Loading...
09-1-93 Agenda and Packet AGENDA FILE CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSIOP WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1993, 7:30 P CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER D _. CALL TO ORDER OLD BUSINESS 1. John Przymus for an Interim Use Permit for expansion of the Golf Driving Range Maxi- Mini Putt complex to include expansion of the building and a batting cage located on property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate and located at the northwest corner of Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard, Swings Golf. PUBLIC HEARING 2. Preliminary plat to replat Lot 2, Block 1, Outlot C and Outlot D, Bloomberg Addition into 3 lots on property zoned CBD and located south of West 78th Street, east of Market _ Boulevard and west of Great Plains Boulevard. The applicant is also requesting site plan review of a hotel expansion and restaurant between the Country Suites Hotel and Frontier Building, Lotus Realty Services and Bloomberg Companies, Inc. 3. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to landscaping requirements for site plan reviews. 4. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-575 - 20-595 regarding lot sizes. 5. *Item Deleted. NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OPEN DISCUSSION 6. Update on Hwy. 101 Alignment Study, Fred Hoisington. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 11:00 p.m. as outlined in official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. *Item Deleted * 5. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapters 18 and 20 concerning tree preservation. CITY OF CHANHASSEN' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner DATE: August 9, 1993 SUBJ: Przymus Interim Use Permit On July 7, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed the application of John Przymus to expand his Swings Driving Range/Miniature Golf facility. The two options that the Planning Commission was asked to review was to either deny any expansion of the site or to approve of an Interim Use permit to allow the expansion of the site. If the Planning Commission wanted to approve the expansion as an interim use permit, staff requested that the item be tabled until the correct conditions of approval could be provided. The Planning Commission recommended tabling action on the application until staff provided a recommendation with the necessary conditions. The applicant stated at the Planning Commission that he did not want an Interim Use Permit if it meant ending the use at a certain date in the future. The Planning Commission questioned whether an interim use permit had to be tied to a termination date. An interim use permit must be tied to a termination date. Should the Planning Commission/City Council feel when the termination date arrives, that the use could continue, then a new interim use permit _ must be issued. Therefore, if the Swings interim use permit is tied to expansion of the MUSA line and/or to construction of the frontage boulevard, there is the possibility that the use could be extended beyond those occurrences if approved by the city as a new IUP. The Planning Commission also had some concern as to the extent of expansion, i.e. the batting cages and hours of operation. When the ordinance was first amended to allow driving ranges and miniature golfing in the rural district it was done so because it was felt that these uses were compatible with the rural setting and maintained a fairly low profile. Although the batting cages are mostly just netting, they are quite large and imposing structures. Staff does not feel that they are as compatible with the site as are the miniature golf and driving range. Therefore, staff recommends that the batting cages not be permitted as part of the expansion. The city has consistently denied the expansion of hours at the site due to the necessity to have tall lighting fixtures with lighting which can be easily seen off-site. The applicant has Swings Interim Use Permit August 9, 1993 Page 2 requested expansion of hours beyond sunrise to sunset, and in fact, already is keeping the business open beyond sunset with existing, illegal light fixtures. Staff again is recommending that the hours of operation remain as originally approved and not be expanded beyond sunset. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use Permit # 91-1 to allow expansion of the Swings site in the form of an accessory building, expansion to an existing building, and expansion to the parking area with the following conditions: 1. The accessory building cannot exceed 800 square feet, must be painted earth tones and can only be used for golf videos in conjunction with golf lessons. No batting cages are permitted on the site. 2. Lighting may be located only on the buildings for security. In no case shall any lights be directed on adjacent properties or glare onto abutting road right-of-ways. No lighting shall be permitted to extend the hours of operation beyond sunset. Existing lighting structures which are being used for nighttime hours must be removed from the site. 3. The hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset. 4. The applicant shall comply and receive any permits required by the Watershed District, DNR and any other legal jurisdictions as it relates to utilization of the site. 5. No storm water may be routed directly into Bluff Creek. A storm water sedimentation/treatment basin must be included in the storm water management plan. 6. The vegetation and topography should be retained in a natural state in the shore impact zone. The minimum shore zone is a 25' strip along both sides of Bluff Creek. 7. The structures shall be screened from view from Bluff Creek using topography, existing vegetation , color, and other means approved by the city. 8. Appropriate erosion control measures shall be taken during construction of the site. 9. All parking areas shall have curb and gutter. Swings Interim Use Permit August 9, 1993 Page 3 10. The interim use permit shall be valid until the MUSA line is expanded, construction of a frontage road across the property and/or the property is rezoned, whichever comes first. 11. The applicant shall pay a cash contribution into the city's Surface Water Management Fund for downstream water quality improvements if the on-site storm water treatment facilities fail to meet the city's water quality standards (NURP). The city's storm water consultant, Bonestroo, will calculate the contribution based on the site plan. 12. The applicant must submit a copy of the current pumping contract and receipts from previous pumping. A pumping contract must be submitted annually to the Inspections Division. Pumping receipts must be submitted when tanks are pumped and when the annual pumping contract is submitted. 13. The applicant must submit an application for a fence permit. The fence must be shown on a registered survey and all property corners located by a surveyor at final inspection. Alternatively, the fence may be removed. 14. Permit applications are required for additions and/or buildings approved for construction. The applicant should contact the Inspections Division for building permit application details before beginning or continuing any construction. ATTACHMENTS 1. Site plan reduction. 2. Memo from Jo Ann Olsen dated June 25, 1993. 3. Staff report. vc‘ftl ` .• . ------• �i as',. q�,►� i 165± .4A4 , ,Y, # 1 7 . ., r G ' /p \ sit' _1. : ., 10 ..--‘'s ' . . .$ •' 4 . # 1 . itt 4 t ii 111 I. /1 /f , ily 4;Alt% . / til l IN it sc 4 411 ,.. ti Iii , i ., sj [. .. ifN4,-- At N. iii. ei , .w."-.... .. / /14 — _zifii - . .,.., i 11 hof :LIZ • ' •. �► - 31 • ijgr ni f if*. „izt, 1"' • `_ " •+•• • •'• •••• ,'t� R • ii III if-% t VYM . PI 1_ , _ le, 0 -- -,-. . ' -:-. / Nr. ,:. -4, --,.. c '�J ✓y , x •of 17 /40 _. ...c �; , NA 4,0 3 r ci A. ... / " I �• / CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 7, 1993 j Vice Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p .m . MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts , Matt Ledvina , Nancy Mancino and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli , Joe Scott and Jeff Farmakes STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; Jo Ann Olsen , Senior Planner ; and Kate Aanenson , Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARING: JOHN PRZYMUS FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF THE GOLF DRIVING RANGE MAXI-MINI PUTT COMPLEX TO INCLUDE EXPANSION OF THE BUILDING AND A BATTING CAGE LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED A2 , AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, SWINGS GOLF . Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item . Vice Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . John Pryzmus: First of all we don 't , I won 't entertain that you look at Option 2 . That 's not an option . Conrad: John , would you come up to the microphone and then the people at home can see you . I know it 's a big audience tonight . John Pryzmus : Yes . Option 2 is not something that I would entertain . . . and so I don 't want an interim use permit . That won 't work . Going back to Option 1 . Their request for denial or recommendation that you would deny this . First I 'd like to have Jo Ann explain to you the difference between the holding tank that I have and the septic tank that they think should be there . And that it would benefit my customers and the city and whoever if I have a different . First of all , the city made me put in the holding tank . Now you explain to them what would be a better reason to having it . Olsen: Well I don 't know that the city made you put in the holding tanks . What happened was that when you first went through this process , you did designate two sites protected for septic sites which were destroyed by the alterations to the site . John Pryzmus: No , they were not destroyed until after the city said I had to have the holding tank . Once you put the holding tank in , there was no reason to . . . Olsen: Well then our facts are different but . John Pryzmus : The reality . . .because they do not know . The holding tank is something that you fill up and when it 's full you pump it . My bathrooms do not work if it 's full so I can 't be open for business if my bathrooms don 't _ work . So the truck comes and . . . A septic system that they say could have been used , before they changed this to a tank , could possibly now be a hazard because the ground water is so high . They wouldn 't even be Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 2 functional for an expansion so what I have now would never be a problem for the city of Chanhassen or for any of my customers or for anyone else . So that is just something that the city staff was using to do something . The applicant has expanded this site without prior approval . I did put in now — a building , two 8 x 10 storage sheds . They weren 't an expansion to my building . They were just storage sheds . You can buy them at Menards . They look like just to see them sitting there so I wanted them to look kind of like the building that I have . So that is the intent . Everytime I get in here before Conrad and whoever else is sitting here , because the City 's request I come here . Usually either in a letter or summons or whatever , and usually it 's been because on my original plan , which I 've shown these people time and time again , everything was approved and I did do it all at the same time . . . .I 've owned that property since 1990 , 1980 and I 've been working on it since 1980 . I 've been planting trees . Doing things . I finally opened for business in 1987 and I 've been building on it and making it better every year . The only people that have a hassle with this , not my customers . They all love it . People of Chanhassen love it . The only people that have a problem with it is city staff . They are continually hassling me and making it impossible for to run a smooth business . First of all because I 've never been able to have a building to put my equipment in . Put my fertilizer in . My seed in . I always have to be moving it around . It 's always getting wet or it 's always a mess and that 's because the city has decided that they don 't want me to ever have a . . . I thought we had everything done last time . . .Now I guess we don 't have it done again . So like I say . . . I 've already spent half a million dollars making this place nice and they 're going to say that they 're going to take these , next year tell me I 'm out of here because I . . .I won 't do it . You should , from my point of view , look at it as , what is good for the city . Is this going to look good? Is it screened right? Is it bermed right? First of all , I don 't have to expand my parking . The building I want to add is not for video machines . It 's for video lessons for golf . You set up TV screens in - private booths to tell you , you take movies of a person hitting golf balls and then you watch it . It 's not going to be a video operation . I have 4 of these machines . I looked at some of . . .but I think from a planning standpoint , is it good for the city? Or is it bad? Is it something that the children can use? That families can come and use . Is it going to be detrimental to us as citizens of this community? Obviously no . Planning standpoint , they think it 's detrimental because they recommend denial of everything I 've ever asked for . That place has been detrimental to the city and the people of Chanhassen according to Chanhassen staff from the day I proposed it and that 's all I have to say . You make your decision on what you think is good for the city , not on what they dream up every time . Conrad: Talk to us a little bit about the holding tank . Olsen: A holding tank is as he described it . It has to get pumped out . It 's only allowed as an alternative if you cannot have septic sites . So again , we obviously disagree on how it happened but the two sites were designated and that 's what supposed to be used on the site . Then going back through the records it appears that those sites were damaged . Could not be used and his only alternative was to do the holding tanks . I don 't believe the city required him to . Actually I remember there was a lot of discussion whether or not he could even do anything and the holding tanks were the alternative that they allowed . Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 3 Conrad: Yeah I was here unfortunately , and that 's my recollection too . In terms of the use of this property . Yeah , the holding tanks were not the preferred use as I recall . But now that that property may change uses , does it make sense to have , for us to change it at this point in time , or force him to change it? Olsen: Right . That was an issue from the Building Official and as long as we have the proof that it is being properly pumped and properly disposed of , I think that we are comfortable with keeping it the way it is . With the holding tanks . Conrad: Good . It 's a public hearing . Any other comments from neighbors or residents? Jo Ann , I was looking for a mailing list . Did this go out? Did we mail to the residents? Olsen: Yes we did . Yeah . We always have one , Partridge , or Art Partridge has always the one person that would show up but he might have moved . Conrad: Build a berm and Art will be here . Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Conrad: Another question before we open it up . Diane , what do you think? You 've got to catch up . This has a lot of history . Harberts: Yeah , it certainly does . Well I guess from , you know I 've driven by Swings and I think the owner made a positive comment and I support that . I think it is a nice facility . It seems to be used quite a bit by people . It 's certainly in the past 3 years that I 've been out and about in the area I 've certainly noticed some improvements . I have no problem with the expansion . I welcome development . I welcome business . I - have a problem when there 's a process that 's been established . When the process is not followed . That 's the only way that basically can in a sense insure that , basically what 's best for the community . It 's your process in - which to manage the development , different things like that . That 's why codes are established . I guess I 've worked with staff myself outside of , just on a professional basis and I guess I ' ll differ with you on it . I _ have very positive feedback in terms of that staff always looks out for what 's best for in the community . I guess I 'm not , I 'm familiar with the 1995 study area . I know it 's a priority for Chanhassen . So I would like to hear from others on the Commission with regard to an interim permit versus what I understand would be a non-conforming permit as the option . The only thing that really bothers me is simply that it seems that the process has been set up . The owner went through the process earlier . - Early 90 's and I 'm just having a little difficulty understanding really why the process wasn 't followed for the continued expansion . The way I understand it is that when there 's a building permit , it usually has a termination time on it . It 's usually good for a year or something like that . And then they come back and renew it if you haven 't completed , and I don 't know if that 's the issue here or just a misunderstanding in terms of here 's the overall plan and I 'm just going to work on it for a period of - time . But we have a process in place , I think communication needs to continue so that 's what I 'm just uncomfortable with . That there 's really a Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 4 good faith effort , and I 'm not sensing that in terms of the communication to keep the city up to date . Or if there 's just a misunderstanding or what . Overall I certainly support the expansion but given the fact that it 's the 1995 study area , and really what is best for the community and that 's really I think , you hit it right on the nose . What is best for the community? When you have a study area , you don 't know what that is yet . And the interim permit certainly gives us the opportunity to have more flexibility but from a dollar perspective I can understand where the owner would certainly prefer to have that non-conforming permit . I don 't know if the city 's in a position to want to issue that . Conrad: Well that 's a good question . The applicant is not asking for that . Olsen: Yeah , it wouldn 't be a non-conforming use . His only option is an interim use permit . You don 't have to set a date on that . It can be considered a conditional use permit , similar to a conditional use permit but the interim use permit allows you to put that deadline . You don 't necessarily have to tie it into anything . It no longer is a conditional use permit . That 's been switched so if you look under this district , miniature golf , driving ranges are now only permitted as an interim use permit . You have to , as far as what the process is . When this was tabled at the last time it was because he had so many outstanding issues . He did complete those issues and that 's where we contacted him again and said , Mr . Pryzmus you now need to continue now to bring that into compliance but your other expansion you have to get the interim use permit . And then during that conversation back and forth to go through that process , we discovered more expansion had taken place and so again that 's where we said you have to get the interim use permit to get permission for what you 've done . There 's not a non , I mean he doesn 't , there 's not a non-conforming use permit that we can give him . - Harberts : So that 's not an option then? Olsen : That 's not an option . Ledvina : So essentially an interim use permit is his only option? Olsen: His only option , right . I mean now that it 's going through the process . Mancino: And it could be when we have done the 1995 study area , that a golf range does fit in in the 1995 study area . That it then can be a regular , what does it then become? _ Olsen: It 's still an interim use permit . Mancino: It 's still an interim use permit? - Olsen : Yeah . Mancino: But it could go on past the date of when we have rezoning or , okay . Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 5 Olsen: Yeah . You don 't necessarily have to assign a date . A termination . It allows you that option . But that 's really his only option now . For any expansion , or else he can have denial of any of the expansion beyond what was originally approved with his conditional use permit and he can just be - maintained at that , the old conditional use permit . But then you have the question , do you have to make him revert back to what was originally approved . Harberts: Does the city feel that they have the understanding of what type of expansion will happen? - Olsen: In the study area? Harberts: Ah no . With regards to all the different things that are going _ on there . Olsen: Well this is what I 've asked him to do his ultimate plan so I think what you 're seeing now is what he wants to do . With the batting cages . He 's always wanted to have those but it was never approved with the original approval . - Harberts: And what I understand is that staff can support the septic tank , holding tank as long as there 's documentation? Olsen: Yeah . We just want proof that it 's being disposed of correctly and we are not opposed to the use . We 've recommended approval in the past so . Harberts: You feel that there 's , you know in terms of the process , that you both have an understanding in terms of what needs to occur in terms of communication? - Olsen : Yes . I would think so . Harberts: Basically that 's the jist of my comments . Conrad: Okay , Matt . Ledvina : Well then , just so I understand this perfectly . We can , the - interim use permit can be indefinite then? Olsen: Yeah . There 's nothing that says that you have to tie . Krauss: I 'm looking through the language here . I 'm not certain of that . I think that . . .I mean that 's the difference between . Olsen: Do you have to? Well you could say the year 2020 . Mancino : It 's got to be between two things . Olsen: So you could say 2050 . If it has to have a deadline . Ledvina : Well what types of ultimate development pressures are going to happen here and what do you see when you look . . . in terms of the timing of the next few years? That 's in the 1995 study area . Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 6 Krauss: There 's a couple of things going on . We do not know when this land is going to come into the MUSA system . We haven 't made a request for it and the owners haven 't asked for it yet . I 'm not sure if we 'd want to go through it right away . Also the construction of Highway 5 , the upgrading of Highway 5 and Highway 5 access boulevards . Is also scheduled for 1995-96 . . . in that kind of a window . In fact we met with MnDot for lunch today and that 's . . .What I can tell you Matt , instead of gazing into a crystal ball , I can tell you what the Highway 5 Task Force has already essentially approved in it 's recommendation on that property . It shows a variety of medium and low density housing . Olsen: Okay , well the definition . It says a temporary use of property until a particular date , particular event or zoning regulation is no longer permitted . So when I was saying that you don 't necessarily have to tie it - to the street or the rezoning or MUSA . If you want to , him to permit it , you can do a date way out there . When we got these interim use permits in here it was because we were thinking , if we 're not sure if it will still fit in and it 's tough to tie . We had to discuss what kind of event do we tie it to because the frontage road possibly will cut into the northern portion of this and maybe that will make him have to stop his business by itself but if it doesn 't , we 're not convinced that it 's still not a suitable site . You know suitable use . Ledvina : Then just speaking of that time then . What is it , is it the - Highway 5 upgrade? Or development? I mean how do we administratively deal with the interim use? Krauss : There 's a couple of potentials here . I mean if it 's tied to the construction of the Highway 5 access boulevards . It seems that any alternative that 's being considered . Olsen : They kind of go through there . Krauss: And that would have to be compensated for at that time but if it doesn 't , one way or the other it becomes . . .You also could tie the extension to the zoning of the property . It 's possible that this land could be brought into the MUSA line and rezoned for development . . . Ledvina : How about something like a re-evaluation of the interim use permit at that time? I mean in terms of if we have to identify a trigger , maybe we can do it like , not necessarily that it ends but that it 's re-evaluated . Mancino: And it may end or it may continue . Ledvina : Based on the re-evaluation at that time . I don 't know . Olsen: They can always request for an extension . I mean say that you say 1996 . He could also request and that 's , but you know if you 're considering the approval , we do have to bring it back to you . Well we should bring it back to you anyway with the conditions and then we could probably get Roger - to come up with some good legal way to allow you that flexibility . Because nobody really knows . Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 7 John Pryzmus : Could I address you one more time? You know here you are - deciding when it can possibly be turned into a shopping center and a low income apartment complex . When you 've got 18 acres of trees and grass that you guys keep fighting for . You just hired somebody to harrass developers so you can 't cut too many trees down . I planted 500 trees there . You should be fighting for me to keep this forever . For 20 years . As long as I want to keep it . For 30 or 40 years . You should be fighting for this to be in the community rather than fighting me to get it out . I mean what did I ever do wrong out there? People love it . I can 't believe you people . I sit here last time and you 're harrassing people , don 't cut any trees down . I 've planted all these and you sit here trying to figure out how you can - possibly get me out in which year . I just don 't understand it . You should be planning on going around me and making sure you keep me there so you 've got a beautiful corner . No , you 'd rather take the taxpayers dollars and _ spend a million dollars on downtown and then tear it all back up and just make a mess of everything with our money . I 'm spending my own money and you 're trying to figure out how to ruin me . I just can 't understand you people . Conrad: No John , what we 're trying to do is add some planning sense to what 's happening . Now John , you 've been here long enough to know that the city is expanding . You know the city 's expanding your way . We 're trying to figure out how it happens . We 're trying to figure out . No John , you haven 't followed any of the things we 've ever asked you to do . Very seldom . John Pryzmus : You decide and then let me know . Conrad: Okay , thanks for attending John . Ledvina : Well I guess , so essentially you 're recommending that the matter be tabled while the conditions of an interim use permit . Olsen: Right . If you feel that we should allow the expansion and get it under an interim use permit , that would be best because then we can really look at the setbacks and make sure he 's meeting the DNR and the Watershed District and yeah . - Ledvina : Well I don 't know but I think that route seems to be a fair way of handling this situation . Considering what the future needs of that area are going to be , I think it 's reasonable to let him use his property to maximize his business while he can . But then again , we 're responsible for guiding that activity as it moves that way so . Mancino: I agree . We 'll have you come back with some conditions . I am in - favor of approval of the interim use permit with the expansion of the site allowing a sign , the 10 video games , the additional building and the addition to the building . Parking spaces , I think that 's all fine . I have no problem with the expansion but as Matthew said , I would like to see maybe Roger come up with whether we can evaluate it at some point in the time when it 's either in the MUSA line or the northern access boulevard . If we can stop right then and evaluate whether it still fits in with what 's going on there . I would also like staff to work with John on putting a due date for all this expansion . To just say , to ask him how long he thinks it Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 8 will take him to get the batting cages up . To get all this done and I 'd like that to be one of the conditions . That there actually is a due date . The other condition I would like to see is an annual review or inspection of the site so that we are sure and he knows that we 're going to be checking , making sure it is kept to the conditions that we have on it . And I think it 'd be great if there was a written report after each inspection so that we have it in our files of what we inspected and exactly what was — happening . Whether it 's visual pictures , written , etc . Conrad: Thanks Nancy . I agree . Are batting cages part of this? That 's the only thing I 'm not sure of . What 's the logic? You know there was logic for allowing the driving range there . Agricultural area . Something close to I don 't know , grass and driving range . Agricultural . And now we 're talking about batting cages . And I think we 've resisted in the past . — What is his proposal? How many and do we know? Olsen: Well , no . Yeah , that 's why we just really don 't know all the details . All it is is fencing . Conrad: Is it a wire cage? Olsen: It 's a wire cage . Conrad: So top . It 's not just sides , there 's a top to it? Mancino: There 's mesh . It shows . . .mesh and I was going to ask to see whether that was year round mesh or is it something he takes down in the _ winter? Olsen : You mean on the top mesh? Mancino : Yeah . Conrad: Usually it 's soft so it stops the ball from bouncing . And where is that Jo Ann? Olsen: The new building which you were talking about the video . Ledvina : North is to the right , right? Olsen: This is Galpin . TH 5 is down there . And then you 've got the creek - too approximately where the road is going through? Krauss : Right about , well it 's the alternative right now . Actually a little further south . Kind of right through the batting cages . One of the concerns , and I really don 't know to what extent we can legitimately consider . Having something for Roger to answer . One of the concerns I have is the idea of encouraging additional investment in something that the — public is going to have to pay to take down in a few years . Conrad: Yeah . Is there any logic to where he 's putting that building? Krauss: Well there 's logic on his plan for where he 's putting it . And the access boulevards are working towards being approved but it 's still not an Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 9 approved concept . Mancino: And that 's , you know MnDot may not have the money until 96-97-98 . Krauss : Well it 's not on the plan to be built until '96 anyway but we just got reassurances from MnDot today that they are still looking to work with us on it and they 're looking to build it before they upgrade Highway 5 . Harberts: Just a follow-up question . I had read in the Minutes from days gone by here . They talked about the hours of business . Is it still sunrise to sunset? Does it make a difference? I 've seen different . Olsen: Right . It 's supposed to still be sunrise to sunset but I 'm hearing now that he is doing evening hours with the lighting . - Harberts: What I would like to see , even with tabling it , is basically an inventory or a plan or whatever in terms of exactly what 's going on out there . You know I don 't think if he 's going to expand it , I don 't think there 's anything wrong with having some type of site plan . You know the material . Different things like that . It 's nothing less than what we require of everybody else that comes through . Olsen: This is as much as we 've ever gotten . Harberts: Well I 'm talking about materials . Things like this . Just to — have an understanding because you know just being relatively new to the commission , I don 't know . You know I have an idea what a batting cage looks like but I don 't know what someone else 's interpretation is . I would recommend that we get some type of overall understanding . You know what the hours are . If he 's going to put a sign , where the sign 's going to be . All of that and like I said , I don 't see that any different than what we require of any other developer that walks in this door . Krauss : Is there some kind of consensus on night hours? - Olsen : Yeah , it was tied before . Krauss : We 've received complaints from the ballfield lights at Lake Ann , from people living in this neighborhood . Harberts: Well you know , and I have no problem with the owner in a sense presenting the information to us and basically as we ask everybody else - that stands here , just tell us . What you want to do and why or whatever . You know if we got some complaints on files , make him aware of it . Maybe he 's not aware of it . Maybe he needs again , the city has certain standards . That 's all we ask for from anyone . If it 's lights or whatever . I remember when Southwest Metro built the park and ride lot , you know halfway through the city requested we change our lights . You know that was a cost that we ate and it 's simply because this is what the city codes are and the purpose of the codes isn 't to hassle anyone . It 's simply to , in a sense enhance the community for the people . I think that 's the only bottom line . That 's the only reason why I 'm sitting here . You know I 'm not here - to hassle anybody . So that 's why I don 't think we can , we should ask anything less or anything more . So I would recommend that , if this is Planning Commission Meeting _ July 7 , 1993 - Page 10 going to be tabled , is that it comes back with , to give us an understanding of what 's going on there . Like I said , I read sunset to sunrise . I didn 't see anything in here that said that it was actually approved . Maybe there 's some loose ends that can be tied up , both between the city , the owner , - whatever but I think it will just improve that communication . Conrad: Do we have many complaints? Any? Olsen: Not of this . . . Conrad: Yeah , I think most every resident is pretty happy with Swings . - Harberts: Yeah , it 's a nice place . Conrad: Yeah . I don 't think it 's too bad John walked out of here because I think it 's a good facility . He just doesn 't like to follow any rules . And it 's just unfortunate because we 're probably going to give him what he wants . But he walked out . I still am stuck on the batting cage . It really seems like a different use and I guess as long as staff is feeling comfortable , that it 's not really over intensifying . You know traffic . Hundred kids . Whatever . Batting cage is going to , it probably is not - going to do anything but I guess I want to make sure that , we 've turned it down in the past because it wasn 't in snyc with a driving range . And you know the logic is real tough to follow . I 'm going back . Driving range . _ Grass . Agriculture . That 's the logic . But when you put in batting cage , that 's a real commercial use . And it 's a little bit different . Mancino: But I like that better than video games . At least it 's outside . - You 're batting . You 're outside . The video games is completely an indoor recreation . Conrad: But it relates to golf . Mancino: Not the video games . Are they video , golf video games? Olsen : Well he 's got those now and now he 's talking about the video golf . Conrad: So it 's beyond golf . - Olsen : It 's up there now and that 's gotten approval already . Harberts: Is he going to require lighting with his batting cage if he 's going to operate it after sunset? Mancino: That 's all the stuff we need to know . Harberts: Yeah , exactly and like I said , I don 't think we 're asking anything more of him than any other developer . - Olsen : It 's just whether or not we get it . I mean we 've been very clear on what is required and all the information and we 've never received it . Harberts: Well I think in order to understand the , if expansion is in a sense appropriate for this site , appropriate for the community , this is the Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 11 information that we need to know . Ultimately I would think that the Council 's going to want to know the same thing . Olsen: Right . I request it . We don 't receive it . Conrad : It really goes back to , how do you want to leverage this situation to make him come into compliance with some of the things . He 's never in compliance , and that 's a generalization . On some things he 's not in - compliance and you know , then we 've got to figure out how to get him there and if we 're comfortable going over some ordinance , we 're basically giving him more than what the ordinance gives . Olsen : We process an application that is incomplete too . Ledvina : Are you ready for a motion? Conrad: Wait , any other questions? Comments? Anything? Yeah . - Ledvina : Okay , I would move that the Swings Interim Use Permit be tabled until such time that sufficient conditions can be developed to define the operation and the terms of the permit . Also , taking into account the comments that Diane had made . And also , Paul touched on it briefly . If staff feels it 's worthwhile to get an opinion from the attorney regarding the situation of continuing this or even expanding this activity when we might have to take it at a later date by whatever public authority we have - for right-of-way , we should know about that and we should have an opinion on that as well . — Conrad : Is there a second? Mancino: Second . Conrad: Thanks Nancy . Any discussion? Ledvina moved , Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission table the - Interium Use Permit for Swings until such time that sufficient conditions can be developed to define the operation and the terms of the permit . All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR BOYERS STERLING ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT . Public Present: Name Address Scott Remmke 3221 Dartmouth Drive Paula Roettger 3220 Dartmouth Drive Stephen C . Martin 3211 Dartmouth Drive Lori Weber 3220 Dartmouth Drive - Mary Jo Moore 3231 Dartmouth Drive Arvid Oas 3230 Dartmouth Drive • CITY OF .• i ‘ ClIANBASSEN \ D 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner DATE: June 25, 1993 SUBJ: Swings Interim Use Permit The report submitted to the Planning Commission for the June 16, 1993 meeting, recommended that the Planning Commission deny the proposed expansion of the facility. One of the difficult issues with this proposal is that we would prefer that the facility be an interim use permit rather than a conditional use permit, but we do not necessarily want to allow expansion to a site which has had so many illegal alterations. An interim use permit allows the lifetime of the use to be tied to a date, change in zoning, etc. Since this site is in a location were the surrounding uses, street alignment, sewer and water, etc. will be greatly changing in the future (due to the Hwy. 5 corridor planning process), an interim use permit may be more appropriate than maintaining the existing conditional use permit. If the city should choose to permit the expansion and have the use become an interim use permit, the approval for the expansion must be for all expansion that is being proposed by the applicant with this application. The interim use permit does not give you the ability to choose only certain proposed expansions to the site. Thus, in excahnge for being able to establish a termination date, you lose the ability to restrict the intensity of use below what is currently in existence. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt one of the following recommendations: 1. The Planning Commission recommends denial of the interim use permit request for any other improvements to the site for the following reasons: a. The existing site is serviced by holding tanks and any further expansion of the site should be properly serviced by a septic system site. b. The applicant has expanded the site without prior approval of the city. c. The site is not in compliance with approved city permits. t� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission June 25, 1993 Page 2 2. Approval of an Interim Use permit for the expansion of the site allowing the sign, video games (not to exceed 10 games), the two additional buildings, additional parking and batting cages. The IUP is conditioned upon the applicant meeting all requirements of the Planning, Engineering, Public Safety Departments of the city and any conditions of the DNR, MNDOT, etc. The IUP allowing the use of the site as a miniature golf course, driving range and accessory uses will be valid until the property is brought into the MUSA line and when the northern Hwy. 5 access boulevard is constructed, at which time the IUP becomes void and the use is no longer permitted. CITY O F DATE: 6/16/93 _ •�� i• C HA}T H A E N CC DATE: 7/12/93 CASE #: 91-1 IUP _ "--\-, By: Olsen:v ammoNsimmimmismommusEmininommummommommismimmommommim STAFF REPORT - I PROPOSAL: Interim Use Permit for Expansion to Swings Golf Site Driving Range and Miniature Golf Course L I— iLOCATION: Northwest Corner of Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard L V7750 Galpin Boulevard J a. APPLICANT: John Pryzmus L 642 Santa Vera Drive Cl. Q Chanhassen, MN 55317 L I PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estates /din by City Administribli ACREAGE: 18.1 acres Edo ileditied DENSITY: fpr o-t ADJACENT ZONING We Submitted to Commission AND LAND USE: N - A2; contractors yard S - A2; single family residence Arte Submitted to Council, Q E - A2; single family residence -� 'y3 �.. W - A2; vacant d . La WATER AND SEWER: There are no municipal services available to the site W PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site contains a Class A wetland in the northwest corner and has been improved to contain a miniature golf course (r) and driving range. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: 1995 Study Area Swings IUP June 16, 1993 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant, John Pryzmus, is requesting permission to expand the Swings Driving Range and Mini-golf facility which was approved as a conditional use permit in 1987. The expansion to the site will be processed as an interim use permit in the A2, Agricultural District due to ordinances that have been changed since the original approval. The applicant is requesting an interim use permit to permit expansion to the site in the form of an accessory building, expansion to an existing building, batting cages, parking area, and berming and landscaping. Much of the expansion requested for approval has already taken place illegally (expansion to existing building, slab for new building, parking area and berming). The city has a long history with this site. Some of the past experiences include revocation of the conditional use permit (1987), denial to reinstate the conditional use permit (1987), approval of a new conditional use permit (1987), and review of conditions of the conditional use permit showing conditions not being met and illegal expansion of the site (1988). In the fall of 1990, the applicant started new activities on his site. Staff placed a stop work order and processed a grading permit. As part of the grading permit, the applicant was required to receive amendments to conditions of approval and permission to expand. After several contacts by staff and the _ initiation of legal action, the applicant submitted an application for amending the existing conditions and for expansion of the site in 1991. The application was tabled by the Planning Commission because there were so many original conditions of approval that had not been met and/or had been violated. Mr. Przymus was directed to meet all original conditions of approval prior to continuing with the process. Mr. Przymus did meet the three outstanding conditions (as follows) but did not pursue continuing the application. 1. Receive a certificate of occupancy for the existing building. 2. Provide a pumping contract and copies of pumping receipts for the holding tank. 3. Apply for a fence permit. In 1992, staff contacted Mr. Przymus, stating that he must complete the application process since he had expanded the site illegally. Mr. Przymus wanted to wait to see the outcome of the Hwy. 5 Task Force since his site is in the Hwy. 5 Study Area. While "waiting" for the outcome of the task force, Mr. Przymus again made illegal improvements to the site (storage and building slab). The city cited Mr. Przymus for building without a permit and he has now submitted another revised site plan with the proposed improvements. The site is now designated as 1995 Study Area by the Comprehensive Plan. The Hwy. 5 Task Force is reviewing suitable uses from the subject site and a frontage road will be impacting the site. At this time, the Hwy. 5 Plan has yet to be completed and there are several viable routings for the access boulevard that are currently being evaluated. Underlying the proposed expansion are two facts. First, everything has been illegally performed prior to receiving approval from the city, and secondly, the site is using a holding tank. Holding tanks are to be used only as an Swings IUP June 16, 1993 Page 3 alternative system. Mr. Przymus had two areas for septic sites which are the required systems but with alteration of the site, the area for the two septic sites has been disturbed. The following report goes into detail with each subject. Staff is recommending denial of any expansion to the site. The applicant has continued to illegally expand the site, so that approvals are after the fact and the site improvements are not always up to city standards (holding tanks vs. septic, etc.). In the event that the PCA determines that approval is warranted, staff is establishing conditions we believe should be considered. BACKGROUND On November 16, 1987, the City Council approved a zoning ordinance amendment to permit golf driving ranges with or without miniature golf courses as a conditional use in the A2, Agricultural Estate District. The Council also adopted standards to evaluate conditional use applications. They are as follows: a. The location of the driving range is limited to being adjacent to TH 5 and TH 212, an access must be from a collector or arterial which leads to TH 5 or TH 212. - b. The hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset. c. Provision of adequate parking areas and submission of a landscaping plan in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. d. No site shall be located within 500 feet of a single family residence. e. Buildings on the site may not exceed 800 square feet and shall be painted in earth tones. On November 16, 1987, the City Council also approved the conditional use permit for John Pryzmus for a golf driving range and miniature golf course subject to the following conditions: 1. Submission of a revised grading plan by December 1, 1987, showing the proposed limits of grading, methods of erosion control where necessary indicating the size and revised location of the parking lot and club house 150 feet from the centerline of Co. Rd. 117, and proposed berm areas around the putting green and miniature golf course area. The parking area shall be paved. City staff shall review and approve said plan prior to activity occurring on the site. 2. Submission of a revised landscaping plan by December 1, 1987, to add a 2 foot evergreen hedge and 6 foot trees in front of the proposed parking area. City staff shall review and approve said plan prior to activity occurring on the site. Swings IUP June 16, 1993 Page 4 3. Fencing on the property shall not exceed 6 feet 6 inches in height unless authorized by a conditional use permit. 4. The two septic system sites along Co. Rd. 117 shall be protected from grading activities and shall be staked and protected in the field. 5. The applicant shall install a holding tank and shall comply with all the requirements of Ordinance No. 10-B. A copy of a contract with a licensed pumper shall be provided prior to issuance of the septic permit. 6. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Watershed District, Fish and Wildlife Service, DNR and any other legal jurisdiction as it relates to utilization of the site. 7. There shall be no alteration to the wetland area except for the planting of grass seed and periodic disking of the site. There shall be no filling, grading or other alteration unless approved by the City Council through the wetland alteration permit process. 8. The applicant shall provide proper financial security in the amount of 110% of the cost of the improvements to the site prior to December 1, 987. 9. There shall be no light standards on the premises. Hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset. 10. The applicant shall pay all fees incurred by Resource Engineering by December 1, 1987, and shall be responsible for future fees if services by Resource Engineering are determined to be necessary. On August 22, 1988, as part of the conditional use permit, an annual review of the conditions was performed by staff. Several conditions of approval had not been met. The applicant requested Council approval of the changes he had made to this site. The City Council tabled review of the Pryzmus conditional use permit until the Planning Commission could review an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and the conditional use permit to permit the items that the applicant requested. On September 21, 1988, the Planning Commission reviewed the zoning ordinance amendment request to standards for golf driving ranges with or without miniature golf courses and an amendment to the conditional use permit for the Swings Golf Driving Range and Miniature Golf. The applicant was requesting approval for installation of light standards, installation of a sign, installation of video games and extension of hours of operation. Most of these improvements were already installed by the applicant. The proposed improvements required amendments to the approved conditional use permit and amendments to the zoning ordinance. The proposed zoning Swings IUP June 16, 1993 Page 5 ordinance amendments were to the standards for conditional use for golf driving ranges with or without miniature golf courses to permit: 1. Installation of a sign advertising the facility is permitted, however, in no case shall the sign exceed 32 square feet. 2. No more than 10 video games, including pinball machines or other mechanical, electrical or electronic machine be installed. This does not include vending machines for food or soft drinks. - The Planning Commission was then asked to review amending the conditional use permit to allow the following changes to the original conditional use permit: 1. Light standards on the property shall be limited to 75 watt lights not to exceed 3 feet in height to be located in the miniature golf course area. Lighting may be located on the building for security and to illuminate the driving range tees to the west. In no case shall any lights be directed on adjacent properties or glare onto abutting road right-of-ways. 2. No more than 10 video games, including pinball machines or other mechanical, electrical or electronic machine be installed. Vending machines dispensing food and soft drinks may be installed. 3. Hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 4. Installation of 22 six foot evergreen trees along TH 5 and Galpin Boulevard. After discussion of the item, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended tabling action on the zoning ordinance amendment and the conditional use permit amendment until staff came back with more information. The Planning Commission had the following comments: • 1. The Planning Commission was fairly unanimous in requiring the applicant maintain the originally approved hours of sunrise to sunset. 2. The Planning Commission agreed that the applicant should be permitted some form of signage but the sign should not be illuminated. The Planning Commission also directed staff to come back with a proposal for an acceptable sign within the agricultural district. 3. The Planning Commission agreed that ten should be the limit of number of video games allowed. The Planning Commission also discussed whether or not video games should be licensed by the city. The Planning Commission directed staff to come back with information on whether or not licensing should be required. Swings IUP June 16, 1993 Page 6 4. The final item of discussion was the lighting. The Planning Commission felt that the applicant should only be permitted lighting for security purposes. With the turnover in Planning Staff, this item was not further pursued. Since this case was last reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council, the ordinance has been amended to allow golf driving ranges with or without miniature golf courses as an interim use permit in the A2 District instead of a conditional use permit. The reason for this was that golf driving ranges with or without miniature golf courses were considered more of a temporary use which should have a set termination date. Therefore, any expansion to the site must now be considered as an interim use permit and will have a termination date established as part of the permit. In October, 1990, staff noticed grading activity taking place at the Swings Golf site on the northwest corner of Galpin Boulevard and Hwy. 5. The applicant, John Pryzmus, was creating a berm along Galpin Boulevard, clearing out an area for potential future parking/drainage area and providing a second area of driving tees for the driving range. The City required the applicant to stop work on the site and to apply for a grading permit. After working with the applicant, a grading permit was issued with the following conditions: 1. The earth berm along Galpin Boulevard (Co. Rd. 117) shall be continuous two-tier, two foot high rock retaining walls, not to exceed an accumulative height of four feet in lieu of the three foot high earth berm previously required. 2. Provide the city with a financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of $1,000 to guarantee erosion control measures and site restoration. 3. All disturbed areas shall be seeded and disc mulched or sodded prior to November 15, 1990. 4. The grading permit fee shall be calculated according to the 1988 Uniform Building Code Table No. 70-B for grading 400 cubic yards of material. 5. Erosion control measures (hay bales) shall be maintained throughout until vegetation cover has been fully reestablished and removal is authorized by the City Engineer. 6. Any future expansion or grading activities will require another permit application and will also require an approved site and/or grading plan by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to commencement. 7. The grading activity that has occurred adjacent to the creek located on the northerly portion of the property shall be removed back to a point to be determined in the field by city staff. Swings IUP June 16, 1993 Page 7 8. As agreed, the expansion to the parking lot and driving range is not permitted without — receiving an amendment to the conditional use permit to allow expansion of the existing facility. This expansion is not included in the administrative grading permit. Therefore, the driving tee and parking lot must be removed or transformed into berming purposes. — 9. A building permit is required for the installation of the fence proposed around the site. The activity occurring at the site was an expansion of the conditional use permit for the golf driving range and miniature golf course. As part of the grading permit approval, the applicant was required to submit an application for an amendment to the conditions of the conditional use permit and for expansion of the site. On November 28, 1990, staff sent John Pryzmus a letter stating that the grading completed on the site was acceptable if approved as part of the amendment. A condition of the grading permit was that an application for an amendment to the conditional use permit must be submitted and approved by the city. Staff requested the applicant to submit a complete application by January 7, 1991. Attached to the letter, staff also enclosed an application form and a list of the required information for a complete application. Staff did not receive the required application by the January 7, 1991, deadline. On January 11, 1991, staff submitted another certified letter to Mr. Pryzmus again reminding him of the condition of approval of the grading permit and that the deadline of January 7th had not been met. Staff provided the applicant with a second opportunity to make an application by Tuesday, January 22, 1991. The letter further stated that if a complete application was not received by January 22nd, the city would place the conditional use permit on a future City Council agenda for consideration of revocation. As of March 20, 1991, an application had not been submitted by the applicant nor had the applicant made any effort to contact staff. Staff then scheduled this item on a City Council agenda as consideration of revocation of the conditional use permit. The problem with revoking a conditional use permit is that any of the conditions regulating the use of the site are then void and the activity then becomes a non-conforming use. The city must then either pursue discontinuing the use on the site or have the applicant go through the conditional use permit process again with new conditions to bring the site into compliance. The preferred option is for the city to initiate enforcement action against the applicant. The applicant will be criminally cited and, if found guilty, will be required to bring the site into compliance. Initiating the enforcement action will start the process immediately instead of being postponed until revocation of the conditional use permit has been processed. Therefore, staff has initiated the enforcement action through the City Attorney's Office instead of pursuing revocation of the conditional use permit. In March, 1991, the applicant submitted an application. The enforcement action is still in place should we need to use it if the applicant does not complete the application process and meet any conditions. Swings IUP June 16, 1993 Page 8 PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting an interim use permit for expansion to the Swings Golf Driving Range and Miniature Golf Course. Golf driving ranges with or without miniature golf courses used to be a conditional use permit in the A2 District and are now an interim use permit. Interim use permits allow a use for a brief period of time until a permanent location is obtained, or while the permanent location is under construction, and allows a use that is presently acceptable but that with anticipated development will not be acceptable in the future. An interim use permit is permitted if the following is found: 1. Meets the standards of the conditional use permit set forth in Section 20-232 of the City Code. 2. Conforms to the zoning regulations. 3. The use is allowed as an interim use in the zoning district. 4. The date of event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty. 5. The use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future. 6. The user agrees to any conditions that the City Council deems appropriate for permission of use. The items for consideration as an interim use permit is the expansion to the driving range (expanded illegally), a proposed building (not yet constructed, but the building slab has been illegally installed), parking lot expansion (expanded illegally), batting cages (proposed), the sign (installed illegally) and video games (installed illegally). INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF THE SITE The main issue with any type of expansion on the site is with the provision of bathroom facilities. The site is located outside the MUSA line and service connaot be provided at this time. Currently, the site only has a holding tank. Two septic sites were shown and approved with the conditional use permit. The applicant constructed the existing clubhouse prior to receiving City Council approval for the conditional use permit and the building was constructed without a building permit and without required bathroom facilities. The city permitted the installation of a holding tank instead of requiring hook up to a septic system. It is unclear why Swings IUP June 16, 1993 Page 9 exactly this was permitted. The City Code requires buildings to provide bathroom facilities and outside of the MUSA line they must be hooked up to a septic system. The existing holding tank and separate bathroom was allowed only as an alternate system. A condition of the holding tank was for the applicant to get a pumping contract and to submit pumping receipts to the city. The city has received the pumping contract but is no longer receiving pumping receipts. Further accentuating this problem is the applicant has graded and destroyed the approved septic sites. Since a majority of the site has been altered, it may be difficult to locate two new acceptable septic sites. The applicant has a history of making improvements to the site without first receiving the required approval and then after the fact, requesting approval. This puts staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council in a difficult position. If the applicant had first come in for approval for the expansion, there may not have been any objection to what was being proposed and conditions making the expansion acceptable could have been enforced. Instead it is difficult to recommend approval when, once again, the applicant understood the process, ignored it and expects approval after the fact. Putting past history aside, the following is a detailed review of the interim use permit issues. Expansion to the Driving Range and Berming The applicant expanded the driving range with tees and sandtrap at the northeasterly corner of the site, adjacent to Galpin Boulevard and Bluff Creek. The applicant also provided a berm along Galpin Boulevard and adjacent to Galpin Boulevard in the northeast corner of the site. The activity was illegal in the terms of expanding beyond what was approved with the original conditional use permit and grading without a grading permit. The applicant did receive a grading permit, after the fact, for the berm along Galpin Boulevard. All of the other grading activity, including the berm and tee areas adjacent to Galpin Boulevard, were not part of the grading permit and have not received city approval. These activities were tied to receiving city approval • with application for expansion of the site. The original conditional use permit had 94 parking spaces. Currently, there are approximately 82 parking spaces. The 94 parking spaces were shown on the original plan to accommodate a large batting cage/indoor activity building. This building was not permitted so the reduced number of parking spaces were permitted. The expansion of the driving range will not require additional parking and can be accommodated with the existing parking. The berm areas are serving to enclose the proposed parking expansion, building and batting cages. The berms will not intensify the use of the site and if properly stabilized would be acceptable to staff. A detailed grading and drainage plan is required for these alterations to be approved. Swings NP June 16, 1993 Page 10 Proposed Building The plans submitted by the applicant show a proposed building located in the northeast corner of the site at the corner of the two proposed berm areas. The proposed building is 1092 square feet in size which exceeds the maximum square footage of a building permitted by 292 square feet. The standards for driving ranges and miniature golf limit the size of a building on site to 800 square feet and of earth tone color. Staff therefore cannot permit the proposed building to be installed since the area exceeds what is permitted as part of a driving range and miniature golf course and would serve to intensify use of the site. A new building would have to meet building code and provide bathroom facilities hooked up to a septic system. Further expansion to the site should not be permitted until the existing property is brought up to code and that a proper septic system is installed with the addition of proper bathroom facilities and/or until the property is brought within the MUSA line and can be serviced by city sewer and water. The proposed building exceeds the permitted size of 800 square feet. Therefore, staff cannot recommend approval of the proposed building. Batting Cages On the plans submitted by the applicant, there is an area shown for batting cages. It is unclear whether a building would be provided for the batting cages of if the batting cages would just be located outdoors. Once again, the inclusion of batting cages will increase the use of the site which is not being serviced properly with bathroom facilities. Therefore, staff would have to recommend against the addition of the batting cages. Parking Area The applicant is currently creating an additional parking area. The site has been graded and is being surfaced with a gravel. Staff visited the site on May 8, 1991, and placed a stop work order to prevent the applicant from continuing work on the parking lot area. The existing parking lot area adequately serves the existing use. If the addition of the batting cages, building, additional tee area and sandtrap are not approved, then the need for additional parking area is not required. Should the expansion of the site be approved, staff would recommend that the parking area be paved with bituminous surface and curb and gutter and that detailed grading and drainage plans be provided. Video Games The applicant is requesting permission to maintain the video games located in the existing building on the site. Currently, there are 7 video games located within the building. When the Planning Commission last reviewed this item, it was discussed that up to 10 video games could be permitted within the building. This was not addressed as part of the original conditional use Swings IUP June 16, 1993 Page 11 permit. Therefore, if the Planning Commission and City Council agree that video games could be permitted on the site, the condition allowing the video games would have to be part of the new interim use permit. Sign The last time that the Planning Commission reviewed this issue, there was discussion on whether or not the applicant should be permitted a sign at the site. It was felt that the applicant should be allowed a sign to advertise his business but that the zoning ordinance should be amended to allow signage in the Agricultural District. Since this area is in such a transitional area with the Comprehensive Plan showing it as the 1995 Study Area, staff would prefer not to amend the zoning ordinance to allow signage in the Agricultural District but instead is recommending that the sign be permitted as an amendment to the original conditional use permit. The existing sign is a 3 sided sign with each sign face 3' x 6' for a sign face total of 18 square feet. During the previous discussion, a sign of 32 square feet was going to be the maximum size of signs _ permitted. Since the sign would be approved specifically for this site and is accessory to the use, staff is recommending that the existing sign be permitted as part of the original conditional use permit and that the size of each sign face shall not exceed 18 square feet. The applicant will still be able to maintain the 3 sides to the sign. Miscellaneous The applicant is installing a chain link fence throughout the site. The fence requires a building permit. The applicant should be required to receive the permit for the fence. SUMMARY The Planning Commission and City Council have the following options to consider: 1. Recommend denial of the interim use permit and proposed existing expansion of the site and pursue, through legal action, having the site being brought back into compliance with the original conditional use permit.. 