The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 2006 03 13 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13, 2006 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Lundquist, Councilwoman Tjornhom and Councilman Peterson COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Justin Miller, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, Lori Haak, and Don Asleson PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: David Jansen Chanhassen Villager Jerry McDonald Planning Commission Thomas Schwartz 7376 Bent Bow Trail Julie & John Koch 471 Bighorn Drive Deb Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening to everybody that joined us here this evening on this snowy night and those that are watching at home. We’re glad that you joined us. At this time I would ask if there’s any changes or modifications to the agenda that was distributed with the packet. If there are none, then we’ll proceed with the agenda that’s distributed. Without objection. Next item I’d like to make, just a quick reminder announcement. Earlier this year when the council approved our meeting schedule for the year, we were aware of some possible th conflicts coming up so normally we would not meet for another 2 weeks but, on March 27 but th in this case we will be meeting again next Monday night on March 20 as a regularly scheduled th meeting and will not be meeting on the 27. If you have any questions regarding what’s on that agenda or anything, please contact City Hall and someone will be able to help you. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Furlong: So at this point I would ask if there is a member of the council or others present that would like to remove an item for the consent agenda. And I also have one correction on item 1(d)-2. The amounts should be corrected to read $28,459 in the second paragraph and again under letter c, capital C for the additional letter of credit. Is that correct Mr. Gerhardt? Todd Gerhardt: That’s correct. City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Mayor Furlong: So that would be the motion on item 1(d)-2. So is there any other item that anybody else would like to remove for separate discussion? Mrs. Paulsen, did you indicate that you wanted, if you’d like to come forward and request. Janet Paulsen: I’m Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I’d like to request Liberty on the Creek to be removed from the consent agenda. And the private street issue discussed. Mayor Furlong: And you had a question on the private street? Kate Aanenson: I’m prepared to answer that quickly. Mayor Furlong: Okay, we’ll remove it so we can deal with it and then we’ll pick it up right afterwards. With that, are there any other items to be removed? If not is there a motion to approve items 1(a) through (g) excluding (d) as in David? Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: a. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated February 27, 2006 -City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated February 27, 2006 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated February 21, 2006 Resolution #2006-19: b. 2006 Sealcoat Project 06-02: Approve Plans & Specifications, Authorize Advertisement for Bids. e. Accept $2,000 Donation from General Mills for Safety Camp. f. Accept Quote for 2006 Boulevard Tree Planting Program. nd g. Approve Certificate of Compliance for Market Square 2 Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. D. LIBERTY ON BLUFF CREEK, LOCATED EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD, SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL: 1) FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. 2) APPROVAL OF PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. Mayor Furlong: Now Mrs. Paulsen is back in her seat. Your question related to parking on private streets or a question about whether it’s being allowed or not? 2 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Kate Aanenson: I can just address some of, go through the. Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Kate Aanenson: This is zoned R-8. That does PUD, on the underlying R-8 which doesn’t allow private streets without a variance. Just to be clear, when we reviewed this entire project, the input from the city staff was that these looping streets all be public. The only private, this is also a public street. The only places where there’s on street parking is on a public street. And this is the only area that’s all private and there is guest parking that meets city code. That would not be on a street so that is consistent with city ordinance. Mayor Furlong: Off street parking? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. And then in addition you’ll see other spots, again where there’s private streets. If you remember when this first came in the driveways were shorter so we worked hard to get that parking, guest parking on those driveways or guest parking so it is consistent with city code. And then just there was another question regarding impervious surface and that was addressed in the preliminary plat. It is consistent with what the zoning ordinance allows and that’s balanced over the entire site so. I believe that’s the questions. Mayor Furlong: Were there any changes in either of these two issues between the preliminary, or the. Kate Aanenson: No, this is the plat pretty much that you saw when it was given approval for preliminary plat, so the final plat’s consistent with that. The thing that we did review was the architectural standards, the color palettes which we included in your packet. The different iterations. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions? Councilman Lundquist: Kate is that then, those private streets, that will be signed as no parking? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct and we’re working with the applicants right now to talk about how we can differentiate that and addressing so it has a nice flow to it and easy access. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Mrs. Paulsen, any follow up questions? Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I just think the question was raised because the condition is really not clear on the final plat. The condition does ask for additional parking. By allowing them to park on streets, it doesn’t say just public streets. On the streets. And I think the condition could easily be remedied by saying credit for on street parking is not allowed along the curb of public streets nor on the private street, because without that stated in there, who’s to prevent that interpretation from in the future not being acknowledged? That’s what, you know it’s just, that’s why we’re questioning it. It’s unclear. It led us to question it and by code, 3 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Chapter 18-57(o)(2) clearly states, parking on private streets or otherwise blocking all or part of the private street shall be prohibited. And unless people know when they’re buying that they cannot park on those private streets, and now granted we did hear it would be fine, but in the condition it doesn’t state that they’re not using the private street parking to help meet the requirement that, because they’re falling short of parking spaces. So I think the report could be clearer. We didn’t catch it earlier. We just caught it in the final reading and I thank you for your time. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Yes quick question of staff and possibly the City Attorney with regard to the wording. She raised a question whether the wording is clear in the existing. Councilman Lundquist: That would be condition 5. Kate, any objections to adding a condition 5 to say, as a third bullet point, parking not allowed on the private streets? Kate Aanenson: That’s fine. Councilman Lundquist: I mean it clarifies the ordinance. Kate Aanenson: It’s in the ordinance, right, and it would be…and the applicants, the developers agree to that. Mayor Furlong: I think I see the applicant here, there’ll be no problem with that? Okay. Alright. That’s fine. Councilman Lundquist: I would propose that we amend condition 5 with that. Mayor Furlong: Why don’t you just make a motion. Councilman Lundquist: Propose to move to amend condition 5 with the third bullet point, parking not allowed on private streets. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And other than that you’re making a motion for the entire item 1(d), correct? 1 and 2? Councilman Lundquist: That is correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay, is there a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion? Seeing none we’ll proceed with the vote. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve the final plat, plans and specifications and development contract for Liberty on Bluff Creek, amended to include in condition 5 a third bullet point: Parking is not allowed on private streets. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. 4 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. MUSA EXPANSION, BID PACKAGE #2 PROJECT 06-05: PUBLIC HEARING, ORDER PREPARATION OF PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS. Public Present: Name Address Jon Horn Kimley-Horn and Associates Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard Jeff Fox 5270 Howards Point Road John Chadwick 11430 Zion Circle, Bloomington Richard Palmiter D.R. Horton Kevin Clark Town & Country Homes Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. Staff is requesting that the council hold a public hearing and consider authorizing preparation of final plans and specs for the Bluff Creek Boulevard improvements. This is a third phase in improvements to provide service to the 2005 development area or MUSA area. In all 100% of the properties that are proposed to be assessed for street improvements for this project are either in the city development review process or scheduled to bring their projects forward for the start of the development review process here in the next month. All of these developments could potentially start construction phases of their project this summer. We still pay for future development necessary infrastructure. We’ll need to reconstruct it to provide access to the city and to provide city services. This project that we’ll be discussing here tonight will allow for this future development. At this time I’d like to invite Jon Horn with Kimley-Horn and Associates to give a brief presentation on the project. Jon Horn: Good evening Mayor and council. My name is Jon Horn with Kimley-Horn and Associates. As Mr. Oehme said, we’d just like to do a brief overview for you of the proposed project. We just put a brief power point together and what we hope to accomplish tonight is give you an overview of the feasibility report. Talk a little bit about the proposed improvements. Give you cost and financing information. Discuss the project schedule for you and then open it up for the public hearing. Terms of the 2005 MUSA improvements. This actually started with the feasibility report that was done back in August of 2004. A number of improvements in that feasibility report have since been implemented. They’re improvements associated with the 212/312 project that have started, as well as some utility and bridge improvements which is really bid package #1. Just to refresh your memory, this exhibit shows what the bid package #1 improvements are. It’s primarily extension of sanitary sewer and water main south of Lyman Boulevard, down to Bluff Creek and the construction of a bridge crossing of Bluff Creek. Bid package #2 includes the roadway and utility improvements. Basically an extension of bid package #1. The new feasibility report was done to accomplish a couple of different things. One, address a number of changes in the scope of the project to address the updated estimated costs and updated financing plan and the updated schedule. In terms of what’s changed in the scope of the project, primarily the roadway alignment is a lot different than it was in the original 5 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 feasibility report. We spent a lot of time working with the adjacent property owners to develop the roadway alignment and it has changed since the original feasibility report. We’ve added some round abouts for a couple of reasons. To provide some traffic calming along the roadway. A lot of concerns raised by the adjacent property owners about traffic calming. We’ve added landscaping and street lighting as a part of the project. We have changed the watermain, sanitary sewer and storm sewer design as well in response to a number of issues in the project area, and we have added some wetland mitigation in the project area in response to a wetland that we’re impacting. This exhibit shows the proposed bid package 2 improvements. It basically is the extension of Bluff Creek Boulevard from Audubon Road on the west to a round about and then northerly to a creek crossing. One significant change is the roadway basically now going over the creek and stopping at the edge of the Degler property that’s now proposed as a part of this project to extend it over to Powers Boulevard. A lot of concerns and issues raised by the property owners east of that line in terms of what their ultimate plans are for their development and as a result and response to those concerns we are proposing that the roadway construction be stopped at that location. In terms of the typical roadway section, it is a parkway type design. Two through lanes, or one through lane in each direction with a landscape median as well as landscaping in the boulevard areas. A lot of discussions about what the width of this roadway should be. We feel like we’ve achieved a design that addresses the traffic calming issues, as well addresses some of the public works safety and maintenance perspectives. I know Chanhassen as a downtown area went through a lot of evolution in terms of the downtown roadways. We’ve tried very hard to try to accomplish a design that provides traffic calming as well as meets the maintenance needs of the area. We have spent a lot of time, as I mentioned, coordinating the improvements with the adjacent property owners. This exhibit shows some of the adjacent proposed developments, both north and south of the proposed roadway. As Paul mentioned, all these proposed projects are in some form of development. In terms of the estimated cost, feasibility report identifies cost for roadway, watermain, and sanitary sewer improvements. Total estimated cost of the project is a little under 6.2 million dollars. Little over 5.1 in roadway improvements. 480 for trunk watermain and 585 for trunk sanitary sewer. In terms of paying for these improvements, a majority of the roadway, or the project costs proposed to be paid for through assessments. Little over 75% of the project costs are being paid for through assessments to adjacent property owners. The City is providing some funding for the project. Water utility fund to pay for some of the oversizing of the water system. Sanitary sewer utility fund to pay over, for similar sizing in the sanitary sewer system. And then state aid for some of the expansion of the roadway system, above and beyond what would typically be required for development. This exhibit shows the proposed assessment area. All the properties shown in yellow on this exhibit will be assessed. You notice there is some cross hatching on the two Fox properties. Because the roadway and utilities aren’t being extended onto these properties, those properties are not proposed to be assessed in entirety for all the roadway and utilities. Only being assessed for extension of sanitary sewer and watermain stubs. No roadway assessments to th those properties. In terms of the schedule, tonight’s the public hearing on March 13. We th intend to have plans back to the City Council for approval of April 10. Award a construction thth contract on June 5 and then proceed to construction June 19 with construction being th completed yet in 2006 with a proposed assessment hearing on November 13 of 2006. A number of these dates are asterisks. There’s been some slight changes in the project schedule from the original feasibility report, just to address some of the coordination issues with the adjacent property owners. And in terms of the purpose of the feasibility report, through the 429 6 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 process the feasibility report needs to identify that the proposed improvements are feasible, necessary and cost effective. From the engineering perspective we feel that the improvements are feasible. They are necessary to provide for the service needs of the adjacent property owners and to allow the expansion of the 2005 MUSA area. And from a cost effective perspective we feel the improvements are very similar to other projects we’ve seen elsewhere in the metro area, and the willingness of the adjacent property owners to pay the assessments I think is also testimony to the cost effective nature of the improvements. So with that we’ll open up to questions. If council has any other questions or needs additional information. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Horn, can you talk a little bit about the difference as we proceeded through the feasibility study and the different things that have happened as we look at this one, the costs are different than the feasibility study. Can you delineate some of what those major differences are or the line items that are driving that? Jon Horn: Sure. In terms of the some of the key changes that have been made that have added additional costs to the project. One is the addition of the round abouts. You can recall some of the evolution of the project, we added those in. There’s some additional costs associated with those just because of the additional curb and gutter and pavement associated with that, so there was some additional cost there. There was additional cost associated with the wetland mitigation as we worked through the alignment design. We ended up that we identified the fact that we did impact a wetland in response to that and in accordance with the wetland conservation act, we had to do some wetland mitigation. The street lighting and the landscaping was not originally included as a part of the feasibility report. The original intention was that the developer would do that where I think as we worked through the design we just felt it was prudent that the City invest some into that, allowing the developers then to come and supplement it. We just felt like there should be some additional initial impact there with street lighting and landscaping. And then just the design and the alignment. We spent a lot of time working with the adjacent property owners in terms of grades to meet the needs of their development areas, as well as the alignment and that resulted in some cost changes as well. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. In the grand, or estimate on the difference in cost total? Jon Horn: We have tried to go back and correlate where we’re at today with the original feasibility report. It’s kind of hard to do an apples to apples because things are different, but generally we feel like the cost increase is around 9%, something like that of project cost increase. And then relating that to the assessments, we also looked at the assessments by property owner. Depending upon the property owner, the assessments increased from anywhere from about 5% to 20%. Again a lot of issues impacted that. We changed the assessment area quite a bit. The design changed. Quite a few things changed between the original feasibility report and the subsequent feasibility report. Councilman Lundquist: So when you talk a bit, the thing that I struggled with when I looked at the differences between them is the not finishing the road I think is the part where, so you’re 7 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 talking about a percent difference change that you just assign a price per hundred foot or whatever it is to try to get it to apples to apples. Jon Horn: We kind of did a proration and try to pull out the piece that we weren’t building to come up with the cost estimate that we could compare to the feasibility report, so again it’s kind of hard to apples to apples because you really don’t have the same project anymore but that’s what we did. We went through that exercise to pull out the prorated cost of the piece of the roadway that we weren’t constructing. Councilman Lundquist: And then it also seems like that westerly piece, when I look at that, tends to be the more expensive piece. You’ve got the bridge crossing, or the creek crossing and some of that other stuff in there so, you know I tried to do some rough math on the per foot stuff. It doesn’t work out all that great but you’ve got some different things going on in the west piece of that versus the east too. Jon Horn: There is quite a bit more grading that occurs in that. Councilman Lundquist: And my favorite round about there too. Mayor Furlong: Other questions for Mr. Horn? With regard to the schedule itself, I noticed there were some changes tonight versus what was in the packet. How tight is that schedule and how much flexibility is this? Jon Horn: We feel like it’s pretty comfortable in terms of being able to get the project done. If you recall we were trying to get that whole roadway built in 2006. Due to the fact that we’ve now shorten the amount of improvements that we built, we did get a good start on the utilities and the bridge here over the winter so I guess we feel pretty comfortable that we can get the improvements constructed in 2006. Mayor Furlong: And it looks like with the schedule you just put up, is a tighter schedule in terms of construction start versus substantially complete than what was in the packet. Is that correct? Jon Horn: Right, yep. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and you said the reason for that is? Getting things done inbetween. Jon Horn: Yeah, we’re trying to coordinate the public stuff with the work that’s going to be done by the developers. The developers are doing some of the grading work and just trying to make that all match is going to kind of be a key to the successful construction project. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Horn, as we look at not doing that eastern portion of the road right now, any idea on what the incremental costs will be for remobilization and all that stuff as we, I mean obviously we’ve got all the stuff there. It’s easier to just put it through. I mean we’re 8 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 looking at choosing to do that for valid reasons but can you give us a guesstimate on what either the dollar amount or percentage wise or anything like that? Jon Horn: It’s difficult to put a number on that. I mean I think that that easterly portion is still a large enough project in terms of you know mobilizing a contractor to do the work. I think it’s large enough that it stands on it’s own so there shouldn’t be a lot of inefficiencies that way. One of the things we are losing is the inefficiency of the earthwork though. Originally we were intending to try to balance the earthwork on the entire job, all the way from Powers to Audubon, and as a result of deleting out that easterly portion, we’ve had to refocus that effort only on the westerly portion. So there’s probably some inefficiencies there. In terms of trying to put an exact dollar amount on it, it’s kind of hard to do that. It really depends upon the marketplace at the time and contractors and their willingness to do work and it’s kind of difficult to do that. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, fair enough. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? For staff or Mr. Horn at this time. If not, then we’ll open up the public hearing and to the extent that there are issues…address those as they come along. At this point I would open the public hearing and invite interested parties to come forward. Please state your name and address and to address the council on this matter. Rick Dorsey: Mayor, council members. My name’s Rick Dorsey, 1551 Lyman Boulevard. I have property that will abut the next phase of the road so I do have concerns with this. We do appreciate that the road is stopping at the edge of the property. With that though there’s still question in our mind why not hold off just a little longer until this land use study comes in to play. My understanding is that it should be a couple weeks away. It can maybe have an impact on land use on my property, the Fox’s property. Any of the other properties perhaps, depending on what the council wants to do with that land use study. It seems to me that the council authorized that land use study to try and help determine the land use in the area and that the road going in can have an impact on what ultimately can be done on that. That perhaps it’s prudent to wait until that study is completed and at least get an overview of it in 2 weeks time period when it’s supposedly going to be here as to if there’s any major changes that would impact the road nd system itself. In conjunction with that I do have, back on August 22 the council approved this plan for engineering for the road. It takes into account the balance that’s going to go east of the Degler property. The questions would be, is approving this plan fixing and locking that road in place, number one. Number two, the location as you’ll note of the north collector doesn’t show up on the current plan that’s being proposed tonight. We believe that, or I believe, my family believes that this was the location that was desired and engineering was ordered on. We have spent time and money developing, starting preliminary plans for developments on our properties and used that as the basis. There are issues as far as where that would go. If it isn’t going to be there, that I think need to be discussed before we just go ahead and say this is where it is. Now we’ve got another problem down the road. I think planning in advance is prudent as far as that goes and so I would like to have that addressed this evening before you do pass any approval of the project. Another point that I’d like to bring up that over the last 3 years there’s been really nothing in the record, and I want to add this to public record, as far as access on my property. There’s some people that think perhaps that this road should be on my, this north collector on my property because we’re not contributing anything. We could work it into the deal and put it on 9 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 the Dorsey’s property. Well the Dorsey’s are looking at contributing a huge amount to this project in that at this point in time, this home sits on that property. It has not been duly noticed in any of the records other than there is a house sitting on the property. It’s not an ordinary house. It’s probably a value 2 ½ to 3 million dollars. Depending on what ends up going on the properties, it may be totally lost in value and bulldozed. This road going through with current land uses, which is why we want to wait for the land use study, does have an impact. The east edge of this part of the road is projected to have 12,200 cars coming across it downloading from the whole western part of this development. That makes a big difference what can be put on our property if we are limited to single family residential. Or multi-family. You know it’s difficult to put similar structures on as what exists on my property with 12,000 cars going on this road, on this road and on this road. We’re looking at trying to be flexible. We’ve looked at and said we may end up losing that property to do what’s right and best interest for the city, and that’s why we’re waiting for the land use to see if there’s a higher and better use for it. We do, or my points over the last 2 years, I haven’t brought this up but it hasn’t been brought up. The new plan showing no north collector suggests it’s going to go through my property and I’ve seen recently picture, I think you saw even tonight of a proposal that they showed where the Degler’s property is being developed. They