Loading...
1f Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES AUGUST 25, 2003 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Lundquist, Councilman Ayotte, and Councilman Peterson COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Roger Knutson, and Matt Saam PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Uli Sacchet Melissa Gilman Planning Commission Chanhassen Villager PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: approve the following recommendations: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's ao Resolution 4/2003-74: Receive Feasibility Study and Call for Public Hearing for 2004 Street Improvements, Project 04-01 and 04-02. Arboretum Shopping Center, Clearwater Development, Southeast Comer of West 78th Street and Century Boulevard: 1) 2) Final Plat Approval. Approval of Construction Plans & Specifications and Development Contract c. Approve Time Extension of Dumpster Placement on Laredo Lane. Approval of Time Extension of Temporary Lifting of No Parking on Audubon Road and Coulter Boulevard, General Mills. Approval of Minutes: -Amendment to City Council Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated August 11, 2003 -City Council Work Session Minutes dated August 11, 2003 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. City Council Summary - August 25, 2003 VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: RENTAL LICENSING PROGRAM, MINNESOTA MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING ASSOCIATION, LISA MOE. Public Present: Name Address Lisa Moe Chris Culp Lynne Wyffels Andrew Aitkins Representing Lake Susan Apartments Lake Susan Apartments Lake Susan Apartments 6699 Mulberry Court E. Lisa Moe, representing Lake Susan Apartments spoke to the council regarding the Rental Licensing Program. She thanked city staff for asking them to participate in the drafting of the maintenance code. As stated in ordinance #340 the maintenance code applies to all existing residential and non-residential structures, which is fair. What is not fair is that only rental residential units are charged for this program. The cost of administering the program for owner occupied residential units and commercial property is being funded by the city's general fund. Why are residential landlords being treated different in the city? She requested that the City Council reconsider the cost for this project. Either charge the residential and non-residential properties the same or have the program 100 percent supported from general fund. Andrew Aitkins who is the apartment manager for 420, 440 and 489 Chan View stated that right now apartment buildings are much harder to keep full. There's a lot more competition out there and forcing a resident to pay, even if it's just $2.50 a month instead of $5.00 a month, which was the original plan isn't fair for those people to have to pay that. He asked the City Council to consider dropping the program. Todd Gerhardt stated that this item will be discussed at a future City Council meeting but staff is recommending to change the licensing fee from $50.00 per year to $25.00 per year and feels the program has shown real benefits. LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Chief John Wolff discussed the Fire Department monthly report. Calls are exceeding the previous year and if they stay at that rate, and they have every reason to believe that it will, they'll exceed last year's variable call costs by about $30,000 which will have an impact on the general fund. He reviewed the major calls Chanhassen Fire Department has been involved in over the past month, including the ammonia leak at General Mills on August 11th. Councilman Lundquist stated he had talked to people at General Mills and at their headquarters and every one to the person commended the action taken by the fire department. Sergeant Jim Olson presented the Carver County Sheriff Department update, going over the monthly numbers. He went over the activities involved in National Night Out. He shared two stories of citizen participation in helping to solve vandalism and burglaries in the city and asked that citizens call into 911 to report any suspicious activities as they're happening. 2 City Council Summary - August 25, 2003 CONSIDER APPROVAL OF BUDGET FOR FORMER LIBRARY SPACE AND AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION. Public Present: Name Address Dale W. Geving Jean Mancini Bobbie Headla Tom Faust Glenn Gauger Matt Masica 7602 Huron Avenue 820 Santa Vera Drive 6870 Minnewashta Parkway 541 Mission Hills Drive 300 First Avenue No., Minneapolis 300 First Avenue No., Minneapolis Todd Hoffman provided background information on the work and meetings that have been held to date regarding the remodeling of the old library space. Glenn Gauger and Matt Masica from KKE Architects presented the schematic design package they had prepared. Councilman Peterson asked for clarifications on the dimension and layout of the proposed remodeling. Councilman Ayotte asked for clarification on the need for the new conference room designed for City Council work sessions. Todd Gerhardt explained the thought process that went into designing the conference room. Mayor Furlong asked what the cost savings would be if the kitchenette was eliminated. Councilman Ayotte asked if the consultant had looked at and addressed noise abatement issues. Glenn Gauger reminded the City Council that this was just the first phase of the process and further changes and refinements can be made. Tom Faust spoke on behalf of the Senior Commission and their recommendation was that the City Council not approve the budget or the plan as presented. He voiced the Senior Commission's disappointment at being left out of the planning process. Todd Hoffman explained the process as it's happened to date. Councilman Ayotte stated he did not like the layout at this point, was concerned about the traffic flow, concerned about the duplication of the conference room activity and concerned about the possibility of noise abatement, and that he didn't understand the HVAC system well enough. Councilman Lundquist concurred with Councilman Ayotte about the layout, especially the location of the conference room in the middle of the two large multi-use rooms. He was in favor of tabling this for 2 weeks to a month to get a better handle on the budget issues. Councilman Peterson gave reasons why he was comfortable with the proposal, such as easy access for the seniors to the multi-use room, additional seating and capacity in the conference room. He stated he was comfortable with the design, the layout and the use. He did have concerns with the funding source. Mayor Furlong concurred with Councilman Peterson that the City Council could use a larger room to allow for more people to attend work sessions, if they choose. He wanted time to consider funding options and to allow the senior commission time to consider the plans and provide input. Todd Gerhardt stated staff will bring this item back once they get some answers to the council's questions and concerns. Staff will spend adequate time with the seniors until they feel comfortable with the plan that works for them, and would expect to bring something back the end of September, early October. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Todd Gerhardt stated he would be on vacation the rest of the week and Justin Miller would be available to address questions or emergencies. City Council Summary - August 25, 2003 CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilman Lundquist moved, Mayor Furlong seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 25, 2003 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Lundquist, Councilman Ayotte, and Councilman Peterson COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Roger Knutson, and Matt Saam PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Uli Sacchet Melissa Gilman Planning Commission Chanhassen Villager PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: Resolution #2003-74: Receive Feasibility Study and Call for Public Hearing for 2004 Street Improvements, Project 04-01 and 04-02. Arboretum Shopping Center, Clearwater Development, Southeast Corner of West 78th Street and Century Boulevard: 1) 2) Final Plat Approval. Approval of Construction Plans & Specifications and Development Contract c. Approve Time Extension of Dumpster Placement on Laredo Lane. Approval of Time Extension of Temporary Lifting of No Parking on Audubon Road and Coulter Boulevard, General Mills. Approval of Minutes: -Amendment to City Council Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated August 11, 2003 -City Council Work Session Minutes dated August 11, 2003 Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. City Council Meeting - August 25, 2003 VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: RENTAL LICENSING PROGRAM, MINNESOTA MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING ASSOCIATION, LISA MOE. Public Present: Name Address Lisa Moe Chris Culp Lynne Wyffels Andrew Aitkins Representing Lake Susan Apartments Lake Susan Apartments Lake Susan Apartments 6699 Mulberry Court E. Lisa Moe: Good evening, thank you. Actually I'm with, representing Lake Susan Apartments. Minnesota Multi-Housing Association's a trade association I belong to so. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Lisa Moe: Honorable Mayor and council, thank you for allowing us the time to address you this evening. I have brought with me one of the landlords that would also like a minute of your time to address his concerns regarding the rental licensing fee. ! have summarized my talking points for you briefly. Number one, we were invited to participate in the drafting of the maintenance code Ordinance #340. We very much thank the council, city manager and staff for that opportunity and we are supportive and approve of the maintenance code. As stated in the ordinance #340 the maintenance code applies to all existing residential and non-residential structures. Obviously this is fair. What is not fair is that only rental residential units are charged for this program. The cost of administering the program for owner occupied residential units and commercial property is being funded by the city's general fund. Why are residential landlords being treated different in the city of Chanhassen? We request that the City Council reconsider the cost for this project. Either charge the residential and non-residential properties the same or have the program 100 percent supported from general fund. Like any landowner in the city we do pay our fair share of taxes into the general fund and do expect to receive services, including maintenance code inspections for our part of taxes. I brought copies of my statement if you'd like that. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Lisa Moe: Okay, and I'd like to introduce Andy Aitkin. Andrew Aitkins: Hello. My name is Andrew Aitkins. Is it Bob? Councilman Ayotte: Yeah. Andrew Aitkins: We met. I live in Chanhassen. I am an apartment manager, 420, 440 and 489 Chan View. I've been involved in those buildings for 4 years and I guess I'm here because I don't, I think we forget who ultimately pays for the licensing fee and that is the residents in those apartments. Right now the apartment buildings are much harder to keep full. The residents, there's a lot more competition out there and I can't see forcing a resident to have to pay, even if it's just $2.50 a month instead of $5.00 a month, which was the original plan. I just don't think it's fair for those people to have to pay that. And so I really would like you to consider even just City Council Meeting - August 25, 2003 dropping the program. I think what we have works. If there's a problem with an apartment building, there's things in place to take care of that. I had an example of just recently, I'm not sure what her name was but she called me and said that we had a problem with a resident and it worked out great. I got a letter. Was able to go and address it with the tenant. If it happens again he's gone, and it was a good thing and so don't penalize my residents, make them have to pay more rent to live in Chanhassen. Please. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. And I guess Mr. Gerhardt, I don't want to put you on the spot. This was an issue that the council discussed or received an update on at our last work session a couple weeks ago. There was some recommendations made at that time and I know that there have been various meetings that have been held with a number of the property owners. Rental property owners in town as well, but is there anything at this point you'd like to. Todd Gerhardt: This will be on a future council meeting. Staff has worked with council in the past and one of the things that staff is recommending at this time is to look at going into a two year inspection cycle, thus cutting the fee in half. Going from $50 per unit per year down to $25.00 per year. And so that's one of the things that we're looking at. We also have found some real benefits in the program. I think we've inspected at least 20 to 30 percent of the rental units here in town already, and have found numerous code violations and ! think it is a great service to the community. And not every renter keeps his units up to the extent of some of the landlords that are here this evening and so I think meeting with the group has been a benefit. It's kind of opened up our eyes to some of the newer units that are here and that we probably were a little over zealous in the time of inspections but the every other year seems to work. We are still monitoring our expenses in running this program and we'll come back to the council at the year end to show those true expenses in implementing the program. Again, that fee is a two tier process. It's one for the code violations but it's also one that pays for the conduct on premise situation, which we had a couple incidents here the last few months and there is some staff time spent in monitoring those so. It just does not pay for the inspection portion. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. We're still within visitor presentations, if there's anybody else that would like to address the council. On this or another matter. If not I'll close visitor presentations and move on. LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Mayor Furlong: We'd like to start with the Fire Department. Chief John Wolff is here this evening. Good evening Chief. Chief John Wolff: Good evening Mayor, council. Just a brief report tonight. Staffing is at 43. That's where we were last month. Anticipate that it will stay at this level through the end of this year. There may be some drop off next year based on some planned retirements, and our plan for next year includes possibly hiring some individuals to keep our staffing full at 45. 2003 calls are up approximately 25 percent. Second quarter was no different from the first quarter which they both exceeded fiscal year 2000 quarter. And we anticipate that some of our variable costs will be up. If we stay at the rate we're going, and we have every reason to believe that this year it just seems like it's going to stay busy, we'll exceed last year's variable call costs by about $30,000 so it will have an impact on the general fund. A lot of our, it's probably been the busiest month in the 18 years I've been in the fire department this past 30 days and I actually was gone for a week on vacation, but the two weeks I've been back are certainly making up for that. And as you know that when it gets busy it's not only the frequency of calls but it's the intensity of calls and we've had three major calls outside of our city which we were asked to come in and help Chaska for a City Council Meeting - August 25, 2003 12 inch gas main that went about a week ago, and we assisted them with that call. Shakopee Fire had a call on an extremely hot day, or actually early morning. It was a mini storage fire that it just really burned out their fire fighters very quickly. They ended up calling in Chanhassen and probably another dozen fire departments. It was a pretty, relatively speaking kind of a minor fire. One that you would expect that they or maybe one other fire department could handle but due to the heat and the high humidity, people were, they ended up sending 8 or 9 fire fighters to the hospital with no serious injuries but all heat related. And then a couple days after our big call here last week, we went to Eden Prairie for a large apartment fire. And then earlier in the month we were in Waconia for a drowning so put a lot of demands on our members here. The big call in Chanhassen was the General Mills ammonia leak on August 11t~. Due to a mechanical failure and perhaps even a design failure. They lost 13,000 pounds out of an 80,000 pound system. We've worked extensively with General Mills over the past dozen years in anticipation of a call like this. It is almost the worst case scenario when you leak out that kind of ammonia, but due to the training of the General Mills and our joint training together, we were able to mitigate this incident fairly quickly. Took about 2 V2 hours to get, to isolate the leak and to basically shut it down. To valve it down. We called in help from Carver County. We had our own hazmat team. We called in the Carver County hazmat team. The State's hazmat team and Bloomington Fire brought over part of their hazmat team too. We had support agencies from various fire departments in the area. Police. Their sheriff department, EMS. Approximately 20 people were looked at. They were all employees complaining of various degrees of minor complaints. 9 were transported. There were no significant injuries resulting from any of those events or activities with those folks. They have approximately 400 people in the building at the time. It was a shift change. They got everybody out. Our first unit was on the scene within a minute and all of their evacuation had been executed by that point. I thought the cooperation between General Mills and the public safety agencies is commendable, or was commendable. And the interagency work between police, fire and EMS was also quite commendable. We also worked with the neighbors in the immediate area and notified them of the activity and with, or of the ammonia leak and with ammonia, what we do is we take readings. We try to determine how, you know what the levels are and essentially the way the homes are built today, one of the safest things we can do for people is actually have them stay in their homes, which is what we recommended but for folks that weren't comfortable or having any kind of symptoms we were going to offer them medical care, but no one was exhibiting symptoms. We did give them the option of the Recreation Center and about 50 residents chose to go to the Recreation Center and we set up the Salvation Army and the Red Cross there to kind of deal with any needs that they had. Some of those folks got put up in hotels. I know General Mills has done a lot of follow-up with the immediate neighbors and so forth, so there's been good cooperation there. So all in all, this was a serious event but it was mitigated effectively and really it's a testament to the cooperation between General Mills, Chan Fire, the City of Chanhassen and really the training and the things that led up to the event, we felt like when it happened, while you never want to see something like that happen, we had actually performed a recent drill 6 weeks ago at another location here in town which had very similar kinds of issues that we were, that we had to manage in a similar way and then quite frankly we'd also been at General Mills, the former Pillsbury Company and quite frankly the former McGlynn's Company over the past dozen years with similar kinds of drills so it was something that we felt like we could handle from the standpoint of how to manage the resources and how to have a positive outcome. We were very fortunate that everything worked well and we were very pleased with the outcome. We've had a number of meetings with General Mills since the event and also with local public safety just to review what went well and what are the things we need to work on so I'll take any questions from council members or city staff. Mayor Furlong: Questions? 4 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2003 Councilman Lundquist: Chief Wolff I'd just like to add, regarding the Chanhassen, the Pillsbury event. I spoke to a few members of the leadership team at the Chan plant and also at the headquarters in Golden Valley and everyone to the person commended the way you and your department and the mutual aid handled the situation and they were very happy with the outcome and pleased that it went as well as it did, so I think that's a testament that you should hear that people are commenting positively on your department's efforts and the way that you've handled that situation. Chief John Wolff: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: And I think just to add to that. I had the opportunity to witness the event as it was occurring and I'd like to commend you for the professionalism and the conduct of the entire fire department. Everybody that was there. It was, having witnessed the mock drill the few weeks earlier, you could see that indeed what we saw at the drill was actually what was practiced and the level of professionalism and conduct again it was something easily to develop some pride in so thank you for your efforts and Councilman Lundquist, thanks for the outside feedback too because it's nice to see that as well. Chief John Wolff: Thanks. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Also this evening, Sergeant Jim Olson is here to give us an update on public safety from the sheriff s department. Sgt. Jim Olson: Good evening. Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Sgt. Jim Olson: I provided for you in the council packet was the area report for the month of July. The citation list for the month of July and a crime alert that Beth Hoiseth put out. Monthly numbers, total calls for service were up 167 for the month compared to last year and for the year it's up just under 1,200 so we've had quite a few more calls this year than last year. Some of this is attributed to higher traffic details for the month were up from 2 last year to 37 this year. Traffic stops themselves were up by 29. Citations were at 170 for the month which is down a bit from the previous couple of months, but we had some big details that we had going on in the month of July that took, that were very man power intensive and hopefully traffic education. We've been hitting traffic very hard the past few months and hopefully traffic education, they're getting some of that. I am monitoring that situation however and keeping a handle on it as far as where we're at citation wise. Burglaries is up from 3 to 7 for the month. Damage to property was up from 20 to 32, but we'll talk about that a little bit more later. Vehicle thefts, well we had 0 last year compared to 8 this year. I went back through the reports because that was concerning to me but we had two that were actual thefts of vehicles. That was stolen autos. The other ones, there was one that was from a car sale where the person was not paying, and then the others were more civil in nature than they were actually criminal. I borrowed so and so a car and he hasn't brought it back and ! want to file a stolen vehicle report. Unfortunately that's a civil issue and that at that point is not a criminal issue so. There was only two that were actual, where somebody went in and actually stole the car. Suspicious activity was up by 19 and fire calls were up by 13 for the month. Any questions at all about the numbers or what was down on the sheet at all? Councilman Lundquist: Question on traffic details. Sergeant Olson, would it be a fair assumption that as we continue to focus on traffic, traffic details, traffic education, all those City Council Meeting - August 25, 2003 things that hopefully we would see the number of citations issues going down? Would that be an indication that it's working or? Sgt. Jim Olson: I think that that would be one indicator. Between that, I think accidents would also be you know, another indicator as well as complaints from citizens that we have. All of those things put together I think would assist us in taking a look at where we're at from traffic standpoint. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, thank you. Sgt. Jim Olson: Any other questions at all? Mayor Furlong: I guess as a follow-up to that, are we tracking or quantifying accidents? I assume we are but also complaints as well so we can see those. Sgt. Jim Olson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Sgt. Jim Olson: We had National Night Out. I'm sorry, was there anything else from that? National Night Out was on August 5th and was a great success. There were 31 neighborhoods that participated. There was food and we had posse out. Fire department was out. Did a great job. There was good discussion at the different ones and I think it was a real positive thing and Beth Hoiseth, the Crime Prevention Officer did a wonderful job of putting that together. I want to thank all the residents for their participation and hopefully we'll have an even bigger one for next year so, and then you Councilman Lundquist and Mayor Furlong for coming out. That was a good thing. At every council meeting I talk about public participation and asking people to come out. Or excuse me, to give us a call when they're seeing things and I just wanted to share two success stories that we've had real recently with that. We were having a rash of vandalisms in the city, and including a church that got hit a couple of times with paint being poured on and places being broken into and more painting being done. One of the citizens gave us a call one night and said that they saw something that didn't seem right with a couple of young lads that were outside of a door of a business. One of our squads got there within a minute and caught these kids breaking into this business. They took off on foot. Our officer took off on foot and we ended up catching 3 individuals for that. A fourth one who was not there that night, but was along with some of the other ones, was also implicated later. But thanks to that person that called in we solved a number of vandalisms. We recovered some property that had been taken and it's that kind of community participation that we need to help us. Again we can't be there all the time and when people can call in and help us like that, it's wonderful. So they did a wonderful job with that. The second one happened a couple of months ago, but we had a rash of burglaries to garages. People were breaking into attached garages and stealing things out of garages and out of cars and somebody actually spotted somebody in a garage and was able to give a license plate number and description of this person and through follow-up we were able to track them down. Recover a substantial amount of property and that person will be going to court for this so again public participation. They called us right away and told us about what happened and we were able to find some property with that person. They did a great job so that was a good thing. Again I encourage people to call us if they see anything out of the ordinary. Anything that looks suspicious, to call 911 and that helps us greatly. And call us at the time it's happening too. Sometimes we get calls the next day. Well you know ! saw this vehicle that was going through yards last night and I thought that was kind of suspicious. And we appreciate those calls also but if they could call when it's happening, that certainly does help us. Also for the council and City Council Meeting - August 25, 2003 Mayor, I'm putting together a list of, what I'm looking for is prioritizing some of the different sheriff office functions and what I would like the council to do is to make a list from one to, and I think I've got 16, 17 of them, of what the highest priority is for the City Council in the city, from what they're looking for from law enforcement. And I'm going to use that for developing the work plan for next year as well as a couple of items, a couple other items that I'm working on with Todd so. Anything else, any other questions for me at all this evening? Councilman Peterson: To your point of having people call right away, with the predominance now of cell phones, if I'm in Chanhassen and I dial 411, do you have any idea where that goes or is the service different? I assume it's not. Councilman Lundquist: You mean 9117 Councilman Peterson: 911. Sgt. Jim Olson: 911. It depends actually, some of the cell phones will go to the proper dispatching facility and some will not. They'll ask you when you call in where you're at and they'll route it to the proper place. Cell phones have been wonderful with that. Councilman Peterson: Oh I imagine, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay, very good. And I guess just to follow-up on National Night Out. We talked a little bit about it at our last council meeting but the overall there were a number, and I think Councilman Ayotte also attended a couple of the neighborhood. Councilman Ayotte: Yeah but I was upstaged by one of the posse's horses. I was very upset... Sgt. Jim Olson: I'm sorry sir, I did not see you out. I apologize. Mayor Furlong: So there was good participation from the sheriffs department as well as our fire department and it was good to see. There was a lot of concern about public safety issues. I didn't hear any real complaints about the way those issues are being handled, which is also a positive to hear so that tells us that we're doing our job right so thank you for your efforts there. Sgt. Jim Olson: Thank you. I just also to mirror what you said earlier Mayor Furlong and Councilman Lundquist, you have a wonderful fire department here in the city of Chanhassen and the more I work with them the more impressed I am. You should be very proud and the citizens are very lucky to have the fire department they have so. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Sgt. Jim Olson: Thank you. Have a nice evening. 7 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2003 CONSIDER APPROVAL OF BUDGET FOR FORMER LIBRARY SPACE AND AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION. Public Present: Name Address Dale W. Geving Jean Mancini Bobbie Headla Tom Faust Glenn Gauger Matt Masica 7602 Huron Avenue 820 Santa Vera Drive 6870 Minnewashta Parkway 541 Mission Hills Drive 300 First Avenue No., Minneapolis 300 First Avenue No., Minneapolis Todd Hoffman: Mayor Furlong, members of the City Council. The construction of the new library has provided an opportunity for the City of Chanhassen at City Hall. The space located just behind that wall, the old library is now available for future or additional meeting space within the city. Meeting space for the seniors, for the community at large, for the council and other community groups which you need. The Recreation Center has provided some relief but there's still additional room needs in the city. To that end on June 23rd the City Council approved a contract with KKE Architects Inc in the amount of $10,300 to perform basic design and construction services for remodeling that former library space. We've had a kick-off meeting held on July 1st with Matt Masica, who's here this evening, Glenn Gauger is also here this evening. Those gentlemen representing KKE Architects. Steve Terrell was present at that meeting, Justin Miller and myself. And then meeting minutes are attached for your review. Following up on that meeting we held a series of schematic design review meetings with a variety of stakeholders representing the City, the Senior Commission, the administration, community development, inspections, MIS, all in an effort to gain a full understanding of what needs and services would be serviced in that area. Based on that information KKE prepared the attached submittal for the City Council consideration, and I'll go into my recommendation after we have both Glenn and Matt from KKE go ahead and go through their presentation. I also know there's members of the Senior Commission here this evening as well if they want to participate in the conversation. So with that Glenn. Glenn Gauger: Mayor Furlong, council members. Appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight. I've got the easy job of being able to introduce the guys that actually do the work. I'm in charge of KKE's government sector work. We have a studio that's just focused on government sector work and with me is Matt Masica. Matt is a graduate architect and the person that's been doing the work that you're going to see just very shortly. But again appreciate the opportunity. It's always a pleasure and with that I'll turn it over to Matt. Matt Masica: Mayor Furlong and council members and city staff and Chanhassen residents. As Mr. Hoffman had introduced, we've had a couple of meetings over the past couple months with community residents, city staff and concerned members about what to do with the space adjacent to us right now, the existing library space and what we're here to present tonight is our schematic design package for the new space. The basic plan of the new space is composed of about 5 separate elements. One being a multi-use which is primarily to be used for the purpose of expanding on the current senior center space, which is outlined in red there. So that basically shows the size of the existing senior center space with a multi-use purpose that would be able to house both senior events as well as other community meetings and things of that nature. The third item is the center item. The conference room in the center would be designed primarily for City Council Meeting - August 25, 2003 pre-council work shops and sessions, and would include a new four table, projection screen, a marker board, visual displays. I think the submittal goes over what exactly is entailed there. A fourth component, component of the proposal is to expand your existing tech room to give them some much needed space and some additional ventilation there as well. And then the fifth and final element of the plan is to kind of seam up some circulation with the new corridor which would adjoin all the spaces and allow for serving from the existing kitchen into the multi-use room. Also to the cabinetry would be located in the conference room for meals and so forth. As well as a little cueing space both to get...conference room. Eventually a display area for people to display their projects and things of that nature. And basically how the space, how we envision the space to work is to using the existing vestibule has a sort of...at this point right here that will direct the public...council chambers and beyond and also to direct the seniors along this corridor which would have a visual connection to these interior ways of entering into the new multi-use room. And I guess I have just kind of run through the plan as it were, or how it stands now. And then the other item that I'd like to go over tonight is we have spoken to a couple contractors that have submitted a preliminary estimate of what this current plan would come in at if we were to do that now. The basic proposal is broken down into three separate packages. One, general construction. Two, mechanical, electrical and plumbing. Three, finishes and then there is also a different submittal for furniture and for architect fees. Total project cost estimate would be of $210,000. And again split into one package that would be $67,000 for general construction. One that would be $29,000 approximately for package number two, the mechanical, electrical and plumbing. And the third package, the finish package coming in at $60,000 approximately. At the end of the estimate that we submitted we did include a couple different suggestions or alternatives to kind of tweak that budget or to massage that, how the council sees fit. How the city sees fit and the other submittal that we attached to the package is also the furniture opinion of probable cost. We went through what we saw as a typical use of these spaces and kind of selected furniture based on what we thought that what was needed for those areas at this time. And I guess I'm willing to take any questions or comments for the proposal. Mayor Furlong: Questions. Councilman Peterson: A couple of technical questions. Give me a sense of what the size of the multi-purpose room is. Is it 40 by 30 or about. Matt Masica: I believe that the multi-purpose room would be approximately, should be approximately 2000 square feet. In total size so. I'm not quite sure what the exact dimensions would be of the room, but it should double the existing senior center space. And actually it would add some more to that because you wouldn't have the stairs and the electrical room and the mechanical room in that area so. Councilman Peterson: Is the hallway going to be what, 5 feet wide? The new one. Matt Masica: Yeah. 5 feet across. And there is a bump out in that area. Councilman Peterson: So that does really give a lot of seating area, or seating for at least a few people in that kind of ante area, the angled area there you have. Matt Masica: Yeah. Yeah I think in previous meetings it was expressed, there was a desire both for the multi-use room and the conference room to have a cueing space for people to kind of sit and wait and if they were using the conference room and they would kind of sit there and wait for their turn. City Council Meeting - August 25, 2003 Councilman Peterson: I agree. In the conference room itself, is the projection screen going to be off to the left? And if so, is there a reason why it wouldn't be in the front of the room? Matt Masica: In our last meeting at the city here, I think between Todd Gerhardt, Todd Hoffman and Kate Aanenson and myself, we discussed the layout of this room to a fairly large extent and it was generally agreed that a side location for the visual display boards would be preferable if we were to go with an option that would have a U shaped seating here, as well as a presentation podium and seating there, so it would be accessible to both sides if you were presenting or waiting to present and also if you were at the conference room table. Councilman Peterson: Okay. I don't know if I follow the logic in it but I understand what you're saying. In the documentation there's a general contractor allowance, and I know there were some discussion I think in our previous meeting whether or not we were going to have that in there or not. Is that? Todd Gerhardt: I'm sorry, what was that? Councilman Peterson: The general contractor fee. Todd Gerhardt: It's in there. If you look under. Councilman Peterson: I know that was my question. Is that, we talked about whether or not Todd was going to act as a general and then we wanted to have both options or was that not the case? Todd Gerhardt: I thought the direction at our last meeting was that you were to include a quote for the general contractor. Councilman Peterson: That was my question. Is that an either or? We still have that ability to. Todd Gerhardt: You still have that ability. Councilman Peterson: That's it. Councilman Ayotte: Okay, first off life's not fair so if we don't understand the question or you can't get to an answer to the question that's fine. As I read through the material, the conference room's intended to support work sessions for council and the like, right? Matt Masica: Correct. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. And where we meet now would be used for what? In our work sessions. Todd Gerhardt: How big is it? Councilman Ayotte: No. Whoever can answer it. What would be the space that we use now be used for if we now use this conference room for work sessions and the like? Todd Gerhardt: It will get used by staff. Pre-construction meetings, staff meetings during the day. Evening meetings. You could have weight watchers, senior programs. We have 10 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2003 informational meetings with recreational type activities for umpires for softball leagues, softball league meetings, neighborhood community meetings. Councilman Ayotte: We just got a library with a lot of activity, with conference rooms and the like there, and I'm seeing this space. What's the cost, just rough what a magnitude cost for the conference room? About 25 percent? Matt Masica: Approximately 25 percent. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Now I can see the purpose of the multi-use room to expand the services of the existing senior center. The tech room, when you were talking towards that. The tech room, we have a problem now. A lot of heat gain, that sort of problem. The 67K that's called out for the HVAC, is that intended to deal with servicing the tech room and what other parts? Matt Masica: From my understanding it would include both the tech room and general relaying out the defusers. Areas that we would basically touch the ceiling. Councilman Ayotte: So we keep the same physical plan. Would we have any separate HVAC included to deal with the problem we had in the tech room? Matt Masica: At this point I think we have anticipated not having to add an additional cooling units. They would just be re-structuring or re-routing. Todd Gerhardt: The current tech room does not have a defuser in there, so what would be a part of this is adding a defuser in the existing tech room, and the expanded area. Councilman Ayotte: Okay. I'll save my comments. Councilman Lundquist: Matt you said that you had a couple of preliminary budgetary things from contractors. Is that what you used to put these estimates in your memorandum together or were those in addition to these? Matt Masica: No, those were all used. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And that was an average of those or they were close enough or you took the high number? Low number? Matt Masica: Well actually we had, we spoke to two contractors. We had one submittal so. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Thank you. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, I just had one comment. The conference room layout, council knows this, just for the public's benefit that when we do hold our work sessions it's very difficult based on joint meetings we might have with Senior Commission, Planning Commission, we get pretty crowded in there. There's no definition of who's who in there. This room would help layout who's in charge. Who the City Council is. Who the staff members are in making presentations and requests of the council, and I think the blue room does an excellent job in that. It keeps us organized and keeps you on a better time schedule also. I1 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Question on the kitchenette area within the multi-purpose room. If that was not included, again a question in terms of budget standpoints, what portion of the total budget did that involve or if we eliminated that, or did not go forward with it at this time, what would be the cost savings? Matt Masica: I think my understanding of the question is that you're pointing out kind of Option number 4 in a sense which was examine the option of scaling back the case work and appliances in the multi-use room currently estimated at approximately $6,000 combined. If you were to eliminate all the case work, I guess what I was still counting in there was the sink and a small based cabinet. Just providing more flexibility and wiring it just in case in the future you decided to add a refrigerator or stove in that area. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so that would still involve the plumbing and all the service there, just not building it up? Matt Masica: Yep. Mayor Furlong: Okay. If we didn't even run the service, what would that, what sort of savings do you think we'd have there? Glenn Gauger: The fact that you've...I'm sure would compete. Mayor Furlong: One of the comments you made, unless I misheard you and that's possible, is that one of the advantages of the corridors providing access from the facilities all across that section of City Hall. And we have down in the existing senior center there is a kitchenette area there right now. Pretty well used I know but, so I guess the question is, is that sufficient for us and if so, do we need two? So your recommendation on your letter was to maintain it. To keep the kitchenette area. Matt Masica: Yeah, I would probably recommend that just to provide flexibility to the space. It seemed like from the groups that we met with, that I think in the beginning process actually there was more of a consensus to both have a sink in the conference room and in the multi-use room, and so I guess this is scaling it back once. But the general consensus in the last meeting was that it would provide much more flexibility for that multi-use room to be used as a, and I believe the heart of the issue was to have the option of both to be used simultaneously, yet for different functions. For instance in the existing senior center you might have one group of I don't know what but someone having a catered meal in there, and then in the multi-use room you could potentially have another different group having a meal in there as well. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any additional questions at this time? Councilman Ayotte: Have you looked at the noise abatement? The multi-purpose room across from the council chambers suggest to me possible noise abatement issues. Did you address that? Glenn Gauger: You have the buffer of the corridor and then the wall constructed between the multi-purpose room and the corridor. Councilman Ayotte: Do you think that'd work? Do you have any idea how rowdy our seniors are? Mayor Furlong: Where's my mallet? Any other questions at this time? Okay. Thank you. 12 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2003 Glenn Gauger: If I may. Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Glenn Gauger: Just so everybody kind of understands the process. There's schematic design which this represents here...to develop the details further...such as whether the other case work that you're talking about or not...so some of that can still occur in the next phase of development. And then in the final phase is the construction documents where you actually record everything for the purpose of getting bids so there's still an opportunity to meet some of these refinements that you might be suggesting. It's just the first phase. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. As Mr. Hoffman mentioned, members of the senior commission are here. Mr. Geving or others, would either of you like to comment? I know this was discussed at your last commission meeting and if you'd like to give us some input at this time. Date Geving: Yes we have a representative, Tom Faust who represents the senior commission. Mayor Furlong: Thank you, good evening. Tom Faust: Good evening. My name is Tom Faust. I live at 541 Mission Hills Drive and I'm a member of the Senior Commission. The first thing I would say is I respectfully recommend to the council that you do not approve of either the budget or the utilization of that space that we've been talking about. The reason I state that is because we have been left totally out of the loop. I have heard ali kinds of discussion here that we have been involved in meetings and we have not. We've had no input into this room, which is now called a multi-purpose room. It was originally told to us that this would be a senior center. It is now called things other than that. It's very disappointing to be left out of the loop seeing that we represent the seniors in this community, and here's a room that was supposedly designed for the seniors. For the senior use. Yet we have had no input in terms of any part of it. Space, equipment, anything. So we've very disappointed about that. If you go back a long ways we were told a long time ago that this room was going to be a senior center. We would like to see it called a senior center, if that's what it is. I have heard a lot of waffling since then. Different names. Different functions. I think seniors deserve a room of their own other than what we presently have, which is obviously too cramped. Too small for many of the things that go on there. My wife just played cards there last week. You could hardly breathe in there. So it's very important to us that we have some input into this whole process, which we haven't had up til not. I did meet with Mr. Hoffman a week or two ago because we had raised some issues about it. We got a call to meet with him and another member and I did go into the room and we were presented with the plans that had already been drawn up. I suggested to him that we should have been involved before that process got this far. He said we could get involved tonight. I don't think this is the proper place but this is what we've been relegated to. So again I would request that no approval be made until we've had an opportunity to meet as we've been told we've been meeting, and we haven't. We've had no formal input. And have our input, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions at this time or response Mr. Hoffman. Todd Hoffman: Certainly. Mayor, and members of the City Council. Let's first back up the council's hiring of KKE. So the City Council approved the contract with KKE. I was assigned to go ahead and initiate this process. We did that out with a kick-off meeting to start the engagement between KKE and the city staff and those that would be involved in that process. 13 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2003 Those meeting minutes are here. The people present at listed. And that includes myself, Justin Miller, Steve Terrell, Glenn Gauger and Matt Masica. Following that we said this space is going to be utilized by a variety of people, not just the seniors but the community as well so we need all input from all those different groups and we assigned a meeting to include 3 half hour sessions or half hour to 45 sessions, with 2 or 3 people representing senior commission. Albin Olson was, contacted Kara Wickenhauser who's the senior coordinator. She suggested I call Albin Olson and have Albin present representing the senior commission at that work session or schematic design meeting. Al was present during that process and that was our second series of meetings that were conducted to generate the design or the schematic for the City Council. So he was present there. Then we also had a meeting with Mr. Faust and Ms. Mancini. Jean Mancini who is present this evening. The 3 of us met in the senior, in the space, in the library space, the block between the senior, existing senior space and the old library space. Then I was present at their commission meeting August 15th at which time I was present to answer questions that the commission and at that meeting, at least it was my understanding that they approved of the concept. In fact that was the discussion at the meeting. The only thing they would like to include was a dishwasher in the appliance area of the multi-purpose room so that's the involvement that has been to date with the commission, and again we're at a schematic design phase. Proposed design phase and that was represented throughout those meetings to the individual members of the commission representing the commission, and then the commission as a whole, when I met with them on the 15th of this past month as well. So I'm somewhat surprised by Mr. Faust's representation quite truthfully. Mayor Furlong: Are there any other comments or questions at this time? Sure, Councilman Ayotte. Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, first off, I hope I don't upset anyone. I just don't like the feel of it. I feel it's disjointed. I have a concern about whether it's a senior center activity, the multi-use room, or otherwise, I don't feel comfortable with it. I don't like the idea of a room, the one displayed in green across from the council chambers. I feel somewhat, maybe it's because I was raised by priests but guilty about a conference room for the council when we have an existing, to me suitable arrangement upstairs. I feel it's somewhat of a duplication. I feel a little uncomfortable about the term multi-use room, in deference to both Todd's comments and your comments sir because we have multi-use rooms in the library now. So for those reasons I just don't feel comfortable with the project. My sense was that we were going to expand the senior activity and I think we can possibly do that by re-looking the conference room area, in my view. And I would like to, I'm comfortable about the ingress/egress based on the type of traffic flow we're going to get in here. ! mean the traffic flow we have now every once in a while when something's going on in the outside, we have a problem. I see a replication of that problem with this layout. So I don't feel comfortable with it. Maybe it's because as a Councilmember I wasn't clear enough my last time around. Todd, did the due diligence trying to do the right thing. Hearing what the council said. But at this point this councilman feels good about the tech room part of it, because that is an issue. But I don't feel comfortable, and I would have said this before your comments. Despite that point, you know I don't like the layout at this point. I'm concerned about the traffic flow. I'm concerned about the duplication of the conference room activity and I'm concerned about the possibility of noise abatement and I don't understand the HVAC well enough. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments. Council members. Councilman Lundquist: I agree with some of the things that Councilman Ayotte was concerned with. Primarily regarding the layout. It seems odd to me to have the conference room in the 14 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2003 middle of the two big rooms, especially in light of if the multi-use room is primarily designated as part of the senior center or not, it appears that that's probably where it would be getting most of it's use. It probably makes sense to have those closer together. I do believe that we could use for our work sessions a larger space, given some of the things that have come up and the way we cram people in there. Not so much just to have even a who's who. I mean it doesn't bother me that council members are scattered around with citizens and staff members and everything else in there. The fact is that it's just too small. You can't get more than about 8 people in there comfortably so it just seems like for certain issues we should probably have a bigger space. Now that being said, is there room at the library? Probably. And then the other thing that still does concern me is, as we just had some preliminary discussions tonight around the budget, it's a big number and wondering if it wouldn't be wiser to wait a couple of weeks until we get our hands a little more around next year's budget concerns and some of the implications we talked about this evening at the work session, until we see how this thing ranks in the priority list of how much we want to do and it doesn't seem to me that waiting a couple of weeks or even a month is going to damage the ability to get it done in the end, if that's what we choose. Mayor Furlong: Okay thank you. Any other comments? Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: Three different people, three different perspectives. It's kind of like building a house. Each room, I'll kind of go through my perspective on the multi-purpose, multi- use room. I'm not adverse to having it where it is. Part of the discussion of locating it there was, was parking. So you have access, quicker, easier access to parking for the seniors knowing that that room was going to be kind of overflow room for the senior center, and that was always my expectation is that when you had larger events happening, that wouldn't fit in the senior center fully dedication, it would move into the multi-use room, and that was kind of the scenario there. The conference room, I do think that, whether you call it a council room or not I think is not my point. But there are public meetings, whether they're Planning Commission or otherwise, sub- meetings and whether it's work sessions for the council that, in particular it's already been noted that we don't have a lot of space for the people that are already there. But the worrisome thing for me is that, I've got a lot of public that says that I don't want to come to the work sessions because I stand out because I'm sitting in the midst of everything and I don't want to be in the midst of everything. And to have this conference room allow some seating in the back where people can kind of move in and move out when they want to, I think is a tremendous benefit to an open public process. So I think it's a different perspective I think we should also consider. And I will leave the tech room up to my fellow Councilman Ayotte to discern whether we need that, but if you ask me do I like the layout? It's a rectangular spot. There's only so much you can do with it so is it a spectacular design? You know the architect didn't have much to work with. They had a rectangle. And I think that they've done a good job of trying to present where we're at. So I'm comfortable with the design and with the layout and for the use. At the end of the day I'm comfortable with it. Where the money comes from, you know I think it's a different story. I think we need to do it. When is a question. And with what payments are a question. And one other thing we can possibly talk about is taking out of the historic preservation fund. Is that another option? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. Councilman Peterson: Instead of start using general operating funds, take a surplus out of there. So then it's not a blip anywhere then. Another option. Councilman Ayotte: May I ask another question? 15 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2003 Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Councilman Ayotte: Has there been consideration made to offsetting some of the problems we had that Craig's brought up? I'm not comfortable with the conference room, plain and simple. I'd like to make the senior center whole, and I don't like that in the middle, so the layout bugs me. But have we looked at re-working any part of the balance of City Hall to meet some needs that we see we have? Todd Gerhardt: We have adequate space upstairs. I have a lot of reservations in moving any of our services to lower level. I believe we lose a lot of communication inbetween the different departments if we do that. Right now I believe we have adequate space upstairs for our needs. To reference your comment in looking at this as one large open area. You've got to remember there's, Matt could you highlight the gray area behind the little kitchenette. That's the opening. No, over. The kitchenette and the multi-purpose use room. Mayor Furlong: The common wall between the conference room and multi-purpose? Todd Gerhardt: This area here is the opening to what was the magazine room into the library. This is a bearing wall here. So to try to open all this up would be very difficult. This is the original City Hall when it was built. So this is all bearing wall here. Cut this open to allow access into this, so this smaller opening here to try to make this one big room would be really difficult. These are the bathrooms in the senior center right now. And you've got corridors and...and the kitchenette sits here so plumbing does not allow for this to be one big area. So it just made a lot of sense to break this into one room, and then this into a room and use the corridor as your spine to access each of these areas. Councilman Ayotte: I just, in my view, given the money we're throwing towards this, it seems to me we could, even though with the constraint of a load bearing wall, I've got to believe there's a better way of addressing ingress and egress and layout. There's also. Todd Gerhardt: The other advantage to this is that the Chandolier's could use this room as the card club is in here and really not disrupt the two activities going on. Councilman Ayotte: I understand. Councilman Peterson: I think to your point Bob, it's not just a council chamber, a pre-council chamber. Councilman Ayotte: I know. Councilman Peterson: Other comment that I forgot to make was, you know I think that all good intentions, we didn't accomplish what we set out to be, to get good senior commission feedback so I think in the ensuing days or weeks, let's accomplish that. I'd like to hear what they don't like about this. Not tonight, but 5 of our 7 seemingly don't like this for some reason so I think it'd be interesting to know that. Mayor Furlong: And with smart council members it's hard to have anything unique when you speak last but my comments, I can't not say anything. My comments echo I think you know we're presented with an opportunity of the library, not only the opportunity of the new library but the opportunity of the old library space and to try to accomplish the most we can with it. My comments will mirror Councilman Peterson's with regard to the conference room. To the extent 16 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2003 that it's a multi-purpose room as well, while it may be a conference room, I think our council work sessions could stand more public visitors attending, plain and simple. That's been something that I've noticed since I first came as a visitor and since I've been on the council, and I've heard from more than one person, quite a few in fact that it's just not as comfortable to come there. We have people that come to our council meetings all the time, but not to our work sessions, and that's as much of this process as our council meetings so to have a place that functionally is more conducive to the public attendance and comments and input into the process I think is something that we should do and to the extent we have an opportunity, I think that makes sense. Especially if it can be used for other purposes as well, not just a couple nights a month which I know from demand and comments that that is the case. I also, we had at our work session this evening we discussed starting to look at the budget for next year and the funding of that and how we're going to pay for our, the needs of the city. And there are some big dollar amounts moving around so I'm a little hesitant tonight to approve the dollars. At the same time I can't say that we expect to leave...for a period of time. Question is when and what budget period or how it's going to be funded, I think that's a question I agree Councilman Lundquist that we'll know more in a few weeks, or maybe a month or two. In the meantime I think that gives the opportunity, there's a sense here that some of the members of the senior commission were not involved as they had wanted to be or liked to be, and that gives us some time to do that. We may see something similar. We may see something different from that but I think we need to make sure that that process has an opportunity as well, so I'm not necessarily opposed to this. We need to be wise about how we spend the taxpayers money when we spend it and I think we've got some good functions here but I think what we need to do is take some time, not only in terms of the funding issue, but also in terms of what we've heard tonight here. So those would be my comments. So with that. Councilman Peterson: They were good comments. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Thank you. Is there additional comments or discussions from what we've heard this evening? Councilman Lundquist: We don't have to take any action on this since it's new business or we do? Todd Gerhardt: No, we'll bring this item back once we get some answers to your questions and concerns. We spend adequate time with the seniors until they feel comfortable with the plan that works for them, and would expect to bring something back, hopefully towards the end of September, early October. Mayor Furlong: Very good, unless there's any objection to that we'll proceed in that regard. Very good, thank you. And thank you. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Todd Gerhardt: The only item I have is that I will be on vacation the rest of this week. Councilman Ayotte: Where you going? Where you going? We're on TV, where you going? Todd Gerhardt: Going fishing. 17 City Council Meeting - August 25, 2003 Councilman Peterson: What are you Joe Pesci? Where you going? Where you going? Where you going? Todd Gerhardt: So Justin will be taking any emergency calls or any calls that need addressing between now and the end of the week and we'll be back Tuesday. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Councilman Peterson: Bob didn't get his answer so why even ask another question. Todd Gerhardt: He just wants to know where my secret fishing spot is and I'm not telling him. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilman Lundquist moved, Mayor Furlong seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 18 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AUGUST 25, 2003 Mayor Furlong called the work session meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Ayotte, Councilman Peterson, Councilman Labatt and Councilman Lundquist STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Bruce DeJong, Teresa Burgess, Matt Saam, and Kelley Janes UPDATE ON CHASKA AMBULANCE SERVICE'S APPLICATION FOR AN ADVANCED AMBULANCE LICENSE. Todd Gerhardt introduced Matt Podhradsky from the City of Chaska and John Wolff, Chanhassen Fire Chief. Matt Podhradsky gave an overview of the process Chaska is currently undertaking to obtain an ALS (Advanced Life Support) license for the City of Chaska. He provided statistics on medical calls over the last year, and stated they needed to upgrade from BLS (Basic Life Support) to ALS to better serve their residents and would appreciate Chanhassen's support when they go before the Judge. Chief John Wolff provided reasons why this license for Chaska would be good for Chanhassen residents as well, increasing response time in southern Chanhassen and allowing for the possibility of generating revenue. Councilman Labatt asked how boundaries are set by the ambulance providers and who staff's the ambulance, i.e. EMT, Paramedics. Councilman Ayotte stated if this was important for Chanhassen residents, what else could the City Council do to help Chaska. Matt Podhradsky stated he may ask individuals from the city to speak on Chaska's behalf at the hearing before the judge. Mayor Furlong asked what licenses the City of Chanhassen currently has. Chief Wolff stated the city does not currently have an ALS license, but more and more cities are looking at ambulance service as a way of generating revenue. Councilman Labatt asked what the cost impact is to residents. Mayor Furlong stated it made sense to continue to support Chaska's efforts. Matt Podhradsky stated he would inform staff of the hearing date which will probably be sometime in October. 2004 PRELIMINARY LEVY. Todd Gerhardt informed the City Council that at their September 8th council meeting the City Council will be asked to establish the 2004 levy limit. He stated this item was before them tonight to make sure the council was comfortable with the levy amount prior to that meeting. Bruce DeJong explained financing options, revenues from the previous year and how the levy limit was established. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification on the levy limit for 2003 and expected Estimated Market Value vs. tax capacity. Councilman Peterson asked if there was a surplus to carry forward from 2003 because of street maintenance projects that were not done. Mayor Furlong asked staff to talk about the debt side of the equation and asked that Mark Ruff from Ehlers and Associates prepare a schedule outlining refinancing options. Councilman Lundquist and Councilman Peterson both agreed that they wanted to send a signal to the citizens of no levy increase and whatever staff can do to send that message. The work session was recessed at 7:05 p.m. for the regular City Council meeting. It was reconvened at 8:30 p.m. City Council Work Session - August 25, 2003 REVIEW OF MASTER WATER STUDY OPINION. Teresa Burgess introduced Steve Nelson and Mike Ketch from SEH (Short Elliot Hendrickson) to discuss their review of the study regarding water treatment for the City of Chanhassen. She showed water samples taken from different locations in the city. Todd Gerhardt asked SEH to summarize their results after reviewing the study prepared by Black and Veatch. Councilman Ayotte stated SEH's findings seemed to parallel those of Black and Veatch. Steve Nelson stated he would not recommend a centralized system, but would go with two sites. He then discussed the objectives laid out in Tables 1 and 2 and recommendations. There was discussion around the Jordan and Fig aquifers and glacial drift. Teresa Burgess stated that drilling in the glacial drift would be the cheapest and quickest solution to the city's water problem. She passed out a map showing where complaints have been tracked in the city over the past year. Councilman Peterson stated that the City Council will need to make a political decision. SEH has provided technical information but will the citizens of Chanhassen support spending money for water treatment. Technology is changing rapidly and maybe the city should wait 5-10 years. Steve Nelson stated that the city's current system is not really meeting standards and the city has to do something to take the next step to address potential problems. Kelley Janes asked Steve Nelson to clarify the issues related with the Homeland Defense issue. Councilman Lundquist stated the council gets a different answer every time someone looks at the issue, and maybe a solution hasn't been found yet. Councilman Ayotte stated he liked the hybrid approach and the council needs to give direction to staff regarding capacity and areas to be treated. Councilman Lundquist stated the funding issue hasn't been addressed yet and the first thing to do is look at the rate schedule to anticipate treatment in the future. Steve Nelson stated they've looked at the distribution system, chemical, physical and biological issues, and now is the time to get an overall strategy regarding financing. Mayor Furlong asked staff to provide information regarding the financial impacts of moving forward with a phased approached, and which standards the city is currently meeting and which ones it's not. Teresa Burgess stated staff needs more concrete direction to provide a financial model. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification on the primary and secondary standards that need to be met. Councilman Ayotte stated he sees water treatment as more of an investment and that progress is being made slowly, but the need to figure out risk factors. Councilman Peterson stated he needed more time to digest the information provided before giving any concrete direction. Mayor Furlong recapped what's in progress, discovering what's wrong with Well #4, starting work on Well g~) and construction on the Minnewashta loop. Mayor Furlong adjourned the work session at 10:00 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2003 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Lillehaug, Bruce Feik, Kurt Papke, Uli Sacchet, Bethany Tjornhom, and Rich Slagle MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Claybaugh STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer; and Mak Sweidan, Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN HAS AUTHORIZED THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW DOCUMENTS (AUAR) FOR THE 2005 METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA) LOCATED SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD, WEST OF FUTURE HIGHWAY 212, AND NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL IN THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MN. THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 650 ACRES OF LAND INCLUDING PARKS AND OPEN SPACE, RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY, RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY, OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL, AND OFFICE USES. Public Present: Name Address Chuck Wagner 9401 William Ahem 1191 Tim Boyce 8941 Loren Gordon (HKG) 6351 Jon Horn (KHA) 2550 Rick Dorsey 1551 George Dorsey 1551 Jeff & Susan Lundgren 2855 Brent Miller 1200 Kathleen Theship-Rosales 9201 Cher Atkinson 2646 Mitch & Jill Anderson 2853 Gayle Wenzlaff Richard Palmiter Keith Wyman Tallis Blake Rosemary Biersdorf Audubon Road Homestead Lane Audubon Road Near Mountain Boulevard University Avenue Lyman Boulevard Lyman Boulevard Timberview Trail Lyman Boulevard Audubon Road Shadow Lane Timberview Trail 1181 Homestead Lane Town & Country Homes 2674 Shadow Wood Court 2907 Butternut Drive 2907 Butternut Drive Planning Commission Summary- August 19, 2003 Mike Timm Bart Blinstrup Bryan & Claire Saathoff Kara Strazzanti Stacy & Jeff Kerfeld Jeffrey Ackerson Arild Rossavik Jeff Harr 1101 Lyman Court 18736 The Pines, Eden Prairie 2910 Butternut Drive, Chaska 2901 Forest Ridge, Chaska 2702 Shadow Wood Court, Chaska 2746 Simons Drive, Chaska 8800 Powers Boulevard 2852 Timberview Drive Kate Aanenson introduced Mark Koegler from Hoisington Koegler, the lead consultant on this project. He introduced the members of his team from various companies providing information regarding utilities, traffic, wetland delineation, etc. He and Jim Renshaw of Kimley Horn provided a power point presentation on the AUAR process, outlining what the AUAR process is, a schedule that will be followed for public and agency comments. Chairman Sacchet asked for commissioner questions prior to the public hearing. Commissioner Slagle asked for clarification on the relationship between Hoisington Koegler Group and the Town and Country development as it relates to information in the AUAR. He also asked for clarification on the process that goes into the traffic analysis and recommendations for turn lanes and signalization. Commissioner Papke asked the consultant to clarify what they mean by the phrase "worst case scenario" in terms of environmental and financial impacts to the City. He also asked for clarification regarding the change with elimination of the Highway 41 river crossing intersection with 212. Commissioner Feik asked for clarification on Town and Country's share in the payment for the AUAR and if that share is based on acreage. Commissioner Slagle commented that the intersection of Lyman and Audubon is already a problem and should be looked at fixing prior to further development occurring. Commissioner Feik asked if the land uses within the AUAR were transferable. Commissioner Lillehaug asked for clarification regarding infrastructure improvements and the cost to the city and how do you incorporate the fiscal tax study as part of this, the time period between when traffic signals are warranted and installed. Chairman Sacchet asked about the land uses proposed in this area, wetland delineation, and traffic projections. He then opened up the public hearing. Mitch Anderson, 2853 Timberview Trail in Chaska spoke on behalf of the residents of Autumn Woods, who had gotten together the evening before to discuss the draft AUAR. Their biggest concern was with traffic on Audubon, and in particular the intersection of Audubon and Butternut. Also there's two stop lights already on Audubon, and as traffic backs up from Pioneer Trail they get a fair amount of cut through traffic that goes through Autumn Woods trying to cut through that light and the light at Acorn, heading down Pioneer towards Rainbow and Super Target. Jeff Ackerson, 2746 Simons Drive, Chaska had concern with the global impact of trying to get in and out of Chaska. Cities and counties tend to always push development before infrastructure and his concern is let's look at infrastructure before or in alignment with development. Char Jeurissen, 9715 Audubon Road had a question about the extension of Powers Boulevard to Pioneer Trail. Jeff Lundgren, 2855 Timberview Trail, Chaska had concerns with traffic cutting through their neighborhood after Highway 212 is built. Jeff Hart, 2852 Timberview Trail in Chaska, Autumn Woods development asked for clarification on the number of acres under consideration. Chairman Sacchet explained about the 2005 MUSA study area, and incorporating the Town and Country development into the entire area and traffic concerns. Sharon Gatto, 9631 Foxford Road asked if the City has the authority to say no more townhomes such as is being proposed by Town and Country. Rick Dorsey spoke on behalf of himself and his father regarding the land they own at 1551 Lyman Boulevard. He suggested the city look at building vertical developments to preserve more green space. There are three major interchanges in about a mile and a half or 2 mile area and perhaps the city could look at eliminating one of Planning Commission Summary- August 19, 2003 those intersections to allow for more development, to assist in the tax base. One of his major concerns is the fact that there's been so many comments from Chaska residents that further reinforces his concern that one of the major issues here is moving a lot of people from Chaska through county roads and a number of the intersections involved aren't part of this AUAR George Dorsey, 1551 Lyman Boulevard stated he was amused by the fact that he could drive from Edina to Brownsville, Texas, 1,800 miles without one stop light and between Chanhassen and Edina there's 8 or 9, and talk of adding more. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive had concerns about notification of residents in this area. Jeff Kerfeld, 2702 Shadow Wood Court, Chaska stated he lives adjacent to proposed medium density area, he has asked to be put on the mailing list and he did not receive notice of this public hearing. He expressed concern about the look and feel of the medium density being proposed adjacent to his property. Chairman Sacchet continued the public hearing until the September 2, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR WALL SIGNAGE LOCATED AT 590 WEST 79TM STREET. Public Present: Name Address Mike Morris Shawn Griffin, Griffin Sign & Awning 590 West 79th Street 21513 51st Avenue N.W., Cambridge Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Lillehaug asked about the directional signs that are currently there. Commissioner Papke asked about the request for a neon sign and restrictions related to the hours it could be lit. Commissioner Tjornhom asked if this request was for this specific sign or if could it be changed in the future. Mike Morris, the General Manager for the Chanhassen Applebee's outlined their request. Shawn Griffin with Griffin Sign stated that Applebee's International has 2,000 locations which are incorporating the "car side to go" program with the 3 parking signs, a video camera, a neon sign and an awning so it's a roll out program nationally. Commissioner Slagle suggested Applebee's consider opening up a fourth parking spot. Chairman Sacchet asked for clarification on the set-up in the restaurant to handle the food pick-up and then opened the public hearing. There was no one wishing to speak at the public hearing and the public hearing was closed. After commission comments the following motion was made. Feik moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Variance g2003-11 to allow a wall sign and a canopy sign to be placed on the north elevation of Applebee's Restaurant with the following conditions: 1. The signs must be constructed and installed per drawings submitted on 7/18/03. 2. A building permit must be obtained before installing the awning on the building. e At least 3 car stalls adjacent to the entryway shall be designated for car side to go parking. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Planning Commission Summary- August 19, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF SMG, INC. REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REQUEST WITH VARIANCES FOR A GOLF COURSE ON PROPERTY ZONED A2 LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF PIONEER TRAIL AND GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD. Public Present: Name Address David Teich Dorothy Hautman Judy & David Walstad Tom J. & Kathleen Gertz Jeffrey Sorum Sharon Gatto Shawn & Nicola Smith John & Anna Mae Makela Kevin Norbdy Ron Saatzer Gaye Guyton Boyd Peterson 1217 S. Monroe, Shakopee 10095 Great Plains Boulevard 10071 Great Plains Boulevard 10001 Great Plains Boulevard 9900 Deerbrook Drive 9631 Foxford Road 725 Halla Nursery Drive 9860 Raspberry Hill Architect 9450 Foxford Road 10083 Great Plains Boulevard 9860 Pioneer Circle Sharmeen A1-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Slagle asked that a condition be added, if it's not already included, that lighting not be allowed. He also expressed concern with traffic at the intersection of 101 and Pioneer Trail. Commissioner Papke asked for clarification on the plans regarding the size of the building, the trail location, the amount of water that will be used by the golf course and it's affects on neighboring properties, fertilizer and pesticide use, and the location of the trail to the bluff line. Commissioner Feik had questions regarding the possibility of balls going out onto the highway from Hole number 8, access to the southerly parcel, the installation of a manufactured building on the site, not allowing lighted signage, the city's regulations concerning fertilizer use, and who should be responsible for cleaning up the dumping that's occurring on the site. Commissioner Lillehaug asked if the city was being specific enough with the required soil testing, that the trash enclosure match the building, and concern that MnDot and the County haven't provided any input on this proposal. Chairman Sacchet asked if golf courses would be subject to watering restrictions, the location of the netting, making the golf course handicap accessible, and the access into the site in relation to Foxford Road and Highway 101. Kevin Nordby, the golf course architect for this project spoke on behalf of the applicant providing background information and answering the concerns of the commissioners. Chairman Sacchet then opened the public hearing. Sharon Gatto, 9631 Foxford Road had concerns regarding the snowmobile trail that's currently existing being affected by this development and the entrance to this development lining up with Foxford Road. Boyd Peterson, 9860 Pioneer Circle, referred to himself as the encyclopedia of this area as he and his relatives have lived there since 1979. He is currently the trail coordinator with the Chanhassen Snowmobile Club and spoke to the snowmobile trail issue. He feels the golf course will solve a lot of problems that have occurred on this property such as the dumping in the gully. He thinks this is a good opportunity for them to create a pond to control the drainage. He would prefer to see trees used as a buffer along his property line rather than a net. Jeff Sorum, 9900 Deerbrook Drive was concerned about change in the terrain, concern with the traffic and the placement of the club house. He was concerned 4 Planning Commission Summary - August 19, 2003 with the golf course's well affecting their water well system and who would be responsible if their well ran dry. Tom Gertz, 10001 Great Plains Boulevard had concerns with the layout of some of the holes near his home and driveway, the road entrance and the possibility of a Satellite being placed in front of his home. Dave Walstad, 10071 Great Plains Boulevard lives just south of this project and has two horses on his property. He didn't see the need for the entrance to be realigned to the extent it was being proposed, the screening provided by trees and shrubs, surface water drainage which might include pesticides, and that the map doesn't show the gravel road running to the ravine. Gaye Guyton, 10083 Great Plains Boulevard had concerns with golf balls hitting cars driving up and down the gravel road, the depth of the golf course well system, and requesting that no trespassing signs be installed to prevent people from wandering onto their properties. Gayle Wenzlaff, 1181 Homestead Lane stated she was in favor of the golf course but had concerns with the depth of the golf course well. Kevin Nordby assured the neighbors that the golf course would not be in the same aquifer as the neighboring properties. Chairman Sacchet closed the public hearing. After discussion by the commissioners, the following motion was made. Slagle moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission table Conditional Use Permit #2003-4 CUP for the construction of a golf course with a club house as shown in plans dated July 18, 2003. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Lillehaug moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission table Site Plan Review #2003-7 SPR for the construction of a club house and maintenance building for a golf course as shown on plans dated July 18, 2003. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Feik noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 15, 2003 as presented. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 11:15 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 19, 2003 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Lillehaug, Bruce Feik, Kurt Papke, Uli Sacchet, Bethany Tjornhom, and Rich Slagle MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Claybaugh STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer; and Mak Sweidan, Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN HAS AUTHORIZED THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW DOCUMENTS (AUAR) FOR THE 2005 METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA) LOCATED SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD, WEST OF FUTURE HIGHWAY 212, AND NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL IN THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MN. THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 650 ACRES OF LAND INCLUDING PARKS AND OPEN SPACE, RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY, RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY, OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL, AND OFFICE USES. Public Present: Name Address Chuck Wagner 9401 William Ahern 1191 Tim Boyce 8941 Loren Gordon (HKG) 6351 Jon Horn (KHA) 2550 Sharon Gatto 9631 Rick Dorsey 1551 George Dorsey 1551 Jeff & Susan Lundgren 2855 Brent Miller 1200 Kathleen Theship-Rosales 9201 Chef Atkinson 2646 Mitch & Jill Anderson 2853 Gayle Wenzlaff Richard Palmiter Keith Wyman Tallis Blake Rosemary Biersdorf Audubon Road Homestead Lane Audubon Road Near Mountain Boulevard University Avenue Foxford Road Lyman Boulevard Lyman Boulevard Timberview Trail Lyman Boulevard Audubon Road Shadow Lane Timberview Trail 1181 Homestead Lane Town & Country Homes 2674 Shadow Wood Court 2907 Butternut Drive 2907 Butternut Drive Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Mike Timm Bart Blinstrup Bryan & Claire Saathoff Kara Strazzanti Stacy & Jeff Kerfeld Jeffrey Ackerson Arild Rossavik Jeff Harr 1101 Lyman Court 18736 The Pines, Eden Prairie 2910 Butternut Drive, Chaska 2901 2702 2746 8800 2852 Forest Ridge, Chaska Shadow Wood Court, Chaska Simons Drive, Chaska Powers Boulevard Timberview Drive Aanenson: Thank you very much Mr. Chair. The purpose of this meeting tonight is to begin the public hearing process before the AUAR is distributed. In just a few moments I'll be turning over this presentation to the consultant, Mark Koegler, principle with Hoisington-Koegler, but I'd first like to kind of frame the discussion that we're having tonight. This project was begun, based on the City's response to an application for rezoning that triggered an environmental assessment document on approximately 80 acres of land. And instead of looking at just this project in a vacuum the City met with the Environmental Quality Board and decided to do an entire 650 acre study, which we felt was more prudent. In doing that we recommended that to the Planning Commission and the City Council and with that we pursued hiring a consultant to do this project. Back in March we had a first meeting with kind of a task force outlining this process and since then we've had two meetings with the consultant and the task force, those being July 30th and August 13th. Again both of those were noticed as public meetings. I just want to remind again what the AUAR will and will not do. It does not rezone property. It does not advance development or provide any extension of utilities. What it does do is establish the framework for development. As you'll see tonight, that's kind of the detail that we're trying to go through tonight. With that, this is a public hearing and we will continue that public hearing in 2 weeks from tonight. With that I'd like to turn it over to Mark Koegler to introduce his team and give his presentation. Mark Koegler: Thank you Kate. Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. I am Mark Koegler with Hoisington Koegler Group. We're the planners and landscape architects serving as the lead consultant on the AUAR. There's actually several firms involved. In addition to our firm, Kimley-Horn is providing expertise on traffic and utility information as a part of the project. The 106 Group is doing background work on historical and archeological components and Peterson Environmental did wetland delineation and other wetland inventories as a part of this process as well. What we'd like to do is take a bit of time and just kind of go through kind of what this is all about. I think this is the first time we've, there's probably been a broader public audience for this. In fairness to those who might be new here this evening or wanted to watch this in the future, to talk a little bit about what this project is and very briefly give you an overview and then certainly respond to questions that you would have as well as those that may come from the audience as well. As a part of tonight's presentation, Jim Renshaw on my right, who's the traffic engineer with Kimley Horn and Loren Gordon and Jon Horn who are behind us, other representatives from both of our firms will all participate to the degree that it's appropriate in discussion, questions at that point in the meeting, but Jim and I would like to go through and maybe summarize some of the salient parts of the whole thing, if I can get the technology to work right. I'll put the slides on, we're off to a good start. I'd like to spend a little bit of time, as I said, giving an overview of what the AUAR is all about. We've had an opportunity to meet on a couple of occasions where the task force has been kind of charged with overseeing this which largely is the Planning Commission, but a chance tonight to kind of talk to the broader audience on what this thing is all about. I'd like to talk a little bit about kind of where we are in the schedule and what could be anticipated and then certainly to answer questions that might arise. Starting with kind of AUAR 101 and being very brief. If you can get past the acronym, this 2 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Alternative Urban Areawide Review, which is a mouthful. It is an assessment of cumulative impact. It's a piece of a rule that the State put into effect in the late 80's for this kind of project, and it's been used fairly widely throughout the metro area. Of those that are larger in land area, this one is 650 acres which certainly is a suitable size that many think happen within a block of that amount of land. What the heart of the AUAR is certainly is an inventory of the environmental and cultural resources within the area, and then kind of looking at assessment of impacts on those resources based on a development scenario, or in some cases more than one development scenario, but what is termed commonly kind of a worst case and it's not a very good acronym necessarily to use, but we'll continue to use that nonetheless. That this worst case scenario really sets a threshold by which development can't go above that without some modification of the AUAR having to take place, or that specific project having to do it's own environmental assessment or EIS work. One of the hearts of this, and what we're coming before you tonight is really kind of building the story of this AUAR so to speak. What has been distributed thus far is not in final form. It certainly isn't what we would call final draft. It's a work in process. The key pieces that are not there at all, and not to say that some of what's there won't be massaged a bit more, really focused more on the air and the noise quality issues associated with that. That will be coming back to you as part of the more complete draft the next time when we meet and discuss this again. But the mitigation measures is a very key aspect of all of this because by the nature of the rules, what you have to look at in terms of the development pattern that may evolve there, and the impacts that occur, it's not simply to ignore those impacts but talk about mitigation measures in which those impacts can be addressed. The most logical example, and I'm sure Jim will talk a bit about this in traffic. Obviously it's easier said than done, as 212 would attest to, but you have the ability to build roads. You have the ability to improve intersections, add turn lanes, those kinds of things. Those kinds of things might be mitigation measures and I'll talk a little bit about more of those in a moment. Why is the AUAR being done? Certainly it relates to the city's comprehensive plan. The city has had a comprehensive plan in place now for some time that identifies the project area as the 2005 MUSA staging area. This is the area that was deemed to be developable if you will in the city of Chanhassen over roughly a 5 year or more time period starting in the year 2005. There are certainly owners, as you have seen, that have expressed interest in developing properties, the most active of which is Town and Country Homes who has a proposal that you've seen portions of. There certainly is other interests that have expressed some thoughts over time of developing that property in a reasonable time frame. At the same time there's kind of a parallel search going on by the school district for a potential school site, of which one of those candidate sites is in this area. There are others that are not within this area, but that has been factored as a part of this and then as the news of just literally the last couple of weeks brought in front of us once again, there has been this little thing called 212 that's been planned there since I think the early 50's, and now it looks like this segment may actually occur, which I think reasonably the inference might be that this area will see more attention, if not more active development as a part of that. Certainly accessibility after 2005 when that is done in 2009 or whatever is going to be greatly enhanced. In terms of the use of an AUAR and what is it's purpose? What does it do? It is a guide that, as I talked about a minute ago, focuses on mitigation measures based on the impacts that are assessed. It is an official environmental review under the Minnesota Rules. As long as projects and the aggregate of those projects and the impacts of those projects come in consistent with this worst case scenario and don't exceed that, the projects won't have to go through any further environmental review. There's a couple of things that I would footnote attach to that. The AUAR doesn't have an unlimited shelf life. It does need to be updated or at least reviewed every 5 years. If the cumulative impacts of projects exceed the thresholds that are talked about in the AUAR, that an individual project may need to do an EAW/EIS of it's own accord, or the AUAR can be modified so there are a couple of courses there. But what the intent is, and the way it's practiced throughout the metro area, is to try to come up with a reasonable top end so to speak Planning Commission Meeting -August 19, 2003 kind of model of what may happen and then hopefully nothing goes above that or those mitigations have to take place. The process and the schedule we've been on, we've done the background work. We're beginning obviously based on what you saw in your packets tonight, the pull together documentation as a part of this. That will be completed here in the upcoming couple of weeks. We're kind of at a stage right now where the findings and mitigations strategies are just beginning to pull together. There is under rules and certainly under this schedule process, an agency review and a public review that takes place. That's a 30 day period and can be extended to 45 days, and I'll put that into context of time in a few minutes. Also under the AUAR is adopted by the City Council and as I indicated a moment ago, it does have to be reviewed and potentially updated on a 5 year increment. The draft that you have in front of you now that just for simplicity purposes we're calling August 13th draft because it's kind of a first cut, contains a number of components but really the key in that right now begins to focus on, there are a standard set of 30 questions that any AUAR that you pick up needs to address and those are beginning to be addressed in fairly detailed form. The air and noise analysis that I spoke of before is still in process. That will be coming together literally over the course of the next couple weeks and will be back when we talk next. There are a variety of figures that are there that only at this point in time, some outline information on mitigation. That will be greatly enhanced and beefed up and then there's certainly some appendices that are part of that right now. We had opportunity earlier this evening, and I think the exhibits will stay on the wall to talk a little bit about some of the inventory work that's been done to date, and the scale of the graphic that's up here really doesn't do justice so I won't point out much in detail, but essentially we have looked at kind of a compilation of all of the wetland data. The wetland delineation that was done by Peterson as a part of this project. Certainly the city's Bluff Creek ordinance standards that are in place that establish a primary and secondary zone. The inventory of historical and archeological features, soils, steep slopes, all of those kinds of natural components that we kind of filter to look at. Those have been compiled and have been put together at least in elementary form as one composite map that has been shown this evening. We've got these layers that we've used as part of the GIS mapping of the overall project. What we've done then is look at the city's comprehensive plan as the foundation of the land use component and that was based on direction kind of at the beginning of this, if that was the course that this was to take, and we're trying to look at kind of the greatest intensity that could, and I would underscore the word could, the developer could take place as a part of the comprehensive plan. As ! think the Planning Commission is well aware, and perhaps not widely so known in public, Chanhassen's comprehensive plan actually has dual designations in some cases on properties. It may be showing up on the map with a double hatch pattern may be either a medium density residential or an office for example. And in those we kind of look at those and by and large have said which of those is the worst case again scenario and has played that out. The school is kind of a new piece of this. If you look at the composite land use map you'll see that the land use in the northwest comer of the site that is commonly known I think as the Degler property, which is a potential school site, and again only one of a number at this point in time, will be looked at from the standpoint of both the land use that the comprehensive plan indicates which is more light industrial, business park kind of use, and the school and we find that those have very similar traffic characteristics and Jim can speak to that in a few minutes, but where we're kind of looking at both of those so to speak as components of this. We are taking the origins of land use from the comprehensive plan as I indicated a moment ago. The school site in the extreme northwest comer is an exception to that. It's really a layer. It's not an exception probably per se. In cases where the Town and Country proposal has been offered to date, we've been looking at that from a medium density standpoint. The balance of the project that lies east of there for example is still showing more of an industrial context. If you look at the northeast comer, that's lower and medium density residential. The pattern that's here I think very fairly follows the comprehensive plan in many ways. What has been interjected that is perhaps at least visible on this line is we've 4 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 begun to look at some of the major roadway corridors that would have to come through here. There would clearly need to be some, a collector roadway that would meander it's way through the center of this, and then some connection to some of the outside road, peripheral areas, and those are important in the context right now. Traffic modeling because we've looked at that as a part of the information that you've seen thus far. What we did, and when we translated that to begin with, is looked at the colors on the map and did some land calculations based on computer information that we have available. Took out things like wetlands, steep slopes, that are undevelopable portions of the property to kind of come up with a net acreage, and then it begun to look at consistent with the comprehensive plan and a development scenario that I just alluded to a minute ago, what kind of densities. What you find? What kind of floor area ratios might you find for the commercial and industrial pieces, the industrial office pieces I should say. The school in this case where we've been utilizing a number that the school district provided of about 1,700 students, whether that be middle school or high school. The ages isn't important in terms of the modeling as simply the intent to be of that use. So all of these have come together, are drivers of some of the models that has been done for traffic for example that we'll talk about. So there's kind of this magnitude of information that's been assembled again based on that development scenario that we would again call and putting in quotes, that worst case situation. I think with that I'm going to let Jim take the floor for a moment and give you an overview of some of the traffic and then we'll certainly wrap up and come back to questions and comments that the commission might have. Jim Renshaw: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, good evening. Thank you. Building off of what Mark has said, the traffic analysis basically covered the study area roadways. The perimeter roadways, Lyman and Audubon, Pioneer, Powers. The intersections of those perimeter roadways and internal street that was shown on a previous graphic there. Those internal streets were developed through coordination with the County and the State. The locations of those access points were given within a tolerable range, and as a result the internal street systems are shown basically still on a schematic version but with some validity to them. The study area intersections involved all those, both the internal and perimeter roadway and their intersections. With the land use information that is just went over, we subdivided the site into traffic analysis zones. These are no more than land use boundaries in the zone, and they're shown on this figure. It helps us determine both the magnitude in various areas within the site, as well as determine likely patterns for arrival and departures. A little bit about procedures. Trip generation is nothing more than determining what is the amount of traffic that would occur as a result of the land use that we went over. Traffic assignment is where would that amount of traffic go. Background traffic volume forecasting is what is going to happen with non-site traffic. In other words, traffic that has no original or destination to this particular site boundary. What's going to happen to it most of the time and it's going to grow, but with Highway 212 there's going to be a major re-distribution of that traffic. The additional of side traffic and background traffic yields total traffic volumes. If you look on the wall in this graphic basically indicates where those study area intersections are located. This is the amount of traffic that was generated by the site, by the land use that the worst case, quote unquote, scenario that was provided. Background traffic forecast, a little bit more on background traffic. Because of Highway 212 and the model that was provided to us by the State, we've had to, we recognize the large amount of traffic is travel patterns are going to change dramatically. As a result at the interchanges that were modeled by the State, we had balanced their projected total traffic volumes with our's and so the background traffic became both a balancing act as well as a growth projection that we included at 2 percent per year. And total traffic was yielded at these study area intersections and that was the basis for our capacity analysis at the intersections. Intersections are usually the locations where traffic problems, but with the congestion and safety measures occur. So they're the focal point. Our study evaluated the following scenarios, both what's happening now and with partial build-out of traffic analysis Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 zones...Town and Country property. And full build-out of the entire site with Highway 212 even in existence. At this point we've schematically developed some internal street cross sections and design speeds. We need to position the internal streets to be approximately 35 miles an hour streets at this point in time. To go over them in more detail during question and answer. Level of service analysis, which is basically another term for our capacity evaluations, included the signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections. Included evaluations at 2003 and at the build- out year 2010. 2003 basically was in response to Scenario E2. 2010 Scenario F. At the 2003 and 2010 we used level of service standards that are throughout the nation, A through F. Kind of a report card status. Traffic engineers are not good students so we shoot for C predominantly because most cases we can be accused of building, over sizing streets or sometimes we can be accused of under sizing streets so we like to shoot for a level of service C as a typical standard. Our traffic, we've included a draft traffic mitigation plan for the first scenario. Largely we've noted that turn lanes are going to be required on Lyman. Also that build-out of a collector, extension of the collector of course needs to be provided for that land area. In addition we've determined however that there would not likely be able to be any additional development within the total site without connection of that internal east/west connector being built. Again Audubon/ Butternut intersection has some critical concerns with it's twisting, and development where turn lanes are required at a minimum to mitigate adverse capacity impacts. Scenario F2, that's the total build-out scenario once again. Audubon, Lyman and Powers and Pioneer. At all of the intersections at this point, at the internal street intersections we recommended improvements to left and right turning lanes at these intersections if it were to accommodate traffic conditions. The capacity analysis indicates that one lane in two directions still adequate, but there will need to be some sizeable improvements to the auxiliary lanes. Those right and left turn lanes. In addition there's likely to be additional improvement at the perimeter intersections such as Audubon and Lyman to increase the storage of those turn lanes at those locations. So at this point that's a quick summary and we have graphically included traffic control recommendations as well so there's a number of locations that we feel confident will require signalization at that horizon here. And with that we'll open up, oh mitigation. Mark Koegler: Yeah let me, the mitigation measures that Jim just referred to, to give you a little bit more specific example of the kinds of things that are involved as a part of this, but there's other things that will be addressed as part of the AUAR. Not just focusing on transportation. That seems to be the one that drives typically a lot of interest it seems given the fact that none of the air, noise information is not present yet, it tends to be more a focus. But looking literally at Best Management Practices relating to development patterns and storm water and erosion control, how it takes place, our land use management techniques that may be appropriate. Transfer development rights, trusts, under Bluff Creek Overlay that the City has in place right now and how the mechanics of that are actually going to work on a site by site basis, are interesting things that are going to be obviously parts of development proposals that you look at in the future. Updating a storm water management plan to make sure that it's consistent with the kinds of patterns that you see may happen here. Obviously you're well aware that anytime a piece of property comes in is subject to certain kinds of exactions. Park dedication fees is one of the most prominent ones of those. Looking at applying those to the park and open space now, that will be a part of this as well so there's a lot of pieces of this that come together. In my wrapping up here I'd like to just kind of go back to where I started talking a little bit about schedule. This is the beginning of a review period on all of this that really lasts formally and informally now over roughly the next couple of months. We don't have all of the answers tonight. We don't even know all of the questions I don't think tonight. One of the roles in setting this up is kind of a two step even hearing process is it's not our intent to answer everything tonight but to take down questions and information that to come forward so that we can respond appropriately as a part of this overall process as soon as when we meet again next week, if not this evening. On September 6 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 2nd Planning Commission will continue the hearing, which will be on the draft AUAR. The final draft AUAR if you will that will incorporate maybe some of the outcome of that meeting will be available for review the week of September 8~. That will be published in the EQB Monitor according to the current schedule on the 15~ of September and that really starts the formal comment period and I would highlight again that this is a draft AUAR at that point in time. It's purpose to be put out is for broader public comment. Not only from people, residents and property owners who might be interested but from the agencies as well. The agencies are then kept apprised of what's going on with this but they'll formally take a look at it and...the formal comments as well. It will come back to City Council sometime in November for more formal action. That action at the appropriate time would be to adopt the AUAR. That would put that document in place, that mechanism in place for environmental review that we talked about before. It does not set a definitive land use pattern for this area. It simply again sets a threshold by which development cannot exceed without going through other environmental review mechanisms. So Mr. Chair, that's an overview of the process. I would ask Kate, was there other things that I missed? Aanenson: No. I think you did a good job. Just for edification, I just want to maybe comment on Mark, add to that. Who is going to be reviewing this. Some of the state agencies would include the DNR, Pollution Control Agency, MnDot, Carver County, the watershed districts, and those are just some of the, so that 30 day comment that Mark was talking about, those are some of the other agencies so we do not have their comments. While we've been in contact with them, getting some of their feedback early on, they will formalize their comments back and that would be incorporated into as we go to the City Council, responding to some of their comments. Sacchet: So just to clarify before we get into questions, in terms of the review period, that involves all the official bodies that have to look at it. In terms of review and feedback from the community, that's tonight and in two weeks. Is that it or is there going to be more than that? Aanenson: When it goes back to the council. Sacchet: In front of the council then at that point when it comes around. Aanenson: That will be the response to the comments. Mark Koegler: Certainly also during that comment period, there's copies of the document will be readily