2. Recommend denial of any expansion of the site until the site is brought up to code, i.e. hook up to septic system site, meet any existing and new conditions of approval, then expansion of some sort could be considered. 3. Recommend approval of the proposed expansion, all or part, and approve the proposed changes as an interim use permit with a date established for removing the business once the MUSA line is expanded to include the site. Swings IUP June 16, 1993 Page 12 Should the Planning Commission and City Council recommend approval of any expansion of the site, it should be made with the condition that the whole facility must be approved as an interim use permit and that the applicant agree to the City revoking the existing conditional use permit. This combines the facility under one permit and allows the city to set a date when the use must be terminated. This would be advantageous by consolidating a confusing issue. Also, the site is located in the proposed 1995 Study Area. The result of the study area could greatly affect what uses would be compatible at this site. A termination date could be when the property is within the MUSA line and/or when the 1995 Study Area is completed. If expansion is approved, staff would recommend the following conditions: 1. The existing conditional use permit shall be revoked by the City Council and the existing and new facility will become an interim use permit. 2. The site will be brought into compliance with City Code and conditions of approval. This includes hooking up to an approved septic site. 3. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by staff prior to any more alterations are made to the site. 4. Any parking areas shall be paved with bituminous surface. Curb and gutter may be required by the City Engineering Department after review of the grading and drainage plans. 5. The building cannot exceed 800 square feet. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: 1) "The Planning Commission recommends approval of a conditional use permit to permit a 3 sided, 18 square foot sign to advertise the Swings facility. 2) The Planning Commission recommends denial of the interim use permit request for any other improvements to the site for the following reasons: a. The existing site is serviced by holding tanks and any further expansion of the site should be properly serviced by a septic system site. b. The applicant has expanded the site without prior approval of the city. c. The site is not in compliance with approved city permits." Note: If the application is denied, staff will continue to work with the applicant to bring the site into compliance. Swings IUP June 16, 1993 Page 13 ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Steve Kirchman dated April 8, 1993. 2. Letter from Jo Ann Olsen dated December 9, 1992. 3. Letter from Jo Ann Olsen dated May 20, 1991. 4. Planning Commission minutes dated May 15, 1991. 5. City Council minutes dated November 16, 1987. 6. Planning Commission dated April 22, 1987. 7. Planning Commission minutes dated September 21, 1988. 8. Conditional Use Permit dated November 16, 1987. 9. Letter from DNR dated June 7, 1993. 10. Letter from Carver County Engineer dated June 9, 1993. _ 4 C QTY of . i CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 April 8 , 1993 Mr. John Przymus 642 Santa Vera Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Illegal construction @ 7750 Arboretum Blvd. Citation #054487 Dear Mr. Przymus: Enclosed is a citation charging you with building without a permit. An interim use permit and a building permit are required for the addition to your building and the slab at the north end of the property. Contact Jo Ann Olsen from the Planning Department at 937-1900 to apply for the interim use permit. Upon approval of the interim use permit you may apply for a building permit in the Public Safety Department. Work on the addition may not continue, nor may the addition be used for any purpose until proper permits have been issued by the City. The same condition apply to the slab. Periodic inspections will be made to insure compliance. The slab and addition may remain as is until permits have been issued or until May 31, 1993 whichever comes first. Application for the interim use permit must be made immediately to insure its being placed on the agenda in time for you to meet the May 31 deadline for removal. Continuation of work on the addition and/or slab or use of either will result in further legal action. Sincerely, , 1 Steve A. Kirchman Building Official cc: Scott Harr, Public Safety Director Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner Building file - 7i40 Arboretum ILO PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF e' 11) . CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 December 9, 1992 Mr. John Przymus 7476 Saratoga Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear John: In the spring of 1991, the Planning Commission tabled action on your application for an interim use permit for expansion to Swings until you accomplished the following: 1. Receive a certificate of occupancy for the existing building. 2. Provide a pumping contract and copies of pumping receipts for the holding tank. 3. Apply for a fence permit. These three items have been completed. The city is requesting that you continue with the interim use permit process so that a decision can be made on the expansion that occurred with the Swings facility in 1991. As you recall, the expansion was an illegal expansion to a conditional use permit in that you did not receive permission from the city to add to the business. The city will be scheduling the interim use permit to again be reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 20, 1993. Please contact me by January 4, 1993, so we can go over the report together. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 937-1900. Sincerely, Jo Ann Olsen Senior Planner pc: Paul Krauss, Planning Director Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician Steve Kirchman, Building Official Elliot Knetsch, City Attorney's Office to; PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY of H N A • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 May 20, 1991 Mr. John Pryzmus 642 Santa Vera Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear John: The following is a list of items that need to be accomplished prior to the Planning Commission reviewing your application: 1. The existing building must receive a certificate of occupancy. 2 . A pumping contract and copies of pumping receipts for the holding tank must be submitted. 3 . Apply for a fence permit. Staff needs detailed plans on the proposed parking lot, batting cages, new building, grading and drainage prior to reviewing and establishing conditions on the property expansion. I have attached a list which shows what is required on a site plan. Please follow this list for a complete application. After speaking with Barb Dacy and Ron Julkowski, we found that the holding tank was permitted after you had raised issues with the cost of the septic site and the fact that the facility is a seasonal use. It is unclear how the condition requiring connections to a septic system of the Uniform Building Code was avoided, but we have been told by Barb and Ron that the holding tank was permitted with the following conditions: 1. It was only for the existing use. 2 . A pumping contract and receipts were required. 3 . The two existing septic sites had to be preserved. Mr. John Pryzmus May 20, 1991 Page 2 Should you wish to continue with your current application -and have it reviewed by th(a City Council on June 10, 1991, please let me know. Otherwise, we will bring it back before the Planning Commission once the existing site is brought into compliance and a complete application has been submitted. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Jo Ann Olsen Senior Planner JO:v pc: Steve Kirchman, Building Official Elliot Knetsch, City Attorney City Council Planning Commission CITY OF • A‘ CHANHASSEN \ - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official A,cw. DATE: 06/07/93 SUBJ: 91-1 IUP (Swings Golf) The following are Inspections Division staff comments on the above referenced permit application. 1 . I could find no record of a building permit for the fence around the property. Permits are for fences are required by City Code.The requirement to secure a fence permit was also a condition of the grading permit (#4232) issued in October, 1990. 2 . The applicant has already begun construction of the addition to the existing office and poured the slab for the new building. A stop work order was issued on 04/07/93 . 3 . The applicant has not continued to provide septic pumping receipts. Required sanitation facilities on the property do not meet current code, nor are the existing sanitation facilities served by an onsite sewage treatment system. Holding tanks were permitted because the originally designated treatment sites were destroyed. Holding tanks are, in staff 's opinion, the least desirable alternate system permitted by code. It is recommended that the site be inspected by the Resource Engineering, The City' s onsite sewage treatment consultant, to determine if suitable treatment sites are available. An approved onsite sewage treatment system should be installed, if site (s) exist prior to approval of further expansion. «� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission Meeting May 15 , 1991 - Page 9 Batzli : Well I think , not to put words in his mouth that that 's the walk in height and then you have a peak . Is it 7 feet at the highest? At the — peak? Peter Moscatelli : Yeah . I can 't imagine , it certainly wouldn 't be more than 7 1/2 or 8 feet . Very close to 7 feet . There 's a requirement on the pitch which it has to . . . I would try pretty hard to keep it within . Conrad: But it 's also dug into the hill . — Peter Moscatelli : Yeah . The hill would . . .probably at least that high . Conrad : Visually I think it 's going to be . . .uncertain with some of our standards and I 'm making a point . Emmings : Okay . And for his benefit this will go to the City Council when? — June 10th? Olsen : June 10th . PUBLIC HEARING: INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE DRIVING RANGE AT SWINGS GOLF RANGE ON PROPERTY ZONED A-2 AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HWY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD , JOHN PRYZMUS . Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Emmings called the public hearing to order . Emmings: John , do you want to address us on this at all? John Pryzmus : Yeah . _ Emmings : If you could come up here please . John Pryzmus: Just a couple things . The plan that I used when I did the — alterations was a plan that you have had . It was done by a landscape architect in 1986 so that 's with the berming and what was proposed in 1986 is what we had . And I just had never finished anything north of the parking lot so up until this point , I did all the berming from the north of the parking lot to the end and I did an additional berm to screen my equipment because the equipment is then sitting in the parking lot . And so the additional berm to the north . Now as far as the additional tee area , — you know it 's not at this point , and never will be , it 's for the golf pro and his student . I just wanted him to be away from the rest of the people and the club which is coming out so staff is protraying it as a big — expansion to my operation . It 's just one person teaching another person how to golf back there . The batting cages would be all outdoors . There would be nets similar to . . . And the building there would be for the golf pro for his office and you have TV 's in there to review your video of your swing and that . Then I would have it for an additional storage for the winter . My equipment is getting pretty beat up . I can 't keep anything - Planning Commission Meeting May 15 , 1991 - Page 10 running when it has to sit out in the snow banks all winter so I would , that 's why I need , I was proposing to have another building like the one up above although the berming that I 've done with the landscaping would pretty - much screen it . I don 't even know if you 'd be able to see it from the road . It 's set down in back of the berms so what I 've done so far to this point is pretty much landscaping and the dirt I moved was for the landscaping and now the site for the proposed batting cages would be , you wouldn 't have to do any more work to it so in effect while I was doing all my landscaping , I was moving dirt from strategic areas . As far as sewer , I had paid a sewer operation to come out and we had planned on having a - bermed septic system and somebody somewhere , it wasn 't me , decided I couldn 't have that and they made me put in the tanks . I didn 't know anything about the tanks . All of a sudden that 's what my option was . I - didn 't have any other option . So even though I had already paid for all of the technical work for the sewer , somewhere I suppose being that there will be sewer and water out there , they didn 't want to have another septic system put in there for something . Erhart : Excuse me . Who 's they? Was it the City? - John Pryzmus : The staff . City staff , yeah . It wasn 't me . Erhart : Can you respond to that? Olsen: It 's unclear exactly why the holding tanks were approved and I 'm not sure , was it Machmeier and Anderson that you worked with on the septics? • John Pryzmus: I think they came out . They were recommended by the City to come out and do the soil testing . Larry Vandeveire had set out , I hired - Larry Vandeveire to set out to do the septic system . But now as far as the tank itself , it gets pumped whenever it gets 3/4 full . Jeff Swedlund stops by . He works closely with the people of Chanhassen so it said in the report that they never get a report . He works with the City . I don 't_ know who he reports to but he pumps it . He goes by every day so he checks it and we 've never had . I mean if 3 more people used my tank it would cost me more to pump it but it isn 't going to cause any effect on the environment or anything else . The septic company just comes and pumps it and at this point I don 't know . When it gets 3/4 full and then he checks it and that 's maybe once every 2 weeks , 3 weeks . So I would say with my total expansion - proposal , I 'm not going to have but 30-40-50 more people with the batting cage , maybe more than that in the real peak season right away in the spring but if it fills up every week I 'll just have to pay to have it pumped every week instead of every 3 weeks . So it 's not an environmental problem to have a tank . I thought once the city staff made me do it , I thought it was a great idea . You know as long as they 're going to put in , we 're going to have the MUSA line out there someday anyway , then all we have to do is just - hook up to the MUSA line and I don 't have a big septic system to deal with . But like I say , I didn 't , that wasn 't something I just dreamt up . - Emmings : Just one question John . I 'm sure everybody up here would like to hear an explanation as to why we see a history like this . Why it appears Planning Commission Meeting May 15 , 1991 - Page 11 from what we have in front of us and from our prior experience with you and with your facility , why we 've imposed conditions in the past that have not _ been fulfilled on the one hand . On the other hand, you 've repeatedly improved the site or made alterations to the site without getting prior approval from the City and I 'd like to know why . John Pryzmus: Well first of all , I didn 't write that story . If I 'd have wrote the story it would have read a little different . I just explained to you when I came up here that that plan was submitted in 1986 and it went all through the process . I didn 't get it all done at the time because financially I couldn 't . Once I didn 't get the building , I didn't get all the berming done and all the trees planted and I just worked at it when my money became available to do the whole expansion . And all of the trees and — all the berming . I don 't know if you ever go by there but every year I 'm doing more and more and it 's always to enhance the beauty of it . It 's always landscaping . I haven 't built anything . I haven 't built one more — building . I haven 't built anything and I still haven 't . Emmings: Are you putting up a fence? John Pryzmus : That was part of the original approval . I was supposed to have a fence not over 6 feet high in the Minutes of a deal a long time ago and I put the posts in 3 years ago but being that I have to go back and forth with dirt and trees and landscaping , I 've never put the fence up . I 've had the wire ever since and I just never put the fencing on but that was a Fart of the original approval . - Emmings : Alright , thanks . Is there anybody else here from the public who wants to be heard on this application? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved , Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed. — Ahrens: I think the site is a real good site for all the things that the applicant is trying to do here . I think it looks to me like there wasn 't a _ lot of capital to begin with to develop all the things he needed to develop it from so he 's tried real hard it looks to me , even though there 's been a lot of problems with the city and I 'm not sure who's to blame for those problems . But it seems to me he 's trying real hard to make it into a nice — place . Even though he 's got some problems with completing a lot of these things he 's trying to do as far as landscaping goes . I have a problem with the whole holding tank sewer issue and I don't understand . If the City — approved holding tanks , why the City is now forcing him to install a septic system . Olsen: The only reason we could figure out why they would have approved the holding tank is that the two approved septic sites had been altered . There was a lot of grading taking place out on the site where the two sites were supposed to be preserved and from what I can tell from the — correspondence that those sites were lost when the applicant was grading on the site and his only alternative then was to not be permitted what he had Planning Commission Meeting May 15 , 1991 - Page 12 or to hook up to the holding tank . It 's not clear . It 's just all of a sudden he was allowed to have the holding tanks . Ahrens: But they were approved. And it doesn 't seem to be causing any large problem out there . It has been pumped . Olsen: I don 't know . We don 't know how often he's pumping . We 're not getting . - Ahrens: There 's no impact on the environment or anything like that? Olsen: If it 's being done properly but we don 't have , one of the conditions of the holding tank was that he do , he does have them pumped and that he does provide us with those records and we haven 't received those . Ahrens: Is there any reason why he couldn 't continue using those besides , - I mean . Olsen: I 'm not sure what kind of capacity . . . Kirchman : The capacity of the tank can be whatever the size of the tank is . So there wouldn 't be a problem with continued use . Ahrens : There would or would not? Kirchman: It would not be a problem with continued use if there are no other sites available for septic . I guess our feeling is , the individual sewage treatment rules from the State of Minnesota prohibit holding tanks if septic sites are available . There were two sites available at one time and they were apparently destroyed . If the use on the site doesn 't intensify , holding tanks were approved and I would suggest we let him continue using those as long as we 're provided with a pumping contract and records of pumping as originally agreed on . However , if the use is intensified , then I would suggest that the applicant search the site to find if there are any acceptable sites for sewage treatment mounds and put in treatment sites . Ahrens: Are there any acceptable sites? Kirchman: We don 't know . He 's got a lot of acreage out there . If it 's all been disturbed then there would be no sites . It has to be on undisturbed soil and he would have to get someone out there to investigate as he did before and rope the sites off and protect them from any construction activity until the septic systems are put in. John Pryzmus: I think at the time the only site that was available was the site to the north of the parking lot . That 's where the two sites were . There was going to be a hill and berm system . And at that time they were both approved and they were roped off . Then once they sit , and I don 't know why the tank became an option but once it was , then that site was not preserved anymore . There weren't any other sites because it was all altered . Planning Commission Meeting May 15 , 1991 - Page 13 Ahrens: There are no other sites is what you 're saying? John Pryzmus: No . Everything had been scraped . . . You have to stay so far from the creek and you have to . . . Olsen: But those were two sites that were protected and that was very clearly understood that they were supposed to be preserved so . Kirchman: We don 't know when the sites were disturbed . If they were — disturbed after he put his holding tanks in or before . We 're assuming that they were disturbed before because I can 't imagine why we would have forced him to have holding tanks when he had two sites that were roped off and protected. That 's the whole idea of it was to have sites available for septic so our assumption is that they were disturbed before the holding tanks went in . The reason the holding tanks were allowed was because the sites were disturbed and there were no available sites . But here again we — don't have any records to back that up . Ahrens: What are the issues involved? I guess I really don 't understand — still why the holding tanks aren 't satisfactory even if he expands the site . - Kirchman: Well , holding tanks traditionally have problems in that they deteriorate under ground and they get cracks and they leak . Pumping has always been a problem . Getting the pumping contracts . Getting them pumped out properly and then properly disposing of the septage after they 're -' pumped . So that is why an individual or a septic site is the preferable way tc, treat sewage as opposed to pumping . Ahrens: But if it 's maintained well and . Kirchman: If it 's maintained well . Ahrens: I mean septic systems can leak too right? Kirchman: Well , if they 're designed correctly they work . — Ahrens: Right . But if the holding tanks are designed correctly and they 're maintained they ' ll work too right? .r Kirchman: That is correct . However , another point is that State Statute says that if another site 's available , he can't have holding tanks . So if sites aren 't available and that 's no choice , then that would be his only — alternative . Krauss: If I might add too , there 's a policy question involved here . — We 've just gone through a 2 year effort to get the MUSA line moved and I think you 're all familiar with that . One of the concepts with the MUSA line that the Metro Council feels strongly about , I think as a policy _ question we should feel strongly about . Is that areas outside the MUSA line should not be on the metro service system . That 's the whole point of it . Holding tanks get around that . Basically we 're not having on site Planning Commission Meeting May 15 , 1991 - Page 14 disposal . All that stuff is trucked to where we do have a site and dumped into our system and it 's the City that 's paying for the treatment of this stuff . I 'm sure there 's some kind of a drop charge . . .but it gets at , you know there 's a related issue that , remember several years ago Mills Fleet Farm was talking to the Metro Council about some sort of special allowance to allow them to have tankage for on site systems on the presumption that they could be developed as a rural use . Well , I mean this is sort of an oddity and we 're willing to live with this oddity as a status quo . But there 's some policy limitations if you 're allowed to expand based on the use of the tank and it goes against the building code , it goes against Metro Council policy and it goes against what I think is good rational policy for us to adopt in the City as well . Ahrens: I don 't argue with you on that Paul . It 's just that it was approved by the city at some point and the approval may have been against public policy at that time but there was an approval for him to use that . Olsen: But not necessarily for expansion . - Ahren: : N_) , but the expansion here involves some batting cages , a building that 's going to contain , it 's not really going to increase the use by that much . They 're going to have a storage area for some equipment and what you 'J say , a video? John Pryzmus : A TV screen to show your , the pro uses a video camera when he giver hi: golf lesson . . . Right now he 's using his van . He has a generator in his van until we get an acceptance . Ahrens : It just doesn 't seem like the use is going to be that intensified . I mean it 's not like the State Fair or something where you 're going to have thousands and thousands of people going through every day . Krauss: we don 't have good numbers for this but I think it should be clear - too that the applicant is desiring to have substantial increase in on site parking . Ahrens: well that also may be a very optimistic move. Krauss : They get pretty busy . Ahrens: Yeah they do but most people go on the site for about an hour and then leave . Anyway , do you plan to have as many , I mean the area . . .is huge for the batting cages . John Pryzmus: No , mine would be about half that . You would never have more than , well the person that comes to hit will spend about a half an - hour hitting softballs and so right now I don't have any parking problems at all . I 'm assuming that I could but with my berming and with my design and I think Dave , when I was doing the landscaping , I already predesigned to make sure the drainage goes into a holding area with rock and so it seeps out into the grass . We won 't make any- additional runoff . . . You can have . . .mayhe 10-15 more people there but we don 't get hardly any use of the • Planning Commission Meeting May 15 , 1991 - Page 15 bathrooms . That 's why , and really I will have Jeff drop off the receipts _ of his pumping . I thought 'he was doing that . I didn 't know there was even a problem with the septic until a couple days ago . But there is very little use of that facility at this point . People that hit golf balls come there and they 're there for about half an hour . Ahrens: Yeah , I can 't imagine . John Pryzmus: They do use it periodically but it 's not something where you have dinner and you sit there for an hour and a half or two and drink a lot of liquids and then use the bathroom. Ahrens: No , I agree with that . That 's reasonable and I 'm going to recommend approval of this despite the problems . However I would like to condition that on you coming into compliance in at least the landscaping _ areas and the berming . That was an issue? I don 't have a problem with the building . It 's going to be the same size as the existing building . It 's not a very large building . I don 't see that the use of the bathroom facilities is going to increase that much to require a septic system , to require that the applicant have to comply with septic system requirements . I think a holding tank , if the City wants to require conditions that he submit the receipts . Are there receipts of the pumping of the holding tanks or something or regulate the upkeep of the holding tanks , I 'd go along with that but. I think it 's sufficient for the use that 's there now and that will be there when the expansion takes place . ._ Emmings : Time out . Your recommendation is that we approve the sign and the 10 video games and otherwise deny any improvements until everything he 's been required to do in the past has been done , right? — Ahrens : Correct . EmminTs: And the alternative they 're asking for Joan is , if we 're going to approvc expansion , then they want us to table it so they can develop . conditions . Are you saying something different than that? _ v Ahrens: Their recommendation is that we approve the sign and the video games and that we deny the improvements to the site period . Emmings: Okay . Is that what you 're saying? Olsen: Fight . On page 13 at the bottom we were saying that should you recommend approval , that we would recommend tabling until we can . Emmings: Wait a minute . We have too many conversations going here . Batzli : Take charge . Emmings: I think if we followed your recommendation we 'd be denying the — expansion . The other improvements that he wants . And I take it that we'd consider those again once he 's done , lived up to all the conditions that have been imposed on him in the past that he has not yet? Planning Commission Me� .ing May 15, 1991 - Page 16 Olsen: Right . That 's one of the options . That 's correct . Emmings: Okay . But if there 's going to be approval , you want it tabled so you can develop conditions? - Olsen: Correct . Emmings: Alright . And I want to know if when you said you 'd like to see this approved , if you 're saying something different than one of those two things? Ahrens: I 'm recommending that we approve the sign . The interim use permit to permit the signage . Emmings: Okay . And? Ahrens: And the expansion of the site . Emmings: With what conditions? That 's the problem I 'm having . We don't have conditions . We have a few here from the staff but the staff says they don't feel they 've developed , adequately developed conditions for an approval . Or are you just going to approve it the way he wants to do just - whatever he 's proposing? Ahrens : Well there are existing , I 'm a little confused about this . There - are existing conditions of approval as I understand it . Olsen: Correct for what was approved . Ahrens : . . .conditions . Olsen: Well those were just some . Giving you a start on what we would be - requiring . Like grading and drainage plans . Ahrens: Those are just some . That 's not a complete list? Olsen: No , it 's not a complete list because we need more , to really • recommend approval we need more complete plans . It 's still not real clear the parking that he 's proposing . Emmings: Well , we don't know if he 's proposing batting cages inside or outside . If it 's inside , what the building's going to look like . If it 's - outside , is it going to be lighted . Ahrens: I thought it was outside . Olsen: We don't know that . Emmings: Well it may be . Ahrens: He said yes . - Emmings: But he hasn 't submitted a plan in enough detail for the staff to even look at it Joan I think is the problem. Planning Commission Meeting May 15 , 1991 - Page 17 Ahrens: Maybe we 're looking at this prematurely then , the whole deal? Olsen : For approval , yes . Emmings: Okay . Why don 't you think about it . Ahrens: I will Steve . How much time do I have? Emmings: 4 minutes . I ' ll be back . Batzli : By the time it gets back to her , she ' ll have a lot more . . . - Farmakes: The plan that I 'm looking at right now says '86 . This plan showing vegetation that 's planned or is it also showing existing vegetation? There 's a notation on the north side that says existing vegetation and it 's got a little arrow . Is that the only tree we 're looking at that 's still standing or , I was out at the site today and there - seems that there 's some vegetation that 's not on this plan . Do you intend on altering the vegetation as it stands now or where the batting cage area is or the parking area is by there? John Pryzmus : No I basically , other than we 're doing a massive flower planting . . .geraniums this past weekend and another 600 vinca vines and we ' ll be doing a couple thousand petunias but I will be adding shurbs and _ trees periodically but I 'm about 95% done . I mean the berms with the evergreens and the shurbs and the willows and a lot of the trees have stayed there . I saved them all . They 're expensive so I tried to save as many trees as I can . This spring now I planted 21 more Black Hills spruce - in case someday the willow trees , you know I have to take the willow tree down or something . I 'm trying to replace . . . Farmakes : Do you intend on cutting down many trees that are there now? John Pryzmus: No , not at all . Farmakes : So your intent then is to . . .this plan here eventually when you have the funds to do it? John Pryzmus: Yeah . This is , I 'm done . I mean I don 't have to move any , all the dirt I moved was for the berming purposes and the planting of the trees and the flowers and making the flower beds . In other words we 're just about done with making our planters and what have you . We 've got about a . . .and flower planting is what we 're doing now . Farmakes : In the plans that you submitted in 1986 , was there a batting cage listed in there? John Pryzmus : No . On that particular plan , where the batting cage was going to go , there was a proposal for an indoor golf and batting building . Farmakes : What would be the maximum height of that cage? Is that a tent structure with a . . . John Pryzmus: Yeah . From the berm , maybe only 5 feet above the berm . It would be , I designed it when I was building the berm pretty much contained Planning Commission McL _ing May 15 , 1991 - Page 18 within my area . That 's the tree planting , what have you . I would hope that you could . . .as far as seeing additional building going on now . . .what - I 'm proposing now . The new building I 'm proposing is set inbetween two berms and you won 't see it from the road . The batting cages will be , you 'll be standing where you won 't be able to be seen from the road . The - machine will be pitching up from down . You know the balls will run down . I don 't know if you 've ever been to a batting cage . Farmakes: Yes . John Pryzmus: Some of them the ball comes rolling back down this way and then it goes on an elevator . These would go down . You know I think they - made a note that there was some washing . Well my berms all the grass has started to come down . I 've sodded around into there . . .but I didn 't do anything with that area that would be . . .I think I 'm going to put blacktop and then carpet instead of like . . .has concrete . Farmakes: Do you have any architectural things that you 've submitted? Does the staff have anything as to the height of this cage or whether or not it would be seen or would be screened? Olsen : We haven 't received anything . Farmakes: So it wasn 't submitted in '86 and it 's not submitted now? _ John Pryzmus : I said what was submitted in '86 was what I 've done so far . The berming and planting and that . On the plan in '86 there was an area right where I put one of the teaching holes . - Farmakes : So it wasn 't your intent to build these batting cages or whatever until you submitted the proper? - John Pryzmus: Right . Until I get the plans . What I 'm saying is , I didn 't do anything basically that was illegal like it makes it sound like I was doing all kinds of things illegal . I was planning on coming and getting a permit for the batting cages once I can financially do it . I won 't be able to financially do it this year but I am getting , I 'm basically getting pressure from the city saying I 'm expanding without permission so now I 'm going to get a permit hopefully and I 'll maybe for next year . . . Farmakes : Well , I have some concerns . One is the maintenance on the holding tank . The other one is I 'm a little , this is sort of the second time around and there seems to be a bit of an attitude problem on some of this stuff for development and it seems naive to me to think that if you 've got approval on plans in 1986 or 1987 that you believe that construction is alright to begin in 1991 . Times change . Ordinances change and I don 't - think it enhances that attitude or a working relationship with the city to get into this sort of thing . I hope that 's changed or that that attitude will change . I like the facility . I 've used it with my children and I - agree . It seems that the landscaping and so on , they 're making an effort to improve it and make the place look nice and I hope that that continues . And I hope that the relationship that you have with the City staff , maybe _ it will improve . Maybe it 's a matter of circumstances . I hope that 's the case . I guess I would approve this with conditions and I believe also that one of those conditions should be that we should hold that until he Planning Commission Me,. _ing May 15 , 1991 - Page 19 conforms to some of the points that city staff has listed on here . That 's — the extent of my comments . Batzli : A year and a half ago I started out by saying I have a real tough time being objective on this application . It seems like he does something and then we find out and he says , oh by the way can I have that . That 's kind of irritating . I 'm starting to sound like a broken record I guess but I guess I 'd like to see follow through on both sides . If we have — conditions and if we have these things , you know both sides I think have to show a little bit more commitment to following through on these things that we agree on and I 'm not convinced yet that if we come up with conditions — that we 're going to get anywhere with them . So I don 't know exactly what kind of conditions we 're supposed to put in here . If that means he complies with them 5 years down the road , does that mean he complies with them right away? I like the facility . I 've used it . I think it 's actually an asset but the cavalier attitude about doing things and then coming in after the fact is irritating . I still try to look at this objectively but that 's tough to get over . That part of it . I think that — given the fact that we imposed the holding tank on him as a condition and he 's made the investment in that , if in fact he can get the contract in here and demonstrate that it 's pumped regularly and what have you , I don 't see why we would make him go to a drainfield kind of thing . I 'd like to see this tabled . I 'd like to see the staff work with him . See if we can work with him and come up with something and a time table for doing these things . If we 're just going to put conditions on here that says he 's going to do something and not put a time table where if he doesn 't have it done , then what 's the point? That 's all I have . Ellson: I would recommend denial of the expansion until he brings it up . I don 't know that I would be heavy duty on the septic system though if we 've already said it 's okay to have a holding tank . But I think that if some of the other things haven 't already been met like he needs a certificate of occupancy , let 's get it all cleaned up . Since the batting cage is probably a next year apparatus and things later , I 'd rather not see myself approving all that until the rest is cleaned and totally agreed upon between the two and then move forward with the next request . Conrad: When the holding tank was put in , do we inspect that? — Steve Kirchman: We inspected the installation . The only inspection is , it 's a manufactured tank . We just take a look at the installation to make sure that it was properly installed . — Conrad : So can you have different conditions of holding tanks? Can it be used or do they have to be new when they go in? What are the standards? I — don 't know what we 're talking about . Is this a metal? Is this synthetic? What is the holding tank? Steve Kirchman: It 's a concrete , basically a septic tank is what it is . It 's concrete and it comes in different sizes . It 's got to be water tight . It 's got to have a manhole cover and two clean outs on each end . Conrad: And how do we know that it was when it went in? Steve Kirchman: It was inspected when it went in . Planning Commission Meeting May 15 , 1991 - Page 20 Conrad: So we know that it was good . When it went in , it was a state of the art holding tank? Steve Kirchman: That 's correct . Conrad: Okay . There are some things that I think just have to be brought up to standards before I even consider anything here . And John, I think we like the facility out there . I think people are using it . I just really want to see the few things . The things that have not been done . I don't want to consider anything , sign , video , anything until I can see what I perceive to be some simple things just done . Some things that haven't been approved . The flood light issue is still there and my understanding is - they weren 't approved except for security and apparently maybe not on but they 're there and pointed in the wrong direction or something . I 'm not sure about the fence . The fence was not approved in the beginning? Olsen: On the exterior , yes . There 's now fence on the interior and now the ordinance requires you to get a permit for fencing . - Conrad: So it was , say it again Jo Ann? Olsen: There was fencing shown on the first approved plan along Galpin and TH 5 . That 's where there 's posts and now there 's some internal fencing also . Again , they just need to get the permit . It 's real simple . Make sure the height is the right height . Conrad: You know , that seems like a simple thing to do . The permit for the fence . I think the building has to receive the Certificate of Occupancy . There 's just some simple things but until they 're done , I really don 't want to see anything . I just want to get rid of this and it has to he done right before we take a look at any sort of expansion , And I think these are real simple things . They 're not difficult but I 'm not budging on that until they 're done . Erhart : Let me try to get clear in my mind . What is the problem? What do you think they 've done? What do you think they haven 't done and what do - you think they have done? What 's not conforming today in your mind Jo- Ann? Okay , I Dot one . You think there 's flood lights? - Olsen : Right . There are flood lights out there for lighting after hours . The hours were set at sunrise to sunset . So that 's one issue that we haven 't . Erhart: How many flood lights are out there? Olsen: How many? Erhart: Yeah . Olsen: There are about , I noticed about 2 or 3 along TH 5 on the telephone poles or whatever and they were on the building . Saw it on at least 2 sides . 3 sides? 2 sides? Erhart : And who are you? Planning Commission Meeting -- May 15 , 1991 - Page 21 Steve Kirchman: Steve Kirchman . I 'm a building inspector . Erhart : Alright . I don 't know , did you introduce yourself or did I miss that? -- Olsen: I kind of introduced him . Ellson: Jo Ann introduced him while you were sleeping . Erhart : While I was sleeping? Okay. John , what are the flood lights for? Are you using them? What are you using them for? — John Pryzmus: Yeah , we use them for up lighting on all the shurbs is what the original approval was on it . — Erhart: To do what? Up lighting? John Pryzmus : Yeah . You know they 're only like this high off the ground and to shine on all the paths. Erhart : For what? People to get around after dark? — John Pryzmus: Yeah . Erhart : So you are , you 're using the facility as a business after dark? John Pryzmus: The miniature golf has been open yes , after the sun went down . Erhart : And that 's not permitted . Olsen: Not permitted . Erhart : Okay , so in fact you are using it after dark and that wasn 't permitted . Okay . What else? You 're saying you have some internal fences? Olsen: He just needs a fence permit for that . Erhart : If Bluff Creek Golf Course came in and wanted to put up a fence between their club house and the first tee , would they just do it or would they come in? — Ellson: If you wanted one you 'd have to come in. Olsen: I can 't tell you what they would do . They would be required to get a permit . Erhart : Is there any limit to how short the fence can be? Let 's say they — wanted to put up cedar rails or something . Olsen: It 's still a fence . You know we don't have a limit on how low it _ can go but how high it can go . The video games is another thing which . Erhart: Hang on . Let me get this clear in my mind. So you think there 's some internal fencing going on not shown . — Planning Commission ME._cing May 15 , 1991 - Page 22 Olsen: I know there is . Erhart : On a golf course you can 't move fences without a different site plan? - Olsen: Yeah , if it 's different from the site plan . The only fences are agricultural . Steve Kirchman: The only issue here is he has to come in and get the permit . Nobody 's objecting to his fence but he does need a permit for his perimeter fence . He just has to come and get a permit . Erhart: Okay . What else then? You said there 's some grading going on? Emmings: He got a permit for that didn 't he? Olsen: He got a grading permit for some of the grading . Correct Dave? But some of it still was going to be part of this whole permit because it included some of the tees . The parking lot . Grading for where the batting cage is and the drainage . We don 't have any plans on that . We don 't have the detailed grading . - Erhart: How many cubic feet are being graded? Olsen: We wouldn 't know . We need to know that . Erhart: What does the ordinance read? Olsen : It 's 50 cubic yards . Erhart : Is it more than that or less than that? - Hempel : Definitely more than that . Emmings: He needs a certificate of occupancy is another one Tim . Erhart : Yeah , I 'm getting to that . Before we get to that one , any -other ones? - Conrad: He needs to supply us with a schedule of the pumping of the septic tank . Erhart : I 'm waiting for that one for last . Olsen : The video games . It 's the hours of operation . Erhart : Yeah , I got that one . Olsen: He is currently putting in the parking lot . It looks that way . Erhart : Was that on the '86 plan? There 's so much stuff here . Okay , let 's go back to the septic system . If you look at the conditions on page 3 there . Condition 4 is that two septic sites be protected from grading . In condition 5 it says the applicant shall install a holding tank . Why would we have done that? Planning Commission Meeting — May 15 , 1991 - Page 23 Olsen: Where are you? — Erhart : Your page 3 of the report . On the bottom there . 4 says two septic system sites shall be protected from grading activities . Then you — go on with item 5 , the applicant shall install a holding tank . Olsen: Shall comply with ordinance 10B . That 's where it , I remember that — there was conversations between the applicant and I believe Don and Barb . Do you remember? John Pryzmus: I don 't remember why it was changed from septic . Erhart: This was part of the conditional use . These were the conditions to the conditional use permit right? — Olsen: I believe that it was one of the issues was cost of installing . My recollection was that the applicant wanted the holding tank . I remember _ that there was a meeting in Don Ashworth 's office I believe with Barb . Erhart: Before it went to Council . Alright , so let 's not try to do that . Let 's go back to Steve . Your letter then . Essentially is it clear to — everybody that we gave him , per your letter here , essentially approved a holding tank? OEM Steve Kirchman: A permit was issued for the holding tank and the installation was inspected and approved . Erhart : Okay . Then you go on to say , I strongly urge that no further — development be permitted on the property until existing violations are corrected . This would include installation of an approved septic system . Does that contradict what? -- Steve Kirchman: Well , State Code requires that if you 've got sites available , that you have to have a septic system . — Erhart : I understand but . Steve Kirchman: If the possibility exists that there are no available sites . So if there are no available sites , then he has to continue with that holding tank . Erhart: I understand but I guess what I 'm saying is , I think there 's a tremendous insensitivity here . This memo drives a lot of what 's going on here . Steve Kirchman: I realize that . Erhart : Okay . On the one hand it says that we 've told John and gave him a — permit to put in this holding tank and then a few inches down the paper here you 're saying don 't do anything here until this comes into conformity essentially . Steve Kirchman: As I said earlier , I 'm assuming the reason that we let him put in a holding tank was that the original septic sites were disturbed . That 's just an assumption on my part . I don 't know why anyone would let Planning Commission Meering May 15 , 1991 - Page 24 him put in holding tanks . — Erhart : I don 't think that 's the point . The point is if you 've given him approval , then you 've given him approval . I don 't think we can go back then and said gee whiz , you can 't do anything because . Olsen: But that is , you know the whole driving force behind this report . That 's one of the reasons . It 's also that there 's additional . Erhart : Well that seems to be the only major one of all these . I guess establishing whether they can continue using the , whether he can expand using the holding tank or not . I guess my recommendation I think is pretty - much along with everybody elses . I guess overall I think the facility is fine and useful to people here and John has made his way of trying to make things work . On the other hand I think sometimes , I think we have to be a little more sensitive to these styles of businesses . Not everybody is able to put in a plan , able to work in a normal , timely fashion . And if we preclude that process , I think we preclude a lot of creativity . On the other hand it appears to me like John seems to be alittle more organized - today than I think when he started in 1986 and so I think we 're both learning on how to get along a little bit better here . Both John and the city . The issue on the septic system , I realize that the Code says you - can 't , we 're not supposed to go in disturbed areas but that 's , practicality is that you can make systems work in disturbed areas . _ Steve Kirchman: I disagree . If the area 's been disturbed , then it just destroys the properties of the soils of accepting effluent . The effluent may not show but it also won 't get treated . - Emmings : Can you do it in a mound? Erhart : Essentially when you go and do a septic system you do disturb the - soil . And certainly in a mound . Steve Kirchman: No , you don 't . Erhart : You just lay it on top? Steve Kirchman: You lay it on top and you have to use track machinery and - you 're not allowed to drive a truck over the surface where the mound is to go . Erhart : Well anyway , I think obviously the tank is working and I don 't see that this is , it appears that it can work . Steve , I think you 're saying that it can work properly if properly maintained . On the other hand , I would prefer to see a septic system . On the other hand , when do you expect - the sewer line to be put through here? Krauss : Well we 're looking at serving the area behind , across the street — from thiss site hopefully next Friday . Theoretically , but this area is not included in the MUSA line expansion . This area is the study area so there would be no service to this property in the foreseeable future . Erhart : Sc that 's what you , the other thing is I think it 'd be to their advantage to get this as an interim use permit so I 'd agree with your Planning Commission Meeting May 15 , 1991 - Page 25 recommendation to try to , anyway try to get it to that so we can tie some kind of date on this . So I guess I 'd go along with staff 's recommendation in terms of approving with the video games and trying to get interim use permit and try to come back with , table it and come back . I guess I 'd like to see him clear up , maybe Steve or someone to try to clear up a uniform recommendation on whether this holding site or septic system or something so it 's a little clearer at the next meeting . And then have conditions . Olsen: Yeah , we ' ll confirm the capacity and things like that . Erhart: That 's finally it . Emmings: Okay . I 'm going to adopt Brian 's comments and Ladd 's comments _ just to shorten things down . I 'm not going to , I don 't care too much about the sign or video games . Whether we do something with that but he has to do , in my mind , he has to do what he said he would do in the past or fulfill the conditions that were imposed on prior approvals before I 'm - willing to look at any expansion . And that 's primarily because although I 'm sure that John has his own version of how things have evolved out there , all I 've seen here over the years is John filling in the wetland . - Being told to stop . Coming in and asking for a permit . Being denied . And now he 's doing something else and he 's being told to stop and he 's coming in again for a permit after the fact . I think he 's had enough interaction _ with the City to know that he should come here first and he hasn 't been willing to do that so I 'm not willing to look at an expansion until he gets everything up to snuff . If it was one time I could understand it but it hasn 't been one time . This is at least the third time that I can recall sitting here and looking at this and maybe it 's the fourth . So that 's where I stand . Is there a motion? Conrad: Yes . I move that we table action until the applicant brings the , satisfies the staff 's concerns about the previous conditional use permit . Batzli : Second . Emmings : Is there any discussion? Conrad moved , Batzli seconded to table the Interim Use Permit for Swings Golf until the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit are satisfied . All voted in favor except Ahrens and Erhart who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2. Emmings : Do you want to put the reasons on the record? Ahrens: Well I 've been thinking about this and I can go along with the staff recommendation on this for approval of the Interim Use Permit for denial of expansion of the site . - Erhart : What was your second one? Ahrens: Basically the staff 's recommendation . Denial of the expansion but that the staff continue to work with them to bring the site into compliance . Planning Commission Meeting May 15 , 1991 - Page 26 Erhart : Okay and I think that was what I was thinking . That 's what I was voting for denial . So if that 's what it is , that was mine . Conrad: Now with my motion , I just want to make sure that the tank , the holding tank . It is permitted so we 're not asking staff at this time to figure out how to do a drainfield . We 're not asking John to do that . We are bringing it into conformance with the previous conditional use permit and what the city has granted John to do . Emmings: And you 're not in any way discouraging them from continuing to work together to bring it up to snuff and then look at a proposal when they 've got one . Conrad: That 's all I want . I just don 't see there are a. lot of things that you have to do John . I just do want , I want to force you and the staff doing things together the right way . We 're not trying to be the bad guys . I want to do it the right way so we can review this without having - some history and some negatives out there . Then we can take a look at the real issues . Emmings: Right . I think we ought to at this point take a quick break for a North Stars update . PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE TO CREATE A BLUFF LINE PRESERVATION SECTION . Emmings: I understand that you 're recommending that we table this matter so that we can notify affected property owners and then hold a public hearing and complete the official map . What should we do on this tonight? I think that 's obviously the thing to do . Olsen: Look at the map . Krauss : We 'd like you to look at the preliminary draft of the official map we had . We 'd also like to discuss some standards with you that are in the ordinance . In fact Jo Ann and I had a long conversation . After coming back from the bluff hike , Bluff Creek hike , my personal opinion is that some of the standards that the DNR recommended aren 't adequate to protect what we want to protect over there . One of the other things we wanted to do , first of all what we 're proposing is an ordinance based on an official map rather than a we know it when we see it approach and so to designate where this thing is . You should know though that when you see this map you ' ll see it . It really does interfere indirect with a lot of properties up there and a lot of property owners may fell disinfranchised by it and I think that the environmental benefits of this have to be so , in addition we - have to have some mechansim wherein existing situations are grandfathered . Not made non-conforming but grandfathered so we accept the status quo . Ellson: That couldn 't expand? Would that be grandfathered? Krauss : Well no . I think we 'd like to work out some language where they could if there wasn 't prejudice against them because they happened to build - earlier . The other thing that we 'd like to do too for the public is , Dave City Council Meet. - November 16, 1987 be willing to support a situation in which he would grant the city an easement. If the City wants to build a trail on both sides of CR 17, I think we should be willing to pay for it but I'd like to have that option available to us. I think that saves Mr. Patton's feeling that it's costing the development money because you're simply giving us an easement and yet it protects the ability of the City to cane back and build a trail later. Councilman Johnson: I thought that was what the Park and Rec was asking for anyway. Councilman Boyt: What we agreed to the other evening was that Mr. Patton would - build the trail on both sides of CR 17 and I think Park and Rec said that if he chose not to build it, there would be a reduction in the trails fees. I think since then we have increase the amount of trails we've asked Mr. Patton to build in this development and quite possibly it's reasonable to ask for an easement. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded that the applicant provide an easement on one side of County Road 17 for the future development of a trail, to be built by the City, if a trail on both sides of County Road 17 is deemed necessary. All voted in favor and motion carried. REVIEW SWINGS RECREATION PROJECT, JOHN PRYZMUS, APPLICANT: A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE GOLF DRIVING RANGES AS A CONDITIONAL USE AND MINIATURE GOLF COURSE AS AN ACCESSORY USE, 2ND AND FINAL READING. B. APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DOCUMENT. Barbara Dacy: I do need a clarification on one of the proposed conditions of the conditional use permit but as to the zoning ordinance amendment, the Council needs to act on the 2nd and final reading on the zoning ordinance amendment to allow golf driving ranges as a conditional use with or without miniature golf as an accessory use. The five conditions that the Council put in their motion from May 4, 1987. The Council approved the conditional use permit and also acted to deny the wetland alteration permit so the Council needs to authorize execution of the conditional use permit which staff has prepared in Attachment #2. If I could review briefly one of the conditions. On the graphic here the big blob, if you will, is the wetland area in the northwest corner of the site. The orange area is where the miniature golf course is going to be located. The gray area is where the parking area is proposed to be then there was a small clubhouse building located here. This colored square is the proposed batting building at that time. The batting building was not approved as part of the conditional use permit and this area over here represents the septic system sites adjacent to Galpin Blvd.. This site plan shown here was submitted in conjunction with the landscaping plan and that landscaping plan is proposed to be the installation of a number of deciduous trees and also proposed construction of berm areas which are represented in green. The applicant also proposed fencing around the entire perimeter of the site as well as a fence around the maxi-putt and mini-putt 19 0417 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 area. So the conditional use permit has been designed to follow up on the elements that was represented by the applicant on his site plan and landscaping plan. In number 1 the first permit requires submission of a revised grading plan showing the limits of grading, methods of erosion control and indicating the revised location of the parking lot and clubhouse. As you recall, the applicant had originally intended in altering the wetland area and creating a pond back here and to lower the elevation of the hill over in this area for the construction of a batting building. Since the wetland alteration permit was denied and since the batting building was not included in the approval, the applicant has changed his plans so that we would like to reduce the size of the hill in this area and second of all, if you will recall, Carver County had a condition that the setback area for the parking lot and the clubhouse building be measured from 100 feet from the center line of Galpin Blvd.. I apologize to the applicant also and to the Council, but the way that first condition should read is with the 50 foot structure setback in the A-2 district, the first condition should read, indicating the revised location of the parking lot and clubhouse 150 feet from the center line of CR 117. That would take into accomodation the additional right-of-way needed for CR 117 as well as the 50 foot setback. I think that was discussed all along. I made an error in the footage from the center line of Galpin Blvd.. The size of the parking lot was primarily based on the use of the batting building. Provided on the plan here is construction of 92 spaces. The batting building is not being included, there is no reason to have that size of a parking lot so what the first condition is saying is that the plan should show the revised location of the parking lot and I'd like to add the revised size and location of the parking lot and clubhouse so that the applicant is proposing to reduce this in size, that's fine. Finally, the plan indicated that the parking area was to be bituminous and again I apologize, that should have been specified in the first condition there. Also, the ordinance does require that all parking areas should be lined by concrete curb also so the Council may want to discuss that in more detail tonight but in order to match our ordinance, a sentence should be added that the parking shall be paved and lined with concrete curb. The second condition was commented on the previous staff report back in May that in order to be consistent with our landscaping ordinance, 6 foot evergreens and 2 foot evergreens should be placed between the parking areas and Galpin Blvd.. The proposed fencing of the site, the applicant indicated to me that it would be approximately 5 feet and it should not exceed our 6 feet in conformance with our ordinance. Number 4 and 5 really go together. As you recall, the bathrooms were to be located in the batting building area. The applicant has found a better location for mound systems over in this area. If the batting building is no longer there, the bathrooms are to be placed in the clubhouse, the applicant's has a couple of options. He can either pump the effluent to a septic system site to the north, install a holding tank or install temporary Satellites on the property so what staff is recommending that if the septic system sites are not to be used, then we recommend installation of a holding tank rather than installation of Satellites. In any case however, we want to insure that septic system sites are protected out in the field and are not altered in case they are removed or needed by the applicant. If the applicant is to install a holding tank, then the copy of the contract with a licensed pumper should be provided. Six, the applicant shall comply with all the requirements of the Watershed District, Fish and Wildlife and DNR. Because the applicant will be submitting a revised grading 20 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 plan, the Watershed District approval will be necessary in that case. The applicant will have to receive their authorization. Now, as to the wetland alteration permit, Council action again was to deny that on May 4, 1987. The applicant is proposing to plant grass seed in this area on a regular basis in order to pick up the balls from the tee area. Because this area has been farmed in the past on a consistent basis, staff did not feel that planting grass seed periodically would be adverse to the wetland areas. We prepared a permit to allow ,ceding of the site. If that is not consistent with what the Council feels was their action on May 4, 1987, then that needs to be _ corrected. Number 8, to insure completion of the grading improvements and the parking lot improvements and so on, we ask that the applicant submit a letter of credit in the amount of 110%. The Council discussed at the last meeting and made a condition the zoning ordinance amendment to include the use that the hours of operation would be from sunrise to sunset and therefore there would be no lighting unless that was a specific condition of approval. Finally, there is an outstanding bill incurred by Mr. Machmeier and Mr. Anderson. We're requiring that be paid and if an additional review would be necessary for the mound septic system sites beyond our current staff, that would be necessary that a condition that those fees would be paid by the applicant also and that is consistent with all of our applicants for any of our subdivision or any type of applicant in the rural area. Mayor Hamilton: I can think of one question offhand. You said we wanted to — have curb in there. I guess I don't recall that in the rural area for any type of a use like this and I guess the only one I can think of that would be fairly similar would be the mini-storage area. I don't believe that we required curb and gutter in that area. Barbara Dacy: For Mr. Brown's there was I believe the main access drives, ingress and egress points to the development. Mayor Hamilton: Right but not the whole, what you would consider the parking area. Barbara Dacy: Right. Tonight I was indicating that the curbing and the paving and the bituminous issue was not even discussed at the May 4th meeting. I was merely pointing out that our ordinance requires it. That paved be lined with concrete curb so you're consistent with the ordinance. Mayor Hamilton: Okay and I was just questioning that wondering if that's consistent with what we do in the rural area. If that's what our ordinance says, I guess that surprises me. Barbara Dacy: Staff has been consistent in recommending that that be installed. Mayor Hamilton: I'm sure you have but my question is still the same. Is it the ordinance that it would be installed in the rural areas? Barbara Dacy: Your question, have you approved it in the past? 21 FJ City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: No, does it say that in the ordinance? That rural areas put in parking for whatever use you're going to use, you have to have curb and gutter. _ • Barbara Dacy: The ordinance does not specify if it's urban or rural. It says if you have a parking area, it has to be paved and you have to have concrete curb. Mayor Hamilton: Alright, so that's something that the Council could decide whether or not we want to have that right? Staff is recommending that the applicant do put that in. I'm also curious about the wetland now. The drawing that you were showing us there and the portion in green is supposedly the wetland. Who's definition of the wetland is that? Barbara Dacy: We asked the applicant at that time, what we use as the definition of edge of the wetland is where the reed grass vegetation starts and stops. That was one factor because the reed grass was predominant in this area. The other reference that we used was the official Qianhassen wetlands map that was on file. This part of the area does reflect on the contour that's located on the wetlands map. Mayor Hamilton: What class wetland was that? Barbara Dacy: It was a Type II, Class B. Mayor Hamilton: Is that the lowest grade you can get? Barbara Dacy: There's Type I which is the lowest. Mayor Hamilton: So it's next to the lowest and that area had been farmed for years if I remember correctly. I still, in being consistent with what I've said in the past, I don't believe that's a wetland and I would like to see some evidence if it is. I think the applicant ought to be allowed use in that area. It may have been a wetland at one time and John filled it. Right or wrong it's something that's been done. I think that he's said that at that far north end of that there is a pond or he would construct a pond that could be used as a wetland or as a retention area for runoff to go into the creek. I would prefer to see that done since he's filled the area already, allow him to use it. I guess I have stated that previously and I still feel the same way. I think anybody would have a hard time going out there and I don't care if it's Mrs. Rockwell or our staff and proving that that is in fact a wetland. I don't think there's any evidence out there. Do council members have any questions of the staff? Councilman Horn: One of the things that we requested when we reviewed this last time was to get a general policy on allowing this type of use from the Planning Commission. I didn't see any record that they had given us a guideline on this issue. Barbara Dacy: As I interpretted the Minutes after reviewing them, that topic was discussed but then I believe it was Councilman Geving saying you have to decide on a particular issue at hand tonight and that two motions occurred. 