have a road going up there but it doesn’t connect to Lyman, and the reason that back in August that this was put where it was in part was because of access points to Lyman. Just recently I’ve been told that perhaps we’ll connect it up right here by the house. Well, is that fair to dump or move all the traffic when it doesn’t have to from one property through another? My point being here is that there’s a lot of questions dealing with this north collector which is part of this project. Where is it? I don’t know. This is what you authorized and approved. It’s not on the current plan and I raised the issue and I haven’t gotten a real answer. And I think it’s only appropriate that, in that it will have an impact on the property we have existing and may in fact bring that down to zero. That would make us contributing a larger amount of money at 2 ½ to 3 million dollars than any of the other properties as far as assessments. So yes, I am concerned because passing this other part of the road tonight before a land use study is there, will have the impact on the road that will continue on and ultimately the use of the property. Thank you for your time. I’d like to say as well…the letter and I want to make sure that that’s part of the public record so I’ll give that to Todd right now or in a minute here. Okay. If you have any questions I’d be happy to answer them. Thanks. Mayor Furlong: Any questions for Mr. Dorsey? At this point. Staff response to a couple issues raised. Kate Aanenson: I can talk about the market study a little bit. The other projects that are coming forward on the 2005 MUSA are consistent with the zoning that’s in place, or the land use that’s in place. The only request for a land use differential or change, which you have the most discretion on, would be the Fox and the Dorsey parcels. They want to do the commercial. That was one of the reasons why we undertook the study. There is no more moratorium in place. What we’ve advised people that want to come in and change a land use, again where you have the most discretion, we’ve advised them at this time we’re under a study and we would probably recommend now we cannot stop somebody from applying. We’ve had a couple that have come through and asked for commercial the council’s recently seen. Some that are residential. That down zone. That would change the land use. This council’s asked us, on that last one that we actually brought in sooner, we did a land use amendment again to evaluate that. But again there 10 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 is no moratorium in place. The other ones are consistent with the designation. They had dual guiding. We spent some time talking about that but they are consistent. And then when we get th the market study back in April, it doesn’t magically, you know we’re shooting for April 15 to become adopted. We still have to have a series of hearings. We said we committed to take that out to the community to look at. Just because we get some certain findings, we have to kind of go back and reassess what our goals were, our values. We kind of…that would be a segway into updating the comprehensive plan in 2008. There might be some issues that we want to move on sooner but again there needs to be some community input, so even though we get this information mid-April, there’s still sequencing of time as far as public hearings and all that before that would become effective so, that might be a year. It might be less. It might be more, so again that’s information to help us make good land use decisions. I think that’s all I had to say on that. Paul Oehme: Yeah, I’d just like to comment just on the north collector road that Mr. Dorsey had brought up. It’s not part of the project. The north collector road. This project we’re discussing tonight is the east/west collector road, and the north collector road that was identified in the AUAR will come in under development projects, and we’ll discuss that connection to Lyman Boulevard at that time where the best location for those connection points should be. Councilman Lundquist: Well we’ve looked at plans along the way of all kinds of different alternatives for that north collector, correct? Paul Oehme: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: I mean it could go here. It could go, I mean it could go nowhere if we opted and there’s nothing, as Mr. Dorsey was showing us, I mean there’s nothing that precludes what we’re looking at doing tonight from that north collector road still going through the Degler property, if that’s where it works out. I mean there’s nothing that we do, would do tonight to preclude that from happening if that’s the best spot for it. Paul Oehme: Correct. There still could be access on the Degler site. There’s future access farther to the east that could provide for that connection. Councilman Lundquist: Could go there. Could go east. Could happen a lot of ways yet depending on what happens in the rest of the developments, is that a fair statement? Paul Oehme: That’s a fair statement. Rick Dorsey: I’d like to address that. Number one is the north collector would be requiring a 60 foot right-of-way. Any connection right now being proposed through the Degler property doesn’t show that as an intersection. Being down here, it’s not 60 feet. So that would preclude, without cost, changing that. Further, the idea of draining or moving traffic to the east through other ways, we have put a proposal in front of the staff, back in December. Yes, there’s no moratorium. However staff was not suggesting we take and spend the time with them, or they weren’t going to support it until the feasibility study was done. We feel that it’s the best use of the property. We also feel that it may be the most valuable piece of property for the city in the 11 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 long term as far as what could go there. To take and set the stage where another property will get a go ahead before we have that knowledge, perhaps through the Degler property, and saying that they could go east. I’d like to know where it could go east. This is very steep going up to the current Lyman Boulevard. The only places are down here, and to take and bring any traffic of a couple hundred homes through the middle of our’s will preclude us from looking at the options we’re waiting for. We’re waiting for them because the City ordered that information and we think that, in that that is then ordered, that that’s the desire of the City. That they’re thinking about it and looking at it, and to take and not waste 2 more weeks, you know really do we need to have the road in by this year? Maybe there’s some developers that do, but they could still be serviced in the meantime in other ways. There’s no reason that the Town and Country property couldn’t, I mean by the end of this year they’re not going to have all these houses in here that need this big road. They might have a dozen houses in. Spec homes, models, something like that. Same with each of the others so it’s even looked at 12 months before you put the road in, if it happened that way. I think the other project still could go forward, and should the land use show that the properties stay the same, then I have a bigger problem with the road as designed because part of the comprehensive plan for the City of Chanhassen is to try and not have environmental issues or traffic issues of one development having an impact on another. I find 12,000 cars coming across here, when there’s other ways to mitigate that traffic, to be not a fair situation for our property. The calming of the traffic, I’ve talked about this before. Our issue wasn’t calming the traffic. It was part of it but it was also looking at it, but 12,000 cars changes the use of the land. There’s going to be noise issues that are going to be there, and I believe in the AUAR study there’s information in there about noise issues and with the decibels that will be generated with that traffic, you’d have to be at least 150 feet away from the road to put in any single family homes. So I mean, from the standpoint if you’re not going to wait for the study, there still needs to be more done to look at this road before it goes forward because it’s not taking into account the policies of the city at this point in time. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Yes, one question perhaps from a follow-up there in terms of location of the road coming up to the property. That’s fine. North or south, I mean what I’m understanding here is that this is being proposed now at the desire of the property owners to the east because they don’t know what they’re going to do from a development standpoint, so obviously there are questions there on their side, but where else along, if we draw a line east, or north/south, because this was a east/west collector being developed as a part of the AUAR, why did you pick the spot that you did? Let me start with that. Paul Oehme: Well several reasons. To the south of where we’re planning to terminate the road at this time, there’s a big wooded area with steep grades. It’s very difficult to build a roadway section through that section of land. To the north is Mr. Dorsey’s property. His property’s currently in Ag Preserve and like we had discussed earlier, we’re not going to be developing any property on, or developing that area or grading or anything, construction on this property until probably 2011 at the earliest. So we also have concerns with the services provided to this area to future extension. Due to the grades in this area, we are maxing out the depth of our sewer mains to get a gravity sewer main to our lift station on Lyman Boulevard. The topography is subject where the location we have the road currently is the best location to put the sewer main. You typically want to put the sewer mains underneath the roadway to limit the amount of drainage utility easements that you need so, ease of maintenance, those type of things, so those are the 12 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 kind of things that went into our decision to try to, to construct a road or plan for the road at this location as proposed. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Public hearing is still open, if there are others who would like to address the council. Jeff Fox: Good evening Mayor and council members. My name is Jeff Fox representing the Jeff and Terry Fox piece, south of Lyman and Fox Family, that’s 4 brothers and a mother, the piece south of that to begin with. I want to start out with first of all we emailed a letter off to council members that you were cc’d on that we concur with each and every statement within that letter and agree to it. Second of all I have a letter I want to present tonight to you as council members and mayor received this morning on your e-mail. I don’t know if you had a chance to look at that to begin with. I want to make it a matter of public record. Along with that I have set up a notice of, that we’re appealing the assessments on the sewer and the water side to begin with. I want to address to the one issue that sticks in my mind right now that I heard Paul talk a bit about the north collector road. Where it comes into the Fox piece and being a treed area. We’re trying to review that treed area. We spent a lot of time in there having this reviewed right now by an arborist as far as what we have are really live trees in there, and what’s dead stuff in there and what’s got steep slopes in there. Okay, to look at what’s really in the long run that tree preservation might be re-looked at as far as total acreage from what it is today, around 20 acres to begin with. And our concern, when I looked at this road and where it ends, it doesn’t give us much flexibility to continue to, if we stay with residential because that’s the guiding the City chooses to stay with, or if we end up possibly getting a mixed MXD project such as maybe a retail project that we might choose to make the road go south. Okay, because we do have that opportunity within our own parcel because as it’s stated to us by city staff and it will be our cost to build the road to the east, less probably MSA and I’m hoping at least sewer and water over sizing funds available for part of the sewer and water that go on our piece. So by finishing the road to where you’re at, you limit us there to begin with. Second of all, if the road was to go where it’s at, and keep it in the residential, or MXD plan, there’s excess land that we’re leaving on the table to begin with. Up and adjacent to the wetlands on the northwest corner of the Fox piece. I agree with Rick in one sense that what does 60 days, 90 days mean as far as looking at receiving the retail or land use study because then we also have another project that will have some bearing on that. That was the Sever Peterson piece. That was dual guided, industrial and residential. And one of the issues that the City chose to do, the staff, is try to move the industrial over onto our piece so we really went to bat to try to find a way to give us an opportunity to bring something together that we have prepared for and within your minutes, going back and looking over previous council meetings, you did them preliminary approval for one concept wise, but subject to knowing if we need to have industrial, that we do, we need to find a new location for it. That hasn’t been designed yet. That hasn’t been chosen as far as what the retail study’s going to show you. I don’t know if that comes up within the retail study, if industrial is something that still needs to be within the city itself. So I think it’s more than just the easterly portion that are waiting for this land use study. I think there’s other pieces within the 2005. I’m not saying that the City Council here tonight is behind, interested to see retail down there. We don’t know that. Only time will tell based upon studies. Based upon your opinions and also community input… If it is that way, I think it would be best to try to put something together 13 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 that’s beneficial to the whole area. And like I say once again, I appreciate the opportunity as well as leave these letters of record and notice of appeal. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Comments or response? If not, we’ll continue with the public hearing. Kevin Clark: Mayor Furlong and council members. My name is Kevin Clark, Vice President of Land Development for Town and Country Homes, a K. Hovnanian Company and I just want to start off by thanking you again for your endorsement of our project earlier this evening. We certainly looking forward to our first project in the city of Chanhassen. It is with many thanks to yourselves, the Planning Commission, Parks Commission, City Manager Todd Gerhardt and city staff that over these last 3 plus years we’ve been able to innovate and I think work through a number of issues and plan a project that we certainly are looking forward to doing and I’m sure that you are too. And we’re encouraging you this evening to move forward with this portion of the project. This is a key piece of getting this whole AUAR area off and started and the work of the city engineer and consultants and ourself, working along to make this project start yet this year was all our goal as we started into this process over a year ago. So I want to thank you again for your approval and I’d encourage you to move forward with this, the second phase of this big, vast improvement project that’s been successfully initiated this winter. The Phase I and I think it’s come in on time, under budget and we probably look forward to the same results in moving forward with this phase so thank you again. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anybody else who wishes to comment during public hearing tonight? John Chadwick: Good evening Mayor, council and staff. My name is John Chadwick. I reside at 11430 Zion Circle, Bloomington. Representing the Peterson project and been tracking this thing for a couple-three years. I think the family’s owned the property for years and years. They’re professional farmers like our family too. First I say I certainly support the idea of getting this project rolling and appreciate all the thought and concern that has gone into that. The notion of stopping the project where you did, I think that’s a pretty novel idea and let people sort things out as they go along, makes pretty good sense so I certainly support that. It’s never perfect for anybody but it’s a pretty good compromise situation and I applaud that and give the other land owners a chance to figure out what they need to do and when to do it. I think that’s good. In all of life there’s touch down points. Where’s my property touch this other property? Where do I connect to the road? Where’s the sewer? Where’s the water? What’s the elevation? Then you have to work with it, and that’s just kind of the way it is and the way God laid out the land. So hopefully that works out for everybody. Appreciate all the flexibility to date. Lastly, up until today we’ve had a wonderful winter construction season and Ames is on the river, it’s way out there. They’re in advance of everything they need to do. They’re holding up for money, not for weather or anything else. They just don’t have funding to keep ramping through so I’m thinking that’s going to be a big win for the City with the big army of yellow iron, and I’ve said that before when I’m up here. There’s a lot of iron out there. Every, all the other contractors know they’re sitting there with a big fleet, already mobilized. They could just about off road it to the site. They wouldn’t really have much mobilization. Just you know head east or head north. Wherever, which ever direction you need to go. So I would encourage go forward. 14 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 My background is in the county, not in engineering, you probably figured that out so you know if you can cut a deal or save a buck here or there, I think that’s a great idea. And again, thanks for your time this evening. Support the project and you know I told Sever, if things don’t work out. Don’t worry about it. He’s out of the country. He must have agreed with me so I thank all of you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other discussions? Rick Dorsey: Rick Dorsey again. I would like to just put a map in front of you so you can see the alternatives being proposed, and then throw something out to you. This is where the north road, all going through my property would be. Putting this intersection here, if you look at it, it adds no value to the Fox property, coming off of it. We had proposed right here as a spot for a connection point, which doesn’t work well for a north collector coming off of that point, but that would service the Fox property and my property better. The location here cuts off a big chunk of property. What good is that? No good at all. There’s no need for it. Historically roads go on property lines so that you share in them. That’s what happened here on Sever Peterson’s property and Town and Country property. Originally it kind of cut across here and it was looked at and said let’s split it down the middle. I don’t have a problem with that. If that’s what has to happen. Putting the intersection here though does not do us any good in our property whatsoever. And putting it where it was, which is many months were spent discussing this, putting it here. The reason why it bumps out here is because there’s wetlands going into the Degler property and into the Fox property here. There is none in mine. Putting it around here wastes that land. It takes it with a 60 foot wide right-of-way that would go through there. It makes it virtually useless. From the standpoint of me and the standpoint of tax base in the community. I could say that what would work, and following up what Jeff said, stopping the road maybe a little sooner. Maybe at the bridge until we work out what goes there. That can work. I mean it helps you to get the other projects going. We’re not here to stop the project. What we are here though is to protect the opportunities for our properties as well. Just because we didn’t start tutors before the 2005 MUSA area was going to be talked about, so we would like to look at that as a possibility before seeing it because if it stops right here, this is where that ends up. That doesn’t do any good. The plan we proposed has an intersection here that would work for us. It does not have one there. So in fairness, looking at it, we do have a proposal that’s in on the table. If it was all residential and not retail, it would probably be in front of you. If it didn’t have a component but we feel that the component of retail is a valuable part of the community so, you know we’d like to have you look at that again. I thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thanks. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Dorsey, before you, put that one back on. Just had on there. Just point out on that one the road right now is terminating on your property line? Rick Dorsey: Right through here. Right at this border line of the Fox…which would put it right where this intersection would be. If it was there. However the plan is showing it connecting up here. So if you put that in there, you’re not going to put another intersection there…and that isn’t what was agreed upon, back in August. 15 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Councilman Peterson: Paul, if we terminate it there, we’re not putting the necessarily an intersection in. We’re just terminating it there, isn’t that correct? Paul Oehme: Yeah, that’s correct. We’re terminating at the property line. That allows for Mr. Degler to plat his property too and develop his piece. Councilman Peterson: So there could in theory be an intersection right there? Going right north. Rick Dorsey: Along the property line, if you don’t build another one there, or if you put one right, if you put one here you’re going to be too close together probably at that intersection. Paul Oehme: I don’t know what the spacing is right now at that location but, you know we had always envisioned two access points to the east of Degler’s. We can still work with where those touch down points are in the future. We’re not talking about that piece of roadway at this time. We’re talking about everything, everything west of the Fox piece. Rick Dorsey: I think Paul you’re missing out on the point. If you come up to the property line and you align with this road right here right now, that eliminates flexibility. We can’t have another, if you look at what we’re dealt with and we’ve talked about this many times before. This intersection is where it’s going to be because of the distance from Powers. It goes right into a wetland as it is, and we’re having to work around that. It means that the Fox’s are going to have to delineate a wetland and pay for the cost to make it solid road. At the soonest point in his property, because he’s landlocked otherwise. Across my property, if you put it there, it takes and burns up land there. No value at all. What this wetland is actually an agricultural wetland that probably should be mitigated and have the road go through and put a T intersection and go right up the property line. I mean it’s there. But my point is, in moving forward with this, in that it’s on this map where it is, that’s where I would estimate that we’re going to end up with it and it does not fit in with our plans that we’re working on. So I ask you to look at that and say, we could stop it back here. Somewhere back here and not put an access point until we determine that. We don’t need to know that today. There’s no plan in for Degler’s at this point. My understanding is they’re going to be coming in with one soon, but at this point there’s not. And to move forward with your project you know now, I mean I think that could work. The feasibility study, or the land use study will be here shortly. You can be looking at that. Determine what we can do going forward. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And then Paul, what is the harm in doing that? Paul Oehme: Well I think. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I know you said it before but. Paul Oehme: It limits the Degler’s from fully looking at how their property can build right now. Maybe I can show you. One of the exhibits that Mr. Horn presented earlier this evening. You know there is still flexibility on where those. Todd Gerhardt: Paul, can you move it over and have Nann zoom in on it. 16 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Paul Oehme: Yeah, if you can just zoom in on this location right here. So this is just a concept plan yet. Nothing has been approved on this piece of property yet. But in order for the property to begin development, and to look at how the piece can be laid out, you know the intersection here is, has always been, well it has been determined to be a good location. We do have some steeper grades up in this area to get sight lines at that location. There still is an opportunity to look at the north road as it comes through the Degler site. Again we’re not looking at specifically that development at this time. But in order for this piece of property to develop, you know it’s envisioned that this area here be one of the first stages to be constructed at this time. And it’s our intent or it would be wise to construct as much of this road now and put in the utilities as we can due to the fact that houses perpetually could be up against the roadway and any future roadway improvements at that point potentially could impact and you know, and be more difficult for building the future, plus destruction to the property owners so. Councilman Lundquist: Paul what was the, a couple of weeks ago we had a subdivision that was just 3 or 4 lots where the applicant was looking for cutting out the street and the utilities about halfway through the lot and not continuing all the way through anymore. Kate Aanenson: Orchard Green. We made them extend to the property…and I think that’s part of the issue too that we talked about. It’s standard policy to connect the streets. We get the similar problem, a little bit of why this intersection ended up where it did. There’s very challenging topography. Looked at this AUAR. This intersection needs to be here because we need to be able to get to this property, Jeurissen piece which is currently accessed off Pioneer. This is where we’re doing the wetland restoration in this area, so this intersection on the south leg always needed to be here, and we moved through looking at the properties and the efficiencies of making that work, it appeared that to make that a full intersection seemed to be the most efficient. Again it’s our job to tie properties together, going back to what Councilman Lundquist had said is that, also on this side we’ll be tying that back up to the MnDot piece, and tying that next street will also stub into the Fox piece which will have to accommodate and we’ve talked about that too. Again all the pieces have to fit. On Pioneer Path there is a way that they’re obligated, they work it into their plat. That was part of the AUAR, this connection and they are providing that back to that connection. It actually goes all the way down to Pioneer Trail, and that was a requirement that they build that so they’re accommodating that in Phase I also. So everybody else is kind of taking that part of, kind of showing that part of the pain to make all those projects connect to each other, as we try to do. Connect neighborhoods and provide the access. Todd Gerhardt: Kate, could you show the wetland area between the Dorsey and Degler. Kate Aanenson: This piece right here. Todd Gerhardt: So that would prevent us from taking the road straight north through that wetland. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. And I think as Paul indicated, we’re always looking at those trees. Those trees have always been fluid so. 17 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Rick Dorsey: Since we’re looking at plans that aren’t approved yet, I’d like to show you our plan, in fairness. That we presented to staff. Would you zoom in on this for me please? Kate Aanenson: Are you upside down? There you go, yeah. Rick Dorsey: Zoom in a little more. What we proposed to put forth is to bring more pedestrian friendliness into the area and create neighborhoods that were built around an interior…creating a pedestrian parkway we’ve proposed. That’s a great expense to us to do it. We’re not trying to maximize the number of units on our property. We’re not trying to do anything but bring a really nice development to the city. We put this forward and it has a mixed use component to it because with all the traffic, who wants to live on a busy road and that’s why we looked at the idea of bringing an internal park. Concept was, everything would connect. This would be a bridge here that would go underneath. All these areas would connect so this would be a pocket nd neighborhood going off of the road as was proposed August 22, to come down the property line. We would create a situation to be able to utilize the land down here and connect all these areas up so that they could connect up to the Bluff Creek corridor. Mayor Furlong: And how does that affect this touch down point that’s being proposed this evening by the staff? Rick Dorsey: The City wants to, the proposal is to put a touch down point right here, crossing across here which is our means of connecting up to it without necessarily… Mayor Furlong: My understanding was they’re bringing it up to the property line to the west of your finger right now. Kate Aanenson: Right. Rick Dorsey: They were talking about, this is the wetland right here that you’re talking about. And they’re talking about going around it up to here. Kate Aanenson: They’re not building that part of the road. Rick Dorsey: You’re not today, I understand that. What I’m saying is if the intersection is put here, which is what is in front of the staff or in front of us as where they’d want to put the, Kate this is from you. This is from Paul too. Kate Aanenson: They’re not building that part of the road though. They’re not building that part of the road tonight. Rick Dorsey: I understand that. What my point is, is that in your putting forth a proposal here. Then you have to have an intersection here. I don’t have a problem with that. The point is, connecting it up somewhere so all of this, as this is designed, it’s not going to all come out this one exit. It’s going to have to go somewhere. The idea that it’s going to come out this exit here because they’re not lining up there, and being told that this would be the only point on Lyman 18 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 over here that’s possible to connect up means all this traffic will flow through what our plan is. It would flow through here where we’re trying to create internal parks, and dedicating land to make it a nicer neighborhood. Mayor Furlong: And I guess my question then Mr. Dorsey is with regard to the project that’s being considered this evening, which brings the road up to the western property line of I believe the Fox, or the Fox Family property, one of the two, how does what, I mean earlier you had your, you said where the connection is on that map right there, you didn’t want it there. You wanted it a little bit further east of there. I mean how does the project that we’re looking at tonight that keeps this project to the western property line, I’m trying to understand. Rick Dorsey: Okay. If they’re looking at this being the intersection, that or that, our design here does not show a connection that would go across this water way and go up to Lyman at any point. So what it would do is they’re enforcing a north collector road through in that area would negate the possibilities that we have for the property. It would separate off more of the property so again you’re breaking up smaller neighborhoods. The type of uses we’re looking at are not the same as what they’re looking at there, so it makes sense to put the road on the property line, would create a buffer between land uses. At least provide that opportunity, taking more of the land by moving such as here and not saying you have to go all the way across, and the topography, you have to know the topography too. That’s why this design was created the way it was. This is very steep along here and very steep along here so you can’t just go through there with the road. Mayor Furlong: And I guess I’m going to get back to the question of bringing the road as the project is currently proposed up to that property line. We haven’t seen anything on the Degler property or these properties, you know. Why no flexibility…? Rick Dorsey: Okay, let me ask, okay let me ask a question. The design of the road as it goes forward. If this is approved, my understanding is that the balance would follow as such that’s showing here. Mayor Furlong: The balance of what is the question. Rick Dorsey: When the rest of the east/west collector has to be completed. There has to be some plan. Councilman Lundquist: I think at this point it can be put anywhere. Rick Dorsey: Well is that what you’re saying or not? That’s what we want to know. The feasibility study… Mayor Furlong: Let staff answer the question with regard to the AUAR addressed the purpose of this road to begin with. 19 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, we’re going to work with the Dorsey’s and Fox on any type of development that they bring in. There needs to be a connection, an east/west connection to Powers. Rick Dorsey: We understand that. Todd Gerhardt: That doesn’t mean it has to be a straight line, you know. It may loop through your’s. We’ll work with you on what you bring in. At this point all we’re doing is bringing it up to the property line. There’s only one spot to bring it. I think Jeff and Mr. Dorsey, you agree that there’s only one spot to bring that road to this point. And as you bring your development in, as we do the market retail study, we’re going to work with you on that. We may not agree but we’ll listen to you and sit down and do what’s best for the entire area. As Mr. Degler sells his property and Pemtom comes through, we’ll work with them. I think they’ve met with you so you know when we come to that crossing, we’ll sit down and talk about it. Rick Dorsey: Again we’re missing a couple points okay. I’ll try to do it one more time and then I’ll sit down. Mayor Furlong: That’s fine and understand from a public hearing, we’re trying to listen. May not agree but we’re trying to listen. Rick Dorsey: Well you’ve got to get the information clear. Mayor Furlong: Trying to understand. Thank you. Rick Dorsey: What we’re looking at, according to my reading of the feasibility study as it says that there will be bidding for the remaining portion done by July, 2007. Okay? That might not line up with what’s there, but it is in the feasibility study. In that that’s there, it’s suggesting there’s a road planned… Mayor Furlong: Now wait a minute. Wait a minute. You raised a question on that schedule. What did that? Rick Dorsey: On the schedule you sent out to us. Mayor Furlong: On the construction schedule or the project schedule? Todd Gerhardt: We have no plans to finish the road in 2007. Plans and specs will not be done on Mr. Fox’s property. What you see before you is what plans and specs would be. Mayor Furlong: This speaks to the complete for this bid package as of July, ’07, which is everything east, or excuse me west of the properties. Rick Dorsey: I missed that, I apologize. 20 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Todd Gerhardt: Everything east of where the road is touching down now would have to have a separate feasibility study. Separate project number. We’d have to come back and have council authorized plans and specs again, and let a completely different project. Rick Dorsey: Okay. Okay. Biggest thing I guess is just to have the flexibility where this is and to know that in going forward with this point, that this is not the understanding. That this is an intersection here with a north collector road going off of it, and wasting that land, number one. Or limiting our flexibility into, and a possibility is always there in talking with the Degler’s too. Maybe this should be mitigated and it should go straight through. I don’t know. We just want to make sure that that flexibility is there when we work together with them. Mayor Furlong: Well I think as Mr. Gerhardt said, the staff will work with you. We’ll listen. We’ll try to accommodate. It’s been my experience that they try to do that. Again they may not agree with the property owners. I think if we had the number of property owners that didn’t agree with staff’s recommendation, it’d be a pretty long line outside the door. At the same time I think what I heard them say is that they’re willing to listen and because of the reasons that you and the Fox, the Fox’s have brought up about not going forward at this time because you want flexibility is one of the reasons I hear staff is proposing to stop it at the western property line. So okay, alright? If there’s any other new comments. I’d like to try to move on here Mr. Fox. Jeff Fox: Real short. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Jeff Fox: You asked a question I don’t think Rick answered properly. The reason for stopping at the westerly side of Degler’s instead of stopping back at the intersection. To allow flexibility to know where that road’s going to go. That road, depending on what the market study says or what the City chooses to do with the Fox and Dorsey piece, it may swing down and then head back up. As the road comes up to the property line where it’s at, it somewhat dictates where we’re going to have to take the road from there. That’s why we’re looking at the thought of allowing it to be stopped back a ways allows some flexibility to where the road would go. It might not go out to the property line of the Dorsey property. It might swing down. Mayor Furlong: And I guess the question I would ask then of staff, for I think is that the Degler property there? Is that the one we’re looking at? Kate Aanenson: Well the bigger one. Also the Jeurissen piece. This property is going forward. It’s going to the Planning Commission and that piece also needs to get access via this segment of road, so the pending assessments that you’re looking at tonight are at least part… Mayor Furlong: If the road construction was stopped part way through the Degler property to leave the flexibility of certain sense of degrees, wouldn’t that limit then the Degler property with what they could do within their own property until that final route was decided? 21 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Kate Aanenson: Yeah, as they’ve indicated, City Engineer said too, this is their first phases, so they need to back onto that collector road so it would eliminate the potential there to a particular development. Paul Oehme: And the constructability of that second, of extending that road farther to the east is problematic too. The sewer in that location is going to be 40 feet deep, and it’s going to be a lot of material that’s going to have to be moved to get that sewer in there. I don’t see building up tight against that right-of-way being a good alternative at this time and then future, you know future. Mayor Furlong: A future project? Paul Oehme: A future project extending the sewer and water, and buildings. Jeff Fox: We’re ready to go when the City’s ready to make a decision on what the guiding could be within this property, so we’re not in the back. We are ready to move. And it’s not a matter that we’re, our hands are tied right now. That’s the way we look at it. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Public hearing is still open. Are there other individuals or interested parties that would like to address the council on this matter? Okay, seeing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 0. Councilman Peterson was not present during the vote. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Furlong: Any follow-up questions for staff at this point? Based upon the comments received at the public hearing. Any follow up questions from staff? At this point. Okay. Okay. Councilman Lundquist: Just a question Mr. Mayor then on the next steps on this piece is to let that project and move? Mayor Furlong: Yeah, I think the staff request here, or the request for action on our part would be to order the improvements, is that correct? Roger Knutson: Mayor, I believe there’s an attached resolution which would order the improvements and order the project and order preparation of plans and specifications, which is attached to your packet. Councilman Lundquist: Yes, okay. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Discussions. Thoughts. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, I think as we’ve heard from Mr. Dorsey, Mr. Fox and the other property owners that, I mean there’s certain things that we know. We know there’s going to be a touch down point on Audubon. We know there’s going to be a touch down point on 22 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Powers. And for myself personally, I think waiting for the retail market study makes sense when we have some question about which way we will go. We’ve got the Town and Country project that’s moved through. We’ve got the Sever Peterson project that’s been at preliminary. I can’t see anything where waiting 60 or 90 days for that, plus all the public comment period would make me change my mind on what those projects would be. So I don’t see a need to wait there. Waiting for the road, you know it’s just our practice, and I think the prudent thing to do for a variety of reasons to bring that road up to that property line. And although you know I want to be sensitive to the Dorsey’s and Fox’s property, for what they can do. I mean we’ve got to pick a spot somewhere on there and to stop that in the middle of the Degler property you know just isn’t something that makes a lot of sense to me. So I think we’ve got flexibility to do a lot of things, yet on that and in fact you know the plans that Mr. Dorsey put up there show that road connection there as well so they’ve clearly thought about that as well too. So I believe that in order to provide the services, which is what our duty is to provide infrastructure and public utilities and public services to those projects so that they can develop, that’s our duty to do and we’ve got some developments that we’ve approved that are ready to go and construction season is nearing quickly in this wonderful state we live in, it’s not all that long so I think it’s, I’m prepared to move forward. That we’ve got the information that we need. Understand there’s a lot of work to be done on the east portion of that yet and I look forward to when that does come in, going through the same process. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Comments, discussion. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor I feel, believe or not I feel like some good things have happened here tonight. I think there’s some good open up discussion about intentions and, intentions of the City and I think it’s important that we do all work together with the Dorsey’s and Fox’s to make sure that they have the same flexibility that other people have had with their developments when they are, when they can and are ready to move forward. I’m also prepared tonight to move forward with this. I don’t see any reason to hold the Degler’s or Town and Country or the Peterson’s kind of in limbo for right now. But I do really want to stress that I don’t want to see the Fox’s or Dorsey’s shut out from what they can do, so I do hope that we can have more discussions like this and try to come to some sort of agreement. Mutual agreement so they can do what they want and we can still be happy with what they’re doing. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I think following the same theme, I empathize with a couple of the thoughts as it relates to number one, in the study. And wanting to have that. We all want to have that but it’s not going to be epiphany of well here we’re going to have to do this here and here and here. It’s going to be a tool that we’re going to use that will evolve the decisions that we make in the coming months and years. It’s not going to, when we get it in 2 weeks it’s going to be an aha. It’s going to be something that we’re going to be sorting through for a long time. So with that I think that what we’ve tried to do with stopping the road where it is, I think it’s a reasonable accommodation to both the Dorsey’s and the Fox’s. Knowing that if we truly have to have that intersection where it is, to access points both north and south, then stopping it there versus bringing it up to the property line is really irrelevant. That what we said here tonight is that we’re going to work with the property owners to find an appropriate spot, if there is a 23 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 defined need for a north/south collector again so I think that, I think that the City has certainly went on record numerous times before through it’s own actions, work with land owners and developers to do the right thing. So I’m confident that that will happen in this case too, so that being said, I think it’s reasonable that we go ahead. I can only assume that if we don’t go ahead and we do another part of it, the cost in another year are going to be higher. And again I don’t see a compelling reason to stop that so that being said, I think we should move forward. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. My thoughts are similar I think to those expressed from my fellow members of the council. To continue with where Councilman Peterson finished with the cost. The cost, overall cost I believe of dividing this east/west collector into two segments versus one creates more cost for all parties involved, including the City. I think as a council we have tried to, and I know staff works diligently to minimize costs. In this situation however, the reason that we’re accepting that, a two phased project is because of the desire of the property owners to not go forward at this point with regard to the east/west collector going all the way over to Powers Boulevard. While that creates cost, I think at the beginning when back, I want to say now a couple, maybe even 3 years ago when the city staff really started looking diligently at this 2005 MUSA area with the AUAR and others, we knew there were a lot of issues that were going to come up but it was the council and staff and city’s goal to be a development project as opposed to a city forced project. As a city we can facilitate, minimize overall costs to sharing those with property owners. A good example of that is the AUAR itself, which looks at overall planning. But at the same time it wasn’t the desire to force anything on anybody. Is there, by going forward with this project tonight, bringing this road up to the eastern property line of the Degler’s, does it eliminate some movement north and south a little bit? Yes it does. Sure it does, but what the issue of waiting, I’ve heard a couple weeks. I’ve heard 60-90 days. I think Councilman Peterson said it best, that when this, the market study, the retail market study that we looked at, and I think staff mentioned it earlier tonight too. This is not something that once we get it we’re going to start changing land uses the next council meeting. Quite the opposite. It’s in preparation for and one of the steps moving forward to our 2008 comprehensive plan update. Literally what happened, given the construction season, as Councilman Lundquist said, is that if we continue to wait and delay, we will have to start calling this the 2007 MUSA area, and I don’t think that’s fair to the other property owners. And so what we try to do as much as we can, create or allow future development in the properties, the Fox and Degler properties which I heard tonight a commitment from staff to work with them. I agree. I’ve seen that commitment being lived up to time and again historically and I expect that to occur again. There’s not always agreement between the City and the Planning Commission and staff and council with the property owners, but we generally find a way to come to some reasonable terms for all concerned and I would certainly expect that would occur again here. So for reasons previously stated by my fellow council members I won’t repeat, I believe it makes sense to go forward this evening with the action requested, and with the plans that are before us. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, I would move approval of the resolution ordering the 2005 MUSA improvements Bid Package #2, Project #06-05 as included in the staff report. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second please? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. 24 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Resolution #2006-20: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the resolution authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications for City Project No. 06-05, Bluff Creek Boulevard improvements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you everyone for your comments this evening. Let’s move on now to the next item. PUBLIC HEARING: STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM NPDES PHASE II, MS4 PERMIT. Don Asleson: Thank you Mr. Mayor and council members for the opportunity to report on the 2005 NPDES MS4 Permit and progress on the storm water pollution prevention program. I may be a new face to some of you. I’m your Natural Resources Technician, Don Asleson. Just introduce myself. By law we are required to have a public hearing and receive public comment on our surface water pollution prevention program progress. This presentation will be split between Lori and I. I’ll first give a summary of our progress over the last year highlighting our accomplishments followed by Lori presenting some current permit requirements and changes that will occur with the next permit cycle. Over the last few months staff has been soliciting input from the city departments and consultants to track progress that has been made in the 2005 towards the goals listed in the storm water pollution prevention program required by the NPDES MS4 permit. This City NPDES permit requires the City of Chanhassen establish six minimum control measures as part of our storm water pollution prevent program. The minimum controls are broken into the following categories. The first one is public education and outreach. Second, public participation and involvement. Third, illicit discharge detection and elimination. Fourth, construction site storm water runoff control. Fifth, post construction storm water management. And sixth, pollution prevention and good housekeeping. Many of the 2005 accomplishments fall into multiple categories. What we’ll do is we’ll go through our 2005 progress, some of our key progress through 2005. First off, you’re probably all familiar with the surface water management plan update. The consultant has finished collecting data as far as location, size and condition on over 6,000 storm water structures during the surface water management plan update. We discovered a total of 3 illicit discharges, 2 of which were found during…in inventory. One additional was discovered through other means in 2005. Finished our retaining assessment method. MN-RAM assessments for 400 plus wetlands. Located and inventoried over 350 storm water ponds. Update will also assist the City in determining where additional ordinances are needed or where current ordinances are lacking. Carver Soil and Water Conservation District assisted us with soil and erosion sediment control plans so all the inspections on 22 development sites. And performed about 100 documented construction site inspections during the 2005 construction season. Meeting was held to discuss procedures internally for spill response and illicit discharge in our storm water system. Attendants included members of the Fire Department, Street Department and our Water Resource Coordinator. Presentation in 2005 was also made to 2,000, or to the City Council and a public hearing was held back in January. Presentations to Chaska Middle School, St. Hubert’s and Bluff Creek 25 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Elementary were also given. Chanhassen residents made over 5,000 visits to the Carver County Environmental Center, total of 5,067. The Boy Scout troops actually collected 327 Christmas trees this year. They were very busy picking those up this year. Street sweeping activities resulted in removal of approximately 595 tons of sand and debris from the streets. That’s down from last year of 1,732 tons. 27 tons of phosphorous free fertilizer was used in municipal parks in 2005. That’s 1 ½ tons less than in 2004. For 2006 we did plan on taking some soil samplings so we can possibly even reduce that some more where we can reduce it. Recycled over 850 gallons of waste oil from our municipal operations. That’s less than 2004. In addition we maintained our city web page and continued our attendance at the Metro Watershed Partners meetings, which is a regional storm water education group. The final report format was received th last Tuesday from MPCA. It’s not due til June 30 2000. We anticipate submitting the final report to council at a future consent agenda so that you can take a look at the final document before you approve it and send it on to MPCA. At this time I’m going to turn it over to Lori so she can talk a little bit about how the permit is right now and what changes she sees in the near future. Councilman Lundquist: Just a question Don. The limited, or smaller amount of phosphorous fertilizer in the, especially the waste oil. Is that because we’re changing oil less in the city vehicles or? Don Asleson: I think it has to do with when they actually pump the tanks out. Like maybe last year we had one additional pump. I think it’s like a 300 gallon tank so if it filled up one additional time last year than it did this year, or maybe it just, the way it overlaps year to year could change so maybe next year it will be up 300 gallons. So I don’t know that it’s necessarily reduced. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So that’s something that we’re just required to report on because it’s a waste that we generate? Lori Haak: That’s right, and it has a high potential for being a discharge into a storm sewer, something like that. Now that Don has outlined a few of our accomplishments in 2005, wanting to just give you a really brief summary of what we can expect in 2006 and beyond. This is something that staff has been watching real closely because the way that storm water is managed and regulated in the state of Minnesota is really changing. I guess not only in the state of Minnesota but also throughout the country. New mandates by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, I’ll spare you the acronyms on that Tom. I’m sorry, Mayor Furlong. So generally there’s two major changes with the new permit. There st is a new permit that the City will be required to apply for, and that deadline is June 1, 2006. We will be required to resubmit our storm water pollution prevention plan and our program and make any modifications we need at that time, so that’s something that staff will be working on. One of the things that counts as a requirement as part of that is that the Pollution Control Agency will be publicly noticing all of the storm water pollution prevention plans within the state of Minnesota, so that’s probably about 170 plans that will go out on public notice for the entire state of Minnesota to review if they so desire. Now, as we’ve typically seen sometimes, this isn’t a very high profile thing, although there are some agencies that have been watching just how this unfolds and how communities are responding to these requirements and how the Pollution 26 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Control Agency is implementing these requirements on those municipalities. So that’s one thing, st by June 1 we will be bringing back another round of this and you will be seeing a revised storm water pollution prevention program, and you’ll need to authorize a second and probably more…substantive requirement will be the nondegradation parameters. We’ve spoken briefly about that at past work sessions and things like that, but basically what that entails is ensure, the Pollution Control Agency is requiring municipalities, there’s 30 to begin with. 30 municipalities that are required to go back and review their storm water quality and quantity models and the goal is to bring those back to pre-clean water at condition which brings us back to 1988. So what we’re going to be needing to do is do an assessment of our current system of where we are and then trying to figure out how we could get back to those 1988 levels. As you can imagine a lot of those municipalities on that list are places like Bloomington, Eden Prairie and Plymouth and ourselves. Chaska’s included in that. There’s a lot of people who have grown a lot in those intervening 20 or so years, so that’s going to be something that we’re going to need to model. If we can’t go back, our model demonstrates that we cannot go back to those ’88 levels, we have to demonstrate how we will achieve what is reasonable and prudent or feasible and prudent rather, to get back towards those levels and do as much as we can to attain those levels. Now, we have been doing some things so we’ve been making steps in the right direction but there may need to be some course correction there. But we just won’t know until we do that further assessment, and that’s something that the 30 of us municipalities, the staff of those municipalities have really been trying to work together and kind of come to a consensus on how we’re going to do that modeling and how we’re going to make those assessments and what kind of things we can do in the future in order to ensure that we’re meeting those requirements of the Pollution Control Agency. So those are the two big changes that we expect in 2006 and beyond, and at this point if you have any questions, Don and I would be more than happy to answer those for you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this point? Lori Haak: Oh I’m sorry Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Lori Haak: We also need to have a public hearing on that so. Mayor Furlong: Absolutely. No, thank you. Any questions for staff at this point? Very good. At this point I would like to open the public hearing and invite all interested parties to come forward to the podium. State your name and address and address the council. Councilman Lundquist: Nobody wants to try to say storm water pollution prevention plan. Mayor Furlong: The NPDES. Councilman Lundquist: That’s why we call it SWPPP. Mayor Furlong: That’s right. Anybody that would like to come forward this evening. If not then without objection we’ll close the public hearing and thank staff for their time and effort. This is obviously a big undertaking each year that you’ve been working on it, and we look 27 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 forward to seeing the report come back. We’re pleased to see the highlights and the number of areas where we made progress this year. I’m sure to Councilman Lundquist’s standpoint, we’re not going to see any motors being rebuilt in the CIP, or at least hope that we’re not as a way to reduce our oil discharge. And I’m sure that’s not the case, but to the city staff we thank you for all your efforts on this and we look forward to seeing that report come back in June. Thank you. Any other, to my knowledge there is no action required for the council this evening, other than what we’ve completed. Lori Haak: No, that’s all. Mayor Furlong: Thank you very much. Lori Haak: Thank you. DAVE & MARYJO BANGASSER, 3633 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE: REQUEST FOR A 22.5 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE, A 15.8 FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE (DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOT) AND A 2.39% HARD SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCE TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING ONE-STALL GARAGE AND CONSTRUCT A MODIFIED THREE STALL GARAGE ON A NONCONFORMING CORNER LOT OF RECORD. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. Again you did look at this at your th last meeting on February 27 and you asked the staff to work with the applicant to see what we could do to reduce the hard surface coverage. Just a reminder, the two lots on Minnewashta will, one of the conditions we’re doing is combining those so they have one lot of record, which we believe is prudent. So that’s one mitigation strategy would be to combine the two lots. And then in working with the applicant, the issue was the garage across the street. The original proposal had the garage coming out Red Cedar Point Road, and a three car garage. In working with the applicant, we reduced the hard surface coverage and the garage size itself so it’s a modified three car garage. There will be two door and the actual access will be off of, so we reduce the hard surface coverage on the driveway itself. So if you look in the staff report, we went from the 31.5 down to the 27, so ultimately again looking at the other side where the house sits with the grades and the retaining walls and the driveway that they used to get to the house, it seemed at this point ultimately there’s changes we would look at trying to reduce that. They do do some shared parking with the neighbor next door that we believe this is the best way to get those numbers down and did recommend approval of that. And those conditions of approval are found in, on page 10 of your staff report. So with that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Any questions for staff? Councilman Lundquist: Kate, you feel like as you’ve worked through this in the last couple or three weeks that this is a good compromise? It looks like we’ve made some significant improvements here and the applicant’s supportive of it and gets them at least closer to what they’re looking for? 28 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Kate Aanenson: Correct, and I think the goal was to get a garage that they can put you know more than a single garage, which is there in place, which was their goal, and because of the topography next to the house, so I think in good faith the goal’s always to try, as we stated before with the variances that we try to get those movement towards compliance and we believe this was what they… Councilman Lundquist: And this leaves the driveway and the stairs. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: Next to the house so that they can get to the house without having to build some stairs and all that? Kate Aanenson: Right. That became too complex and ultimately they made the other modifications we looked at making some changes at that time. Councilman Lundquist: Alright. So everything around the house stays the same. The only changes are around the garage. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff? No? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Bangasser, Mrs. Bangasser, are you in agreement with the proposal here or is there anything you’d like to address council with? Dave Bangasser: I’ll be real brief. We are, we do find the compromise acceptable. Of the 7 I just might point out one fact. Of the 7 properties in the immediate area, this reduced plan would be the second smallest garage and we have the second largest amount of land there, so we do think that that fact, along with the facts that we presented 2 weeks ago make it very clear that we aren’t deviating from the established standards for the neighborhood. We do think there are a couple of positives as far as from the city standpoint, as Kate mentioned. We’re combining two non-conforming lots into one lot that does conform to the minimum lot size. In addition currently don’t have a garage that meets the minimum standards and we will have one that meets that standard so with that we just ask your approval of this revised plat and we thank you. Mayor Furlong: Good. Any questions of Mr. Bangasser? Very good. Thank you for taking the time over the last week, or couple weeks to work with staff on this. We appreciate it. Any other items? Questions on this. I’m sorry. Councilman Lundquist: Did you want to ask for more comment on the. Mayor Furlong: Public comment? Councilman Lundquist: Yes. 29 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Certainly, if there’s a desire for public comment. If anybody in the public would like to provide comment on this. Mrs. Paulsen, did you want to, have a question. Raise a comment. Janet Paulsen: I’m Janet Paulsen again. I certainly support Mr. Bangasser’s request for a larger garage. That’s not my question. My question is combining the lots and their impervious surfaces, and I’m wondering what are the parameters of doing something like that. Mayor Furlong: For combining two lots into one? Janet Paulsen: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Is that a legal question? Kate Aanenson: I believe we addressed that last time too. It’s a zoning lot so even though it is allowed by ordinances to combine the two, and we believe that it’s prudent therefore, obviously Mr. Bangasser bought this lot. Somebody else could buy it and not attach to it. It is a lot of record which would have some rights to it so by combining it, we’ve eliminated the possibility of a separate structure on one. Janet Paulsen: So would this be applicable to any lot in Chanhassen that wanted to enlarge their impervious surface? They could buy a lot. I mean what are the parameters? The geographic parameters. Across the street or kitty corner or down the street? I just don’t know. Kate Aanenson: Well we have those existing conditions. Lake Minnewashta, if you go on Minnewashta Parkway where the lots have been segmented by the road. It happens. Again it would be a lot of record. By doing, by combining it, making a zoning lot it gives you, affords the city actually greater protection so. Janet Paulsen: So this would only apply to a lot of record? Kate Aanenson: Well you can always buy a part of the property next door to you or attach it to your lot administratively. We’ve had that. Somebody wants to buy some of their neighbor’s property and attach it to their lot administratively, that doesn’t require a subdivision. That’s another way to get more impervious surface too. Janet Paulsen: But those are adjacent lots. I’m just wondering what are the parameters. Kate Aanenson: Well it’s defined in the city code and that’d be the definition of a zoning lot. I believe what you asked me last time was combining a lot, and there’s a separate definition for lot and a zoning lot as defined in the city ordinance. Mayor Furlong: Okay. These are separate parcels I think, and I don’t want to get into nomenclature because I’m going to screw that up but this issue, when you raised it I know Mrs. Paulsen at the Planning Commission and I think we talked about it last time too, having a street divide a parcel, which is what this will become is a single parcel, Ms. Aanenson mentioned 30 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 some, to my knowledge, just looking at the County GIS system, that situation occurs directly to the north of this parcel. I think is that Hickory that angles up to the north? There are 3 or 4 properties that have the same type of situation where the single parcel is divided by the public street. Janet Paulsen: So does that mean they’re right across the street from each other or down the street? I just don’t know. Mayor Furlong: In those that I’ve mentioned, I believe they are straight across the street from each other. Kate Aanenson: So the intent would be not to buy a lot in the middle of the city and try to combine it. There has to be some nexus there and proximity. We wouldn’t allow someone to buy a lot in the middle of the city and try to combine it under zoning law. Councilman Lundquist: Is that within our jurisdiction to determine? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: If they have to be. Kate Aanenson: Adjacency, yes. Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, I mean reasonable people would say you have to, you know they’d have to be adjacent for it to make sense. We have jurisdiction to. Kate Aanenson: I believe so. I’ll double check with the City Attorney, yes. Roger Knutson: Yes, what we’re saying is, but for the street they’re abutting and when you use the definition of abutting, it’s very common to say even if you’re divided by a street you’re still abutting. If it’s down the street and around the corner, then certainly it wouldn’t meet our criteria. Councilman Lundquist: Sure. It’s an interesting question, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for staff or is there anybody else who wanted to make public comment? I’ll bring it back to council for our discussion then. Seems that we’ve made some progress over the last 2 weeks since we first heard this. Is there any other discussion? Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve as submitted by staff with the findings of facts presented. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. 31 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approves Variance #06-04 for a 22.5 foot front yard setback variance, a 15.8 foot front yard setback variance and a 2.39% hard surface coverage variance for the construction of a modified three stall garage on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF), with the following conditions: 1. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of construction and extended completely around the tree at the greatest distance possible. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction if completed. 2. To retain soil moisture in the remaining root area, wood chip mulch must be applied to a depth of 4 to 6 inches, but no deeper, over all the root area. 3. Roots closest to the tree should be cut by hand or a vibratory plow to avoid ripping or tearing the roots. 4. The elevation of the garage wall closest to the tree must be at grade. This means the opposing wall will either need a retaining wall or a foundation wall due to the cut into the slope necessary to create a level floor. 5. No equipment or materials may be stored within the protected root area. 6. The tree will need to be watered during dry periods. 7. Any pruning cuts necessary must be done before April 1 or after July to avoid any possible exposure to the oak wilt fungus, a fatal disease for red oaks. 8. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction of the garage. 9. The applicant must submit a proposed grading plan with the building permit to demonstrate how the site will drain. 10. Lot 1, Block 5 and Lot 16, Block 4, Red Cedar Point must be combined under the same Parcel Identification Number. 11. An affidavit of lot combination must be recorded. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. ROSSAVIK ADDITION, 8800 POWERS BOULEVARD, APPLICANT ARILD ROSSAVIK: REQUEST FOR A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO REIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY; REQUEST FOR 32 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 REZONING OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, HILLSIDE OAKS FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A2) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF); AND SUBDIVISION OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, HILLSIDE OAKS INTO 5 LOTS WITH VARIANCES. Public Present: Name Address Ed Kraft 8711 Flamingo Drive nd Mark Kelly 351 2 Street, Excelsior Kate Aanenson: Thank you. There are a couple actions in your packet. One, the first being the land use. I’d like to break them out. We have all the motions in there because if you deny the land use, it negates the possibility of the subdivision, so I’ll break it out into two and if there’s motion for approval on the land use amendment, then I’ll be happy to go through the subdivision. Again subject site, Mr. Rossavik did present this item to the Planning Commission on February 21, 2006. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to deny the application. The Planning Commission felt that the redevelopment of the individual lot would change, without changing the adjoining lots, would change the character of the neighborhood and the findings that they felt in the comprehensive plan so again the subject lot is on Powers Boulevard, and I’ll show it to you. This is a large lot. Oakside Circle so this would be the subject lot right here. It’s hard to see that color. There is a neighboring lot to the south and to the north that are also large lots that would be impacted by the potential development of this lot. So if you look at the proposal summary on page 2 of the staff report, looking at the subdivision itself. There are some requirements but what I’d like to do is just focus on the land use amendment itself. We’ve given you the background, how many times this has come. The applicant, it’s his belief that there’s been substantive changes in the area that would make his different, or changing circumstances. The staff does not believe that nor does the Planning Commission. But in reviewing land use and the zoning in the zoning ordinance amendment if there’s an error guiding that needs to be corrected, changing conditions, then we would bring that property forward. In looking at the challenging topography in this area, and hopefully with the color you can see, there’s a lot of contours here as you can see through here. Steep ravines on this property. The backs of these properties which makes it challenging for development, so that’s one of the issues, and the fact that there’s large lots on either side that aren’t ready to develop, that the Planning Commission and the staff agree that the, that would be premature, and those items are also stated on page 4 of the staff report. I’m not going to read through those but those are the ones that would give the substantive findings of why we would not support it at this time. Again, if it was to subdivide, future access has to be provided to the property to the, this property to the south because they do not have access, we would want to limit the access on a collector street, Powers Boulevard. So taking those into consideration, again just strictly talking about the land use, the Planning Commission did recommend that the land use be denied, so I’ll take questions on that at this point and if you do recommend denial, then it would negate the rezoning and the subdivision itself. The findings of fact are also in the staff report. 33 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this point? Ms. Aanenson, a couple just clarifying questions. This is currently zoned residential large lot. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: That’s what it shows in the comprehensive plan. It’s not similar to what we were talking about earlier this evening, an agricultural piece that is guided to become another. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct, and I think that’s important to keep in mind and this is a land use amendment, which you have the most discretion on. The other ones were consistent that you saw when we were talking about the 2005. Mayor Furlong: With future guiding. Kate Aanenson: Future guiding, correct. So this asking for a change in guiding, where you have the most discretion. That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And we have other large lot residential land uses in our city… Kate Aanenson: That’s correct, and actually the Planning Commission spent a lot of time talking about that. That there are quite a few other large lot subdivisions that really that the Planning Commission doesn’t anticipate the character of those neighborhoods changing any time soon. Even those with significant amount of development around them. As a matter of fact, one being close to the new Powers Boulevard down on Homestead Lane. That neighborhood down there too, so they felt like the characters of those neighborhoods, that’s a lifestyle choice some people have bought into and they want to maintain that character. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any other questions for staff at this point with regard to the land use? Is the applicant here this evening? Or representative. Good evening. Mark Kelly: Good evening Your Honor and council members. Mark Kelly. I’m an attorney. I’m here on behalf of Mr. Rossavik who is out of the country at this time. I’ve certainly heard the report of staff and Mr. Rossavik has requested that the City Council consider the fact that the area along Powers Boulevard has changed substantially based on approvals that this council has made, and past councils made recently. Just to the west you approved a large development. Just to the south of Lyman Boulevard you approved 440 townhomes on a lot that are going in there. You have the Highway 312 that’s going in immediately to the south of Powers Boulevard, and Lyman Boulevard. All of which are changing the character of the area and placing this collector street into a very high volume street. While that area right now has a few homes along it which are very large lot, all the surrounding areas to the north are highly developed. Now, you installed in 1994 under your comprehensive plan at that time you anticipated the need to provide sewer and water to this area. This is an island that has no sewer and water connection in that neighborhood. We don’t understand why the sewer and water that was brought forward at that time in 1994, for which the City paid $260,000…the use of these neighboring properties. In particular the property near Oakside Circle recently was allowed to re-establish it’s septic system without being required to connect to city sewer and water as your ordinance 19-4 requires. My 34 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 client has asked that he be allowed to connect and has been told that right now the City would not allow him to connect because ostensibly his house is less than, is not 150 feet. Within 150 feet of the sewer and water. We understand there’s sewer and water connection stubs at the corner of Mr. Rossavik’s driveway, as well as down at Oakside Circle. Despite that proximity, preference was given to a council member and neighbors in that area so that no sewer and water was required to be connected at that location. These have been conveniences that have denied Mr. Rossavik the opportunity to convert an area that, it’s a very large lot, into some reasonable development of 5 lots. Last time this matter was presented in 2004 I believe, the City gave some consideration and concern regarding the ravine and that in the westerly side lot. All of those were adequately addressed and confirmed by the City staff as being handled by the drainage plan. There is no encroachment on steep slopes or bluff nor is there a loss of vegetation or any other impacts in terms of drainage. This plan, if approved, would provide access to the property to the south so as that becomes available and those property owners decide they want to develop their land, they might. As a practical matter, the development of this land by rezoning this does not deny or impose on any of the neighboring property owners a need to change at this time. The reality is this is a high density area that’s increasingly being commercialized. Within a year you’ll have a major intersection here, just about 2 blocks to the south. Mr. Rossavik’s development will allow access on a cul-de-sac that will service some land to the south. That’s good planning. Doesn’t require multiple curb cuts. In fact there’s already a right hand turn lane that’s been established. The City planned this area to have in and out right hand turn lanes when it redeveloped Powers Boulevard 10 years ago. It is certainly within your discretion to exercise your decisions as you see fit, but we’re asking for consideration of the fact that change has been approved and density has been approved by the City over the course of it’s conduct to the north, to the west, to the south. Nothing can happen to the east because it is wetland, but you did install sewer and water for the purpose of this area developing. And allowing Mr. Rossavik to install a handful of single family homes identical to that which you have off of Flamingo Drive, is not unreasonable. And it doesn’t impose change on anyone. It gives opportunity to others and perhaps those who own on Oakside Circle will gradually change over. But in the meantime my client has been faced with a great deal of frustration as well. His neighbor to the south, or to the north, Mr. Bizek runs a commercial operation out of his garage. The City’s been unwilling to address that matter and has showed preference to Mr. Bizek’s refusal to approve this project. This project came close to being approved a few years ago but was withdrawn, but the City withdrew it’s support when Mr. Bizek decided not to support it. Again Mr. Bizek runs an unlicensed operation from his home which is to this date the City has refused to do anything about. For all the reasons that I’ve described, I think the timeliness of this matter is certainly present and we’d ask that the City reconsider despite the fact that the staff has made it’s presentation asking that it not be approved. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions? I guess I have some follow up questions based upon some of the statements made to staff. First of all there was a statement that Mr. Rossavik would not be allowed to connect to city utilities. Is that a true statement? Paul Oehme: No it’s not. There, the sewer off it is right there. I mean right against his property. He can definitely hook up at any time that he wishes. In fact if his septic system were to fail, I think that the building officials would require him to hook up at that time. 35 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay. And there was also made mention of another property owner who I believe the phrase was something to the effect was not required to hook up as ordinance would require. Paul Oehme: Yeah, in that case I did talk to the building official who issued that septic system permit and he did not, that particular property owner did not meet the requirements of city code 19-41. His septic system, his property is more than 150 feet away from that sewer stub off the cul-de-sac so he did not, he would not be required to hook up at that time. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so no special preference was made. Paul Oehme: No. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then with regard to the commercial operation to the property to the north. Kate Aanenson: Sure, I can address that. The City did research a number of years ago Mr. Bizek. It was determined at that time, working with the City Attorney’s office that it was a legal non-conforming use. We did pursue that and Mr. Rossavik is aware of what our findings were on that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So it has. Kate Aanenson: It was a non-conforming. There are some non-conforming. At a time there are some off of Pioneer Trail too. Some contractor’s yards that were permitted under a different zoning ordinance. Pre-dated zoning ordinance. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Thank you sir. Mark Kelly: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Any other follow up? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I was just going to add a couple other questions. Comments just regarding large lots and kind of reiterating what the Planning Commission felt. I did mention Homestead Lane. Timberwood is also another large lot subdivision that’s been impacted by single family lots all the way around. They maintain that character. A very healthy neighborhood. I think we’ve had one or two systems in there that are on the edge that have actually hooked on, but again they did not change the character of the neighborhood. Did not subdivide further. There’s 2 ½ acre minimum and that’s a lifestyle choice that those neighbors selected. Again, if there’s a possibility to hook up and it’s cost effective, they’re within that and the sewer’s available, it’s a separate issue from subdividing, that they’re being provided efficient services that we’d always look at that. 36 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Alright. I guess the overall comment of the amount of development that has occurred, I guess I’ll go back to I think my earlier question is, has that development occurred consistent with our comprehensive plan? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? Is there anybody that would like to provide public comment on this matter? I know it was heard at the Planning Commission. Okay, very good. Council discussion. Thoughts, comments. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, have commented on this in years past that the hang-up that I have always had, and continue to have on this is that it’s an island. If it’s, you know it’s not the most northerly lot. It’s not the most southerly lot. It’s pretty much right in the middle, so some issues and challenges with that. Have voted for in the past, and would consider developments that make sense for the area as a whole, but to drop a, to drop this in the middle of that is where I continue to have a problem. Yes there’s been developments to the west and south. Lots of changes in the area, but as we’ve looked at those, if they make sense as infill developments and other things going on is the issue that I continue to have with this one. Is that, I don’t see a compelling reason to make a land use amendment for a 5, or how ever many home development in the middle of that area. Once these properties can get together and come together and present a unified plan to develop, or as that development proceeds from the north to the south, or the south to the north I might feel more compelled to look at that right now. I don’t see a compelling reason to make a land use amendment for that. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, I guess I wish Mr. Rossavik would have been here tonight because I would have asked him why he bought his property. I’m assuming it’s because he chose that life style of living on a large lot residential area and I’m sure if we asked any of the neighbors that lived there why’d you buy your property, it was because it was a large lot residential area. I think it’s a unique part of the city and I don’t think we’ll see a lot more of those being developed in our city and I think they need to be respected and protected and so I too am not in favor of changing anything that’s existing there already. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments? Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, yeah. Obviously I’ve been on record before about this project and more importantly about other projects where subdivisions are in the offing, and historically I try to find ways not to do subdivisions when the city can maintain a look and feel that a lot of our residents wanted when they moved to Chanhassen. And I’ve been pretty vocal about the need to maintain a wide variety of housing styles and maintain as much green acres as we possibly can. I mean our city survey, it’s a resounding yes when you asked the citizens if you want more green space, less green space…maintain green space, but to Councilman Lundquist’s point, the island is clearly in this situation probably the most compelling reason not to make an adjustment. And we’ve got an area to the east that is open and wooded and wetlands. You’ve 37 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 got a park to the west and you’ve got large lots surrounding it, so it just simply doesn’t fit. For those reasons I would affirm the staff position and deny the request. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. My thoughts are similar to those expressed. I think that in this particular case it is a single lot within a currently zoned next to the neighboring lots, as part of my questions. Though development has occurred, it’s been consistent with the comprehensive plan generally and so I don’t think even with the Highway 212 being constructed, that was part of the comprehensive plan so the changes are consistent with what could be expected by all property owners. And I agree with Councilman Lundquist’s positions both in terms of the island and in terms of when as a council we should consider changing these, and it takes more than one property owner. Does it take all of them? The factor probably depends, but it certainly takes more than one. We had a situation like this up along Lake Lucy Road last year when we were looking at a street project and extending utilities in that case. I think there were a number of property owners that would be willing to take the assessments for the utilities if they were allowed to subdivide, but it was clearly not a consensus among property owners that subdivision was what that neighborhood wanted and so in the end we did not move forward with the utility assessments, because it was pretty clear that many of those property owners would not accept the assessments without that subdivision option and that just wasn’t there yet from the property owners so, I think we have a very similar situation here. And I see, I don’t see any justification for not following staff’s recommendation and the Planning Commission’s recommendation on this matter. Is there other comments or thoughts on this? If not we have, beginning on page… Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, I would move the City Council deny the land use map amendment from residential large lot to residential low density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks based on the findings of fact. Roger Knutson: And includes adopting the findings? Councilman Lundquist: Correct. Based on adopting the findings of fact. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Do you want to pick up B and C there? Do we need to do that as well, since that’s part of the application? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Lundquist: We’re required to. Kate Aanenson: You can make it all one motion. Roger Knutson: Yeah, you’d turn down all three. Mayor Furlong: Do you want to keep going? Councilman Lundquist: Why not. Mr. Mayor, I’d also move that the City Council deny the rezoning from A2 to RSF for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks based on inconsistency with the comprehensive plan designation of the property. And that the City Council deny the preliminary 38 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 plat of the Rossavik Addition creating 5 lots and variance for the use of a private street based on non-conformance with the zoning of the property. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second to that combined motion? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: It’s made and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none, we’ll proceed with the vote. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council denies the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential-Large Lot to Residential Low Density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks, adopting the findings of fact. That the City Council denies the rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate District to RSF, Single Family Residential for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks based on inconsistency with the comprehensive plan designation of the property. And that the City Council denies the preliminary plat of Rossavik Addition creating five lots with a variance for the use of a private street, based on non-conformance with the zoning of the property. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Move on to the next item here which is consideration of Halla Greens. We have a number of people here so I’d like to try to keep our meeting moving at this point. Kate Aanenson: Take a quick break. Mayor Furlong: Is there a desire for. Councilman Lundquist: 5 minutes recess. Mayor Furlong: Okay. We’ll take a recess subject to the call of the Chair. Let’s keep it short though. (The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting.) HALLA GREENS (AKA CHANHASSEN SHORT COURSE), LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD Public Present: Name Address David & Sharon Gatto 9631 Foxford Road Gaye Guyton 10083 Great Plains Boulevard David & Judy Walstad 10071 Great Plains Boulevard Sandy & Don Halla 6601 Mohawk Trail Dave Wondra 9590 Foxford Road 39 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Tom Anderson 9371 Foxford Road Magdy & June Ebrahim 521 Pineview Court Steve Shipley 261 Eastwood Court Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The applicant before you tonight is requesting an amendment to the conditional use and site plan approval that was granted for a golf course located on Pioneer Trail and 101, on the southeast corner. The plan itself has changed since the original application. The cover part of your staff report was, what was originally approved and what the applicant, Mr. Halla is proposing. Instead of going through that, what I would like to do is if you turn the page is go through what Mr. Halla’s requesting and what the staff is recommending. And with that, this did go to the Planning Commission. There was some ambiguity at the Planning Commission regarding the motion and I know that caused a little bit concern with the, with some th of the neighbors but the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing February 7 to review the project and the Planning Commission 4 to 2 voted to deny the requested amendments. So with that the staff took the lead to get the application where we felt it met the issues regarding, where we could attach reasonable conditions for a conditional use and the site plan. Have them make those modifications and that’s what I’d like to spend some time going through. So on the north is the Pioneer Trail, and this would be the driveway coming in. The original club house itself was 44 by 66 and that’s, or what Mr. Halla’s requesting and that still is what we’re recommending for approval. There was outdoor seating. It’s been changed to kind of a veranda on each side, and the staff is supportive of that. There was a maintenance building and Mr. Halla’s requesting a 68 by 120 with a 24 foot future. The staff has recommended denial of that. That size, but back to the 1,800 square foot that was previously approved. We think that’s in excess of the size of this operation. Again the ball washing machine, we believe that can be incorporated into the maintenance building so we are recommending denial of that. There was a shelter building that they used for teaching and the staff is recommending approval of that shelter building and that was 16 by 40 feet. Lighting. The applicant wanted to use two different size of heights, 25 and 15. Staff is recommending 15 feet around the entire site. The lights themselves, I’m just showing this just, I know you can’t read it but just for your edification. This is photometrics. This was submitted. We do require a half foot at the candle…anybody read it but I just want you to know we have reviewed that. But the lights themselves, there’s lighting here. And there’s lighting on the driveway coming here and then back towards the maintenance building and those we’re recommending 15 feet. Again just for clarification city code does require parking lot lighting. I know we were asked by the residents that Bluff Creek Golf Course does not have them. That golf course predates most of us here that were involved in the city. The most recent golf course that the staff worked on, actually I worked on is the Rain, Snow, Shine Golf Course and that one does have parking lot lighting and that is consistent with city ordinance, but actually this one we actually went down a little bit lower and I believe they even have that’s 15 feet which city ordinance allows 30 feet. So we did recommend 15 feet overall. The applicant had requested some at 25 and some at 15. There was a request for a temporary structure, …building to serve customers and employees building until that’s complete. That’s fine. Staff did recommend approval of that. And then the other one we had a concern with was the ribbed metal on the exterior building for the maintenance building and the ball washing. We recommended denial on that. Again we don’t know how long the life of this building would be so we are making consistent with the city ordinance which requires non-metal and it would be used as an accent. And then the request of hours of operation. We’re again going back to the 40 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 original conditional use. Again fitting in with the neighborhood, and that request for the extended hours was denied. At 11:00 it’s dark so you couldn’t be golfing then. So with that, again this is just a change. I’m not going to go through unless you have specific questions on the use of the building itself. If you turn to page, findings of the changes are all found throughout the staff report but the conditions itself then are, what we’ve done is taken the original site plan condition. Whatever shows up in the original conditions of approval for the site plan or the conditional use. Those conditions starting on page, the recommendations starting on page 18 would be in addition to those original conditions or shown as modified, if that makes sense. So that’s what we are recommending for approval on the conditional use and the site plan itself. So with that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Lundquist: Kate, the, now I lost my page. Go to the lights first. If this was not a, anything more than a sunrise to sunset operation, would our ordinance still require, and I understand the safety element of the ordinance and that but if it’s a sunrise to sunset operation, would we need lights there? Kate Aanenson: Yeah and that’s very similar to what we have at RSS. Sometimes people, there is a building, sometimes people go in and visit for a little bit afterwards. We have restrictions on what they can serve down there too but it’s very similar and there’s also parking lot lighting down there. Councilman Lundquist: Well Rain, Snow or Shine, I mean they’re open when it’s dark. You go in the winter time, they’re open til 9:00 and it’s dark at 5:30. So I mean that’s not a. Kate Aanenson: Again I’ll go back to what the city ordinance says. You know what we look at too is the safety issue too. Backing in… Todd Gerhardt: Yeah Mayor, council members. The lighting in the parking lot also acts as a security. If you don’t have lights in the parking lot you could have individuals go in there at night, park and run around the golf course. By having lighting it provides security for our policemen as they drive by to see what’s going on in the area. Golf courses are notorious for teenagers to hang out and do property damage so it also provides a security. Councilman Lundquist: On the other conditions as I read through here, we’re requiring some berming and other stuff around the parking lot so that parking lot’s not visible from the street and neighbors. Kate Aanenson: Well what’s intended, you would still be able to see a car but really it’s intended also to screen some of the car lights so you’re not, those aren’t shining on adjacent properties. Councilman Lundquist: So would that parking lot be readily visible from 101 and Pioneer? 41 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Kate Aanenson: I think you’d be able to see if there’s a car in there but not necessarily the lights so you still could see the top of a car. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Kate Aanenson: I believe you can pretty much right now so. Councilman Lundquist: Right. The extra, the 16 by 40 building, on that plan that you have in front of you. Show where that is proposed to go? Kate Aanenson: This is the larger storage building. Councilman Lundquist: No, not the 60, not the monster one. The 16 by 40 teaching shelter building. It may be in relation to where the club house is proposed to go. Kate Aanenson: It’s a wing wall building and I don’t see it on the plan. Erik Olson: Right, the drive…is right here. The little teaching shack would be on the west side of the driving range, approximately right around this area. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it’s open on the outside. Yeah, 3 sides. Councilman Lundquist: Like a RSS? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Okay. Other, and refresh my memory on the ordinance, what the lights. Do we have a minimum requirement for foot candles or height of lights or anything like that in the ordinance or does it just say, got to have some lights in the parking lot? Kate Aanenson: Well there is a photometrics here so we try to look that it’s evenly distributed and then it drops at the half foot candle at the property line, which this does significantly before you get to that. The 30 foot, based on the character of the neighborhood, since he was already proposing 15 on a majority of them, we felt 15 would be consistent throughout there but we wouldn’t have as much spill. We certainly understand that that’s changing the neighborhood by having additional lighting there, and whether it’s along the street lighting and that, those neighborhoods there. Councilman Lundquist: So does the ordinance require a minimum height of a light or is it just say we’ve got to have some lights. Kate Aanenson: Well the ordinance says 30 feet. Because he had. Councilman Lundquist: Minimum of 30 or maximum? Kate Aanenson: Maximum. 42 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Councilman Lundquist: And is there a minimum standard? Kate Aanenson: You know to get a parking lot light less than that might be, I’m not sure would be desirable or effective. Roger Knutson: Could just comment. It has to be a parking lot light to light the parking lot so presumably there’s some minimum height. I don’t know what it would be to light the parking lot. Kate Aanenson: Well and the other part of that is, we may have more poles to get the same amount of lighting so you might have the same illumination, or more illumination so it’s a mathematical thing too. Councilman Lundquist: So there’s a standard in there that talks about foot candles? I’m searching for something other than. Kate Aanenson: We tried that too. Tried to find some other way to mitigate that but you would actually, you may have more poles and more lights to try to get to that, if you want to 10 feet or something. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So the standard in the ordinance is about, there’s a maximum and then there’s a standard for foot candles of illumination that are required? Kate Aanenson: Correct. That’s the two variables. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: And I guess to clarify, is that illumination requirement that maximum illumination in the parking lot or at the property line? Kate Aanenson: At the property line but there are industry standards and we go back to the literature to review that. We don’t have that built in our code but we would work with Beth Hoiseth, our safety person to look at that, and that, going back to what city manager said, that’s kind of the safety issue part of it. How we balance that. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate. Mayor Furlong: Other questions, thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, when I was a new Planning Commissioner I think when this came on the first time so I have a history with this sort of. I don’t remember discussions regarding lights at that point. I know there was discussion regarding wells and the watering of the course. Why wasn’t that ever brought up or you know talked about back then? 43 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Kate Aanenson: Well I think that the applicant, as you can see by the request, as a different need and different desires than the original, the original applicant so. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And I don’t want to put you in a spot but what different needs? I mean what’s changed with this whole thing? Kate Aanenson: Well I think clearly one would be the building itself. If you look at what the original building looked like. Zoom in on that. A little bit more rustic. I think the current applicant has a little bit more highly stylized building so I think that would be some of it too. Councilwoman Tjornhom: In regards to lighting the parking lot? Kate Aanenson: No, in regards to the use itself. That’s where I was going back to. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Oh, okay. Kate Aanenson: So this conditional use, and the site plan amendment, there’s several things that are being requested. The applicant didn’t want to stay with those same standards. So one would be the highly articulated building and assuming the additional parking to provide more people to come there. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And what are the club house hours? Kate Aanenson: Well the original request was for sunrise to sunset and then this applicant wanted to go to 11:00 p.m.. Councilwoman Tjornhom: For the club house and the golf course or just? Kate Aanenson: Well there’s no lights on the golf course. Councilwoman Tjornhom: So you can’t golf at 11:00. Kate Aanenson: You could try but. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well it wouldn’t work, and I don’t golf but I’m assuming… Kate Aanenson: Well, and that goes back to the building itself so, right. So if you can’t golf, which is they’d be doing something at the building. Councilwoman Tjornhom: At the club house, that’s what I’m trying to get at. Is that what brings the safety concerns and the needs for lights? Kate Aanenson: Well if you look at the conditions of approval, that’s where we recommended denial of extension of hours because then you’ve got a segment of time between the, when you can’t golf and. 44 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right, you have to go home when you’re done golfing. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, you can lounge a little bit but pretty much that’s the intent and that’s the same condition that…a curfew that while they’re golfing in the winter then it’s not intended to be a club house or you know some other type of establishment. That it’s really ancillary to the primary use which is the golf. So it’s an opportunity to visit. Meet the pro, whatever but it’s really intended to be part of the same, not a separate commercial type use. But it’s related to golf. And that was the recommendation for not, for denying and not extending the hours. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Councilman Peterson, any questions at this point? Councilman Peterson: You know one of the things Kate was that we were originally intending to put lights on the building. Was the building in a different spot originally so that we were going to off light the parking lot with off the building? I mean I assume it would be because right now it wouldn’t really be possible would it? Kate Aanenson: It would be difficult. I mean you could put them in the soffit over the door the way the. Councilman Peterson: But if we did that, the lighting would be more intrusive to the neighbors than it would with down lighting now right? Kate Aanenson: Right. I mean if you put it, if you put in under the soffit here, it would provide lighting just for that door otherwise yeah, you’re right. It would be the height of the building at 27 feet, if you put somewhere, could be higher. Councilman Peterson: And you’re going to put spots and it’s just going to be a glaring thing in the night. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and those tend to be, that is a nuisance, the calls that we get sometimes when a business goes next door that we have to work to get it shielded and pointed down. And then you might not get the park, or the area for protection that we’re talking about before in the parking lot. Councilman Peterson: What kind of discussion did you have with the applicant regarding the maintenance building more than doubling in size? I’m confused by that. I don’t know whether you’ve had any discussions or we can ask the applicant the same thing. Kate Aanenson: Sure. Well I think you know we always try to find that proportionality to say, if this is intended to be related to the golf course, it seems excessive for that size of a course and we kind of looked around to see what other size of maintenance buildings and it just seemed in excess of what you would need for this golf course. So we recommended that it be significantly smaller. 45 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Councilman Peterson: Okay. Councilman Lundquist: Kate, one more on the parking spaces. I mean as I drive by I guess I see that the parking lot’s already there so, but it’s not often that we have applicants come in with four, with even barely meeting the number of parking spaces and certainly not with 4 times. Any concerns from staff on all that extra hard cover when you know ordinances require or that’s an applicant driven figure and that’s how many people they can get out on the course at a time or? Kate Aanenson: Some of both, yeah. I don’t think that, based on what they would consider the practice, that’s what they felt they needed. We did put a condition in here regarding that there’s no commercial kitchen so it’s not being used for that type of facility. For that, but if there was some, if you had something after league or something like that where they did, they catered something in, I think that’s kind of what they were looking at possibly too. Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, as I went this weekend down to Rain, Snow or Shine I think I counted 64 parking spots and I guess I’d look at it as a similar deal. I mean they’ve got a little short course there. They’ve got their little putt putt thing and the other stuff going on, and just one of those things, I wonder if the parking lot needs to be that, I mean it’s there. It’s already, it’s approved. You know it’s fine. I just wanted to know if you’ve got any, if staff had any concerns about all that extra hard cover when. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council. We constantly look at ways to try to reduce the impervious surface and you know they have a 45 acre site so my guess they’re substantially below the minimum. We work with them in trying to determine what they need to operate the business and I guess that’s what we agreed to. Mayor Furlong: I may have some follow up questions for staff after we hear from the applicant. Are there any other questions for staff at this point? If not, is the applicant here this evening? I know you are because you came up once already. Erik Olson: Good evening Mayor, council members. Fellow neighbors and citizens. My name is Erik Olson. I’m a resident of Chanhassen. I reside at 9855 Delphinium Lane. I’m also the manager of Halla Greens Golf Course. I’m here tonight to give you a brief history of our involvement with the course and then go over the issues about the buildings, the hours of operations, the lights. Hopefully we can get that straighten away tonight too. Just a brief history. About 6 years ago Don Halla leased his property out for the construction of a golf course. Back in November of 2004 the lease was essentially given back to Don. He had to decide between completing the construction of the course or letting it revert back to a tree farm, which is what it was originally. The decision was made by Don and his wife to basically go ahead with construction of the course and you know build something that the whole community can enjoy. By the time we got involved the previous lessee had already received all the people permits from the city and during the process of building and growing in the courses last year we came to realize that some changes were needed in order to basically improve the operation of this golf course and that’s basically why we’re here tonight. We’ve worked hard with the staff to try to fix all the different issues that we’ve been having. We’re pleased that they like the new club house. The old one was basically you saw a picture of it, a 40 by 60 pole barn with cedar siding. 