing, if you did allow him to hook in instead of having some more
2 1/2 acre lots, you could have maybe you could 15,000 lots or maybe 1
acre lots. Something. But we keep forcing more 2 1/2 acre lots when in
fact the sewer is right across the street from the guy or something. What
ought to be our position in those cases? Realizing that Met Council's
going to say no today but what ought to be our, if we had our wish, what
would it be? Do we want to encourage the City to try to get Met Council
to give us some flexibility, to be more flexible so that we can do .what we
think is, in my opinion, better planning? If you don't have to put a lift
station in and the guy's got some lots there, to force him to keep some
more 2 1/2 acre lots, to me that's just poor planning. I think you guys
are already doing something. I guess I'd like to see the Planning
Commission encourage the staff to try to get some flexibility out of Met
Council to stop this propagation of 2 1/2 acre lots. Even to go to the
extent that we'd actually put a statement in our comp plan to say, have
flexibility or something or try to minimize additional 2 1/2 acre lots in
those cases where gravity sewer would serve an area.
~onrad: You don't like 2 1/2 acre lots because they're uneconomical?
Erhart: Waste land.
Wildermuth: But you can't have any more can you? I mean it's 1 unit per
10 acre density. I think the 2 1/2 acre lot is pretty well ruled out.
Conrad: Even though it's 1 per 10, you can have on a 40 acre...
Hanson: Yes, if you have 40 acres, you could cluster them. You could
have four 2 1/2 acre sites clustered and have 30...
Wildermuth: But you use up the allotment for the balance of land?
Hanson: Yes.
Wildermuth: The only thing that's going to happen there is when they do
come in with sewer, boy it's really going to be expensive for that sewer
and water. I'd hate to bring sewer and water into Hesse Farm for example.
Those big lots.
Erhart: There you wouldn't but let's say a buy's got 40 acres and he
wants to put 4 lots in. This guy had 4 lots didn't he. I don't remember
the whole circumstances.
~KOegler: I don't know what guy you're specifically talking about.
Hanson: Are you talking about Carrico?
Erhart: Yes.
Planning Commission Meeting
AprilS, 1989 - Page 58
e
Koegler: Okay, the flexibility thing seems to have been lost over time.
I don't know how that occurred but in the late 70's and early 80's, the
arguments between the City and the Met Council, the City's position was
that the MUSA line was a flexible line within certain parameters. The way
the line occurred is that Met Council originally gave the City a rough
alignment and it literally was a graphic swath that went up through the
city. That was refined largely by the City based upon gravity sanitary
sewer. But the thing you have to bear in mind was the decisions on
gravity sewer were made on 10 foot contours. USGS information was all
that was available and is all still that's available at this time for
certain parts of the community and that's not real definitive.
Consequently you had pieces of property that came in that were right next
to this new hardline that was drawn that people could demonstrate that
they really were serviceable. The City's intent back at that time was
that those should be included in the MUSA line because that was the
foundation, that it was gravity sewer service and anything that was not
was outside the MUSA line. Somehow that flexibility seems to have gotten
lost. I don't know how that has occurred and maybe that's not totally a
dim topic because in that same time period the Metropolitan Council seems
to have gotten a little bit more flexible now with changes to the MUSA
line.
~rhart: More recently?
Koegler: More recently. So maybe the pendelum is swinging back the other
way but the concept that you bring up Tim is nothing really that wasn't
expressed some time ago. the City went through a lot of discussions and a
lot of heated, very heated debates with Met Council when the MUSA line was
being drafted. My predecessor back in the '76 timeframe or so was heavily
involved in that. That was pretty well ironed out by the time I was
involved.
Erhart: Then I guess I would ask the Commission to consider to put some
words in here that basically reinforces trying to get some flexibility
back into this thing.
Koegler: Back in those days sewer allocation was a dirty word. Nobody
ever said that. Now more recently they speak of allocation. Number of
units. Number of connections and things so it has gotten a lot more
specific and that's to a large degree why the line has become more firm
and there's been less flexibility maybe in saying this guy's right next to
the line and he really should be in. Well no, because Chanhassen only has
x sewer capacity and you've already used up the capacity or whatever the
argument might be.
Erhart: That's also a thing that kind of burns me that you've got one guy
on one side of the line and one guy on the other side of the line, there's
~no economic reason why one guy is treated different than the other. Where
1I'it's gravity flow, that's something you can stand on.
Conrad: I don't disagree with what you're saying Tim. I don't know where
we take it but I don't disagree. Steve, do you have any opinion on
Planning Commission Meeting
April 5, 1989 - Page 59
e
this? Mark can work it in.
Hanson: Well why don't you let us give it a shot and try to come up with
something. Met Council did, last time there was an adjustment made they
indicated that there was some flexibility to adjust that but they didn't
want to see 10 acres here and 5 acres there. That the City, we'd identify
those. Part of the reason we haven't proceeded with that, Carrico...
negotiations on that as far as the park site. That's one of the reason
I haven't pursued that further until that issue has been settled.
Conrad: Are we through Mark?
Koegler: Yes. You've given us direction I think on all the topics that
we needed.
Jo Ann Olsen updated the Planning Commission on the recycling program.
Wildermuth moved, Batzli seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m..
4Itsubmitted by Steve Hanson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
e