22 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 So that item has not been brought back to the Planning Commission for review given Council's action. Councilman Horn: If you read further in the Minutes it said that, yes we had - to act on this issue this evening but part of our problem with acting that evening was that we didn't have the guideline and what we said is, that we should go back and get a guideline as to what type of uses we should allow and where we should allow them and what kind of criteria we should put on those kinds of uses. Specifically the issue of the batting area had come up and that is not addressed anywhere. We also described the fact that if you read our ordinance it doesn't allow a golf course anyplace in the City without a conditional use permit. That was another one of the issues that we wanted to address and brought back to us for us to act on. Now we come back to this issue again and we don't have any further recommendations or any further guidance on this thing and it seems like we've lost a lot of time where we could have been making a policy on that so once again instead of proactive, we're retroactive. Barbara Dacy: I guess I disagree because the five conditions that the Council eventually approved were the specific recommendations of the Planning Commission and they made a specific statement saying that the batting building of the commercial recreational uses was not appropriate in the rural area. But they did distinguish between driving ranges and miniature golf courses. . They declined to act on the golf course issue because that was not brought up to them at that point although I recall that the Planning Commission did say that they would all agree that a golf course should be allowed in the rural area. Basically what the Council has approved was the Planning Commission recommendation. Councilman Horn: That's true but what we also asked for was that the issue of golf courses in general be addressed in terms of our overall ordinance and I don't believe it has. Barbara Dacy: Yes, they have not addressed that but I guess I still don't understand how that issue would relate to Mr. Pryzmus' application because I don't think the driving range and miniature golf course is clearly a distinct use than a golf course. Councilman Horn: What you're telling us is that there is no anomaly to the ordinance to date. That this is a very clear cut issue from our ordinance. Barbara Dacy: The Council acted to approve the Planning Commission recommendation for the golf driving ranges and miniature golf courses. They did not address a golf course issue at all. Councilman Horn: I understand that. Based on the current ordinance? Barbara Dacy: Right. • Councilman Johnson: As I said in May, I think we should allow at least the seeding in that area to make the area useful. I do not think we should make major grading changes to that area. It still, with the proper seeding, will 23 250 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 function as a nutrient drain the wetland area. This is another example of how the TH 5 corridor there needs to be looked at. We are in that process, I guess looking at the entire downtown to TH 41 as part of our comprehensive plan. John Pryzmus: As far as if I can have it, whatever you decide as far as the curbing we can go ahead and do that but what I worked with staff is after the 11 inches of rain, I went down there and mowed that area a week and a half later and there wasn't even any water there so I'm not worried about filling in the wet area at all. One thing that I would like to propose is the batting cage or our proposal there was a batting building. It was consistent with my financing and that project was...to make it financially feasible. I needed the batting cage or the indoor golf and batting. As far as the density of the area coincides with miniature golf and driving range. Also, when people are using that, they won't really go off the site so if I could reconsider to add that building as a utility building, that would be the only thing. Other than that, I won't be doing anything in the low land at all other than seeding it. As far as the grading permit, that goes along with the miniature golf now and we won't put any fill in the low area, we'll just knock down the one hill and just push it to the back. There will be a very minimum amount of grading on the site. So if you would reconsider allowing having a utility building to make it financially feasible. .. Mayor Hamilton: That's an entirely separate issue. I guess if you want that to be reconsidered, you'll have to bring it back at another time. Co you have any problems with the conditions 1 through 10 that were outlined by the conditional use permit? Were those conditions acceptable to you? John Pryzmus: The curbing and? Mayor Hamilton: There are 10 conditions. Have you had a chance to review them? John Pryzmus: I didn't. Councilman Boyt: Did you fill in the wetland? John Pryzmus: Yes, I filled in part of it. Councilman Boyt: Did you have a permit to do that? John Pryzmus: There isn't any wetland on the property. I have a letter from the DNR stating that it's not a protected wetland. Councilman Boyt: Well the City considers it a wetlands and you filled it in without a permit, is that correct? I just want to get a clear status on how we lost the wetland. My understanding is we lost the wetland because you filled it in. Mayor Hamilton: That's correct. 24 951 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 Councilman Boyt: What you're basically asking to do with the wetlands and what the City proposes is a wetland, is to seed it, mow it, treat it like any other piece of ground. I would like to ask the staff, is this going to impede it's ability to do what it's doing now? Barbara Dacy: When Dr. Rockwell visited the site last spring, she commented that the area is really not acting as a good place for habitat which is one of the criteria for a wetland. It's main function was serving as an area for recharge and a storm water retention area before it gets to a creek along the north side of the property. Staff felt that because there was going to be no additional fill or alteration of the property, that it would continue to be maintained the way it was in the last several years, that we felt that the seeding would not affect that function at all. Councilman Boyt: Now I heard something about an offer to build a pond on the property as a holding pond. I think that's a reasonable offer and we should take you up on that. Barbara Dacy: That was part of the original wetland alteration permit request that was denied by the Council so if you're proposing to do that, he would have to reapply for that. Councilman Boyt: How are you proposing and how would you like to alter that wetland any differently than what you propose to do now? John Pryzmus: You means as far as building a pond? Councilman Boyt: No, as far as the particular wetland. Is that where you are proposing to build your pond? John Pryzmus: Yes it would be down at the end of the road area. Councilman Boyt: Alright, so what other kinds of changes were you proposing to make in the wetland? John Pryzmus: All I want to do is just like I have there on the sewer. Councilman Boyt: Do we have any difficulty with him improving the wetland? We seem to have set a precedent indicating agreement to do that before. Well Jay, maybe when it gets to be your turn you can comment on that. Then the other situation I have is on the parking lot. As I read the ordinance, it's a little different than staff is interpretting it. It says on page 1247, in multiple family, business, office and industrial districts. We're not in any of those so it does state that a person needs to have some sort of dust free, all weather surface and concrete curbing. It's real specific as to where in the city we can require that. I believe this is an agricultural district? Mayor Hamilton: It's A-2. Councilman Boyt: I think given the surface area, it probaby makes sense to put a concrete curb around this but I don't think the city ordinance requires it. I think it's kind of commen sense if you're going to put a hard surface 25 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 on that much ground to have some means of controlling the runoff from that. So to kind of summarize where I'm at right now, on the wetland, if you're going to improve it, I can certainly be convinced that grading and seeding is appropriate since it doesn't seem to interfere with what it's doing now. On the curbing, I'm okay with going on the curbing whichever way you want because our ordinance doesn't require it as I read it. However, I would certainly look favorably upon putting concrete curbing around your parking area. My biggest concern is that we're sitting in an agricultural area and we are producing what I think is going to be a tremendous traffic generator. A collector into this particular spot. Business Week in the last month had an article that indicated that miniature golf courses are doing quite well. I think we see an example of that on TH 7 and TH 101 and I think we should view this as a permanent structure and not as a temporary structure until something better comes along. I don't know that we've done a traffic study. Have we done a traffic study? Barbara Dacy: No we have not for this. Councilman Boyt: I gather that we're saying we're preparing to approve something that I think will generate a great deal of traffic. Is a county study done? Barbara Dacy: The County has reviewed the site plan. Their recommendation was that the access be located 300 feet to the north of the intersection. Councilman Boyt: Maybe people who are more familiar with that particular intersection than I an can add to more that. Barbara Dacy: We do have books upstairs from the Institute of Traffic Engineers that estimate the amount of traffic to be generated from miniature golf courses and retail uses and so on. I think when we went to through the process last spring the major concern was the batting building because that would generate more traffic on a consistent basis. The miniature golf course traffic would be seasonal in nature. Peak periods would be on Saturday and Sunday and evenings. Councilman Boyt: You're saying when the traffic load would tend to be lighter on TH 5, this... Barbara Dacy: It's considerably less than a retail use or commercial recreational use. Councilman Boyt: You don't consider this to be comparable with a retail use? Mayor Hamilton: I guess if we did a traffic study it would probably show us what we already know and that's that TH 5 is overused and if we have another use along the highway it's going to continue to overload it some more. I have no other comments on the two proposed items before us. Councilman Boyt: Then we're saying we make this amendment that anyone in the agricultural area can come in and apply for a miniature golf course and a golf [7: driving range? 26 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: Right, as a conditional use. Councilman Boyt: And basically we can only turn down a conditional use request when there is some overriding concern. We can't do it because the neighbors don't wane it there? Mayor Hamilton: Conditional use has always given us a great deal of latitude. - Roger Knutson: You have a good discretion on it. You can't turn it down because the neighbors don't like it. They frown on that. You have to exercise your own judgment. Mayor Hamilton: That's true Bill. Unfortunately that's the case. Councilman Horn: I believe that one of the requirements we put on here is that it be located adjacent to a major road with an off street access. Councilman Johnson: From a collector or an arterial. Not just an off-street access. Councilman Horn: Which will limit it to some degree. Councilman Johnson: There aren't that many sites who could develop this. We specified TH 5 and TH 212. We're not opening this up to the entire A-2 district. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #82-4 to amend Article V, Section 3(4) to allow golf driving ranges with or without miniature gold courses as a conditional use in the A-2, Agricultural Estate District and to amend Article V, Section 9(14) to allow standards for golf driving ranges with or without miniature golf courses: 1. The location of the driving range is limited to being adjacent to TH 5 and TH 212 and access must be from a collector or arterial which leads to TH 5 or TH 212. 2. Hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset. 3. Provision of adequate parking areas and submission of landscaping plan in conformance with Article VIII of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. No site shall be located within 500 feet of a single family residence. 5. The building to be constructed on any site would be a maximum of 800 square feet and shall be painted in earth tones. All voted in favor and motion carried. - - 1 Mayor Hamilton: Item b is to approve the Conditional Use Permit document. The applicant has said that he hasn't reviewed the 10 items. Is there a L.. motion to handle item 6(b)? 27 GW V 1 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 Councilman Johnson: Did the applicant get this? Mayor Hamilton: I don't think so. You've been working with him rather closely, it's hard to believe he hasn't. Barbara Dacy: I know the packet was sent out to you on Friday. You have not received it? John Pryzmus: I've been out working at the site so I haven't gotten my mail. Barbara Dacy: It was sent to the Saratoga Drive address. Councilman Johnson: While we have a slight break here, Bill was talking about the wetlands down there. By improving the wetlands, I do have a slight opinion on that. If we're not building the batting cage, which at this time we aren't, our amount of impervious surface being added to the area are minimal. The amount of increase runoff that would require an increased holding pond should be minimal. If we can keep that area as an infiltration area versus a holding pond area, I personally believe it would be best served to keep it in the same use as what nature has it now. Not necessarily making a holding pond in a wetland is an improvement to the wetland in my opinion. Certain wetlands have certain purposes. This wetland and the area adjacent to it appears to be a infiltration area. Unfortunately there's about a foot of dirt in many areas on top of what used to be the wetlands but I think if we dug deep enough we would find the wetland that was there. At this time, if we had approved the other building there, then I would be insisting upon a holding pond to slow down the runoff going into the creek there but at this time I don't think there's a great need to try to improve that wetland. When you try to improve something, you sometimes may screw it up. Councilman Horn: It's already broken. Mayor Hamilton: But it's broken like Clark says. It could be improved I would think dramatically because if you walk back there there's nothing there and it could be improved to be something. Councilman Johnson: Aesthetically yes but hydraulically I'm not sure if the improvement will be any different. I haven't seen any facts or figures to say it. As an area of infiltration and recharge of ground water, it will continue function as such. You put it in as a pond and we have a better mosquito breeding area. Councilman Boyt: The holding pond isn't in the condition in the condition as it stands. I would like to see it put in. I think it could help it improve . Mr. Pryzmus seems be willing to put it in. Is it acceptable to amend the wetland alteration permit? the Councilman Johnson: We denied it. Barbara Dacy: If you wanted to provide for a conditional use permit, you could include it in condition number 1 by saying, submission of a revised 28 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 grading plan by December 1st indicating location of a holding pond. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I was thinking of the same thing but I would like to see John be encouraged to come back and request a wetland alteration permit . again showing what he's going to do with the pond. I guess I'd kind of like to see because you at one time agreed that you would do that. Just improve the pond in the north end. Then we would have some idea of what it's going to look like and what he's going to do because I think you would still like to have a permit. John Pryzmus: I'm working with Bill Engelhardt right now and we're working on the changeover from the filled in areas to put a pond in there and have him and the DNR decide how big and whether they think it should be there. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, and then that could be a part of your request for a wetland alteration permit coming back to us at another time. John Pryzmus: It would be nice to have that as a condition if you'd let me have my batting building. Mayor Hamilton: There's no reason, if you want you can ask for both of those again. I can't tell you to or not to but if that's something you want to do, that's something you have to decide if you want to come back and request one . or either or both, that's up to you to make that request. Councilman Johnson: John, do you want this pond? John Pryzmus: I think as far as from the area, the pond isn't going to hurt - me. Councilman Johnson: What about the septic systems? You talked about the conversion there to a holding tank versus a septic system. Barbara Dacy: No, there's no change proposed with that. Conditions 4 and 5 remain the same. Councilman Horn: We could include an asphalt curb. Councilman Johnson: I prefer to get sheet flow off of the parking area. Mayor Hamilton: I would too. I don't know that much about water runoff but it would seem that if you have water running off, don't you decrease the amount of velocity coming off of an area by doing that. That's what we're always. trying to do. Barbara Dacy: That be addressed and reviewed by staff. Mayor Hamilton: It seems like we always talk about decreasing the velocity and that would seem like that might do that. Maybe it doesn't, I don't know. Councilman Horn: Let's leave off everything with curbs. 29 ldiy i City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 Gary Warren: We'11 look at that with the plans that cane in. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I'd be curious to know if it does or doesn't. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Conditional Use Permit Document as presented with the following amendment to the first condition: 1. Submission of a revised grading plan by December 1, 1987 showing the proposed limits of grading, methods of erosion control where necessary, indicating the revised size and location of the parking lot and club house and 150 feet from the centerline of County Road 117, and proposed berm areas around the putting green and miniature golf course area. The parking lot shall be paved. City Staff shall review and approve said plan prior to activity occurring on the site. All voted in favor and motion carried. CONSIDERATION OF ALLOWING HUNTING NORTH OF TH 5, DNR CONTROLLED GOOSE HUNT. Mayor Hamilton: We've had an opportunity to see one of these previously and Jim has made some recommendations to us. Reading through Jim's recommendations saying the ultimate solution though may be the elimination of hunting all together within the city limits of Chanhassen I couldn't agree with less. I don't think that's the ultimate solution at all. There are areas in the city where you can hunt especially around Rice Marsh Lake or swamp or whatever you call it. There are a number of areas south of TH 5 that are certainly acceptable for shotgun hunting of birds and fowl but perhaps not any longer of deer. Although there is enough open space so I think slug hunting is probably pretty safe also but to get to the real problem, these dog gone geese. Personally I guess, unless everybody wants a report from Jim, I would really like to see us just say no hunting north of TH 5 period. Whether it's a special hunt or non-special hunt so you don't run into the same problems we did last time. That was a mess. Councilman Boyt: I think that we have a tremendous problem with the geese in this city. As much as I like to see them fly, I understand that a good many people don't like to see them on their yard and what they leave behind. I would think that it is a difficult issue where we allow people to hunt north of TH 5. I agree with you by the way on hunting south of TH 5. I think that there are still some areas where people should be able to hunt in Chanhassen given the level of development as it is right now. I would like to see us look at some sort of reasonable guideline that Mr. Chaffee could use in doing a preliminary screen on a request. Whether it's north or south. I would think something in the neighborhood of 1,000 yards from any home. Mayor Hamilton: Feet or yards? Councilman Boyt: No, yards. The reason I say yards is because that's basically the maximum carrying distance of a shotgun. It's not going to carry there with any ability to do anything. Gentlemen, I can assure that if you 30 Planning Commission Me. ing April 22 , 1987 - Page 27 configuration of the roadways that that come before the Planning Commission for review. All voted in favor and motion carried . Siegel moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #87-6 with the following conditions: 1. The Class A wetland shall be preserved by a conservation easement established at 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark. 2. The applicant shall provide drainage easements over the ponding areas throughout the site and not allow any alteration to the areas . All voted in favor and motion carried . Erhart: Can you explain what item number 2 in your recomnendation means . Olsen: What they are providing, in what they call a storm water easement, I'm just making sure that they definitely provide easements over that and that those are protected areas so they won ' t be altered . - Erhart: Altered? Olsen : Such as mowing the lawn . SWINGS RECREATION, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND CO. RD. - 117 , JOHN PRYZMUS , APPLICANT: A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REQUEST TO AMEND THE A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT TO ALLOW GOLF DRIVING RANGES, MINIATURE GOLF COURSES AND INDOOR BATTING BUILDINGS AS A CONDITIONAL USE. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A GOLF DRIVING RANGE, MINIATURE GOLF COURSE, AND AN INDOOR BATTING BUILDING. C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT REQUEST TO FILL IN A CLASS A WETLAND. Barbara Dacy presented the Staff report on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment request. Conrad : Where else would a golf driving range be in the city? Dacy: Currently a golf driving range is not listed in any other commercial districts so basically a golf course or golf driving range is not a permitted or conditional use within the City of Chanhassen . Planning Commission Mecing April 22 , 1987 - Page 28 Conrad : Can you refresh my memory why that is? I'm looking at some notes where we specifically said we did not want that in agricultural area and I have a hard time recalling that . • Dacy: What happened was, during the Zoning Ordinance review process we met several times in 1985 and 1986. The Bluff Creek golf course now is a non- conforming use as a golf course but we do recall discussion that the Commission did have problems with a golf driving range in the rural area. You didn't think it was appropriate. It created some traffic along those roads so it wasn't approved as a part of the new Ordinance thus the application . Conrad : John, you are the applicant. Specifically John we're talking on the zoning and before you tell us what your range and what your configuration would look like. I don't know how I can limit you to just one subject. You are asking for a zoning change or you are asking to amend the Ordinance based on a project that you've got. I don't want to review the project yet. I really do want to review the concept. Of the three things that you've asked for, in general in the City of Chanhassen. Can you keep us away from your project for a while? Do you have anything to tell us about driving ranges in Chanhassen? Persuade us that we should have driving ranges in Chanhassen is what my challenge to you would be. • John Pryzmus: On page 8, basically my feelings in the Chaska Herald is an ad I developed. I spent a lot of time with the people planning the driving range out there now. I've been in front of the City Council about two months ago and at that time we didn' t have the total plans and the layout of the new facility. It had been approved originally five years ago for a driving range and I never did open it. I worked on it gradually over the last 5 years and being that the little one I had in town , there was no development on it, I never had a reason to open the new one. I brought in people from Chicago, John Jacobsford Golf and we went and lookedatevery - driving range in the Twin Cities area and there are a lot of driving ranges that aren't kept up very well and a lot of them are just an intern use for a piece of property until you put it into an industrial park or whatever. You aren't going to buy an industrial park for driving ranges but you do buy a driving range for industrial parks. With this project, I'm not proposing it to be used as an industrial park down the road. It's a half a million dollar project that should enhance the recreational facilities for the community. In all the response I've had, they are 100% for the project. I feel by getting community support, I feel that I want to show the Council and the Planning Commission that not only do I want to make a business venture out there, I've already spent a lot of money buying the land. I bought it on a contingency that I could have a driving range then that was approved so I guess what I want to do now. I originally proposed a miniature golf in my original proposal and that was turned down but what I want to do is make it financially feasible for me to do it as an investment and also make it a good thing for the community. With the nature of TH 5 and there is not really a traffic problem. These numbers might not all be right but you have approximately 20,000 cars going by there a day so there won't be a traffic impact. They would be coming off of TH 5 and going down Planning Commission Me ing April 22 , 1987 - Page 29 100 yards on a major collector road which is tar . Conrad: John, I think you are getting into the specifics of the project and I'm really trying to focus on the Ordinance itself right now. We have to look at the Ordinance and say does it make sense to allow driving ranges? Does it make sense to allow some buildings out there and you can come back in a few seconds to talk on the specifics but anything else that you can share with us in terms of, I know they are real closely tied together. John Pryzmus : I guess maybe if I could just answer any questions you have because if I start rambling on and on I might get back into that. If there - are some questions as far as if it will be compatible. My neighbors out • there , I have a group home to the west of me and contractor yards to the north of me. Dale Green has a farm to the south of me. A guy named Larry Van DeVeire has the land to the east of me and I talked to him and he feels it's commercial. One of the gentlemen here, John Hennessey, he has the land to the northeast corner of me so basically what I 'm trying to do by getting community support is not set a precedence in allowing any kind of commercial - project. Like Barb stated, a driving range needs a lot of land. It isn't like putting a gas station out there. The miniature golf and the batting cages, the three of them blend together to make it financially feasible first of all but they also make it a nice project for the people in Chanhassen. Like you just had on your map, each developer gives park space. They put in baseball diamonds. The City is acquiring property to add three more diamonds just a mile to the east of this project. They are putting lights on the park because there is such a demand for a recreational facilities and as a private developer, there won't be any city money or anything like that. This will be a private venture so I think it would just - be in asking too with what the City already is doing with their parks and with their recreational facilities . Roger Schmidt: I live out in that area. I guess my thinking is that I haven't seen a driving range yet in the metropolitan area that I think is a definite asset as far as aesthetics go on the community. They are usually located in more of a business area or with a golf course and even a golf course is stuck back in a corner someplace where they aren't that visible. Being a resident of that area, I'm somewhat concerned that we'll probably end up with a very similar situation that you have with 90% of the other driving ranges and I'm very much concerned from the standpoint that I don't see the City doing much policing in the area of taking care of what's out there right now. That's been, for several years, right now it's nothing but a junk pile and we've had comments from people out-of-town and in town asking us what's going on over there and it's kind of embarrassing for us to have to admit that we're living in an area that looks like that. I think that particular spot, as far as driving ranges within the City, I think there probably are spots for them but that particular one, I would think you look at it as your western gateway into town and I think you should look at that as something that you don' t want to build up with things that probably aren't going to be complimentary to the City. You have to decide whether that is a complimentary activity or not and obviously the other thing that I'm concerned about is the commercialization of the district. It's not Planning Commission MF ing April 22, 1987 - Page _e allowed as far as your zoning now and I think people kind of go by the zoning issues when they decide to locate there and you don't arbitrarily _ change them so I think you should give that serious consideration also. Headla moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. All voted in favor and motion carried . Headla: I don't understand why having a driving range, and the batting thing and the miniature golf is different but I don't see why a driving range would be of any benefit. I think there are several downside aspects of it but I don't see any upside aspects except the person running the range. I think the people surrounding that might suffer. Conrad: You've got to consider them like a golf course. People use it. Driving ranges are used . Headla : Then if I look at the location, then I wonder about Galpin Blvd.. I'm on that road quite a bit. I ride a bike on that and right now, I don't like the way the cars are on there. Do you have any idea how much traffic comes and goes from one of those facilities? Pryzmus: I'm sure there will be some major amount of traffic. I don't know what you consider major but most of it will be corning off of TH 5 so they would be coming off TH 5 down 100 yards and turning in there. The traffic study we do have a parking lot scheduled for 16 spaces. We overbuilt the parking lot basically. I would say a full driving range wouldn't have more than 3 or 4 cars at a time. That's comparing apples to oranges because that was a temporary thing and basically the people would want something to do down on West 79th Street where this will be a business that will be maintained . Siegel : I can't recall discussing our reasons for excluding golf courses from the A-2 district . Dacy: I can't pinpoint the date. We did go back and look through the files . It was a fairly short discussion. Siegel : What was the justification or the reasoning behind us or staff recommending the exclusion from the A-2? Dacy: The way it was proposed, it was listed because it was consistent with our prior Ordinance. However, it was the specific recommendation to have golf courses and driving ranges removed . Siegel: In essence what we're doing is removing any possibility of having a golf course or driving range in the City of Chanhassen . Dacy: That ' s correct. The Bluff Creek golf course is now non-conforming . Siegel : Well , that doesn't make sense to me. It just doesn't make sense. If somebody came in with a plan for a beautiful golf course in the rolling Planning Commission Meccing April 22, 1987 - Page 31 hills of Chanhassen, I'm sure the City Council and the city Planning Commission would jump at the chance to invite them in with open arms to develop that as such. In lieu of that, I look at that piece of property and I guess I'm new to the history of it and I guess the applicanthas been remiss in some respects in his follow through in what he has been planning for that. In all due respects, I think we should approach this as a new application for such use and look at it in that light. I think it will be - an improvement on that corner and to me the location is marketable as a driving range and as a miniature golf course. I tend to favor that. Unless there is more stronger objections to granting a conditional use permit in the Zoning Ordinance , I would favor it. Emmings : I agree with Bob 100% that I can't imagine why we wouldn' t have golf courses and driving ranges as a conditional use in the A-2 district. I- don't have any problem with that. I agree with the Staff that miniature golf courses and indoor batting buildings such as this don't belong out there and belong in a commercial district. Then having said that, I guess _ putting a miniature golf course with the rest of the things that are here , the driving range and whatever a maxi-putt and putting green business all seems to be pretty cohesive and make sense in this particular project so I'm having some problems with this. I don't have any problem with the driving range being a conditional use in the A-2. I don't think there ought to be, in condition 1, I don't agree that they ought to be abutting collectors. I think they should only be on arterials. On major streets, I think we want - to lean that way towards major roadways. I think the second condition is very important that they only be operated from sunrise to sunset. I think that's adequate in the summer time and I think the lights would be a real _ problem for anyone who lived around it. I guess that's all I got. Erhart: I disagree regarding the issue of whether we should allow golf courses and these things in the A-2 area. I agree with Bob. I think we really overlooked something in golf courses and I don't know enough that we can lump practice areas in that or not so I don't have a strong feeling about that. I do have a strong feeling about buildings in the A-1 and A-2 areas. These metal buildings and they tend to be the area that acts as a transitional area from agricultural to the residental. In south Chanhassen where people have built these metal buildings out in the country and I. don't know for what reason, where they have not been part of a farm homestead , they are really an eyesore. Even though some of them are well kept up, they don't fit so with respect to that, I would real against, that batting practice thing requires metal or any kind of a major industrial type, any kind of a non-farm building or a non-house, I don't think it ought to be part of the A-2 or A-1. I think it should not be part of the A-2 district. I agree with Steve entirely as far as the driving range. I guess as long as _ it's on TH 5 with the correct word is major arterial, I guess it's okay. Certainly the one the John ran just west of the City here, as long as there wasn't any buildings and the grass was mowed, I didn't think it was an eyesore at all. Regarding the building on the other hand, if we're going to - put a driving range in here , you probably Have to have some small building to keep the tractor and stuff out of the rain so I guess I wouldn't mind a small wooden garage or something just to maintain that kind of thing but Planning Commission ME ing April 22 , 1987 - Page 32 certainly not a permanent industrial type building. I agree the hours ought to be sunrise to sunset. The second concern, I think in the A-2 area is to emphasize that we do not want retail business in the A-2 area . For example , I can't have a retail nursery on my nursery farm. I can have wholesale but you can't have retail. 'Again, reflecting on that, we have to be real careful if we're going to use it at all , I think it should be on TH 5. That is the only appropriate place to have this in the City. So the rest of the commission can think about that retail issue and we've got to be real careful about that. We consistently said we do not want retail business activities down there. I like 4 that certainly it should not be within 500 feet of a single family residence. Our wholesale nursery and contractor yards basically have to fit with that rule. Conrad: I have nothing more to add. I think golf courses and driving ranges are appropriate in Chanhassen. I don't think that buildings out in that area , specifically indoor batting buildings, is what I want to see but - to use the land that way, I think is appropriate. I would vote for that type of a use in a A-2 district. My only comments other than that are we should have, if we make a motion in favor , somebody might want to work the word golf course in. We don't need to and maybe a golf course is a whole different set of circumstances. I don't know. The other part that I would like to see is an intent statement in terms of why we're allowing this and I guess one of the intents that I would see as a conditional use, is to - minimize impact on neighbors in terms of noise, traffic and lighting. I think we need some kind of intent statement along with this if we do choose to allow this as a conditional use . Emmings: I wouldn't like to see golf courses included tonight for two reasons. First of all , it's not in front of us and that always makes me uncomfortable but secondly, Staff has obviously thought through the kinds of conditions we should impose on a driving range, if we' re going to allow that as a conditional use and I don't see that they have had the opportunity to think through conditions for golf courses as a conditional use and maybe - that ought to come back as a separate item. Conrad : That ' s a good point . *At this this point a motion was made and the following discussed occurred . Conrad: Steve, did you leave out miniature golf courses on purpose? Emmings : Yes . Siegel : Does the miniature golf course, in the eyes of us here, reflect as a retail establishment? Would that be the objection to including that miniature golf course as a conditional use? It borders in the area of retail establishment and service recreational type business . Emmings: The way I think about a miniature golf thing fits into a commercial area. It's compact. You can't put a driving range in just a - city lot. You need some room. Miniature golf courses don't bother me in Planning Commission ME ing _ April 22 , 1987 - Page .33 the City, they bother me to think about them being out in the A-2. It just doesn' t seem to fit at all . Siegel : I guess I tend to think of it as a similar type of use to a golf driving range especially in conjunction with it. If we were to talk about specifics, put a bunch of miniature golf courses 2 miles apart, maybe that would be a little bit different but we're talking about is a proposed _ complex here. Not one being here and one being 1 mile down the road and another one a mile down the road all in the A-2 district so I think it's a little bit different when you're looking at it as a package as just one thing . Emmings: Let me ask in that regard, let's say that we have passed this Zoning Amendment to allow it as a conditional use, if we were somehow persuaded that a miniature golf place fit in with this particular driving range project, could we allow it? Dacy: What I hear you saying is that you feel that the driving range and the miniature golf course really should act together and not a stand alone miniature golf situation so if you wanted to phrase your approval in the framework that golf driving ranges subject to these conditions. Miniature - golf courses as an accessory use to the golf driving range, that would be an option. You couldn't have a miniature golf course without a driving range along with it. If that's what you're saying. Siegel : I guess to me it makes sense. The whole idea of having a miniature golf course, especially when you think about fathers and mothers going out to a golf driving range and they've got a place for their kids to spend some - time. It's sort of a natural. I'm surprised there aren't more combinations like that around . Emmings: If we could , I guess what I would like to do since I made the motion , is leave my motion out there the way it is and then maybe you can make a second motion to talk about miniature golf as an accessory use to the driving range. Would that be alright? Dacy: Yes, and then you should look at what a miniature golf course is. It does require more lights. You have the windmills and the people to hit the ball through and so on so you have to consider those visual aspects also. It is different than a driving range. Erhart : I would like to see us go back and spend some more time on this one and define it a little bit better. I'm really against putting anything in the A-2 area that visually is not consistent with either residential or agriculture and I think you can make a driving range consistent with agricultural but I think we ought to define what the landscaping is going to be. Buildings in some kind of terms. What buildings can be put on there? I've seen driving ranges with 16 foot high fences and then in a couple years they're falling down. Emmings: Tim, don't we retain complete control over that when it's under Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 34 ' our conditional use? That to me is the whole reason that it should be in - there as a conditional use rather than a permitted use because we retain a lot of control over the plan and the landscaping and what the buildings are going to be . Headla: I doubt that you have that much control over a conditional use. It has to get pretty bad . Emmings : No. When the plan comes in Dave, we look at it before anything gets built and we say we only allow you to build it if you do the landscaping this way. If you show us the plan for the building you're going - to build and we approve it. Headla : I 'm referring to Tim' s comments . Emmings: You're talking about maintaining it after it's built. That's always a problem yes . Headla: I think Tim made the comment very well in that a conditional use permit is very hard to police at times. I think a good example of that is the horse riding farm. Once they were in there and there was a dust problem, and I was involved with that to some extent, it's hard to say you people created 80% of the dust. It's pretty hard to shut them down because there is nothing to enforce that. Once they were in there, they were in there . Dacy: The advantage to the Zoning Ordinance now is that, that original conditional use permit was approved several years ago and we do a lot more - restrictions in our current ordinance and that's the purpose of this amendment process is to establish those type of conditions. If you wanted to add no metal buidlings on the golf driving ranges or a suggested condition, just authorize a building to take tickets or whatever, can't exceed 800 square feet. I don't know but you have that ability to establish conditions through this process . Emmings: There are two other things. A conditional use permit can be revoked if they don't live up to the conditions. Mr. Pryzmus has already found that out on one occasion. That's worked here. To say that a golf driving range or golf course doesn't fit in the A-2, means that we're banning all driving ranges and that doesn't make sense to me. They are a conditional use, not as a permitted use just so anybody can put on anywhere they want to , as a conditional use . Conrad : Tim, you would like to see other conditions in that other than what we've got. Is that true? Siegel : We're talking about the Zoning Ordinance amendment now, not the conditional use permit right? Dacy: Yes . Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 35 Erhart : We could put it in the Zoning Ordinance so we have driving ranges are permitted as long as the club house is kept to a 35-40, we can put that in there if we want and one storage shed. You could add those as part of the Zoning Ordinance. On the other hand, I guess if all we're allowing is that the driving range it wouldn't make any economic sense to put much more than that on it. Just a small garage and small clubhouse. Maybe it would _ police itself. The other thing I would be more inclined to go along with is if we actually restricted it to TH 5 or TH 212 but I will not vote for it if this can be put on TH 101 or Lyman Blvd . . I just think that ' s dead wrong . Headla : What are we really voting on now? Conrad: We're voting on an Ordinance change and as Steve's motion said, he _ is recommending that golf driving ranges be a conditional use in the A-2 district. We're not talking about John's proposal now. We're talking simply about, is it appropriate to allow driving ranges in Chanhassen because right now you can ' t have them. Headla : So if we were to say no, we don't want any of this. We do what the Ordinance says as is. That does not prohibit anyone from coming in and - getting a conditional use? Conrad : They can't get a conditional use because it's prohibited right now. _ There is no way to apply for a driving range right now. Headla : It is explicitedly prohibited? Dacy: Yes . The use is not allowed in any district. Conrad : But what we' re saying in this request is , we will allow it as a conditional use but Dave, nobody can come into town right now and build one. John wants to build one and he's got to have us effect the Zoning Ordinance right now if he ' s to build anything. Dacy: If I can make one more comment before you take action on that motion. On the collector and arterial condition, it concerns me if you do limit it to just two highways or to an arterial because to me that construes that you can only get access from that arterial highway. We wouldn't want to create a driveway situation off of TH 5 so the benefit of having a collector in there, in this particular situation, is that you can have access of the major street. All the streets in the rural area are collectors or arterials anyway but I think we should preserve the arterial to keep that flow through traffic and not allow addition interruption. Erhart: What about stating within 700 feet of TH 5 or TH 212. Have access from. . . Dacy: You are saying more of a location? Erhart: Yes exactly. What you're talking about is putting a retail business out in the rural area and I think the only place you want to do Planning Commission Meeting - April 22, 1987 - Page 36 _ that is on TH 5 or TH 212. Dacy: Then in that case I guess- I would recommend that you look at amending _ number 1 to location near an arterial street with access to a collector or arterial . Again , it all depends on it ' s location . Erhart: It could be a collector but as long as it was on TH 5 or TH 212. The access points can be on the collector . Dacy: It is subjective because where do you draw the lines? At 500, 1,000 or 1, 500? Emmings: What if we said location on an arterial with access to a collector for ingress and egress? Siegel : Wouldn't that be part of the conditional use instead of the Zoning Ordinance? Dacy: Yes, the benefit of the conditional use will allow you to look at the individual case . Emmings : No . My motion is going to leave that in and I ' ll tell you why. Conrad : Leave what in? Emmings : It's going to leave in a condition that will state that it will be located on an arterial with access to a collector for ingress and egress and the reason is , if someone comes in and our ordinance already says they can only look at places along arterials, we're going to have a lot less trouble with those people than if they come in and say, okay I want it over here and your Ordinance doesn ' t say I can' t. Erhart: But you've got Pioneer Trail and TH 101 and Lyman Blvd. are all arterials . Dacy: As the motion is on the floor now, item 1 is location on an arterial street as identified in Article VI , Section 25 . Conrad : Steve, do you want to amend that? Emmings: Yes. Again, I think it should be located on an arterial street with access to a collector for ingress and egress. I guess what we're saying is we don't want them just anywhere in the agricultural district. We want them on major roadways but we don't want their driveway coming onto that major roadway. We want them like here, on a corner where they've got access to a collector so the turn can be made off of TH 5 onto Galpin and then get in and out on Galpin so they aren't actually turning off that arterial. They don't have their driveway on the arterial but we want them located on major roadways rather than just scattered anywhere . Planning Commission Mee_ing April 22, 1987 - Page 37 Siegel : Now where are we Mr. Chairman. We've had a motion and a second and we ' re in discussion stage and he wants to make an amendment to his motion? Conrad : That's correct so I withdraw my original second and second your motion on your change Steve just to get this going. Is there anymore discussion? Erhart moved, Headla seconded to amend the motion to limit the golf driving ranges must be adjacent to either TH 5 or TH 212 and access must be from a collector or an arterial which leads to TH 5 or TH 212. Erhart, Emmings and- Headla voted in favor and Siegel and Conrad opposed the amendment, and motion carried . Emmings moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow driving ranges in the A-2 district as a conditional use with the following conditions : 1. The location is limited to being adjacent to TH 5 and TH 212 and access must be from a collector or an arterial which leads to TH 5 or TH 212 . 2. Hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset . 3. Provision of adequate parking areas and submission of a landscaping- plan andscapingaplan in conformance with Article VIII . 4 . No site shall be located within 500 feet of single family - residences . All voted in favor except Headla who opposed . Headla: The reason being that I think there are far too many negatives situations that can happened as compared to the upside advantages. In respect to both the adjacent landowners and the City. Conrad: John we'll bring you back on board. We're going to open up the public hearing for the second stage of this which is where you are asking for a conditional use permit. You are asking for a golf driving range. Barbara, because we have turned down a miniature golf course and/or batting building , should John continue to pursue and present his proposal in full? Dacy: I think so. Pryzmus : Basically, financially I can't even proceed, by taking out the miniature golf and the indoor activities, financially for me, it makes it impossible. What you basically did was take away the foundation and the walls and you're giving me the roof so I can't enter into a contractual agreement with the City to spend $300,000.00 to basically make a beautiful driving range. I already have the driving. range sprinkler systems already in. The tee area is already built. The greens are already done. The sandtrap is there. The classified parking lot that we originally was agreed - Planning Commission Meeting April 22 , 1987 - Page 38 upon five years ago is in and I need to do some minimal grading to open it up. So when you mentioned that the miniature golf, this is a sports complex. Not just a temporary use driving range. The miniature golf as you - see on I-494 on the strip where it's all concrete and also in Excelsior where they have all rock, now on my developmental plan we are using approximately, I haven't walked and measured it all off, but for the batting cages and the miniature golf, we're using with parking somewhere around 6 acres. 5 to 6 acres in a commercially zoned area would make it financially impossible, especially when you build a building that's going to conform with all the buildings in the industrial park. But getting back to what is going to be nice for the community, as Roger said , it is part of the gateway from the west. With the landscape architecture plans that we have submitted and this will all be done through the City, we will be adding anywhere from 4 to 8 foot berms throughout the miniature golf. They will be maintained by a neighbor out there. I have a full time manager hired to run it. A full time grounds keeper. He will be there 5 days a week, or 3 or whatever it takes. The trees , we will basically have up lighting on all the berms with the shurbs. There are, even though it hasn't been maintained as an arboretum right now, most all the trees are planted. There will be another additional 100 some trees planted. I appreciate your voting to allow driving ranges but I don't know what you want me to sign in a contractual agreement to do what when I can't have basically two-thirds of what I'm proposing. The building itself and where it's situated, this plan was drawn up before we decided where the on-site septic system would go and with the additional setbacks, the building can be set back 100 feet. With the bank being taken down 10 feet and the berm coming up 4 feet so this building would absolutely, that's 14 feet in itself and the building is only 15 feet - high. No it goes from 14 feet to 15.8 basically with a flat roof. The building would be all cedar on the outside. The roof is metal but when I insulate it, it would be like a compco roof. There is a neighbor that lives south on TH 101 that is getting a price together for me now so the building would not be a tin shed. In this area there is permitted use. In fact, I have to get financing on the building so I would have to come to the City to get a building permit to build a contractor's yard, a nursery, a hog farm or whatever. I'm going to have to do something with the property and the building is already there so I do have to do something with it and I just felt that for the community and the neighbors, with all the landscaping. It - used to be a tree farm so there are already 300 some trees, I think the two, the miniature golf and the driving range are just a natural. People are going to come out. If you have any children, how many people say, what can we do mommy or what can we do? There's nothing to do in Chanhassen. That's the biggest thing ever since I've been here for 13 years, there's nothing to do in this town. Here we have no booze. We have basically no noise. Golf balls don't make any noise. We have no dust problem. We really have no problems other than something that should be nice for the community. The cost of the building in the central business district, I just sold a piece of land that this would basically be the only place in Chanhassen that it - could go right now and that land with the building that it would take, would cost a couple million dollars. Financially you could never do that project here so the citizens of Chanhassen won't have this project. The location out there, being that it is on a major highway. It is not conducive to Planning Commission Meeting April 22 , 1987 - Page 39 estate homes. When you have 20, 000 cars driving by every day, everyone knows what the land, I paid $4, 000.00 per acre for 5 years ago when the land was going for a lot more because people aren't buying it for farmland. I did buy it on a contingency that I could have the driving range so by not being able to show you what—we're using pictures and dimensions from courses in California and Florida and I want this to be the nicest and well - thought out miniature golf course. If you've ever played mini-putt over in Minnetonka, we measured that out and wanted to at least have the trees and shurbs and greenery that they have. We aren't proposing any elephants or ducks or geese or anything that's going to look bad. I want it to be fun. We're going to do a lot of underground things with PVC. Little kids like when the ball disappears and then it comes up. The mini-putt, to get back to what mini-putt and maxi-putt is, a mini-putt for kids anywhere from 4 or 5 years old up to 9 or 10. You take them to a real tought miniature golf course and they get very discouraged. Everybody likes to do good so it would be a real interesting little course but their ball always winds up in a good spot so they can score good but it won't be interesting enough for your 11, 12, 13 and your adults so the maxi-putt would be that. I'm trying to get something for the whole family. The batting cages, I don't know if any of you have ever had children in Little League but the worse thing that - can happen is when your little guy strikes out twice in a row and he comes back crying. When I was in the Jaycees we bought one batting machine for the CAA but there just isn't enough time for all the little kids to use that - one batting machine. The building itself would be basically not seen from the highway. Right now, in a farm zoned area, you can build basically whatever you want for a hog farm , dairy farm, whatever. I want to have a lot nicer building than that. It's going to be totally screened but by taking away, like I say, the foundation. I appreciate your motion to allow the driving range. Dacy: Given their action, the next item on the agenda is literally a conditional use permit for a driving range. You have a couple of options. You can withdraw that application right now so they would not carry out the review of the driving range and the matter would just go on to Council to determine the Ordinance amendment but if they do allow the driving range and everything else, it will have to come back and go through the plan review. So, do you want them to carry out the review just for the driving range or are you withdrawing your application at this point? Pryzmus: I want the driving range but what I'm saying is I can't really enter into any contracts if I only have the driving range. I appreciate your motion for the driving range. Conrad: John, I think there was some sensitivity to the miniature golf here. It wasn't voted that way but there was discussion. City Council may entertain that thought. I don't know just because we voted one way. I think they will be consistent in some of the things that we're saying. I think some philosophical things will carry out based on what we're saying but I'm sure that miniature golf is totally out but I don't know if you want to carry it forth . It ' s really up to you. Planning Commission Meeting April 22 , 1987 - Page 40 - Pryzmus : I want to carry it forward . Dacy: What we could do is , this is going to the Council on May 4th, you .could come back to the Planning Commission on May 13th for permit review if it ' s approved . I know you have some timing restrictions . Pryzmus : That is to enter into another agreement so they have the site plan and other additional uses . Okay. Dacy: I would have to come back and you probably wouldn't get approval before June 1st. It would be more time if they don' t review it. Pryzmus : But they can't review it if you are going to leave the motion standing just for driving range. Let's just take the driving range and I'll - have to spend another month. I don't know what else to do because you've made the motion and that ' s your feelings so I don ' t have an option. Conrad : Well , you probably do. I guess Barb is just giving you some advice. What did you two decide? Dacy: I think you are asking us to go ahead and review just the golf driving range. Siegel : You still want it to go before Council in total? Pryzmus : I want it to go before Council in total because if I don ' t . . . Dacy: Okay, then the Conditional Use Permit and the Wetland Alteration Permit, they will make a motion to table that pending Council final action on the Ordinance amendment . Pryzmus : Let's do the wetland. We can do the wetlands now because that's part of the driving range. That has nothing to do with the miniature golf . — Dacy: So you are saying to go ahead with the driving range? Pryzmus : Yes . Conrad : Okay, this is a public hearing . Any comments? Siegel moved, Erhart seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor - and motion carried . Emmings : One thing that I notice that there is in the landscaping it says existing ash , 2 to 2 1/2 inches in diameter and points to that whole long row of trees . When I drove by there tonight, I didn ' t see any trees at all . Dacy: There are trees out there. There are a number of trees out there as John has mentioned . They are small . Emmings : 2 1/2 inches in diameter? Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 41 Dacy: Some are but not all . Emmings: And does it go across the whole property the way it' s portrayed on this? Dacy: It's along TH 5, yes. Some, I think may be dead. A lot of them didn' t have leaves on them as of yesterday. Emmings : Put in a condition that they have to be living trees? Dacy: They are identifying existing conditions. The specific thing that the Commission should address is the appropriateness of the lighting and the- fencing proposals. Those are some of the things that Staff kind of flagged out. With just the driving range, there was a taller lighting standard in the southwest corner. Your previous motion was for the operation of the driving range from sunrise to sunset so in my mind that lighting scheme falls out and you need to address that one way or the other. Headla : What does he need the lighting for? If you don't give him lights, - that kind of insures that it doesn ' t go past sunset . Dacy: I realize that. I was just saying that I wanted to make sure that the Commission was comfortable with that. Emmings: Is there any reason they have the lights? That you would want the lights? Pryzmus: As you know, there is a group home west of me. I'm not saying anything bad about group homes but the contractor's yard, the residents over- here, everyone in the farm community has security lights and a person could get in and raise all kinds of heck with the putting green or whatever and I feel that I need some security maintenance out there. With the putting green being in the southwest corner, that will give me the security down there. I also had security on the front of the indoor activity building but I wouldn' t propose any more lighting than the average farm has . Emmings: How tall is that light? How high above the ground is that light itself? Pryzmus : I don ' t know what NSP puts in. Emmings: It ' s just one of those standard lights? Pryzmus: It's a standard light that would be on a farm. The other thing, I guess I cut it short when the public hearing was closed but as far as the fencing , there will be the fencing around the perimeter of it will be the same as Prince's fencing down the street. It will be the black fencing and the fencing on the west and across the north border will be the fencing that's out there. It is a silver fence but it will all be 6 feet high. There won't be any need to protect any roads or anything. The driving will be hitting to the north. Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 42 - E:nmings : Barbara , I see one light . Are there more? Dacy: Yes, the light in the southwest corner is the only one that you had shown on the plan outside of the putting area. The miniature golf course lights but if the miniature golf course is not there, then those lights fall out . Other than those, that was the only light , correct? Pryzmus : We have lighting on the path underneath the trees . Dacy: For the tee area . Pryzmus : This is a path in back of the tee area . Dacy: You ' re saying these are 10 feet in height? Pryzmus : Yes, those are 10 feet in height. They would be a down light. It was to light the path but if we ' re not going to be open . . . Dacy: Along the tee area they are proposing a series of 10 foot lights there. Pryzmus : In back of the tee area there is a path. I put trees every 30 feet and then they are diagonally across from one another and the lights would be in the tree area . Dacy: But again, if they condition from sunrise to sunset and they are not there for security reasons . Headla : Where would that 6 foot fence be? Pryzmus : A 6 foot fence would surround the whole property. Headla : Everytime you drive by TH 5 you see a big black fence . Pryzmus : Yes , it would be about the same as the arboretum fence only it would be black. It would be the same as Prince ' s fence down half a mile . Headla : Have you people seen that fence? Go take a look at it. Pryzmus : If you don't like black fence, I don't have to put it. I thought maybe you would like it because it was the same as Prince' s . Conrad: In trying to understand Staff's analysis of the wetland. In Gary's report, are those conditions bundled in to the Staff recommendations? Dacy: Yes . Conrad: And Gary, basically you have a lot of concerns with the area from a wetlands standpoint and some other things. Were your conditions as stated, were they worded so that if we decided to allow filling in the wetlands, these things have to be done? I didn't see a statement that said that. I Planning Commission Meeting April 22 , 1987 - Page 43 saw Rockwell's comments saying that the wetlands shouldn't be filled in. That there are some senstive areas and whatever. How do I interpret your comments at the end on the attachment? Warren: I admit it got a little confusing as we got into it. In trying to interpret our Wetlands Ordinance, that was part of the thrust that I was responding to some of the deficiencies that the submittal has in relation to the Wetlands Ordinance. I guess the final bottom line of my comments would be that if you go ahead that the recommendations that I have shown should be - enforced as far as sedimentation basin and then some of these things. I guess in general that ' s where I was coming from. Conrad: In brief, I'm not sure that I've seen a hardship or a real reason to allow the filling in of the wetlands. I would have a tough time going along with. I don't think the measures pointed out are necessary. I prefer to keep the wetlands operating. It appears from Rockwell's comments, I wasn't sure about the trade-offs that she was mentioning. I was having a tough time interpretting that . Dacy: When we went out to inspect the site , as you know, the area has been cultivated. What she came back and said was that it's not good for habitat purposes. However, it is performing some type of function for storm water run-off to Bluff Creek. All that's out there now are the regrasses and so - on. It is not protected by the DNR because of their particular restrictions on vegetation and so on. What she said was that they have looked at the situation where, as in the Centex case, if you alter one part of the wetland, if you improve another part of it, they will accept that. In this case, the applicant has no access to other property. He doesn't own any other property that contains additional wetlands area. He would have to gain that easement right over to do that. If you deny the wetlands alteration permit , you would in effect deny use of the property as a driving range . Conrad : There are two issues here. As a conditional use permit for the golf driving range. There is also a wetlands alteration permit that we have to respond to also. As I said, based on the Ordinance for the wetlands alteration permit, we haven't solved the problem. There hasn't been a trade. It's almost impossible to solve the problem with the wetland and therefore, I guess I would have a tough time. I don't see how he can maintain the ordinance and the intent of the ordinance with the current proposal . Is there a motion? Siegel : Barbara, don't your recommendations make the wetlands permit applicable to the wetland ordinance? Dacy: Yes. That's true. However, because we are unsure about what would _ happen to the ordinance amendment in the first case, we really didn't specify a motion as we do in other cases but Gary correct me, your - conditions are directed toward gaining additional information and recommending a permit sedimentation basin there if alteration was allowed . Planning Commission Me� cing April 22 , 1987 - Page 44 Warren: Right . Siegel: And some of Gary's recommendations were contingent on the total project. Not just the _golf driving range right? Warren : My recommendations are based on the total project . Siegel : You had something about run-off from the building . Warren : That ' s correct. Siegel : In lieu of that, does that make any change in your recommendations set by Staff? Dacy: As far as the drainage issue, it eliminates additional hard roof area, that calculation from the drainage but I think the overall drainage plan and so on still remains intact. All of these conditions could be applied for a recommendation of approval except for number 1. If you have some type of preference for the lighting scheme and you should probably identify the hours of operation if you are going to recommend approval . Siegel : I thought we already did that with the previous motion? Dacy: Yes, you did but I guess I would prefer that you clarify it in this application . Emmings : If someone were to vote to deny the wetland alteration permit would it make the conditional use permit moot? Dacy: Yes . - Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the application for the Wetland Alteration Permit. All voted in favor except Siegel and motion carried . Siegel : I thought I was assured that Staff would ensure with their recommendations to satisfy the alteration permit . - Conrad : You can minimize the impact on the wetland but the Ordinance says . Siegel : In essence, we are denying the property owner any use of his land. Conrad: No. For a golf driving range because he apparently needs more property. Siegel : I fail to see the effect of a golf driving range on a piece of bare land to me is less impact on it than any other type of use. - Emmings : He has to fill in the wetlands to use it as a golf driving range. Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 45 Siegel: I still disagree. I think Staff came up with recommendations that the applicant could adhere to and meet the use of the land for his purpose. Pryzmus : That piece of land has been farmed for 100 years. It was homesteaded and last year with the wettest year we ever had, it was down twice in the spring and in the fall. There has never been any water standing there and so, when you reach your Ordinance about what is a Class A wetland or what is a protected wetland, it's anything that is going to have _ any water if there is a 100 year rain. Basically, most of your communities are built to Class A wetlands according to that Ordinance so I don't want you to get real carried away with thinking that I'm filling in a lake. It's a piece of farmland. It's low and it's advantageous to me to put in a couple feet of fill so my ballpicker, when it's raining, won't squeeze the balls into the ground. There isn't going to be any change. There isn't going to be any buildings close to the creek. The water will still flow very smoothly. It's going to be nothing but mowed grass and so I think sometimes you're getting a little carried away with what I'm doing in there. The wetlands seems to throw the trigger so address that. It is a farm. It always has been a farm. There are no cattails. There has never been standing water there ever. I drove through there the other day with my pick-up. Now, it's been a dry spring. Last spring it was the wettest spring we've had for years so it's not wetlands so I want people to realize _ that. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO INSTALL THE LAKE ANN INTERCEPTOR AND LAKE VIRGINIA FORCEMAIN IN AND NEAR CLASS A AND CLASS B WETLANDS ALONG THE ALIGNMENT RUNNING SOUTHEASTERLY FROM TH 41 TO TH 5, THROUGH CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, NORTH OF LAKE SUSAN AND INTO EDEN PRAIRIE, METROPOLITAN WASTE - CONTROL COMMISSION, APPLICANT. Public Present : Leander Kerber 1620 Arboretum Blvd . Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on this item. Leander Kerber : I have concern with it because it's going to go right across the south end of my property on TH 5. I have the property between the City park and the nursery. My question is, as long as it's zig-zagging around, why don't they cross the highway down the road 500 feet to 1,000 feet and stay off of my property. Another question is, am I going to be assessed for that now or when am I supposed to pay for it or am I going to have to pay? If so, why? Dacy: The interceptor at this time is not proposed to be assessed during this year and in 1987. The Metropolitan Council will not allow us or allow property owners in that owner to hook up into that interceptor until after the year 2000 so there are no assessments at this time. Planning Commission Meeting September 21 , 1988 - Page 30 Batzli : I know we did . Emmings : The City Council didn ' t but we did . Batzli : I know but there was no residence at all . We never discussed turning it down because the residences wasn ' t located there . PUBLIC HEARING: GOLF DRIVING RANGE AND MINIATURE GOLF COURSE OPERATION, PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED AT COUNTY ROAD 117 AND HWY. 5, JOHN PRYZMUS . A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20 , ARTICLE IV, DIVISION 3, REGARDING STANDARDS FOR GOLF DRIVING RANGES WITH OR WITHOUT MINIATURE GOLF COURSES TO PROVIDE REGULATION OF SIGNAGE, TO PROVIDE REGULATIONS AS TO LIGHT STANDARDS AND TO ESTABLISH HOURS OF OPERATION BEYOND SUNSET. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO INSTALL LIGHT STANDARDS , EXTEND HOURS OF OPERATION BEYOND SUNSET AND PERMITTING THE INSTALLATION OF A SIGN . Public Present : Name Address John Pryzmus Applicant Mike Klingelhutz John Hennessy Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . John Pryzmus : The hours of operation obviously will be determined as the season goes . Right now I close at 8 : 00 at night. The season will be ending here in another month so we ' re closed for 6 months approximately. . . The sign that I put up was the same sign that was approved . A 12 x 8 plywood sign . . . The video games , the City Council I guess we were trying to accomodate children so . . . Other than that, I didn' t think originally the Council had . . .on trees and berming . Now, I think we ' ve added 16 more. . .on the site right now. Light standards , basically there isn' t anything that the Council said . . . light standards of a baseball fiOld or something like that . . . It does help. I ' ve kept the lighting at a minimum so I can extend my hours . When it starts getting dark and people can' t. . . two closest competitors of mine are 7 Hi and Excelsior . Excelsior . . .days and weekends . The guy at 7 Hi . . . John Hennessy: I live across the street from this thing . So far he has run a pretty good operation. . . .the basic guidelines of the basic. . . I Planning Commission Meeting September 21, 1988 - Page 31 was not in favor of this at all at the beginning . . . I was vehemently opposed to it . . . - Mike Klingelhutz : I was planning on. . . it ' s kind of pretty. Batzli moved, Headla seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . - Emmings : I just want to ask a few clarifying things here . When he got his conditional use permit from the City Council , did it in fact prohibit from having lighting? - Olsen : Condition number 9 of the conditional use permit , there shall be no light standards on the light premises . Hours of operation shall be sunrise to sunset . Emmings : It says no light standards . Do we have a problem with the language there? Was the intention that he should not have lighting? Olsen : That hours should be from sunrise to sunset . Emmings : And I understand he went ahead and put up lights out there? ( Olsen : Yes . l Emmings : As far as the hours of operation are concerned , I understand you ' ve been given sunrise to sunset , is that correct? Olsen : Yes . Emmings : And has he abided by that? - Olsen: No . Emmings : He ' s been using his lights to stay open later . He just said something that sounded like, regarding the sign that sounds like it conflicted with what we have here. He said he was allowed a sign. Was he allowed to have a sign? Olsen : No . . . Emmings : I have trouble looking at this , just like concerns of fairness , making me want to help somebody like Stockdale who comes along . I have trouble looking at this objectively because everytime Mr . Pryzmus comes in here, he' s already done what he' s asking us to do. As I recall , he asked us for a wetland alteration permit after he 'd been told by the City to stop filling in the wetland. We wound up denying that . I 'm not sure I can be real objective about looking at this proposal . Just off the top, trying to be as objective as I can , I don ' t see any reason to change it from sunrise to sunset . He ' s talking about his competitors at the 7-di and Excelsior but neither of those places are located in the A-2 district and I don ' t think we can lose sight of the fact that this is going on in Planning Commission Meeting September 21 , 1988 - Page 32 • the A-2 district . 7-Hi is on a commercial corner and Excelsior is next to a McDonalds and next to a car wash . That ' s not really analogous . But again , trying to be a *little objective about that when we have neighbors out here, a couple of them, who said it' s not really offensive. We got a letter from Art Partridge that doesn ' t agree with that but that may be a personal point of view. I don' t see any reason to change the hours . Sunrise to sunset seems to be good enough and that may eliminate his need for lighting. As far as the sign goes , if he' s going to have his business out there , it seems to me and I wish Tim were here to comment on this , but I wouldn ' t have any problem with him having a sign except again, we' re in the A-2 and I don ' t know if we want to start putting up signs out there . The sign ordinance again is one of those ordinances that is meant to be restrictive and it ' s not permitted in the A-2. As far as the video games go, that seems to me to be a reasonable accessory use to a minature golf . I don ' t have any real problem with the limitations that they' ve proposed here. Ellson : Already saying that it has been approved , starting from there , I know that there was an awful lot of hub bub in the past about even allowing . . .but I think miniature golf is a good addition from the standpoint , we voted down a community center . There really isn' t a lot of places for younger people to go . They' re not old enough to drink . They can ' t go to certain places . They end up hanging around by the McDonalds or they ' re accused of rather , you see these kids hanging around different places and I think when I was this age, I played the miniature golf all the time. Until 11 : 00 during high school and what have you . It ' s a nice safe place to be. . . to places they could be. I think once you say you ' re a miniature golf course , it almost comes to reason that miniature golf course stays open late and has those younger kids at it and you offer them video games and those are your major customers . The fact that we already . said you can have miniature golf here I think is an indication to do all of that so I would agree that those hours are good . I would like to see those good outlets for younger people to have an extra night. I can see the video games and the like as well . Batzli : I 'm going to play devil ' s advocate . I think that that would have been swell had we not said that they' ve got to be right next to TH 212 or TH 5 and I don ' t know as though I want my kid hanging out by the highway at 11 : 00 at night. I think the video games do attract them to that. I think that ' s exactly right but I think we created you' ve got to be in a traffic corridor to have one of these things and now we' re going to try and encourage younger kids to go. I didn' t know that that was the initial intent so much as it was going to be something where the little kids go play miniature golf while dad takes his swings . Not to be sexist but I thought that was the original intent rather than we' re going to create a haven for kids late at night so I have a hard time with that. I know what you ' re trying to say and I would agree except for that I don' t think that ' s what we were initially trying to create with this type of a situation . I think they do need a sign of some kind . I again have a real tough time with this being objective because I kind of echo the sentiments of Steve. It does seem like what happens is that he does it and then he comes in when we find out that he does it and says , oh, by the way, can I have that? That ' s kind of irritating . I would basically, other than Planning Commission Meeting September 21 , 1988 - Page 33 allowing the small sign, not want to change anything . Wildermuth : Jo Ann , there isn ' t any signing allowed in the A-2 district now? No signage? Olsen : Not for the advertising of a business . Wildermuth : I wonder if the City Council was thinking when they approved - this permit and there was no provision for a sign . I do think that the ordinance needs some modification for some kind of a sign. If we ' re going to allow commercial businesses in A-2 districts , there' s got to be some kind of provision for a sign. I don ' t think operating late into the night is appropriate . We' ve either got to look at rezoning or restrict the late hours of operation of the business . As far as video games are concerned , I guess if I had an objection there , if the Carver County police blotter - shows some sort of problem, I guess I don ' t have a feeling one way or the other . Headla : John , do you have a well out there? John Pryzmus : Yes , I do . Headla : And a septic tank, sewer system? John Pryzmus : Yes . _ Headla : What do you size that for? 2 people or 20 people? John Pryzmus : What the City Council has done at this point was include a holding tank and we have a contract to have it pumped . So we have a men and women' s bathroom and then there ' s a gauge on it and they pump it. The well is just like a 4 inch well . Just to comment on the thing about danger , we are putting a fence up so there will be a 6 foot and 4 foot fence . Kids won ' t be able to get onto the highway. They will have to go through the building to get anywhere in this development and back out - through this building to get out of there. Headla : We almost religiously watch businesses on TH 5 and no retailing and even though a well and septic system, I think we ' re in like a real gray area . I don ' t think we should have even allowed that. I don' t think you want , we ought to have lights . I don ' t think it ' s appropriate for that area . I think it should be sunrise to sunset. The video games , you - know John , you and I talked about it when you were here before and the intent was to provide, I don' t want to say minimal but only an adequate number to , if a kid came over with his dad , he ' d play video games while his dad swung but that ' s all . It wasn ' t to attract anybody in to play video games . I 'd like to see us stay at that . Put on a limit to the number of games . I 'm certainly not the one to determine that limit. Maybe John has got some good input on the variety but I think we ought to stress that there should be a parameter that it' s only for to accomodate the customer ' s children while they' re there at the golf . I do like the pondscaping . It is very good. That ' s all I have . Planning Commission Meeting September 21 , 1988 - Page 34 John Pryzmus : If you want me to comment on the video games . That building is just a little over 800 square feet so you get a pop machine and the candy machines and change machines , you can ' t get over 8 or 9 machines in the place so it never could become an arcade. A video arcade type of place . . .which means there are some top video games but . . . 40 or 50 kids coming out to hang out, we just couldn' t accomodate them. We wouldn' t . I have a manager and basically gearing it towards the professional , serious golfer . The miniature golf course were designed and built tough. . . . one small course for little kids . I think we ' re trying to accomodate the whole family. It ' s not that big a building so an arcade part of it won ' t fit . Conrad : My brief comments are very in sync with what I 've heard . Based on the intent of the agricultural area and what we ' re trying to do in the A=2 district , I think some things are not in sync with what is here and I think lighting standards and late night operation are simply not in sync with what we ' re trying to do in the A-2 area . I think sign installation is important but I think what I 'd like to do there is talk about passive signage ratner than active signage. Again , if we' re in daylight hours , if we ' re operating in the daytime, I think we can have signage that is not neon signage, that may fit in character with the area . I think if we allow the business to be there, I think it ' s appropriate to let them advertise that they' re there . There ' s no reason we should prohibit that but I also think because of the agricultural area , the sign has to be consistent with that area itself which means we restrict neon and aggressive flashing , we always restrict flashing but we may want to dictate a few more restrictions in terms of signage . However , I do believe it ' s appropriate for a business that we ' ve allowed to go in. Never been an advocate of video games out there so I have a tough time recommending a number on that. I think the purpose on that and the reason that we felt that it could possibly go out there was simply using the land as it was and keeping some of the character of the land at the same time . I 'm not sure video games is in sync with my understanding of that . I think Jo Ann, what you presented us tonight is a zoning ordinance amendment but basically as I read that , it' s an updated zoning ordinance for the conditional use. You ' ve basically worked in the current conditions with the recommended conditions , or Barbara has . I 'm not sure adminstratively how to handle this . I think we have to go through one item at a time and decide whether we feel it should be incorporated into the amendment and more than likely I don' t see, if anybody agrees with me , our signage comments , I don ' t see us approving this tonight . I see staff coming back with a recommendation if we believe signage, or anything . If we want lighting I think there has to be standards for lighting . Wildermuth : There should be a lighting standard and I think we ought to address this issue that . . . it ' s an accessory business function. Batzli : I think in essence it changes depending upon whether you allow lighting . Because if you allow light , let ' s say you allow the driving range can only be operated from sunrise to sunset but you allow the C— miniature golf to be lit , then I think we do get a kids hang-out more . Although it was an accessory use during the day, perhaps it becomes the dominant use at night . I think that ' s an issue that has to be addressed Planning Commission Meeting September 21 , 1988 - Page 35 47 before we tap all the other ones . Whether we ' re trying to promote that . Conrad: Promote what? Batzli : Nighttime use . Conrad : By agreeing with allowing nighttime lighting , you ' re going to tell us right? - Batzli : Well , yes and no. Are we allowing nighttime lighting for the driving range or for the miniature golf course? Conrad : We don' t know. Emmings : To take what Brian is saying one step further , he split them in - half . Are we talking about lighting for a driving range and are we talking about lighting for the miniature golf. The miniature golf , originally we only approved that as an accessory use to the driving range . which was supposed to be the primary use . Batzli : There ' s a lot to talk about here. Conrad : Let ' s talk about it . Do we want to be as routine as going through these and give direction to staff on the various issues? Which ( ones to pursue . I think that ' s what we have to do . 1 Emmings : Are you talking about tabling this? Conrad : I think we have to table it because it ' s certainly not in the form that I feel comfortable with if we were to send anything along unless we reject it all . But I think there ' s some valid things that we should look at. In terms of lighting , we ' ll go through the three items that we ' re talking about , in terms of lighting , what do we want to do in terms of lighting? In the agricultural area for this type of a use, are we comfortable with the daytime hours or do we feel that we should allow, and what's permitted based on the conditional use permit is the driving range and the miniature golf. Do we want it to occur at night , and I 'm not against what Annette says , having recreational opportunities here because _ I think we then to zone those things out of town and I 'm not against that . Yet on the other hand , looking at the ordinance, and looking at the purpose of the A-2 district , what do you think? I ' ll just go around . Emmings: Sunrise to sunset . Ellson : 11 : 00. Batzli : I could a little bit after sunset but not to 11: 00. You can fish a half hour after sunset. Conrad : But do you want lighting standards so you can operate the operation in the dark for miniature golf and the driving range? Planning Commission Meeting September 21 , 1988 - Page 36 -C Batzli : I 'm torn because I have gone to driving ranges at night and I ' ve enjoyed it immensely but from a planning perspective in the A-2 district along a highway, I don ' t know if I want it at night . Emmings : You have to declare yourself. One declarative sentence . Batzli : Sunrise to sunset. Wildermuth : Sunrise to sunset . Headla: Sunrise to sunset . Conrad : I 'm comfortable with that too . So what we' re saying is no nighttime use. Olsen : What we have, we have the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance on page 4 , (b) would remain as it is originally. The hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset . Do you want to just go through these? Would that be easier to go through each one of these? Emmings : (a) already exists right? Olsen: Right . ir Emmings : We ' re not talking about changing (a) . Olsen : And (c) is the same . (d) would be the same . (e) , ( f) and (g) are the ones that you would need some discussion on . Conrad : So now we ' re getting to request number 2. Installation of the sign . Steve , do you agree with signage in this area? Emmings : I like very much what you said about not illuminated signs . Some sign that would be visible in the daytime and would be not visible at night. Conrad : Annette , you can ' t agree with Steve . You can ' t because you want to operate at night so you would have to lean. . . Elison : You took away my night so. . . Conrad: You' ve got to be consistent here. Ellson : Yes , I 'd like to see a sign. . . Conrad : So some kind of sign. Batzli : Small sign . Wildermuth: I 'd like a small sign . Headla : . . .we' ve got to do signage. Planning Commission Meeting September 21 , 1988 - Page 37 CConrad : I guess on that one , Jo Ann I think you should bring back to us a recommendation on what kind of- signage would be appropriate out there . - We' re not trying to hide , it was approved to go in and it is a big area but we don ' t want it illuminated. We ' re not trying to scare the neighbors but we have to inform people that it ' s there . Video games , installation of video games . Dave, we ' re going to start at your end. Do you think they should be allowed and if so, I think based on City Council ' s directive and Jo Ann, does City Council like the video games? Olsen : I think they liked them. Conrad : So based on what they feel , we' re being real arbitrary here. I - don' t know if 2 or 5 or 8 , I don ' t have a clue what the right number is and I hate to get into games when you start dictating some of that stuff . Is there a number that you want to hange your hat on and say this _ definitely is a secondary use to the primary purpose of the site? Is there something that you feel good about? Headla : No, I 'm not that familiar with video games to hang a number on . - . . 100 video games but if you ' ve just got a coin machine , yes that ' s different . I think we should send a signal we' ve got to limit the number and let that number be negotiated between the staff and John . But with the clear intent , it ' s a passive situation for people to entertain while some of those other things. . . Pretty soon we' ve got another 1, 100 square foot building with more video games in it . Conrad : Do you think the building , like John said , the building is going to dictate what he can put in it. Is that a better way of doing it? The City Council allowed an 800 foot building . Wildermuth : The City Council could allow a 5, 000 square foot building . Headla : Yes , I 'd like to see the number of games set because I don ' t know, the next thing may have another building . Wildermuth : I think we ought to have an ordinance requiring licensing of - video games and that ordinance should be a parameter or index of the number of video games per square foot . . . Conrad : What do you think Brian? Batzli : I think 10 is a great number . Seriously, I never considered that prior to 10 seconds ago. I think that 's probably a pretty good idea. In the meantime, I think in this instance, I think 10 is a fairly good number . Actually, it might depend more so on the number of spots you have for people using the driving range than square footage of the building . It seems to me that it would be more appropriate to link it to that. 10 might be a good number . Headla : How about linking it to parking spots? Batzli : Perhaps parking spots . I think it should be an accessory use. Planning Commission Meeting September 21 , 1988 - Page 38 -17 Wildermuth : It should definitely be low because you ' re outside the MUSA line. Batzli : I think it should be clear that it ' s installed as an accessory use too. Ellson: What number did they decide on , 10? 10 or under sounds fine to me. According to this , it says one time the City defined an amusement arcade as having more than 5. It sounds like it ' s an arcade if you have 6. If you don' t want it be an arcade, than it gets back to 5. I don' t mind it being there . The number doesn ' t really make a big deal to me. . . E;nrnings : The number obviously is arbitrary and if 10 makes people happy, it would make me happy too . I think one way to be sure that this stays an accessory use is the hours that the building can be open would be the same as the driving range . You can ' t have that building open and the driving range not open. Headla : That ' s a good point . Conrad : You want to come up with an ordinance to license and what ' s the purpose of doing that? What does that do for us? Wildermuth : It . . .concentration so thereby you control . . . F Conrad: Is that common to do? Are you making this up? Wildermuth : I know of other cities that have licensing requirements for doing that. . Conrad : What do we do in Chanhassen? Olsen: I don ' t think we have a license for games . I could check with Public Safety, I know we just passed a solicitor ' s ordinance . Emmings : Did you say what you thought about video games? Conrad : The first time through I sure did . I don ' t like them but specifically in terms of numbers , I don' t care. It ' s arbitrary. I don ' t like arbitrary numbers . It ' s almost like the 1 mile radius for a contractor ' s yard. Emmings : We do it all the time . Conrad : I think tying it to hours of operation is real valid but I think we definitely want to make it a secondary use to the site which is real important . I guess Jo Ann what I 'd like ,us to do is have you come back and talk about the benefits of licensing . If we need that and maybe somehow give us a way to say, a way to say 10 is a number or 100 is a number but for us to pick out something. I 'm comfortable with the building size, to tell you truth , limits it but I don ' t think everybody else here is so we need some planning input to tell us how to do it . Based on square footage. Based on parking stalls but very definitely Planning Commission Meeting September 21 , 1988 - Page 39 based on a secondarysupportive use to the prime use . Okay, we' ve talked about those three. That means that we should table this item. Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission table both the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 20, Article IV, Division 3 and the Conditional Use Permit Amendment until staff can come back with more information. All voted in favor and the motion carried . Olsen : Did you want to , just for my benefit , the conditional use permit , we do have specific conditions for those light standards that are on there . I was wondering what I do with the conditional use on that part. Wildermuth: Just take the lights right out. Conrad : The lights are gone . - Olsen : You don ' t want lights? Then number 3 would be whatever we come up with and 4 would change to sunrise/sunset . _ Emmings : Wait a minute . Conrad : I think your wait a minute is probably valid . r Wildermuth : This ordinance is for this particular driving range and miniature golf course , right? — Emmings : No . Anyone that would come up . They' re dependent to TH 5 and TH 212 and it would affect anyone that would come in under , so it ' s general too . Conrad : It ' s being done in response to what he ' s already done and we ' re approaching it from a forget about him for the time being. Should we take a look at . . . Wildermuth : There should probably be some room in there somewhere that would allow a nighttime operation so we probably ought to leave the lights in. Batzli : The next issue is , what if we ' re allowing a golf course with a driving range and they want to put up some lights? If it ' s a private course? Emmings : That ' s different use . Batzli : It ' s in A-2. You could put it in the A-2. This would cover it . _ Emmings : Here you have the driving range as a primary use. There you' ve got a golf course as an accessory use that ' s a driving range and I think _ we can probably. . . Here , Jo Ann, in her conditional use permit discussion on number 2, she says he can light for security. It should be allowed for that so we ' re going to have to look at that . Planning Commission Meeting September 21 , 1988 - Page 40 -a Wildermuth : But in an A-2 area , probably the security lighting allowance would be the same as any farm. Batzli : Why were the tees to the left going to be illuminated? Emmings: So you could use them. Olsen : We ' ll come back with the amendment and at that time you can adjust for the specific conditions of the conditional use. SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A SELF-SERVICE CAR WASH AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATION LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TH 5 AND TH 101 , AMOCO. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Jim Filippi : My name is Jim Filippi and I 'm with North Star Engineering Consultants and I prepared the plans here. I represent Amoco Oil Company who is , by the way, the property owner of record on this . The only property owner of record and I think there' s been some confusion over the years as to where that ownership lies but in fact Amoco Oil Company is the owner of record . What I 'd like to do is just pass around an artist' s rendering of what it is we ' re proposing to build . Then what I will do , if I may, because of the lateness of the hours , is I will address very quickly some of the peripheral site issues because I think what we' re talking about , as you can boil the entire issues on this site right down to this one curb cut right here and whether it ' s a single driveway or two driveways with the curb cut and that ' s the only issue that really stands up when everything is said and done . We ' ve gone through the staff report . The parking is one issue identified as needing 5 spaces instead of 4 which we have proposed . We were reading the ordinance as basing it on 1 per 200 square feet of retail store area which in this case is 724 and that includes the coolers , actually 528 . The entire building is 1, 030 and that includes storerooms and the restrooms and the corridor areas and is not in fact retail space . In addition , the service station characteristic of this , which is what it is , an automobile service station, calls for 4 parking spaces and 2 for service bays which we do not have any service bays so therefore we feel our parking requirements would be 4. Handicap spaces are provided at the rear adjacent to the 2 handicap ramps along the sidewalks adjacent to the building. We have an issue that staff has indicated that , I think that is discussed in vehicular service area or the driveways should be pulled back 25 feet . We feel that applies to the parking and parking areas and in fact Section 20-1191 from the regulations requires only a 10 foot strip of land between the abutting right-of-way and the vehicular use areas which includes driveways under your definition required and along TH 5 we do meet that 10 foot requirement . So we don' t feel that we do have a variance or any other necessity to move the proposed driveway access areas along TH 5 . Conrad : Jo Ann , what ' s your response? CITY OF CHANHASSEN - CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1 . Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants a conditional use permit for : A golf driving range with a miniature golf course. 2 . Property. The permit is for the following described property in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota: See Exhibit A. 3 . Conditions. The permit is issued subject to the following conditions: 1 . Submission of a revised grading plan by December 1, 1987, showing the proposed limits of grading, methods of erosion control where necessary indicating the size and revised loca- tion of the parking lot and club house 100 feet from the cen- terline of County Road 117, and proposed berm areas around the putting green and miniature golf course area. The parking area shall be paved. City staff shall review and — approve said plan prior to activity occurring on the site. 2 . Submission of a revised landscaping plan by December 1 , 1987 , to add a 2 foot evergreen hedge and 6 ' trees in front of the proposed parking area. City staff shall review and approve said plan prior to activity occurring on the site. 3 . Fencing on the property shall not exceed 6 feet 6 inches in height unless authorized by conditional use permit. 4 . The two septic system sites along County Road 117 shall be protected from grading activities and shall be staked and protected in the field. S . The applicant shall install a holding tank and shall comply with all the requirements of Ordinance No. 10-B. A copy of a contract with a licensed pumper shall be provided prior to issuance of the septic permit. 6 . The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Watershed District, Fish and Wildlife Service, DNR and any other legal jurisdiction as it relates to utilization of the site. • KA6P1154 7 . There shall be no alteration to the wetland area except for the planting of grass seed and periodic disking of the site. There shall be no filling, grading or other alteration unless approved by the City Council through the wetland alteration permit process. 8 . The applicant shall provide proper financial security in the amount of 110% of the cost of the improvements to the site prior to December 1, 1987 . 9 . There shall be no light standards on the premises . Hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset . 10 . The applicant shall pay all fees incurred by Resource Engineering by December 1 , 1987 , and shall be responsible for future fees if services by Resource Engineering are deter- mined to be necessary. 4 . Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing under any of the following circumstances : material change of condition of the neighborhood _ where the use is located; violation of the terms of the permit. 5 . Criminal Penalty. Violation of the terms of this conditional use per it is a criminal misdemeanor . Dated: /(�? /7?77 . CITY OF HANHASSEN iYl-,: /-/:---By. / % /Its�Ma p By: (::11-9215 Its Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The regoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2rJ-day of , 190 , by Thomas L. Hamilton, . Mayor, and Don Ashworth, City Manager of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. � Notary •ub is _'r?. + np::4l D'J°Uv - t' _"OTA ' My coA is n ei; s h-16-91 c=d) glith iv - City Council Meeting 1st 22, 1988 Councilman Johnson: By our next Council meeting? Mayor Hamilton: Sure. September 12th. Councilman Johnson: Would you like to add that to the motion Bill? To bring us a schedule by September 12th? Councilman Boyt: Sure. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Assumption Seminary timetable for securing the buildings on the property as proposed and to direct staff to bring an updated schedule back by September 12, 1988. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REVIEW PRYZMUS DRIVING RANGE AND MINIATURE GOLF COURSE. Barbara Dacy: The applicant is here tonight also and we've reviewed the Conditional Use Permit and what exists out on the property today. The summary on page 4 identifies 3 items which I believe we resolved and then possibly a fourth one would be also removal of the building parts that are located between the parking area and the street. Two items were not discussed during the most • recent application process in 1987 and 1988. Those two issues were installation of video games and vending machines and the installation of a sign. As to the sign, that is a typical accessory feature to an operation such as this but video games were not discussed at all. 1 Mayor Hamilton: John, do you have anything you want to present? - John Pryanus: I guess I really don't. I opened up on the 5th of July and it's been a long hot summer.. . The progress so far has been a little slow... Some of our plants and trees will be later on in the fall. As far as the steel building, I'm working right now on selling it. I don't know, I'd prefer to get it sold rather than try to find someplace to store it. If it's a sight problem and I don't get it sold by next month, what I possibly could do.. .so it wouldn't be visible. Like I say, it's been slow but everything is coming together. Mayor Hamilton: You're willing to put the culvert in and the driveway? That apparently wasn't done. You've got to put a culvert in there. The evergreens you're going to do. Have you gotten permission from MnDot to put them in the right-of-way? John Pryanus: The culverts are all in. Mayor Hamilton: No, I mean the trees. Barbara Dacy: There are no trees in the right-of-way. Mayor Hamilton: The berm was supposed to be located right? Barbara Dacy: If he wanted to install the berms that he had originally indicated, they would have to. 60 ATMMCA41- City Council Meetin -ugust 22, 1988 John Pryzmus: The berms are there. As far as the trees, I won't be able to plant, only 2 feet out of the right-of-way so I will be working with the Arboretum. Right now they have some different planting shurbs that I'd like to plant all along the site... I'll put the evergreens inside of the fence. Mayor Hamilton: And you're going to take the lights down that you've got in there as recommended by staff? The lights that you had put out there, you're going to remove those? John Pryzmus: At this point, all my competition has lights. I wouldn't financially be able to compete with them so at this point, I guess I won't. Mayor Hamilton: So you want us to shut you down then? You're not in conformance with your conditional use. It was from sunrise to sundown. John Pryzmus: That was back when we had the sunrise and sunset. In the original, when just the driving range was approved and I guess we didn't go over it all... Mayor Hamilton: Any questions? Jay, anything? Councilman Johnson: Yes, I want to know how the kids are enjoying the cigarette machine. You say your vending machines were for the children. I don't see, I'm an anti-smoking advocate to a point, I don't see encouraging. I believe smokers need their own little room they go off into and fill each other's lungs but I j don't see at a family recreational facility that we should be selling cigarettes. I'd like to cce, if we're going to consider it, I don't have any _ problems with one or two video machines as long as we don't became a video arcade where the primary purpose is to play video games. As a slight accessory to putt-putt, on a hot summer day come in and cool off for a while and play a couple games of Donkey Kong or whatever, no big deal to me but if you start getting 10 or 15 video games in there and the place turns into a teenage video hang-out, that's going to be a problem. Cigarette machine is definitely a problem with me. John Pryzmus: I have no problem. I don't smoke and I don't have any problem with taking that out. They put them in there. I didn't ask for it. It was part of what came with the machines. Councilman Johnson: You can blame us. John Pryzmus: Well, it don't matter.. . Councilman Johnson: Does that sign need a sign permit or anything Barb? Normally you can get such and such a sign if you have a business right? Barbara Dacy: Right. A permit would be required except we amended the ordinance to allow a driving range and miniature golf course. Unfortunately we didn't address in detail of how big the sign should be. Councilman Geving: I think John you made a lot of progress out there. I'm pleased to see it's coming along. The few things that we've got remaining here are pretty minor. You apparently are working towards getting those trees in this fall and you indicated there were berms there, I don't remember seeing any 61 City Council Meeting t 22, 1988 berms but if that's in the conditional use permit, we ought to look at that. There seers to be a difference of opinion between yourself and the staff on .117— where rwhere the berms are or where they should be. How many video games are there out there? John Pryzmus: There's fooSball and hockey. Mayor Hamilton: There must be 4 or 5 I suppose. Councilman Geving: Okay, I guess when we discussed this way back when we were talking about the difference between a business having 1 or 2 machines versus an arcade and I think we came up with, is 6 the magic number? Do you recall that 6 is an arcade? Barbara Dacy: There are no definitions. Councilman Geving: Okay, I guess maybe we were thinking of that at one time. I don't see any big problem with the few iters that we've got here. The only one that we did have a lot of discussion over John was the light standards. That there wasn't to be any lighting on the facility. I don't have a real hard feeling about that but I think if we're going to go that route, we're going to have to come back and talk about it again because I can see where that would extend your business day. Does it give you another half hour or something? John Pryzmus: What it does is, in the evening as the sun goes down, before it gets too dark, I would assume that, I've talked with all the neighbors and it will keep it open on a nice evening for another half hour-45 minutes rather than sunset. Basically I've kept my standards. Floods up on the out lights and keep then shining down. I'm not putting than in a high place like a ballpark or _ anything like that. I wasn't. . . Councilman Geving: I think our discussion when we talked about lights were something far different than what you've got out there. I think we were _ thinking that we wouldn't let John have these big light poles and lots of problems with any neighbors that might object to that but I see no objection to what's out there now. I don't have any problem with that John except that it's not on your conditional use permit. That's all I have. Councilman Horn: I guess I don't have any problem with the sign. To me it _ looks like a reasonable sign for that kind of a business but again, I supposed we should discuss that.. . Mayor Hamilton: That can be discussed through the ordinance process. Councilman Horn: I also agree about the lights. I don't see anything. The lights are mainly in the mini-putt area aren't they? The lights are mainly in the mini-putt area? John Pryzmus: Yes, they follow the path. There are two rows of trees that follow the path and they shine towards the mini-putt area. .. Councilman Horn: I realize we didn't allow those but again, Dale said we had envisioned something totally different. I also agree that there should be vending machines out there. People should have access to pop. You don't have - 62 City Council Meetin (gust 22,1988 any water on the site do you? Like a water fountain so this is really the only thing. .. John Pryzmus: Yes, I haven't had it hooked up yet. I do have a. . . Right now I have the Pepsi-Cola Company with automatic cooler. Like I say, the cigarette machine wasn't one of the machines that I had brought it. The vending. company brought it in. I didn't order it and I can have them take it out of there. .. As you get the grass to start growing out there and eventually... As you cane in there's one berm that's maybe 7 feet high in front of the building, but sane of that might even... but I will be working on it right on through the fall to hopefully. .. Councilman Horn: I don't have any problem with anything I see out there. My only recommendation would be that I think it would be better, and you may disagree with this, to cane to us with what you've done and we would agree with it. Whereas to go ahead and do it before we get a permit to do it can sometimes cause yourself more grief. John Pryzmus: There are sane things that I changed. . . Councilman Boyt: I see where staff recommends 8 foot evergreens instead of 6 foot. Barbara Dacy: Yes but since the berms are 6 feet, there's a disagreement so.. . Councilman Boyt: I didn't hear it as a point of disagreement along the highway. John Pryzmus: I don't think that would be done. . . Not all of them, everyone is put on the road. The shorter ones will be put inside. Councilman Boyt: I hope you're successful with this. I've got to tell you that it bothers me when anyone intentionally violates the standards the City has set for their development. You won't convince me John that when you put those light standards in you thought the City gave you approval to do that. What that means is, you decided that you're going to do that business the way you need to do that business and then you'll cane back to the City and get approval. I don't think that's a smart business approach. I think that we should definitely look at the sign to be sure that it fits within the standard size for signs. I suspect it does. The light standards, we need to have those inspected by staff to be sure that they're directed so they don't shine on the highway at all and good luck. I hope to get out there and use it sometime. Barbara Dacy: Given the Council's discussion, I guess what I would suggest is that the applicant apply to amend his permit regarding the light standards and the sign issue or the Council look at a ordinance amendment. Councilman Boyt: I think we should consider hours of operation too. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I think John should come back, hours of operation, light standards and the trees. John Pryzmus: I'll bring that up to staff this week. 63 pity council Meeting t 22, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: So we need to table this until, oh and the sign also should be a part of that. r Bernie: I have not been following this but I am wondering why the restriction is placed on a businessman to have restricted hours when the competition certainly dictates that putt-putt courses, their best hours are from 8:00 to 10:00 at night. I'm wondering why his position is so unique that we should have to restrict him from sunrise to sunset? Mayor Hamilton: When we first looked at this Bernie, John had a hand drawn plan that he brought in here and the neighbors objected to it. We tried to work with John all the way through this process and it's been kind of one frustration after another and just as it occurs now he's got lights out there that were not approved and he goes ahead and puts them up there without getting permission from the City. If he wants to have lights out there, he should come in here with a plan like anybody else that's going to try to do something. To just go ahead and do it, like Bill says, that's not the right way to do it. This was several years ago when the first plan came along and we said we weren't going to allow him to have the high pole standards and at that time was when we said - sunrise to sunset would be his operation. So I think since that time John has talked with the neighbors and they have seen that it's not going to be the nuisance that they thought it was going to be but he's got to come back to us with an amended plan to try and change it. John Pryzmus: .. .I have worked with the neighbors. .. Councilman Johnson: When you started talking about your water system, I hope you realize that when you start serving that water to people, either in that L machine or in that water fountain, you have created a public water supply by State Law and you have to do certain water quality tests on that on a routine basis. You'll need to coordinate that with the County Health Department. You'll need to do that and file your reports of this. At one of my rural plants I work _ with, they have one coffee machine that is hooked up to water, otherwise they have bottled water everyplace. We got stuck because you have more than 25 employees there, as a public water supply system. So you're in the same boat there so watch out for that one. Mayor Hamilton: He hasn't hooked it up yet. Councilman Johnson: It's a fairly simple test and I think they're probably going to be annual tests, I'm not sure. Our test requires to be once a year testing for bacteria and that kind of stuff. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to table review of the Pyr anus Driving Range and Miniature Golf Course until a plan is brought back with - additional information. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REQUEST FOR KENNEL PERMIT, 1630 LAKE LUCY ROAD, PHIL MATHIOWETZ. Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mathiowetz is here who is the applicant for the kennel permit. He is here because we've had complaints from a neighbor, Mr. Krueger, which I'm sure Council is well aware of since he was sending all the information on the 64 r -- :_t . ... , • CITYOF _ ii, . N T ; , _ . _ I .,•,j,,: 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 - • • - cHANHAssEN ;a • f (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 -, October 25 , 1990 Mr. John B . Pryzmus J. P. Links , Inc. 7750 Galpin Boulevard • - Chanhassen , MN 55317 Re: Grading Permit Application for Swings Golf Range - Amended Conditions of Approval Grading Permit File No. 90-) 2 Dear Mr. Pryzmus : This letter is a followup to our meeting on Tuesday, October 23 , , 1990 with Planning Director, Paul Krauss , regarding the con- ditions of approval for your grading permit. As agreed, a permit will be issued contingent upon the following conditions: 1 . The earth berm along Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117) shall be continuous two-tier, two foot high rock retaining walls, not to exceed an accumulative height of four feet in lieu of the three foot high earth berm previously required. 2 . Provide the City with a financial security in the form of a _ letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of $1,000 to guarantee erosion control measures and site restoration. 3 . All disturbed areas shall be seeded and disc mulched or sodded prior to November 15, 1990. 4 . The grading permit fee shall be calculated according to the • 1988 Uniform Building Code Table NO. 70-B for grading 400 cubic yards of material. 5. Erosion control measures (hay bales) shall be maintained throughout until vegetative cover has been fully re- • established and removal is authorized by the city engineer. 6 . Any future expansion or grading activities will require another permit application and will also require an approved site and/or grading plan by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to commencement. rsr. John B. Pryzl,..s • October 25, 1990 Page 2 7. The grading activity that has occured adjacent to the creek located on the northerly portion of the property shall be removed back to a point to be determined in the field -by City staff . 8. As agreed, the expansion to the parking lot and driving range is not permitted without receiving an amendment to the Con- ditional Use Permit to allow expansion of the existing faci- lity. This expansion is not included in the administrative grading permit. Therefore, the driving tee and parking lot must be removed or transformed into berming purposes. 9 . A building permit is required for the installation of the fence proposed around the site. If you are in agreement with the aforementioned conditions of approval , the City is prepared to issue and grant you a grading permit for berming purposes , including site restoration. Upon • receipt of a check for $84 and security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of $1 ,000, I will process your application and issue you a grading permit. If a grading permit is not obtained and complied with, the site must be restored to original grade and condition as soon as possible and no later than November 15, 1990. Failure to comply with either scenario may result in further action by the City. • If you have any questions , feel free to contact me. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN 4-5"41911(4- David C. Hempel . Sr. Engineering Technician DCH: jms c: Gary Warren, City Engineer Charles Folch, Assistant City Engineer Paul Krauss , Planning Director Steve Rirchman, Building Official - Roger Gustafson, Carver County Engineer Bob Obermeyer, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District • CITY o 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 January 11, 1991 CERTIFIED Mr. John Pryzmus J. P. Links, Inc. 7750 Galpin Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Pryzmus: On November 28, 1990, the City sent you a letter in regards to your grading permit #90-12 . The letter stated that a condition of the grading permit was for you to submit a conditional use permit and site plan review application for expansion of the Swings Golf site. The City established a deadline of January 7, 1991, for receipt of the application. As of January 11, 1991, the City has not received the application, nor has any contact been made by you to the City. The City will grant one last extension until Tuesday, January 22 , 1991, for the application to be submitted. If the complete application is not received by January 22nd, the City will place your conditional use permit on a future City Council agenda for consideration of revocation. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Ann Olsen Senior Planner JO•v i CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman , Building Official 4 it DATE: May 8 , 1991 SUBJ : Planning Case IUP 91-1 ( Swings Miniature Golf ) It is not clear from the building file why a holding tank was originally permitted on this property. Minnesota Rules chapter 7080 " Individual Sewage Treatment Standards" was in effect at the time of building permit issuance , and septic sites had been designated on the approved site plan . The holding tank is a prohibited installation. A permit , however , was issued requiring a pumping contract with receipts being sent to the City . These conditions have never been met . The approved building plans require sanitation facilities and ventilation conforming to UBC 705 . These requirements were never met . The only inspection requested by the contractor was the final , despite required inspections being noted on the approved plan . The final inspection did not pass , and no Certificate of Occu- pancy has every been issued. I strongly urge that no further development be permitted on the property until existing violations are corrected. This would include: 1 . Installation of an approved septic system with an alternate site protected. 2 . Existing building must be brought up to code and a Cer- tificate of Occupancy issued. 3 . Application for fence permit must be made and approved or fence removed . GO O n.� 0• 7 0,1 O O C E• 'e7 �� nO ^ 0 n N v > O S 3 ac7 o - o ° .� a 5 Ccs °< � '° 3 a 3 d X w 5. a NN} a � et p a C � y1 w'C (1. cl' N m C ° d ° Q P c n 9 o g s C— d w00 ' t 0. ' .<o a 2° a m 9 ,-- OS--- Q O 8 5 2 v P 5 S b =: ,� , n,t ° r c q d a V E. F A O A �. O m^ 0 00 n G ,.,� a N�' Q n n •� 7 s d < Or A -O. 5 a i9 et, in C` ° 0 s - n t a N td ° a55 4 �m 5 � n 9 g Sag A n o -0 N. .= ;11r,. < 0 a 5 a ='5" ' °° 5 u,▪ N CO ^shy A o �' = c=° C a 5 _ ^y�n� er — 0. -Ci C c 'yh+ D d• O �j'� 'L cA 7 7 N O O p� 3 p a r^� `!� -moi 7 pV et 1• 4 ^ 7 ,o •� p '' d rD d a O . S g F C .-'i a W F •., b 5 !y ra 7 n Cif r G a y _� A S. O O p �Jp ' a 5,-, ;"-„-- g-0 f9 A a` G• < 7 O 'V' .1g 5 G pCC� 2 "' ? O a•n F ti g i9 p X 'r p ^` C [ A_ O Cea tht vii (n JN.�, !S' A 7 ° n 'nJ' r� S 7 T N 00x — 1c�•• ti �o C ,3 E O tO a w 'C S �• to O ° _S d 7 _ 7 d m -O 7• N n �. cn ° fp G. n N O d • e. d. _ 7 fp b 7. n' W gyp. 5 > > < o N n 5 aNn r^ c0. lb o �� _ d H ea m m. 2..!. g 9 0 a g. c 3 „° a gF_ E' d o �� 0 3 p9 �. ,o ,-c D- c ea a o A = e o °g x o v a 5 7 N s �' ° d n a s V n w A 5 7 C G. a _ o ' n. r' p n w T a 'SS d > > .. T_if T <j 3. Qom, O O 7 S rp b O O ]_. F F 7. N n v u N ? a N 5•d ^ a C S 5' m 2 .1 S 8 a c O A ',7 3 c '- 3 `< 3 C 7' N 0 o ; S O a. 7 o n E n c a gmo. �< � .t '^�, O r7 -'�e ,° C ° O.,Q - O2 G 0G N O n d 7 -� %j Q r, 5 01 N N �7 ra d y, d.0 op - S P. N •a r2 r'o O_ 5 N 5 A N ? Era F a ° _ a n N a n 7 N y ; n N 3 '9 c 5 '9. a 0 -7 .n. N 9 < S 7 a ? o, n3 [ � N ': a g n �Ocv, 5 !o N Ga 0., 0. a � c < 3 CO 7 0 , 9 c = c = V a dcn� T °� p = Oo ^a. 0 — 7 5 ^ F N a F n c 7 p, r0 a j •vN A = a ;; a a � o = 'ro £ n ° b a- = N[ SS S ' C •`C 7 O 0^ - O N9 C 'lam - v O 7. C a N c o r'' s a ' � o - 0- , a ^_ c S Qs — a -� O :, . a S ° O n. d O S c n .7. cmF n _. 'R 8 G 2r, a c 3a v .e 0 7 o ° N ° T R d F C --.-. S ti n - ,, 7,- ° d 9 m Srp c m a r) d w p_ c 5. D s �_ S. E.S n F C^ N N a 0'0 o n a >_ C 'd - > w ',' ? n ^1 n n a. u�i�° D p;/, '�' • 7 N ��j. a A i� d aa A 4. E. a 8 N D a m 11 S d < o .aN. < n , O n G d A S oo ^ T c N [ 5 •v v_ 5 6.c < a a '4 = , o a wet N o, 3 tH' > cd2 0 d E a p, n F S 7c- x' S d O 7 d a -Oi,„ = C 00 3 ,n, o = Cn `e N 5:. n C .Oa 7 n = y tri gr T r n .7, o a . F n ` S O rR -tT 2 , Q r...- Q , , a 9 d o 7NN 7499! gam m_ o d w ^ g = mcR r, g• 2 ° E ^ S., L° --o n < T ° r N S S 7• = g" x a A o N O r+ 9 < 5 n d (1. e" n a < u� 1° 5 N C a ,n, o A - 0,,.. .N. d o ...17 n ". a w nn ° `� O• C LQ - O 00 7 4 e, ro n p• po F E- o ::`< q 5 n' �• rD 'a C '� n oa2. ?. `� �d av ea Ea- C1- I. A .1 c q Ce,‘ o ro X" F v U -D41IflI s uw n �' 7 u a 'ano �. T oao F S 5. v 2a. c• a ' m ea N 45 La m a 'g n c o 5 m 5 N ?. m 007• = m o ° -, 0 ° d a N m d ° p a x a ° ° 0 63 H n q A s n = -n T zg 6 v x c ▪ � 5- 5 °..' g 5 d - .. cv 0 - o m ac ea •O ° s^9 ° N d y 00 b 9 7 O C a c N O r9 S r9 O o: a 00 n a x S n y n 2 m "n „C� a E p, A 3 O m C • 0 n. '' A a rp r0 7 E. a 0 - 6'3- S Q d C C�< N A m P. 9 O 5 o nnyw � 0 � S 8 F4 � n °E• d ; d7 g d - o d SF et < nn - .- ? 00 C ? S x n ao ° 0 0 " Fr p �' n F ft c2 o• 3., c n• c F �� Ta X /a/�� r� vm o m e; d 0, `•C N r7 d b A w N IDD m a d J A LC. O ry — c o a T s o^ r a -a n , 7 ° as a d 40 7 c O -, n n E. p a N 5 S -,..7 ° O a S S N n 5 u 00 et 0. ° c-T- O T 7 i. n y e rD `t _ 900 ° 0 cr ill-I �7a 4 4 ° a s� n 0S 'oma � a e �. Dn r3o .1—S os GJ d m 7 N ? ° a r� ° S 07 ▪ 00 - x F D. N C. et 0. 