46 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Looks like something you’d tie a horse up to and go into a saloon basically. The new one is, it’s just lightly larger. 40 by 66 and like staff said before, we’d have two enclosed porches on the east and west sides and it would be built using vinyl shake siding with simulated cedar textured siding. An example of the color and style that we would use and like I said before, staff has given approval for this. Do want to bring out just one other picture, and you can see this a little bit better than the one that was already here but this is basically the design of the new club house. It’s similar in style, looks to the Chaska Town Course club house, if any of you are familiar with that one. The maintenance building as approved is a 30 by 60 pole barn. Storage of equipment is really the main problem here. We would only be able to store about 25, maybe 30% of the equipment that we have inside and then the balance of it would have to be kept outside the maintenance building in an enclosed, fenced in area that’s required basically by city code. This, even though it’s outside and enclosed in a fence, you know you’ll probably still get to see some of the equipment sitting back there. Not very attractive and it’s also you know very damaging to the equipment itself, forcing it to sit outside in the elements all the time. What we proposed is a 68 by 120 foot metal pole barn building. The construction material that’s similar to the one, Hazeltine Golf Club just built down the road as far as the metal that they used. This is an example here from the colors and the metal itself. Now in regards to the variance that we’re requesting the use of metal on the maintenance building, I understand why the City wants the material to be wood. Wood looks very nice. But with the materials that we would use, and really the way the buildings are designed, we don’t feel it would be a blight on the community in the slightest. In addition, we already have metal buildings around the entire property already. We don’t feel that we’re adding anything different or out of place to the surrounding community. There is both commercial and residential metal buildings around the site. The commercial ones are in the northwest corner of the property and west side of the property. Commercial, residential basically on all four sides already. You know in regards to the size a little bit too, I’d like to talk about most golf courses, if you go into their maintenance area, they have a lot of equipment sitting out. You know there’s piles of dirt. There’s piles of sand. There’s you know equipment that doesn’t work anymore sitting out in the yard basically, and with this increase in size basically we’re allowing it all to be brought inside…I know there’s some concern brought up in some of the staff reports that the nursery, Don Halla’s other business would be using part of this building to help out their endeavors over there and I would just like to stress that that wouldn’t be the case at all. This is strictly golf course operation and equipment being used in the building. We also respectfully ask for two other buildings that weren’t thought of before. One is a ball, staff refers to this as a ball washing building and that really isn’t the correct definition. We can wash the balls in the maintenance building. That’s not the problem at all. What we need is a building to house the ball dispenser for the range balls. Holds the baskets there. The balls themselves. Extra balls that we have. The washing can take place over in the maintenance side. That isn’t a problem, but basically we need that building in order to operate and run the driving range. Without the club house built yet, you know that’s really what we’re planning on, or we’re planning on building first in order to get this golf course open this spring. A driving range is always the first thing to open up on a golf course, but we need something to house the ball dispenser. Keep it safe at night. Keep it locked up. The other building is a lean-to teaching shack on the range to provide privacy and really safety for the golf pro and students. I pointed out earlier where it would go on the driving range. Both these buildings can be built using the vinyl siding that I showed here earlier. Something similar in design so everything looks nice and attractive. But you know if it helps matters we would be willing to eliminate the teaching shack 47 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 structure in order to get approval for the ball dispensing building. The variance on the hours of operation is also very important to the success of this golf course. Right now we have approval of limiting our time of operations from sunrise to sunset. As you know there’s a lot of light before the official sunrise and plenty of light after the official sunset. We would like to be able to conduct our business the exact same way every golf course near us does, as well as basically every golf course in America does. And let me explain a little bit what I mean by that. The first tee time is usually at sunrise. The official sunrise time. Typically a half hour before that, the ground crew’s out mowing, moving the holes on the greens. Putting the flags out. Things like that, and the last golfer that comes in, when they can no longer see the flight of their ball. I don’t know if any of you are golfers here but if you’re one of the last ones out on the tee time and you know it’s getting toward dark and you don’t want to feel like you’ve spent money for nothing. I mean you’re staying out there and hitting that ball as long as possible until you basically can’t see anymore. Behind that last golfer on the course, the ground crew’s again is out trailing behind them. Removing the flag sticks from all the greens for the night. Picking up any garbage they see laying around the course so it’s not flying around over night. Basically by doing things this way, three things are really accomplished. One, the grounds crew is kept safe from being injured by a ball. Two, the golfers aren’t inconvenienced by and they’re really kept safe from maintenance being done on the course while they’re out there playing their round. And three, it allows us to maximize the usable playing time over the course of a day. We’d respectfully request that the sunrise to sunset definition be changed to say, light to dark or have a time stipulation attached. This 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. that was listed was really given to the city staff as an example of something that we wanted to see as opposed to just sunrise to sunset. I mean that was never designed to be the exact times that we wanted to remain open. It was just meant as an example. So you know, the light to dark or even if we could have something like a half hour before sunrise. Half hour, hour after sunset. Something like that. This would basically allow us to compete fairly with our competition and keep our employees and customers safe. Lastly we request to be able to put in the parking lot lights for the safety of the employees, the customers, property itself. The 15 foot high poles that the staff recommends is perfectly acceptable to us. We don’t have a problem with that. I know that some of the neighbors do have a lot of concerns about these lights and I’ve talked to David before and I’m sure that’s why he’s here tonight too is to see what the decision is on that and basically as an act of good faith and to show that we do want to be good neighbors, we’d be willing to withdraw the request for parking lot lights, although I don’t know if city code allows us to do that or not. I mean that’s something that you’ll have to decide. This could be you know a wonderful community asset but you know we need your help basically on some of the variances with buildings and the longer hours of operations and possibly with the lights. How you decide to do that. I just want to thank you for your time and if you have any questions, I’d be happy to answer them. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Questions for Mr. Olson. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Olson, if you can, can you explain the original lessee, Mr. Saatzer, is he involved with the golf course anymore at all? Erik Olson: You know I’m not really privy to that information but I believe he’s a small, has a small percentage of the investment on the course. From my understanding. 48 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Councilman Lundquist: So I’m curious that with the original proposal with Mr. Saatzer as the primary lessee and all of that, that Mr. Halla was fine with everything that was going on as long as Mr. Saatzer was paying the rent. Now that’s not the case anymore. You don’t feel like it’s a viable, a viable business anymore? Erik Olson: Well from my original understanding, Don Halla’s only involvement in the original proposal is he was strictly leasing the land to Ron Saatzer. And that’s as far as that went. When he essentially gave back the lease to Don, how can I put this? The original plans, everything was done to a minimum. Kind of just to get by. Don just wanted to build something nicer. Bottom line. That’s why you see the difference in the club house. The difference in the maintenance building. Instead of having a smaller building and having things left out you know, we get a bigger building and put everything inside so nothing is viewed. The hours of operation I don’t think were really thought of before in that initial approval from Ron’s side. When we were building it and looking at it, knowing how golf courses operate and I have a list if you want of the work start times for basically all the surrounding golf courses. When they start their play. When they end their play. When they’re watering schedule is. It’s all basically the same. Kind of coming in late to the approval process we just wanted to try to make some changes to better the course. Councilman Lundquist: So what’s your thoughts on tee times? How often, what’s the gap going to be between your tee times? Erik Olson: 8 minutes. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And you think of a, I mean that’s a pretty, you feel like that’s a pretty aggressive tee time for a short course? Do you expect that you’re going to have mostly beginners? You know all levels of play or what do you think is your primary target? Erik Olson: Well it’s not like the 9 holes down at the bottom of the hill, the Rain, Snow, Shine Golf Zone I think is the other name he goes by. That course is, I think maybe the longest hole he has is 60 yards. So that’s really designed for the absolute beginner. You know someone just starting out. This course is going to be more difficult. It’s not really designed for that type of beginner. We’ll have teaching pros available for beginners to learn and you know the driving range for them to practice on, but it would really be better for them to go down at the bottom of the hill if they want to play a round. This is designed more for you know the hacker can still go out and have fun on it. But if you’re you know a first day of golf is your day that you’re playing Halla Greens, you might not have that much fun. You might not have much fun on any course for that matter but, you know our course is going to be a challenge. Councilman Lundquist: What’s the longest hole? It’s 1,500 yards for 9 holes. Erik Olson: We have two par 4’s. Both dog leg left’s. The longest being 333 and then the other one I think is 318. 317. Something like that. Councilman Lundquist: So par 29? 49 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Erik Olson: Yes, it’s par 29. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. The ball shed, whatever. The 32 by 20. Is that what that is? I mean as I walk around other golf courses, when I think of a driving range, I mean there’s a thing like the size of a pop machine that you put the bucket under and then like two pop machine depths behind it where they store you know 500 or 600 baskets of balls. And so when I think of you know a place for all of that, I think you can, if you put 3 port-a-potties together it probably fits in that size so can you, you know help me understand why you think you need the size of that building to put a ball dispenser and some baskets in. Erik Olson: Sure. Basically going around to all the golf courses, I talked to the golf courses that had ranges and the person that was involved with the range and took a look at what they had as far as the building that stored their range balls. Their ball dispenser and for the most part you’re right. They’re maybe 15 by 15 side of a building at the, you know on the larger end. 15 by 20 maybe on a couple of them. Like maybe down by Deer Run I think has a pretty good size one. But talking with these people, the one thing they always wanted was for the building to be bigger for more storage. You’re always buying more range balls. Range balls get lost. Stolen. Damaged so you’re constantly having to have a new supply of range balls brought into the course. The best way is to have a whole bunch of balls already on the facility available to you instead of waiting for shipment. So with the size that we came up with, basically that was the size that all these other driving range managers ideally would have liked to have on their bench. You know for their use. So that’s the size that we came up with. If it would help matters, I mean we’d be willing to sit down with staff and maybe come up with a different size or more appropriate size, if that makes you feel more comfortable. Councilman Lundquist: That’s all I have. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Councilman Peterson: Speaking on the same realm of building size, as I offered earlier. You spoke of storing stuff inside a maintenance building that you would normally have outside. Was that the assumption to the best of your knowledge when the original building was proposed at 30 by 60, that everything else be stored outside? Number two, you know I look at the schematic of the layout of the building, it looks like you’re storing some golf carts inside and is that primarily why you want the extra space? What are you planning on putting in versus out? Erik Olson: Right now we do not have golf carts for the course. This larger building would basically house everything. From the fertilizers. Have a chemical room inside. Like I said before you know with the 30 by 60, I’m sure Ron was going to get what he could inside that size and you know, you’re basically forced to leave the rest out. You know you’re leaving your, we’re going to have, a golf course has to have piles of soil for maintenance out on the course and replacing divots. We’ve got to have sand for top dressing the greens. Those piles are typically outside and they’re typically covered with some sort of tarp. You want to keep them as dry as possible. It’s just much easier to work with the material when it’s dry as opposed to wet. Some of the stuff you can’t work with it when it’s wet so, we were envisioning all of this moving inside the building and basically removing anything out of sight from the public. Including in 50 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 the future, if we choose to have golf carts available for our golfers, we’d have room inside the maintenance building then for storage of the carts overnight. Councilman Peterson: Okay, and what’s the intent of the additional 24 feet? Is that anything specific in mind for that? Erik Olson: You know that would be probably for additional carts. I don’t know off hand. Sandy Halla: When they’re handicap they have to…so a normal person would probably want to do that. The people who wanted help would be able to do… Erik Olson: So additional golf carts basically is what that would be for. Councilman Peterson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Question on the teaching shelter. I guess we’re going building to building here. You had mentioned and again could you point out where, that’s not on the, is that on the site plan that we were given or not? And if it’s not, if you could point where that is. Erik Olson: If you could zoom in…this area. This is the building right here. This is the west hand side. It’s probably, this is the driving range tee box and from that tee box, I’m guessing here but it’s maybe 20 yards away from that tee box. You’d have this side, this side and this side and then open in the front, with a roof on the top. Basically a lean-to and they’re shooting out. Being used only for iron practice. Not for woods practice. They have to go back to the tee box. We don’t have the room for them on that, but it’s basically in that area and just provides a safe haven. Get them off and away from the other clientele using the driving range. Mayor Furlong: So the, to move them away or get them away from the other clientele using the driving range, that’s just a preference spot on the course? Erik Olson: You know some of the golf pros like to do that. If they’re on the tee box, say we section off an area. Mayor Furlong: The driving range? Erik Olson: Yeah. The driving range tee box and they’re teaching. We have an area sectioned off for them and they maybe have 5-6 students there. If I’m trying to pick up some free lessons. Don’t want to pay them to spend an hour with me, you know I might try to get as close to them as possible to pick up what information I can. Eavesdrop basically and so some of the pros like to basically have a separate teaching shack where they can teach in privacy. And because of the area that it’s at, it’d have to be enclosed on the three sides just to provide safety. There is netting going to be installed along the side, but even with that netting we would still want it to be sided just for further protection. 51 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Some of my other questions have been asked. You commented on them so, okay. Other questions at this point for the applicant? Okay. Very good. Thank you. Appreciate it. Erik Olson: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: There was a public hearing held at the Planning Commission and I don’t want to repeat that this evening. At the same time if there are some residents or other interested parties that would like to provide some comment to the council based upon changes that occurred between the Planning Commission and now, I would certainly entertain…comment there as well. So if anybody would like to provide some comment, they can come forth at this point. State your name and address for. Dave Walstad: Good evening. My name is Dave Walstad. I live at 10071 Great Plains Boulevard, which is directly south at the end of the driving range. I just have a couple quick comments regarding hours of operation which to me is the main issue for me. It seems like the applicant wants to have it both ways. First of all stating that it’s light for so long before and after sunset, that they should be allowed to operate and then saying they need lights to provide safety. To me the reason for the lights are more safety for the building versus safety of personnel and I’m not sure if that issue is really the same. Are they allowed to light, for instance we allow parking lot lights, building lights, 15 feet tall, whatever height, does that mean they’re allowed to operate 24 hours a day? Are they there for only on for timers? To shut off now after sunset. That would be something that I think should be considered. If it’s truly for people that are on the course, I think that can be restricted. And secondly, the other issue seems to be again, you mentioned in the previous hearing it was talked about residents and the areas that they were in being large lot and yes, you’re very correct and that’s why we bought our property was to maintain that type of atmosphere. Yes, we realize a golf course is a conditional use and that’s permitted. However, we do wish to make sure that it’s understood that this is not a commercially zoned area where some of the other golf courses might be operating in that type of zone. And so again the concern over the hours of operation was brought up significantly at the Planning Commission hearing and I don’t want to belabor that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Dave Walstad: But that’s, I think that’s all I need to say at this point. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Anybody else? Like to make comments. David Gatto: Good evening Mayor, council. My name’s David Gatto. 9631 Foxford Road. I’m speaking on behalf of the 37 families that live on Foxford Road, on Pinecrest Road and what’s the other one? Audience: Eastwood. David Gatto: Eastwood Court. And I’m going to not try to repeat what I said in the commission meeting, but what we’re going to discuss tonight, it looks like what you’re discussing tonight is 52 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 really a substantial change and an expansion for a business and a business plan that wasn’t, that hasn’t really operated for one hour yet for the original proposed business. What we’ve approved so far, what the city’s approved so far is really what I’ve heard folks say is a ma and pa, pop executive golf course and driving range, a small club house with outdoor seating. A reasonable maintenance building. We’ve got a big inconsistency with the staff and the conditional use permit did specifically talk about safety and lights. You talk about safety in the background narrative of the staff report. You talked about lighting in the executive summary under what was, and then under lighting it says lights attached at the building. So what I put in the e-mail to all you folks, the residents at Lake Riley Woods will hold the City responsible for those notifications and notices to us that you did address safety and you did address light and that’s what it said it would be, and that’s what everybody said would be great. Let’s have this little golf course because that’s all light and it’s going to be present. With their change tonight, what I appreciate these folks saying is that they are, they’re a bit flexible with regards to the parking lot lighting. If they’re flexible with regards to the parking lot lighting, I think they’re going to find that the residents just north of this golf course are going to be very flexible with regards to the things that we will support them in. These other things that they’d like to do now. We also have reasonable expectations the business would operate from sun up to sun down. So you permitted the above described business in a very special part of your city, and we’ve heard a lot of that tonight. And we think this very special part and corner of our city ought to stay that way. It has rarity and character. It has nice homes. It has big lots, and it has strict association standards that we have enforced even if it’s been painful to some of us sometimes. We have dark. We have quiet nights out there, and no one thought much about this small corner of Chanhassen yet. I mean even to the point to where we don’t have any sewer and water. The sewer and water is long went past us to the west and to the north, and to the south, and we are all eagerly awaiting in a couple years when the freeway opens and the commuter traffic, the east/west commuter traffic is pulled off of Pioneer Trail and that corner of Chanhassen’s going to be pretty unique. Now what we’re asked to consider is a business described plus a larger and more deluxe club house with more seating outside. A maintenance building that’s more than 2 times with future expansion capabilities. A ball washing facility that’s bigger than a large 3 car garage. I agree with you Brian. I’ve been around golf courses since I’ve been about this high and I’m not understanding that one myself, but I could be wrong. A teaching shelter 40 feet long. The staff approved it. They didn’t even know where it was on the plan. A temporary shelter because the applicant didn’t build his original permitted club house. He’s worked on the course for nearly 2 years. We’re now going to have potentially expanded hours. We have lots of extra lights. And we hear that they might want to sell beer in the future, so the original plan was a quiet day time business. It generally didn’t impact our neighborhood. The new plan will physically affect the unique beauty and landscape of our neighborhood. The expanded hour and lights and capacity of people will impact the quiet and private nature of our neighborhood after dark. I’m sure I’ll be able to hear people talking and yakking in those porches that are going to be each side of that club house. If they’re drinking beer and carrying on after dark until 11:00, I know we’re going to hear them yakking and carrying on. I know that’s going to impact my…and it’s going to give me great concern for my safety…golf courses and parking lots attract potentially undesirable people. As it stands out there now and everybody knows, we’ve got our wives and our children that go out walking before the sun rises. After the sun sets. This couple here, I’ve seen them almost every night before this morning. They’ve been out after dark walking. So we really think that limits our enjoyment. Our comfort and these changes are going to negatively affect our 53 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 property values out there. So as it stands now, and I again, the flexibility in the parking lot means a lot to us but as it stands now the larger club house we think is okay. We don’t like the larger maintenance building. We don’t like the outdoor seating area. We don’t like the big ball washing building. We don’t like the teacher shelter. We certainly don’t like the parking lot lights. The temporary shelter, we noticed the staff lets them keep it up for a year. We don’t understand that. We think that the City should give them their temporary shelter for about 4 months. That’s about how long it will take to build a nice building. The approval that changes the hours, obviously no. We’d like the materials still made out of wood. So council, you’re now asked to carefully consider that your own city’s general issuing standards. You’re number one, you know the changes in our opinion will most likely affect our safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare of our neighborhood and therefore the City. We noticed the staff report glosses right over that and says this doesn’t affect it. Your number 3, the changes as proposed will change the essential character of our area. Your number 7, the changes will be detrimental because of traffic noise and light glare. Number 10. The changes are not aesthetically comparable with what we have out there now. And number 11, it will depreciate my property value. So I thank you very much for listening to me and I want to know if you have any other questions for me. Mayor Furlong: Any questions? David Gatto: Thanks very much for your time. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anyone else? Gaye Guyton: Good evening. My name is Gaye Guyton and I also live kind of adjoining the golf course. 