available in public places here, the library and so forth, and anybody who's interested would have opportunity in that timeframe to pick it up. Read from cover to cover and digest it. Sacchet: That's what I want to hear, thank you so much. Very good presentation. Now we have a chance to ask some questions from the commission side first before we open it for the public hearing. So I'd like to invite you to ask questions if you have any. Who wants to start? Rich, go ahead. Slagle: I just have a couple, and Mark again, that was fairly succinct for all the stuff we've had to digest so I thank you for that. I have a question and Kate I hope I'm being okay by asking this but I just want to make very clear, especially for some of the people in the audience that Mark, your firm is working on behalf of the City under this study. Can you explain to me the relationship with the one applicant, Town and Country because I'm seeing some verbiage in this document that sort of makes me believe that it's sort of a foregone conclusion that the development, the way it's been presented to us, is a medium density, sort of a done deal and I Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 don't want to put words in, but it sort of makes reference that this is sort of a, it's already going to happen and for folks out there, it's a proposed development. Am I correct? Aanenson: Sure, I'll let Mark answer too but I'll take the first stab at it and that is that this project was the kick-off. The catalyst to start this bigger process. So as a part of the study, the staff requested as part of the proposal of the AUAR, that they also study the project and the fact, could this, how much development could proceed independently? I mean while we're looking at it in a holistic, can this project advance independently and what improvements would need to take place. Certainly as I indicated in the beginning, as part of an AUAR, it does not give a rezoning. There's a whole separate process and maybe that's something we should talk about too, just for everybody's edification. Each project that comes forward would have to have a rezoning, which requires a public hearing and there will be site plan review so while we're doing this as a very public process, we're setting up the larger framework issues to help us do a lot of other things. Assist in budgeting. Building our framework. Each project development would have to go back through a process that also requires a public hearing. What that'd be measured against is the things that we're putting in place right now. The adequacy of the roads. The storm water management, the parks. So we've kind of put that framework in place and that's what we're trying to do, but no, it does not give anybody any standing. We asked the consultants to look at that and they're hired by the city. They're not being paid by any developer. Slagle: So the developer's not paying the firm anything above and beyond...as all other developers? Aanenson: No. Do you want to add anything to that Mark? Mark Koegler: I would just make very clear that our client is the City of Chanhassen. We have no relationship with any developer, any property owner in this piece, in this area. Nor have we ever had. We've not assumed anything is a given but obviously when there is a plan that somebody's put forward, at least as an expression of an idea that may or may not ultimately have merit, we have looked at the density calculation of that area as coming from a medium density development because that's consistent with the comprehensive plan. And again there's that overlay...which makes it always kind of interesting, but nonetheless it has been used for modeling purpose in terms of that is a medium density kind of development pattern rather than an industrial development pattern. The balance of the property east of that has been looked at as industrial. Slagle: Okay. And then one final question. On the traffic analysis, and maybe just for the general public, how does one determine, and I'll use the intersection of Lyman and Audubon. How does one determine a projected assumption for traffic patterns left, right, straight, coming from a layman, how would you build those projections that you've included on your slide show? Is it I mean is someone sitting there at the intersection counting cars or is this more a historical? Jim Renshaw: Traditionally you can do it both ways. In this particular case, what we have used is a procedure that has been outlined by the transportation research board that provides a general guidelines for percentage of turning movements when data was not available. So in many cases, through questions and answers and through the public input process we may have to go back and get more detail at some of those locations and what are to provide more accuracy in return to the study at this point. Slagle: And I think fellow commissioners, obviously we've had many discussions in the last couple years on traffic studies, and I won't belabor those but my point of raising it is, sometimes Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 it seems like and you're not alone in using those numbers but it seems like if someone went and took the time and the effort to watch these intersections today, then factor in, I mean then you have real live over a course of a few weeks, then you have the added congestion of the development in the 650 acres, you might end up with different numbers. I'm not saying you would or you wouldn't, but you might. And sometimes I don't know why we don't do that now. Jim Renshaw: It's, you know especially for scenario E2, should more accurate forecasts for those conditions be due? I would recommend taking that additional step for build-up scenario when you have a major network change such as Highway 212, the benefit of collecting that additional data would be somewhat less significant. Slagle: So you'd be open to it? Jim Renshaw: Certainly. Slagle: Okay. I think that's it for now. Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Bethany, any questions at this point? We will be able to ask questions throughout the process. It's not the only chance you get to ask questions. Tjornhom: I think Rich is kind of touching on what I was thinking too about the traffic scenarios and growth over the next 10 years and expansion now, you know making adequate provisions for that in the next 10 years instead of thinking about what's happening now because there's nothing worst than having over crowded roads and no space to do anything about it. Sacchet: Kurt, any questions from your end? Papke: Yeah, just a couple. You mentioned when you were talking about the AUAR as being a worst case scenario, that you didn't like that particular phrase. Just to clarify for myself and everyone else here. When you say worst case, worst case with respect to what? It's the environment, not financial impact and to the City? With what it's going to cost to support the infrastructure and so on that has to go in there. Could you just comment on that. Mark Koegler: Worst case really plays more to most intense development pattern allowed. And you're absolutely correct. The whole nature of the AUAR is to look at the physical development and the implications that has on the natural environment basically, as well as built infrastructure. Roads, sewers, all the rest of that. It does not have a fiscal component to it. Example, I think the one you might have just raised as a part of an AUAR. Sometimes those are done as separate efforts but that's a component of an AUAR. Papke: Okay. Second question or clarification. The major change to the draft AUAR that we received and what's up on the wall here is the change with the elimination of the Highway 41 river crossing intersection with 212. In fact the map over there, the base map still shows that 41 crossing. Is that a done deal now? Is that 41 off of the planning, because it does affect some of the roadways, particular the Pioneer Trail alignment through this area. Aanenson: It has been realigned. They didn't put it into all the drafts but it will be corrected in the final draft, just because we already had, we were too pressed, but MnDot has. One of the concerns that we had was an additional river crossing on Pioneer so we wanted to follow the existing alignment so that will occur, and that has been corrected on a few of the maps but it will Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 be shown on all of the maps. 41, the river crossing is under study so it may not be in that alignment as shown. MnDot is, and that's out possibly 20 years before that takes place. Papke: Right, and I take it that the elimination of that had no impact on your traffic analysis? Is that a correct assumption? Jim Renshaw: Yes. I mean at this point the answer is yes because we have not received any revised models from MnDot indicating the background traffic. Papke: So your original model assumed that no one would take Highway 41 up into this area and then exit on County Road 177 Jim Renshaw: Right. I would need to go back and double check to determine the validity of that assumption to be honest with you. Papke: Okay. Just voice one last concern with the new alignment. One of my continuing frustrations with the plan is the lack of an intersection with Pioneer Trail and Highway 212. One of my concerns with, and it impacts this area is we're going to see a lot of people who live in Eastern Chaska taking Pioneer Trail, making a left turn on 17, and getting on 212 and I know you are not MnDot, okay. But I suspect there's one or two people in the room that might have the same concern that we're routing a lot of you know Chaska residents through this area under study here, and that not everyone may appreciate that. That's it. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Bruce. Feik: Just for consistency I'll pick up on a couple things that, from where you've left off. Last time we met a couple weeks ago there was talk regarding the sketches as related to 212. That these were dated. Particularly you had a hypothetical access to a north frontage road right in the elbow there. And I understood that we were going to get an update tonight regarding kind of what that was going to look like. Did I misunderstand that? Aanenson: There's one or two maps that have that corrected on there, but when you get the final draft it will be included in all those. Feik: And final draft is due when? Aanenson: After it goes, before it goes to the EQB. It should be in that. Feik: Okay. I'm going to pick back up on something else as well relating to the Bernardi property and Town and Country. The parcel as a whole I believe that we're looking at is roughly 625 acres. 624, is that correct? Mark Koegler: As I recall it's 650, plus or minus. Feik: Okay. And the Town and Country parcel specifically is how big? Aanenson: I think it's 80. Feik: I guess my question is, Town and Country is proposed in our minds that Town and Country is going to pay a, what I'll call a straight pro-rata share based on acreage of this AUAR. 10 Planning Commission Meeting -August 19, 2003 Aanenson: Well they'll pay cost attributable to them for this development. Feik: Based on acreage. I'm trying to figure out how you're going to base this. Aanenson: Yes. Yes. Feik: Because when I go back here specifically to the wetland mitigation, there are wetland delineation, there is specifically more work done to that parcel. So will they pay the addition, the incremental cost of that work on their deal? I want to make sure, you see where I'm getting with this? Aanenson: Yes. Feik: We've done more work to that parcel and I just want to make sure that, assuming that their project, they would proceed with that project, they would pay something incrementally more because more work has been done for this AUAR to accommodate the thought processes that are going in with Town and Country. Aanenson: I believe though what the city ordinance says is cost attributable, but I can check on that for you. Feik: Okay. Back to traffic a little bit. Back on page 7, the traffic impacts. Third paragraph, you talk about approximately 21,000 daily average trips. Then it goes on, at the time of full build-out when the roadway improvements are in, what mainly is in your mind Jim your basis for when is the time of full build-out? Do you have a date? Did you have a hypothetical timeline in there? Jim Renshaw: We've made the assumption 2010 it would be both full build-out and full occupancy. That's, I would think that'd be a pretty aggressive absorption rate but that was the assumption. Feik: And that would be hypothetically what date at this point that we would have 212 all the way down this way? Slagle: 2010, right? Jim Renshaw: Yeah, 2010. Feik: 20107 I'm just trying to understand how much, because then we go onto, the next sentence we talk about minor traffic inconveniences and I was trying to figure out how long minor traffic inconveniences need to be dealt with. Jim Renshaw: Well minor traffic inconveniences will potentially be major traffic inconveniences with roadway construction activity occurring sometime during that time so minor is probably a misnomer. Feik: That was kind of my question. Jim Renshaw: If that's what your question was. Slagle: I like you Jim. I mean you are really up front with this. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Jim Renshaw: Well I hope so. Sacchet: So do we. Jim Renshaw: I'm sorry, did I miss? Feik: No, no. I'm just trying to put things into perspective a little bit because much of your traffic assumes, because we had sort of a conversation after the last meeting where we were discussing some of the traffic patterns, that your numbers that are up here really work after 212 is in, and some of the burden of the local traffic is picked up that is currently being born by Audubon and other roads, am I correct? Jim Renshaw: Yeah. I mean from my perspective, and this is in totally my personal opinion. I would encourage the community to evaluate development as it occurs at specific snapshots in time. But you know to some extent we don't want to be conducting traffic analysis just for pure academic reasons as a result of some known deficiency that's out there and the concern to degenerate that further. But I really can't, I have not evaluated horizon year 2006 with 3¼ of the AUAR, I can't explain that to you. Slagle: If I may just throw something out. If you had an opportunity to be on Lyman at 4:30- 5:00, 5:30, take a left to go south on Audubon, that would tell the average citizen that that's a problem intersection. It might not be this jurisdiction of the city but that's a problem and here we are talking about developing the land and some people would argue fix the intersection before you develop the land. And so I mean, it's a serious concern and so that's why these traffic numbers to all the folks here is, you know take a moment to look at them and get input. And you guys have done a great job gathering them. I just hope that there's more on site. Jim Renshaw: I mean the existing conditions, again those traffic volumes and the focus of the traffic volumes were picked. We have conducted to this stage, has been on 2010 with 212. That has been the primary focus of our work because we normally like to look at the massive 20 ton gorilla at build-out with the major network change and based upon my understanding of the AUAR process, that was the first focus, Additional horizon year focus as well as existing conditions which I understand, I have read the comp plan and I have driven the intersections and I think even from the short public hearing or open house that we've had before, understand that westbound to southbound left turn as currently existing is a cueing concern. Slagle: But I think if I heard you right about 20 minutes ago, your comment was additional storage on that lane to take a left. Jim Renshaw: Well yeah but again I'm primarily responding to I think volume at build-out that we have with this particular point in time. 250 vehicles which usually about 300 vehicles require or warrant a dual left turn lane, so it hasn't tripped this general planning level of threshold at this point. Sacchet: Thanks for your time. It's your turn Bruce. Feik: Thank you. A couple last ones. As I understand from previous comment, the land use as indicated, particularly on the Figure 14 where we have the school and the residential on northeast and the medium density in the southwest. These are not obviously in stone. What happens to the AUAR, I'm assuming, first of all I should back up. Are these uses transferable within the AUAR district or does that make the AUAR moot? 12 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Mark Koegler: The general answer to that would be that they are transferable. The qualifier that I would have to throw in there would be that, as Jim was alluding to when you look at traffic modeling for example, it's gone by these traffic...and so if you assume a more intense pattern over on one part of the site, then on the other site, it may change the dynamic of that traffic and that would be something that would trigger an updating of the AUAR or this 5 year...but by and large things are transferable as long as the whole still works. Feik: Okay, and then the whole is basically is in conforming with the comp plan? Aanenson: Correct. Feik: That's it, thank you. Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Steve, you want to give it a stab? Lillehaug: Yes I do. This is kind of a long question but bear with me. There are sanitary improvements there that will obviously have to happen. On page 14 you speak of it and one question would be is will the Met Council, will they be able to accommodate full build with no major improvements to their system? And I don't want you to answer this question but it's building onto a larger question. On the next page there's public water supply improvements which include an elevated water tower storage site near Lyman Boulevard. There's similar systems which are well addressed in the AUAR. It also mentions a central water treatment plant and I'm not sure if this is existing or proposed, as well as other municipal infrastructure systems over improvements that will need to be made, so my question here is, as part of the concept PUD approval it had one condition, and that was condition one asking for a fiscal tax study that was part of the what was supposed to be included as a part of the AUAR. I know we discussed this later, but with all of these questions out there, with the infrastructure improvements and the cost to the city, I think it's important to include this as a part of this whole study. And also typically part of an AUAR, that how do we incorporate this fiscal tax study which the council approved as part of this? And what's supposed to be happening in here. Aanenson: Do you want me to answer that one? Mark Koegler: Sure. Aanenson: Okay. Again, the scoping of this document did not include that. I think that's something we have to advance forward to the City Council and request that they undertake that part of the study, but certainly one of the major components of this document is for the City to begin developing their platform permits to make things happen. Certainly any development that has inadequacy in any form of infrastructure, whether it's a road, an intersection, sewer or water would not be able to go forward unless there was adequacy of those improvements in place, so again the purpose of this document is for us to identify what those system deficiencies are so we can start beginning to building those. Now just so you know, there is a capital improvement plan in place. These things are being taken into consideration and they're in the works, and every year we modify those as we go through the budget process with the City Council and those are being taken into consideration. There is a lift station in place but water is an issue and that's being put in place with the budget. Again that's the purpose of getting this document at this timeframe and that kind of came up earlier in the process, why are we studying this now. It's not 2005. Because we need to be doing some advance planning. Again it ties into what they're doing on 212 that we're making decisions regarding intersections that may be being built with 212, so to get back to 13 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 your question, and maybe that's something that we would be showing with the Planning Commission in a little bit more detail, the budget. The capital improvements budget and what's taking place that would overlap with this. That's something that can...forward to the City Council as a comment to make sure that it's looked at more closely. Lillehaug: Okay. My next question is, realizing that the County typically won't make improvements until the traffic warrants them, for example specifically a signal system at Audubon and Butternut I think it is, you know for an interim improvement. Sometimes the reason I think the County does this is because, sometimes installing a signal system is more of a risk, safety risk if it's underused than having a full sign system there that's utilized. But my question is, how can we insure that things are in place, and Kate and 1 discussed this but how can we make sure that a signal system was planned to be place prior to meeting LOS of F and then having to wait 2 years with minor traffic inconveniences? Jim Renshaw: In the realm of the warranting of traffic signals, as a registered professional engineer, we must follow the guidelines, we call them warrants in a uniform manual and that establishes the criteria for installing a traffic signal in a particular intersection. Unfortunately the level of service at any given driveway or retail driveway at a major big box retail will more than likely operate at level of service F and there's no mitigation measures that can really happen. We do however recognize when we do an unsignalized capacity evaluation and come out with a poor level of service, that there may likely also be some safety impacts at that same location. At Audubon and Butternut herein it lies with our first draft of a recommendation for mitigation which is turn lanes at that intersection, with falling short of recommending a traffic signal because that requires a more in depth study that has not been conducted at this point but has been the topic of conversation through question and answers today. Aanenson: Let me just add with a little less technical. In the past when. Jim Renshaw: Sorry. Aanenson: Again part of this document based on where we know the turn movements are going, who's generating the traffic, historically what we've done, and I'll let Matt add to this, our Assistant City Engineer. What we've done for example on Villages on the Pond, Arboretum Business Park, Chan Business Center, is we've attributed cost to that road. Again you can't assess them for the entire signal but the cost that they're contributing to that road, we escrow that for the signal, so that money's in place. So I think what you're going to, the question Steve is do we have to keep waiting for the County to come forward and they don't have the money to, so we would assist in that by advancing that by taking escrow. Figuring what their cost would be for that, and we've done that on several other projects, to advance a signal so that money is in place. And certainly as we review developments as they would come forward in this study area, we would take that same posture so we're not waiting for the County to say it warrants it but we haven't got the money in place. There's escrow money and again it'd be attributable to who's adding that traffic on them. Lillehaug: That'd be it, thanks. Sacchet: Alright. I have a few questions also, and then we get to the public hearing part, First of all, Bruce touched on the aspect of the zoning element. In the comprehensive plan several of the properties or areas of this study area are zoned with more than one possibility. And it's my understanding from what you're presenting with the, how you put together this report, is that you've chosen the most intense when they were choices. And I just want to clarify that you have 14 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 not really looked at when there are choices, which one would be more appropriate in the context of the overall development or is that an aspect that you've looked at in some ways as well because that's definitely an area that we are interested to get more clarity about, where we have choices based on the framework that we're coming from. Mark Koegler: The answer to that question is probably quite honestly somewhere in the middle. We have not spent, backing up one notch. One of the charges that we did not have was to wipe the slate clean and look at land uses in this area. The comprehensive plan, it's adopted. It's been in place...that is shown as medium density residential also. Some of the other parcels that have the mixed designations generally fall into that category, more intensive than two uses. The area east of Town and Country according to the comprehensive plan could be either medium density residential or industrial park. Office industrial kinds of uses. In that particular context we've taken the office industrial as a part of that. And that wasn't done totally in a vacuum with us simply locking ourselves in a room and doing that but we talked to staff about some of the things that have been evolving over the course of time and I think at least a small measure of land use planning and trying to look at what use relationships are appropriate given the lower to medium density in RSF use for example, and having transition out to the Bluff Creek corridor and so forth so there's a little bit of dose of all of that, but not a concentrated effort to spend a lot of time on the land use pieces of this but to utilize the comprehensive plan. Sacchet: So that wasn't the main focus but it was considered to some extent basically in short? Mark Koegler: It was. Sacchet: Because I think that's a very important element in terms of where we go with this, and I certainly don't mean that we start from scratch. We want to build on what's in place but where we do have choices I think it's important that we get clear which way we go. So you're saying some consideration went into what you're proposing here in your picture, that's good. Mark Koegler: We did. If I may add one quick thing. You know the other thing would be again, this is not meant to be the definitive land use pattern. Again that upper limit threshold if you will, so that because something is a certain color on here doesn't mean if it has this dual designation with the city that somebody couldn't come before you and say well I'd rather do this and this in all likelihood that it would come before you would be less intensive than this that we're modeling. Sacchet: That's my understanding, okay. Now in terms of the wetlands, it's my recollection from having looked at the draft report, that in some areas the wetlands were actually delineated explicitly and in other areas it was taken from the inventory. Can you clarify a little bit and are we planning to inventory the areas where we just took it from an inventory at some point? That's my question about that one. Mark Koegler: To answer that I'll back up, The AUAR is still, even though it's an environmental review, it's still a relatively generalized approach to things. Again looking at this concentration of uses and impacts that occur as a part of that. The normal threshold for looking at wetlands would be a couple of different tiers. In a lot of communities it's simply they end up relying on National Wetland Inventory maps that give you a reasonably good idea, not a perfect idea of what's there. Chanhassen is one of the few communities that has kind of a second tier and has better wetland information that the City has developed over the course of time. Then the third aspect of that would actually be field delineations. The field delineations that were done as a part of this were done only on the Town and Country site. They were done as kind of an add on, 15 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 adjunct by, we did it with the city. Again not with Town and Country but with the city. The rest of the wetland work that's here is the basis of that is the norm. It's the NWI and it's the city's information. We do from time to time, when there's questions, take a look in the field at some of those kinds of things but typically it's that general information. That does not take away from the fact that when development is proposed in these areas, wetland delineations will need to be done on a case by case, lot by lot basis. Sacchet: So the reason why they were delineated for Town and Country is because we have an action to, an actual applicant for that or? Aanenson: That's correct. Sacchet: So because it's more. Aanenson: If they were to do an EA separately, they would have had it done, do that level. And so not to go back and duplicate that process, I mean again they're standing is up to the Planning Conunission and the council as they go through that next level but as we were doing the field work and again that goes back to Bruce's question, that they're responsible for those. Sacchet: So therefore field work will be done when other areas, not when an actual applicant come before us? Aanenson: Correct. Again going back to what Mark was talking about. Each project will still have to come in and further define what we've identified is some of those framework issues. There's a wetland here. There's a stand of trees. There's some environmentally sensitive area. We need a storm water in this location, pond. So each development will have to take that into the plan... Sacchet: ...the traffic is already there, you've applied a yearly increase of 1 V2 to 2 percent. That seems very low to me. Can you explain a little bit, can you add a little framework to that figure? Jim Renshaw: Yeah. We also, it was generally an estimate based upon the volumes that we already obtained from MnDot as well as trying to be conservative because those inherent macroscopic models or larger area models include demographic projections that should be kept up to date by the local MPO. So we would attempt to include that additional 2 percent above and beyond those models in the background traffic. Sacchet: So that's like a standard type of figure? Jim Renshaw: Yes. Sacchet: That's what I'm asking. Now more interestingly though with all this traffic, looking at your projections, there are several crossings, and particularly the Audubon Butternut that is going to have all kinds of level F and level E. Could you just clarify what is a level E or a level F? What does that mean? Jim Renshaw: Level E is defined as an intersection or roadway, whatever you're analyzing at that time has reached capacity. It's...capacity. So there is no more, the gallon jug is a gallon full. Sacchet: And how would that manifest? 16 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Jim Renshaw: That would manifest in delays that would traditionally be throughout the country discerned as not acceptable. Sacchet: That's E? Jim Renshaw: That would be E. Sacchet: And you could go worst and be F. Jim Renshaw: F is delays that really. Sacchet: That's a parking lot? Jim Renshaw: I can't tell you how bad F is because that is just bad. It's worst than capacity. Sacchet: Yeah, so the minor traffic inconvenience, yeah would be. Now, to clarify your measuring these levels are based on non-signalized. Jim Renshaw: Yes. Sacchet: Now if it would be signalized, how much would it improve? Is there some sort of a rule or can you give us a little bit of an estimate, it's hard to say? That would be a totally new study? Jim Renshaw: That would be just a new capacity analysis. In some cases signals, if installed at the wrong place can create accidents... Sacchet: Make it worst. Jim Renshaw: It could be worst, but not, it probably would not show up at the worst level of service. It'd just. Sacchet: It'd just be worst, that's encouraging. Could we expect it'd be like I or 2 or 3 letters better if they're installed in the right place and configured right? Jim Renshaw: Yes. Sacchet: What would you say, 2 better or 1 better? Jim Renshaw: Yes, generally a level of service. Sacchet: By one level. Jim Renshaw: But traditionally, it would be. Sacchet: I'm sorry to put you on the spot Jim but I'm very interested in this and I'm sure a lot of people here are. Jim Renshaw: Well it's very difficult for me to give you a general answer to that but if I was to give you a general answer I'd say an E would be a C. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Sacchet: Okay, that's good. Thank you. Appreciate it. Well we'll have more chances to ask questions. We have a lot of people here tonight and so I'd like to move on and open this up as a public hearing. As Kate pointed out in the beginning, this will be open today and will be left open and it will continue next time in 2 weeks. I do ask you to come forward and share your concerns, comments, questions you may have. For the interest that as many as want to speak, you may want to try to keep it short. I also want to point out that really hearing the same thing many times is not necessarily a good thing. So if you have people from a neighborhood that have particular concerns, maybe a spokesperson or a particular issue that we appreciate it, but basically it's your's so that public hearing is open. If you want to come forward, state your name and address for the record and tell your concerns, your comments. Please come forward. And please speak into the microphone. It's flexible thing so you can adjust it to your height. Mitch Anderson: Good evening Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Thanks again for the opportunity to address the group here. I'd like to spend a little bit of time talking about. Sacchet: Name and address please for the record. Mitch Anderson: I'm sorry, my name is Mitch Anderson. I live at 2853 Timberview Trail in Chaska and I'm here representing a group of residents of Autumn Woods that actually got together last night to go over some of the reviews of the results of the AUAR and got some of our ideas together. Clearly the element of this that concerns us most is the traffic on Audubon and particularly the intersection of Butternut and Audubon. We've talked about that a lot tonight so I won't belabor it too much more only to point out that one of the, other than the delays which are obvious because that intersection was rated an F in terms of level of service, the thing that I think concerns us more than anything else is the potential for cut through traffic. So there's two stop lights already on Audubon, and as traffic backs up from Pioneer Trail we get a fair amount of cut through traffic that goes through Autumn Woods trying to sort of cut through that light and the light at Acorn, heading down Pioneer towards Rainbow and Super Target, and these are very residential neighborhoods. There are lots of kids walking to the buses in the morning. There are lots of kids riding their bikes, and one can only assume that the cut through traffic would increase as the volume of traffic onto Audubon from a development like Town and Country or whatever increases. And that's a particular safety concern that all the residents share. It's just a very, very dangerous situation and there have already been a number of incidents that have been reported to the local police where people cutting through have caused near accidents and real problems. I'd like to also point out that it sounds appealing to put a stop light in at Audubon and Butternut to address the level of service problem. That just backs traffic up and sends through cut through, through Autumn Woods Drive. That would be an absolute straight shot for anybody that was trying to make a right turn onto Pioneer to just make a right turn at Autumn Woods Drive, cut straight through the development and make a right turn at Acorn onto Pioneer, and that would be a very, very dangerous situation. You would have a large volume of traffic I believe taking advantage of that cut through. You would basically take 3 stop lights out of your commute if you took that route. So before, I would really encourage you before we, you know as we discuss mitigations, I think mitigations absolutely need to be addressed on Audubon and Audubon and Butternut. I mean that's clear from the study that that's a problem. If we could maybe do some analysis of the cut through traffic and that would be in our mind very, very helpful because that I guess is the most significant concern from a safety perspective and kids playing in the streets and walking to the buses in the morning. The last thing that I guess I would echo is, there's been a couple of comments tonight that the beauty of this is that it really I think points out the wisdom in some cases of not pursuing the worst case. And one of the things that you directly influence is the density of these developments and lower density certainly takes traffic out of the system. Reduces impact on the roadways and that's something you have direct control over with this body 18 Planning Commission Meeting -August 19, 2003 and the City Council so I would absolutely beg you to look at the densities of some of these developments and if they can be reduced, does that help mitigate some of the impact on some of these traffic problems. Appreciate the time to talk and if anybody's got any questions for me, otherwise I'll turn it over to the next. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Mitch Anderson: Thank you. Sacchet: Appreciate it. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record and let's hear what you have to say. Jeff Ackerson: Hi. Jeff Ackerson, 2746 Simons Drive in Chaska. And I guess my, what I would like to say is really addressing the more global traffic issues. Mitch kind of came around and made me more aware of the development. I guess I didn't realize the full scope of this project and really saw it as one more small nestle development versus a larger project as a whole. My concern really deals more with the global impact of trying to get in and out of Chaska. Not so much, and I appreciate the safety concerns with traffic and neighborhood traffic, children playing. Huge concern. But the, I look at traffic patterns now and I can tell a level F today is Pioneer Trail to 101 every evening is what I would call an F because it backs up significantly. We're talking a single stop light placement. The City of Chanhassen has the, hopefully the ability or the County has the ability to relieve that, yet we don't see it. And my concern is, we're putting a lot of eggs on the 212 basket and the State with budget issues, who's to say things aren't going to get postponed, pushed out and we're relying on this as being the one major artery or outlet, which may or may not happen. And that's, we're always pushing development before infrastructure and my concern is let's look at infrastructure before or in alignment with development. That's my comments, Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Kate, do you want to add on a little bit in terms of the concern of the time line with 2127 Aanenson: Well I mean I think he raises a valid point and that's what this is tracking that together and the assumption is made, and as each project comes in, if we need to tweak, if the development requires additional tweaking of a traffic study, again re-evaluating turn movements as Mark had indicated, we've got the whole. If we move some of the pieces around we may want to go back and re-adjust those. Certainly that's the goal of this to re-examine those and look at where there's an opportunity to make the improvements, and to plan ahead for those. It's our understanding that the State is, has funded the 212 project. Certainly if something happened with that we'd have to re-examine our assumptions and we would... Sacchet: But we have relatively high confidence level at this point that the time line is actUally solid. Aanenson: That's correct. Sacchet: Okay. Alright. Who else wants to speak? Please come forward. State your name and address for the record. We'll listen to what you have to say. Char Jeurissen: I just have one question. My name is Char Jeurissen. 9715 Audubon Road. And what I'd like to know is Powers Boulevard going to be extended from where it ends now to Pioneer Trail. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Aanenson: That's correct. Sacchet: The answer is yes. Char Jeurissen: Okay, so that actually will be a second outlet from Audubon. Sacchet: It's my understanding that Powers will actually be a major on ramp to 212. Char Jeurissen: To 212, okay. Aanenson: That's correct. Char Jeurissen: Okay. Thanks. Sacchet: Thank you. Who else wants to address the commission here? This is your chance. Jeff Lundgren: I think I've got two questions. One's kind of a question and comment. Sacchet: Name and address please. Jeff Lundgren: I'm sorry. Jeff Lundgren, 2855 Timberview Trail in Chaska. A couple doors down from Mitch. Was the traffic study, did it contemplate and Rich you talked about Lyman to South Audubon 5:00 at night. Did it contemplate that now there's going to basically be a direct shot from 212 through this new Cedar Road to Butternut, and then the southbound left turn lane traffic that that may generate? I mean I would think that that, whatever traffic is there now as this community grows, that that would funnel that. I don't know if that was contemplated in the traffic. Sacchet: Do you want to address this Jim briefly? I would think definitely it's been considered. Jim Renshaw: Yeah, yeah, it's been considered and through additional open house discussions with yourself and the community we can determine if I've missed considerations. Jeff Lundgren: Okay. Second question was, and this I'm sorry, it may be my ignorance, was related to the comprehensive plan and Bruce I think you may have touched on it. Can any districts at all when the AUAR, whatever this we're calling it, can things be flopped? Like for example, would it make more sense, and did your analysis take into consideration that the more higher or medium density be put closer to the 212 access points and the lower density you know to where there weren't so many major roads, or is that all set in stone based on this comprehensive plan and we need a new revision to that? Sacchet: Kate, do you want to address that? Aanenson: Sure. There's actually two parts to that. I think what Mr. Koegler was talking about is yes, you can move things around staying within the capacity assumptions that were established. The threshold. But the comprehensive plan went through a series of public hearings establishing, based on what we believe the networks were, 212 and what existing surrounding land uses were. That's why that property that Town and Country's looking at was given industrial or residential because there's residential across the street. North of that on the Degler piece there's industrial in Chaska, so we tried to look at those. We also pushed industrial to Powers which functions as a 20 Planning Commission Meeting- August 19, 2003 major collector. So in putting those pieces together, we felt that those were appropriate. Can they be re-examined? Certainly, but that does require a public hearing and a land use amendment that would have to get approval through the Met Council, but can it be done? Yes. But it would be through a public process. Sacchet: Go ahead Rich. Slagle: If I can just clarify. So are you saying that in order to have any of this area changed from a zoning application, it would go through the Met Council or would it be the City Council here determining? Aanenson: We would make a recommendation and then send it up to them for approval because it'd be a land use recommendation besides a rezoning, because right now what we're looking at is guiding. It's again going back to the worst case scenario. We're showing ultimate development. Certainly through a public process we're going to review each development within that and see, they may not be you know halfway, two-thirds of that ultimate development. Slagle: I know it's a tough question but let me ask you this then. From what you know is there any interest on the City Council's part today to change. Aanenson: I can't speak to that. Slagle: As Planning Director do you sense any? Aanenson: No. I haven't had that discussion. Nobody's said anything to me but. Slagle: Okay, just wondering. Sacchet: It appears that the comprehensive plan is a very solid document. It's basically the foundation that we apply our framework in terms of planning and reviewing applications. As Kate pointed out it can be changed but it's not a minor change. Where really the interesting point is that some of the areas within this study area are zoned with options. Like Kate just pointed out, the property that is considered by Town and Country is according to the comprehensive plan either medium density residential or office industrial, right? Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: So in a case like that we have a choice and that's really what I expressed before I have an interest to try and figure out where we're going. Yeah, I don't think anybody so far has expressed an interest to change anything with the comprehensive plan with a small exception that the school addition in there I think would be a small tweak to the comprehensive plan. But other than that, that's not really consideration at this point. Alright, anybody else want to come forward? State your name and address please for the record. Jeff Harr: Good evening. Jeff Harr. I'm at 2852 Timberview Trail in Chaska also. Autumn Woods development and a neighbor of Mitch and Jeff. Just a couple points of clarification. About the 500 acre parcel, I think the lady said that the development is proposed around 85 acres, is that... Sacchet: It's about 80, yes. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Jeff Hart: Okay, about 80 acres. So the traffic analysis was based on the 80 acre development or on the 500? Sacchet: On the whole thing. It seems like that's a point that's not clearly understood I noticed by some of the other comments, is that we are looking at a major chunk of developable land that's left in Chanhassen. That's these 500-600 acres. That does not mean that we have clarity how they're going to be developed. But we got an applicant that came in for 80 of these acres that has an interest to start planning, in this case, a townhouse type of development and what we decided from a city side is that rather than just study those 80 acres in terms of the environmental impact, that we want to study the whole what we call the 2005 municipal sewer area. And that's what this study is about. Does that help put. Jeff Harr: Yeah it does. I'm glad to hear that. I guess just one final comment as you had brought it up and we have choices and 1 guess the choices we need to ask ourselves are do we want to exit that amount of traffic at that intersection or Audubon and Butternut, or could there be some other traffic system designed around that to mitigate that line, because I think as we just talked about the 500 acre development, the fact that we're talking a E level, F level intersection going into the plan, why would we make a choice to create that sort of an intersection when we may have another alternative. Sacchet: That's a good point. Jeff Harr: And we don't know, based on the traffic signal discussion, whether it will move at all off of an E. There's no guarantee of that. As that density improves. Sacchet: With the constraints of the natural area that we're trying to preserve, there's the Bluff Creek. There are some very distinct limitations but Jim, do you want to address in terms of what you looked at? I mean do we have a lot of different alternatives, choices? What can you address that a little bit. Jim Renshaw: Short of putting the traffic signal in there or installing a round about. Something that would be pretty drastic. You know geometric improvements that I'm afraid there would not be anything that would mitigate the level of service F from the standpoint of delay. And those are the only two real mitigation measures in addition to what we've called out as far as auxiliary lanes that I can offer. Sacchet: Now you sure mentioned a magic word for me. Round about's. I love round about's. I'm from Europe. In Europe there are round about's and they even took out traffic signs and put in round about's because they're so much more efficient. So much cheaper. So much easier. I know they're not that popular here but thanks for mentioning that. Jim Renshaw: But then we don't want to end up in a vacation movie and see Great Ben. Aanenson: Can I just add something that you said Uli that needs clarification to this gentleman's comment and that was, and ! think the consultants can address it further but in looking at where the connection, those touch down points. We know we want an east/west connector, and there was limited touch down points based on topography. Anybody that drives up and down Audubon knows there's huge wetlands, severe slopes. There's limited points that you can touch down and there's jurisdictional requirements from the County, spacing so there's limited touch down points, so though some of those parameters are fixed, and so within that that becomes the trick that we're talking about. Now is how do you mitigate those touch down points? Where we are touching 22 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 down on Powers, we're meeting with MnDot. That's pretty much a fixed point at the intersection. We were given, it's my understanding, maybe John you can answer that, there's two possible locations on Audubon and Carver County, this was their recommendation as the possible best choice. Again, the County's going to review this document too and further refine that as we move through this but that's a great question. I think maybe we didn't make that clear of how we got to that point, but those were through a series of discussions and meetings to make that. Slagle: If I could dove tail on that Kate and you're working so hard on this, and I appreciate that but my concern is this. Is that we have the points. Obviously you've got to have an east/west flow on this. I mean I think most people would say yeah, you've got to have one, but then we look at the traffic patterns, we look at the grading that results in that, that would tell me then that the comp plan, I don't want to be critical of the comp plan might be requesting in and of itself too much density. Aanenson: Well let's take the density equation out of it, even if we take the road, again there's physical constraints and I think that's where Commissioner Sacchet was going. There's figure constraints and the County also still has jurisdiction over where those touch down points are going to be. No matter what the density is on Powers, that's the location, is my understanding that MnDot will only give us access onto that road. Slagle: Well sure but if you're, and I'm with you but if your density, you've got to keep density in it because if it's an E or F and the density, let's just say over the next 5 years we approve developments that are higher density, it's just going to get worst, Aanenson: Okay, we're talking about two separate things. One is the traffic being generated. The other is where the touch down point can be. I'm saying. Slagle: I'm with you but Kate. Aanenson: I understand what you're saying. Slagle: They're synonymous. That's where your...so why would we go forward with a program that's going to have already by paper problems? Aanenson: That's the mitigation issue, correct. Slagle: But we've already discussed it's a mitigation issue. Is we're fairly limited in our options, at least in that intersection, unless we do something drastic. Jim Renshaw: Traffic signalization in intersection. Sacchet: Round about. Well in terms of mitigation, I mean we'll see some of the mitigation aspects. That's what's currently not yet in the report, so I mean these are issues you're still planning to address. Jim Renshaw: Yeah, and as we've talked, our primary focus thus far has been on the build-out's and we admit that there's still some clean-up we have to do on the E2 scenario. Sacchet: Okay. Yes, please come forward. It's your turn. Lillehaug:: May I ask you one more question on what. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Sacchet: Yeah, hang on just a second. Lillehaug: This gentleman asked. Could you explain the E2 actually is and not only address the development of Town and Country. Can you clarify that? Jim Renshaw: Yes it does. It includes what we're calling traffic analysis zone 2 and 3 which is the Town and Country development and it was based upon the land use assumptions that were provided for in that general area so yes. Lillehaug: So it is broken down? Jim Renshaw: But it's not, it may or may not be what the proposed development land use characteristics really are. We're not giving a traffic study for that development per se. Sacchet: Name and address for the record please. Sharon Gatto: Hello. I'm Sharon Gatto, 9631 Foxford Road. I'm one block east of 101, right on Pioneer. I can't get in and out of my development as it is. But I wonder, does the City, the Planning Commission, City Council have the authority to go back to Town and Country and say we have enough townhomes? We don't want any more townhomes. You either develop this single family or don't develop it at all. Sacchet: The answer is yes. Sharon Gatto: I mean I know the County and the State and the City wants their tax money. The developer wants every piece of income off of every inch of property they can get, but there's a point of saying no. And is them a development or is there a number that says we've got enough townhomes? We've got enough medium density? Sacchet: You'll help me out Kate but the way I understand it is that, from the Planning Commission side, we have to look at whether something meets ordinances and regulations. If something falls within the framework of the ordinances and regulations, which are a direct reflection of the comprehensive plan, we need to approve it, or we need to recommend approval. The City Council may have a little more leeway but it's a yes and no. I mean it's a mix. Do you want to clarify that a little further Kate please? Aanenson: Well I think that same question was asked before and that's can we change the zoning, or the land use. Sharon Gatto: ...but I mean can we say no, this is the way it is. Either develop it or don't. Aanenson: The City would have to go back and rezone the property, or not rezone it but change the land use and then go through that process of public hearing with the Planning Commission, City Council and then it'd go to the Met Council and get those. Sharon Gatto: Does that ever happen? I mean do you ever say no to a client coming in? Because I know it's... 24 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Aanenson: I'm not sure we're asking the question right. If it meets the guiding and it meets the city ordinances then it wouldn't be approved. It'd have to go through that process, so you'd have to change what's there in place. Sharon Gatto: And there's no limit on number of townhomes or single family within a? Aanenson: I think the question, you have to step back and look at the framework of the entire comprehensive plan. When the City put the comprehensive plan in place, the mix of single family and how much single family type, and there will be single family in this development too. This is not all townhomes. It's a mixed development. Feik: Kate, if I might as well, There's another component in there and that is the land owner. The land owner has invested either as a new owner or old owner, they have certain expectations regarding what they can do to their land. And if we were to take their land we would have to buy it. So they have rights to develop their land. It's going to get developed, and it's been guided from via the comprehensive plan from a number of years ago, and the owners of these parcels have made certain assumptions for the last 5, 6, 7 years on potentially an exit strategy for them individually or what have you, so to just go and take something more drastic say from a very high value land that is zoned for commercial, and say you have to put in a large lot development at 2 ½ acres, would be a very large financial burden to the property owner. Sharon Gatto: But would they, I mean townhomes weren't that plentiful 10 years ago, and they probably weren't put into the structure of the city I wouldn't suspect. Feik: They were put in from this comprehensive plan back to what date? Slagle: 1999 1 think was the last revision, right? Feik: But before that as well. Aanenson: Pardon me? Slagle: 1999 was the last revision. Aanenson: Yeah, '98. Yeah. Actually this property was guided in 1996-97 but we've had townhouses throughout the history of the city. ! mean there's been apartments. Sharon Gatto: But it seems like they're becoming so plentiful that any more everything's medium to high density. Aanenson: Well, I mean if you look at the actual number of building permits, I mean I'd be happy to meet with you on that issue of what we've got ultimate land use, but I think we've got, we will always be predominantly single family residential. It's our highest land use. Feik: As a city. Aanenson: As a city. That's correct. Feik: Not necessarily corridor but for a particular parcel. Sharon Gatto: As a whole. 25 Planning Commission Meeting- August 19, 2003 Sacchet: And not to belabor this excessively but Kate, correct me if I'm wrong, it's my understanding that actually as a city we have a shortage of higher density housing in terms of what the framework that's applied by the Metropolitan Council, is that accurate? Aanenson: Yeah. I think there's a couple of things that we looked at when we did this. When we looked at the guiding of this land, it's also in the Bluff Creek and one of the tools that we looked at preserving, the council wanted to, and I don't want to belabor this point but we went through a lot of discussion as how do we acquire property along the Bluff Creek? That was an asset we deemed valuable. There's two approaches to take. One where we did the City did the park referendum was to buy all the property around the entire creek, and we realized right away there wasn't enough money in the referendum so what we did, as we developed a tool to transfer density, and we've been very successful. The last time we did it was on Pulte, so while it compresses some of that, we've been able to preserve large pieces of property in very nice environmental, and that was one of the tools. While we put the medium density in there, that's the only place we can do the density transfer in that area, so what we're trying to preserve is some of the very nice features down in that area. Besides the creek there's some beautiful stands of trees that we want to preserve. So it's a little bit harder with the single family. Sacchet: Thanks Kate, and there's one more thing I want to add before we move on, which is very fundamental. I think it gets over looked sometimes when we look at a specific situation that comes at us like a proposal for townhomes in this case, is that we are planning. We're planning ahead. We're making a framework as a city of what the plan is, and once the plan is in place, we build on that. I mean it's not, yes. Can it be changed? It's not impossible but basically you make an agreement ahead of time, when we plan something, when we put a land use in place and at the time, was it 10 years ago or what, when this particular property was associated with the land use of medium density or office industrial, that was the time when that decision was made. Not as a final totally cut in stone but as a pretty firm decision and it's part of the comprehensive plan that's being worked on and staff has put a lot of time into this and a lot of effort goes into these type of things from a city side. I think it's important for everybody to see that element that this is not something that comes from the spur of the moment. This is a long process that is well founded and gets input at every step. Okay, this is a public hearing. Anyone else wishing to speak, please come forward. State your name and address for the record please. Rick Dorsey: Hi. My name's Rick Dorsey. I'm a landowner. 1551 Lyman Boulevard is where my father lives and where our land is. I have a couple points just in general. We've owned this land for 25 years. Many of the other owners have owned it for a lot longer than that. Through the last 25 years myself, I've been involved in many meetings dealing with people wanting to use the properties for one use or another, from a landfill to putting power lines across it to putting roads across it, and we've spent a lot of time trying, as a group of owners, trying to make sure that this property was held together so that good developments could come of it. And some of the things just to keep in mind, I am in favor of, our property's been in the ag preserve and was just recently taken out by the city. And I'm in favor of being such as the transferring of land and transferring density for land. That's a good way for the city to acquire the property. A couple of things may be tied with that though is that as the density is increased, perhaps the style of housing should change. Perhaps it should be more vertical instead of looking at it as being the traditional townhouse development where now an area that's maybe 8 units per acre, suddenly becomes 10 to 12 per acre of actual buildable area so it appears to be just extremely dense. Whereas if you put higher height restrictions, made them available, maybe it becomes a condominium with more green space around it. It doesn't appear to be as dense. From the standpoint of this whole area, there's approximately 600 acres or somewhere there about's. People are talking about oh it's so 26 Planning Commission Meeting- August 19, 2003 dense. By the time you take out the land for the road and the parks that are planned, you've taken out about 60 percent of the land, so when you look at this compared to your own neighborhoods, you should note that your neighborhoods are probably overall denser and creating far more traffic than this area as a group probably will. The other thing that I'd like the Planning Commission to think about is also dealing with the roads, in particular 212 going through. There are three major interchanges in about a mile and a half or 2 mile area. To me, if I look around other parts of the city there's nowhere else you'd see that kind of, or number of intersections. From the standpoint of the value to the city and loss of tax base, it is important. It's important because you can't get this resource back once you give it up and tax base is very important. Chanhassen has one of the highest, most expensive tax bases in the city. So from the standpoint of looking at it, there's a lot of land that's being lost to roadways. Perhaps one of those three major intersections could be eliminated and aligned better. I hope that that's looked into further because it really, from the number of homes that will ultimately be here, and this area putting onto that, there's way too many intersections. I understand there's already infrastructure, or homes and neighborhoods around the property and they do need access to the roads but three of them in a mile and a half area is a bit too much. The other thing is, just too to consider, I noticed some of the roads, I know they're very preliminary, just rough drafts, but going out onto say Lyman or Audubon, perhaps it could be more set up to be controlled within the development perhaps and minimize the number of intersections on Lyman. You know I'm seeing 1, 2, 3, 4 intersections on a mile stretch. At some point you probably would end up having to have a stop sign every one of those corners if you're talking densities and problems that are out there. You know perhaps that east/west is an outlet for that neighborhood, but at the same time you need to look at controlling the cross traffic, cutting the corners as others have mentioned through neighborhoods. If you use the roads within it to drive out, that's one thing. It's another if you re-direct traffic cutting through and making a problem all the way across. So the egress points is something to be considered. And as far as the, you know those bridges. 25 years ago they were talking about 212 coming across and at that point they didn't want to have any bridges. They wanted to have frontage roads that were about 3 to 5 miles apart because a bridge is too expensive at a million dollars. At that point in time we talked to them and the City presented our case that someday this land would be developed and you'd look back and say that that was a million dollars for a bridge is pretty inexpensive. The same thing could be held true today and to look at the value of this land that still is undeveloped, you have three major golf courses around it. You have two major lakes. It's a very special piece of property and from the standpoint of tax base, it's not, it's $100,000 an acre, whatever number it is right now. It's looking at when it is ultimately developed and looking at what is that tax base to the city. I think you're going to see that it's millions of dollars of tax base to the city, even without having extremely high density, so it is something that can be looked at. I hope the Planning Commission takes the time to evaluate the concerns of everyone, but as well looks at it as one of the last resources of the community. We're getting near the end of land being able to be developed, and there are needs for it, for the community that aren't yet being met. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you. Kate, do you want to touch at all on the 212 interchange aspect? Aanenson: We've heard those comments and they have been passed onto MnDot and we'll certainly continue to talk that. Again the interchange at 41, where that ends up is still under study. We're hoping certainly that that moves further west. We're concerned about the proximity to the seminary fen. So that still is under study. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Rick Dorsey: Can I make one more comment? 27 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Sacchet: Sure, go ahead. Rick Dorsey: This actually relates to the comment I made earlier. I've been arguing for a number of years that we have too planned, we have the 3 intersections planned in Chanhassen, as you pointed out, and the fact that we've had so many comments from Chaska residents here tonight further reinforces my concern that one of the major issues here is we're moving a lot of people from Chaska through county roads as part of this and a number of the intersections involved here aren't part of this AUAR. The 101/Pioneer Trail intersection has come up. There's several circumstances. That's not part of this AUAR. But will be affected by the decisions we make here. Aanenson: Just to give an update on that. The State and the County are working to put a signal at 101 and Pioneer Trail. That should be in place I believe next year, and the traffic consultants can comment on that but my understanding is Pioneer will drop significantly once 212 is opened. Rick Dorsey: It would drop a lot more if they had put in an intersection at Pioneer Trail and 212. Aanenson: They will, yep. Yep. Sacchet: Alright, this is a public hearing. Who else would like to address the commission? Please come forward at this point. State your name and address for the record please. George Dorsey: George Dorsey, 1551 Lyman. I'm amused. I could drive all the way from Edina down to Brownsville, Texas without a single stop but to get to Edina from Chanhassen, there's 8 or 9 stop signs. ! could go 1,800 miles without a stop but I couldn't go 20 miles with about 8 or 9 so when you keep adding these on. Sacchet: We'll get more of them. Alright, thanks for your comment. Who else would like to address the commission. Please come forward. If there is nobody else. Yeah there is somebody else. Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I think I'm the only Chan resident here tonight. I'm just wondering what the notification was. Was it just in the newspaper. I mean are Chan residents in the area, I have friends in that region that I think would be very interested. You know I've been involved and I opened up the agenda tonight and was really surprised when I saw what was on it so you know I'd just like, maybe a newspaper article or something encouraging residents to get involved now because ! know that when the development is talked about, there's going to be a lot of questions that might be well addressed now rather than later. Thanks. Sacchet: Thanks Debbie. Yeah, it's my understanding we use our standard 500 feet radius and I would assume that's around the whole AUAR area. Aanenson: All the property owners that have been involved in all the task force meetings, all the task force meetings have been published. We did publish a lengthy notice in the Villager regarding this meeting tonight. Again notice was sent. Some of the Chaska residents, Mitch Anderson who's been actively attending all the meetings has been a conduit for that neighborhood and that's great. We are seeking anybody that wants to be on a mailing list, that certainly we've tried to get active. Slagle: Would it be okay, could we ask the Villager to maybe write a story? 28 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Aanenson: Sure. I mean again it's going out to comment. Anybody, certainly we'll put that out. That's a requirement of the notification in the local paper that copies are available and we certainly welcome those comments. I think some of the questions here kind of go beyond the scope of this too of what's happening in the city and I would direct any of those residents that are concerned about Pioneer Trail, some of that stuff, that they contact the appropriate, whether it's the city engineer or the planning staff to get some of those questions answered too. Slagle: But I guess I'm just, I'm with you but I'm just thinking that an article, the future of Chanhassen or whatever, just obviously objective and factual but I think...okay. Aanenson: Sure, and again I think that was part of the purpose of having this live broadcast too so we're trying to get the word out. Sacchet: Yeah, and I want to point out that this public hearing will be continued next time so this is certainly not the end of taking input. And then on top of that, it's still going to go into the official comment period which is going to last, what did he say, 45 days. Mark Koegler: 30-45 days, correct. Sacchet: Okay, 30 to 45 days on top of it, so there's going to be plenty of opportunity to get feedback and all kinds of avenues. This is just the start of this process and we're still developing the actual detailed report. We have a draft in front of us that's very elaborate, but like mitigation measures will be added and other things still. Alright, it's a public hearing. One more chance. Who hasn't spoken that really wants to speak? There is somebody, excellent. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record please. Let us hear what you have to say. Jeff Kerfeld: Hi, Jeff Kerfeld. 2702 Shadow Wood Court, Chaska. Contrary to what was mentioned about public notice, my property actually borders the medium density housing through our back yard and I had spoken to someone from the City of Chanhassen and did not receive notice of this meeting so that was about 3 months ago I had asked to be put on the mailing list so whatever's in place isn't totally working. Fortunately one of our neighbors attended one of the Autumn Woods. Aanenson: He's attended every one and he's been on the mailing list so. Jeff Kerfeld: Pardon me? Aanenson: He's been at every meeting and yeah we e-mail frequently so he's been their conduit so I apologize if you didn't get put on. Jeff Kerfeld: No, I specifically spoke to someone from Chanhassen and asked to be put on the list and never received anything, and with my neighbor, with my back yard bordering the property I would appreciate it. Sacchet: Would qualify for the 500 feet you would think, yeah, yeah. Jeff Kerfeld: ...and I'm on whatever else so. What plans have also been in place as far as the look and feel of the medium density housing? Our back yard has about a 45 degree slope, which if you put a high rise property you will have a nice picturesque view of our back yard and everything else going on. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Sacchet: So you would disagree with the vertical versus horizontal comment before? Jeff Kerfeld: Or what, there's also a large number of nice trees that, not necessarily in our back yard however about the 3 or 4 houses going from Shadow Wood towards Audubon and was just curious as far as what level of property, if anything, or if there's going to be a berm created. Otherwise I need to look into fences and that type of thing so. Sacchet: Basically, I mean we haven't looked at details of that development. We've looked at a concept. Rough concept which is basically, the way I recall, and you may want to correct me if I'm wrong, is development on the open part is actually a very sensitive proposal in terms of preserving pretty much all the wooded areas and in terms of height, we're not talking multi-story. I mean like there might be two stories like a town home but it's not like you have them stacked up. Jeff Kerfeld: I just know over by Super Target, you know they go too high and obviously with the elevation of the land looking into Shadow Wood, those would stick out. Sacchet: These would be the type of discussions that we would have when we actually get the application for that development in front of us. The concept is in place. Jeff Kerfeld: But...the idea of shifting some of the density maybe more towards the Powers extension simply because if you look at it on the map, with Shadow Wood and Autumn Woods and there's a large concentration that you're creating in that one area and there's a huge area that really will not be populated with, so anyway. I know it takes time and takes effort and takes meetings and all that fun stuff, but in this case it might be in the best interest to reconsider how the land is, and I make the left hand turn every morning onto Audubon to try to get onto Pioneer Trail. Similar to 101. Considering the... Sacchet: So it is possible though? Jeff Kerfeld: ...I feel everyone's pain as far as that goes and I'm not sure if adding a signal light at Butternut is going to help me go left or right out of my neighborhood because I just have to sit there and force it. If somebody will let me in. I think if you live there, you'll understand why everyone is concerned about this. Sacchet: Please also understand that at this point no decision has been taken in terms of this Town and Country development. Jeff Kerfeld: Right... Sacchet: There has been a concept has been looked at and based on that this area study was set in motion. But the decision about this particular application, that's still in the future. Jeff Kerfeld: Okay. I just want to make sure that the first down leads to approval of medium density housing and then we're stuck with that, and then we contemplate what this should look like, and we actually had an apartment complex that potentially went in on the corner of Audubon and 17, or excuse me at the comer of Audubon and Pioneer Trail where the dentist office and that was turned down based upon the cosmetic appearance and everything and that was through the City of Chaska. So we've been through this. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Sacchet: And I also may want to point out, we do have design standards for the city and when we, like most likely in most of these developments I would expect in this study area, it's my understanding that Town and Country...is under PUD which gives us additional flexibility to ask for higher quality components in terms of what's being developed and gives us also flexibility to preserve more of the green space. That's definitely what we're aiming for. Thank you for your comments. Alright, who else? Lots of good comments. I want to thank you for all your comments. Anybody else wants to come forward. If not tonight you have another chance in 2 weeks. I am not going to close this hearing tonight. We'll leave this open and it will be continued in 2 weeks on September 2nd. And 1 would expect at that time you'll have a little more details. Is it reasonable to expect we have some of the mitigation elements in front of us by then? Mark Koegler: Correct. Sacchet: So we basically would have a more finalized draft, a more complete draft in place by then. Mark Koegler: Correct. Sacchet: Excellent. Kate. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, if I could recommend maybe just a 5 minute bio break. Sacchet: I think a 5 minute bio break would be well advised so we'll continue, I say 5 to 9:00 with the hope that I'm hammering at 9:00. Thank you very much everybody. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR WALL SIGNAGE LOCATED AT 590 WEST 79TM STREET. Public Present: Name Address Mike Morris Shawn Griffin, Griffin Sign & Awning 590 West 79th Street 21513 51 st Avenue N.W., Cambridge Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Bob. Questions from staff. Steve, do you want to start? Lillehaug: Sure, a couple quick ones. Could you put that picture back up there of the existing Applebee's. And then just a comment. Question. Sacchet: Is your microphone on? Lillehaug: I don't know. Slagle: Do you want the other picture? 31 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Lillehaug: Yeah, the other picture of the back. Are there currently 3 signs directing carry out to 3 parking stalls right in front of that door? I mean I drove by there and I think, are they new additions? Generous: Yes. They put those reserve spots if you will. Lillehaug: Are they temporary or? Generous: You'd have to ask them. It's more direction type sign. Lillehaug: Another question. In the report you mentioned that one of the hardships was because the parking was required by the city to be on the north side of Applebee's. If the parking was allowed on the south side of the building, would have the City allowed that sign to be placed there? Generous: Yes. They're permitted signage on street frontages so yes. As long as total signage did not exceed what's permitted they would give them a permit. Lillehaug: So currently they could still put a sign on the south side right now per code if they wanted to. Generous: Well we gave them only one elevation. We call it the frontage and they picked the west one. Because that street is sort of funny. It wraps around there. But it's not a big enough curve to be designed as two streets by our ordinance. Lillehaug: Okay, that's it thanks. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Bruce. Feik: No questions, thank you. Sacchet: Kurt. Papke: Just a quick one. You said there will be a neon sign as well, did I hear you correctly? Generous: Yes. Papke: Are there any restrictions on the hours with which that can be lit or anything like that? Since this is a lighted sign and. Generous: Not specifically. Papke: Any issues or concerns with that? Maybe another ancillary question. What are the sight lines to this sign? Who's going to see the sign at the end of the day? Generous: The Tires Plus and whatever the bowling alley site redevelops. Papke: Okay, so there will be direct sight line from the bowling alley site? You'll be able to see it from the parking lot or whatever. Generous: Yes, portions of it, yes. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Papke: Okay. I don't think the neon is a major concern. I was just wondering if there are any, since it is lighted, are there any conditions on when it can be lit or anything like that because that could be the only source of objection that I could see. Sacchet: Bethany. Tjomhom: If they get the sign and they put it up, it says To Go or whatever it does say, can they take it down then in 6 months and replace it with a sign that says something else or is this just for this specific sign? Generous: It's specific based on these plans right now. They would have to amend the variance. Tjomhom: So if they wanted to put up a different sign saying something else they'd have to come back and get permission again? Generous: They'd have to amend the variance, correct. Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Rich. Slagle: Just a quick question. On the neighboring restaurants that you use Bob as sort of a justification as granting a variance. How is there drive parking situation at the front of their restaurant? And I apologize for not remembering but I mean do they have allocated spaces that, and Buffalo Wild Wings/Chipotle, do they. Al-Jaff: No, they share parking. Slagle: But do they have things, do they have parking spaces designated for pick-up only? AI-Jaff: No. Slagle: Okay. And let me ask you this. Have you sensed any traffic problems with the parking lot? Unfortunately I haven't been there yet but. A1-Jaff: Fortunately, well when it first opened of course there was quite a bit of traffic to Chipotle. Lately I think those numbers are becoming normal. Stabilizing. Slagle: And has Buffalo opened yet? Feik: Tuesday. Slagle: Commissioner Lillehaug is grinning as you're talking about this Sharmeen so, okay I'll take that as an answer as well. Okay, thanks. Sacchet: Since we talked about the percentage of how much signage could be on the elevation, do we know that they actually exhausted the allowable percentage on their west? Generous: Not off the top of my head. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Sacchet: Don't know for sure, okay. I was just curious. It's not really that essential but... interesting context. And I'm out of questions for the applicant. So with that I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward. Tell us what you have to tell us. Mike Morris: I'm Mike Morris, the current GM at the Applebee's here on West 79th. I should really clarify the whole process of the car site. What we're trying to implement is when a person pulls up we do have the designated parking, which I had mentioned of the 3 signs that we're currently at. What we're doing is we're getting people actually to deliver the food to the car side, which...permit for the sign at that designated spot so people don't mistake those cars for just general parking. Pretty straight forward program. We see it as building sales quite drastically actually. It's already increased 8 percent over last year which is significant. Shawn Griffin: And I'm Shawn Griffin with Griffin Sign. Applebee's International is doing this on 2,000 locations so it's not just a certain amount of them, and they're all doing consistently with the 3 parking signs, a video camera, a neon sign and an awning so it's a roll out program nationally. And I've already completed all 14 of them so. Sacchet: You'll be busy for a while. Questions from the applicant? Slagle: Just a quick one. So concept is they call ahead and is there a timeframe that you give them, is that sort of how it works? Mike Morris: Yep. Yeah, we'll roughly say you know 10-15 minutes, so on and so forth. We do have a camera installed so we actually say what kind of car do you drive. What color and size so when a red Tahoe pulls up we can actually run out and we know exactly what we're car we're servicing then. Slagle: Last question. I think I saw 4 spaces adjacent to your building, is that correct? Mike Morris: Apparently 3. Slagle: Only 3 total? Mike Morris: Yeah, right at that... Slagle: l'm going left from the door. Mike Morris: ...but we only have 3 spots that are actually designated. Slagle: How many available right next to the building? Feik: One handicap. 4 stalls, one handicap. Mike Morris: Actually the handicap is just on the opposite side of the front door. Slagle: So it's 4? Mike Mort'is: Yep, and then just 3 of them are designated... Slagle: My only question is this. Is having been a patron many times here, 5:00ish, 6:00ish, it gets pretty crazy. I mean what happens when they fill up? Do you have people just backed up? 34 Planning Commission Meeting -August 19, 2003 Mike Morris: Currently we haven't run into that problem as of yet. Obviously it's a new program. We're really taking recommendations from other stores that are coming into this program. Unfortunately we're going to have some traffic that they will have to walk through the door. Slagle: Can I just ask you to consider opening that fourth as being necessary? Mike Morris: It's definitely in the first two weeks are really kind of our honeymoon weeks. I've got to see where we go on it. Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Bethany, any questions? Any other questions from the applicant? Lillehaug: Do you anticipate leaving those 3 signs in those stalls as well as having the awning sign and the sign, the neon sign so you'll have in respect 5 signs there? Because those signs in front of the parking stall, they do say, it's a larger sign. It says Car Side To Go. 10 minute parking only and they are fairly large signs. Mike Morris: Yeah, currently we're talking, we're considering leaving those there. Shawn Griffin: The only problem is if you get a full size truck like I have a Suburban, you cover that sign. You'll never see it so that's why we have...and the awning above the door. Sacchet: So this is interesting. I was actually curious to understanding how this kind of works. In the ideal case the customer would never come into the restaurant. They would just pull up and based on the video camera you would see the car and know what to bring out and so they would only be there very briefly and go on, in the ideal set-up they would not be really much of an issue because they come and go. Mike Morris: Correct. Sacchet: Now if for some reason those stalls are occupied, they would park somewhere else and walk up in there through that door or how does that work? Mike Morris: Yeah, you can still enter through that door. That's not. Sacchet: But the idea is that's an entrance and exit would just be for the pick-up type of traffic. Mike Morris: ... Sacchet: But the customer could potentially use that door if they want to come tell you they're there and where is it and have you done it yet and is it still warm or whatever. Okay. Mike Morris: Yeah. Sacchet: When they come in there, they actually come in there where the ramp is to go to the restrooms. And I see that it's close to the entrance to the kitchen so that's part of the thinking, the practicality. So where would I go if I come in there, because I couldn't part right in front of it, would I just flag the first waiter or? Slagle: Or cook. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Sacchet: Or walk into the kitchen. Mike Morris: Well actually we have a station set up there where a person can... Sacchet: So there's actually a station there, okay. Okay. Mike Morris: ...so you'll never actually have to enter. Sacchet: Alright, that's what I wanted to hear, okay. Thank you for answering that. Alright, anything else you want to add from your end? Mike Morris: I don't think so. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Mike Morris: Thank you. Sacchet: Now this is a public hearing so I'!1 open this for comments from the community. If anybody wants to come forward and address this item, this is your chance. Anybody want to comment to this signage variance? Seeing nobody, I close the hearing. And bring it back to the commission for comments. Who wants to start? Should we start with Kurt? Papke: No issues. Sacchet: No issues? Okay, thanks Kurt. Bruce. Feik: I don't have a problem with it. Sacchet: Okay. Steve. Lillehaug: Quite a few signs. Really it's going to stand out. You're going to know where to park. There's no doubt about that. Sacchet: Are you saying too many signs? Lillehaug: They're right on the bubble. I'm going to stay away from the word drive thru so I won't say that. Sacchet: Yeah, it's not a drive thru. It's a park thru. Alright, thanks Steve. Bethany. Tjornhom: I'm fine with it. Sacchet: You're okay? Rich. Slagle: Totally support it. Great business. The only thing I would add, and I would like to suggest adding as a condition would be that we require those 3, if not parking stalls, to be used for this additional service. I'm going to guess the applicant is going to do that anyway, but I would just hate to drive up and see a line of 6 cars, one after another blocking the entrance as they wait for their to go's. I mean you wouldn't want that either so. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Sacchet: You're saying they should be all 4 designated? Slagle: I'd like to see 4 but I'll rely on their expertise. But I want to see at least the 3 that are currently in place being used. And maybe it's a model to watch for our other two businesses nearby if they run into their congestion problem.. They might want to consider secured parking for pick-up. Sacchet: Okay, thanks Rich. I don't have too much to add. I think those are concerns that are going to be addressed by the applicant. If there's not enough parking it's going to be in your interest to allocate more. So I would think that's in your hands. As a point of, so with that I would like to get a motion. Who would want to make a motion please? Feik: I'll make a motion. Sacchet: Go ahead Bruce. Feik: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Variance #2003-11 to allow a wall sign and a canopy sign to be placed on the north elevation of Applebee's Restaurant with the following conditions, I through 2 with the additional third being at least 3 car stalls adjacent to the entryway shall be designated for, what are we calling this? For car side to go parking. Slagle: Second. Sacchet: We have a motion. We have a second. Feik moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Variance/12003-11 to allow a wall sign and a canopy sign to be placed on the north elevation of Applebee's Restaurant with the following conditions: I. The signs must be constructed and installed per drawings submitted on 7/18/03. 2. A building permit must be obtained before installing the awning on the building. At least 3 car stalls adjacent to the entryway shall be designated for car side to go parking. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF SMG, INC. REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REQUEST WITH VARIANCES FOR A GOLF COURSE ON PROPERTY ZONED A2 LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF PIONEER TRAIL AND GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD. Public Present: Name Address David Teich Dorothy Hautman Judy & David Walstad Tom J. & Kathleen Gertz Jeffrey Sorum Sharon Gatto Shawn & Nicola Smith John & Anna Mae Makela Kevin Norbdy Ron Saatzer Gaye Guyton Boyd Peterson 1217 S. Monroe, Shakopee 10095 Great Plains Boulevard 10071 Great Plains Boulevard 10001 Great Plains Boulevard 9900 Deerbrook Drive 9631 Foxford Road 725 Halla Nursery Drive 9860 Raspberry Hill Architect 9450 Foxford Road 10083 Great Plains Boulevard 9860 Pioneer Circle Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Sharmeen. Questions from staff. Slagle: I just have a couple. Sharmeen, you had mentioned concerns from the neighbors regarding, among other things, lights. So if I understand you right you're saying that because it's sunrise to sunset we will not see any lights? Because ! don't see lights on the plans. AI-Jaff: There aren't any lights. One of the things that we talked about is, something that resembles a residential light fixture at your door. You usually have front lights. Door lights. That type of thing is acceptable. But you won't have any parking lot lights. Slagle: Okay and I apologize for not remembering but is that in the conditions? And specifically what I'm going to ask if it's not in the conditions, will you put it in the conditions, but more importantly specify, if the rest of the commissioners feel the same, we have a driving range. When I first saw this my first thought was my gosh, you're going to have big flood lights as these people, you know, and then I noticed the hours of limit on the operations. But I guess ! just want to be perfectly clear that they are in the conditions because at some point someone could interpret them different. Put up a few lights and then we have the whole issue of trying to get them to take it down. Is that a fair question? A1-Jaff: That's a fair question and it should be a condition of approval. Slagle: Okay, and then I have another question regarding, and just more as a perhaps ignorant question, but I don't think so. We're going off Pioneer versus 101. Al-Jaff: Correct. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Slagle: I'm not suggesting I'm bias one way or the other but when you hear about all the traffic problems at 101 and Pioneer, does this raise any concern or is the traffic just not substantial enough? A1-Jaff: Well, I will turn this question over to our engineering department but in the near future there will be a signal at this intersection and Mak. Sweidan: Regarding the traffic, it may and may not affect but it will be affecting to it and that's due to the corner lot. It's actually that intersection so it could be from the four direction to that comer. The golf course. And maybe it will be within the days it will not be affecting the rush hour which is early morning or like you know the p.m. Slagle: My only concern Mak is that people, if you have a light, you will have a fair amount of back-up, say it's 5:00 going westward on Pioneer. Someone taking a left to go west on Pioneer. Again, it might be enough of an issue but I just thought it'd be important to raise it because I do think it's going to be fairly close to that intersection. Papke: It is an issue now. I mean right now the traffic backs up at least several hundred yards beyond where the entrance is planned during rush hour and I can envision a number of Eden Prairie residents using this you know, this golf course and so I would not be surprised if there's a fair amount of traffic at that point. Sweidan: Usually that delay, the set up from intersection is about minimum 100 feet, 300 feet. So with this one here it's more than 300. Papke: But I sit in that every day and it does back up well beyond the planned entrance, with the current 4 way stop. Now I realize a year from now there will be a stop sign, and so it may not be an issue at that point but unless we remediate that, it could be a problem and I don't know that I would, that people won't be using this facility after work. I can envision someone going and saying oh, let's get in a quick 9 holes before dinner so I agree. I think the traffic is. Slagle: Can I just, one more question. Sacchet: Go ahead Rich. Slagle: And that is, thanks Kurt. With respect to the dumping, and we don't need to get into it too much but I guess I would just ask, if dumping and how we want to define that has been ongoing. I certainly feel that it's appropriate to tie that into this approval, whether it's the applicant claims no responsibility, which I'll trust that's the case. Still the owner of this land has some benefit in seeing this proceed through. It seems to me that you sort of say you've got to fix that and then, I mean I'd hate to approve this and then have the dumping keep going. So FYI on that. Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Bethany. We're at questions by the way. Tjomhom: I don't know if I'm supposed to ask you Sharmeen or the applicant about the design of the course. Al-Jaff: I would ask that you ask the applicant. Thank you. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Tjornhom: Alright, I'll leave you out that so I guess I don't have any questions. Sacchet: Kurt. Papke: Yeah a couple issues. There's an inconsistency between the drawings and the text in regards to building sizes. Which one is correct? A1-Jaff: Correct. The...in staff's report and it should be a condition of approval in here that under the site plan condition number 12 and condition number 13, those are the accurate sizes. Papke: Okay, next question. There's a recommendation by Todd that we put in a trail. A bike pedestrian trail and it wasn't clear to me where that would be and how far it would extend. Al-Jaff: What Todd was referring to was this intersection and bringing it to the entrance into the golf course. Papke: Okay, so we would be encouraging traffic to cross at the stop light, because right now the trail is on the north side. Al-Jaff: That's correct. Papke: So we wouldn't be trying to get people to take the existing trail and cross in the middle of the highway. Okay, I just wanted to make sure I understood, and we wouldn't extend it past the entrance? The trail. A1-Jaff: No. The intent is from this intersection down to the parking lot. Or the entrance into. Slagle: Can I suggest one quick thing? A1-Jaff: Yes. Slagle: Can you have it go down on the west side of the parking lot so you don't have bikes interfering with cars? A1-Jaff: Sure. Papke: I had the same concerns with lighting that were already brought up and the traffic. Question about water. There will be a new well here and I would think that a golf course is going to utilize a substantial amount of water. Are there any issues or concerns with draw down of the water in the area? I mean there are people right across the Pioneer Trail who have private wells. Is anyone going to be impacted by the water that's being consumed by the golf course? Has there been any analysis of this? Any calculations? Any concerns? Al-Jaff: I can definitely check on that one but I'm not qualified to answer that question. Sweidan: Actually I don't know how much it's going to affect exactly around the neighbors. Kevin Nordby: Actually I can address that in a minute. Sacchet: Okay. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Papke: The flip side of that question, golf courses normally utilize a lot of fertilizer, pesticides and so on. Are you also going to be addressing that issue? Okay. The only other concern I have for staff is the plans show a trail going close to the bluff line where I believe the dumping occurred. Does staff have any concern about the proximity of that path to the bluff and what will happen there? Okay if I can use somewhat graphic terminology for a moment. We're going to have golfers consuming multiple cans of beer. Okay. Then walking past the bluff and this would be a wonderful opportunity to remediate that situation. Lillehaug: Maybe even more on that. Isn't that trail within the bluff setback? A1-Jaff: Correct, and there is a condition of approval that says no grading and the trail is also addressed in here within the bluff impact zone. So there needs to be some minor redesigning of this area to push the, there can't be any impact. Sacchet: Which condition is that Sharmeen, if you'd just point that out please so we can see it. AI-Jaff: ...does not allow any dumping. Lillehaug: Number 6. On conditional use permit. A1-Jaff: Yes, and I apologize. We jumped from 6 to 9. We're missing the 7 and 8. Condition number 6. In the CUP and number 6. Lillehaug: Maybe it should be part of the site plan conditions too though. Papke: So just to make sure I understand what this means. Does this mean that staff is going to require that that walkway be moved from where it's currently shown on the drawing? Is that what you're. A1-Jaff: If it impacts the, yes. It will need to be shifted. Papke: Alright, that's all I had. Thank you. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Brace, Feik: Yeah a few. First one is, do you have any concerns regarding golf balls going out into the street, particularly onto Great Plains, 101, from that number 8 par 4? A1-Jaff: The applicant is increasing the landscaping along 101. There is. Feik: Okay, you're satisfied with what they do, I guess my question is you're satisfied with what they're doing? Al~Jaff: If I'm the one playing I would be satisfied. Feik: This is dangerous because we're talking drivers here. Kevin Nordby: I'll try to address that again. Feik: Okay, thank you. I'll move on then. 41 Planning Commission Meeting- August 19, 2003 Sacchet: Going to have to ban me from that course. Feik: From a planning perspective, you know the original had this plotting out for some lots. We originally had two accesses to the parcel to the south. From an overall land use perspective, do you have any concerns regarding access to the southerly parcel? If you go back, do you know what I'm talking about? There were two roads that were originally in the original plat that was approved in '96. With this going in, obviously access to those two roads, contemplated roads would be denied. From a land use perspective do you have concerns with any of that? AI-Jaff: No. This is a conditional use. This access point is adequate. The applicant is leasing the land for the time being. Does that answer your question? Feik: Kind of. Sacchet: Site could change. This is not a final solution. AI-Jaff: If 10 years from now Mr. Halla decides that it fits. Feik: Okay, got it. That puts things in a little different perspective. We're talking here about a liquor license from a zoning land use perspective, is there any reason to believe that they would be able to get their beer and wine type license in this location? A1-Jaff: That's a City Council decision. All the golf courses within the area have a 3.2. We checked with other communities. Same thing. They all have it. Pending approval. Feik: Okay. A number of weeks ago we had a working session. We were talking about manufactured structures. In particular I'm not sure you were at that one but my question is, the installation of this manufactured structure, would that conform with the contemplated changes that we discussed a number, I guess it'd be 2 ¥2-3 months ago. We talked about full foundations and some other things. AI-Jaff: They would have to meet the building code requirements, which involves foundation. Feik: Next question. Signage on I guess it's Pioneer. I'm assuming that will not be lighted signage? Al-Jaff: No. Feik: So the applicant might be okay if we specifically say non-lighted. AI-Jaff: Correct. Feik: Two more I think. We just got some new stuff as we started this. Is this included? Does this need to be included, assuming this goes forward. Al-Jaff: These are new conditions that were added by our engineering department. Mainly, if you look at this existing gravel. Feik: The east/west gravel access to the south side parcels. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Al-Jaff: Correct. One of the things that we talked to the applicant at length about was realigning the entrance. This memo addresses the entrance requirements such as this portion would need to be paved as required by ordinance. Truck access easements and our main concern in asking the applicant to realign this point is sight distances. This is improved. It's really in keeping with the plat that was approved back in 1996 as far as where to align an access, in general, onto 101. Feik: Okay. I have just two more questions. One is in the conditional use permit and number 5 regarding the soil samples and the use of fertilizers. We've had lots of conversation, and City Council has discussed regulations, rules, ordinances. Help me out as to where that sort is globally from a city and how this fits into that or doesn't. AI-Jaff: I can address this specific situation as well as how we've dealt with other golf courses. RSS, Rain, Shine, Snow, basically provides the City with a once a year report that basically takes the soils. Tells us what level of phosphorus is in the ground, and based upon that we can work with them to figure out whether they need to add any more. So this would fall into the same category. Slagle: Adding more, take some out? AI-Jaff: Correct. Slagle: Phosphorus. Feik: One last one, and I'm going to get back to where we started I think with Rich regarding the dump, or dumping. We believe the individual responsible for the dumping is the current owner? A1-Jaff: Correct. Feik: So if we made that specific requirement to this, they would need to get fixed up period. Right, prior to this going forward. Al-Jaff: There's quite a bit of history on this issue. I mean we went through this 10 years ago and we cleaned it up and. Sacchet: Now we do it again? A1-Jaff: Well different types of materials. Before it was, there was plastic and other. Feik: But this would give the current owner an incentive. I'm assuming. Okay, that's the last question, thank you. Sacchet: Steve, questions from staff. Lillehaug: I want to kind of put this into perspective...approximately what size Rain, Snow or Shine is as far as acreage. Any guess? Anybody? Sacchet: Smaller than this. Half the size maybe. Lillehaug: Okay. No guess? Al-Jaff: Commissioner Sacchet was saying half the size. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Sacchet: Yeah I think this is maybe not double the size but it's definitely bigger than. Lillehaug: And then just to hit on soils test. Do we know, will the applicant know exactly which soil tests he must be performing? I mean I know what soils testings are but I mean are we being specific enough here or is there? Al-Jaff: I will work with Lori on this issue. Lillehaug: Okay. The trash enclosure. Condition number 16, it says show location of trash enclosure. Do we also typically indicate or have a plan on what type of materials this trash enclosure is being built out of, etc? Is this something we should probably add to ensure that it's, it matches the building or whatever, we typically do that? A1-Jaff: Sure. Exterior materials shall match those used on the building. Lillehaug: And then has this plan been put in front of MnDot because 101 is a trunk highway. AI-Jaff: I sent referrals up to MnDot. I haven't heard from them. Typically what happens is 2-3 days before something appears before council I get something. Lillehaug: And we've had no response at this point? A1-Jaff: I have talked to them about this access point, probably about 2 years ago where I picked up the phone and just said help me out with a situation. And they were extremely favorable of the realignment. They thought. Lillehaug: And I'm speaking particularly about the safety issue with Hole 8 right next to the trunk highway there. I could shank some balls out into traffic. I guarantee you and I'm sure there will be, so it's a definite safety issue and concern and maybe the netting will provide some protection but I don't think we can fully protect it there. So I'm wondering if we've had response from MnDot. AI-Jaff: No I haven't. Lillehaug: Do they typically respond with a no response? I just want to be. Al-Jaff: No, they always send something. Lillehaug: So that's what I'm getting at is, we haven't, MnDot hasn't responded but we're expecting it. That's all I have, thanks. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. I've got a few questions too. Let's see whether I can keep us awake. The water aspect. Is a golf course like with odd/even restrictions as other places in the city? A1-Jaff: ... Sacchet: You said we're okay with manufactured and we have cedar siding and not corrugated. The netting, yeah the netting. At this point we're talking about a netting along the east side of the relocated private street. We're not talking about netting on 101. Okay, can you show again just assume they know. So that would be over there, okay. Yeah, there it would definitely be needed. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Slagle: So we wouldn't go further? Sacchet: The way it's worded, no. It would just be down there. Al-Jaff: The intent in the staff report was to just line this area. Sacchet: They'd better not have me golfing there. Four accessible parking spaces and accessible route. That is like if there will be people accompanying golfers? At first I thought hum, I'm not quite sure how somebody in a wheelchair would be golfing but maybe I don't know. Maybe it does, is done. No comment? Okay. The line up of the access with Foxford Road. Looking at the plan it seems like that would eliminate number 1 of the holes, wouldn't it? Or short, it would be a par 1, right? Alright, I'm getting tired. Lillehaug: Can I ask a question? Condition 8 is line up that road with Foxford Road or meet a minimum spacing offset of 300 feet. I'm looking at these plans and I don't think the scale's right on them and I can't scale nothing. Do we know exactly what that offset is right now from 1017 Because I couldn't scale it. I don't know. Sweidan: Lillehaug: Sweidan: feet... Sacchet: The offset from the Foxford to the proposed access is about 150 feet. How many? 150 feet. So they need to have 300. Center with Foxford or at least a minimum 300 So the solution would actually to be moving it west then. Slagle: East. Sacchet: Well no, away from Foxford because... You can't go closer than that, is that you're saying Mak? Lillehaug: The spacing from 101 to the drive is 150 feet, is that what you're saying? Sweidan: I'm talking about the access for the car park at this point. Lillehaug: Yep. Sweidan: Yeah, the existing one is 150 feet so minimum it has to be either 300 or center line with Foxford. Sacchet: If it is 300, where would that roughly put it? Sweidan: It would be approximately before the end of the car park. Sacchet: Yeah if you could show us on the map that would help because that's my question. Slagle: Mak if you can, ifI may Mr. Chair. Show us first 101, the distance from there to I01 and the intersection of Pioneer and 101, and then. 45 Planning Commission Meeting- August 19, 2003 Sweidan: Yeah, this is Foxford. Okay. Sacchet: And right now it's 150 from Foxford. Sweidan: It's 150 from here to here. Sacchet: So we have to go that way. Sweidan: To go that way which is approximately this. This will give them the 300 feet. Sacchet: So it could be further west, okay. Slagle: So it will still be okay with 101 and Pioneer, okay. Sweidan: Yes. Sacchet: Thank you Mak. That helps. Lillehaug: Can ! beat that one a little more? Sacchet: Yes. Lillehaug: Is Pioneer, is that a county road? Sweidan: County road, yes. Lillehaug: Have they seen this because I'm not sure if they would allow that access that close to 101, especially with the new signal going in there. Sweidan: We didn't get a reply from them yet. Lillehaug: Say that again? Sweidan: We didn't get that replay from them. Sacchet: There's a couple holes there. Beaten on it enough? Lillehaug: Yep. Sacchet: The ravine dumping. Are we in our rights by putting into the condition potentially that it has to be cleaned up in this framework? Okay. So that no lighting on the course or on the range. Is there a condition already for that in there? Just want to make sure. AI-Jaff: No outdoor lighting shall be permitted. Sacchet: Number? AI-Jaff: 9 under conditional use permit. Sacchet: Our's stops at 8. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Feik: It only goes to 8. A1-Jaff: No, we're adding number 9. Sacchet: Adding, alright. Thank you Sharmeen. Alright. Okay, and would it be appropriate or overkill to state that the watering would be under regular city restrictions, meaning the odd/even system? A1-Jaff: That would be fair. Sacchet: That'd be fair, okay. And we definitely want to be fair. Feik: I thought if you had a personal well you weren't subject to the odd/even. Sacchet: Well that's what I asked. Feik: I know. If you have a personal well you're not subject to the odd/even. Sacchet: You are or you're not? Feik: You're not. Sacchet: You're not. Feik: It has to do with the city well and the infrastructure of the water. Sacchet: So they can pull as much as they want based on the fact that's their own well. Feik: Yes. Sacchet: So we could not make that a condition. Could we make that a condition still? Slagle: Do we need to? Feik: Why would you need to? It doesn't impact the city's wells. Sacchet: It certainly impacts the city's water. I mean. Slagle: Wait til comment time. Sacchet: Okay, I'm done with my questions. Thank you for the staff report. Thank you for your questions. If we could ask the applicant to come forward and tell us your story. We are still almost awake. Kevin Nordby: Yeah, we'll...My name is Kevin Nordby. I'm a golf course architect with Heffer Nordby Golf Course Architects out of Eden Prairie. The applicant, Ron Saatzer is here as well so there may be some questions that you can direct to him if I can't answer them. Would you like me to first just go through the entire project and sort of familiarize you with it? Sacchet: I think they're somewhat familiar. We all read, I think we all read the report and looked at the map but if you can summarize it really concisely that would be appreciated. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Kevin Nordby: Well this is. Feik: If you could put that up here we can get it on the camera and everybody else can see it. Kevin Nordby: Alright, right here? There you go. Sacchet: Excellent, thank you. Kevin Nordby: Well, Sharmeen did a pretty decent job of summarizing this. I'll try to pick up a few of the loose ends and answer some of the questions. Basically this golf course is being proposed on about 45 acres. It's a I think 50 acre site. It's currently owned by Don Halla. Ron Saatzer has worked out a long term lease on this piece of property to build and operate the golf course. It's a 9 hole golf course. It's being developed or designed as a short course and that wasn't just necessitated by the site but it was a conscience decision to really build a golf course that would appeal to the average golfer and the beginning golfer, particularly kids. It's Ron's intent to develop some children's programs, introductory programs and we think the shorter course will do a better job of providing that need. Meeting that need. There's a 300 yard driving range. It's approximately 300 feet wide. So it's pretty good size. There's also a practice green and a smaller chipping green. That's probably changed a little bit from the drawings that you saw originally. We have a chipping green that's located here. The club house was located in this location previously and is now located here, so we've just moved them around a little bit to try to provide some additional services and improve the circulation with cart paths around the club house. Parking lot and maintenance facility are still in the same location. Provide the same function. We are proposing to dig a couple ponds. There will be an irrigation pond here, which has been located in a, has been put in a location on the site where there is natural drainage running through that area. Water sort of collects in this area and runs through the site and actually exits the site over here on the northwest corner. There's another pond which is being located just west of the parking lot. That's being built primarily to treat and retain water from the parking lot. The parking lot will be paved. It will have some curbing, as you can see from the staff recommendations there's some additional planting islands and so forth which will be constructed. And then there's another smaller pond at the northeast corner of the site where there is an existing culvert going under the road and again this pond is being proposed as not only a golf course feature but also to retain and treat water before it leaves the site. So we're really using natural drainage. The site is actually, we're doing very little dirt work out here. There's one small area on Hole number 1 where we're cutting down a hill so you can see the green, and we're building up the tee for the driving range and beyond that there's not a lot of dirt work. We've provided some estimates to your engineering staff already so they kind of have an idea of what we're talking about, and there is a grading plan that's been prepared so. The club house, I actually have a revised narrative which I'd like to give you because it has a couple of changes which you've already inquired about. This narrative is basically the same as the one we submitted previously, except we had some discussions with planning staff regarding the club house and the maintenance facility. You'll notice that previously we were talking about a pre- manufactured facility for the club house. That's no longer the case. We're now putting up a Lester building, similar to the photograph that Sharmeen showed you previously. It's a, I guess a standard, you know what I call pole barn type facility. It will be 40 by 60, but instead of covering it with corrugated tin which is what you're seeing in the area out there, it will not be covered with a cedar siding, lap siding material such as I have here. And then it will be stained with a semi- transparent stain. The roof material will be asphalt type shingles and again we believe that we've met the city's requirements as far as transparency. Club house will be located again in this location, so it really has only one fagade that's facing the street and that would be Pioneer Trail to 48 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 the north. It will be probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 feet from the road and there's a large berm and landscaping and a parking lot inbetween that so it's actually quite well screened. We'll be landscaping 2 sides of it. We'll have a patio on the south side of it, and then we'll have the doors and windows that you see in this photograph on the north side. As far as the maintenance facility, again we're going to use a Lester type pole barn facility. That again will have cedar siding and asphalt shingles. And that will look similar to this. This building is what I would call a typical pole barn, Lester type building. Again this will be cedar sided. We'll have some additional windows and we'll again meet your requirements as far as transparency and so forth. So we've got that of that facility. Have an overhead door. A service door. Some windows. And again we'll be, there's the end view which faces Pioneer Trail so again windows and then landscaping as well. So we're trying to provide some separation between the number one tee and the maintenance facility and then there will be landscaping and trees around that as well. There was some question about wells and water, how that will be handled. We do have to, as a golf course, apply to the Minnesota, State of Minnesota MPCA and Department of Natural Resources for a permit so they will review this before we can actually sink a well which is capable of irrigating a golf course. We anticipate having a pump station which will pump somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 to 200,000 gallons a day. That will be a deep well. It will be a different aquifer most likely than the neighboring residents, but again the State will review that and typically that is a different aquifer. It's much deeper than the aquifer. The 80 foot aquifer or 100 foot aquifer that homeowners are in. Papke: So how deep is deep? Kevin Nordby: Well it could be 300 feet. I don't know. We haven't looked at that yet. Papke: Because my house is located not too far away and it's a 300 foot deep well. Kevin Nordby: Again we have to apply and it will be something that the State will review so I'm just saying there are courses we've done where people have been on 80 foot wells, and we're down 500 feet or 300 feet. But believe me they won't approve this if they think we're in jeopardy of drying up wells so. And we'll want to make sure that's the case before we get too far into this project so we'll need to secure those permits and I'm sure the City will be involved in that process. And there will be a second well, which will be more on a residential scale that will be used to just provide potable water for the golf course club house, and again we'll have to make application for that. That will be treated for drinking water so. So the irrigation pond, well basically we'll pump into the pond during the daylight hours to recharge that and since it is in the drainage pattern, natural drainage pattern there, we've also designed it so it collects the water on the site. And then during the evening hours we would irrigate the golf course. It is our intent, as every other golf course in the state to water every day. We can't water every other day. We can in times of severe hardship maybe look at minimizing water periods in the rough or on the fairways, but the greens and the tees would need to be water every day and so our application would take that into account. We'll have to estimate the number of gallons and the frequency and the State will review that. And we'll have to get a permit for that. There was a question or a comment about the bluff path, the cart path that we've got back on Hole number 3. And we did meet with Lori Haak out at the site and talked specifically about the path within that 20 foot setback and Sharmeen, I believe you were there but I think your comment was maybe contradictory to what we discussed. We can confirm this but our question was, can we have a cart path in that bluff impact zone and she said if you're not moving dirt and if you don't affect the water retention of that pond that was dug previously, we would allow that. And we said will would you prefer that that be wood chips or gravel and she said actually we would prefer that that'd be paved and that you drain it back towards the pond, not towards the bluff. That way we 49 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 minimize any potential of erosion or deterioration or carts digging up the cart path and then having that erode into the bluff, so it would be very difficult for us to relocate that particular path because we're not doing any grading. It's a par 3. It would be very difficult for us to relocate that path somewhere else. We're sort of landlocked between a pond and a bluff. And we've actually taken some survey shots out there, as she directed us to do, and she wants engineering staff to review that to make sure we're not impacting that as we build that. So our hope would be to not relocate that as I think might have been suggested a minute ago. So. Let's see here. We are I guess okay, I think we sort of found out about this tonight but the bike path connection at the northwest end of the site. We're in agreement with that. We're fine with providing that. As far as the entrance to the parking lot, I guess I was under the impression that we didn't have to line up the parking lot with a road. We're not building a new road, we're building a parking lot. Is that a standard requirement to line a parking lot up with a road? Sweidan: Yes. The access is considered like you know, similar to that access to the southeast access. We prefer it be center line. If not you have to reach with a center a minimum of 300. Kevin Nordby: Okay, so again my question is, a parking lot needs to be aligned with a road. It's not just a road needs to be aligned with a road? Sweidan: The access. Not just the parking lot, you know. The access, yes. Kevin Nordby: Okay. Okay. Okay, so your suggestion is to move that so that it's another 150 or a total of 300 feet offset from Foxford and then confirm that our distance is adequate from Pioneer Trail. Or excuse me, from 101, is that correct? Sweidan: Yes. Kevin Nordby: Alright, we'll confirm that prior to City Council I guess. As far as accessibility, you were talking I think about... Sacchet: Yeah, that surprised me. Kevin Nordby: Yeah, golf courses are a bit unique. Just in the last few years we've been seeing more emphasis on how to make golf courses handicap accessible and I forget off hand the exact number of tees, but I believe it's one-third of the tees need to be accessible. That is you can't have retaining walls completely surrounding or steps accessing the tees. You need to be able to drive, if you've seen the accessible golf carts that are available now on the market, so basically we're avoiding any steep inclines. We're avoiding retaining walls and steps and that sort of thing which we haven't got any of those proposed here so. Sacchet: Consistent throughout. Kevin Nordby: So this would be as accessible as, more so than the other courses in Chanhassen. And then there was some discussion or questions about fertilizing and how we go about testing. I think what staff has suggested is that on other golf courses they require annual soil test to determine the amount of primarily phosphorus, but I'm assuming also nitrogen and maybe potassium as well. Maybe heavy metals but what that will do will tell us whether we should be applying more or less phosphorus in our fertilizer applications, and so it's a means of monitoring how much fertilizer you need to put down in order to keep the grass green and healthy. The other thing I should point out here is that the superintendent here will need to be a licensed fertilizer and pesticide applicator, and so unlike most residential homeowners who fertilize based on what 5O Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 they think is correct, we'll actually have somebody here who is fertilizing based on very specific quantities, particularly tees and greens are very finicky about how much fertilizer we put on them so there will be a regular fertilizer program and most superintendents will tell you that putting on small amounts of fertilizer frequently is much better than putting on large amounts and therefore less susceptible to erosion and runoff from large rains and so forth. So we will have a licensed applicator doing that work. There was a question regarding Hole number 8, specifically the par 4. We've designed this golf course obviously with the amount of traffic, I actually live in Chaska. I lived in Chanhassen for 9 years so I'm very familiar with this, and I too sit in traffic every morning on that intersection so I'm aware of the congestion issue. But we've laid out this course so that there's about 180 to 220 feet of separation and in the case of Hole number 8, there are a number of large existing trees. As a matter of fact I think the largest trees on the site are left of Hole number 8, and we intend to save most of those trees. Now if you've driven by recently you've seen that there's been a lot of trees moved around and a few trees cut down. I think I just talked to Ron and he says they've moved about 75 trees on site, and they've got a very aggressive or extensive program of watering those trees before they move them and watering them after they've been moved so most of the trees that have been moved so far are on the south side of the property, towards the end of the driving range, but they're basically pulling them out of the middle of the site and putting them in per this buffer yard plan that was submitted to you. In the case of number 8, we've got quite a few trees proposed there in addition to the large trees that are there. Those are primarily ash, oak and linden. We're also going to be adding some evergreens and some more overstory trees so. Sacchet: Just to clarify, are you saying that the trees will prevent balls from flying into the cars? Kevin Nordby: The trees will help prevent balls flying in there. Flying into the road but we think that given the distance from the road, we're about 200 feet from the right-of-way, and then you've got another probably 20 feet or so to the paved road. It's on the left side which is generally the hook side, unless you're a left hander, so fear is generally more concerned about the low hook, and therefore we're providing evergreens and there's a lot of amber maple shrubs out there that are 12 or 15 feet tall already. Sacchet: Assuming more people are right handed. Kevin Nordby: Assuming more people are right handed than left. Now you still have a left hander who gets a high fade and that will you know be a concern but again you're 200 feet off line, which is a relatively safe distance. It's always surprising where people can hit golf balls to but in this case we've got the point that is furthest from the road where we expect most people's drives to end up. So if you look at the area where the red X is here, and the number 8. That's an area that's about 250 feet, excuse me, 250 yards out from the tee. So the person who would hit a ball 200 feet left would be generally be hitting a ball 220 to 240 yards. Sacchet: Are you sure it's 200? It doesn't look like 200 if this is to scale. It looks more like 100 to 150. Kevin Nordby: It should be. This should be a scale of I inch to 100, and you should, it's close to 2 inches to the edge of the pavement there. Feik: Can I ask a question? Kevin Nordby: Yep. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Feik: You know there's a number of golf courses who have similar conditions. You know Brookview's got a number of them over there. Lakeview's got a couple of them. Deer Run's got one or two. Can you give me an example of maybe a course that we might be familiar with that would have similar proximity just for. Kevin Nordby: Well we're actually the architects on Deer Run, and we recently did some work out there where we didn't bring in a lot of trees but we did some mounding and shaping and their Hole number 10 would be similar. Feik: Yes. The elevated... Kevin Nordby: Longer par 4. Right, a much longer par 4 than this one but you know if I were to guess I would say that that's probably 200 feet left to the pavement there, so that would be a similar situation. Feik: And 2 would be down by the marsh area at the bottom? Kevin Nordby: It'd be about where the sand trap is. I'~n talking number i0. Feik: Right. Kevin Nordby: So you'd be heading straight south. The sand trap there. Sand trap on the left, and I don't have any trees on the left so it's wide open to the road, if you're familiar with that. Feik: Yes. Kevin Nordby: So that would be, I'm guessing that's similar. Ron Saatzer: Why don't you give an example of Bear Path by Pioneer. I think that's a lot closer. Kevin Nordby: Yeah. Bear Path, if you're familiar with that is much closer to the road than this. They have a lot of trees so it's probably a better analogy but. Papke: Are they below Pioneer Trail as well. Aren't they sunk down a bit? Kevin Nordby: Yeah, lower a bit. Feik: Okay, thanks. Kevin Nordby: And this would be lower as well. I mean we're concaving this fairway a little bit and again taking advantage of existing trees that are bigger than the trees at Bear Path and moving additional trees in here so anyhow, we don't believe that this will be a problem. And again as far as number 9, again we're sort of aiming away from the road and so we don't feel that that's a problem either. I think the one item that we would like to bring to your attention that maybe hasn't been mentioned yet, or hasn't been discussed extensively is this realignment of this driveway. We have, we were asked by staff to consider helping them resolve that driveway issue there and we came up with this sketch or this plan which shows the entrance being moved about 300 feet to the north. We're feeling like we're kind of getting ourself in the middle of something that isn't necessarily part of this project. The driveway services houses to the south. The driveway is not on the land that Mr. Saatzer will be leasing, and if we can help we would like to help but there are issues such as easements across the property that we're not sure the owner is 52 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 going to want to grant. There's been some discussion about selling the land to the city or Mr. Saatzer in order to provide that road and to be quite honest we would just as soon not attach that issue to approval of this project. If we can help and if that issue can be resolved between the landowners and the city, I think we'd be willing to partake in the construction of that road. I'm not sure how the neighboring landowners feel but if there are some of those people here, maybe they can comment on that, whether it's a problem or not. Sacchet: Can you clarify a little bit what you're actually saying? Kevin Nordby: Well, there's an existing driveway which enters on 101 and the city planning staff believes that that's an unsafe condition or they would like to see it improved. Sight lines improved. We said you know we could move that entrance down to this location, which would improve site lines, but since we don't own the property, Mr. Saatzer doesn't own the property, he can't grant the easement and the owner has said I'm not going to grant an easement, but I might sell the property or otherwise work with the city so we'd like the road issue to not be a condition of approval here, but we're willing to continue in the discussions if the city can come to terms with Mr. Halla or if the homeowners feel it's not important, maybe it doesn't have to be addressed at this time. So we're hoping that. Ron Saatzer: There's options of trimming back trees...to work on sight lines so that is an option. Kevin Nordby: So we showed it I guess basically as an option to be considered if there was a means of resolving that. Sacchet: Have alternatives been considered by staff or this is a new idea? AI-Jaff: We discussed this today. This afternoon actually. No, we haven't looked at other alternatives. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Do you want to add anything else? We may still have a few questions for you and I want to try to move it ahead a little bit because we have people here that want to comment about this still. Kevin Nordby: I don't know that I have anything else. Yeah, the current owner, we discussed this a little bit already but the current owner at one time, 10 years ago as I understand was dumping. They stopped dumping. They cleaned up the problem. During the course of this review it was determined that sometime recently they started dumping again. Ron Saatzer has a lease with Mr. Halla, as I understand it, that doesn't include the area where the dumping is. It doesn't include the bluff area. Ron Saatzer: Approximately 5 acres of the portion of the land. His portion and I can't control what he does on his land. My portion in my lease is what I have... Sacchet: I think we understand that part. Kevin Nordby: Our concern is if we move ahead with this project and. Sacchet: I understand you don't want to be held captive to this, yes. Ron Saatzer: This is about 3, almost a 3 year project for myself so I've been in long term negotiations on this so I just want you guys to know I'm not here to lose on something that I'm in 53 Planning Commission Meeting -August 19, 2003 favor of but you know I'm not the whistle blower per se. I kind of get stuck in the middle here... that's your deal and this is my portion over here and what you do over there, or don't do is your responsibility. Not my responsibility and I don't like to be held responsible for it... Sacchet: Understand. Yeah, I think nobody is indicating that you would be responsible for that. Kevin Nordby: We're hoping we can somehow separate that issue again like the road issue from this issue and deal with the land owner rather than the individual. Ron Saatzer: And I am trying to do, Sharmeen knows very well that I've spent...hours of my time trying to help this situation for the city's sake so, just to let you know that. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Ron Saatzer: And in regards to the environmentally pesticide. Sacchet: Do you want to come up to the microphone please? Yeah, please. Ron Saatzer: In regards to environmentally I've, moving trees and stuff like they said earlier that I have transplanted a lot of trees and I have been out there in the heat of the days and watering these trees and doing the best job that I can in keeping them alive. Tilling the soils was an option of mine on my time. I had the option to put Roundup on there and kill the grass and I chose not to, to keep things organically involved with the soils and stuff so I'm very conscientious about that...and all that. Sacchet: Appreciate that. Thank you. Questions from the applicant. You did an excellent job covering the issues we brought up in our questions to staff. Are there some questions Rich, do you want to add one? Slagle: You know I'm thinking that I'll wait and let the folks speak. Sacchet: Okay, Bethany. Tjornhom: I agree with Rich. Sacchet: Any questions from the applicant? Feik: Nothing for the applicant, thanks. Sacchet: Yeah, I think that you covered it very well. So this is a public hearing. I would like to invite anybody who wants to comment to this proposal to come forward. Say your name and address and let us hear what you have to say. Sharon Gatto: Sharon Gatto, 9631 Foxford, and I'm right across from this. I'm in favor of this that a high density or medium density. Couple questions. There is a snowmobile path right there adjacent. Will it be, will that be disturbed at all? Sacchet: Do we know? Feik: Is the path on private property or is it in the. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Sharon Gatto: No, it's on the, I mean that's the snowmobile path. I have a walking path on my side which is the north side. Lillehaug: That snowmobile trail, that should be in MnDot right-of-way. Sharon Gatto: Because it will be probably crossing your interest I'm assuming. Kevin Nordby: I wasn't aware there was one there. Ron Saatzer: It's a designated trail? Sacchet: If it's in the right-of-way. Sharon Gatto: I just wanted to make everybody aware that's there. I don't have a snowmobile but in case somebody...it could. Sacchet: Who's our snowmobile expert? Steve, if they're in the right-of-way so crossing other driveways. Sharon Gatto: I mean not that you're golfing during that time but I didn't know if it's going to... Ron Saatzer: No golf course wants snowmobiles on their golf course so if anybody, if it gets approved and... Sacchet: Yeah, they have to stay in the right-of-way. Kevin Nordby: I think generally what we'll do is, and this is up to Ron but we would fence, put a snow fence, temporary snow fence so they're not up on the greens and the fairways, but if it's in the right-of-way I can't see. Sharon Gatto: And I didn't know if there was going to be a fence. Sacchet: At this time there's no plan for a fence. Sharon Gatto: Okay. I'm confused on the entrance, because I'm on the Foxford entrance so engineer wise, is it better for traffic to have two entrances right across from each other or to stagger them? I mean I'm not an engineer. I just know traffic is bad. Sweidan: Yes, it's either like center line...so it can be like a direct observant to the front, instead of being away like 100 feet, 150 feet so you keep taking right and left to go. Sharon Gatto: Sweidan: Yes. Sharon Gatto: Sacchet: Yep. Sharon Gatto: Okay. So it's easier to have them right across from each other? Or at least like 300 or somehow where they could get... Either right there or further away. And right now, Sharmeen what was it? Where is it supposed to be? 55 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Al-Jaff: As proposed today they're showing 150. Sharon Gatto: Closer to 101 from Foxford or more east? A1-Jaff: Currently, here is Foxford Road. This is 150 so what they need to do is move it so it maintains 300 or realign it... Sharon Gatto: Okay. And I can't see a lot in the summer, Pioneer anyway, but I was just wondering if you're driving down Pioneer and then you're going to see the maintenance building right, as well as the club house and the parking? So all that is more towards the Pioneer side? Kevin Nordby: You'll probably be able to see them but again the club house is 200 or 250 feet away. The maintenance facility, there will be a 30 foot exposure facing Pioneer Trail. With trees, a tee, more trees between you and so, I'm going to say you won't see it but. Sharon Gatto: Will you see, I mean a lot of cars then too or is that more or less buffered. Kevin Nordby: ...berm and landscaping. That berm is there. It may have to be reduced slightly in order to fit the parking lot in but there will be a pretty good berm and landscaping there so it will cover it. Sharon Gatto: Like I said in the summer I can see but... Kevin Nordby: Well it would be a much better buffer then you would see at Byerly's or K-Mark or something like that. We've got quite a distance there. Sharon Gatto: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record. We'll listen to what you have to say. Boyd Peterson: Okay, the name's Boyd Peterson. I'm at 9860 Pioneer Circle. I could almost refer to me as the encyclopedia of this area. My uncle bought the property in '79. My dad bought it from him in '82. I've lived there since '87. The snowmobile issue, I'm currently the trail coordinator with the Chanhassen Snowmobile Club. All the signs are at my house. We're on the east side of this proposed golf course. We do have a trail that runs on the road ditch, which 95 percent of our trails are on road ditches. So the concern with snowmobiles is, we take care of them and we keep people off where they're not supposed to be the best we can. So that cleans up that. I think this is an area that's got a lot of problems and a lot of problems have been created in the past, and I think this is a perfect opportunity to clean up a lot of problems. As far as the gully issue, witnessed a lot of stuff put into that gully. Most of it, probably 90 percent of it has been dirt, trees, just natural landscape stuff. Stuff that probably isn't going to hurt nothing in the end. But it has been moved over from where the city told him he couldn't dump it. Now it's on the other side. Whatever, but there is some issues. There's a large dirt mound that was brought over on my side of my property on that west side. I think it's a perfect opportunity to do the proper thing with that dirt pile, other than a temporary holding site, which the city was granted that Halla development 5 years ago to do something with it. So now we've got a lot of dirt that we can use to fix the bluff. You know just do it right. Let people fix it and then be done with it and then create the trail along. As far as the drainage ponds that were dug, the pond that's existing out there was the start of the bluff. There was a dam that was built across it to dam it up. It was never dredged. It was just blocked off with debris and dirt. The pond which is down by 56 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 the Pioneer Trail, that was a County problem. There never used to be any kind of a settling of wetlands there. That naturally went all the way down to the pond behind the old farmstead that's down there which is a pond, but unfortunately the culvert was put in 3 feet too high by the County after the road was realigned so that's why there's no wetland. I think this is a good opportunity for them to create a pond to control the drainage so I think this is just a win/win thing, but as far as me being on the east side, we're very excited about this. One thing we don't want is a net put up on our side. I've got a natural border as it is of trees and Ron and his crew and that have been doing, moving some trees over on my side and we're taking personal responsibility to make sure them trees live and we're watering them ourselves so there's some issues that are in front of us that I think is a great opportunity for me as a landowner to get them fixed finally and with Sharmeen and her staff, which I have a lot of confidence in, as well as Ron and his professional people, I think this is a proper thing to do with this area. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Who else would want to comment on this? Please come forward. State your name and address for the record. Jeff Sorum: My name is Jeff Sorum. I live at 9900 Deerbrook Drive. Our property would be on the east side of the proposed golf course, just to the north of my predecessor, Mr. Peterson. Or actually to the south side, excuse me, of Mr. Peterson's property. If I'm looking at the map right, our house will overlook the, this would be the tees to the number 3 hole. To give you a perspective on the map of where our property's at. The question I'd have for the developer is on the property line that runs between Mr. Peterson's property and my property and the proposed golf course, what would be the terrain of the land? Are we talking nets? Are we talking fences? Or what are we talking about. Kevin Nordby: In the wetland area? Jeff Sorum: Yeah. Kevin Nordby: Let me quickly address here. The actual topography really won't change. Again the golf course is being developed almost right on grade. There's a large berm there. Do you own the big pole barn? Jeff Sorum: No. That would be Mr. Peterson's. Kevin Nordby: Okay. So we've got some additional plantings that Mr. Peterson indicated are quite a nice natural buffer there, but we're supplementing that. These trees are actually right in front of that pole barn, so we're trying to block that. Provide some additional buffer. The berm would remain, the large amount of dirt would remain. We're not proposing any nets. Number 2 actually aims away from the property line again on the hook side roughly 200 feet away. So we don't really anticipate the need for nets. It's a short hole. It should be pretty much as you see it. Jeff Sorum: Okay. So just so I'm clear on one point, with the exception of the single strand barbwire fence, the difference between my property and the Halla property, there'd be no physical structure that would be a barrier from my viewpoint? Kevin Nordby: That's correct. Jeff Sorum: Okay. A couple points that were brought up. One of the traffic that's on Pioneer Trail. I mean I can attest at Deerbrook Drive, which you could extend this map out twice as far to the entrance on our thing. I've seen traffic back up to that easily several times so I'm not sure if 57 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 placement of the club house is the most optimal given the situation. Something to seriously consider. And the other point that's probably the overwhelming concern, as much as I want to have a golf course next door to me, I'd love to have all the free balls that shag over but, the entire Deerbrook neighborhood is all well and septic system and we do not have, as I understand from the city, any time soon any water city or sewer coming our way. And what would be the implications to the city if even given the state approves that this water well that they would put in would be adequate, if our wells go dry? I mean we'd be stuck. I'd be interested to know what would be the, what would the city do to rectify that? Sacchet: Can we address that at all? Kevin Nordby: It's my belief, and we haven't confirmed this. We'd need verification on this. It's my belief that this permit is reviewed periodically by the State and actually there is some monitoring of adjacent wells when they construct the well to see if there's any draw down or any impact on surrounding wells, even if it's a deeper aquifer. So my belief is that they would actually reduce the pumping requirements for the golf course, for our permit. If there was going to be some... Jeff Sorum: Okay, and the reason why I ask that is you had mentioned earlier that your well would be sunk to a level of 300 feet possibly. Most of the wells, at least I can speak to my own self and I know my neighbor next door, our wells are 325 feet so they are quite deep to get to adequate water. Kevin Nordby: I was guessing at 300. I mean it could be 600. The last one we did was 300, but everybody's wells were at 80. We did one recently at 900 so it really depends on where you are and how deep the aquifer is and what kind of capacity we need. The nice thing about this project is it's not a particularly large golf course. It actually takes a pump station that's probably only one-third the size of the one I just mentioned here so much smaller aquifer. Much less water. And we are being able to capture surface drainage so that pond will be fed naturally by surface water as well. Jeff Sorum: So will you irrigate out of the surface ponds? Is that the intent? Kevin Nordby: Yeah. We're pumping from the well into this pond as we need to to replenish it. Sacchet: Do you want to add something to this Sharmeen? AI-Jaff: Well I'll make sure that this issue is also addressed before it appears before the City Council. I will work with the plumbing inspector. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Jeff Sorum: And just one last quick note. I work for Buffalo Wild Wings at the corporate headquarters and so unless you know something I don't, we do open on Monday. Feik: I was at the restaurant next door, Chipotle and the contractors were there and they said Tuesday, so. Jeff Sorum: Maybe you do know something. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Sacchet: Alright, thank you. Who else would like to speak to this item? Please come forward at this time. State your name and address for the record. Let us know what you have to say. Tom Gertz: Good evening. My name is Tom Gertz. I live at 10001 Great Plains Boulevard. I have the, if I can point out on this site map. 1 have the distinction of being probably the closest property to this project right here. Couple of issues that I have, and I have spoke with the applicant Ron regarding some of these and he's been very responsive to some of my concerns but I'd like to state some of these for the record. One being again Hole number...as well as some of my neighbors. This, I have a concern with these tee boxes here and anyone who's got the low hook, and that was described earlier. I consider that a hazard as we try to enter our home. Ron did say that they would consider moving this tee out in this fashion so the alignment would reduce that hazard, and perhaps the engineer from the golfing, or from the developer could address that a little bit because I haven't actually seen that change or know that it's actually been entered and/or if it's actually a condition for the development and approval. So, and along that also, a barrier, this looks somewhat conspicuously lacking trees, but there's actually more there than are on this diagram but of those, I know that between the city and the developer there's been a proposal and a requirement and those two don't meet regarding the southern property line. I would just ask that the applicant comply with the requirement from the city so that there can be enough shrubbery and trees to create enough of a barrier because I know there's no fence proposed, that there would be enough barrier to try to at least keep the public from entering my property. My property line does run the other side of the road so I'm directly adjacent to hole number 7 and as currently planned that green is very close. And I'm not much of a golfer but I could hook all day long into my front yard from that position so. Sacchet: So you're saying that with the proposed landscaping you'd be okay, as long as it gets implemented the way? Tom Gertz: Hole number 7? Sacchet: Yes. Tom Gertz: Yes. If 7 is swept northward, the green so the alignment of the. Sacchet: So they shoot away from your house. Tom Gertz: Yes, I would prefer that. Kevin Nordby: If I could address that. Sacchet: Yeah, let him finish and then you can address it quickly. Tom Gertz: ...just so I can have some, I mean obviously there's going to be errand balls that end up on my property. There's no doubt. It just happens. I don't have an issue with that. I think the overall proposal is a good one. So I'm not trying to be perfect here. I'm just trying to keep it from actually being a hazard where they're constantly coming my way. And I'd rather remedy it now with the re-orientation of this hole rather than ending up with a big net a year from now. I'd prefer not to stare out my front window at that. Two, going to the road entrance, I don't always support this entrance. One it lines me up with, or my family with three tee boxes and a whole lot of people driving golf balls, which is going to occur from dawn to dusk. Even with a net, that's pretty tight proximities. The road currently is over here and that really, currently we access our properties, it really reduces that hazard. It really minimizes it. I might, it might be a good idea 59 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 where this currently could be just brought up perhaps another 50 feet so that cars coming out can get further to the north and that would allow increased sight line to the south at that bend. Give us a little bit more room to maneuver to align a car if it needs to go south or left on 101 or Great Plains Boulevard, one and the same. Slagle: I have a question, how many cars are we talking? Tom Gertz: There's four private residences on this private dirt road. Slagle: Okay. Tom Gertz: Another small issue, speaking of beer. This also right in front of my home is probably the furthest point from the club house, and you know where this is going, and if you're at hole 7 and 8 and you've been totting around beer, which is fine. I don't object to someone having a beer and going golfing. I don't really want to look out my front window either, and I don't know that it's even proposed. I didn't see it addressed but I really don't want to see banging Satellite doors right across the street from me so 1 don't know if that's even in the proposal but. Slagle: Boy it could have been worse. Tom Gertz: Speaking of bio breaks so those are my issues at hand. The well issue. I'll have to see what my well is at currently it recovers just fine. It may be a deep one but I don't know so. That's it. Sacchet: Thank you very much. You want to address this aspect of possibly redirecting this Hole 7 a bit. Kevin Nordby: The low hook on number 7. We have actually realigned that hole since Mr. Getz is it? Tom Gertz: Gertz. Kevin Nordby: Gertz. We've actually, this point only represents proposed trees. There's a lot of existing trees out here and what we found, once we cleared the center line of that hole was that there was a large group of vegetation right in this area here so we've moved that tee over now, plus the green...closer to the tee so it's a little bit shorter hole now. And that's allowed us to save an area probably 40 feet wide with some 60 foot trees. 50 foot trees in there. So if you go out there now you'll see the clearing. I mean you can probably stand there. You can see the stakes where we've been kind of dealing with some of those issues. Feik: What plan is that reflected on? Kevin Nordby: It's not. And the sort of adjustments that we're talking about where we move a tee over 10 or 20 feet or a green over 10 or 20 feet, that's the sort of thing we do on almost every golf project because when we get out there we find that there are trees we want to save or features we want to preserve so it's likely that will occur in other locations here as well. Feik: If I might, when, because as part of our deal here we specifically are tasked to approve this plan dated July the 18th, which you're telling me is dated. 6O Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Kevin Nordby: Right. Feik: Is it reasonable at this point, given the number of changes to be looking at a new plan? Kevin Nordby: Well I would say that we probably want to use this plan, which is the most current plan which is dated August 15th, and it has .just very minor changes such as I described earlier where we added a chipping green and moved the club house to the left. And then we made a couple of adjustments where Lori Haak and Sharmeen and I talked about preserving trees along the bluff line and so these are, I would liken these to changing the color of the shingles of your house or changing the configuration of a deck. You're shaking your head no so you don't agree. Feik: Has the staff reviewed this plan adequately? Because if they haven't. Al-Jaff: Adequately, no. Feik: Then we're stuck. You either got a July 18th plan or see you in a couple weeks. Kevin Nordby: Well, we did discuss, Sharmeen and I these sort of minor adjustments and she suggested that as an alternative in the interest of saving trees, another location down here there's a group of trees by the pond on number 1 we wanted to save and I said do we,just not save them and go with this plan or is there some way to reflect this upon completion that we've made these changes and to work with staff. This is not like building a Byerly's or an Applebee's where it has to be exactly that because you've only got a third of an acre site and 2/3 of it's parking lot. Sacchet: We're not quite there yet Bruce. We're still in the hearing so we might want to hold that thought. Kevin Nordby: We would like some latitude to make adjustments to save trees and work with staff to do that and if that means upon completion documenting those changes, these are not, I would consider something like turning a par 4 into a par 3 and vice versa significant but we haven't changed the amount of parking or the length of the golf course. Sacchet: Well let's not get into that now. We're in the public hearing okay. Kevin Nordby: Alright. So there was also a discussion, the lack of vegetation on number 7 I guess. I think I just addressed that. We would also probably agree with Mr. Gertz on some shorter realignment of that entry drive and ! probably can't comment on the Satellite door so. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Now this is still open this public hearing. Is anybody else want to come forward and comment on this? Yeah, there's still some people. Please state your name and address for the record. Dave Walstad: My name is Dave Walstad. I live at 10071 Great Plains Boulevard. Basically right here at the end of the practice range and so that's my property. First of all, thanks for staying up. Appreciate it. Try to make it interesting. Right now we have, I have my family here and we also have a small pole barn on it with 2 horses so the horse issue is one of the things I want to talk about today, but just to give some background on where I'm coming from. One thing with the gravel street here, it does service four properties and I've lived here for 5 years. I don't recall there being an accident on this comer. Part of it is because yes, you do have a problem seeing to the left. However that's such a sharp curve that speeds are generally so slow around that comer you're able to adjust that. Now that's from personal experience. I have two teenage 61 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 daughters who are learning to drive. That's your warning but it is an issue. However I'm in agreement with Tom Gertz that I don't know if it needs to be realigned to the extent that it needs to go this far over to the north. I understand where you're talking about left hand turns facing each other and it being a desirable thing. But I believe there could be something else worked out as well. Another issue I have I guess is, Tom mentioned his house being here...but this is also the private street for the three of us beyond that house and we're concerned about that as well. As far as a couple other questions that I would have yet. It was mentioned that it'd be seasonal operation. I'm assuming that means that there's no winter use then. Is that correct? No, I didn't mean that, I mean you could throw in a skating rink or something like that. Ron Saatzer: No. If you'd like to see something like that I could pose that to Sharmeen but there's nothing in this area to service anybody so, a skating rink so. I don't know. I mean that's something we'd have to bring to the Planning Commission at a later date. I'm an old pro hockey player so I'd love to see a rink over there to be used but I don't know. Dave Walstad: Okay. One of the uses I was going to mention is on the trees here, and I do appreciate, Ron you've done quite a lot of work and I do appreciate you being so concerned with the neighbors. That is really important. Right now there are a lot of trees that have been put in here already. I believe that a 300 foot driving range should be adequate, but the ground does slope downward and I believe the plan calls for a row of like lilacs and things like that to be planted along, and I think one of the issues that we have, and I believe it's on page 3 of the maps that you were given where it shows the number of trees that were put in, that there was a trade-off between the shrubs and the understory trees. And I guess to me an understory tree would be the spruce tree, the type of trees you've put in already. One thing with those, they do provide basically year round protection, visible protection. Deciduous trees are fine. Shrubs are fine but they have no leaves in the spring and none in the fall. And you do get limited protection from that so as far as the trade-off between the lilac shrubs and the trees, maybe that's something we could talk about too but I just wanted that brought up. I know Sharmeen recommended at least 10 more and I'm just kind of concerned, it depends on where they're placed obviously. I'm just speaking for my own purposes but that is a concern of mine. Another question I would have is, we talked about that row of lilacs. What size are we talking? Do we know? Kevin Nordby: I think they were proposed at a 3 or 4 foot height. I don't know. The city has minimum requirements I believe so. A1-Jaff: 2 feet is under, is what the ordinance requires. Dave Walstad: But if you're offering 3 or 4, we'll take it. Kevin Nordby: I think what we were, you've got the plan. Whatever's on the plan but I think what we offered was 250 shrubs instead of 83. And those would be a continuous lilac hedge to cut down on noise and visual impacts. I think Sharmeen's only comment was add I0 more understory trees and I believe what you're asking for as well. Dave Walstad: I guess my concern is I don't want a trade off a 20 foot tree for a 2 foot shrub and it takes a while for the lilacs to grow so that's all. Sacchet: Okay. Dave Walstad: As far as the surface water drainage, and I'm not an expert on this at all. I do have some contour lines on the map but my property here is quite a bit lower actually than the 62 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 golf course to the north, about 20 feet lower, and so I will have runoff issues. I have had in the past. Actually a year ago Mark Halla put a lot of gravel on the road which we appreciated, and it did help that but there is still a dip in the road, if you've been out there. There's a designed dip in the road instead of a culvert which allows water to run from the north to the south across that, just west of my property and then it is a natural flowage into my area. That's the way it's been and I understand that's the way it is. However with horses grazing and things like that I guess I want to understand what pesticides and things would be used so they would not be a toxic issue with the horses there. I don't know if that's really addressed by the, I know they talk about the soil tests and everything else, but I believe that's just for fertilizer for runoff for fertilizer and algae blooms and things like that. ! don't think it really addresses the other kind of concerns that I have. I guess I don't know how else to express that. I guess I'm kind of concerned. I don't want anything running off. I understand leeching is not going to be a problem obviously through the soil but just the normal rain runoff. I guess the safety issue for me is also my responsibility with horses there. That's probably going to be an attractive nuisance for kids and just across a private gravel road with a couple shrubs in the way, it's going to be awful tempting sometimes and I will have obviously a fence up and things like that but I am kind of concerned if we're not home, the liability issues of having either the horses get out or the kids come across and I don't think there's much that can be done about that other than just being aware that that can be a problem. And I'm not sure about employees or whoever follows them around or whatever, what kind of crew they have on hand that monitors the activities of the golfers but I think someone should be there to kmow that those problems exist. Slagle: There's electric fence signs. Dave Walstad: Electric fence pulses once a second and you can hang onto it, it isn't going to hurt you any but again I'm not really, I'm more concerned about like Hole number 6. The design of which they're chipping right toward that gravel driveway and if they hit long, it's going to go over the road and most people want to retrieve their own ball, that type of thing so. It's not a huge deal but I just wanted you to be aware. Same with number 6 chipping over with cars driving by. The last thing I was going to ask was about the bluff line and the issue, and obviously everybody's very aware of going on out there with the deposit of materials and I think a couple things I want to make a comment on. It was asked whether it was the owner of the property that was doing that. I believe that that's separate from the business that's been doing that so if you're going to word it in your ordinance you might want to look at who owns what but. And the other thing I wanted to mention, and it doesn't show on these plans either. My driveway comes in right here and basically to the north there's a gravel access road on the nursery side that runs to the ravine. That is shown as being gone on these plans and I just wanted to know if that was accurate. Is that gravel road that starts here and runs over to the ravine, is that going to be taken out or is that part of the 5 acres that you wanted to... Ron Saatzer: Part of the 5 acres. Dave Walstad: Because ! don't see that as being represented on the map. And that's all I have, thank you. Sacchet: Thank you very much. I know there's more people that want to talk about this. Please come forward and state your name and address for the record please. Gaye Guyton: Hello. My name is Gaye Guyton. I live at 10083 Great Plains Boulevard and I'm one of the people on that dirt road. I just have a couple of concerns to just reiterate first of all, Ron's done a great job of putting trees there but I still have some concerns about driving up and 63 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 down that gravel road. Having some air balls come because I know we've been concerned about 101 and it sounds like that's being address pretty well. But again, for those of us who are driving up and down the gravel road, that would just be a concern. The well is also a concern. Our wells there are very deep. I think between 300 and 500 feet and if you're going to be doing that, I would really like to know how deep you're going so that ! won't end up with a dry well in a year or so. And then the last thing I was thinking too on this area here, if people are golfing, as balls go across or if they're just kind of wondering what's on the other side, if they would be a way to put no trespassing signs or something there so that as we're driving down that road we don't have somebody coming out in front of us or kind of coming over to check on the horses and things. I think that would be helpful and would just go pretty far in making us feel like our property is kind of off limits to the people who would be there golfing. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Gayle Wenzlaff: Good evening. Gayle Wenzlaff, 1181 Homestead Lane. We're in the Pioneer Hills area, which is west off of Pioneer Trail from where this is going to be. Frankly I think it's a good idea just because I don't want to see the...go in there so the one thing I'm concerned about, and I hate to belabor the point is the well system. Our personal well is down 270 feet. During dry seasons, we've been there for 19 years. During dry seasons we have not had issues but a couple of people who have been within the Pioneer Hills area have actually had their wells pumping sand and so they've had to have somebody come in and blow their wells out because the table has gone down far enough, even though that's the Jordan vein, it's evidently on a shelf that we've gone through enough bedrock at 200 and some feet and then we get down to the point where we're having to blow the sand out. If the water table drops enough I am fearful that some of my neighbors and potentially myself, because we replaced our pump the last time we blew out an awful lot of sand you know underneath that. And there was a lot of sediment build-up so you know I mean it's, I understand that they have to water and everything but as long standing residents I'm very concerned about the fact that we are actually down, or up above them. They're down below us in respect to the way the water seems to be flowing from what we understand. And so not to belabor the point but we need to take in and consider a larger area in my belief when it comes to the well system just because that is our source of water for everything so I would hate to be down below that from them, but I'm very concerned about us being up above it and the level that we're at so. If there's some way that we can take and have, you know some kind of communication to our neighborhood I would appreciate it. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else? Kevin Nordby: If I could just comment quickly and maybe ask the question, do any of the homeowners that are commenting about the wells, do you know how many gallons per minute you're pumping? Any idea? Generally that's going to be in the 30 or 40 gallons per minute. We've done some projects where neighboring homeowners were pumping 8. We're going to be pumping probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 to 150, maybe 200 gallons per minute, depending again on the size of the pumps we put in and what we find for water, so if we were to tap into your vein and all you're pumping is 40 gallons a minute, we couldn't even use that vein. Not only because you're on that system and we wouldn't want to suck it dry, but we just couldn't get enough water to do what we're trying to do so we could potentially be down 700 or 800 feet, and again the well drillers and the MPCA and the DNR will tell us that. Sacchet: Okay, thank you for that comment. Anybody else wants to address the commission? This is your chance. If nobody else wants to talk about this topic I'll close the public hearing. 64 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Nobody else? Alright. Bring it back to commission. Commissioners, this is time for comments. Looks like you're ready Rich. Slagle: I'll start. Because I think maybe hopefully what I have to say will maybe offer a suggestion as to where we go from here. First and foremost, I think it's a wonderful project. We haven't got a chance to meet Ron many times but from what I've seen and heard I think certainly he'll apply integrity to this project, but I want to say this. As I listen to the discussion of the water, of the safety of the highways, of questions of the plans not being updated, I guess what I'm trying to get at is I think there's some things that need to be tidied up and rather than we spend half hour an hour talking about how we feel about the project, I think I would like to suggest that we table this and I'll specifically note the trail signs across Pioneer need to be noted. Where the trail goes, because the current plan does not show where it will connect to what I'll say in front of the club house. Phosphorus. Interestingly enough, I mean we read today in the papers about phosphorus and what it's doing to the water. I'm fully supportive of a golf course but I think we have to ask the question is how much are they using and sort of what happens. And it's fairly close to the Minnesota River and so forth so I think I'd like to see a little bit more effort on that. But lastly, as far as the water usage, it seems to me that a city would have more, and I don't want to be critical of the city but more processes in place that would determine what is good usage of water or not acceptable usage of water in today's world with the weather, and it would be more I think than just the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency saying yeah you can drill there and I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm,just surprised that a city wouldn't be able to say, wait 150 to 200,000 gallons a day, you know that's the equivalent of x number of households. You know it's too much or too little, I don't know but I'm just wondering if there isn't more of a process that we should have in place versus MPCA will decide. A1-Jaff: I will work very closely with the building inspection department. The plumbing inspector. Slagle: And then the last thing I wanted to add is, what happens in 10 years when the lease is up? And not so much directed at the applicant, but the owner. Are there conditions or are there covenants that say it reverts back to the current land use or is it open to whatever in 10 years? And I don't know the answer but it'd be interesting to hear your thoughts at the future meeting if we do table it. That's it. Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Bethany. Tjornhom: I think I agree with Rich. There's too many unanswered questions. I like the idea a lot. I .just think it's late and there's probably more questions from all of us that could be addressed at a better time. Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Kurt. Papke: I'm really pleased and impressed with the public support. The neighbors that have showed up here tonight. I want to thank you all for coming. It really helps us to do our job on the Planning Commission if you folks that surround these kinds of projects actually come here and express your views so I appreciate you coming tonight and it's quite obvious that the support is very positive from the neighbors around here which I think is a testament to the job that Ron has done so far. The one other issue that hasn't been talked about so far, there's been a lot of discussion about the whole water issue. The one other factor is we can't also lose sight that we have the Bluff Creek Golf Course, which is no more than a long drive, not a drive in your car but a drive with a golf ball from this golf course so that's another factor in terms of how we're 65 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 impacting the water table and the fact that this golf course and the Bluff Creek Golf Course are surrounded by private wells. So I think the whole water issue here, and we heard this very strongly from the neighbors. I think there's enough public concern here that I think we need to make sure that we've done our homework on this one before we move forward so I agree with tabling this one for now. I think there's enough issues here. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Bruce. Feik: Sure. I'd like to deviate a little bit here and go off to a couple more questions that I think are relevant at this time, even if we do decide to table. The first question I've got is, on the original plat going back to '96 there was a right-of-way for 101 to shorten that curve. AI-Jaff: That has been vacated by the district court. Feik: Okay, so it has been vacated. Okay, answers that question. And then secondly I'm going to get to the sort of...the dumping here but the conditional use permit goes with the land. Goes with the parcel, is that correct? Al-Jaff: That's correct. Feik: It doesn't go with the tenant or the portion which he deems, or through business arrangements has chosen to lease. So therefore based upon that, I would think we'd be terribly remiss in not addressing in very, very forthright manner the dumping, period. I would not, I love the project by the way. My kids will love the project. I'll love the project but I would like to see that dumping solved personally as a condition before this goes on. ! know from the applicant's perspective as a tenant it's not directly your problem, but sir this is our one opportunity to put some teeth into the regulatory and enforcement options we've got for the city so I would like to see that resolved. I am uncomfortable with the plan a little bit. The date of the plan. I agree we should table. I count up the number of the conditions that could be removed and I got to 7 and quit if the plan were updated. I'm not so, quite so concerned I think with some of the hooks as some of the others but I would like to see the plan updated and if the applicant is amenable to it, I would favor tabling it if, I don't know what timing is considered. How we are in the time table and things. Slagle: Well point of clarification. I mean with all respect to the applicant, ! mean they don't have to agree to table it. Feik: I realize that but there's a time line involved regarding, and the excuse or not the excuse but the reason we'd have to use, if we violated the time table would be an incomplete application. Sacchet: Do we need an extension for this Sharmeen? If we table, do we need an extension or does it fall into the time? A1-Jaff: We could take additional time. Sacchet: We can take additional time? AI-Jaff: You're asking for legitimate. Ron Saatzer: Didn't you say there's not a meeting next month? 66 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Al-Jaff: Actually it's September 2nd. Sacchet: There's one on September 2nd, yes. Planning Commission meeting September 2nd. Al-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: And we do have leeway time wise, okay. Bruce. Feik: So I guess I would say, I would be amenable to tabling. On the other hand though, I really like the project. I think it can work through and if everybody else wants to I'll sit and work through it. Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Steve. Lillehaug: I guess I was willing to just attach conditions but I'm going to go through all the conditions that I was going to look at. If there's trees along that bluff, they should remain in place and not be cleared. I think that's part of the setback requirement is that the trees remain in place, so that would be one that I would want to clearly address. One of the residents addressed a road on the bluff. Or on the south of the property going back to the gully. Likewise I don't see that on the road so I think the survey should accurately reflect that to determine where it falls within the property lines and if it's something that needs to be addressed with this site plan. So I would like that addressed to show it accurately. The parking lot driveway entrance, I would like to take it this route. It's a County road and most counties, and I'm sure Carver County's the same way but they require an access permit from the County for that driveway so they will be delegating where that driveway goes. But in lieu of obtaining that access permit, I would like to, I would have attached a condition to line that driveway up with Foxboro, but that is something that city staff should follow up on. Ensure that an access permit is obtained from the County. Testing, I think we need to be more specific on what testing needs to be included in the soils testing because the applicant did indicate heavy metal testing, and that may be out of the scope of what would be anticipated so I think we really need to narrow down what we need to test for. I think we need to notify, I want to say something contrary to what Rich is saying. I think it's a Minnesota Department of Health that actually looks at wells, but I don't think that's a role of the city. I think we'd be doubling up on it and I don't think we want to direct our staff to be doing this. It's a, I don't think it'd be a valuable use of city staff because of the doubling up issue. I think there's enough professionals. Slagle: Let me ask from a volume standpoint? Lillehaug: Minnesota Department of Health. They take care of that and they have engineers just like, more qualified so than city staff does to do that and I think they are more professional to do that rather than our city staff. Slagle: Okay. Kevin Nordby: It's a pretty extensive permit process. Pretty lengthy from the Minnesota Department of Health and the DNR. Slagle: But just so we're all clear as a commission, if you remember 6 months ago in one of our sessions with the council, or prior to one of our sessions, there was a discussion with city staff regarding water wells and so forth, and the fact that there was, I don't want to get into all the details, but issues with just volumes of water being consistent and all I'm saying is we're having a 67 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 user that might equate to x number of hundreds of homes, and seems to me that the only application process they go through, and I don't want to diminish it, is through a state agency that could approve it and that could affect the city and what's our recourse? I don't know. Lillehaug: I guess in my second breath I would ask city staff to ensure that the applicant does this and then pass this information onto the residents. So that's how I would like to address it anyways. Ron Saatzer: I am one of those residents, just to let you know on record so. Lillehaug: And I'm sure you'd like to know yourselfi Ron Saatzer: Concerned as everybody else. Lillehaug: Yep. Yep. And then address a couple of the alignment issues with Hole number 7. I guess I'd like to see that skewed a little away from the residents house there directly to the south rather than just offsetting it. I think it needs to be skewed a little to the north. And then my largest concern is with MnDot approval on this. It's a safety risk factor with one single ball hitting a car. So I think staff needs to ensure that MnDot has reviewed this because truthfully I think it's too close to the road. But I would be willing to approve it after we receive MnDot's take on it and to ensure that they know what's going on there and how close it is to the road, and that's all ! have, thanks. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. I don't have too much new things to add. Basically I want to compliment you for doing a fantastic project here and certainly support it any way I can. However, at this point what we have in front of us is not close enough to what reality is. I mean any one of these issues would be trivial but you add them all up and there's probably close to a dozen of issues, some of them more significant, some less significant. I mean like the alignment of Hole number 7 is not that big an issue, but it all adds up. They do have the alignment of the drive, the access drive not clear. The location of the buildings is different than it was on the plan. We have the lack of at least two major agencies that we have not gotten feedback from that is very crucial in terms of traffic. In terms of the road alignment. In terms of the water aspect for that matter. The alignment of the private road to the south, apparently there are alternatives that have not really been studied. I mean that is not cooked. That has not been settled and I sympathize with you. I mean you don't want to be held captive to somebody else's problems but this is the time that we need to address this. It is indirectly, part of it is not your problem but it's a problem of the owner. The same thing with the bluff clean-up. I mean it's not your problem. You're not responsible for that, but it's tied into this thing and it has to be cleared up with the owner. The gravel road to the ravine is a definite issue like that. It's not showing on the map. The well depth, the water usage. I agree, it should not be our city staff that gets involved in that but we should make sure that these things are looked at and we need some information about it. What is the well depth going to be, I mean it doesn't, I know whether we can go to that level of detail but we need more information about this because water is one of the most precious resources we have and it's going to become more and more important as we move forward in time. There are safety issues for 101 or for the private road to the south. In terms of where that goes and you've addressed that to a large extent but it's not really anchored in. It's not really refined to the point I think that it would be desirable. The trail for the pedestrians to show that, I mean there's a lot of these issues and I think they all add up and I think they can be taken care of. I don't think that there is any blockage in the road but it needs to be tidied up in order that I feel comfortable of recommending approval of that. So with that I'd like to have a motion. 68 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Kevin Nordby: Can I make one final comment? Mr. Saatzer asked me to point out that in the interest of not delaying this project, he would prefer to revert back, if it helps, to the July 18s~ plan rather than delay the project. The seeding of a golf course is fairly critical and losing a month or more. Ron Saatzer: It could cost the project a year... Sacchet: Well you know, I don't mean to be insensitive about it but you've been very proactively preparing that site and ! think we're looking at a two week delay. We're not looking at a big delay and at the pace that you've been working out there, it seems like this approval process doesn't necessarily hold you up does it. Kevin Nordby: When is the council meeting after that meeting? When is that? The other thing I would point out is that on. Sacchet: Well I don't think we need to have this discussion because the plan, the way it was put in front of us has too many holes. I mean you're suggesting revert to that but we just made the case that it has too many holes so that really doesn't hold water. I'm sorry, so I think we do have a situation here that is pretty clear and I'd like a motion please. Siagle: I'll make it. I would like to make a motion, bear with me one second folks. Here we go. I would like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend tabling the approval of Conditional Use Permit #2003-4 CUP for the construction of a golf course with a club house as shown on plans dated July 18, 2003 with the following conditions, and I think staff, fair to say that you've taken note of what we've asked for. AI-Jaff: Yes. Slagle: That's it. Sacchet: And we're not recommending, we are tabling. Slagle: Recommend tabling. Sacchet: We are not recommending. We are tabling. Slagle: Tabling, well okay. Sure. Sacchet: So your motion is to table? Slagle: Exactly. Sacchet: Okay, we have a motion. Papke: Second. Siagle moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission table Conditional Use Permit #2003-4 CUP for the construction of a golf course with a club house as shown in plans dated July 18, 2003. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. 69 Planning Commission Meeting - August 19, 2003 Sacchet: Motion carries 6 to 0 to table the application for the conditional use permit. I believe that applies automatically also to site plan review? Or do we need. AI-Jaff: No, it doesn't. Sacchet: It doesn't. Alright, I'm ready to take a second motion then. Slagle: Don't look at me. Lillehaug: I make a motion we table the Site Plan review. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? Papke: Second. Lillehaug moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission table Site Plan Review #2003-7 SPR for the construction of a club house and maintenance building for a golf course as shown on plans dated July 18, 2003. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Sacchet: Motion carries 6 to 0 to table this. Again please don't take this as a discouragement. I do want to encourage you every which way possible to carry through with this. I think this can be cleaned up rather easily. ! would certainly look forward to see this as soon as possible so we don't hold up your time line. Kevin Nordby: Could I ask a point of clarification? Sacchet: Certainly. Kevin Nordby: When we return in a couple weeks, typically when we do a golf course submittal we're not able to get MnDot feedback or Health Department feedback always in time for those, so those tend to be conditions of approval. Is that an acceptable way to do this? Sacchet: This is not a perfect world. There's always going to be holes so I mean we understand that it's never going to be totally perfect. There's always going to be something that can be approved further. Slagle: But can I throw something out, if I may Mr. Chair? Can we ask staff to really assist you in helping influence those folks to get the answers? Ron Saatzer: It might jeopardize the project, that's all I have to say. Sacchet: Well we don't want to jeopardize. Ron Saatzer: Well it might because I'm, I'm putting that on record, okay... Sacchet: Okay. Thank you so much. In order to summarize for council I think we made plenty of specifications in terms of our comments. I think that covers it well and if somebody would please note the minutes. 70