4_, _ 6 .4---) `�/,` — Councilman Wing: On that subject? I wanted to comment Don that on this approval of agenda, that was a new term to me and I wasn't quick enough. I was waiting for approval of the agenda and then I realized I was supposed to speak. I would just request , if I'm not out of order, a quick comment under item 7. — Council Presentations. On the next Council agenda I'd just like to have the issue of the, I'd like to hear the -report from the University of Minnesota Goose Removal program and how it affects the City and the possibility of continuation for 1991 and subsequent years. I would just like to, for your sake Mr. Mayor, just put on the record these pictures of my dock. July, 1990 after the goose removal last year. Councilwoman Dimler: Ah, that 's phospherous loading for sure. Councilman Wing: My request is that it simply be placed on the agenda next meeting. Mayor Chmiel: In other words, where Bambi goes nothing grows. Okay, we'll move _ on to our administrative presentation. ;14 UPDATE ON SWINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. SENIOR PLANNER. Jo Ann Olsen: Last fall the owner of Swings started to do some grading on his site without a permit . We went out to put a stop work order on the site and he did pursue with a grading permit but what he was doing actually ended up being — an exparrsion of the conditional use permit above what was approved. So as part . of that grading permit he had to make an application to come in for am amended conditional use permit so that he could bring his site into compliance. He has _ not done this after contacts by staff. So originally we were going to bring it on the agenda for consider of revocation of the CUP or the conditional use permit . Instead what we're going to do is just have the attorney's office pursue John with a letter stating that he is in violationof the conditional use - permit and pursue it that way and hopefully get him to make an application. If not , we will go after him against the violation of the conditional use permit . We felt this was a better way. If we revoke the permit , then actually those conditions are no longer there for us to enforce and we might as well get to the legal process now. I know that John was in today and was aware of this and said he was going to be here but I don't see him. Just wanted to make you aware that we're doing this internally and that 's it. We'll let you know what happens. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else that would like to address the issue? Don Ashworth: If I may. I did see John in this afternoon. He did seem happy . . .so I'm assuming that he read the report and he's accepting that. Mayor Chmiel: There's only one thing on item number 3 that I looked at . It says prior to November 15, 1990 or should that be 1991? Jo Ann Olsen: No. That was part of the original grading permit so that was 1990 that he had to do that . mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? John, would you like to come up? Just state your name and address please? 21 i Cr 1 — City Council Meeting - M; -h 25, 1991 • John Hennessy: John Hennessy, 7305 Galpin Blvd. . Mr. Pryzmus is doing I'd say a respectable job out there as far as appearance of the project and everything. The only thing that concerns me is something a little more generic. It 's the _ precedence that the City is setting. There's no bite to the ordinance. I mean he was out there for a month and a half without a permit. I mean how does this go on that long? I see the City cars going up and down Galpin Blvd. so I know they're doing inspections out there in Pheasant Hills and other places along our road. So why do things just keep going on and on without any enforcement? And this isn't the first time. John's been battling with the City for as long as we've lived there, 8-9 years. It 's well meaning and everything. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe somebody would like to address that specific question. Jo Ann Olsen: As soon as we were alerted to that he was grading illegally out there we did put a stop order immediately. That doesn't necessarily stop him. So what we did try to do is try to work with him to get the site, because when we were made aware that it was already, there were piles of dirt . There were - piles of dirt up against the creek also so what we tried to do is to get the site restored as best possible. That 's where we went through the grading permit with him to hopefully get him to comply with that and he did pull the dirt back. But I know that it looks like we're not doing anything but actually we are working on it . John Hennessy: Well I know it 's not like you have nothing to do up here. Jo Ann Olsen: But it takes a while you know as far as going through that grading permit and then also to get him to comply. John Hennessy: Has the area to the creek been restored as far as drainage? Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. They pulled the dirt back from the creek. From the edge of the creek. He didn't really get into the creek to impact it. Yes, we pulled the dirt back and got that out of there. That was our main concern. - John Hennessy: Okay. Thank you. Don Ashworth: If I could partially respond as well. And again, I haven't talked to Joh recently on this item but we had come to agreement with him as to things that he was to do out at that site. Then he ran into some difficult financial times and literally it was not until the City had actually consummated the acquisition of the property downtown that a number of financial conditions that were following John around were actually cleared up. I know during those negotiations he had continued to state to me, Don I'd like to get this thing wrapped up and get some money available because I really want to take and clean up the golf course project but I just haven't been able to do a thing out there because of some of these other problems. He should have gotten a hold of us and verified what he was doing but I guess that's just not John. Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Emmings. Steve Emmings: Mr. Pryzmus has been in front of the Planning Commission several - times and I know this is one of those cases where the City keeps bending over backwards and is not met halfway and I know there are some new Council members 22 City Council Meeting - arch 25, 1991 who may not be aware of the whole history but I know we've chased him out of the wetland in the past and told him he can't fill in there. He filled in there once before without permission and we chased him out of there and now it sounds like he's working down by the creek. There's no question in my mind he knows full well that he's doing things that. the City would not permit and he seems to just do what he wants to. I think:it 's important to put that into perspective with it . Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you Steve. Any other discussion? Hearing none, I will make a motion to adjourn the meeting. Councilman Workman: So moved. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.■. . Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim • 23 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937.1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: �-,' 1 lA OWNER: _S<—Nc\v\. r a. yi /114 S ADDRESS: 1 C G C, (P I A /1 4 ADDRESS: Cc � S;A-rt"f 1")(2_ TELEPHONE (Day time) 9 43 TELEPHONE: / 3 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Subdivision 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Vacation of ROW/Easements 3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. Variance 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Wetland Alteration Permit 5. Notification Signs 15. Zoning Appeal 6. Planned Unit Development 16. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 7. Rezoning 17. Filing Fees/Attorney Cost 8. Sign Permits 18. Consultant Fees 9. Sign Plan Review 10. Site Plan Review TOTAL FEE $ • A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81/2" X 11' Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. * NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME i; CIJ LOCATION "y7 50 Gft p ►vt 131L) LEGAL DESCRIPTION - PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of — ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best _ of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's office and the ori.'._l document returned to City Hall Records. 1/-/d114.• item. ^ 9/ 1!nature of Applican' Date Ago ature of Fee Owne Date A. 'lication Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. This application will be considered by the Planning Commission/Board of Adjustments and Appeals on . _ STATE OF KiCEJC so`Lrza DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES f "- - ETRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 PHONE NO. 772-7910 FILE NO. June 7, 1993 Ms. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: MAXI-MINI PUTT, INTERIM USE PERMIT, BLUFF CREEK, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY Dear Ms. Olsen: We have reviewed the site plans (received May 20, 1993) for the above-referenced project (Section 10, T. 116N. , R. 23W. ) and have the following comments. 1. Bluff Creek, a Public Water is on the proposed site. Any activity, such as placing a stormwater outfall, below the top of the bank of the channel of Bluff Creek which alters its course, current or cross-section, is under the jurisdiction of the DNR and may require a DNR permit. 2 . The proposed plan does not indicate how the stormwater will be managed. You are advised that the DNR would object to having stormwater routed directly to Bluff Creek. Stormwater sedimentation/treatment basins, or other appropriate stormwater treatment features, should be included in the stormwater management plan. If stormwater is routed directly to Bluff Creek, it can cause sedimentation and water level bounces that are detrimental to wildlife values and water quality. 3 . A portion of the property occurs in the 100-year floodplain. All the work that is done for this project must comply with applicable floodplain regulations of both the city and the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. 4 . Bluff Creek has a shoreland classification of tributary. The shoreland district extends 300 feet from the top of the bank, or the width of the floodplain, which ever is greater. The development must be consistent with the city shoreland management regulations. In particular you should note: AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Ms. Jo Ann Olsen City of Chanhassen June 7 , 1993 Page (2) a. The vegetation and topography should be retained in a natural state in the shore impact zone. The minimum shore impact zone is a 25' strip along both sides of the creek. b. The structures in the development should be screened from view from Bluff Creek using topography, existing vegetation, color, and other means approved by the city. 5 . Bluff Creek should be labelled as a Public Water such in future plans. 6. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. 7 . If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10, 000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. You are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. 8 . Construction activities which disturb more than five acres of land are required to apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Scott Thompson @ 296- 7203) . Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Joe Richter Hydrologist cc: Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek WSD USCOE Chanhassen Shoreland File Chanhassen Floodplain File • R CO ••• ‘, CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE `\ 1' 600 EAST 4TH STREET PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT \ CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 (612) 448-1213 4'NESo REG F_1 Lia COUNTY OF CAQVEQ June 9, 1993 TO: JoAnn Olsen, Chanhassen Senior Planner FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer SUBJ: Interim Use Permit Swings Golf Following are comments regarding the Interim Use Permit request for the Swings Golf proposal transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated May 19, 1993. 1. Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways functionally classified as Collector (Class I) are: Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 2-lane Roadway 2-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 80' 100' 110' 120' Urban Undivided Rural Divided 4-lane Roadway 4-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 110' 190' 200' County Road 117 (Galpin Blvd.) is functionally classified as a Collector (Class I) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The 33 foot from centerline corridor shown would not provide for a potential minimum 80 foot corridor. This corridor would not meet the needs for an urban roadway. Allowance for future roadway needs should be considered in the expansion plans. 2. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CR 117 right-of-way are subject to the utility permit requirements of Carver County. 3. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right-of-way of CR 117 is subject to review and approval of the County Highway department. 4. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right- of-way (including turf removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be completed in a manner that leaves the right-of-way in "as good or better condition" than what existed prior to construction. Afrmatrre Action/Equal Opp nhInitl Emploler Printed on Recycled Paper 5. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right-of-way must be approved by the County. When locating shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining an acceptable sight distance at the proposed intersection. Any trees or shrubs overhanging into the right of way could be subject to trimming for safety or overhead utility consideration. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. C 1 TY 0 F PC DATE: 9/1/93 CHANHASSEN CC DATE: 9/27/93 r CASE #: SUB #89-9 SPR #89-2 STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1. Subdivision Lot 2, Outlot C, D Block 1 of the Bloomberg Addition and Lot 1 Block 3 of the Chanhassen Mall. 2. Site Plan Approval for the expansion of 36 rooms for the County Suites Hotel, Z remodeling and expansion of the Animal Fair building for a restaurant and modification of the exterior of the Frontier Building (Chanhassen Mall). LOCATION: 591 West 78th Street APPLICANT: Lotus Realty Services, Inc. Bloomberg Companies, Inc. P.O. Box 235 P.O. Box 730 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: CBD, Central Business District ACREAGE: 1.16 acres DENSITY: not applicable ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - CBD, Central Business District S - BG, General Business and CBD E - BG, Country Suites and PUD Market Square W - CBD, Chanhassen Mall � WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site F. PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The northerly portion of the subject site is relatively flat although the larger parcel slopes to the south. Based on (/) adjacent topography the hotel addition will be seen from Highway 5. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial • •ff +y- ;SGS �- • it* . -c1 . • , , . , ' ... 3 .- ) t`, �•� -I .• ` ' , - _\ ` L A KE `-_�` ; TWINMAPLE LANE _. ... -rte r • i Vr�-- .t.n-'.�� ,-- c ,� SC,(� _ BASSWOOD CIRCLE ry iff - . R4 -,...,-_..7, • -1,.2 -.. _...q . . 455 pt(-e. '. . . . iia ' -:I r - ' ' - •-, J1 1 81 . ._ A • : ,0 1.. ..--. ._ . ..5.„p,=. ___:_pi., . 1_7-. i ...-,--.0? t, '-, s F, y' BG gab • t, ion J2 ... , , ,---- , LT R �` , 11 - : 1, _______,.: , ' .,qF HANS N�,` ETESOP - °jib ` t. <0 I / 11 • I CC o • • �l ��x ,.%c 4 6,00 — _ -1 • A:,a wry= ' - : ;` L. ` ' F :f / ^i-� �� c• . _., =`- �l _ - A 2 0 0 If?! �. \-;-\ F� 6101 r MARSH • - ��� - LAKE c - Z ' _ •••,..!L IV PARK ~~� 83O) I KE SUSAN ' - "\ ;;UD-R lip j „` I �' 84 �, �a \\ R/C ill . SH LAKE i Q IIlh N ,I , .' ,tQ• wk - TM ;i Lt. `. ' - _ C. • FA1 �J ------ • --8600 R - - N z��• -' �, I .---- --- SES P'' P� 8700 : • RS F _�- - „ .� r17 ' Hotel Expansion September 1, 1993 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicants, Lotus Realty and Bloomberg Companies, are requesting preliminary plat approval and site plan approval for an addition to the County Suites Hotel, a restaurant and modification to the Frontier Building. The platting includes property from the Bloomberg Addition as well as the Chanhassen Mall Addition. The purpose of replatting is to provide a separate lot for the restaurant and hotel. The site plan approval is for an addition of 36 units to the hotel, a restaurant and remodeling of the front of the Frontier building. The hotel expansion will be located to the east of the existing Country Suites and the "Animal Fair" building. This is the site of the old Instant Web building. The restaurant will be located in the building that currently houses Animal Fair. The restaurant will include two meeting rooms, a full service kitchen and a bar. The restaurant will be attached to the hotel and the "Mall" by an enclosed passageway/concourse. This concourse will run in front of the building. There are two areas of concern with staff. One is the amount of parking provided and the other is the proposed replatting of property lines inside of a building. The Building Official has recommended that all of Lot, Block 1 be combined with Lot 3, Block 1 of the Chanhassen Mall. This would permit more design possibilities for the Animal Fair and Instant Web buildings. The hotel and restaurant have a combined parking requirement of 200 stalls. In front of the hotel and restaurant there are only 74 parking spaces provided. The applicants have stated they feel based on parking demand and different user times, there is sufficient parking. Staff is recommending a parking study be completed for the entire Chanhassen Mall, Bloomberg Addition and Easy Rider Addition to determine if there is adequate parking available. Staff supports the elimination of one of the buildings between the Frontier Building and the Dinner Theatre. This area could be used as a parking lot and as an access to additional parking behind these buildings. Until proof of sufficient parking is provided, staff is reluctant to approve the request. BACKGROUND Country Suites hotel was approved by the city in 1989. The approvals back in 1989 included a rezoning, subdivision and site plan approval. The current site for the hotel was 3.1 acres and was zoned CBD (Central Business District) and BG (General Business). The entire site was rezoned to CBD. Lots 1 and 4 of Block 1 were replatted to provide outlots to accomplish city possession of the parking lots, while improvements were being made and Hotel Expansion September 1, 1993 Page 3 provide access to the site. The hotel currently has 84 rooms with an accessory swimming pool. The hotel is three stories high. The applicant is proposing replatting lots in the Bloomberg and Chanhassen Mall Subdivision. The replatting will provide for separate ownership of the three parcels. The Building Department has some concerns with the replatting because property lines split buildings, and are meeting building code requirements. SUBDIVISION The subdivision includes the replatting of four lots. Outlots C, D, and Lot 2, Block 1, _ Bloomberg Addition and Lot 3, Block 1 of the Chanhassen Mall will be platted into two lots (Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Bloomberg 2nd Addition). The reason for replatting is to create separate lots for the hotel and the restaurant. Each of these lots will have frontage on West 78th Street. Lot 1 will contain .6 acres and Lot 2 will contain .56 acres. The Chanhassen Mall lot will be reduced to .85 acres. This entire lot encompasses the old Instant Web Building. The CBD district requires 100 feet minimum lot width. These lots are 90 and 96 feet, respectively. Staff supports a variance for the minimum lot frontage requirement for these lots. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) requires protection of openings occurring at property lines. The current buildings do not meet the opening protection requirements of the UBC. The subject of property lines, exterior walls and opening protection for these buildings was first broached in conjunction with Site Plan Review 90-7. The currently proposed subdivision creates many of the same problems. These problems need to be addressed before the property is replatted, because their resolution may affect the location of property lines. The requirements for wall and opening protection on property lines are intended to protect the buildings and property on each side of a property line from a catastrophe on the adjacent property. The closer the proximity of the buildings to the property line the higher the level of protection required. UBC table 5-A requires that a restaurant have exterior walls of two-hour fire-resistive construction if it is located 10 feet or less from the property line. The warehouse occupancy on the other side of the property line would be required to have a one- hour fire-resistive wall on the property line. Since these walls are intended to protect one structure from the other, the structure may not penetrate the walls. The walls are generally required to have parapets extending above the roof and, of course, footings are required to support wall and other loads. The proposed replat locates a property line inside a building. The plat, as proposed, would require the walls as described above to be constructed on each side of the property line. There are also requirements for protection of openings at property lines. The existing Hotel Expansion September 1, 1993 Page 4 buildings are currently in violation and must be brought into code conformance when new uses for them are established. One possible way to eliminate wall and opening protection requirements would be to combine Lot 2, Block 1, Bloomberg Addition with Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Mall. This would permit nearly unlimited design possibilities for the Animal Fair and Instant Web buildings. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The hotel will be similar in color and material as the existing hotel. It will be 3 stories and have a pitched roof with asphalt singles that match the existing hotel. There will be a brick coarse on the first floor with a clapboard siding on the remainder of the building. The color will be the same as the existing hotel. All mechanical equipment shall be screened. The restaurant will be located in the existing "Animal Fair" building. This building is all brick and has a mansard roof. Additions to the Animal Fair will be on the east and the northwest side of the building. The restaurant and the hotel are two different types of architecture. The architect has attempted to blend these two styles with some unifying themes and the concourse that connects the two uses. The concourse has been designed in an attempt to tie the buildings together using similar brick as the hotel and using arched windows found in the Frontier building. A widows walk (rod iron railing) is shown on the roof of the restaurant and is also shown over the roof of the hotel expansion. The existing stairs from the back of the Chanhassen Mall will be enclosed as will the exit from the first floor. The passageway will be extended to the face of the new dock screening wall. This wall and roof will extend from the Chanhassen Mall on the east to the proposed restaurant. The closure will have a face wall with doors to the passageways and overhead door for access to the existing dock at the proposed restaurant. The roof will extend to the south approximately 30' to provide coverage over the dock area but will have no wall on the south side. Staff is recommending that the employee parking (5 stalls) shown west of the mall adjacent to the "Animal Fair" building be eliminated. This area should be identified as access for deliveries only. The CBD district has no maximum lot depth or minimum setback requirements for front, rear or side yard. There is no maximum height requirements for principal or accessory structures. The hotel addition and the restaurant will have the same setbacks as the existing buildings. The height of the hotel addition will not exceed the existing hotel. The minimum lot size in the CBD district is 10,000 square feet, 100 feet of lot footage and 100 feet of minimum lot depth. Hotel Expansion September 1, 1993 Page 5 Refuse collection and mechanical equipment are not shown on the site plan. Staff is recommending that both be located behind the buildings and that they be screened with similar building materials or landscaping. ACCESS/PARKING The existing parking lot is proposed to be modified to provide additional parking stalls. The plans propose eliminating the right-in/right-out driveway access just east of Laredo Drive. _ Staff is acceptable to this change. However, the plans also propose to eliminate the curb median which divides the parking lot east of Laredo from the driveway access out onto West 78th Street (directly south of Laredo Drive). Staff strongly discourages this change due to anticipated congestion and confusion this will create at the driveway access out onto West 78th Street. Staff strongly believes that the current curb median should remain intact. All parking lot and access improvements should be compatible with the upgrading of West 78th - Street. Attached is a copy of the construction plans with the proposed changes on West 78th Street that will affect this site. In conjunction with the City's West 78th Street Detachment Project, the City has recently acquired additional permanent and temporary easements over the property to facilitate street widening and traffic signals. Staff believes that at some point in the future it is still predictable that the street may be widened again. Therefore, at this time it would be wise to acquire additional dedication of right-of-way along the north 10 feet of the property. This will give a total of 50 feet of right-of-way from the center of West 78th Street. The site plan proposes to maintain a delivery access and parking area on the east side of the proposed restaurant. It appears there is one way to access the loading dock. The access appears to be from the front or north side of the building and will result in crossing over a proposed pedestrian walkway. In an effort to minimize conflict with pedestrian movements, staff recommends that this parking area be eliminated and restricted or limited to a delivery staging area. From the plans it is unclear whether or not a delivery vehicle may be able to access a loading dock from the south with the proposed cover. Staff is also concerned with the turning radiuses when the trucks exit the loading dock area to the north. It is recommended that the applicant be required to demonstrate that truck turning movements (small tractor trailer) can be accommodated with the parking lot configuration as proposed. The hotel and restaurant use requires a total of 200 parking stalls. Located in the front of the building are 74 parking stalls. The bowling center has designated parking as well as the Easy Rider subdivision which is being used by Southwest Metro Transit park and ride lot. Staff is reluctant to provide cross parking agreements without jeopardizing future parking demands for these two uses. Staff is recommending a parking study be completed on the entire Chanhassen Mall/Bloomberg Additions. In the long term, staff supports the elimination of the Hotel Expansion September 1, 1993 Page 6 building between the Frontier Building and the Dinner Theatre for a parking lot. In addition, parking may need to be provided behind the rear of the building. LANDSCAPING There is limited landscaping with this site plan. The landscaping is located in planters in the parking lot and adjacent to the building. The planters are 10' x 35' which is consistent with the minimums suggested in the revised landscaping ordinance. The landscaping plan calls for ornamental and deciduous trees in the planters. Staff is recommending that norway and sugar maples be located in the planters. The intent of parking lot landscaping is to require overstory trees which provide shade. The planters will also include deciduous shrubs including dogwood, potentilla rhododendron and spirea. There will be landscaping adjacent to the building including a mix of deciduous, conifers, ornamental and shrubs. There is streetscape along West 78th. There will be another landscaped court yard between the hotel expansion and the restaurant. GRADING/DRAINAGE In the overall downtown development plans, the City has designed and constructed the storm sewer system to accommodate storm runoff from the downtown area. In the remote parking area along the east side of the proposed restaurant, staff is unclear of how storm runoff will be handled. The applicant should demonstrate where and how the storm drainage will be accommodated. LIGHTING/SIGNAGE There are light standards currently located in the parking lot. Additional lighting would only be required in the rear of the building where additional parking may be required. Chanhassen Mall currently has a freestanding sign located at the Laredo entrance. The hotel has a sign located at the corner of West 78th and Market. The applicants are proposing to replace the sign on West 78th Street with a remodeled one in its same location. Materials would be consistent with the buildings. Signage for the retail area is proposed to be electric backlit, steel channel letters with colored acrylic faces, typical to the sporting good store. The signage for the restaurant is proposed to be located at the entrance canopy. The signage on the motel would be a wall sign. The location of the existing sign for the mall is not centralized and staff would recommend that it be eliminated. Staff would recommend that only a wall sign be permitted for the restaurant and hotel. Hotel Expansion September 1, 1993 Page 7 COMPLIANCE TABLE Lot Area Lot Frontage Lot Depth Parking Square footage Feet Feet Number of Spaces Req Prov Req Prov Req Prov Req Prov Lot 1 10,000 26,120 100 96.09* 100 269.29 166 42** Lot 2 10,000 24,462 100 90.12* 100 249 40 32** Lot 3 10,000 37,136 100 103 100 250 N/A * A variance will be required for the lot frontage requirements. The ordinance requires 100 feet, Lot 1 is 96.09 and Lot 2 is 90.12. Both lots exceed the square footage and depth requirements. Staff supports the variance. ** Insufficient parking. RECOMMENDATION — Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission table this request a parking study is completed for the entire Chanhassen Mall/Bloomberg Additions. - Should the Planning Commission support this request, staff recommends the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Bloomberg 2nd Addition and site plan review for the addition of the motel, restaurant, and modifications to the Frontier Building, as shown on the plans dated August 2, 1993, and subject to the following conditions: 1. All mechanical equipment shall be screened, with similar building material or landscaping. 2. The employee parking (5 stalls) shown west of the mall adjacent to the "Animal Fair" building shall be eliminated. This area should be identified as access for deliveries — only. 3. Refuse collection shall be shown on the site plan, located behind the building and shall be screened with similar building material. Hotel Expansion September 1, 1993 Page 8 4. The curb median which divides the parking lot east of Laredo Drive from the driveway access out onto West 78th Street shall not be removed. 5. A total of 50 feet of right-of-way from the center of West 78th Street. 6. The applicant shall demonstrate that truck turning movements (small tractor trailer) can be accommodated with the parking lot configuration as proposed. 7. All trees located in the planters shall be norway and sugar maples. 8. Elimination of the existing mall sign. One wall sign shall be permitted for the motel and one wall sign for the restaurant. No other signage shall be allowed. 9. Compliance with conditions of building code requirements regarding lot lines through buildings. 10. A parking study shall be completed on the entire Chanhassen Mall/Bloomberg Additions. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Truman Howel dated August 2, 1993. 2. Letter from Vernelle Clayton dated August 26, 1993. 3. Existing Bloomberg Addition. 4. Proposed Bloomberg 2nd Addition. 5. Memo from Dave Hempel dated August 26, 1993. 6. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated August 26, 1993. 7. Site plan and building elevations. 8. Preliminary plat dated August 2, 1993. . . •\��1,Y�.... K AUGUST 2, 1993 Or ,' :-,TRUMAN - ;HOWELL ARCHITECT SA' 102 NARRATIVE CONCERNING THE PROPOSED ONRA. BOU1F2AAD YAATA,MN SS391 WORK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FAX 1612)449-0552 WEST 78TH STREET IN DOWNTOWN CHANHASSEN, MN. SCOPE This proposed project is to include: 1. The modification of the exterior of the retail building referred to a the "Frontier Building". The extent of this remodeling will be to : (a) Remove the glass between the remaining brick arches on the building similar to that already accomplished on the west end of the building, on the first floor. (b) Extend the present mansard roof at each end of the buildings second floor to the first floor roof deck and to both the east and west _ sides of the building. The west end extention of this mansard roof will provide a covered space under which there will be parking stalls created. 2. The existing stair from the back portion of the "Fontier Building" will be enclosed as will the exit from the first floor and the passageway will be extended to the face of the new dock screening wall. This wall and roof will extend from the "Frontier Building" on the east to the proposed restaurant building presently called the "Animal Fair Building". This closure will _ consist of a face wall with doors to the passageways described above and an overhead door for access to the existing dock at the proposed restaurant building. The roof will extent to the south approximately 30 ' to provide coverage over the dock area but will have no wall on the south side. 3. The existing "Animal Fair Building" will be expanded and remodeled to provide a restaurant on that site. It is proposed that the present entry area will be eliminated and a glass enclosure will be built that will look out on the lawn area with — heavy landscaping and a deck to be built for use in the summer months when tables and chairs will be moved from the inside of the restaurant, outside. Two meeting rooms will be built on the _ interior for use by the motel. A full service kitchen and bar are planned for the interior with some seating around the existing fireplace. The west side of the building will be extended to provide for dining adjacent to a glass wall looking out on an enclosed heavily landscaped courtyard. A new entry and waiting area will be created to the west of the existing building. NARRATIVE-CHANHASSEN 8-2-93 4. An expansion of 36 hotel suites will be placed in a three story building adjacent to the courtyard of the restaurant this facility will be an extension of the exiting motel operation and will be located between the restaurant and the existing motel. The same management will operate both facilities and therefore the new building will not need separate support facilities. On the ground floor an enclosed concourse will be built that will connect this new facility to the existing motel as well as the new restaurant. Two shops will be located along this concourse for the primary use of the restaurant and motel patrons . Another heavily landscaped courtyard will be created on the west side of the new motel expansion. ISSUES The above development proposal will have an effect on several issues that have been discussed previously with Chanhassen Staff. Parking The restaurant is planned to have a seating capacity of 150. The meeting rooms that are planned in the building will be under contract with the motel and will be used primarily to accommodate the needs of the motel . The expanded motel will have 36 rooms . We have indicated an increased parking stall count and believe that under most conditions this will be adequate. The heaviest concentrations of patrons using the retail , restaurant, and motel facilities occur at times that will not conflict. The heaviest use of the retail areas will be between 10 : 00am to 4 : 30pm. The restaurants heaviest use of parking will occur from 5 : 00pm to 11 : 00pm and the heaviest use of the motel parking area will be from 10 : 00pm to 10 : 00am the next morning. Using cross parking easements parking stalls are available within a reasonable walking distance to all of the facilities. Signage The existing freestanding sign on West 78th Street will be remodeled in its present location using materials consistent with the buildings ie : wood and brick . The sign face will be replaced to indicate present businesses and will remain at its present size. Signage for the retail area described here is proposed to be electric backlit steel channel letters with colored acrylic faces . Typical would be the recent signage installed for the "TEAM sporting goods" store. The signage for the restaurant is proposed to be located at the entrance canopy of the facility and will be of either sandblasted wood or a backlit acrylic sign in a steel case. The signage on the motel expansion will be a wall mounted sign on the south face of the building. It will be a backlit acrylic faced sign in a steel case. All of the signs are indicated on the submitted documents. Materials The materials for the buildings have been indicated on the drawings. Landscaping As indicated on the submitted drawings . LOTUS REALTY SERVICES August 26 , 1993 TO: Kate Aanonsen FROM: Vernelle Clayton RE : Bloomberg - Hotel/Restaurant/Retail In our conversations and in discussing the proposal with the members of the HRA, a question regarding the use of the Hotel Meeting Rooms was raised in the context of evaluating parking needs . In response, I have been in touch with the operators of the hotel and this is intended to summarize their business plan and reasons for operating the two proposed meeting rooms to be constructed within the existing "Animal Fair" Building in Chanhassen. From their experience in operating Country Suites and other hotels , they have determined that a portion of their potential market cannot be reached unless they can offer not only restaurant facilities but also meeting room space for their customers ' use . Much of the success of the hotel has been attributed to the usage by businesses located in nearby business parks . These businesses want to be able to have meetings at the hotel for the groups they are booking . Therefore , as part of their plan for a 36 room addition, the - hotel owners will also be leasing the two meeting rooms . The hotel will be leasing the meeting rooms from the building owner for use by their guests . The hotel will contract with the restaurant for catering the events scheduled in the meeting rooms when meal service is required . . The hotel will be responsible for all reservations of the meeting rooms and the restaurant will not be scheduling any meetings or banquets . 545 WEST 78TH STREET ■ PO. BOX 235 ■ CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ■ (612)934-4538 ■ FAX(612)934-1505 iI 1 t*.Ptz ir_ze.eo.o S tE 4.1 . . 0.0;---17 .11 -----"- ...--.' a r:-.• - • 9- 0'?, — .0..... 0 ' .0 I/ ..1 .. l • D Y" 0 ) O. v7 it) co in -• 0 0 - - - '2 I— 0 ....2. ...! ,... _i .. t) ... 1_ ,3-0Z.V0.0 S L 01 cell ... ! CE : P: o iolino ,,c, • ..,.:—----- 0 -- 1 u) -----7:-) ',. fOi I . ofi '27. -o-un a . 90, t.c O mot sot o v 0..D Fill'•1" . .-. c". c.; ".•:;. io o h • o Is 19 I Y .... el—, )• 0 ••) . (..... . • - 0 0 • .419• *I • Cr% II : 0 : . 0 MB .3 -02.00.0 S Cik•., - t. e.l. z Nt• ;?• \ .--.. ••• -7- 2 A g 0 _J 1- • .. '-.... .,i, t C 00 121 .6- • 0 illt o -". v 1— N. e t.. ,ot -• C ea 03 _, .,..• a '''.. 1 E-1‘: a., : `N. ;.r: :: .. N. C ca • p O/O.7 OA a 7 o/ .1-/air coo ros • dw 6 w CC LIU , 0 c.„ I .4 ////fl po.o /aa..//s Or/y/s/x_7, 6 u 1:•-• ia 7) co opilie,k p -__I.,__ .1_ ____._________711_ t•-•.: Z.. g3 tl. ...• •., —0_ 1 ————---.———L —I 11 00 :....: 1 'n I \ te I NJ • I / all ,.--r ......, i . 01, 90.ZS : 3.02.9C.0 N i'r9ZgatiC9C01 ' \ ta ,OV4(...14 1.J ---------.0011:1•0 1c 0 14 0:_ti.ti.p.fi u. I 1.1 4., II -. '' •C; A --; 8: -zLft•wo.c. -----: ....:: ., • ,.... • .r. ••-......................... ; ti .. :.. le • ..............................ai • t 1/4) \ I-. la 1., ".... ... ..................... •• •9 t. 4' l.ii u L. L.:,kj tl I • ,so .N •11 U N. ::I 1 . ••• 4 • \ A• •.; 1 W '1 V Q ' CO I E-4t � w CLco I I a W 6 I— N " 0 Y- — 01 C) I — 6Z'69Z 3 NZC.90.00 N •"' I `. •• 4 10 •, . 61.10s M «Z£.90.00 S. I I-- .16./ o o r-- 1 I a"w — CO 16 I 3t I 0ofI 10 • 1 /► _ �, °° W LZ't9t w .06'£Z• 00'BZ . x 1 LZ'Z6l 3 ..OZ.£0.00 S • Nc� 1 �� � — I .41.4; 'IP' 1-7`18-'''''.� N , y Z.. ——WOMB Om.* /=.•11Min.i Ifi 0 r a ...:::.., Li •0- 6Z'tLZ 3 .,SZ .50.00 S •• . I ri z — ._, U_I t£'9ol = to �, I U .�0 00•Lt .6 °' I into to e z — OI j 0, . ., 3 "�"� O C5 LZ M .0Z .SO.W N . m v 0 0 h 3 _ _ a — I I yv. I 1 ^ ....11°,-) ", ..... .h W poh=• — P- ,; W 1 f-- 1 IA I i 0 I - 1 N. 3 I _ — 1 I I o I 3 I 1 1 ' - ... o c :; I I m •adroa OD co 1 Z b L£'L9 CITY OF CHANHASSEN - 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer 1 DATE: August 26, 1993 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Bloomberg 2nd Addition and Hotel Expansion Project No. 93-24 Upon review of the preliminary plat dated July 29, 1993 prepared Ron Krueger & Associates and the site plan dated August 2, 1993 prepared by Truman Howell Architects and Associates, I offer the following comments: 1. In conjunction with the City's West 78th Street Detachment Project, the City has recently acquired additional permanent and temporary easements over the property to facilitate street widening and traffic signals. Staff believes that at some point in the future it is still predictable that the street may be widened again. Therefore, at this time it would be wise to acquire additional dedication of right-of-way along the north 10 feet of the property. This will give a total of 50 feet of right-of-way from the center of West 78th Street. 2. The site plan proposes to maintain a delivery access and parking area on the east side of the proposed restaurant. It appears there is one way to access the loading dock. The access appears to be from the front or north side of the building and will result in crossing over a proposed pedestrian walkway. In an effort to minimize conflict with pedestrian movements, staff recommends that this parking area be eliminated and restricted or limited to a delivery staging area. From the plans it is unclear whether or not the delivery vehicle may be able to access a loading dock from the south with the proposed cover. Staff is also concerned with the turning radiuses when the trucks exit the loading dock area to the north. It is recommended that the applicant be required to demonstrate that truck turning movements (small tractor trailer) can be accommodated with the parking lot configuration as proposed. 3. In the overall downtown development plans the City has designed and constructed the storm sewer system to accommodate storm runoff from the downtown area. In — Kate Aanenson August 26, 1993 Page 2 _ the remote parking area along the east side of the proposed restaurant, staff is _ unclear of how storm runoff will be handled. The applicant should demonstrate where and how the storm drainage will be accommodated. 4. The existing parking lot is proposed to be modified to provide additional parking stalls. The plans propose on eliminating the right-in/right-out driveway access just east of Laredo Drive. Staff is acceptable to this change. However, the plans also — propose to eliminate the curb median which divides the parking lot east of Laredo from the driveway access out onto West 78th Street (directly south of Laredo Drive). Staff strongly discourages this change due to anticipated congestion and confusion — this will create at the driveway access out onto West 78th Street. Staff strongly believes that current curb median should remain intact. All parking lot and access improvements should be compatible with the upgrading of West 78th Street. I have — attached a copy of the construction plans with the proposed changes on West 78th Street that will affect this site. ktm Attachment: Future West 78th Street Improvements at Laredo Drive — c: Charles Folch, City Engineer 03 I1713) + co I I ... I c� F- c) ao I n m Om 0 R 013 CI ? I m n 015 z 11‘ id O- © o 411 LAKE iiiiia r-- —� / — m 1 „\\ / LA K.) N N O � � � U N 0 0 0 0 � co m AA i r- - O w O O 0 C O Tmll -1 I - 0 0" _____-) 0 R'C _I � GymCA CACACACACACNNA: ( I .INV CA Cn CA 4. N N u) co V a 40 + + + + + + + + + + + Nta, ( ) CA401 -4 (Pi fV Vv 7C N CAOOCr+ Cn74010 (� V 74 coI CO V � � � tDtDta WCr `� I I (.... Ul 'mO 0 0 4 CAI U O CAO 1 C1! OOOOcO Vtl, V � O �._ , , I irxi � rr- rr23 ,37323 .. i I y2 -6 I I I I ZN V V V V O to - CD u1 w w V, u1 U1 al Ps'l )e--) .-- ,.x < � w I .: r© 01 O 000 N m "m�cz) �o a c II I - mr N I I m w-0O vZ • S I C7 N :4- Wm m� � , +to cr) .+Ic+i1 � +,F _h I 0 - N Cn V V r• m- (7 I I I I 1 R• 01 6 O to •V is) III trn � Z -1 y .� o� Z z + 010, CJI 0mO u\ Z I � � Zcac0t0 Ili C) / n 0 b r- x) � mrr 77 C I 74 71 --I 74 --1 = m I AI m I 1 CITY OF CHANI1ASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 '— MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 4 ask DATE: August 26, 1993 SUBJ: 89-7 SUB and 89-2 Site Plan Review I have reviewed your request for comments on the above referenced planning case, and have _ some items that should be added as conditions of approval. Background: The Uniform Building Code (UBC) requires protection of openings occurring at property lines. The current buildings do not meet the opening protection requirements of the UBC. The subject _ of property lines, exterior walls and opening protection for these buildings was first broached in conjunction with Site Plan Review 90-7. The currently proposed subdivision creates many of the same problems. These problems need to be addressed before the property is replatted, because their resolution may affect the location of property lines. Analysis: The requirements for wall and opening protection on property lines are intended to protect the buildings and property on each side of a property line from a catastrophe on the adjacent property. The closer the proximity of the buildings to the property line the higher the level of protection required. UBC table 5-A requires that a restaurant have exterior walls of two-hour fire-resistive construction if it is located 10 feet or less from the property line. The warehouse occupancy on the other side of the property line would be required to have a one-hour fire- resistive wall on the property line. Since these walls are intended to protect one structure from the other, the structure may not penetrate the walls. The walls are generally required to have parapets extending above the roofs , and, of course, footings are required to support wall and other loads. _ The proposed replat locates a property line inside a building. The plat as proposed would require the walls as described above to be constructed on each side of the property line. t*, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Kate Aanenson August 26, 1993 Page 2 — Their are also requirements for protection of openings at property lines. The existing buildings are currently in violation and must be brought into code conformance when new uses for them are established. One possible way to eliminate wall and opening protection requirements would be to combine Lot 2, Block 1 Bloomberg Addition with Lot 3, Block 1 Chanhassen Mall. This would permit nearly unlimited design possibilities for the Animal Fair and Instant Web buildings. It also appears that a second proposal received by fax from RKA proposes a different building configuration with property lines running through the buildings. This presents the same problems as outlined earlier. Recommendation: Staff recommends the following condition be included . 1. Eliminate property lines within existing or proposed buildings. or 1. Provide details on required wall and opening protection at property lines. It is further recommends that this issue be resolved before preliminary plat approval. L . TJ' M a — El <A 11 f`l L s e L's1 — Er o 1 J s E ti ...: II 11 — .liti,-.11%.g e at; I u V p I se-'43 PP II6 ,u 1 a t , pll •V p C ii .____1 7C 0.70: o 7 4 is ! — o0 -% P _ ,i), 4I -"es-.4.1',1r04 1 b i t. . #____, 1111_a ._. C • .) v • .>a - 7� • P • ?IV • I — 1 II • _3 ,j,y • — I •••••••• I • I 'O I I1-^ I I • t r •8 Z I di 1 i I — 1 ii a • b i i . 14101A1 I 1 lid < x i 1, 1 PIMA n 11 t = ,,, , , 4 -I 4 I U hi L.,,__I- Ls-etK.,.:, <., JI I 1J 1 -frl IP'111; kt : § F ! < g : .- . a. i 7 , I g , i li L _i i -1---1 —1 i 1 iii ai I'1%. 'i1.1111,, ,,_ / {,// iiiili iiiiii- • ili litilit !11111 . M Maai g uii Z W < & IO W V _ oc . ( . T— zap !"n L_ �:JQo ,,-,0‘.‘‘:,..:-..../..' ) IN . e _ ,. \\ ..•N ki7s . — I .0 \I-_\ d 1 Cr-1–: — I 1 .. i...:, — MT j rir __ _ _ i - C .,. ... •-•: • 1 ; ) . , _ ,i,, ; , i_ 1 If - A 1 ,11111111 _ — g (11111 g a 2 aV • IIIIIIi 11 aptR 0 /Cii ng L E=J < II. Is,-1 f: , V W .� a — i.,.1 (-4 al 01". di 1 !i_i- k+ 2 15 AR 1,31 i 1 i til 111 lit 1 liNI.,;,-11 11 .11 ! i i aii i i _ r i,,, 6 - , i , \al al 5 k : .._ 7--0 is k a 2 i _ i Li ! 1 t 1 ' ‘71 : 61 1 1 if 1 I 1 1 .7111 I i ii L1-11 I I W ! g N 2 ,N - _ .0 K e U I oe e: e * ' `---1 ..1 ' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ' t 2717.-_,a-.. - .kF-t PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING s, : , • gra i T Lc Wednesday, September 1, 1993 T �� � �i..*:__7:30 P.M. __ F- - I w E • ►r; s1 ':� a„ City Hall Council Chambers i ; 690 Coulter Drive �' _ . iv,'" Bi) Project: Country Suites Hotel .i • Expansion and Restaurant -Y -- • ' i \• wS!-, \- ao Developer: Lotus Realty and Bloomberg 7 , - w 0 .4-Companies - �- �o - --� X11 Location: 591 West 78th Street 7 �," .440 Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in _ your area. Lotus Realty Services and Bloomberg Companies, Inc. proposes a preliminary plat to replat Lot 2, Block 1, Outlot C and Outlot D, Bloomberg Addition into 3 lots on property zoned CBD and located south of West 78th Street, east of Market Boulevard and _ west of Great Plains Boulevard. The applicant is also requesting site plan review of a hotel expansion and restaurant between the Country Suites Hotel and Frontier Building. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing — through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. — 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate at 937-1900. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on August 19, 1993. —Amoco American Oil Co. B.C. Burdick Chanhassen Inn P.O. Box 3428 426 Lake Street 531 79th St. W. Oakbrook, IL 60522 Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen Retail Ltd. _Chanhassen Realty Co. Partnership Church of St. Hubert c/o Mason Properties c/o Weis Asset Mgmt. Inc. 7707 Great Plains Blvd. 1589 Highway 7 3601 Minnesota Dr., Suite 110 Chanhassen, MN 55317 _Hopkins, MN 55343 Minneapolis, MN 55435 Robert Dittrich John Dorek, et al John M. Havlik, Jr. —1827 Crestview Dr. Chanhassen Bowl Box 195 New Ulm, MN 56073 P.O. Box 513 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Heritage Park Apts. Philip & Nancy Hillman Holiday Station Stores, Inc. /o Thies & Talle Mgmt, Inc. c/o Tom & Kay Klingelhutz 4567 80th St. W. 470 W. 78th St. Box 25 Rt. 3, Box 118A Bloomington, MN 55437 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Annandale, MN 55302 Gerald Schlenk, Jean Von Bank Arthur & D. Kerber Al H. Klingelhutz Mary Goertz 511 Chan View Gerald W. Schelnk _225 W. 78th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 —Thaddseus E. Korzenowski Thomas J. and Mary Lou Krueger Market Square Associates Ltd. 5315 3rd Ave. S. 7136 Utica Lane Partnership Minneapolis, MN 55419 Chanhassen, MN 55317 200 W. Highway 13 Burnsville, MN 55337 Donald F. McCarville Minnegasco, Inc. Mithun Enterprises, Inc. "3349 Warner Lane 201 7th St. S. 900 Wayzata Blvd. E. Mound, MN 55364 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Wayzata, MN 55391 Ralph G. Molnau Gary L. Brown Gale P. Pelcl —P.O.Ronald F. Dubbe 1831 Koenen Cir. W. 505 Chan View Box 151 Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Waconia, MN 55387 Richard & Mary Rasmussen Richard S. Brose, Et Al Gerald W. & L. Schlenk 503 Chan View c/o T.F. James Co. 225 W. 78th Street —Chanhassen, MN 55317 P.O. Box 24137 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Minneapolis, MN 55424 —Mark & Rose Ann Schlenk Michael J. Sorenen State Bank of Chanhassen 501 Chan View, P.O. 145 Rt. 2, Box 187K 680 W. 78th St. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Belle Plain, MN 56011 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Richard W. Steiner, Jr. Volvoline Instant Oil Change Dean H. L. Wallentine P.O. Box 1717 301 Main St. E. 507 Chan View Whitefish, MT 59937 Lexington, KY 40507 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Waterfront Associates Charles R. Wechterman Wilbar Properties 440 Union Place Shelly E. Mehl-Wechterman 7811 Great Plains Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 509 Chan View Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Twin Cities & Western Railroad 2995 12th Street East Blencoe, MN 55336 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 I' MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Planning Director DATE: August 26, 1993 SUBJ: Parking Lot Landscaping Ordinance At the August 4, 1993, Planning Commission meeting, action on the ordinance amending landscaping requirements for site plans was tabled until the Tree Board could review the ordinance. The Tree Board reviewed the ordinance on August 24, 1993 and made several changes. Brad Johnson and Ken Norby attended the meeting and provided their comments. The attached ordinance contains the Tree Board's changes in bold. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the amendments to the ordinance as shown in Attachment #1. ATTACHMENT 1. Proposed Ordinance Amendment. CHANHASSEN CITY CODE DIVISION 2. TREE PRESERVATION The section below will be amended with the adoption of the Tree Preservation Ordinance proposed for subdivision. Sec. 20-1178. Generally. DIVISION 3. LANDSCAPING STANDARDS Sec. 20-1179. Landscape budget. (a) Landscaping shall be provided that meets the minimum landscaping budget provided in the table below. Project value* Minimum Landscape Value** (FIs building construction, site (Is the minimum landscape value and shall preparation, and the site improvements) include only expenditures on trees and plant material excluding sod or seed, excluding labor and grading.) Below $1,000,000 2% $1,000,001- 2,000,000 20,000 + 1% of project value in excess of $1,000,000 2,000,001- 3,000,000 $30,000 + 0.75% of project value in excess of $2,000,000 3,000,001- 4,000,000 $37,500 + 0.25% of project value in excess of $3,000,000 Over $4,000,000 1% (b) At the City's discretion. The value of tree preservation may be utilized to offset landscaping requirements, if there is a finding of significant trees that are worthy of preservation. The following formula shall be used for calculating the value of tree preservation: 1 Cross-sectional Dollars Per Species Condition Location Dollar Tree Area x Square Inch x Factor x Factor x Factor = Value NOTE: The formula used may be changed by resolution approved by the City Council. (see definitions section) Add definition of Interior Landscaping (area exclusive of mandated setback). Sec. 20-1180. Screening for visual impacts. (a) Visual impacts must be screened or buffered as required by the city. These shall include, but not be limited to, truck loading areas, trash storage, parking lots, interior lot areas and perimeters, outdoor storage areas, large unadorned building massing, garage doors associated with auto-oriented uses and vehicular stacking areas for drive-through uses. (1) Required screening for any visual impact may be achieved with fences, walls, earth berms, hedges or other landscape materials. All walls and fences shall be architecturally harmonious with the principal building. The use of wooden screen fences or chain link fences equipped with slats is prohibited. Earth berms shall not exceed a slope of 3:1 unless provided with landscaping designed to minimize maintenance. The screen shall be designed to employ materials which provide effective visual barrier during all seasons. (2) All required screening or buffering shall be located on the lot occupied by the use, building, facility or structure to be screened. No landscape screening shall be located on any public right-of-way or within eight (8) feet of the traveled portion of any street or highway. (3) Screening or buffering required by this section shall be of a height needed to accomplish the goals of this section. Height of plantings required under this section shall be measured at the time of installation. (b) The following uses shall be screened or buffered in accordance with the requirements of this subdivision: (1) Principal buildings and structures and any building or structure accessory thereto located in any business, industrial or planned unit development district containing nonresidential uses shall be buffered screened from lots used for any residential purpose. (2) Principal buildings and structures and any building or structure accessory thereto located in any R4, R8, R12, R16 district or planned unit development district containing residential development at densities exceeding four (4) units 2 per acre shall be buffered screened from lots located in any Al, A2, RR or RSF district. (3) Additional buffer yard requirements are established by the city comprehensive plan and listed in individual district standards. (4) Outside storage in any district subject to these provisions and allowed by other provisions of this ordinance, shall be screened from all public views. Sec. 20-1181. Vehicular areas. (a) Parking lot perimeters where vehicular areas, including driveways and drive aisles, are not entirely screened visually by an intervening building or structure from any abutting right-of-way, there shall be provided landscaping designed to buffer direct views of cars and hard surface areas. The goal of this section is to break up expanses of hard surface areas, help to visually define boulevards and soften direct views of parking areas and provide for reforestation with overstory tree from the approved tree species list identified for parking or other species as approved by city staff. All new plantings must have irrigation system available. (b) Interior landscaping for vehicular use areas: (1) Any open vehicular use areas (excluding loading, unloading, and storage areas in IOP and BG districts) containing more than six thousand (6,000) square feet of area, or twenty (20) or more vehicular parking spaces, shall provide interior landscaping in accordance with this division in addition to "perimeter" landscaping. Interior landscaping may be peninsular or island types. (2) For each one hundred (100) square feet, or fraction thereof, of vehicular use area, five (5) eight (8) square feet of landscaped area shall be provided. (3) The minimum landscape area permitted shall be sixty four (61) two hundred (200) square feet, with a feu-ten six foot minimum dimension to all trees from edge of pavement where vehicles overhang and a four foot minimum dimension to all trees where vehicles do not overhang. 3 (4) In order to encourage the required landscape areas to be properly dispersed, no re- quired landscape area shall be larger than - • . .. . ! seven hundred twenty (720) square feet in vehicular use areas under thirty thousand (30,000) square feet, unless there is a preservation area. In both cases, the least dimension of any required area shall be four-foot minimum dimension to all trees from edge of pavement where vehicles overhang. Landscape areas larger than above are permitted as long as the additional areas are in excess of the required minimum. (5) A minimum of one (1) tree shall be required for each two hundred fifty (250) square feet or fraction thereof, of required landscape area. Trees shall have a clear trunk of at least five (5) feet above the ground, and the remaining area shall be landscaped with shrubs, or ground cover (not to include rocks or gravel except as a mulch around shrubs and ground cover), not to exceed two (2) feet in height. •.. - • . - - - . . . . . . . . - . . . . penetration of the landscape area. (7) All landscaped areas shall be protected by concrete curbing. (8) All landscaping area shall have the proper soil preparation to ensure the viability of the vegetation to survive. The landscaping plan shall provide specifications for proper soil preparation. Sec. 20-1182. Foundation and aesthetic plantings. (a) Landscaping plans shall provide for an appropriate mix of plantings around the exterior footprint of all buildings. The intent of this section is to improve the appearance of the structures and, where necessary, break up large unadorned building elevations. These plantings are not intended to obscure views of the building or accessory signage. (b) All undeveloped areas of the site, excluding protected wetlands and tree preservation areas, shall be seeded or sodded. In addition, an appropriate mix of trees and other plant material shall be provided to create an aesthetically pleasing site. (c) Boulevard and streetscape plantings, Where undeveloped or open areas of a site are located adjacent to public right-of-way, the plan shall provide for over-story boulevard trees. A minimum of one (1) tree for every thirty (30) feet of frontage is required. The city may approve alternatives if it meets the intent of the ordinance from approved tree species list or as approved by city staff. Sec. 20-1183. Landscaping materials. (a) The landscaping materials shall consist of the following: 4 (1) Walls and fences. Walls shall be constructed of natural stone, brick or other appropriate materials. Fences shall be constructed of wood. Chain link fencing will be permitted only if covered with plant material or otherwise screened. 2) Earth berms. Earth berms shall be physical barriers which block or screen the view similar to a hedge, fence, or wall. Mounds shall be constructed with proper and adequate plant material to prevent erosion. A difference in elevation between areas requiring screening does not constitute an existing earth mound, and shall not be considered as fulfilling any screening requirement. (3) Plants. All plant materials shall be living plants; artificial plants are prohibited. Plant materials shall meet the following requirements: a. Deciduous trees. Shall be species having an average crown spread of greater than fifteen (15) feet and having trunk(s) which can be maintained with over five (5) feet of clear wood in areas which have visibility requirements, except at vehicular use area intersections where an eight-foot clear wood requirement will control. Trees having an average mature spread of crown less than fifteen (15) feet may be substituted by grouping of the same so as to create the equivalent of a fifteen foot crown spread. A minimum of ten (10) feet overall height or minimum caliper (trunk diameter, measured six (6) inches above ground for trees up to four (4) inches caliper) of at least two and - one-half (212) inches immediately after planting shall be required. Trees of species whose roots are known to cause damage to public roadways or other public works shall not be placed closer than fifteen (15) feet to such public works, unless the tree root system is completely contained within a barrier for which the minimum interior containing dimensions shall be five (5) feet square and five (5) feet deep and for which the construction requirements shall be four (4) inches thick, reinforced concrete. Trees shall be selected from the approved list of tree species or as approved by city staff. b. Evergreen trees. Evergreen trees shall be a minimum of six (6) feet high with a minimum caliper of one and one-half (11/2) inches when planted. c. Shrubs and hedges. Deciduous shrubs shall be at least two (2) feet in average height when planted, and shall conform to the opacity and other requirements within four (4) years after planting Evergreen shrubs shall be at least two (2) feet in average height and two (2) feet in diameter. d. Vines. Vines shall be at least twelve (12) inches high at planting, and are generally used in conjunction with walls or fences. e. Grass or ground cover. Grass shall be planted in species normally grown as permanent lawns, and may be sodded, plugged, sprigged, or seeded; except in swales or other areas subject to erosion, where solid sod, erosion reducing net, or suitable 5 mulch shall be used, nurse-grass seed shall be sown for immediate protection until complete coverage otherwise is achieved. Grass sod shall be clean and free of weeds and noxious pests or diseases. Ground cover such as organic material shall be planted in such a manner as to present a finished appearance and seventy-five (75) percent of complete coverage after two (2) complete growing seasons, with a maximum of fifteen (15) inches on center. In certain cases, ground cover also may consist of rocks, pebbles, sand and similar eppfeved materials if approved by the city. f. Retaining. Retaining walls exceeding five (5) four (4) feet in height, including stage walls which cumulatively exceed five (5) four (4) in height, must be constructed in accordance with plans prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect of brick, concrete or natural stone. Artificial material may be approved if appropriate. A building permit is required. DIVISION 4. MAINTENANCE AND INSTALLATION Sec. 20-1184. Generally. The owner, assigns, tenant, and their respective agents shall be held jointly and severally responsible to continually maintain their property and landscaping as approved with the official site plan in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced within three (3) months of notifications by the city. However, the time for compliance may be extended up to nine (9) months by the director of planning in order to allow for seasonal or weather conditions. Sec. 20-1186--20-1260. Reserved. DEFINITIONS: Screening - Visually shielding or obscuring structures or uses through the use of densely planted vegetation. Vegetation shall include a mix of deciduous and coniferous to provide year round screening. Cross-Sectional Area - is a measure of tree size. It is calculated from the trunk diameter using the formula 0.785d2 where d2 is the trunk diameter of the tree measured in inches squared. Diameter measurements should be taken at a point on the trunk 41/2 feet above the level. Dollars per square Inch - is the value determined by the Council of Trees and Landscape appraisers. The current value is $27.00 per square inch. 6 Species Factor - is the measure of the relative value of each shade or ornamental tree species. See attached list with values ( Attachment A). Condition Factor - is the measure of an individual tree and its relative physical condition compared to a tree of the same species which has perfect health and form (Attachment B). Location Factor - is the function value of a tree based on its location in the landscape. The location factor may vary from 0 to 100 percent with 100 percent representing a perfect location. Its greater value is due to its aesthetic and functional impact on the property. Positive functions such as providing shade, controlling snow drifting, or providing wildlife habitat enhances a tree's location value. Negative functions such as interference with public safety, utilities, sidewalks, building or other properties can lessen the value. List of Desirable Tree Species for Planting in Chanhassen means the following list tree species. List of Desirable Tree Species for Planting in Chanhassen Key to notations used: ST = Relatively tolerant to deicing salt DT = Relatively tolerant to drought or dry sites Size: (in terms of expected mature height) L = Large (over 50 feet) M = Medium (between 25 to 50 feet) S = Small (less than 25 feet) Blvd = Suitable for boulevard planting and parking lot Pkg = Suitable for parking lots Suitable Tree Species Broadleaf Species Size Tolerance Location Notes Ash, Mountain M BLVD Protect from sunscald Sorbus spp. Birch, River M Relatively tolerant of wet Betula nigra sites 7 Coffeetree, L DT BLVD Kentucky PKG Gymnocladus dioicus Corktree, Amur M DT Phellodendron amurense Crabapple, S BLVD Many varieties available; Flowering check for disease Malus spp. resistance; protect from sunscald Ginkgo M BLVD Male trees only Ginkgo biloba Hackberry L DT ST PKG Celtis occidentalis Hawthorn S DT ST PKG Thornless varieties Crataegus spp. available Hickory, Shagbark L DT Carya ovata Honeylocust M-L ST BLVD/PKG Protect from sunscald. Gleditsia Thornless varieties triacanthos popular Ironwood M Grows well under shade Ostrya virginiana of other trees Lilac, Japanese S ST BLVD Tree Syringa reticulata Linden, American L BLVD/PKG A.K.A Basswood; Tilia americana Relatively tolerant of wet sites Linden, Littleleaf M BLVD Tilia cordata Locust, Black L DT PKG Robinia pseuedoacacia 8 Maple, Amur S Shade tolerant. Acer ginnala Maple, Norway M-L ST BLVD/PKG Protect from sunscald. Acer platanoides Maple, Red M-L BLVD Protect from sunscald. Acer rubrum Grows best on moists, acid soils. Maple, Sugar L BLVD Protect from sunscald. Acer saccharum PKG Prefers heavy, moist soils. Shade tolerant. Northern Catalpa M-L DT Catalpa speciosa Oak, White L Quercus alba Oak, Bur L DT ST BLVD/PKG Quercus macrocarpa Oak, Red L ST BLVD/PKG Quercus rubra Oak, Swamp L PKG Relatively tolerant of wet White sites Quercus bicolor Ohio Buckeye M BLVD Aesculus glabra Walnut, Black L Juglans nigra CONIFERS Arborvitae, M American Thuja occidentalis Fir, Balsam M Relatively tolerant of wet Abies balsamea sites. Shade tolerant. 