10083 Great Plains Boulevard. I’m here tonight as one of the people who was really supportive of this in the beginning. The idea was almost that the short course be a service to the community. A park. A place where kids and their parents and families and older people could come and play golf. Short 9 hole course. Very family friendly. Neighborhood friendly. The lighting was addressed at that point so that there’d be lights just on the outside of the building. Not big lights on the parking lot. The idea that we got from coming to these meetings when the original conditional use permit was put out was that this was not a big commercial venture. This was a service. This was for fun and this was to benefit the community. And I think, especially in light of the last meeting, which I won’t go over but I just have heard such things that are concerning to me where this golf course is getting compared to Interlachen. To Hazeltine. To Minnekahda and to Deer Run. Those are big businesses that were planned for as a business. Not something that was coming into a residential neighborhood that was already existing, and it seems almost as kind of visions of grandeur for this little 9 hole golf course where it started to try and think that it is something that it’s not. Where a country club would be. Where it would have longer hours of operation and need to be lighted because worried that people are going to be out on the course at night. So I would just ask that you please consider, or in light of the residents, what was originally planned that so many people were so excited about. How that’s going to impact us. The fact that in the last meeting they talked about a fleet of lawnmowers starting out about 5:00 in the morning to be able to prepare the course for the day’s golfers. That’s nothing that we were you know ready for and to really limiting to sunrise to sunset so that the people who were there first can enjoy having a golf course near us but not be 54 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 impacted negatively by the kinds of changes that they’re making and we would just appreciate… so thank you very much. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Judy Walstad: Good evening. My name is Judy Walstad and I live at 10071 Great Plains Boulevard. Our home is on the south side of the golf course. We are directly behind the driving range. I just have one question I’m going to ask and then two short comments. I can’t remember the height of the new proposed club house, but I’m assuming that this upper part is not being used for any, it’s just a one story. Okay. So it’s not any business conducted on the top floors. I’m just asking because our house is tall and. It’s like a one story usage building. Kate Aanenson: …32 feet to the top of the cupola. This right here is to 27. Some office space above… Judy Walstad: Okay. The other question, I just wanted to make a comment about Rain, Snow and Shine which is the golf course down on 212. I know they do have lights but I also know that they operate at dark and I also know that there are no residents around there that would impact that so it’s a very convenient, and a desirable location for something of that nature. And the other comment I would just like to make is in the maintenance building. Depending on position of lighting, that could impact our homes. I would just like to ask the applicant to consider minimal lighting and to have it possible not shining on the front of our yard. That’s all so thank you for your time. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Sharon Gatto: Hello Mayor and council. Sharon Gatto, 9631 Foxford so directly north of the course. We’ve been very excited to have the course, and as it’s been stated we’re losing that enthusiasm due to change. But as a golfer I play par 3’s and executives all summer long once a week. I play on a foursome. So here’s what I’ve experienced. First of all, I’ve never seen a teaching shelter on any of them, and I’ve taken some lessons on Braemar, which is a much larger course. They have maybe a tee box for the range. They have it set aside, or they have a couple holes we play on, but I’ve never seen a teaching shelter so I have to say from my experience that it’s unusual. Also, going to the liquor that might come about. Yes, most of them sell liquor but when I’m the last off the course, they’ve shut it down. So they have regular hours of liquor too. None of them usually go beyond dark, and sometimes I am playing the last off the course. I feel the teaching building might be a detriment if it was near Pioneer and seen, visibly seen by the public. So now it sounds like it’s further back. That might have been established…but we do have a unique corner of Chanhassen. Bringing in the executive course they’re in a sense intruding on the neighborhood so I feel they should be working in the best interest of the neighborhood and not in the best interest of their pocket books to try and get the most people in and the most amount of time and the most daylight hours. I think they need to be, blend in with the neighborhood residents stand out. And as far as, some of this sounds like we’re in downtown Chan. Where we’re in a business district and I’d just like you to recognize that we’re still a neighborhood that was there first and we would like the blending in to become a part of us, and we will use it. Sitting out on the deck at night, we don’t want to hear, we don’t want to see 55 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 lights. I mean that’s why as you mentioned, we bought into this neighborhood. We bought into the large lots. The quietness and we would like to maintain that and we appreciate your help with that, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Steve Shipley: My name is Steve Shipley. I live in Lake Riley Woods, at 261 Eastwood Court. I’m also a President and owner of POS Plus located at 8185 Upland Circle in Chanhassen. I had an experience about 5 years ago of building a property in Chan. I was green. I didn’t know what was involved and I became accustomed very quickly on permits and all those different things that you had to have in order to build a building. I spent thousands of dollars on a building permit. My understanding is those dollars were used to pay city officials to come and do inspections. I also spent a lot, thousands of dollars for a bike and trail fee. So I’m pretty familiar with the building process. When you take a look at the lights that Mr. Halla’s installed, I don’t think he had a permit to do that. He just went ahead and did it. You take a look at some of the e- mails that were written, that are on record, and especially about a couple people here, he’s not been a very good neighbor. He doesn’t respect people’s private driveways. He does not respect the dumping of certain materials, of which I’m not too sure of. So what I’m getting at is you’re allowing a person to operate a business like this and he seems to be kind of a cowboy. That he does pretty much what he wants to do. So I would ask that you give that some consideration. th Especially on the lights. I mean this was, the application was dated January 6 of 2006. Those things were put in last fall. We just kind of had, went ahead and did business on his own. Also, when I built my building I was required to have an area for garbage. I do not see any area on this to hold garbage containers. Alright so, again we need continuity in what people are supposed to do so I’d just ask that you take that all into consideration. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anybody else? I see we have a representative here from our Planning Commission, Mr. McDonald. Is there anything you’d like to follow up on after public comment here. The course of action that took place at the Planning Commission. Councilman Lundquist: Come and talk on our birthday Jerry. Mayor Furlong: Happy Birthday. Jerry McDonald: Thanks a lot. That’s it, tell the whole city. I’m Jerry McDonald. I was the Acting Chair of the Planning Commission and I guess one of the things that happened at our meeting, same thing’s happened at your meeting. We ended up running rather late that night and there were a lot of issues that came up. I think paramount to all of us looked at was this did seem to be a change from what was originally there. And we had some problems I think grasping what that was based on what the neighbors have told us. What the plans were. It did appear that this was more or less creeping commercialism within an area that was residential. We’re very sensitive to that, as you’re well aware. We went through this with the Reykjavik’s thing. We’ve been through it a couple of times but there are certain neighborhoods that are unique within a city and we try to respect that. It was the same thing here. The motion, there was a lot of confusion about the motions, the way it came out. The intent after polling everybody on the commission, we all agreed to vote against any expansion and we probably went over what our 56 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 jurisdiction was and we probably went over what we were allowed to do, but the intent was to turn it down. That’s why the motion that came before, we did not vote on staff’s motion because we rejected that. We came up with the lower lights. I think we came up with 4 foot height, and basically turned down most of the rest of the commercial application. The expansions and those things. Those motions failed before us. The only two people who voted for the motions were the gentleman who made the motion and… That was pretty much it. The rest of us were against it. That’s what happened at the commission. After hearing all the comments from the neighborhood and everything such as that, you know I had made the comment that they actually needed to work with their neighbors because there was no support at the Planning Commission, which is unusual. Generally someone will come up and will support, there were compromises that were made back and forth. I’m glad to see today that they’ve decided to at least compromise on the lights but that was something that was missing at that meeting was the right hand didn’t know what the left hand was doing. And I think we picked up on that as a commission and that was one of the reasons why we rejected the plans. It did, as I say, it got very confusing because it was almost midnight and I think that we probably were not as clear in our objections and why that we should have been but the bottom line of all this was that we did not see the support there. It appeared that this was something that was different from what was originally sold to everybody and we didn’t understand why the changes were being made. That was not made clear to us and again there was no consensus within the neighborhood to support these changes so based upon that, that’s why we rejected what staff had put together and we came up with a proposal that probably doesn’t you know beat the mustard of what we should have done but the intent was that we didn’t think the plans should go forward. If you have any questions about any particulars. Mayor Furlong: Thank you, any questions? Very good, thanks. Jerry McDonald: Thanks. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Lot of comments. Lot of information. I guess as we finish up here, we’ve heard a lot of public comments this evening that was consistent with and covered a lot of the areas covered in the public hearing as well, and I guess response from staff with that or with other things or information that you heard prior to your original report. Kate Aanenson: Well I guess, we agreed that the building should be smaller. I think we’re all in concurrence with most the changes except for the driving, teaching area. That’s fine if the council choose to remove that. We recommended down sizing the building. Mayor Furlong: Right. Kate Aanenson: We also felt the ball washing machine seemed excessive and did recommend denial of that. We also have the same concerns and have from the beginning. We recommended the denial of the extension of hours and I think the concern’s valid that it might become kind of a quasi hangout as opposed to ancillary to a golf related use which is the intent of that. I think the one issue we still have disagreement on. Just some other thoughts I had taking notes, I guess for the square foot of the building, I think it’d be prudent to ask for what’s, what has been done before with the city attorney, what’s going inside the building. Even though we’re going to have 57 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 storage, if we’re building it to put the sand in and the salt, we want to see what’s going in. Even at the smaller size. I think it might be prudent to deal with what’s being actually stored in the maintenance building so we can have some control over that. The 4 months for the temporary building. Typically a commercial building might take a little bit longer. That was the intent so I’d agree, it probably doesn’t need to be 6 months. We can figure out a reasonable time. What that should be. A temporary building. Sounds like they want to get some revenue out of that yet this spring while they’re building the other building so we can look at a reasonable timeframe for that. So really I think that, there’s a lot of concurrence on. The square footage of the building itself, an extra veranda, I’ll let the council decide on that but I think the other one that I still have concerns on, and I guess I’d ask for maybe the city attorney’s input too and that would be having no parking lot lighting at all. We talked about a couple of things. One is security on the building and then you know trying to separate that. I did look at the photometrics and actually the brightest spot is right underneath those lights. It drops off pretty quickly when you get to the end of the parking lot. It’s already at a half foot so the property line, you’re at zero quite a ways in from the property line. Obviously there will be some lighting if we turn the lights off at 10:00. Then we still need some security lights. We will through a different type of security lighting, that would be something that we could look at to make sure there’s nobody in there but still security in the building. We’d be willing to look at that with the Crime Prevention Specialist. Mayor Furlong: Okay quick question. Help me understand with regard to the lighting and the photometrics. When we speak to what can be seen at a certain point, a half candle. Is that the amount of illumination that’s coming directly from the light itself or is that a reflective light off of? Kate Aanenson: It’s coming from the light itself. Mayor Furlong: From the light itself. Kate Aanenson: Right. So really once you get to the edge of the parking lot and you’re at a half a foot, once you get beyond that it drops off at a pretty much. Mayor Furlong: You say half a foot. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, half a foot candle. I’m sorry. Yeah, so it’s dropping off. It’s relatively, you know even when you, there’s also ambient light. If you’re downtown it’s a lot different than you are out in an area that’s isolated. For example, Bandimere Park has taller lights and so those are probably in excess of, they might be a little taller than 30 feet. I mean those are much higher. Much brighter. Different type of lighting. Maybe Lake Susan I guess would probably be a better one. When you’re playing softball in the dark. It’s a different type of lighting than we’d have for parking lot lighting because there you’re trying to do a function underneath, but to separate the security at the time that the parking lot, and there were some other ways to look at security of the building. There’s two approaches for people coming and going. Then also secure the building as the city manager mentioned. You want to make sure there’s not, it’s not an nuisance down there. 58 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Mayor Furlong: What causes the light noise, if you allow me to use that expression in terms of adjacent property owners? I mean obviously if a parking lot is lit, you’ll be able to see what’s lit. That’s reflective light. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, there’s a lot of interesting discussion on that. We actually, we have a former councilman that was very interested in that and spent a lot of time looking at too much light, and down in that area where there isn’t a lot of light, it’s going to seem like a lot because it’s already kind of a dark area. Whereas when you’re in the downtown, there’s already street lights, parking lot lights, so the spillover is more, while it gets dark in certain areas, it’s not the same so I think it’s just the fact that there’s no lights down there now. I believe that the nursery probably has lights on their buildings right now. On the 101 side. These people are on the north side of Pioneer and it seems that some of the people on Delphinium gets, we hear complaints on that too. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Thoughts. Comments. Additional questions. Councilman Peterson: Where do you start? Mayor Furlong: Yeah. I’ll get the discussion started here with what has been expressed I think accurately is that there’s a change in scope in terms of how this golf course is anticipated to be operated versus what came through a couple years ago. We heard references and it was mentioned tonight by one of the residents that spoke, references to the town course and Hazeltine and Deer Run and others. Those are different levels of courses than I think what was, this community was originally discussed. Councilman Peterson: Well but is that really true because if they’re going to put somebody on the course every 8 minutes, did that change from 2 years ago or a year ago? I would beg to differ but the number of people on the course hasn’t changed. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well but they’re going to make a faster course where before it was, when I was on the Planning Commission it was supposed to be a teaching course for kids and a place for families to go and have fun and so now it sounds more intense where you’d better know how to golf. You’d better get going. There’s no time to just kind of putz around and you know practice your swing or whatever. I think it probably has changed to a faster moving course. Councilman Lundquist: Your handicap is directly, adversely proportional to the length of time to takes you to play a hole. Mayor Furlong: Is that a technical term? Councilman Peterson: But to my point, there may not be, there may be 50% more people there likely. It’s maybe 10% more people, I don’t know. Mayor Furlong: No, it may not be the number of people. I guess what I was referring to is the nature of the buildings. The maintenance. The, you know the amount of activity dealing with the operation of the course. Not necessarily the number of golfers going through. You know 59 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 that’s where I see a change and it is a function I think of the change in operation. Change of management ownership that’s occurring here. Councilman Peterson: And that clearly has changed. I would agree with you on that. Should I continue or should. Mayor Furlong: That’d be fine. You know, we’ve got a number of issues before us and at some point it might make sense to I guess maybe start with some general thoughts and then go down the list and see where we are and if we’re in agreement or not. Either with staff’s recommendation. With the applicant’s request. With the residents or Planning Commission. I mean we may be some back and forth, depending on where we are I think it makes sense to evaluate what the motions that we have existing and we might, you know if we’re in agreement with all of staff’s recommendation, then we have motions in the staff report tonight too to move forward. But there may be some other things so that’s why I’m saying. You know maybe we start with some general comments and then make sure we get an understanding of where all of us are on each of the different items. Councilman Peterson: I can do some general comments. The balance that I struggled with is that this is, at the end of the day a business and we want to help businesses succeed within reason. And if this business is now asking for some changes that are reasonable, which is the ultimate question, to enhance the success and the viability of the business, then I think we need to consider that. So that being said, that’s what I’m doing. I’m considering their request because I want to have a successful business in Chanhassen. I don’t think anybody wants it to fail. So you know I’ll kind of go through points as presented. The club house I don’t think the 6 foot variance is substantial and you know I think we’re getting a much higher quality building than I think this neighborhood better also so I certainly haven’t got a problem with that. The outdoor seating area seems to be reasonable. The maintenance building seems to be unreasonable. You know I look at it and I look at the design of it, you know I see, I see a huge building for what they’re talking about but yet if they’re taking stuff from outside and putting it inside, and we get a high quality exterior of the building, then is that better? And that’s something I want to hear more about is, you know I think everybody would agree, much rather have stuff inside stored out of the view versus having stuff outside stored which they are certainly capable of doing. You know right now it’s designed for 68 by 120. You’ve got, there’s a 40 foot work bench. I kind of shake my head at that. There’s supposed to be 10 golf carts in there. Without the expansion so it does seem to be over kill and I’m not of course an expert but just logic says that 68 by 120 with a 24 foot addition seems to be an unreasonable request. Now, what I don’t know is, should it be 35 8 and can you accomplish that? I don’t want to get into that. I’d rather have staff and the applicant figure that out but, and that may be having them spend more time presenting a succinct idea of what’s inside and what’s outside. If we don’t give them any more than the 30 by 60, where does that mean that’s going to be outside? And ultimately the residents around there prefer it to be a bigger building and have less outside, so I don’t think we’re going to answer that tonight. Ball washing building. You know again that seems overly large and I think we can downsize that. And what we don’t want to do is have an outhouse style out there either, so you want to have something that takes care of their needs but not, not necessarily granting them all their 30 by 24. The teaching shelter, you know I’ll look for other comments on that. I don’t know whether or not 16 by 40 certainly seems to be an awfully large building also. The 60 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 temporary structure. I’ll go back to lighting in a second. The temporary structure certainly is logical to ask for that and grant that. We can probably put in here something that 30 days after the CO granted on the main building, the other one has to be gone. Or whatever day that would be but you want to give them a building up until the time that their other one is ready. The building materials, I don’t feel any reason to move away from our building standards on that one, particularly in the residential area. Hours of operation. I guess if you would have asked me to interpret sunrise to sunset, there’s a meteorological definition to that and then there’s a real definition. Even the FAA has a twilight definition too so, you know I would probably say a half hour before and after sunset and sunrise. I think that’s actually the legal definition from an FAA standpoint. Defining twilight. I would assume that people would golf until they can’t golf anymore. If sunset was at 8:57 that day, and you can still get a half hour of reasonable light, then they can be out golfing so, I think there’s a reasonable summation that can be made there. To lighting, clearly don’t like the 25 footers. You know I think, I think it would be reasonable to have some kind of lighting, whether it’s low voltage landscape lighting or whether it’s the 14 footers. You know I’ve historically been kind of biased. I don’t like a lot of light. I think our ordinance is probably more than what we need. I was the one that was the champion to turn off the street lights so I’m coming from the opposite extreme. But I think we can work on that and give something the residents can live with. The low voltage landscape lighting that can clearly light the parking lot can be a very attractive amenity and done well, as well as the 14 or 15 footers can look very nice too. If they’re down lit and they’re not going to be offensive to the neighborhood, and they’ll certainly light the parking lot. You know in closing I think it’s been brought up a couple different times. We can’t forget that this is a commercial business going in a residential area and that’s, you know that’s the balance that we all respectfully have to take on tonight and, but we decided that we’re going to allow this commercial business in here and we now we need to have it be successful. We need to have it look good and some of these requests are clearly reasonable. Some of them I think need some more work. And whether or not that means tabling it to get a better definition and request of what’s inside and outside. What the lighting is and what it’s going to look like. You know I’m certainly open to that. And I’m obviously open up to listening to what my fellow council people and mayor would have to say about it. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other thoughts. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well I thought about 10 minutes ago was I’d like to see this tabled also just because Mr. Johnson I think has said he was willing to compromise on some issues. Kind of a give and take thing to try and give a reasonable proposal going. But if that doesn’t happen I have to say that I kind of took my, what I thought was important, you know I’m going to start at the top and I, for me it’s maybe too simplistic to say that if you don’t change your hours of operation, you keep them where they were originally placed, then you really don’t need additional lighting because there really isn’t that much of a safety concern then so, keep the hours where they’re supposed to be then for me there is no lighting issue. Yeah, it is a business and I want it to be successful but when it first came in it wasn’t necessarily built to be a big business. It was supposed to be just a mom and pop recreational golf course and I think that if these proposals that are before us now had come in 2 or 3 years ago, they would have been addressed and probably not, it would have been denied 4 years ago so I really go back to that time when I was there and I have to respect what we did there and I just always try to think about 61 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 who, you know who was there first. You know the neighbors were there first. You bought your lots because it’s quiet. It’s dark. It’s private and I have to respect that. If the golf course was there first and there was development coming in, I’d probably have a different view but that’s kind of where I stand on these issues. I’m sorry but I really don’t have a problem with the bigger maintenance building if it does keep junk from being in sight. I think your neighborhoods are better off having stuff enclosed. It looks neater. It looks cleaner. There’s always an attempt for crime to come in and steal things or kids come in and drive where they do. So I guess for the building stuff I just, I don’t see it as that big of a deal. The ball machine, I’ve never seen a ball washing building so I can not comment as to what it should look like or what it should be. You know I think if we hold the golf course to architectural standards and make the buildings look decent, I just don’t see how you can have a problem with that basically. Making the club house bigger once again, I think the draft of what I saw, it’s an improvement from what there is now. Someone said it, something you could put your pony up to and go have a beer or something. You know kind of something out of the wild west and I think we’re probably more progressive in Chanhassen than that so I don’t have a problem with making the club house bigger and the outside seating seems reasonable. We only have 3 months out of the year to enjoy the outside and I think we should be allowed to do it as much as we can. And the building material once again I just think we need to hold to those standards we set back 4 years ago and keep it looking neat and nice. That’s what I have. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Lundquist: I’m kind of probably a unique situation. Mr. Saatzer first proposed this, he contacted me and so I was, spent several hours talking to, meeting with Mr. Saatzer. Helped facilitate that with the city staff so I’m very familiar with the original proposal. The vision behind it and what Ron was trying to do. And Bethany as you just said, I think the key point for me really is had this proposal that we were looking at now come through 2 years ago, I’m quite certain I would have voted against it so, that’s really where I go back to is you know the unfortunate thing is that there’s been some you know things business wise that have happened between the current applicant and the previous applicant, and you know things happen and things happen for reasons. At this point I don’t feel obligated to approve any of the changes because you know those are decisions that are made outside of us and I think to make a decision like that and then come and say hey, I’m not going to be successful unless you give me these things is you know, it’s really not our issue because we didn’t force the change to begin with. I don’t want to see a business fail, but you know we didn’t cause the original issues so I don’t feel compelled to get in the middle of that. You know Mr. Shipley made some comments I think, there’s a lot of stuff that goes on. There’s a lot of history. There’s a lot of things. When I look at this proposal I’m looking at it on the merits of the proposal, not with the parties that are involved or not involved. It’s not required to be a good neighbor as a business. It’s certainly encouraged and appreciated but it’s not in any way required. When we look at the difference between, you know one thing we fact a lot of times is the who was there first and of course we have the famous not in my back yard. I mean every time we put an infill development in, you know we get 300 e- mails and calls from residents that don’t want to see the wildlife and everything else destroyed that was you know living 50 feet down in their front yard before their house was built so, you know however that said, in this particular piece I’m not concerned with necessarily who was there first but with what the character of that neighborhood is. And when you look at things like 62 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 large lights or 15 foot, 25 foot, whatever it is, you might have a half a candle, foot candle at the edge of it but you can’t deny when you stand 500 feet away from the edge of that that you’re going to see lights there. You’re not going to be able to see the sky and the things the same so, so overall I keep going back to the major changes. It’s not the original vision that was there. To go down specifically, I think the club house and the veranda is not that big of a deal. I’m okay with that. The maintenance building, I guess I’m kind of in the same place as Craig. 60 by 30, is that big enough? Well, you know maybe. Maybe not. 68 by 120. That seems a little bit excessive so is 1,800 the magic number? Is 2,000 the magic number? You know I don’t know. I think again it all depends on what you’re looking at. The ball washing and some of that stuff, I mean I think is just unreasonable. Unreasonably large for that scale of course. The teaching shelter I think if tastefully done, it seems to be in a location that’s not too intrusive. I can be convinced. The lighting, I would say I’m either would lean towards ground, low voltage ground lighting to allow some visibility you know so that you can see if there’s a person in there or if there’s a car parked in there rather than pitch black. Just for safety of the people I would prefer to have I think lights, safety lights around the building and some of that and keep that area as dark as possible. I think our ordinance Kate as you stated doesn’t require, we have maximums but not minimums and I really want that area to remain kind of dark and secluded and to have that overall character. But still be sensitive to the fact that you know, there’s a business there. There’s a wide open area there. If the deputy drives by or a resident just happens to be walking, you want to be able to see if there’s something that doesn’t look out of place there so, if there’s a way to do that, but you know not make it intrusive. Temporary building. I think we want to be real careful there. Maybe put some stipulations on that building. Has to be on the parking lot or something so that we don’t get into a hassle about you know, the building is there. We’ve given a Certificate of Occupancy and now we get into a scuffle about you know when did we come out? Are we going to have to walk in there with a crane and actually physically remove that or how that works so, let’s be careful and put some conditions maybe to make that beneficial to that more to pull that out. Building materials, definitely not in favor of that variance. Hours of operation. Craig, I’m with you there. I think that reasonable, when I think of sunset to sundown, I think of you know if you can see with the naked eye without lights, that’s reasonable to call it sunset, sun up to sunset. You know again to preserve the neighborhood. The character of the neighborhood, you know I think leaving it at sunrise to sunset is fine there so, and so just to summarize again, I think my biggest issue with this as I see it, as a vision of what we started with and what we’re at now are two completely different things and that’s where my biggest problem with the entire proposal is. There’s been a change that was not initiated by the City. Was initiated by a lessee and an owner that’s now initiated, you know pushing this change and it’s considerably different than what that was and again had this come in 2 years ago, I would have voted against it because it just doesn’t fit that character of that neighborhood. Those are my comments. Mayor Furlong: Okay, we’re three comments. Three different sides of the issue here so, maybe we’ll get four and make a box. I think the number, a number of the comments that have been made already go back to and I think where Councilman Lundquist finished up is the change. It’s different and the question is, is that difference, does it matter where the initial issue is? The City didn’t have an issue? You know I travel to what’s a reasonable use here in terms of whether the requests are meeting our ordinances and our comprehensive plans. Try to go back to that. I think that there have to be some reason and judgment in that and we’ll go down the list and I 63 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 think in some cases there are reasonable requests and other cases there are unreasonable ones. I was very pleased to hear tonight the applicant’s offer to withdraw the lights in the parking lot. That was an issue that was clearly a struggle for some of the residents. Perhaps there’s some compromise there that is in the offing now that did not exist at the Planning Commission meeting, which I think goes back to some of the comments we heard this evening was, some lack of cooperation between the applicant and the neighbors. And I think we said earlier, there’s no requirement to do that. We have found it successful in the past when that occurs but there’s no requirement to do that and so sometimes when that doesn’t happen you get a little more choppy as you’re going through the public process here in terms of the Planning Commission and City Council and I think we’re witnessing that tonight. Overall you know what we’re trying to do here and what I think we’re coming with different perspectives and we heard it tonight too is the property owner, this is a conditional use with the property. A legal use to put a golf course in this land and they’ve got a right to operate their business, as most business owners do, and yet we’ve got the neighborhood there, the surrounding property owners that want to maintain their current lifestyle. Their quiet enjoyment and how do we balance that and try to minimize or eliminate any impacts of the neighbors, while at the same time providing the property owner to make sure they follow our ordinance and continue forward. That being said I think there’s some judgments on these things that allow us to do some of that balancing. The club house I think is you know given what is being proposed, it’s not significant. The significance there is in the design that I see and the look of it and I think that will likely be an improvement from a view standpoint, from a look. The maintenance building, I guess what I heard this evening I just don’t, have not heard the justification for the need. I’ve heard some statements but I haven’t heard anything that justifies the need for that. Just with the work that the staff has done to try to evaluate is this a reasonable request or not, which I think is a very good way to go about it, what do other golf courses have and this one was clearly significantly larger and I just can’t, I’m not, I can’t see it. Is the 1,800 enough? It was a couple years ago and while there is change, you know the thought went into and Councilman Lundquist you said, you’re personally familiar with a number of discussions that took place. You know that a lot of thought went into the operation of a 9 hole executive course. Par what, 29. That’s not a Hazeltine. It’s not a Town Course. It’s not one at Deer Run. It’s not those. It’s a different type of offering of golf than what’s there. The ball wash building, I’m not looking for you know a couple of biffy’s next to each other but from a size standpoint, you know that’s what you see. You just don’t, I can’t get my arms around any justification for a building that size, nearly 800 square feet if I did my math right, for a piece of equipment that distributes buckets and balls. You know it’s just, it’s just not there. So I’m struggling with that. I agree with staff on that. There should, it should be incorporated. The shelter building, I mean it’s far removed. I’m struggling with the justification for each of these. Based upon any sort of need. I just don’t, I just can’t get there. The temporary building, I agree with the comments made this evening and you know I think that should be allowed. We do that with a number of property owners. We did that with Lifetime Fitness for example so they could start selling memberships before their clubhouse was built. Here, putting some restrictions on it, I think it was mentioned 30 days after occupancy or I think certain number of months from the approval makes some sense to require that and to make sure that’s done. You know the building materials I think, I don’t see any reason to change there. Hours of operation, we’ve had some discussion there. The concern that I heard more from residents there was the lawnmowers going early in the morning and people sticking around on the patio talking and working after night. It would seem to me to try to accommodate that by not, and I understand Councilman Peterson 64 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 your thought about a half hour before, half hour after. That’s pretty typical. Maybe what I would suggest for a compromise there is to start at sunrise, rather than half hour before so there’s not lawnmowers out there running around before sunrise, but allow the half hour after sunset because it is still twilight, especially during the golfing season. You can see the ball and you keep hitting and you know for a 9 hole course, you’re probably going to zip around it pretty quickly but that will allow somebody starting an hour or so before sunset to continue and finish up. And so I might throw that out as a potential balance there between the business owners desire to operate a business, which they should do, and the concern from some of the residents and neighbors with regard to noise or other problems with regard to that. I think I mentioned the lighting. It seems to me there can be some compromise there that will work and still provide some light. Anything I believe would have to be any, well it would have to be designed such that it’s shielded. It’d have to be down lighting. Shielded, which I think was talked about here, but to find some way to minimize what’s going to be seen. It’s going to be different. It is, even lights on a building there is going to be different than what exists now. Lights on a building, even if they’re shielded will generally be shining out. These lights will generally be shining down so perhaps there’s some benefit to down lighting versus up lighting but it looks like there might be some compromise there, which I’d kind of like to see. So it’s, this is a tough one because it is a change. It’s a change in scope in how this business is going to be operated within their rights to operate a business, not only check that and balance that from a reasonableness standpoint given the neighbors and their rights to minimize any disruption to their enjoyment of their property. So I think those are my thoughts. Any follow-up? It seems to me, was I correct that everybody was generally consistent with the proposed clubhouse as we talked through? With that. I would keep that. The outdoor seating. Veranda with the patio generally okay with that as well. Maintenance building, I heard generally not okay but justify it. If we can get some, if we know what’s going in there from a justification standpoint and need, and we’ve got documented need to operate a 9 hole golf course, what’s there and how they’re planning to operate, I think you know 1,800 square feet may not be appropriate. Something bigger might work but, I mean is that generally or? Councilman Lundquist: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Are you pretty firm on the 1,800? Councilman Lundquist: Well no. I mean that’s not a magic number but I think my, if it gets much bigger than 1,800, you’re going to get less and less support from me. The farther away that number gets from 1,800, the less support I’ll have. Mayor Furlong: Kind of like lighting the property. Yep, no and I’m 100% with you on that. 100% with you. You know outside storage, we want to minimize that but to the extent that it’s not visible, it may be prudent to have some things stored outside as well. Ball washing, I didn’t hear a lot of support for that. It’s current size, is that correct? Councilman Lundquist: Absolutely… Mayor Furlong: Eliminate or coordinate that in with the existing building or different proximity and significantly reduce. Shelter building. Again, thoughts there. Clarify. 65 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Councilman Lundquist: I can go either way. I’m just, I mean in the spirit of compromise, I guess we can allow that. If it wasn’t there, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. Mayor Furlong: Sounds like with, it’s far enough away or it’s far enough towards the interior of the property that I don’t think the residents have a significance about that. Lighting. I think we had 5 different opinions out of 4 of us on that one so, looking to do something there. It sounds like the applicant’s willing to come up with some compromises and I think we’d like to pursue those. At the same time look at recognizing that some light, whether it’s landscape light, I heard mentioned I think or something else might be something that might work. Temporary structure, I think you heard some thoughts and ideas on that. Is everybody generally consistent with that? Something more limiting than and/or clear as to the length of time, likely shorter than what, the 12 months in the report. Building material I heard general support for what was, for no change there. And hours of operation, I didn’t hear a lot of support for the request of 6:00 to 11:00. We talked about sunrise to sunset. Half hour before, half hour after. Is there some thoughts there or, we had 2 or 3 thoughts pulled out? Councilman Peterson: I’m not indifferent to what your recommendation was to do sunrise and then. Mayor Furlong: Half hour after sunset? Is that what, is that the FAA definition for twilight. Councilman Peterson: Well both. Morning because you can see before sunrise so. Mayor Furlong: Okay, understand. Councilman Peterson: It goes back to do we want mowing lawn at 6:00 a.m.? The answer’s no. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, it’s one thing to see. It’s another thing to be, to hear and. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Do we have us the ordinance that regulates when they can be mowing or when people can start, commercial businesses can start mowing? I mean do they fall into that category? Councilman Lundquist: We let garbage trucks out before 7:00 in the morning. Kate Aanenson: We have a nuisance ordinance. Mayor Furlong: So let’s take a look at that then and see what. Kate Aanenson: We’ll apply those standards. Mayor Furlong: Give us some guidance there. Okay. Councilman Lundquist: Like I say, overall I would tend to be more restrictive on that than less. 66 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other thoughts or comments? It sounds like here is we’re moving towards a tabling so the staff can work with the applicant on a couple of these things and also make some modifications to the recommendation. Any other comments or thoughts or questions you have for clarification? Kate Aanenson: Point of order before you table. Our next regular meeting, as you just approved would be in a week. Mayor Furlong: Yes. Kate Aanenson: I’m not sure we can, we may be able to turn it around. Tomorrow. But otherwise. Mayor Furlong: If we can’t, are we running out of time? th Kate Aanenson: Yeah…otherwise it will be pushed to April 10. I do want to get some comments from the sheriff’s office. …that’s fine, I just want to make sure that the crime prevention specialist and the sheriff’s office comment and a couple other things too. Mayor Furlong: That’s fine. Kate Aanenson: But I’m just not sure of the turn around in one week so, I’d like to go to April th 10, if that’s okay with the applicant. Mayor Furlong: You know I think a lot of these issues, you know a little more thought is fine than try to push it through. I guess the question is, do we have the time to do that. Roger Knutson: I believe, according to the application it says they’ve waived the time lines. Maybe we just could have them confirm that they’re okay with us taking this up, at this point th until April 10. Don Halla: Could we have an approval of the club house building so we could get construction going on that? The temporary. Roger Knutson: You really can’t piecemeal it. Sandy Halla: Even when we’ve had a discussion, we’d be willing to do whatever it is that you needed…do what it is that you wanted us to do… Mayor Furlong: Ma’am, I’m sorry. Could you come up to the microphone and just give us your name and address. Sandy Halla: …we knew that the house really was what we thought everybody would think would be the right size and that would be something that people would enjoy being in. And that wasn’t overly done we didn’t think… What we really worked on was trying to have a place that folks…to be able to do that so this particular thing, I don’t think that we would change it any 67 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 way whatsoever and it didn’t sound like anybody else here would change it. That there wasn’t any reason that… We really wanted this to be something that all the young children, and we thought…we’ve got grandchildren here and to go play golf at the age of 16 or whatever… So that it isn’t the dollars that we’re trying…and there’s so many places that really aren’t really affordable so that we were trying to do that. And as far as what we were talking about now with the equipment, I think that we felt when we came here, we didn’t want a great big thing. We’ll have to…and we wanted it to be so that people could use it…handicap and are getting a little older and want to have something there… So I think that anything that you think that we shouldn’t be doing now, we’re okay with it. If we’ve gone to no lights, John Kosmas is gone right now, the architect that was here last time, and…what was okay to do…one person wanted it there and the next person didn’t want it at all and as far as we’re concerned, there’s soft lights going down and if nobody gets hurt or killed, you know…that’s all that really we’re talking about. We don’t need people out at night or early morning or whenever else it happens to be, so that that’s not what we’re looking for. …okay, I think that’s too big. Fine. I think that we didn’t, I don’t know how we got into that, we didn’t think that actually…would be as important as the golf ball situation to be able to get golf balls back out there… If that’s all it is…so that’s all we are trying to look at it and so it isn’t that we have to have anything…we want to do. What we consider a good place there and not what some people…how that would make it work with what people really wanted and so that’s where we’re at so we feel, feel free to say we don’t want it or whatever else that would be helpful… Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay. Councilman Peterson: What I’m hearing is we can probably get this done by Monday. Kate, the only thing that seems to be, the struggle might be the police. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we’ll do our best to get it on there… Mayor Furlong: Let’s see if we can get it done. Kate Aanenson: …you might not get it out in Wednesday’s packet but we can commit to get it out and keep it on Monday, that’s fine. Mayor Furlong: Well let’s do what we can. It sounds like they want to, they’re flexible and you’ve heard out comments and unfortunately we have a short turn around here but, which will put some strain on you but. Kate Aanenson: I just need to make something, say something for the record. We’ve had 2 or 3 different people working on 2 or 3 different opinions. Just heard another opinion now so I think it’s prudent that we get it in writing as the City Attorney said and button down that it’s all th consistent and this is what happened at the Planning Commission. We’re late, in the 11 hour so tabling I think is the prudent thing. Mayor Furlong: No, and that’s where we’re going because we want to make sure that we’ve got something that’s clear that the applicant and the residents and the council know what we’re talking about and what we’re voting on so, I think that is important. We’ll try to work as quickly 68 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 as we can for the applicant but at the same time we’ve got to make sure that we’re, that we’re getting everything covered and so, if there is a delay we apologize for that but we want to make sure that we don’t have confusion down the road either, which would not be good for anybody so. Sandy Halla: …I understand that…so they’re not firing up the golf course carts… Mayor Furlong: Right, understand. Thank you. Anything else from staff? Any other comments from council? Todd Gerhardt: I just wanted to note one thing. The original plan did show the trash enclosures be screened so. Kate Aanenson: It is addressed in the staff report. And we’ll follow up on those sort of things. Mayor Furlong: Alright, very good. Then at this point is there a motion to table? Roger Knutson: If you could just wait a moment. Kate Aanenson: We need just a signature. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: While we’re waiting too then, when this staff report becomes available, you can go to the city’s web site and download upgraded project and the new staff report will be done hopefully by the end of the week. Mayor Furlong: Okay, to the extent possible there might be a new cover memo but if we can red line the existing…so we can see changes. Kate Aanenson: Will do. Mayor Furlong: Excellent. I know you usually do but that way residents and the applicant as well, and the council members. David Gatto: Can we work as a task force with these folks? I mean as I hear them, when they’re talking to the sheriff and it’s going to go. I mean are we going to be able to work with these folks at all? Mayor Furlong: Well I think from a process standpoint certainly that’s able. There’s no requirement that the property owner work with the neighbors. I think what we heard tonight was an accommodation to some of the issues that the neighbors were raising. David Gatto: Well it’d be nice if we could come here and say we support it because otherwise we’ll come back and otherwise you might…what we’re considering doing if you pass it. 69 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Kate Aanenson: I just want to be clear, I think we understand they don’t want lights. My point is I want to make sure that if the public safety says something, this council has that information. I think everybody understands that you don’t want lights. David Gatto: We’ve said what we’re going to say now and I mean I volunteered to be on a task force. We want to work with you folks. We want to. Kate Aanenson: Okay, no. We’d be happy to follow up on that. Get that information that we have prior to. Mayor Furlong: I mean there’s nothing that precludes the applicant and the neighbors getting together and meeting if they want to. At the same time I think from a staff standpoint, which is what our objective here is tonight after all the comments we’ve seen, is to try to keep this process moving forward in a manner that’s consistent with what we’ve heard and what we’re trying to accomplish here for everybody and balancing that. So. David Gatto: And we’re all in the community together. Mayor Furlong: Yes sir. David Gatto: We want to work with you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Mr. Knutson, we’re okay now? Roger Knutson: Yes we are. Mayor Furlong: To move forward if there is a desire to table. Is there a motion to table? Councilman Peterson: So moved. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council table the Site Plan Amendment and variances for the construction of a golf course, Halla Greens, located on the southeast corner of Great Plains Boulevard and Pioneer Trail. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you and thank you to everybody sticking around tonight and contributing to the discussion. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None. 70 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: th Todd Gerhardt: In your bin upstairs there’s a meeting on March 16, 7:00 with the Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. It’s, they put an informational packet together to kind of explain the history of the watershed district. What their intent is into the future so they’re looking for council members to show up for this meeting so, if you want to attend on this, I will be there representing the City. I’ve already sat through it once with the city managers from the watershed district and now they’re inviting the councils to attend to hear Mr. Hicks presentation. So if you have time, might want to put it on your schedule. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Do you want to talk about, shoot an email out to me… Todd Gerhardt: You should have the letter… Councilwoman Tjornhom: Oh okay, I haven’t gotten to my mail so. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, and I’m sure that’s what this is and I will send out an e-mail so that’s all I have Mayor. Mayor Furlong: This is the Riley-Purgatory? Todd Gerhardt: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, and they’re working on a number of projects in the city and with storm water management I know is the things that they’re doing. Todd Gerhardt: They’re investing probably close to a million dollars right now in our community, putting storm water ponds down in the Rice Marsh Lake area. Behind the Lotus Garden Center to help clean up Lake Riley so. I will be in attendance and. Mayor Furlong: Okay, good. Anything else? Todd Gerhardt: No, that’s all I had. Mayor Furlong: Any questions of Mr. Gerhardt? Very good. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Mayor Furlong: Is there an EDA meeting immediately following our council? Justin Miller: Real quick. Mayor Furlong: So that is coming up here. Anything else to come before the council this evening? Again for those still watching, our next council meeting will be next Monday night, which is a change from our normal fourth Monday of the month. We will be meeting on a third Monday. So if there’s nothing else to come before the council, is there a motion to adjourn? 71 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 72