9 Fir, White M DT Abies concolor Pine, Austrian M Pinus nigra Pine, Red L DT State tree Pinus resinosa Spruce, Black M Hills Picea glauca densata Spruce, Colorado M Picea pungens Spruce, Norway L Picea abies Spruce, White L Picea glauca Tamarack L Tolerant of wet sites. Larix laricina Only conifer that drops its needles each year in fall. 10 List of Desirable Tree Species for Parking Lot Planting in Chanhassen Key to notations: ST = Relatively tolerant to deicing salt DT = Relatively tolerant to drought or dry sites Size: (in terms of expected mature height) L = Large (over 50 feet) M = Medium (between 25 to 50 feet) S = Small (less than 25 feet) Broadleaf Species Size Notes Ginkgo M ST Male trees only Ginkgo biloba Hackberry L DT Celtis occidentalis Kentucky Coffeetree L DT Gymnocladus dioicus Honeylocust M-L ST Protect from sunscald. Gleditsia triacanthos Thornless varieties are available Japanese Tree Lilac S ST Syringa amurensis japonica American Linden L Tilia americana Littleleaf Linden M Tilia cordata Norway Maple M-L _ ST Protect from sunscald. Acer platanoides Bur oak L DT ST Quercus macrocarpa Red Oak L ST Quercus rubra Swamp White Oak L Relatively tolerant of wet Quercus bicolor sites Ohio Buckeye M Aesculus glabra CITY OF • iCH ANBASSENt 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 4k MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner DATE: August 26, 1993 SUBJ: Minimum Lot Size in the Rural Service Area ZOA 92-1 BACKGROUND This item was discussed before the Planning Commission on August 4, 1993. Staff outlined the concerns with lot sizes in the rural (non-serviced for sewer and water) areas. There are two issues of concern. First, should existing rural/large lot subdivisions be allowed to further subdivide if sewer and water are available; and the second issue is the RR District does not require rezoning to subdivide lots down to 15,000 square feet. The Planning Commission directed staff to draft an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The rural lot building eligibility requirements (Section 20-906) has been amended to state: "All Al and A2 residential districts located outside of the Metropolitan Council's Metropolitan Urban Service Area Boundary, shall be created in conformance to the requirements of article X or XI of this chapter". This amendment allows those 10 acre parcels zoned Al and A2, outside of the MUSA, as defined in Section 20-906, to be further subdivided. Existing subdivisions and lots of record could not be further subdivided outside of the MUSA and could not be further subdivided. This includes areas such as Hesse Farm, Lake Riley Woods and Riley Lake Meadows. This amendment would prevent existing Rural Lot Subdivisions from further subdividing unless there is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a rezoning. The RR district will now require all lots to have the 21/ acre minimum and 15,000 square foot lots will not be allowed. Subdivisions in the RR district would be permitted as long as the 21/2 acre minimum is met. Any property inside the MUSA zoned RR, that is not part of an existing Rural Lot Subdivision, or a property zoned A2 would have to be Planning Commission August 26, 1993 Page 2 rezoned to be further subdivided. These rezoning requests would have to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. ANALYSIS The Zoning Ordinance should be amended in the following areas: 1. Article X. "A-2" Agricultural Estate District. Section 20- 575, Lot Requirements and Setbacks The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "A-2" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is two and one-half acres, subject to Section 20-906. (2) The minimum lot frontage is two hundred (200) feet, except that fronting on a cul-de-sac shall be two hundred (200) feet at width at the building setback line. (3) The minimum lot depth is two (200) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de- sac shall be two hundred feet at the building setback line. (4) The maximum lot coverage is twenty (20) percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, fifty (50) feet. b. For rear yards, fifty (50) feet. c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. (6) The maximum height is as follows : a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. (7) The minimum driveway separation is as follows: a. If the driveway is on a collector street: four hundred (400) feet. b. If the driveway is on an arterial street: one thousand two hundred fifty (1,250). 2. Article XI "RR" Rural Residential District Sec. 20-595 Lot Requirements and Setbacks The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RR" District subject to additional requirements set forth in this chapter. (1) The minimum lot size is 15,000 sgaare feet or sufficient, whichever is larger, in Planning Commission August 26, 1993 Page 3 "bubble' or along the outside curve or curvilinear sections shall be (90) feet in (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty five (125) feet. The location of et. - front building setback line. (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet c. For side yard, ten (10) feet (6) The maximum height is as follows : a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. (1) The minimum lot area is two and one-half acres, subject to Section 20-906. (2) The minimum lot frontage is two hundred (200) feet, except that fronting on a cul- - de-sac shall be two hundred (200) feet at width at the building setback line. (3) The minimum lot depth is two (200) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall be two hundred feet at the building setback line. (4) The maximum lot coverage is twenty (20) percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, fifty (50) feet. b. For rear yards, fifty (50) feet. c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. (6) The maximum height is as follows : a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. (7) The minimum driveway separation is as follows: a. If the driveway is on a collector street: four hundred (400) feet. b. If the driveway is on an arterial street: one thousand two hundred fifty (1,250). 3. Sec. 20-906 Rural Lot building eligibilities. (a) All lots Al and A2 residential districts located outside of the Metropolitan Council's Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary, shall be created in conformance to the requirements of article X or XI of this chapter. Planning Commission August 26, 1993 Page 4 (a) ki34 A new single family building may be established or a lot containing an existing single family dwelling may be subdivided only if the following provisions are met: The remaining portion of Section 20-906 would remain the same. RECOMMENDATION Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance amendment as proposed in the staff report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance 170 2. Section 20-906 Zoning Ordinance 3. Letter from Roger Knutson dated August 5, 1993 4. Planning Commission minutes dated August 4, 1993 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 170 THE CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL ORDAINS: Section 1. Article X. "A-2" Agricultural Estate District Section 20-575, Lot Requirements and Setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an A-2 District subject to additional requirements, exceptions, and modifications set forth in this Chapter. (1) The minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet or sufficient, whichever is larger, in size to accommodate two potential septic sites. (2) The minimum lot frontage is.(90) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de- sac "bubble' or along the outside curve or curvilinear sections shall be (90) fee in width at the building setback line. (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty-five (125) feet. The location of these lots are conceptually illustrated below. Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private drives shall be one hundred (100) feet as measured at the front building setback line. (4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures is twenty (25) percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet c. For side yard, ten (10) feet (6) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. Section 2. Article XI "RR" Rural Residential District Sec. 20-595 Lot Requirements and Setbacks The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RR" District subject to additional requirements set forth in this chapter. (1) The minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet or sufficient, whichever is larger, in size to accommodate two potential septic sites. (2) The minimum lot frontage is (90) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de- sac "bubble' or along the outside curve or curvilinear sections shall be (90) fee in width at the building setback line. (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty-five (125) feet. The location of these lots are conceptually illustrated below. Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private drives shall be one hundred (100) feet as measured at the front building setback line. (4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures is twenty (25) percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet c. For side yard, ten (10) feet (6) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. Section 3. Article XXIII General Supplemental Regulations shall be amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-906, Rural Lot Buildings Eligibilities Subsection(b)(8) shall be amended to read: Each site must have an area which can support two (2) septic system site on a slope of less than twenty-five (25) percent. Adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 8th day of June, 1992. A I 1 EST: /c2. • -'_ , - Don Ashworth, City ClerkA1anager Donald J. r • ' , cyor Published in the Chanhassen Villager on 5u1y ,,Z3, i9ci __ § 20-906 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE • Sec. 20-906. Rural lot building eligibilities. (a) All lots located outside of the Metropolitan Council's Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary shall be created in conformance to the requirements of article X or XI of this chapter. (b) A new single-family building may be established or a lot containing an existing single-family dwelling may be subdivided only if the following provisions are met: (1) A one-unit per ten-acre density is maintained using the following guidelines: 0-19.99 acres equals one (1)single-family unit. 20-29.99 acres equals two(2)single-family units. • 30-39.99 acres equals three (3)single-family units, etc. (2) Existing parcels of record established prior to February 19, 1987, shall be deemed as buildable lots. This provision also applies to those lots affected by paragraph (10). (3) All lots shall have the minimum frontage on a public road as regulated in sections 20-575 and 20-595. To reduce the number of driveways on collectors and arterials, up to two (2) parcels will be allowed to be accessed by a private easement. • • • Supp.No.3 1230.8 ZONING § 20-907 (4) All lots must have soil and water conditions which permit a well. (5) All lots must have conditions which will permit two (2) on-site sewer systems in- stalled in conformance with chapter 19, article IV. (6) The one (1) unit per ten-acre density applies to contiguous property under single ownership. Acreage under single ownership, which is not contiguous, cannot be combined for increased density/building eligibility on one (1)of the parcels. Transfer of development rights from one (1)parcel of land to another is not allowed, except as permitted in paragraph (9)below. (7) Once a building eligibility has been used for a property,a development contract must be recorded with the county establishing the number of building eligibilities remain- ing or documenting that no building eligibility remains. Transfer of development rights from one (1)parcel of land to another is not allowed. (8) Each site must have at least one (1) acre of area which can support two (2) septic system sites, a building pad and well with a slope of twenty-five(25)percent or less. (9) Parcels which do not have public street frontage and are landlocked may transfer building eligibilities to an adjacent parcel which does have public street frontage and meets other provisions of this section. (10) Applications for subdivisions in the rural service area as identified in the compre- rhensive plan to contain a development density of one (1) unit per two and one-half (21) acres will be accepted until 4:30 p.m. on January 15, 1987, if the following information is submitted to the planning department: a. Completion of the application for subdivision. b. Submission of the public hearing list of surrounding property owners. c. Submission of a boundary survey with the proposed lot pattern. d. Submission of required application fees. Further, these applications must also be accompanied by additional data required for preliminary plat approval in a manner which will achieve preliminary plat approval by July 1, 1987 unless the city council deems to table final action on the application _ until after July 1, 1987. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 7, 12-15-86) Sec. 20-907. Height regulations. (a) Where the average slope of a lot is greater than one(1)foot rise or fall in seven(7)feet of horizontal distance from the established street elevation at the property line, one (1) story in addition to the number permitted in the district in which the lot is situated shall be permitted on the downhill side of any building. (b) The height limitations stipulated elsewhere in this chapter shall not apply to the following: ( (1) Barns, silos, or other farm buildings or structures on farms; church spires, belfries, cupolas and domes, monuments, water towers, fire and hose towers, observation 1231 — CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, PA. Attorneys at Law Thomas J.Campbell (612)452-500CC Roger N. Knutson Fax(612)452-5550 Thomas M.Scott Gary G.Fuchs James R.Walston Elliott B.Knetsch Michael A.Brohack Renae D.Steiner August 5, 1993 Mr. Paul Krauss Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Rural Lot Building Eligibilities Dear Paul: You asked me to review the zoning code provisions concerning minimum lot sizes in the rural area. The minimum lot sizes in the "rural" area are: A-1 40 acres A-2 15, 000 square feet RR 15, 000 square feet Section 20-906 is labeled "Rural Lot Building Eligibilities" . The term "rural lot" is not defined. Section 20-906, subparagraph (a) refers to land outside the MUSA. Subparagraph (b) , however, has no such limitations, and arguably applies to all "rural lots" both inside and outside the MUSA, sewered and unsewered. Various subparagraphs under subparagraph (b) make it clear that the intent was to apply the regulation in only unsewered areas. At a minimum, these ambiguities should be resolved. Section 20-906 should be rewritten to provide that (1) it only applies in the A-i and A-2 residential districts, and (2) it only applies outside the MUSA. Consideration should be given, however, to applying 20-906 to all property in all zoning districts where sewer is not immediately available. The approach favored by the Metropolitan Council is to require a 10 acre lot unless public sewer is available to the site. I will let you be the judge on the desirability of development patterns and quality of development created by clustering versus large lots. 'cite 317 • L.:_.indale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121 Mr. Paul Krauss August 5, 1993 Page 2 The Lakeville City Code provides: 11. 12 Minimum Lot Area, Unsewered Lots. Lot sizes where public sewer is not available shall conform to the minimum requirements set forth below: 1) The minimum single family lot size is ten (10) acres. This minimum lot size shall not apply to smaller separate parcels of record in separate ownership lawfully existing prior to 7 November 1977 , provided that it can be demonstrated by means satisfactory to the City that the smaller parcels will not result in groundwater, soil , or other contamination which may endanger the public health. Habitable single family homes constructed prior to 7 November 1977 , may reduce their lot size to a minimum of one acre or larger if the property divided off will result in a parcel of ten (10) acres or more if it can be demonstrated by means satisfactory to the City that the division will not result in ground-water, soil, or other contamination which may endanger the public health. 2) Apartments and multiple family dwellings are not allowable uses. 3) Subject to the other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, other uses may be permitted by conditional use permit. - The minimum lot size for each principal use is ten (10) acres. This minimum lot size shall not apply to smaller separate parcels of record in separate ownership lawfully existing prior to 7 November 1977, provided the conditions of the conditional use permit are met. A conditional use permit shall not be granted unless it can be demonstrated by means satisfactory to the City that the use (a) will not result in groundwater, soil , or other contamination which may endanger the public, (b) will not increase future City utility service demands and expense, and (c) will not jeopardize public safety and general welfare. ry tru ours, CAM•BELL, UTSON, SCOTT & FU , P.A. BY: - --Roger N. Knutson RNK: srn cc: Kate Aanenson Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 35 11 . Access to Lot 1 shall be via the private driveway access off of Church Road and not West 62nd Street , only if the fire hydrant is relocated to meet the Fire Marshal 's specifications. Lot 4 shall have no access onto State Trunk Highway 7 . 12 . The proposed private driveway shall be built to the City 's private driveway ordinance standard which is a 20 foot paved surface to a 7 ton design . 13 . Erosion control measures shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen 's Best Management Practice Handbook . 14 . All draintile systems disturbed in conjunction with site improvements shall be reconnected or relocated to maintain the existing drainage through the site . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously . Conrad: It goes to City Council August 23rd . Thank you both for coming' in . PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 20-575 - 20-595 REGARDING LOT SIZES . Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Vice Chair Conrad called the public hearing to order . Farmakes : Could you refresh my memory on how we require 2 1/2 acre lots , when one subdivides and they figure out where those 15 ,000 square foot lots are going to go if they do subdivide? Aanenson: You have to have at least 10 acres . It 's still the 1 unit per 10 acres requirement 's still in place . So if you have 10 acres , you can take a little corner piece and make it into one lot . You can create one lot . What we 're saying now is it doesn 't have to be 2 1/2 acres . It can be as small as 15 ,000 , or whatever it takes to get 2 septic sites on because you still have to provide that in the rural area . So yeah , it 's in the anticipation that sewer 's going to become available and you don 't want to lob off a big acreage . And we 've had requests for those . You 've seen those . The Tich 's . People that have come in and say I 'm going to hold off the rest of mine until sewer becomes available . But they want to make the most sense of their property now . Farmakes : Yeah . That 's usually where we get these common driveways and small lots . Aanenson: Well that 's why I think we need to go through and rezone those to RSF because we have had requests from some of these RR areas to just do some splits without rezonings and I don 't think we 're going through the process to make . . .done it procedurally . Mancino: They can turn out being really funny looking too . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 36 Aanenson: Right . So again , I don 't think it was our intent when we adopted this to allow those existing subdivisions to further subdivide . If someone- just because someone 's contiguous to sewer , without going to rezoning , it ' basically a spot zone . If you 've allowed one person in that subdivision to split , what that does to the integrity of the rest of the subdivision . Really they should be forced to go through a zone change and notify everybody in that subdivision . Say do you all want to rezone , to change colors or do you want to remain the same at that point . Farmakes : At some point in time too I think some of our . . .are going to find out , the property that 's purchased next to them is purchased with the intent financially of developing those lots . That 's how they 're purchasire the property . Aanenson: And there is some of that out there but I think we need to let the whole subdivision be aware of that . Scott : There 's really two things that I see as should existing rural large lot subdivisions be allowed to further subdivide if sewer and water are available . I say no . If there is something that falls outside of that , I think we need the control to have them rezone and put them in a plat , etc , etc . - Aanenson: Right . I think what we 're concerned too is that you let the whole neighborhood be on notice . You can 't just let the one person in and what that does to the other people that bought into that rural atmosphere , what it does to their . Scott : Then we have to take a look because that is , we hear a lot. of people saying , well the realtor said this or the developer said that . Thi is a situation where people in good faith can go in and say , oh . This is zoned like this so I won 't have someone doing , you know subdividing next _ door . Mancino : Well most of those people really fought for that . I remember when the Comprehensive Plan was going through . Timberwood and . Scott: Well yeah , they didn 't want to , just because they had sewer and water available , they wanted to do their own thing . It was , that was one - of those inalienable rights . They have a drainfield or something . Farmakes : What happens on the large developments , that 's just fine because they dictate where the road 's going to go , and we did that tonight . But that first one that we looked at , was a small parcel and the first one to develop with all the surrounding properties maybe 5 times as large , it 's kind of dictating where those connectors . . . Scott : Yeah . Yeah . Farmakes : But that 's sort of the way , I mean that 's the way property developers . Aanenson: Although Lake Susan Hills dictates a little bit of that too . I mean by putting Osprey Lane in , they did a little bit . But you 're right Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 37 the first one in does dictate a lot what 's going to happen . Conrad: So this is scheduled to be a public hearing and Kate your idea was to present . Aanenson: Our intent was to bring some language to you but it became more complicated and in speaking with the City Attorney , he felt like we should sit down again and try to make sure we 've got all the loopholes and we 've got it worded correctly and I think we just didn 't have enough . Conrad: Could I have a motion to table this public hearing? Ledvina : Are we going to see it next time? Maybe , maybe not? Aanenson: I ' ll try . Scott moved , Harberts seconded to table the public hearing on Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-575 to 20-595 regarding lot sizes . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY THE LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE . Public Present: Name Address Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail Kevin Norby 6801 Redwing Lane Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . - Mancino: Is sugar maples okay for parking lots? Aanenson : Yes . These are changes that Jeff had looked at , our forester , and made comments to . Farmakes: What was his comments in regard to the property underneath? Aanenson: The property? Farmakes: Yeah . Where you had a discussion here previous . Aanenson : Well we require the 20 x 10 . Farmakes : You control the size of the tree by the amount of property below it . Aanenson: Oh he concurred with that . He felt good about the minimum , the 10 x 20 . He felt that was a good starting point . Again , that 's the minimum , the 10 x 20 planting area and we put 2 trees in those . CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 18, 1993 Vice Chair Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 40 p.m. Members Present: Diane Harberts, Ladd Conrad, Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes, and Brian Batzli Members Absent: Matt Ledvina Staff Present: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I ; Dave Hempel , Asst. City Engineer; Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator; and Elliott Knetsch, City Attorney PUBLIC HEARING: MILLTRONICS FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 13, 653 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR A TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 33, 453 (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INDUSTRIAL INFORMATION CONTROL) , ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT 7870 PARK DRIVE, MILLTRONICS. Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Harberts: I have a couple questions of staff. With the proposed expansion, when I was out there today, as I see it, you really won 't see any of this from the street. And will the buffer be in the back of it? Al-Jaff: There will be some in the back. Harberts: But it would provide enough of a screen? Al-Jaff: Yes. Harberts: Okay, thank you. Conrad: This is a public hearing. We ' ll open it up for public comments and we ' ll give the applicant the first change to talk to us, if you have any comments about staff report. Anything. Nothing? Okay. Any other public comments? Anything. Nobody' s here for this isssue? Okay. We ' ll close the public hearing. Batzli moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Jeff, we' ll start with your comments. Farmakes: I have no further comments on this. Conrad: Nancy. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 2 Mancino: I have a couple questions and one is, that I notice on page 3 of the staff report that there will be no rooftop units exposed and I wanted to ask the developer, how is the new space being heated and cooled, especially when it ' s going to have people inside assembling? In assembly jobs. Applicant: The current heating in the substantial part of the building is done with the gas hung heaters inside. The current rooftops that are on the building include two air conditioning and heating units for the office area and the rest are inside the building and this addition currently has no air condition slated for it so it has the inside type furnances. So there' s no rooftops . Mancino: Thank you. Applicant: There is a provision for a later time to possibly put air conditioning in but there ' s no slated timeframe for that. Mancino: Thank you. Dave, I have a question. Kind of a comment, a suggestion. In your report you stated that you wanted to eliminate the curbing along the south side of the parking lot to promote the sheet flow across the parking lot. Hempel : That ' s correct. That ' s the conversation with the Watershed District, with Bob Obermeyer. The site originally came in, we had concerns over the. . . onsite ponding they have down below but. . .necessary to require the curbing and storm sewer. We also probably did more damage by flowing down into the wetland areas, installing storm sewer and also maintenance of it. But the sheet drainage effect you have a buffer strip area to the parking lot. . .minimize erosion. Mancino: Okay. My question was, you were a little concerned that we might get people parking there and that we might have some erosion. Could we ask for shrubbery to be planted there so that number one, we don 't have erosion. Number two, it will stop people from parking off the outside the parking lot area? Would that help? Hempel : That would help, sure. Mancino: Then I would like to make that recommendation. That we do ask for some shrub plantings along that south side of the parking lot. So that we won't have any erosion. . . off parking lot parking. That ' s it. Conrad: Thanks Nancy. Brian, do you have a voice to talk? Are you going to nod or anything? Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 3 Batzli: I ' ll talk a little. Conrad: Okay. Batzli: Since the applicant indicates that they may have a plan to put AC in later, would we normally require screening on the roof for that? Al-Jaff: Yes. In fact we could add a condition that should in the future they have the need for rooftop. . .adequate rooftop screening, rooftop equipment screening should be used. Batzli : The retaining wall in condition number 2 . Who decides whether that ' s required? Al-Jaff: Engineering. Batzli : When does that happen? Hempel: Based on contours. . . it ' s required with construction of the building. Batzli : So when do you look at it? When do you get it? Hempel: I would look at it again when the building permit came through, before I would sign off on it. Batzli: Okay. I just, the wording is fairly vague I guess. So contour lines of the grading plan will be submitted to city staff to determine whether a retaining wall is required. Is that right? And do we need a rationale in this case for why we 're providing variances? Other than the fact that we asked somebody and they said okay. Al-Jaff: Staff is comfortable with the variances. We don't feel that it will impact the street. Batzli : I understand that but what' s our justification for that? Krauss: The variances. . . from newer interpretations. . .This is an industrial subdivision that was platted over a decade ago. The existing building pretty much has a similar setback. The DNR regulations are established on the presumption that we do nothing to treat the water quality, which of course is not true here. We of course require that. And we exceed the setback from the creek for the DNR but not the hard surface coverage. The DNR regularly allows, you know they have a review authority where they regularly allow those kinds of variances to occur. For example, Rosemount exceeded the hard surface coverage but because all the Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 4 water goes the other way into a retention basins so we could save the trees along the lake, they had no objection to that. We felt the environment was. . . Batzli: But in this case it flows towards the creek. So what' s our justification? Krauss : Well Dave if you want to, where is the water intercepted? Hempel: Downstream there' s two retention ponds. One on the west side of Park Road. . . Batzli: So we don't need a skimmer? We don ' t care? We figure if somebody' s car leaks a bunch of oil and it drains, it ' s going to get trapped somewhere in the 100 feet? Hempel: Within 200 feet. Batzli : There ' s been two separate variances. The 100 foot one and then the surface, impervious surface and what ' s our justification for the 100 foot one? Al-Jaff: There ' s a limitation where the applicant asks that that variance be. . . Batzli: They're going to adjust it? Applicant: The 90 foot, it really, and it wasn't an intention to go under 100 feet. In drawing scaling, or it ' s hard to determine _ where this creek really is in this area and we have no problem with the 100 foot setback. We 're just having a bit of a time figuring out where it is. Our intent is to just need it if it' s . . .of any consequence. The vegetation between the parking lot and the creek is quite thick and well protected. In fact we 've done repairs on it, if any of the sheeting area has been damaged. Since we 've got the location in the back. Several locations that a truck for example would damage the sheeting area and we would resod that and take care of that as we have. But that 95 foot thing is kind of a. . .kind of a scaling thing to try to determine where the creek middle or side is or whatever. And regarding the retaining wall. We 've gone through several alterations there from the original plan where we had some water problems again to substantially redirect, regrade that back area of the building. And 2 years ago we had to put, do soil in there to repair the runoff situation from our neighbor ' s property there. We feel, if you look at the elevation as the building moves back, that soil actually goes down. The building is substantially buried on that side. Our hope is, just for reasons of. . . is to continue that type of arrangement going through and around the corner there and Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 5 having natural runoff through vegetation and grass. If you look carefully at that, and that seems to work best on that particular site. I don't know how closely you examined that but we 've done, had to do some more than 2 years ago to redo that particular area. And it seems to work real well right now with the runoff. Batzli: So do we need anything in the conditions regarding granting the variance for the impervious surface or amending the plans for to eliminate the 100 foot? Al-Jaff: Amending the plans to eliminate the 100, to achieve the 100 foot setback. Batzli: Okay. So that ' s in your condition 7? Al-Jaff: Correct. Batzli: Okay, but we don't need anything in there about granting a variance? Al-Jaff: No. Batzli : Okay. Nothing else. Conrad: Okay, Joe. Scott: I don't have any additional comments. Conrad: Okay, Diane. Harberts: Nothing. Conrad: So we don't have the variance on the 100 foot setback. The impervious surface, Dave you' re comfortable with that in terms of runoff? Hempel : Yes. Conrad: Okay. Rational Paul is that it had been platted before? Krauss: Well it ' s a few things. We have a DNR shoreland regulation that they moved the entire state of Minnesota and works just fine if you're on a little. . .but it doesn 't work very week in the metro area, and they acknowledged that but they never changed their regulation. You also have a pre-existing development that is largely completed. We 're just adding onto a building that was never designed to accommodate that fully. Thirdly, the primary thrust of what the DNR was trying to achieve is protection of the creek corridor. Physical protection of the Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 6 creek corridor. We 've done that. We 're maintaining a bigger setback or bigger setback than they would like and it ' s not the. . . And the final thing is, it' s to make sure that water quality is maintained and we already have that in place and operating. Conrad: Okay, good. Any other questions? Discussion. Is there a motion? Batzli : I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #87-9, the variance to hard surface coverage shown on the plans dated July 14 , 1993 subject to the following conditions. Condition 1 reads, no outdoor storage of trash shall be permitted except at the location indicated on the plans . Condition 2 shall read, the applicant shall submit grading plans to city staff to determine if a retaining wall is required along the north propety line between the proposed building and adjacent property to the north. Conditions 3 , 4 , 5 will remain as set forth in the staff report. Condition 6 shall read, delete curbing along the south side of the parking lot to promote sheet drainage across the parking lot. However, if this creates a parking nuisance or abuse, or if, do you want shrubbery in there automatically? Mancino: Yes. Batzli : Okay. Let ' s read condition 6 as follows. Delete curbing along the south side of the parking lot to promote sheet drainage across the parking lot. The applicant shall add shrubbery along the south side of the parking lot to eliminate runoff and erosion and to control parking along this side. Condition 7 shall read, the design of the southerly edge of the parking lot must be adjusted to comply with the 100 foot Watershed District setback. 8 to remain as in the staff report. Condition 9 , read if rooftop equipment is added, screening shall be required. Conrad: Is there a second? Scott: Second. Conrad: Discussion. Mancino: I 'd like to add a friendly amendment to condition number 4 . I would like to add to the first sentence to say, from the city' s approved tree list so that the complete first sentence reads, provide 5 additional overstory trees from the city' s approved tree list along the north portion of the site and all disturbed areas shall be seeded and erosion control blanket Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 7 installed until vegetation is re-established. Batzli : I ' ll accept that. Conrad: Anybody else have a problem with that amendment? Okay. Otherwise we 'd vote on it separately. But we ' ll include it in the original motion. Any other discussion? Batzli moved, Scott seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #87-9 with a variance to the hard surface coverage, as shown on the plan dated July 14, 1993 and subject to the following conditions: 1. No outdoor storage of trash shall be permitted except at the location indicated on the plans. 2 The applicant shall submit grading plans to city staff to determine if a retaining wall is required along the north property line betweenthe proposed building and adjacent property to the north. 3 The Surface Water Management Fee currently charged to the parcel will increase accordingly when the site expansion is completed. 4 . Provide 5 additional overstory trees from the city' s approved tree list along the north portion of the site and all disturbed areas shall be seeded and erosion control blanket installed until vegetation is re-established. Financial guarantees for landscaping shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of a building permit. Also, provide Type III erosion control around all distrubed areas of the site, especially along the creek. The site should be restored with two rows of sod behind the curb line with the exception of where the drainage outlets in the parking lot. In this specific area, the two rows of sod should be required as well as seed and erosion control blanket on the slopes toward Riley-Purgatory Creek. 5. The applicant must demonstrate that there is no more than . 5 foot candles of light from the fixtures at the property line. 6. Delete curbing along the south side of the parking lot to promote sheet drainage across the parking lot. However, if this creates a parking nuisance or abuse, the applicant shall add shrubbery along the south side of the parking lot to eliminate runoff and erosion and to control parking along that side. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 8 7 . The design of the southerly edge of the parking lot must be adjusted to comply with the 100 foot Watershed District setback. 8 . The triangular shaped areas located within the westerly parking lot shall be sodded and the curb shall be extended around them with the exception of the triangle located to the southwest of the parking lot. This triangle shall remain bituminous so it will not impede drainage. 9 . If rooftop equipment is added, screening shall be required. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: NICK JACQUES TO SUBDIVIDE 1. 18 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED NORTH ON LAKE LUCY ROAD, WEST OF POWERS BOULEVARD, 1210 LAKE LUCY ROAD, JACQUES ADDITION. Public Present: Name Address Judy Kepp 8860 Cty Rd 52 , Carver Gary Welch 101 Choctaw Circle Timothy Rashey 45 Willow. . . , Tonka Bay Dwight & Rhonda Schneibel 6501 Arlington Court Jeanne Brower 6611 Arlington Court Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chair Conrad called the public hearing to order. Harberts: I have a question. Could you just give us a little bit more detail about sharing a curb cut. Are we talking a common driveway? Al-Jaff: Correct. Harberts: So basically it would run the property line? Krauss: Well, there ' s a potential of it Y ' ing off at the back of the curb. It ' s a common entrance onto Lake Lucy Road. Al-Jaff : So let ' s say the house would be located here, the curb cut, they would use this existing curb cut and potentially. . . Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 9 Harberts : We 're talking, though are we talking some type of easement or agreement or something? Al-Jaff: A cross access easement would be required as well as the portion that is shared between the two homes which would be this area. Would have to be paved up to a 7 ton design. Harberts : Are they proposing, is the other place going to be built. Is it family related or just? I think we got a yes maybe. Okay, thanks. Conrad: We ' ll open it up for public comment. Is the applicant is here, we ' ll let them speak. Judy Kepp: My name is Judy Kepp. I 'm representing Nick. He lives with his mother at 1210 Lake Lucy Road. He ' s an over the road truck driver and he could not be here tonight so if I can't answer any questions, it will have to stay open until he gets here. What we wanted to do, we do share the driveway. We ' d rather have it not tarred because all the roads right there are - not tarred. We 'd rather have the gravel. We like it better. We would have the garage on that side. . .with it angled. Angled up because we have. . . split entry, walkout type house. And the easement, I don't know how to go about that or what to do with it, I don 't know. I mean would that have to be gone through more? Harberts : Are you related to the applicant? Judy Kepp: I am his girlfriend. Conrad: I guess what I 'm interested in, or we would be, is if you have a problem with that tonight. Yeah, you 're going to have to, if you don 't like the recommendations of the staff report, we ' d like to hear that. If you agree with it, you've disagreed with one of their comments so far, but if you disagree with that portion, you should make your point. We 're not going to tell you the process but I think you should tell us your opinion. Judy Kepp: Okay well, all I know is we will share the driveway if it has to be in. That's alright with us but we don't want to tar it. We 'd rather keep it gravel. Batzli : Is it planned to be developed in the near future? Judy Kepp: Yes. We have talked to a developer but I mean all of a sudden little thing where we 're dividing land between his mother and us is starting to cost more and more than what we thought it was going to so that might be one setback on us . But Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 10 I mean, we came to the city. Nick came and asked how much sewer and water was going to be. He was told like a $25 . 00 to put into the lot. Now all of a sudden another developer came and it went up almost $2 , 000. 00 and then he came again and got another estimate, it went up 3 . . . so we don't know. . . Batzli: Dave, would they have to tar the entire length? Can they tar the first 10-15 feet or something? Hempel: The ordinance requires to share a common driveway. The private driveway requires it to be paved up to the point where it essentially breaks off to a single driveway access. The driveway _ is supposed to be built 20 feet wide and 7 ton standards. That personally in my opinion may be alittle excessive for just a two lot subdivision. The grades here do drain out toward Lake Lucy Road and a gravel driveway is subject to some erosion. . . Lake Lucy Road so we 'd be very interested to seeing that blacktopped, at least a portion of it. Judy Kepp: So you're saying that it would have to be all paved? Hempel: Just the common portion of the driveway. Judy Kepp: Which is how many feet? Hempel: Well it depends on where the driveway would Y off or branch off. It could be right outside the property line. Could be 30 feet behind the trees. . . Judy Kepp: Like I said, I can't make the total decision, or whatever. Nick is going to have to talk to somebody. I 'm just here representing him. Conrad: That ' s alright. Any other comments? Okay good, thanks. Any public comments? Dwight Schneibel : Good evening. We haven 't met yet. My name is Dwight Schneibel and I own the lot just to the west of the proposed area on 6601 Arlington Court. And we haven ' t met the people that are planning to develop it and I guess a couple things come to mind, or questions. First of all this drawing doesn't really specify where the house is going to be located at on the lot. And we 're kind of curious how far away from the lot borders the house is going to be facing and what portion of the lot the house will be at because it will obviously make quite a difference. Our lot is, sits on a hill below where that lot would be located at so the elevations are quite different and brings up some concerns on losing the privacy with the house right on top of the hill where they're building. And if there Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 11 would have to be anything done with the lot below. . .or change the hillside which faces the new lot that they' re developing. So I guess there is some concern on the change of the hill . The drainage of the water. Where the water would drain in case of rain. And also if it would obviously affect the privacy that we presently have with our home, with the new home being built on top. It there would be a need for some type of natural growth, privacy fence being put up, or hedges of trees or something of that nature to continue to have that privacy in there. And if there was a change in the lot and having some of it excavated out, that there be some portion put in there to make sure that if there ' s a change in our lot, that that would be taken care of as far. . . rocks that we already have on the hill. . . So I have questions on where the house is going and questions about the privacy remaining the way it is right now. Also, the other thing that kind of comes to mind and curiousity would be the value of the home that ' s being built on the hill. We live in Curry Farms development which is a Centex development and I guess we 'd be interested in seeing the value of the home being somewhere around the mean average value of the houses we have in our area. . .cul- de-sac or in the Curry Farm development is presenting a development going just south of us. I think it ' s Willow Creek where the homes are. . .and I guess we don 't want to lose the value of our home with. . . So those would be my concerns at this point. Conrad: Thank you. Some of those maybe we can address. In _ terms of where the building pad would go, in a subdivision we really haven't asked the developer. The owners to do that. What would be the process for them locating a building pad? Krauss: This may not be the answer that the gentleman would prefer to hear but Codes give the property owner a great deal of latitude as to where they can put their home. It has to meet setback requirements which puts them a minimum of 10 feet back from the property line. But beyond that is a matter of personal discretion on the site. In terms of privacy, I understand the issue but the city has never been in the habit of requiring screening from one single family home to another. Generally homeowners do that kind of thing anyway. It hasn 't been something that we needed to become involved in. We certainly do screen between different intensities of use but from one single family home to another, no. In terms of drainage, those concerns are very valid. We take that into account. When building permit comes in, if there are drainge issues, we ask them, Dave ask them that there be some information provided as to how the drainage is going to be handled. We make sure that natural drainage patterns will not be disturbed and that there not be flowage directed in areas where it was not appropriate. Our building inspectors are getting pretty good now too of making sure of those kind of Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 12 things. . . In terms of disturbance on neighboring lots, that ' s trespassing. The grades have to match at the property line. There should be no disturbance beyond that, or somebody' s on somebody else ' s property at that point. The last question that was raised was as to the value. Again, the city has no minimum value requirements and to do so raises a lot of ethical and possibly legal questions. Again, it hasn ' t been an issue. Generally homes tend to be a certain value and it keeps creeping upwards. Not every home conforms to that exactly but. . . Farmakes: But from a practical matter Paul though, there is a minimum size that ' s required for footage size and if you look into that you will see that there are other conditions that are minimum requirements in the city of Chanhassen for single family homes. Scott: I think we ' re talking about 1, 500 square feet finished with an attached 2 car garage. Krauss : That ' s true but those are fairly minimal standards . I don 't know of any houses I 've seen in 4 years that are anywhere near it. . . Farmakes: But I think from a practical standpoint though, there isn't going to be a warming shack built on a piece of property in Chanhassen for a single family residential zone, if that ' s some of the concern of the neighbors. The city does have minimum requirements for single family homes. . . Scott: Also too, there isn 't any site grading that ' s proposed for the property so my interpretation is that there obviously will be some excavation for the foundation, etc but the grading will be minimal . So the drainage pattern will probably not be altered. Conrad: So I think the bottom line is, many of your concerns there are basic regulations but specifically they're not going to be addressed. I think grading and drainage will be addressed as a building permit is taken out. But the other issues are really based on code and current city standard setbacks. The applicant has a right to build where they would like to as long as they met our current code. Any other questions? Any other comments from. Judy Kepp: This won't close so Nick can come up and talk to you about some things? Conrad: Well we 're going to make a motion tonight and that motion will go to the City Council. If he has some comments, he has to get to the Planning staff and address those based on what Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 13 our motion reads tonight and he still could oppose what we 're recommending but it' s, and then the City Council will vote on that with his comments included. But he ' ll have 2 weeks or whatever until this gets there. Dwight Schneibel : Can I just get one clarification. What are the city codes or clarification on the privacy between the homes. You said there is no code or city recommendation that they have to build some type of privacy or continue to, I should say, make sure our privacy isn 't changed because when we obviously moved into the home, the reason that we liked the location and the area is because of the privacy that we did have. I 'm not saying that anybody doesn ' t have the right to build on their lot but I guess we don't want to lose what we thought we got when we bought the home and part of that will be lost if we lose the privacy that ' s right there presently behind our home. By a house that we have no control over. We have no idea where it' s going to be placed. How far away from the lot line it ' s going to be. As far as I can tell right now, it could be sitting right on top of the hill right behind our house and there ' s nothing. What you ' re saying at this point that ' s going to help insure some of the privacy or end the privacy that we presently have and I guess that ' s a big concern of mine. Conrad: Yeah, I know what you' re saying. Paul , there ' s really . not much that we or staff can say. It ' s going to meet our _ minimum side yard setbacks. They have to do that. But beyond that, to tell you the truth, it ' s interpersonal communication that you have and maybe that ' s more important than what the city can legislate. Dwight Schneibel: That ' s fine. We haven 't talked about and we don 't have any gripes about it. We 're just finding out but at this point just clarification. The only guideline we have is the 10 foot offset that we have. That ' s the only privacy. . . Conrad: Pretty much so. If you thought that there were some trees or some natural features that were being disturbed, I think we 'd be very interested in that but, and again, but if there ' s nothing that we see there, they do have the right to build within the current code. Dwight Schneibel : And the current code as far as for the type of home they have to build. Conrad: They can do anything. Dwight Schneibel : It ' s just the, it has to be a 2 car garage, at least square footage of 1, 500 square feet. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 14 Conrad: Right. And pretty typically you 're protected. You know we have seen very few cases where new development in this area has been substandard or hasn't appreciated the surrounding property. With property this big, I 'd be real surprised if you 'd be unhappy. Now that doesn't protect you. The odds are with what I 'm saying but then again they're only odds so. But I ' d be real surprised if they built something that was less than appreciating the surrounding community, but that doesn't you know. Dwight Schneibel: . . .that doesn't obligate. . . I guess I 'd just like to tell . . .the types of homes that have been going up around the area . In Willow Ridge substantial homes and I think the homes that are presently in Curry Farms development right next door are along the same type of. . . Conrad: Thanks. Any other comments? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Scott moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Harberts : The only comment I have is, I would support their recommendation to lay asphalt on the common part of the driveway. I appreciate staff taking that proactive approach. Number 3 in - terms of including that a written maintenance agreement is established, even though we do have family, ownership does change. So I think that was a good call . But my only comment really is to support the need for an asphalt drive. I don 't think 7 tons is excessive because again you don ' t now what ' s in the future. I don 't know, if an over the road driver, he brings his rig and drives it home or what but the code was established for some purpose but I guess there ' s always an opportunity to consider a variance. That ' s it. Scott: I have no comment. Batzli : Is the taking of 40 feet what we 've been doing along the road with other people, with other developments? Hempel : That ' s correct. Consistent with Willow Ridge. Developments on the south side. . . Batzli : Do we need so much? Hempel : Based on that status of that road, the future road is classified as a collector type street, minimum right-of-way is 80 feet. . . Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 15 Batzli: That ' s a lot of feet. We need to look at that someday. That ' s all I got. Mancino: No comment. Farmakes: The property is not large enough to subdivide again? Krauss: No. No, this one will be above standard. . . Farmakes: The applicant shares parking does not wish to pave it, pave the shared driveway. . . I 'm assuming they're going to. . . farther back from that they place it and there ' s an agreement here that the road is paved so there is a cutoff there. Unless you build a dual road. . . I 'm still kind of ambiguous about how that would be handled. I 'm always uncomfortable with shared driveways. I know there might be a fair amount of distance that ' s involved. The reason being, from what I 've seen in practical matters, some of these left over lots, especially around Lake Lucy Road, there ' s a development built around and there ' s a little corner lot or something left over and being - divided. The one I 'm thinking of right now is on Lake Lucy and right on the corner of Lake Lucy and Powers. . .many of these cases cars have to be parked out into someone else ' s lot. And the shared driveway situations, unless there ' s a substantial amount of road available, can create a problem between neighbors. Now in this case. . . attachment to the adjacent property owner but in 5 or 10 years that may not be the case. I would hope that if there is a shared parking lot there, that it be minimum to avoid those type of things. There is enough driveway. . . Lot 1 and 2 to allow them enough parking space to accommodate. . . I have no further comments . Conrad: Okay. Thanks Jeff. I have nothing to add other than making sure we incorporate the staff ' s condition number 7 and the change that I think is some common sense in terms of the length of the common drive. A portion of the asphalt I think. It shouldn ' t be the entire length but just up to the Y. Other than that, I have no more comments . Any other discussion? If not I ' ll ask for a motion. Scott: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #93-17 as shown on the plans dated July 18 , 1993 subject to the following conditions. Conditions 1, 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 and 6 will remain as they are. Number 7 to be added to read, park and recreation fees to be paid at time of permit application. And Nancy, do you want condition number 3 to, or excuse me. The condition relating to the trees, to include the language about, from the tree list. Recommended species. Condition number 6, add the language that the trees to be planted Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 16 come from the recommended species list. Conrad: Anything else? Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Conrad: Any discussion? Batzli : I guess I 'd prefer to see something in there in condition 3 relating to the reasonableness of this road design. Conrad: In reference to what Brian? The length of the asphalt - or the. Batzli : The 7 ton design, yeah. Conrad: What are you suggesting? Batzli : I don ' t know because I would be comfortable with only about the first 10 or 15 feet so that we don ' t track the gravel onto the road and we eliminate the possibility of the runoff, which is what I think we ' re requiring it for. You know it seems to me that our variance standard takes into account conditions of neighboring properties and here it clearly, we've got gravel roads up and down the whole way and I don't know why we 're requiring something extraordinary from this lot. So I would at - least like to see after the word 20 feet in width, something like for a 15 foot initial section or until the driveway splits. You know subject to city staff approval or something like that - because I think there needs to be some reasonableness here. Conrad: Joe, what was the intent in your motion. You took number 3 pretty much verbatim. You didn't make any changes. Scott: I think Dave, what would be the minimum that you would recommend for a paved section? Hempel : A minimum to the property line from the street curb. Scott: Which is a 10 foot. Hempel: Which is, in this situation would be probably about 14 1/2 feet. Mancino: Nobody else has it on. . . Hempel : . . .would have it. The driveways down further are, to the east are pre-existing conditions that go out into the. . . In fact we are in the process of requiring an ordinance that all new - Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 17 driveways be hard surface. Right now. . . from an ordinance standpoint. Harberts: I have a question. How is the 20 foot derived and as a basis for the code or the ordinance. Krauss: That came from a section of code where we started allowing. . .on private driveways, which the city never used to do. When we. . .private driveways, we figure well it ' s okay to do that. We still have to get a fire truck in there. The UPS truck has to come in and police car or whatever and the minimum acceptable standard, and this was by. . . Harberts: Given that, you know with your experience Paul, what do you feel. . . like that. 15 feet or whatever to the property line. What ' s your feeling on that? Krauss: Well I don 't know. Dave is correct. . .talked about the need to have a driveway ordinance and we don 't. And there are a series of problems that occur. Major deal? No, it probably _ isn 't but the code requires . . .having common driveways that it be paved up to a point where you no longer have two houses uses it. And you know, there are ways and maybe they can work this out _ with Dave to come up with a, I mean there ' s nothing that says the existing curb cut is where it should be. Maybe it gets moved over a little bit to the property line and maybe if engineering is acceptable of it, the curb cut ' s a little wider than the standard and it Y 's off right away. At that point it ' s not an issue. I mean there ' s ways to work this out. I guess we understand. . .where you 're going and we can probably work out something before it gets to the City Council . Scott: How about if we put something into condition 3 at the end. The shared portion of the driveway shall be constructed to a 7 ton design and 20 feet in width. The paved section will be determined by the applicant and city staff. Batzli : Subject to city staff approval. I like that. Harberts: I do too. Scott: Is that what you want? Okay. Conrad: So we have a motion on the floor. Brian, was your' s, what was your ' s? You were just talking right? Batzli : I was just talking. I didn't propose an amendment. Conrad: Right. Do we have a second to Joe ' s motion? Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 18 Mancino: I ' ll second it. Conrad: Any further discussion? So the intent, what we said to staff is to negotiate this with the applicant. Is that what we said? Harberts: I also liked the flexibility that Paul talked about because I think it ' s generally the feeling here that we don 't like those common accesses but some of them, sometimes it may occur so if we have the opportunity of flexibility with that curb cut, I 'd say let ' s go after it. Batzli : We don' t have an ordinance. Harberts: Right. But that usually seems to be the intent of the Commission here with regard to common access points. Scott moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to approve Subdivision #93-17 as shown on the plans dated July 18, 1993, subject to the following conditions: 1. No alteration or tree removal shall be permitted beyond the 40 foot setback from the rear property lines. Trees designated for preservation shall be protected by snow fence or other means acceptable to the city. Protective measures must be located at or beyond the ground footprint of the tree ' s crown. No fill material or construction activity shall occur within these areas. These measures must be in place and inspected prior to the start of grading activity. 2 . The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements on the final plat over all drainage areas. The following easements and right-of-way shall be provided: a. The southerly 40 feet of the parcel shall be dedicated to the City for Lucy Road right-of-way. b. Standard drainage and utility easements along each lot line. 3 . Lots 1 and 2 shall share a common curb cut access onto Lake Lucy Road. The shared portion of the driveway shall be constructed to a 7 ton design and 20 feet in width. The paved section of driveway will be determined by the applicant and staff, subject to city staff approval. A cross access easement, including maintenance responsibilities shall be drafted by the applicant in favor of both lots. 4 . Lot 1 shall be custom graded and shall provide a tree Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 19 preservation plan for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff shall have the right to require a change in house pad and location if it will result in saving significant vegetation. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the tree preservation easement prior to grading. 5. The property owner of Lot 1, Block 1 will be responsible at the time of building permit issuance for one sanitary sewer and water connection and hookup charge. The City Treasurer ' s office shall determine the charges based on the original assessment plus interest accrued from the date the original assessment was levied. The connection and hookup charge may be assessed against the parcel. 6 . All disturbed areas must be seeded or sodded to prevent erosion. One tree must be planted within the front yard setback of each lot. The tree must be deciduous, at least 2 1/2 inches in diameter at the time of installation, and selected from the city' s recommended species list. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPT UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MIXED HIGH DESNITY (190 DWELLING UNITS) AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES ON 62 . 05 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND VCATION OF A PORTION OF 86TH STREET. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 AND NORTH AND SOUTH OF 86TH STREET, MISSION HILLS, TANDEM PROPERTIES. Public Present: Name Address Milton Bathke 8404 Great Plains Blvd. Gene Klein 8412 Great Plains Blvd. Mark & Lori Jesberg 8407 Great Plains Blvd. Bruce Engel 8699 Chan Hills Dr. No. Jeff Williamson 8411 Great Plains Blvd. Randy Fresett 8411 Great Plains Blvd. Joe & Gayle Hautman 8551 Tigua Circle A.W. (Mike) & JoAnn Mulligan 8501 Tigua Circle Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Dave & Sharon Nickolay 8500 Tigua Circle Joanne L. Larson 8590 Tigua Circle David Nagel 8550 Tigua Circle Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 20 Farmakes: When you say. . . are you talking about commercial there. . . Al-Jaff: Well it isn't. . .the guide plan guides it for commercial as well as residential. It' s a mixed use. We don't know what the applicant is proposing within the commercial district. Farmakes: Typically a mixed use, is that not low type commercial use? It ' s not a Target type situation. Krauss: It ' s really not specifically addressed in the comprehensive plan. It says mixed use. It ' s mixed commercial and high density residential. It ' s really open to some interpretation as is. . .We think we know the scale. . .PUD process is even though commercial development there is premature, I think it ' s probably something that wouldn't happen until Highway 212 was a little more eminent. The PUD process allows you to send very solid, firm guidelines. . . development that happens here. Just rezoning the land, you have no controls at all and that ' s not something we recommend. Just to touch on what Sharmin was mentioning. This is a PUD concept plan. This is the first time through with this. As these things usually are, it ' s somewhat rough. We 've been working closely with the applicant over the summer. There are some changes that have been incorporated into it. Some of the responses. But this level of detail is more of a fact finding mission frankly. To see what kind of issues need to be addressed when the formal documentation is submitted. We 've raised a series of questions that we 'd like to have addressed. We assume you ' ll. . .assume that some of the residents in the area will do the same as well. That ' s the purpose of this meeting. A PUD concept is a non-binding review. It has to be formally brought back through the process. Go through the public hearing for official action so that ' s still in the offing. So I guess you should. . .with a goal of refining the plan and laying your issues out on the table. At the other end of the spectrum, we shouldn 't expect everything to be resolved to nth degree at this stage. That ' s not what this type of review' s for. Farmakes: Taking that in mind, the 9 . 2 acres there on the commercial site. Do you envision that large enough to. . . strip mall or do you envision that large enough for a light use service type useage. Dry cleaners. Fun and run type. Gas station. Krauss: Well the thing that obviously concerns us is, 9 . 2 acres is almost exactly what Target is. Mancino: That ' s not neighborhood commercial. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 21 Krauss: That ' s clearly not neighborhood commercial . I mean we could tell you what we think and we 're asking the applicant, for them to tell us what they think it is and reach some accommodation with that. What we 'd like to see is something that ' s, as Sharmin said, of use to the neighborhood. That includes the gammit from small multi-tenant office space to a daycare center to small service commercial. Those kinds of things that are used on a daily basis. It is going to be sitting on a major interchange, and I know it' s hard to visualize. Well yeah. . .year 2000 now or something. Batzli : Oh really? I saw ' 97 last time. It ' s delayed again. Mancino: What happens if 212 doesn't get built? That could happen couldn't it? Krauss: Well, it hasn ' t been built for 35 years so I guess anything ' s possible. The project is moving forward. It ' s kind of hard to say. - Mancino: But the reason why we zoned it mixed use to begin with was because we thought 212 would go in. Krauss : There ' s an official map highway corridor there. Mancino: If there ' s not 212 , do we really want to have a mixed use in that area or do we want to have? Krauss: Honestly that becomes arguable. I mean when that section of the city will probably ultimately have enough - population that you' ll want something. Would you want as much as you would if you had a highway interchange? Probably not. Our comprehensive plan is predicated on MnDot doing what they say they're going to do and they're buying up right-of-way slowly. Farmakes: Well, from a political standpoint as businesses go in there, which they are. As people subdivide and start building these types of roads. From a political standpoint, so comes the highway. . . Krauss: It ' s an approved project. I mean the State has scheduled to let contracts on the east end of it. Batzli : The people will come in and complain that a highway' s going in next to them. That ' s what will happen. Scott: Also with TH 101 being kind of like the highway that isn't. Roughly, is it a chicken before the egg where this development is going to drive the city' s expenditure of upgrading Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 22 TH 101? I 've read here about that particular classification for that highway and what kind of bill are we talking about? If MnDot isn't going to pay for it. Krauss: We have no idea. First of all, I mean we do have, there is a state highway. The only improvements that are made to Highway 101 since the 1930 ' s are safety related. There ' s no. . . Clearly the road is in terrible shape. Clearly it' s inadequate. Clearly the city have acted as though they're a state government in trying to respond to what the State by default isn't doing. The reason why we commissioned a study 4 years ago, 5 years ago to decide how to upgrade things between Highway 5 and 212 , which is also why the city has already spent considerable dollars upgrading Market Blvd/TH 101 intersection and rebuild it down to the creek. We met with the I guess it ' s Chuck, the chief engineer. And we were asking him. - Harberts: No, he ' s the metro district engineer. Krauss: We had a meal with them a month ago trying to get this item on the agenda and. . .was that we ought to keep talking on it and they' re may be some method wherein the highway is turned back to county or city jurisdiction. . .pot of funds that MnDot has called turnback dollars. We're hoping of meeting next week with the city of Eden Prairie, Carver County, Hennepin County, MnDot staff to try and set the ground rules for it but it ' s a very big - issue and it ' s beyond one development tripping or not tripping. I don' t know where the straw that breaks the camel ' s back. We realize that it ' s not a good situation. That' s why the city 's already committed to doing so much. Harberts: Is there a proposed dollar value though? What kind of money are we talking about here? Krauss: I don 't know. We did have some rough estimates. In fact Fred Hoisington is here to be on your agenda last tonight, and maybe tomorrow now. And he was going to give you an overview of some of the preliminary work he did with realignments and his original study I think had some preliminary cost but that was 5 years ago. We haven't updated that yet. Harberts: . . . looking at alignments, yeah. Krauss: Now MnDot is scheduled, with the construction of Highway 212 , MnDot is scheduling to rebuild TH 101 from Lyman Blvd up to 86th Street. That ' s part of the highway project. Mancino: Whenever that. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 23 Krauss: Exactly. Scott: And wherever 86th Street ends up going. Krauss: That' s true too. Mancino: Is there a formula in the comprehensive plan, I mean I read the whole housing section but is there a formula in the comprehensive plan that is mixed use on anything? I mean like is there a formula for how much of a mixed use should be commercial and how much high density? No guidance? Krauss: No. Mancino: So that ' s why we 're ending up with the 9 . 2 . . . Krauss: Well the. . . corresponds to where the lines were put on on the official city map. But it is open to some interpretation. Conrad: Any other things? Any other comments right now? We ' ll open it up. If the developer has some comments. I think from a Planning Commission standpoint, the key word here is conceptual. This is a concept plan. It will come back. Some of the staff recommendations are kind of specific so it gets you carried away into looking at specifics but again this is the time that we can tell a developer what we 're thinking and for them to tune into where we 're going and then they can take their calculated risk or gamble if they want to go a little bit against what we 're recommending. But again, it ' s their opportunity to see where we are. I think as we get close to a recommendation, again there are some specifics and I think that' s, they really get kind of specific but I think we have to be kind of general in our approach. With that, if the developer is here and would like to make a presentation, we 'd sure entertain that at this time. Dick Putnam: Mr. Chairman, my name is Dick Putnam. I 'm one of the partners of Tandem Properties. My partner Jim Ostenson in the pink shirt is here also. Dennis Marhula and Greg Koskey from Westwood Engineering are the engineers and planners inthe project. They're both here this evening and we ' ll ask Greg to give you a very short explanation of some of the site plan issues. Don Jenson who is the manager of land development for Rottlund Homes is here sitting in the front row and he ' ll be able to explain the unit types that they're proposing and answer any questions you might have. We received the staff report. As the staff said, we 've been talking with both the engineering staff and the planning staff primarily for quite a length of time. Also with Mr. Hoisington about the road realignment. The impact of that and so forth. I might just tell you how we 're purchasing Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 24 the property. We're buying the land on a contingent purchase agreement essentially. If the project ' s approved, acceptable to what we need to do, then we would buy the land from the two underlying owners, Mr. Klingelhutz and Mr. Bartz . Mr. Klingelhutz will retain the commercial area and we aren 't involved in that other than it ' s included in the planned development at this point so as Mr. Krauss said, he and Al I think have had some discussions about what that outlot will be and what size it should be and that' s an issue we 're kind of responding to on what ' s presented to us. If it' s 10 acres or 5 acres or what have you. We 'd work around that. I guess what I 'd like to do at this point, we did have a neighborhood meeting last night with just a few people there and they brought up some good questions . Good issues. Good suggestions of what changes we might be able to make. In reading some of the letters, it ' s pretty clear however that there seems to be a real basic underlying dispute with the comprehensive plan in that commercial and higher density and medium density housing that happens to be proposed for this site. And it ' s nothing we have any control over. I guess we looked at the plan and talked with staff and highway planners and proceeded accordingly. What I 'd like to do at this point is ask Greg come up and maybe explain very briefly since the staff did a pretty good job on outlining it, for what the plan entails and Don, to explain the units for you and then we 'd be able to answer any questions that are raised in the staff report after that if you 'd like. Greg Koskey: Since the staff did a very thorough explanation at the beginning here I ' ll just keep my comments fairly brief here and touch on some points that I 'd like to emphasize. One was that we had met with the staff early on to review the Comp Plan and various site issues. To that end we developed a site plan that was generally consistent with the comprehensive plan in terms of general areas and uses that would define the commercial multiple family and single family areas. The multiple family that we ' re proposing is generally lower density than might be allowed by that comprehensive plan. We also took into consideration the alignments for Highway 101 and 212 as defined by MnDot and that the Hoisington Group is working on for the 101 alignments . Knowing that wetlands is that ever important issue that we have to recognize, we did field delineate the wetlands. Had our wildlife biologist go out there and stake them and field survey them so that we can work around them. The intent certainly is to avoid any contact with them. I know that there was comment in the staff report about impact, potential impact from 86th. The intent certainly is that we stay out of it recognizing that there are serious repercussions if we start dealing with that particular issue. When we got into the specific site planning of the property, we took a look at how the Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 25 use relationships were going to work. We naturally wanted to get a single family buffer here adjacent to the residential to the east. Recognizing that 212 is going to be a fairly major roadway coming out of a freeway thoroughfare, we wanted to get a little bit higher density type units to this area and working with a slightly denser, lower type impact unit up here. The units down in this area are 2 story. They're generally 4 , 8 and 12 unit buildings. We have a density in this area of around 9 units to the acre. Up in this particular area we 're looking at one story units generally before and. . . in our buildings. We 've also worked with private roads running through this site. We wanted to keep things generally in a curvalinear manner. Keeping straight sections fairly short. Attempting to use the variety of sizes of units and the arrangement of roads to help create an interest so as you move along you don 't see long lines of buildings that look very monotonous. We ' re trying to create some interest here with the way that we arrange units either at angles, moving along so that you ' re seeing the buildings from different forms, different directions and not seeing the same thing all the time. Overall density for the site, including the residential. We 're looking at something around 4 1/2 units to the acre. Again averaging 9 units here. About 6 . 7 units for the one story units and about 2 1/2 units per acre for the single family residential. 86th Street is, as you see intended to be realigned up at this point here. Working with reasonable setbacks here and working with the plans for 101 that the Hoisington Group has worked with, there is also a proposed connection to the existing Highway 101 at that point. The street right through the single family residential is intended to loop north and come back up to TH 101 at some point in the future. When that area develops. The grading, we 've worked with in a fashion that ' s generally consistent with the site. The one inherent consideration that you have with any type of residential , multiple family residential is there is only so much grade that you can work with on these sites so they do have a tendency to flatten to some degree but we are attempting to retain as much of that existing character as we possibly can. We are also with the site drainage patterns, creating areas of where quality ponding prior to discharging waters into the wetlands. Generally we 're routing water through the site in a southeasterly direction that will ultimately end up moving down towards the Riley Lake area. The utilities to the site are being serviced with sanitary sewer up north of this site. There is watermain that will have to be extended into the site from other areas _ through a public works project to service this particular property. Landscaping is one where in the multiple family area we 're generally working with the density of about 2 1/2 degrees per unit which is a little bit higher than you ' ll typically find in a single family residential area. We 're trying to also work with shrub massings around foundations and elsewhere throughout Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 26 some of the critical site areas. By appropriate massings of these trees we can buffer areas along TH 101, along 86th Street. Buffer along 212 in conjunction with the berming that we 're proposing along 212 and 101 . We 're also trying to arrange landscaping throughout the areas to help define open spaces, shape of buildings, soften the massings of the buildings and help provide for the privacy of the individual units. Where they have their individual gathering areas. I think with that I 'd like to pass it along to Don. Don Jenson: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Don Jenson with the Rottlund Company. It ' s been a while since our company' s been before you. We are in the process of developing our own single family subdivision. . . I 'm looking forward to working with Tandem here. We are the builder in this particular development, which means that they ' re developing the property for us. They're taking care of the streets, utilities, the land development approval process. We 're the end user and that, in this particular case that means we 're looking forward to bringing more of the single family houses such as what we 're buildling at Windmill Run, down to single family lots. We are looking at providing market rate housing that staff eluded to, regarding first time home buyer product. That is what we are intending to provide on the southern end of the property adjacent to 212 is the Rottlund Villa. Some of you may have friends or business associates that live in some of those. There ' s approximately 1, 400 of the villa units now built in the Twin Cities. All quadrants of the Twin Cities. It has sold, depending on the city and the development costs, as our newsletters would say, anywhere from the high $50, 000. 00 ' s in the very first years, up to the low $90, 000. 00 ' s in some communities. All of those things are driven by conditions and decisions of the various elected bodies. Planning Commissions, etc and how those things impact development costs. I think there ' s goals of the city to have housing that' s more affordable. Then you can influence those through your decisions regarding conditions on any given approval of the project. We ' re also excited about bringing a very new product for us, which are called our garden homes. They are the one story product and I ' ll flip over this sheet to those in a moment. This would be a somewhat more detailed and perhaps the cart before the horse but we wanted to give you an idea of what will be here regardless of the site plan. Assuming that you approve it. With that I ' ll move to the other side of the microphone. Farmakes: We 're looking at a fourplex here? Don Jenson: What you 're looking at right now is the back to back unit which means that any given side, if there were 8 of them on the footprint looking in plan view, which is. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 27 Farmakes: . . .multiple. Don Jenson: You multiple it, correct. So you 'd see on an 8 unit building, you're only going to see 4 units on any one given side. Farmakes: How many am I looking at right here? Don Jenson: You 're looking at 4 . Farmakes: 4 . So it ' s a 4 plex. Don Jenson: It ' s an 8 . But you're looking at. Farmakes : 4 on one side and 4 on the other side. Don Jenson: Correct. Now the site plan that you saw as part of the plan has combinations of 4 unit buildings, 8 unit buildings and 12 unit buildings, and I ' ll show you exactly where each unit is . Farmakes: I 'm seeing 3 garages here. Where ' s the fourth garage? Don Jenson: You 're actually seeing 4 . You have one building. One unit is right here and it has, all end homes have 2 car garages. Harberts: Oh end homes so the centers have singles. Don Jenson: The centers are single so here ' s your other unit. And that should be in your packets, although it may be on a sheet that ' s quite small to read regarding floorplan. They 're all roughly about the same size. These are about 1, 150 square feet typically. The center one is a little bit smaller. It ' s around 1, 100 square feet and then that pattern is just reversed. What you have on the site plan then for a 4 unit building, of which I believe there was one roughly in the center of Block 1 next to the wetland, is you have a combination of two ends. What we 're done with this particular building style is the end home has a step roof, meaning that we have a vaulted ceiling space over on this side and then you've got a full 2 story space on the other side. So it ' s roughly compatible with how a lot of single family homes from the end view are built. The building itself is about 72 feet wide on the end view, which is not a whole lot wider than a lot of single family homes that have a wide or a triple car garage. About 40 foot wide house, depending on where the garage occurs, and 80 to 90 foot wide lot. You almost have the same. . . when you 're looking at the end use building, especially when it steps up. It ' s no greater or no more visually a concern, depending on a person ' s perspective, than a 2 story home is on Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 28 the street. And depending on how a person views the sketch plan that the developers have put together here, the pattern that you see from the street, whereas you look over the wetland coming down to 86th into the Villa development on the south side, is a series of building masses and roadways which are about 1 1/2 times thinner than some single family neighborhoods. In other words, you might have a 70 foot wide, or excuse me. A 50 foot wide home and you've got your side setbacks and you're going to have another single family home with it' s 2 car, 3 car garage. Your side setbacks of 10 and 10 perhaps or 15 and 15 from another home. In this case you have a building mass and then you have at least a 20 foot wide long driveway plus a street, private or public. Another driveway area so you ' re going to have about an 65 to 70 feet between buildings. Again that ' s more detailed in the next part of the site plan but to get to the building style, that ' s what we're proposing in this area. What we believe is that encourages. . .you have created an awful lot of jobs in Chanhassen. Adjacent to Chaska. Eden Prairie. You have a lot of manufacturing, a lot of service sector employment. You ' re now seeing it across the street out here and in the retail developments that you 've been successful in attracting and a lot of those jobs simply don 't pay the high prices . High wages that are there purchasing the family homes. Farmakes : Materials on this particular model here. The outside clapboard. I see you have some. Don Jenson: No. I ' ll tell you what the outside building materials are. They're brick around the garages. Now that ' s usually around our entries to the homes. Places where a lot of hands get touched so it' s around the doorways. Usually we have some type of turning corner. Where we turn the corners, we carry the materials around so it ' s just not like a fireplace where it' s just in the front of the face. So we 're carrying it around the corners. It ' s also on all garage tops so if a vehicle would miss the garage door for some reason, it' s not going to dent the building. It ' s going to have something solid there. The siding is all an aluminum product. This all has a lifetime, similar to most single family homes that are being built today of about 25- 30 year life. The roofing materials, same thing. When we put together homeowner associations for these types of neighborhoods that we 've been building in the Twin Cities, we 're trying to make sure that they don 't have big costs that they 're going to have to worry about. Some of the associations on different housing projects, different housing types, in the 70 ' s. Late 60 ' s, early 80 ' s used a lot of wood products. They used them when wood products had a little bit better quality but still high maintenance. The redwoods, the cedars, they. .paint very frequently and quite often and if you have a single family home Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 29 that still has a lot of wood, it ' s a job you dread doing. You end up hiring it away after the first time you do it yourself in most cases. So what we would like to is the low maintenance, long life exterior products. Farmakes: The trim, the windows? Don Jenson: The trims are all aluminum or aluminum clad. In some cases various types of metal composites on the. . .windows. That 's the building product. They all, I could furnish you with additional sheets. It's a detailed inventory of what comes with the home but again it ' s about 1, 150 square feet, at a minimum. A little bit larger on the end. About 1, 180 in some cases. That will fluctuate a little bit depending on how we treat the window areas. It is lofted, lofted space. Gas fireplace. All the appliances come in. This particular neighborhood that we 're looking at, we are going to shoot for providing housing that is under $80, 000. 00 for a first time buyer. Now you' ll see a spread on all of our promotional material. If you look in the newspaper every Sunday you would see that a lot of our advertising we talk about how much the interior unit costs because a 1 car garage versus a 2 car garage, you can expect some savings there. There ' s usually in most of our neighborhoods, surprisingly a $6 , 000. 00 spread between the 1 car garage and the slightly smaller square footage and the end home with it ' s 2 car garage and lofted ceiling space. Farmakes: Is the garage door also aluminum? Don Jenson: The garage doors have been primarily wood. They 're painted. There have been some shifts, it depends on our suppliers and the particular development, neighborhood that they ' re in. So there ' s some shifts there. The standard exterior patio which is usually at least 10 x 10. You might not be able to measure that by looking at the plan. All of these homes have standard air conditioning, standard. . .we feel they 're important. Will also affect that purchase price. Staff has eluded to an idea that they might want to try some type of special district where there might be various other incentives, either to Tandem or to an end builder like the Rottlund Company to do x in exchange for x, of which I don 't know what those ideas might be. Farmakes: You're using the word range. Is that the average price then or is that the base price? Don Jenson: Well you've got 2 different styles of homes with, it ' s usually a spread of about $6, 000. 00 and you' ll find that the very first subdivisions we did, if you wanted to research them up at Brooklyn Park or Coon Rapids, had land costs and other Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 30 development costs that allowed those to come to the marketplace in the low 60 ' s. We recently completed a project in Bloomington and Eden Prairie where some of the end units, and they were adjacent to a woods and they were adjacent to very large oak trees, some of those end homes sold for a little over $90, 000. 00. So it ' s subjective. It depends on the location and it depends on - the neighborhood and the various conditions of the development. Mancino: Would this be comparable to the property that you just developed east of Dell Road and south of TH 5? Don Jenson: From a neighborhood image on the exterior in terms of what we are now doing for our landscaping program, for our signage programs, our directional signs. . .at Dell Road and TH 5. How people are directed to their homes and how the project looks from the exterior in terms of the landscaping. It would be similar. The building facade itself is different. What we are trying to do there is that was also very high. That was above the number that staff was looking for. Those sold in the high 80 ' s and low 90 ' s . And what we 're finding is that there ' s a lot of people left behind. There' s a lot of people who still can' t qualify at that level. There ' s a lot of singles, for whatever reason, and most of our neighborhoods are women who are looking to buy. About 50% in most cases are single women. That doesn't mean you have children that you 're tagging along. It just means that there ' s women in the workforce that are looking to buy a home and get started themselves and so without a partner and that ' s just what our demographics and our buying patterns show. Then on the end house we 're finding that there ' s couples. It ' s primarily younger people and it ' s primarily the first time home buying market. We also see about 10% of any given neighborhood, and most of them are anywhere from 70 units up to 170 units so this one fits squarely in the middle at 112 units. That about 10% of those have been historically older buyers where price was important. . . I 'm going to classify that as people over 50 . They ' re coming out of another home or they may not have even owned a home yet. They ' re simply trying to get homeownership in this state, with it ' s high tax. You get one benefit on your tax form and that ' s if you own a home for the most part. What we found then is we could develop another product and that ' s what we - have along the street and we ' re calling those our garden homes. We 've taken the same square footage, which is approximately 1, 100 to 1, 200 square feet and instead of two levels, we 've got it all on one level . This does mean that it needs, and it will fall under the ' 88 guidelines for home construction meaning that doorways, hallways are wider than the 2 1/2 feet that you see in most cases. They 're all 3 foot wide doors. Hallways are wider. There ' s more of a requirement to have a flat site because you can't have more than 4 units without meeting some of the federal Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 31 guidelines for accessibility. What we have then again is the same concept. The end home. The 2 car garage and our current concept plan is 1, 220 square feet so you've got your dining area, you have your garage area and you have your laundry and kitchen. You have a master bathroom, half bath, master bedroom and then kind of a den/bedroom and a porch. We found that the 4 season porch, or however builders like to classify it in Minnesota, it' s still a big plus. It keeps the mosquitoes away and in areas, and especially neighborhoods where you have more wetlands or where long grass is close by, the mosquito populations are going to be up so you need to get away from those. But there again this is a fairly efficient home. Like all of the Rottlund products, we have accessibility to be straight out of the garage into the homes. You don ' t need to close the garage door and go outside and back into the front door. That ' s one of the reasons that the townhome design and the villa product has been so popular with women. It ' s real secure entry system. We 've also taken then the idea of a single car garage has merit. There ' s a lot of older buyers that no longer have a mate, or maybe never had one. They only have one car. There ' s no reason that you need a 2 car garage just to store boxes. So we 've taken the 2 car garage away. The 2 car garage again as part of the plan. It ' s a little bit smaller unit. It ' s 1, 117 square feet and again a similar concept. You have your 4 season porch in the center. A patio space, master bedroom, and you have one master bath. This does not have a second bathroom in it so that ' s one of the places the square footage is increased. The end home has 1 1/2 bath system with 2 car garage. The interior homes 1 bath and then the laundry and kitchen area have a direct entry straight out of the garage. It has a total building height of 23 feet. The villa is around 28 feet so there ' s not a tremendous amount of difference between the roof height pitches. It' s a 5/12 roof pitch. Similar building materials again. It ' s aluminum products on the exterior. In some cases some of the vinyl manufacturers have been pursuing us for vinyl siding. It kind of depends on your personal taste whether you see one or another having more merit. That particular siding industry has improved in how their quality of their siding. You're seeing it on homes all the way up through a quarter million, $300, 000. 00 so. It has an ability to hold color for long periods of time. . .bleaching out like previous projects did in the clapboards, etc. Metal trim and typically that' s in a white. Scott: So in this particular plan, basically what we see here is unit A and unit B. Those two actually would be, you could put them together and that ' s basically how they would be? Don Jenson: That ' s exactly how they are. If you were to push these 2 together, that ' s how they show up on this plan. What ' s Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 32 colored over here on the right side. Scott: Okay. So the indentation back there is the patio and then the 4 season porch adjacent to the side of the garage of unit A. Don Jenson: Here ' s your porch. Here ' s your entry area. In this particular building product, building design also has more of a vestibule or covered entry area so as you're standing at the - front door as a guest, whatever and it ' s raining as this year every other day, you can stay out of it. . .get in the front door. . . .garage and have direct access to entry that way. Single family homes, which we hope to be the end builder there as well. - Your minimum lot standards here are being applied to the PUD plan. It ' s a minimum lot size of 15, 000 square feet. That ' s going to translate into a move up style home or perhaps upper end. . .but it wouldn 't be unlike neighborhoods we 're starting to build up on CR 117 . I 'd be happy to answer any questions for you regarding the housing project but other than that, that ' s the overview. It ' s the first time home buyer and it is an empty nester. People who are looking to downsize or in some cases people who are looking to get into first time home buying on a modest scale. Don 't need all the square footage. It ' s all on one - level. And we think that there ' s a strong. . . for that in the western suburbs and particularly out in Chanhassen. Western Eden Prairie market area because you've done such a good job of getting service sector. . .and jobs here. It will keep people off the roads so they won't be driving a half hour to get to work. . . Mancino: What ' s the occupancy rate of the one in Eden Prairie? Have those all been sold? Don Jenson: It ' s all been sold. There ' s been several resales and people that have been resaling have been getting their equity out and paying their broker and making a profit so we 're leaving something on the table, definitely. Development just had it ' s. . . 2 weeks ago which means we're still in our warranty period for that neighborhood. That one was sold out very quickly. Most of them, for 112 units, interest rates not going through the roof, we would expect that once we started marketing and selling, that we would be able to move through a development plan like this in, sell through and build that whole neighborhood is about a year. So if you were to approve this plan sometime in the near future, and the streets were to start next year, by the end of the year 1995 you would see a completed neighborhood. We would expect the similar pattern to occur for the garden homes. We 're starting our first neighborhood of that particular home design in Eagan. We haven ' t broken ground on a structure yet and it ' s got tremendous acceptance. It ' s half sold out right now. . .provide Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 33 the modest home with what people want and that part of the market is served. Thanks. Conrad: Thank you. Dick Putnam: Mr. Chairman, in quick summary I might just refer to the two recommendation sections in the staff report of the engineer and also the planner. I think by and large we can work with them on really all of the recommendations. One recommendation about a traffic study, we 're a little in the dark about. I assume that pertains to the commercial area. Is that correct? Hempel: That would reflect the intersection there with necessary turn lanes and so forth. The intended use there, trips being generated from multiple and commercial use. So it ' s kind of a combination of both areas. Dick Putnam: Okay. The last item is item 11 where it indicates the applicant shall dedicate to the City in the final platting the necessary right-of-way determined from a traffic study for the future Trunk Highway 101 and 86th. In our meetings with the staff since day one we 've indicated. . .we would be dedicating right-of-way whatever ' s necessary. We indicated from day one however that TH 101 , which takes up, depending upon what you count, anywhere from 7 to 11 acres of property is not something that we 're prepared to dedicate nor are the underlying owners. At no time at this point short of reading this report has anyone suggested to us that that would be a condition of approval . I guess I 'd ask Paul perhaps before the next meeting to check with the City Attorney and the Plymouth case and some others that seem to indicate that in our previous discussions that that would not be the position of the city of Chanhassen for dedication of a state trunk highway or county road or whatever so that would be the only one that we don 't feel would meet in working with staff and for the design. Conrad: Good, thank you. This is a public hearing. Are there any other public comments? Al Klingelhutz : Members of the Planning Commission and staff. I 'm Al Klingelhutz . I live at 8600 Great Plains Blvd, Chanhassen, Minnesota. I just recently received the staff report on this and I did try to get ahold of city hall today to discuss a few items in here. One of the main items that I wanted to discuss was the right-of-way for Highway 101. When you look at that map and see that the piece of property that I don't think there would be - anything happening to until at least the year 2000, the 9 . 2 acres, and expect dedication of a 200 foot right-of-way plus a Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 34 berm between the old TH 101 and proposed new TH 101, which would constitute between 5 and 6 acres of property. Without reasonable access from TH 101 to that commercial property would be asking for an awful lot. I think I mentioned at one time not too long ago, over my dead body or I ' ll go all the way to the Supreme Court. And I mean it. I just can' t see it. As far as the state building a new TH 101, I don't think there will be any, I mean to 86th Street, there won't be any dollars other than city of Chanhassen' s pocket. By letting the state acquire that portion of that right-of-way. It ' s a major collector street. Proposed to be a 4 lane highway. Proposed to take the traffic from having a major interchange on Highway 212 to downtown Chanhassen and I even believe the first portion of that road was purchased and already built. . . landowner. I cannot proceed having that road being such a major. . .being donated by the developer or the landowner. I 'm speaking also for Mr. Bartz who lives down in Kentucky. He called me today and asked that I should represent him. He feels very strongly about this as I do. Thank you. Conrad: Thanks Al. Other comments. Dave Nickolay: Members of the Commission, my name is Dave Nickolay. I live at Rice Lake Manor. 8500 Tigua Circle, otherwise known as Lot 6, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor. We have the largest piece of property to the east of the proposed development. The map up there in no way I believe does it justice. That line that Sharmin just drew goes all the way back to the black line of the back of the pond. That ' s a 4 1/2 acre piece of land and I guess I just want to start out by saying that my wife and I are not opposed to development in Chanhasen, or development on this property. We directed a letter to you at very short notice. I worked on that letter until midnight on Sunday night because we just got home on Saturday night. We did not receive adequate notice from anybody. No one from the staff. No one from the development company. No one has talked to us prior. The last time any discussion that I 'm aware of took place on the land was back in 1990 when the comprehensive plan was discussed. And I talked with Sharmin a little bit about that today but I feel that a development of this magnitude next to the development I live in, and. . . I 'd just like to walk through a few of those real quickly with you if I could. The first and most major concern is dealing with the issue of the 190 units that are being proposed, and I 've learned something here tonight that I don' t believe my wife was told and the members of our community of Rice Marsh were told, the other night at the neighborhood meeting. The 190 units are really going on about 40 acres of actual land. The development of Rice Lake Manor was developed I don't know, about 15 years. We 've been there about 12 years now. We were the third ones to build in that development. We have 7 Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 35 units on 40 acres about, recognizing you've got to take the streets out of 40 acres and we've got significant amount of land in the marsh which is a wildlife easement. So somebody will have to tell me and I did talk to Sharmin a little bit about it today but I 'm not here to get into the specifics of what ' s built but I think the fact is, we 're looking at 190 units next to 7 units at this point. We have one open lot at this stage. There will be 8 units there someday. My most major concern is that there ' s no transitional planning here to go from this size lot, acreage. I had a choice. There were only two lots sold when I purchased this particular site. I purchased it because of the wooded nature and just the whole aesthetics of that lot, and I built a house on it appropriate to the site. Some of you, as I understand, took a walk yesterday through the area. I 'd be more than welcome to invite you to my home to show you what I 've got there in terms of what ' s being proposed. There ' s no transition here. To go from what we originally bought into in this area to what ' s being proposed. This is going to totally change the whole purpose of what we did back 12 years ago. It ' s probably longer. . . My second point is, deals with the fact that Lot 6 in the Block 1 there, I think will be significantly impacted for a number of reasons, and I 'm not going to bore you with all the details . I think I outlined there that the property to the east, or I 'm sorry, to the west of me will not be what I would consider conforming to the property that I own. And I think that ' s going to have an impact on what I have there. Another major concern that I have, which I 'm not holding anybody responsible for this but the contour of the land ' s been adjusted on the horse farm over the last 10 years. The horse farm' s been allowed to dump their horse manure on the land and that has created a drainage problem. All the land to the west of me, where what used to be the corral up on top of that property, and then slightly to the south, all drains through my property now. It does not run any longer off to the back of the marsh because that was filled in with the horse farm' s manure. And so that has created a problem for me and I won' t speak for one of my neighbors but it ' s created a problem for him. It' s created a problem for both of us in terms of the water drainage. In the most recent heavy rains, only the second time in the 12 years I 've lived in Chanhassen, my house is on a slab. The water table got high enough. I have good underground. . .that filled with water. I had to have that pumped out. The area that it ' s draining into, the culvert under my driveway wasn't meant to drain all the water from the west across my property. And that isn 't I don 't believe how the original land contours laid out. The third point is the fact that. . .with the large wooded area that I have on my property. It ' s directly adjacent to the single family homes and the people who were just up before me, I have a strong feeling there ' s going to be a large number of young families in this area. There ' s no park in that Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 36 area. My children play in that woods along with a few other children in the neighborhood. I think it will be an attracter. There ' s a treehouse in the woods right now. I can't, how am I going to chase children off my property? I have them myself. The property line which is on the west side of my land, is all treed and I planted some of those trees. There ' s oak trees - there. There ' s an ash tree there and then there ' s a variety of other foliage on that line. I would sincerely ask you that none of those woods, if you 're going to approve this plan, that none of that growth be destroyed in any manner and you ' ll have to determine what ' s reasonable in that regard. It doesn 't make any sense to me if you're going to approve this, to tear out something and the landscaping in preparation of this site, only to plant something back, if it ' s already there. And some of you took a look at that. So I ' ll let you be the judges of that. The last point under the impact is, what I would consider the northern 1/3 of my property, on the very bottom of the hill behind my house is a main trunk line for the sewer system. For one of them. It is not a trail . It is used by, when I say it ' s being used. It ' s not being trespassed at this stage but I have reason to believe that it ' s going to become an easy access point off of this development. There ' s no place for them to go here. They ' re not going to go walk out on TH 101, as you 're well aware. They ' re going to work their way, for recreational purposes . There ' s a pond on the back of my property. There ' s a nice marsh out on Rice Marsh. I have reason to believe that this is going to be an area where I 'm just not going to be able to protect until such time as the city would put a trail in or use that property for some other reason. Quickly moving on to my point 3 . West 86th Street. I told Sharmin that she should go out there this morning after the rain. You would have truly gotten a feel for what West 86th Street turns into after a good rain. Was it 2 winters ago or in the spring, there is no base underneath that road. That road heaves up. It does what it wants to do when it wants to do. It was originally designed as a farm access road. That is not a city street. The city doesn't maintain it as a city street. And so West 86th Street should not be considered a street by Chanhassen standards. It is in need of major upgrading. Two cars cannot pass. . . on that road the way it exists right now. We have children and a number of the other neighbors have children. A school bus cannot pull out onto Highway 101 without crossing both lanes. If you ' re heading south out of that road, you cannot head south. It ' s a blind access. You ' re taking chances. We go down the left lane until we clear ourselves. We look to the corner first and then we go out. West 86th Street, if you approve this plan, has to be upgraded. With the realignment into the new spot that they 're showing in the dark color area on the map, it cannot be left as it is with this kind of traffic on that road. It ' s a hazard for us right now. The fourth and fifth Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 37 points are the wetlands issue. I encourage you because of this, the high density of this development to have an environmental impact study done by the appropriate state or local , I 'm not sure who actually does that. It' s too major of an area there in all regards and I would encourage you to have that looked into. My sixth and final point is that the, at the hearing in, it was in September, 1990. We were told about another development, Klingelhutz development which was going to be over by Riley Lake. Or Lake Riley. And they were going to connect the sewer and the water and bring it down the side of West 86th Street and then take it to the south. And we were told at that time, and I testified at that meeting and I told Sharmin to check the Minutes and I don 't remember what I said at that meeting, but we were going to be connected to the city water at that stage. And at that point they didn't, the staff did not even realize that we had the underground connections in place. So they took our fire hydrants, but we haven' t really needed them but somebody took them. We have them capped off but I guess my point is that any, the residents of Rice Lake Marsh, and I will speak for myself. I ' ll let my neighbors speak for themselves, is I don't believe that we should have to pay for any connections or upgrades to this area . I believe we 've paid for that once before and I believe I testified to that effect back in 1990 . I never heard back. The staff that were here then, or that were there then, are not here now and that still remains an open issue. I ' ll close by saying I have two requests. One, all of the issues that I had addressed and I 'd like all of the issues that my neighbors addressed, we have a good group of people there. We get along. That all those issues be addressed in writing to you and to us. And my final request is that, if you 're going to approve this type of development next to my property, and I won't speak for anyone else in my area, I feel I should be given consideration for what I have there and how it' s going to change. I don ' t know what that is. . . I was not going to be here tonight but I changed my evening work schedule so I could be here. I just feel this is being rushed. I haven't had a whole lot of time to think about this. I 'm not feeling good about it. Staff, I did get in this morning. In view of the 35W upheavel and I couldn't get to work, I was able to talk to Sharmin a little bit this morning so I 'm feeling a little better but I 'm really concerned about this and no one has talked to me, or my wife. So with that I thank you for your time and consideration and I 'd be happy to answer any questions. Conrad: Good, thanks David. I think you're probably talking, or finding out about it. You may feel you 're behind things but as we said in the beginning, this is a concept. It is the beginning I guess and there is time for you to be involved so I don't think you should be frustrated that way. A lot of valid points that Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 38 you bring up and hopefully as we express our thoughts. Again, it 's a real tricky issue when you get into a concept. We ' re talking, we should be talking general things. Not specifics. You may be concerned with some specifics. We may ignore them right now. We may touch on them. It depends on the preference of the commissioners. But again, I think what we want to, what I personally want to focus on is the overall global direction and provide the developer our insights so they know where we 're going before they commit a whole lot of time and effort to a project. They already have but this is their way to find out what we 're thinking. So anyway, hopefully we ' ll get back to some of your points a little bit later. Any other public input? Joanne Larson: My name is Joanne Larson and I live at 8590 Tigua and there ' s a couple, I hope you all have my letter but there ' s some concerns. I ' ll just go over the most important ones that. . . One thing I 'd like to bring to your attention. . . is the developer stated tonight that the purchase of this land is contingent upon the approval of this and I 'm just frighten that maybe if we say okay, this is just a concept. Let ' s approve the concept. He comes back and says, hey I purchased this land. You approved the concept. Now you ' re telling me I have to make changes. I think the commission should be careful about that. We just got back - from vacation on Sunday night and found out about this and didn't have too much time to prepare so I called a developer friend of mine and I go, I 'm going crazy you know. What do you think? And so I got a little advice from him also and I thought it was good advice. . . not all of them are from here. The density is way too high and the transition is not good. Single family homes should be extended to the south. I feel that single family homes should be extended to the south here. Also I 'm concerned about what' s going to happen over here. We have high density in the back along this line. When this developer comes in, will he be able to rezone this to high density? So my first point, the density is way too high. And then transition is good at all. In fact the developer has not even provided an area of transition from a single family home to the 12plexes right across the road here. . . I also feel no driveways should enter off West 86th Street. On the land here there are a lot of driveways that butt up to West 86th Street and can enter, you know turn right off of West 86th Street right at that driveway. All entrances to the multi-family dwellings should be kept to the west end of the large pond. Personally I 'd like to see from the middle of the pond here multi dwellings just this side of the pond. I feel that the entrances to these multi dwellings should only be on this side of the pond and that ' s it. No entrances any further to the east. I 'd also like to see this myself, single family here. I think we can split this up to quite a few good lots single family. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 39 Batzli : Excuse me, ma ' am. Do you have a justification for why there should only be entrances to the west of the pond? Joanne Larson: I just feel for the transition, that ' s why. I think it would be a nice transition. Also I don't know what you 're going to plan on doing for West 86th Street but it would become a collector street and should be widened to 30 feet. I don't know, maybe that would keep some of the traffic down. . . support the aesthetic affect and has a real nice, I mean if they just sort of were separated. If the single family homes were extended south. I commented a couple things on the villas. I like this style of the villas. I 've seen them off Dell Road. I 'm really happy with those. I 'd like to see the ones in Chanhassen upgraded to the same architectural design as the ones off Dell Road. They have gables over the windows and I like, I would prefer vinyl siding. I think it gives a little softer look. I ' ll pass over the. . .The last thing I ' ll just touch on again is that we ask that the city not rezone or approve any concepts at this time because MnDot' s not even sure that highway 212 will be built. We need to see more alternatives. We need to know if 86th Street. I 'd like to know if it' s going to dead end there at Tigua Circle or are you planning in the future to extend it all the way to Eden Prairie. I 'm also concerned, like I mentioned earlier, is that development right to the south of Tigua Circle, east of the plan. . .What ' s that going to be developed into? Can that be rezoned to high density? Is it high density right next to it? It ' s just all too over powering I feel . Thank you. Conrad: Thanks for your comments. Other comments? David Nagel: My name is David Nagel and I live at 6551 Tigua Circle. I don't know how to say this but I had to come back from vacation for this. As you can see on there, I have on that plan there ' s 5 lots that abut up to mine and I don't feel like I should have to sacrifice my lot for all those. I think that they can somehow they can get like 2 lots in there or 3 but I think 5 is ridiculous. Everything that Dave, my neighbor touched on I think I agree with 100% . The people in there will not have a place to go. They will be coming across into my backyard and I have trees that I planted in there too. I think my backyard will end up being a playground. If anything I 'd like to see somewhat of a high fence put up, and I 'm not talking chainlink. I think something on the order of like a 6 1/2 foot cedar privacy fence. Another point of mine is, are we going to be assessed, the homeowners in that area, for like Dave says the water hook-up because everything is in the street now. And the road. I came from Minnetonka originally and we got assessed for road improvements that didn ' t even affect us. I 'm afraid that ' s going Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 40 to happen here. And to me this development is not an improvement. I mean I saw people out there, the Planning Commission walking yesterday when I came back from up north. And they can see what it ' s like out there. Now I don 't thinkt his is an improvement so when it comes to paying anymore money for a so called improvement, I wouldn't go along with that. That ' s about all I have. My main concern though is the 5 lots that abut up against mine. I feel that is really, it' s going to screw my yard up. Dave has 2 1/2 . Larson ' s have 1 3/4 and I have 5 . I think that' s a bit unfair. That ' s all I have, thank you. Conrad: Good. Thanks for your comments. You know there are a _ lot of, there' s a tendency to get frustrated because we may not be responding to some of your specific questions. And I really don 't want to right now because I 'm trying to get into the concept stuff versus the particulars. I think there ' s probably a good reason for having a neighborhood meeting with the developer and some of the people that have been on vacation so, and probably in attendance with city staff so some of these questions can be answered. I know you get nervous about that. It ' s a big development going in. Right now again, I don 't want to, this meeting could last for hours and there are a couple other items on the agenda. I 'm not trying to cut short the comments because we want them. Yet on the other hand, it ' s sort of, we haven 't even started to talk yet and as commissioners and we have our own opinions too and this could take, it could take a fair amount of time. But anyway, your specific questions will be answered and we ' ll make you feel comfortable with it. May not always be the answer you want to hear but at least we ' ll be talking to you. Other neighborhood comments. Mike Mulligan: My name is Mike Mulligan and I also live on Tigua Circle. I 'm in the first lot east of the Dave Nickolay ' s lot there. I 've not been there quite as long as Dave. About 9 years. 10 years since I bought my lot. Obviously we 're all speaking for ourselves and we 're not professionally organized and we haven 't been doing this for 2 years, working on this. But I think you feel the general theme that ' s running through these comments . Is that we feel that the intensity of the development is not only too great for our neighborhood. I haven't done the numbers. . . but it 's pretty self evident that it 's too intense for the neighborhood we ' re in. The short notice we got. Every single person who lives in those 7 occupied lots there has been on vacation and some of us were not able to be here tonight. Have not returned. We would respectfully ask for enough delays so that we can get our act together and make some sort of cohesive statement. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 41 Conrad: Thanks for your comments. Again, this is a concept review and you 're going to have plenty of time to do that. Other comments. Bruce Engel: Hi. My name is Bruce Engel. I live at 8699 Chanhassen Hills Drive North in the Chanhassen Hills development, which is across TH 101 on the west side of this proposed development. I just have a few brief comments. It appears to me that the plans for TH 101 and 212 should be finalized prior to this type of a project being approved. It may fit nicely with the 212 and 101 when they 're completed but it would look kind of silly out there if say 212 wasn't ever built. In addition, the Highway 101 traffic is, once this happens, the traffic will be greatly increased, which it has, we 've all seen it go up a great deal since these past few years and the ease of access and egress for residents will be decreased and I think we 're additionally concerned about the future safety risks. The safety considerations on TH 101 for all of us. I think if you drive that, more and more concerned. Again as the staff report addressed, this PUD, planned unit development for the total. . . total plan should utilize the environment and apparently there is some additional concern and I 'd like to see, make sure that there is a great deal of attention placed (a) , to the grading and make sure the wetlands aren 't jeopardized. And finally, my final feeling on this is regarding this commercial area. 9 . 2 acres seems to be, well it ' s too big. I don't think you need a space of that, for this size of development that is as large or almost as large as a Target. I don't think we need a Fleet Farm in there. I think we should keep our commercial. Major commercial development along the Highway 5 corridor. Thank you very much. Conrad: Other comments. Joe Hautman: My name is Joe Hautman and I live in Rice Lake Manor. Rice Lake Manor could put those 8 lots together and compise about 40 acres. 8 lots for 40 acres compared to the 190 units here. So if we came in together, the 8 of us, applying a formula used here, we could ask for a subdivision with 216+ units . Now that would be extremely profitable for us. But that would be lousy planning. That really would wouldn ' t it. You 're not going to agree if the 8 of us decided to sell out and plan like that. Well the same thing somewhat applies next door. This is not a good plan for that neighborhood. The density is too high. The reason is, that is the topography does not lend itself to multiple units. We've already heard tonight from the developers. How they're going to have to straighten. . . It ' s simply the wrong development for that topography and that is a - concept. The reason that one of the people suggested that the driveways for the multiple should be west of the pond is, as Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 42 you've heard tonight, things that are designed for first owners. Single people without children. So it makes sense to have the entry to the, from the busiest sections west of the ponds because the single family' s going to have children. So it makes sense to separate the traffic pattern. Have the single family where there won't be children. Have a separate entrance there and keep the _ higher traffic areas with no children have their own separate entrance west of the pond. An important point for all of us is the special assessments. When we bought there we had all the special assessments in and paid for. We had. . . blacktop, storm sewer, catch basins, the whole works. Including the water. And we rely on you to protect us in that regard so that we don't end up paying any further special assessments. Thanks. Conrad: Thank you. Other comments? Anything? Okay, is there a motion to close the public hearing? Batzli moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Did Todd leave? Hoffman. Yeah, I was going to ask him about parks. _ Krauss: I can tell you what we know, and. . .putting together his recommendation and I 'm not privy to that. The comprehensive plan does describe a large park area due east, along the south side of Rice Marsh Lake. It ' s an extremely attractive area. Heavily forested and it ' s going to be severed from the balance of the property by the Highway 212 corridor. Access to it is a little problematic because we don 't have public right-of-way going all the way through it. I had some preliminary conversations with the Eden Prairie Park Director. They are also planning a - significant park in that area and are working with MnDot to get a trail underneath Highway 212 that would run north/south that would basically allow us to have a trail loop around 86th Street to the rest of the city. Through the park, underneath 212 and back along a new trail that was built along. . Lake Riley Boulevard. . . specific recommendation to the Park Board? Hoffman: No, the staff report is still being developed. It will take into consideration any comments brought out this evening. . . 8 : 00 a.m. meeting scheduled with the applicant tomorrow morning to discuss some issues. I have not had the opportunity today to get together and talk about trail alignments. Pedestrian movement through this site between the proposed park open space to the east and Highway 101 to the west. So you 've got. . .recommendation in this regard for the park commission. . . Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 43 Conrad: Okay, good. Mancino: Can I ask Todd a question? I 'd like to see a neighborhood park in this development. I know that the trail around Rice Marsh Lake is going to be a community park. Correct? Hoffman: The basis of whether it 'd be a community or neighborhood or a combination of both has not been addressed to date. In the 2000 Land Use Plan, the site is considerably wooded. It rises up above Rice Marsh much more than some of the property on the north side of the lake which is typically much more wooded vegetation type of wetland. So that issue has not been addressed but now would be an interest with 212 coming through and the land use will change in this area, we ' ll have to address what that park is actually going to look like. In regard to amenities, recreational amenities which the residents of the site can use in very close proximity, I made an indication to the applicant that I found it was unusual that there was not a community amenity such as a pool and play structure. Kind of support this type of location included somewhere in this development typical of what you find in many other multi-family development types of applications. So again, that will be addressed in my staff report. Comments in that regard will be heard from the Park Commission. . . Scott: Todd, does the Parks Department own any property in that area? Hoffman: To the north we own, the city owns 70+ acres which is delineated by these two parcels. The one just south of Hidden Valley and then the parcel which is larger just south of Chanhassen Estates. But again there' s a small neighborhood park located right in this location. Access to this park from this development would need to come out onto TH 101 and then access the recently completed trail which travels then east along the toe of the slope or sandwiched between the wetlands and the homes which are in that area. Other than that, there ' s no neighborhood or community parks developed as of yet in this region of the city. However, the city does have land holdings of approximately 32 acres called the Bandimere Community Park site which is south. Scott: That ' s the recycling? Hoffman: Correct. Where the recycling center has been and that is south. . . Mancino: Todd, another question. When we have developers, well we haven ' t had developments like this. But do you find that homeowners with children plus homeowners that are just single or Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 44 older, over 50, want parks as much as families that have children? Hoffman: It ' s a difficult question to answer because it ' s really an issue of personal taste. But typically people, whether it ' s active recreation, passive recreation through the enjoyment of open space and parks, access to trails, all those are amenities which the. . .regardless of age. So if you would like to see those incorporated, or at least that access to them, it' s accommodated through the site plan. Conrad: Okay, thanks Todd. Well, we ' ll go for planning comments and again, we can have at it folks in terms of details but again I ' d sure like us to keep in general terms if we can. The staff does have a list of recommendations so I think you can react to those but I also think we should react in general terms to the overall site that we see and let the developer and staff know what we 're thinking so. With that intro, Jeff. Farmakes: Well I 'm glad. . . In previous meetings that we 've had. . . made comment to the homeowners that stood up here and he asked about the pricing of homes next to him and we didn 't know what the price of the house was going to be. I think the standard comment that the city comes back and says we 're not in the business of dictating that certain price house is going to be next to a certain price house directly. Indirectly obviously there ' s several other issues that come into play that the city has minimum requirements. And being that you have a foot of land in Chanhassen and you have a dictated amount of cost to build something on it and strict requirements. . .medium price house and I believe the medium price house now in Chanhassen is $110, 000. 00 to $120, 000 . 00 . Somewhere in there. Which basically says that that ' s the minimum requirement that we wind up with in this city. I 'm a little disturbed that we come into a development targeting price totally from a governmental standpoint rather than letting the market do that. The reason that I 'm uncomfortable with that is many of these large developments, the huge ones that you see in town and so on are dictated somewhat by government requirements and political concerns versus marketing concerns. Marketing always seems to work out better. . . I realize that there are other considerations that we 've talked about here tonight. Providing housing for factory type work. For businesses in Chanhassen and so on. Entry level homes. Single family. Single parent type and I think that ' s. . . I 'm wondering if the scope here, if what we're attempting to do is solve all our problems with one developer. I find the scope of this, for this _ particular area, with it' s surrounding properties, may get a little tunnel visioned to solving the problem that we talked about. Providing housing in Chanhassen due to the deficit for a Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 45 certain type of housing. I would like to see some more moderation that' s been talked about here to the east of the property. Perhaps in Block 2 larger lots. Between 8 and 1. I would also perhaps like to see bringing single family down into the areas of 12 , 11 , 10, 9 and 8 . Somewhere and perhaps they're duplexes buffering before you get to the 4 and 8plexes. I realize obviously that that will lower the amount of density but I do think that the homeowners that have come forward here are making a legitimate concerns. This is not a buffered area. There is not a transition, even if it' s one row of houses. Again, that refers back to the tunnel vision type of approach of solving a problem by taking into consideration. . .Certainly units 11 and 12 that are on 86th Street, the people who purchase the homes for Lots 1 and 2 on Block 3 , they're certainly going to be adjacent to large density development of single family homes. Again I think that ' s compounding the problem. Overall, I 'm going to make my comment general from this point. I think with the development overall, the scope for high density is too big. I 'd like to see some more moderation in the transition. Again I feel uncomfortable dictating the size of the units and say that these should be duplexes and this should be 4plexes. I know that ' s a market of what generates those types of developments. Except where the city or the federal government comes into play. I know that in the case of Eden Prairie, some of the developments that the village homes, particularly I 'm thinking of Centex, they 've done quite an exemplary job in terms of making a transition. The prices however on those units as I recall were in the high 90 ' s to the low 100 ' s so we 're talking about a step up here from where this targeted amount is. The grading that Sharmin talked about earlier, I would support that. I 'd like to see whatever development comes in here that we try to maintain that. It ' s been something that we try to maintain on any of our developments that we 've tried to. . .Whatever happens here, I also am concerned about the scope of our parks to look at these things. I 'm talking about neighborhood parks. There is, quite a lot that can be done in these types of developments. Areas that are referred to as common areas or areas where there ' s a small scale park and I 'm thinking of perhaps Block 1, Lot 6. The 4plex kind of tucked in there in the middle of much higher density. Perhaps an area like that. . .The outlot, I 'm still concern at the size of the outlot. I realize of course there ' s a lot of concern that 101 and 212 may not happen, and. . .any highway projects type costs. But it would seem pretty reasonable if that case. . .we ' re having here, the pressure that we 're having to the south now, that highway' s going to happen in the relative near future. Where it goes exactly, the preliminary work has been done for that and it may vary somewhat and I am again somewhat concerned. If there ' s commercial going in there, that works into our long term development. We look at the proposed commercial area that was at Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 46 TH 41 and TH 5 . I responded in the task force in that development to propose commercial development there by the Mills property and the response was there that we had enough commercial of a half a million square feet in the downtown development that that ' s suffice for our population. I am concerned about the size of this commercial development. It's almost as large as the Target area and I would not like to leave that as an open ended thing. By allowing that much space as commercial, I would not like to see that go beyond the scope to providing services. Dry cleaning, daycare, the type of thing that you would not envision in the typical strip mall with more servicing higher residential area. I 'm concerned about the size of that. It ' s so large that it would seem to me that it ' s bordering on being another strip mall . And if that ' s the case. . . should be discussed. So I 'd like to see more information there on the size of that. On the area of safety and traffic, I 'm assuming that that can' t be, that the cost of traffic studies and so on until you come up with a relative plan that you feel has been narrowed down somewhat that we 're going to get a professional response. . .Obviously there ' s this amount of density being put into this area, there ' s going to be a considerable amount of additional traffic in that area. . . Mancino: I don't want to repeat all of Jeff ' s. . . I do agree with all of Jeff ' s comments. I ' ll try to add to the big picture one. Paul, when is Fred' s study going to be done? The updated 101 alignment so that we actually have the final 101 alignment. Krauss: I will defer to Fred on that one. Fred Hoisington: Nancy we will , almost all the information is in now so we would expect to perhaps, time permitting on the agendas and so forth, to have something that we ' ll be at least recommending. So we 're not that far away from having a recommendation to make to you and to the City Council. Mancino: And your recommendation may not be this alignment? Fred Hoisington: It ' s possible that it won't be but my understanding is this plan takes into account any possible alignment. Krauss: If I could address. The alignment does affect portions of this property to a greater or lesser extent. But it ' s not significant. It can be accommodated so it' s. Mancino: Would it not add to this outlot size? Krauss : It would add or subtract. More likely it will subtract. But it ' s got to be made clear that when we. . .the city ' s alignment Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 47 study and bring it to the neighborhood and get the City Council to approve it, nobody' s going to be out there with a. . . in the foreseeable future. There is no project to upgrade the highway. We're working with people in trying to put something together but clearly that ' s a ways off so I don't want to mislead anybody that a quick solution to the Highway 101 issue is in the offing. What we 're trying to do, in lieu of the safety with the proper planning processes of where this road ' s going to go, we 're trying to put the city and it ' s residents in the drivers seat so we know what the solution is and we can work towards that on behalf of everybody that ' s agreed to it. Mancino: This comment that I have is, I would like to see a neighborhood park in this development. With this high a density, I think it would serve the people well that would live in it. And I also have a concern for the property owners to the east knowing that, I think they're very right that a lot of the people will be, a lot of these people that live in this development will be going there or using their property so I would like to see some sort of a park here. I would also want to make sure that the wetlands aren 't infringed on at all . In fact, if anything, if they could be. . .especially wetland #15 . The commercial area of the outlot, to me I would like to see neighborhood commercial, not highway commercial . I would like us to have it be so that it does serve the neighborhood and not the community. When I see it being maybe half the size of what it is right now. I think it ' s too big. What else did Jeff say that I thought was very good? The Block 1, in that lower, the southeast corner abuts single family and I would not like to see, that is not in this development. I would not like to see the high density abutting single family to the east. So I 'd like to see more of a medium density put in that area and that would be Block 1 where units 8 , 9 , 10, 11 and 12 are around wetland 18 . Or excuse me, wetland 13 . I think that ' s it for now. Conrad: Okay thanks Nancy. Brian. Batzli : I agree. I think some sort of amenities need to be provided. Whether that ' s totlot, play area, tennis courts. I think neighborhood park probably has a unique connotation to the Park and Rec Commission and I don't know that it' s really what we 're asking for. A neighborhood park is I think pretty substantial. Isn 't it about 40 acres typically? Hoffman: Less than that. Typically 10. . . Batzli : Okay. But I think what we ' re looking for is amenities in an area, you know totlot kind of stuff. Tennis courts. Those type of things. Not necessarily a place where you can build a Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 48 dozen ballfiels. I think in general, I agree with Jeff ' s comments and I missed some of them but he sketched them out here for me and I appreciate that and I agree with virtually all of them as well as Nancy ' s. Some of her detailed comments. Just in no particular order to highlight some of them. I agree, I don't believe there should be drives as currently shown off of 86th Street. I think there needs to be more consideration for the land form to minimize the grading. I understand that' s a problem with some of these. There ' s going to be a mobility type homes put in. Low mobility or handicap accessible, whatever. And I understand that but maybe more care needs to be taken regarding that location and the landforms that exist. Something struck me and I need to comment on this. My gut feeling. Someone said that Rottlund was the end user and I disagree with that. The residents of Chanhassen, both current and future are the end users. Not Rottlund and that notion needs to be disabused here. Sump pumps - only along city streets. I ' ll get you yet on that Dave. I think homeowners association obviously is a requirement in this kind of thing and that will happen. Drainage problems need to be taken care of . The intensity of the development needs to be toned down a little bit, especially in the southeast corner. I guess I don't, I understand why this would be guided PUD but I don 't think that they 're paying enough attention to some of the things that we would normally look for in a PUD, especially those concerns identified as numbers 1 thru 7 on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report. Clearly our condition 13 , recommendations of the staff report include that and those are the types of things that I 'm going to be looking at and I hope the developer read that condition 13 carefully because they didn' t comment on it. But yet if they submit a plan consistent with those recommendations with numbers 1 thru 7 , yeah. I 'd go along with that then. Mancino: How do you feel about the commercial size on the outlot? Batzli: I agree that it should probably be neighborhood commercial . However, it ' s not entirely clear to me how large a trunk highway 101 is going to be and if this is really a major commercial intersection, I might be convinced that it ' s appropriate to have a little bit larger commercial sector here. Scott: I ' ll address my comments specifically to the commercial outlot. I think it needs to be downsized. Restricted to neighborhood commercial . I don 't think we need, because of the central business district that we have, about less than a mile from the site, I don't think it 's necessary to have anything but local services or neighborhood services. And I won 't belabor any other point. I 'm in full agreement with the other commissioners so I really don 't have anything extra to add. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 49 Harberts: I have a strong support for a lot of the previous comments. A couple of, two additions I believe. They touched a little bit on, I hope this is global. On just the space. Maybe it ' s the amenities. Maybe, you know you get your joggers. You get your walkers . Just taking that into account. Maybe we ' ll see that. Some of the high points is certainly that transition and reducing the density so maybe some of that will come out. I would strongly urge that under the recommendations that because of the intensity of the number of people, even the fact that some of the target markets that the developer works in concert with the public transit authority to ensure that this is transit friendly. I ' ll also note that a park and ride lot is at the interchange. It has been already mapped at the interchange of 101 and 212 . So I suspect that we ' ll see a lot of transit riders, both locally as well as commuters to Minneapolis. So I would strongly recommend to see a condition that they work with the public transit authority. Batzli: When would something like that park and ride lot be constructed though? Harberts: MnDot ' s going to build it when they build 212 . Batzli : So maybe not for 10-20 years . Harberts : But I think with the current density that ' s being proposed and even working with them, that there will be circulators and buses on 101 as soon as the development goes in. So that will, you know we are talking about a park and ride lot somewhere on TH 5 as well so traffic is going to be generated. That ' s it. Conrad: Okay, thanks Diane. I ' ll try to make mine quickly too. I again, I am just not sure about the commercial size of that property. I just, I don 't want to limit it right now but it seems large I guess and we somehow have to get our hands around whether that is too big for a neighborhood type of use. I don't want to close it out. I don't want to downsize it right now but I certainly have my, I guess I need a better vision and I don't have one right now. We haven' t talked about 101 dedication and maybe we ' re not, Paul. Krauss: Well, if I could clear that up. Al Klingelhutz has no need to go to the Supreme Court, it ' s already been done. It ' s interpretation, and maybe Elliott can possibly comment on that, our City Attorney. Design. . . is probably correct. There may be a different slant. . . if the city winds up owning TH 101 . . . Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 50 Conrad: It does seem reasonable. So if we make any kind of motions tonight I think that one condition in the staff report about dedication of TH 101, I don 't know. Somebody should note that that is probably not what should be done. I 'm concerned with internal parks. Like everybody else has said, I think there should be some kind of parks or something, on a very small basis - in here. The transition to the east, the neighborhood who has represented themselves here tonight, yeah. There ' s no doubt. I don 't like 15 , 000 square foot lots bordering that property. It ' s not a transition. That ' s not what a PUD is all about. A PUD is transition and in this case we haven't done it. Now I am confused with what the rest of the Planning Commission has said. You 've really talked about the going to single family to the southeast. Mancino: Or medium density. Conrad: And I really am not sure why. Why is that? Batzli: It ' s guided low density to the east. Conrad: So you 're just trying to make a transition there. Even though the wetland is there and that is a transition. I guess that, I have a problem with that. Batzli: I 'm not sure of where the wetland goes based on this map. All of it and I was assuming that there' s going to be homes here and there is no transition if in fact you develop single family to the east of the property. Conrad: Ah, okay. Farmakes: My comments Ladd is that if 12 became, if they increased that Block 2 between 8 and 1 , came up to about 20, 000 square feet. Block 3 remains somewhat as it is. Block 1, 11, 10 and 9 , went down to single family 15 square feet, and 12 became a larger lot. Wetlands again, that would create a barrier that would have, 8 could be a duplex. 7 could remain as it is. 5 could remain as it is. I 'd like to see 6 as a commons area or some. . . I think that that would create something of a barrier visually. Because I think not only looking at it this way but I also think when you 're physically on the site looking, building to the east, you have homes to the east, visually what you see too. . . Conrad: Why don ' t we just play around with Lot 12 on Block 1? Why are the other 3 or 4 lots important? Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 51 Farmakes: I 'm just throwing that out as a buffer and I 'm agreeable to listen to whatever ever anyone else is suggesting. Conrad: Well what I 'm trying to do for the developers here is try to get, and they have, obviously those of you that are here, this goes to City Council. City Council will have their cut at this too so when we talk concepts, it' s our concepts and then the City council will have concepts so somehow the developer ' s. . . Farmakes: . . .throw this thing out, obviously the developer ' s going to have a better feel for his market but as a buyer I can give you my opinion. I would not want to buy Lots 1 of Block 2 or Block 3 because that 'd be adjacent to high density across the street. That ' s not a buffer for me. I would expect a larger lot single family with a smaller lot single family, a duplex, a 4plex to an 8 to a 12 . Krauss: There ' s another aspect of what happens in that southeast corner. There is a large wetland, or there is a wetland there. We have to double check MnDot ' s plans but I seem to recall MnDot had intended to buy out that parcel and use it for drainage purposes. So there may in fact be nothing ever in that corner but we can double check that with MnDot. Of course they don't own it yet. Conrad: Now a lot of you did not really say anything about transitions on the northeast side but that ' s pretty consistent. Aren't we concerned about that or am I putting words in our mouth. Harberts: I think you're putting words in the mouth. I thought the general discussion was that there needed to be more transition. That this wasn' t going to do it and that I think Jeff kind of coined it right away when he said to reduce the number of lots on that whole Block 2 . Mancino: To 20, 000 minimum. Scott: Cut them in half. Harberts: That ' s the way I understood him. Conrad: Okay. Well you're supporting that? Okay. Harberts: Yeah. That ' s what I was supporting. Conrad: I think that is important. I don't think that if this - plan came back to us again, and we didn 't see some transition, I don't think it ' s going to pass if we don't see a better Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 52 transition to the property to the east. That seems to be essential. Obviously you're hearing some concerns about the transitions to the southeast so I think we 've got to, I 'm not sure what our consensus is on that but I think there has to be something, some attention paid to the southeast part. Generally I like some of the, a lot of things I see here. For those of you who, we have to take discredit for some of this I guess as a Planning Commission. We have said this is, should be some higher density areas . We 've said that in the past. We did that when we did a comprehensive plan so we 're not, we can't dodge the issue by saying, hey this is just too, we never anticipated this. We did. And now it ' s just seeing if we still believe that and see how it fits and make it work with existing neighborhoods. The only other things that we haven 't really reacted to was the staff comment on the EAW. Is there a feeling that we should request an EAW on this or not? Anybody? Harberts: What is the EAW going to give us? What can we expect to learn from it? Conrad: That we won 't get, right. Krauss: Well, my personal feeling is it doesn't give you much that you couldn 't get anyway. We have a specific request for some traffic information. That ' s something that an EAW might already give you. We have some requests for defining wetland issues. We have the best wetland ordinance in the State. I mean it really doesn't add that much to the process. I don 't know. I mean I can't honestly say that it would add that much to the dialogue. I think it ' s a lot easier oftentimes to just specifically state, I 've got an interest in this particular concern. It comes back to us with information on it. I think we 've pretty much done that. Mancino: Paul . . . let ' s say 212 goes to the south. Comes in here. Will it tell us how much berming we should have because of noise levels that will be affected in the southern part of this development. Krauss: MnDot is right now, a few weeks ago they were supposed to have a meeting and they were meeting on projected noise levels with the highway. Where they were going to build noise walls. Where they're not. They only build noise walls for residential development that ' s existing at the date of which they get what' s called. . . Permit and that ' s this September. Now we told them about this development hopefully to get our foot in the door but this development does include significant berming up against the highway and the highway. . .That information ' s available. They have noise. . . Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 53 Mike Mulligan: Can I speak to that please? Conrad: Okay. Mike Mulligan: The Environmental Impact Statement that was done on 212 did address that issue but as of today, as of last week, MnDot has no noise berming whatsoever in any part of Chanhassen. I missed that meeting. I called Evan. He sent me the drawing last week. Krauss: Yeah, I don 't know if, I mean Evan' s clearly the person, Evan Green of MnDot is clearly the person who ' s doing it. I would. . .We do have some scattered other developments that I hope _ would happen. . . for neighbors with MnDot and get as much protection as we possibly can. Conrad: SO, are there any votes for here in terms of an EAW? It ' s sounding like we ' re, with Paul ' s comments. Harberts: We 're covered. Conrad: It ' s sounding like that. I guess if there ' s somebody in the audience that feels that that is an essential part of this, I guess I don ' t know that we 're going to move that that happens tonight but if you feel it is important, that maybe you bring it up to the City Council when it gets there in a couple of weeks. Traffic. Dave . Now how do we know. You've asked for some traffic studies. We built that in but that traffic study is , how do we tailor that to a commercial use which we don't know what it is yet? Hempel : That is a difficult question to answer. I guess the traffic study would not be done until we get through preliminary plat stage where it ' s a little more defined for the use of that outlot. So we can give some direction to a consultant what to anticipate for trip generation. . .At this stage it' s pretty unclear. Conrad: But the way the developer is handling this, they don't have to tell us what that outlot is going to be used for. Hempel: Our projection that it would be a worst case scenario, most intense use of that outlot. Krauss: Keep in mind that under the PUD you have the ability, whether or not, I won't say whether or not the property owner wants to, but you have the ability to establish parameters for what ' s going to happen there. We ' d like to work cooperatively with the developer and the owner to do some projections so that Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 54 it makes sense for everybody. But yes, you can in a worst case analysis. . . Conrad: Paul , how do we get a handle? I don 't want to drag this up but how do we get a handle on the outlot? Krauss: Well at this point I think you've made the concerns that we have that have been. . . come back in when formal submittals are developed that that be resolved, or at least brought to a stage that you can intelligently talk about it. It ' s quite similar I guess in a way to what happened with Opus/Steiner came in. . .You basically laid down the guidelines or the project wasn't going anywhere until we had some definitions. . . Harberts : What about those special assessments? I 'm uncomfortable what to expect. What the city residents can expect. Will they be subject to assessments or all the costs going to be picked up by the, based on the development of this parcel . Is that still up in the air? Krauss: They do have service from city sewer. It ' s not an unusual relationship to have water in pipes in the street but they're not connected to them. Batzli : They have wells. Krauss: Right. And I honestly, I mean Dave do you know what they 've paid for? Hempel : They did pay for the installation of their own lateral lines in front of the property. Over the last feasibility study that was conducted for bringing trunk water facilities into this area to service, we 've adopted a rate of. . . $1, 275 . 00 per unit. One unit being assessed for each one of those individual property owners. . .until some future point when they decide to subdivide further, additional units would be assessed in the process of a connection of a hook-up charge. Scott: Is that the same assessment for the x number of units that are to be added in the development? Same kind of thing? Hempel : Right. . . Krauss: It needs to be made clear though that that was a feasibility study. That was approved by the Council. . . ordered the project but it never was built. We 're not in the process of reassessing how that should be done. There are developments coming in south of 212 on Lyman that will have an even, the assessment, the feasibility study needs to be recomputed, Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 55 refigured. As far as the roadway goes, I guess I envision 86th Street being built by the developer. Harberts: Am I understanding that at this point that it ' s possible that the existing homeowners in that Rice, whatever it is . Sorry, that they probably will not be any assessments as a result of this subdivision? Krauss: Well, keep in mind the feasibility study that Dave is quoting, this development was existing in nobody ' s imagination at this time. This was rallying water on kind of a mini-regeional basis for the city serving the whole south Rice Marsh Lake area down to Lake Riley. And that was what that assessment was developed under. Now we never built that. Now I think what Dave ' s saying is probably reasonable to think that it may be somewhat in the same ballpark but we don't know exactly what it' s going to be. I want to assure everybody though that it ' s a very public process. There are usually many hearings on those kind of things at the City Council. Harberts: So it ' s opportunity for the residents to provide maybe more additional information so they can be better prepared. Krauss: Oh no question about it, yeah. Conrad: Okay. Harberts: One other question I have, and this was brought up. I think it was a good point and I 'm a little uncomfortable. As the first gentleman said from Tandem, that this is a contingency and my understanding that you have to have so much building here in order to make it feasible. If we were to approve it in concept, if they went out and bought the land and then because of our discussion that it reduces the number and the cost there, is it feasible for them to build this, they' re the ones at risk? Krauss: This is not an uncommon practice. Virtually all the developments that are brought before you are a contingent purchase deal. Now if the developer picks some arbitrary number of units they expect to get, it ' s encumbant upon you to provide it. . . Scott: So it ' s preliminary plat approval. Conrad: What we say tonight, I don 't think the developer ' s going to go out and sign anything based on what we ' re doing tonight. Harberts : Well no, because as I understand it, if we approve it, it ' s non-binding on both parties. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 56 Scott: Or if we don ' t like what we see, which it sounds like we don 't, we need to table or reschedule to get something back from the direction that the applicant has received from us and do the whole process over again. Krauss: You 're not, I mean the City' s not bound to perform until you have a project you actually preliminarily approve. Scott: There you go. Conrad: Anything else? I think you react not only to the staff report, but also if you can give a summary of the key considerations that you heard the Planning Commission. If you think it represents the majority of the commissioners to include in that motion. So the conceptual approval has 16 points and if want to react to any of those 16 plus all the additional comments that we've made. Batzli : I move that the Planning Commission recommends conceptual approval of PUD #93-4 shown on plans dated June 23 , 1993 subject _ to the following conditions. Conditions 1 thru 10 as set forth in the staff report. Condition 11 which reads, the applicant shall dedicate to the city with final platting reasonable right- of-way for future Trunk Highway 101 and the necessary right-of- way for 86th Street. Obviously that needs to be reviewed by City Attorney for appropriate language, that condition. Conditions 12 as set forth in the staff report. Condition 13 would read. Submittal of PUD plans consistent with the recommendations of the staff report (including without limitation the concerns identified as numbers 1 thru 7 set forth on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report) in the engineer ' s memo. Conditions 14 and 15 remain as set forth in the staff report. Condition 16 to read, incorporate conditions of the Park and Rec Commission and include park type amenities such as open space, totlot and tennis courts. Condition 17 . Reduce the intensity of the development along the neighboring properties to the east and southeast corner of the development. Condition 18 . Let me ask this before I talk about condition 18 . Where do we talk about coming back in the PUD process with the neighborhood commercial? Have you talked about that as conditions 1 thru 7 or did you actually include that as a condition and I missed it here? Al-Jaff: It ' s only in the body of the staff report. . . Batzli : Okay. Then condition 18 would read, the applicant shall provide detail on permitted uses of the outlot emphasizing reduction of the size of the outlot and limiting the types of use to neighborhood commercial . That ' s it. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 57 Conrad: Is there a second? Farmakes: Second. Conrad: Discussion. Harberts: I 'd like to offer a friendly amendment. Item number 19 that the applicant work with Southwest Metro Transit regarding the public transit in this area. Batzli : Does the applicant actually do that or does the City do that? Harberts: Both. Batzli : I accept that. Harberts: Thank you. Conrad: Any other discussion? Mancino: My only question is, is the thing about the topography, leaving the preservation of the existing topography? Batzli : I thought that was set forth in those conditions 1-7 . Mancino: Yes, number 1 . Okay. Conrad: Any other discussion? Batzli moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend conceptual approval of PUD #93-4 as shown on the plans dated June 23, 1993, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The applicant shall realign 86th Street to avoid impacting the existing wetland. Individual driveway access from the multiple dwellings will be prohibited onto 86th Street. The plans should be revised to access the properties from the private streets in lieu of 86th Street. A traffic study should be prepared by the applicant to determine the necessary right-of- way, traffic lanes and signal justification report. Staff anticipates the proposed right-of-way is inadequate. 2 . All utility and street improvements (public and private) shall be constructed in accordance with the City' s latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant will be required to supply detailed construction plans for all utility and street improvements for the city to review and formally Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 58 approve. Street grades throughout the subdivision should be between 0. 75% and 7 . 0% . 3 . The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as the MWCC, Health Department, Watershed Districts, PCA and MnDot. Due to the size of the project, the applicant may also be required to prepare an EAW. 4 . All water quality treatment ponds shall include outlet control structures to control discharge rate pursuant to NURP standards. Most likely the City will be maintaining the retention ponds and therefore the applicant shall dedicate the appropriate easements on the final plat. Maintenance access to the retention ponds should be at a minimum 20 foot wide drainage and utility easements and should be dedicated on the final plat. Erosion control and turf restoration on the site shall be in accordance with the City ' s Best Management Practice Handbook. 5. Sanitary sewer service to the site shall be extended in accorance to the City' s sanitary sewer comprehensive plan. If interim service is provided from the existing Lake Susan sanitary sewer line, the appropriate utility and drainage shall be acquired by the applicant. In addition, the City wil authorize/perform a study to determine if there is excess capacity in the Lake Susan Hills line to determine limits of service. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the study. 6. The proposed watermain in 86th Street shall be increased to a 12 inch water line. If the applicant installs the oversized (12 inch) watermain,the city shall credit the applicant by means of reduction in their assessments for the oversizing costs. The oversizing costs shall be the difference between an 8 inch watermain and a 12 inch watermain. Placement of all fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire Marshal ' s recommendations. 7 . The applicant ' s engineer shall submit design calculations for the storm sewers and retention ponds in conjunction with preliminary platting. The storm sewers shall be designed for a 10 year storm event and retention ponds shall retain the difference between the predeveloped and developed runoff rate for a 100 year 24 hour storm event. The outlet of the rention pond shall be designed to restrict the discharge to the predeveloped runoff rate. The pond shall also be construted to NURP standards to improve water quality. Should the City' s storm water management plan provide alternative regional ponding on-site, the applicant Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 59 shall work with the city in implementing the best location for said ponding. 8 . The preliminary and final plat shall be contingent uponthe City Council authorizing and awarding a public improvement project for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities to service this site. 9 . The applicant should provide a buffer area between the development and proposed Trunk Highway 212 as well as Trunk Highway 101. The buffer area should consist of both landscaping materials and berming. 10. The applicant shall include a draintile system in all public streets where the adjacent dwellings have no other acceptable means of discharging such a pond, wetland or storm sewer. 11. The applicant shall dedicate to the City with final platting reasonable right-of-way for future Trunk Highway 101 and the necessary right-of-way for 86th Street. 12 . During construction of utilities and street improvements along 86th Street, the applicant shall provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing homes on Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles. 13 . Submittal of PUD plans consistent with the recommendations of the staff report (including without limitation the concerns identified as numbers 1 thru 7 on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report) and Engineer ' s memo. 14 . The applicant shall provide density calculations for each lot within Blocks 1 and 4 . These figures shall exclude the right-of-way and wetland areas. 15. The landscaping plan shall be revised to add more trees along West 86th Street, along Highway 212 and Highway101 right- of-ways and betweenthe area separating commercial and residential lots. 16. Incorporate conditions of the Park and Recreation Commission and include park type amenities such as open space, totlot and tennis courts. 17 . Reduce the intensity of the development along the neighboring properties to the east and southeast corner of the development. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 60 18. The applicant shall provide a detail on permitted uses of the outlot emphasizing reduction of the size of the outlot and limiting the types of use to neighborhood commercial. 19 . The applicant shall work with Southwest Metro Transit regarding public transit needs in the area. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Conrad: We ' ll move on a little bit. Is anybody here tonight interested in the John Pryzmus item on the agenda, because I don't think we ' re going to get to that. And our preference is to table it and talk another night. So if there ' s nobody here that sat through 3 hours of fun conversation. I guess Planning Commissioners, I think I 'd like a motion to table action on item _ number 5, item number 6 , item number 10 Paul? 10, you need reaction to 9 and 11 right? Krauss: Right. Conrad: Okay. 5, 6 and 10. I had it right. Batzli moved, Mancino seconded to table items 5, John Pryzmus Interim Use Permit; item 6, Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding lot sizes; and item number 10, update on the Highway 101 alignment study, due to the meeting curfew. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Ladd Conrad left the meeting at this point and turned chairing the meeting over to Brian Batzli. JMS DEVELOPMENT FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 6 . 1 ACRES INTO 13 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, WEST OF TROENDLE CIRCLE, EAST OF PEACEFUL LANE AND NORTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD, TOWER HEIGHTS. Public Present: Name Address Shanon Graef 855 Pleasant View Frank & Marilyn Beddor 910 Pleasant View Road Timothy Foster 6370 Pleasant View Cove David Beddor 1050 Pleasant View Road Mike Meuwissen 6500 Troendle Circle Larry Moloney 150 Fifth St. Tower, S#3500 , Mpls Pat Cunningham 865 Pleasant View Road Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 61 Name Address J. & Karen Meyer 6225 Ridge Road David & Valerie Rossbach 670 Pleasant View Road Teri Frederick 660 Pleasant View Road Douglas Olsen 901 Vineland Court Kelly Bailey 6580 Pleasant View Way Mary Sherba. . . Burnsville Rob & Teresa Drake 980 Lake Lucy Road Holly Broden 640 Pleasant View Road Sandy Post 489 Pleasant View Road Samuel Erwin 6400 Pleasant Park Drive Kathy Berdahl 6411 Pleasant Park Drive Conrad & Michelle Eggan 6500 Peaceful Lane Gretchen Robideau 540 Pleasant View Road Laury Martini 491 Indian Hill Road - Gordy & Patsy Whiteman 825 Pleasant View Tom Meier 6410 Fox Path Tom Seifert 600 Pleasant View Road Batzli : Is this a public hearing? Okay, so it was held open from the last time? Scott: Well I know we closed the public hearing the last time we talked about it and sent comments to staff and the applicant and this is their reaction. Correct? So do we need a public hearing? Harberts: Yep. Scott: We do? Krauss: I suppose officially you may have already held the public hearing. I wasn 't here. I don't know if you formally closed it or what. Harberts : I believe it was closed. Batzli: We closed it actually 2 meetings ago before we tabled it but I 'm sure we had a public hearing last time but I wasn 't here either. So okay, well I ' ll run it as a public hearing then. Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. Jeff Schameter: I ' ll be very brief. My name is Jeff Schameter. I 'm with JMS Development. Last time I was here there were several issues regarding the plat. Those issues were worked out Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 62 and have been reiterated and worked out again with city staff. The issue of the trees we solved with a custom grading plan, retaining walls and 89 foot frontage on Lot 13 . Our engineer Roger Anderson is here tonight. He ' ll address that briefly. Essentially I understand it to be a scale issue of the current plan and the final plat will show 90 feet in the surrounding area. Actually like 89 . something but the lot next to it shows 91. something so there will be two 90 foot lots there. Dennis Troy, our attorney is here and he will address a couple of the more interesting issues surroundng this plat. We feel the development ' s an excellent addition to Chanhassen. It conforms in every way and we have conserved vegetation on the site beyond our last plan. We think we really have excellent tree preservation. One of the benefits of moving the lot line between Lot 12 and Lot 13 was that the major clump of trees, the cluster if you would, that existed well onto Lot 13 . Excuse me, well into Lot 12 that would have been impacted by traditional home construction on Lot 12 is now bisected by the lot between Lots 12 and 13 . Therefore the very fact that there ' s a setback requirement will in fact conserve those trees. We also are planning, as previously mentioned, to custom grade those lots. We have moved the setback, and I 'm not sure this will be addressed in the developer ' s agreement, in excess of the minimum setback on Lot 13 to insure that the trees that will be located in the future front yard of Lot 13 , will also be easily conserved. . . I 'd just like to again confirm that this plat conforms in every way and we feel that out of all the alternative plans we 've explored for this site, that this plat is by far the most efficient and best use. And ironically resembles study plats, study plans and concept plans that have been kicked around on this site for many years. At this point I ' ll let Denny and Roger expound on a couple of the particular issues that I 've asked them to address and I will be available for questions . Thank you. Roger Anderson: Chairman and Planning Commission members. My name is Roger Anderson and I 'm the engineer on the project. Regarding the lot frontage issue that was. . . and is proposed to be corrected and is easily correctable. I 'm a little embarrassed. That slipped by me to tell you the truth but the adjustment that I put was easily accomplished and. . .was roughly dimensioned until the final plat is done. Jeff has addressed the tree issues. We did feel that after the last meeting some work needed to be done there and we did some work at considerable length with staff to provide the adjustments to the grading plan that they needed and we did work well with them and they were very helpful for us and we needed to come up with a grading plan we felt was acceptable. I did have one issue on the grading plan. I think on the retaining walls, Dave and I had discussed that briefly that due Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 63 to the proximity of some of the trees on Mr. Owens, the nearest house, it may help if we could put the retaining wall on the right-of-way and apparently some agreement has to be worked out to allow that to happen. That ' s one issue. The other things I think have been addressed. If there are any questions regarding engineering, I 'd be glad to answer those. I think that staff has fairly well looked at those issues and. . . Dennis Troy: Good evening Mr. Chairman, Planning Commission members . My name is Dennis Troy. I 'm the attorney JMS Development. I just want to keep my comments very brief as well tonight. The staff report we think is a very favorable staff report. They're in favor of it. We think staff has handled very well the legal issue that is kind of looming over this project in terms of the condemnation and EAW. This body is not asked to make decisions on EAW' s. This body is not asked to make decisions in terms of condemnation. The staff report indicates that those are conditions of the final plat approval and of construction. We think that makes sense. We ' re in favor of that to move the planning process along subject to those conditions and we think that staff has done a real good job in handling that issue so it doesn't muddy up what your task is, which is planning. Secondly, what is not at issue tonight are different alternative site designs but some other developer or some other owner might plan for this property. What is at issue here is the plat that this owner has presented. If there are comments or criticisms of that design, doesn 't meet code, I think that ' s fair game but I would hope that tonight we wouldn 't see 15 different alternative designs and waste a lot of our time. Third, what ' s not at issue tonight is what might happen someday to Pleasant View Road. This project does not require, does not anticipate, does not contemplate any improvements on Pleasant View and I know there ' s some citizens that are concerned about what might happen in the future and it might be nice to assure them that if a public improvement was ordered in that respect, there 'd be a separate public hearing at a different time, probably. . .with respect to it. It ' s not the issue here tonight. And lastly, even though I don 't think the EAW condemnation issue is an issue tonight, I do want to make an editorial comment on it. It appears to me that to some degree an owner has attempted, a neighboring owner has attempted to make an issue out of it by planting trees and in effect creating the destruction of some natural resources which otherwise wouldn't be necessary. And I think we ' re confident and my guess is that the City Attorney is confident that if and when that issue goes to court, the Judge is going to see very clearly that the City isn ' t the cause of that destruction. This project isn't a cause of this destruction. The planter of those trees is what caused the destruction, if there were to be some destruction. So we would ask that you Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 64 approve that, the preliminary plat recommended to the City Council tonight. I 'm also available for any questions. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. I 'm going to open it up for public comment. I ask that you keep it brief and limit yourself to several minutes. We have a full house here. I don 't know how many people wish to speak. I 'd like to have people try to limit their comments to the issues that remained open from the last meeting, if at all possible. I think the record ' s very clear on a lot of the other items . So having said that, is there anyone that would like to address the Commission? Frank Beddor: Commissioners, staff, my name is Frank Beddor. I live at 910 Pleasant View Road. I 'm sorry that the time is so late because we knew this was a continuation of a public hearing a lot of us weren 't able to be at the last one and we had, earlier we had about 40 residents that did want to say something about this proposal. I ' ll try to keep mine brief but I would like to go through the notes that I made this evening. . .Tonight I am one, and only one of 214 owners. Taxpayers or voters who live on Nez Perce Drive and Pleasant View Road who were opposed to two things. We 're opposed to connecting the Nez Perce Drive and — Pleasant View Road. We ' re also against the proposed plat that JMS has before you and we 're against that for two reasons. First it ' s the ingress and outgress of the 13 lots because this is _ going to necessitate making Art Owens driveway and making it a wide city road and this in turn we feel is going to destroy somewhere between 20 or 30 mature trees. And I 'm talking about trees that are 40, 50 and 60 years old. This is the proposed area that they 're proposing. This is the drive and it comes up and the 214 people I 'm speaking of are the homeowners who have signed this petition against the connection of this road. This is a photograph showing Art Owens driveway and the yellow lines are roughly where the driveway would go and the white lines are the outside area. Now we could not have the plat itself when we did this but as you can see, there are beautiful trees that are involved here. The. . .blocked out a lot of them but there are 33 trees in that immediate area and we are against that taking all those trees down. Now, I just received the staff report late today, or I should say the developer ' s on the replacement plan and on that replacement plan they are showing that on the overall development they 're going to lose 33 trees. But right on their own admission, they aren 't saying that ingress and outgress, they are going to lose 15 trees and those trees are 20 inches in diameter. This is a diameter. 24 inches. 28 inches. 26 inches and 36 inches. These are huge trees that are 50, 60 and 80 years old and the reason we object to this is that there is an alternate solution of how to develop this property without going Planning Commission Meeting = August 18 , 1993 - Page 65 through and taking all these trees down. We also object to the grade. It ' s our understanding that that grade is 10. 5% and that' s steeper than normally recommended by city staff. We also object to the traffic that these 13 lots will generate because that will put traffic on Pleasant View, Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View and that will suddenly add to the safety issues on Pleasant View. Again, the 214 homeowners who signed this petition feel that this ingress and outgress is unnecessary because there is an alternate plan that you can access to Lake Lucy and that has a lot that was dedicated by the city for that purpose. On the connection between Nez Perce Drive and Pleasant View. This is a safety issue and I would like to quote a staff report prepared by Dave Hempel to Jo Ann Olsen in July of 1989, and I quote. Pleasant View Road serves as the only east/west connection between County Road 17 and Trunk Highway 101. The existing roadway design is unsafe in several areas for local resident traffic. Steep hills, sharp curves, hidden driveways, and overgrown vegetation all combine to create hazardous conditions. As the area continues to develop, traffic volumes will increase and hazardous conditions along Pleasant View Road will only intensify. Well we agree with that and that was 4 years ago and we don' t think any additional traffic on that road, either coming from the proposed ingress to outgress to this development or connecting Nez Perce Drive to Pleasant View is going to help this situation at all . Also, back in 1989 we were at the only public hearing they did have, neither staff nor the city had developed an indepth traffic study. Now we did make our own traffic study just a short time ago. We went to Carver County Sheriff ' s Department and from June of 1991 until July of 1993 there were, in this 2 year period, 10 car accidents on Nez — Perce Drive and Pleasant View Road. Three of them involved personal injuries. There was only one car accident on Lake Lucy with no personal injury. Now the Lake Lucy residents we do sympathize with these people. There are 20 homes on that one block stretch and we do feel something should be done to reduce traffic, reduce the speed at stop lights. However, Lake Lucy is only one block long. It ' s a new street and when you enter Lake Lucy, you can see down the whole block and you can see any, any homeowner or children there can see the cars coming. That ' s not true on Pleasant View. That ' s 20 blocks long, Pleasant View Road and as Dave Hempel so aptly points out in his report, Pleasant View is very dangerous and certainly it hasn't improved over the last 4 years and adding more traffic to it is not going to improve it. On the meeting, the Council meeting I had in September of 1989 , that was when Vineland first submitted their plat, they showed a plat that came in and cul-de-sac for 15 blocks and came out Pleasant View for 3 lots. Evidentally the city staff took exception to that and they wanted to have this connect through to Pleasant View Road so at that meeting they Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 66 offered 4 proposals. One of those proposals, they were listed 1 thru 4 , one of those was to make this a straight road right through to Pleasant View. The other proposal, they had 3 other ones and the other one was to come through cul-de-sac it at when and if Troendle ' s was developed and then come through Peaceful Lane. We, as the 214 homeowner were only shown these 4 options and we certainly didn't want option number 4 because it immediately put a connection and added traffic to Pleasant View. We did agree but we did not accept plan 3 but we agreed to it which was the lesser or two evils at that time. Plan 3 meant that sometime at a later date when someone purchased and developed Troendle ' s property and when somebody purchased and developed Art Owens property, there was a possibility that Pleasant View Drive would be extended to Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View, unless a better solution was discovered. In September of ' 89 , the same time we had this meeting, Art Owens had a plat that was already submitted to the city. It was okayed by the city and it showed 5 houses sitting right here. There was no connection to Nez Perce at that time on that accepted plat. At this Council meeting on September 11th, we were not shown any plats that showed that you could access onto Lake Lucy connection. In fact we were informed that Lake Lucy, that outlot that was dedicated was too steep. In a staff letter to Don Ashworth of September 8 , 1989 it was noted that Art Owens plat might expire in October and that a reasonable connection could be made to Pleasant View, but in that report it said the disadvantages of it was, and I 'm going to quote, this would still result in introducing traffic on Pleasant View, and that ' s what we don't want is to introduce traffic on Pleasant View or Nez Perce Drive. This letter goes on to say that one of the advantages is that there ' s an undeveloped right-of-way to Lake Lucy Road. . .grade was too steep. Now at that same meeting in September of ' 89 , Councilman Johnson asked Paul Krauss the following question. He said Paul, that little stub coming off Lake Lucy on the left side of the water tower, that wasn't consider in any option. Paul Krauss. Technically yes but there is some difficulty in the grade. Well see now the staff is in a bind we feel . We now know, by accident I went out and asked somebody about a short time ago, to really measure that grade and could we heard that 10% was too steep. And we found out that that grade is only 5 . 3% steep. So we were never informed of this and so no one ever looked at that option. That option going to south to my knowledge was never presented in a Planning Commission meeting. Was never presented at a Council meeting and now that staff or someone at the city has allowed two houses to be built along this platted future road with the minimum offset. Now this is not the liability or the problem of the 214 homeowners that are on Pleasant View and Nez Perce. This is the city ' s challenge and it ' s obvious that if this new road was installed, that these homeowners would be compensated if there ' s Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 67 some loss in value to their property. Back in ' 89 , see that was the only public hearing we had. The Vineland Forest residents had to sign a restriction that they would not in anyway attempt to restrict the extension of Nez Perce Drive. I hope I 'm not reading too fast. . . When we purchased the Troendle property, this was a year after this, the city did not require us to put this covenant in our development agreement. In fact we knew nothing about this covenant. We didn 't that out until about 3 months ago. At the last Council meeting, and I just got the report, Don Ashworth stated at that Council meeting, when Mr. Beddor received his approval , that would be on Troendle ' s, specifically. . .on the covenants placed on each of these lots that shows the connection would be to Pleasant View. This is incorrect. These covenants are not in the developer ' s agreement that we have a year later in our developer ' s agreement. Now in the Vineland Forest, the covenant does read. Each owner purchasing a lot in Vineland — Forest agrees not to object to the possible future roadway extension. Some of the language does not appear in the development agreement at that Troendle. In fact in contrast, this upset me so at the last Council meeting because I was kind of put in the spot of going back on my word, I retained the law firm. They went through all of the Minutes for the last 5 years. All of the correspondence. All the city ' s reports and I quote what they say in our development agreement. Outlot A may not be platted. . . until the city receives a petition from the developer, which would be myself, to extend Nez Perce back through the property to the west of the preliminary plat as a direct or indirect connection to Pleasant View. Now in the case of the Troendle Addition, if the developer chose not to plat Outlot A, the road would not be extended. Now this is far from the agreement, from an agreement to extend the road. It confirms Mr. Beddor ' s position that he exceeded, based on the circumstances that existed at the time, to reserve the right to extend the road. However, the solution is really simple. You know going back, what we want to do is, we want to extend Nez Perce Drive. We just want to extend. . .to the north. We want to go back down to the south. Come back through the property and this has a big advantage because you don't have to condemn this property. You don 't have to deal with a public road and anyone that ' s going to go int Art Owens property or into Troendles is going to come down Lake Lucy Road, immediately make a left and that property does not go down the length of the road. The advantage of this would be there 'd be no connector road between Nez Perce and Pleasant View and this would reduce the safety issues on both these roads. There 'd be no need to use taxpayers money to condemn private property or build a road. This does not increase traffic on Lake Lucy. The new owners in the Art Owens and Troendle Addition would turn off of Lake Lucy Road and would not drive the full length of Lake Lucy. And we would save 20 to 30 beautiful, mature Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 68 trees. Now the. . .seems to have been about 4 years ago. Now 4 years ago. Now 4 years ago at the public hearing, the Beddors did not own the Troendle property and we did not own Art Owens property. And at that time. . .Art Owens had his property platted and it did not show an extension going through to Peaceful Lane. At that same meeting 4 years ago we saw four options, none of them showed an ingress and outgress on Lake Lucy as an option and that was over land that had been dedicated for that purpose. After 4 years we now find the grade is not too steep and we are hoping that the Commission will keep an open mind on this proposal which we call a solution. At the last Council meeting on July 12th, 4 out of 5 Councilmen voted against this solution. And their general attitude was that this was resolved 4 years ago. They had very closed minds and they refused to explore any new viable options. In our mind a lot of things changed in 4 years. We now have the option of going off Lake Lucy because the bank is not too steep. We feel the environmental study will show that taking out 20 or 30 trees will have a disastrous impact on the environment . But the most important issue, who does this connector road serve. This is the same plat. All of those lots that are yellow lined are people who signed this petition. And a lot of people that you might see in white there. . .but we hope to have substantially more. It' s my understanding that a connector road or this type of road, whatever you want to call it, is to serve the local neighborhood. That would be the residents of Nez Perce Drive. That would be Vineland. That would be Troendle. That 'd be Lake Lucy and Art Owens and also the residents on Pleasant View. Gentlemen, tonight we have, and I ' ll have a packet here for you of over 214 homeowners, taxpayers and voters, who live on these roads and these are the people that this road is supposed to serve and the overwhelming majority of these owners do not want this connection. We still believe in a democratic system and we feel it ' s your responsibility as the government officials, to serve the taxpayers and the overwhelming majority we feel the taxpayers have spoken. I hope you ' ll abide by their wishes . Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Commission? Excuse me. I ' d like to hear from everyone else who would like to address the Commission before I let you rebutt, thank you. David Donna: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. My name is David Donna. I live at 881 Vineland Court. I heard some discussions about residents on Nez Perce and Pleasant View. I don't . . . street but I still have some concerns. I also apologize. I was not at the last meeting. I don't know what was discussed so I 'm not sure what the guidelines are. I 'm not familiar with this process but I listen with interest to the issues that were Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 69 raised by JMS and the attorney for JMS. It struck me that those issues were the issues that JMS wanted considered. What I didn't hear discussed by JSM, which was talked about by Mr. Beddor, was the. . . sitting through the last several hours today, I heard talk and concerns raised by the Commission about safety in different developments. I think it' s important that. . . I talked with Councilman Senn, Councilman Wing and I 've talked with Mr. Hempel before Mr. Krauss left for out of town. We were trading phone calls back and forth for about a week to try and talk about some of these things. What I understand is that with this connector road going through, that there will in fact be. . .traffic north and south. There will be increased traffic on Pleasant View and there will be increased traffic on Lake Lucy. I 'm not an engineer. I 'm not a planner but the increased traffic does not go hand in hand with a safer development, which means a more hazardous situation. I think that the real issue here is whether something can be done so that this project can be developed by JMS or whoever but the safety can still be maintained all over. And I 've talked with Mr. Hempel about some things and since then I 've talked with Mr. Wing and he has asked me to make a Visitor Presentation. I 'm not prepared to do that. We 've talked about some alternatives which would disperse the traffic either by having a third ingress and egress, if that ' s what you call it. Or by having some multiple cul-de-sacs. I still think that there are some things to talk about. Some issues to consider and I noted that Ms. Harberts was concerned in the previous proceeding about we don 't want to take a vote here tonight and have some developer rely on it and then rely on it to their detriment. I think that these other alternatives should be considered before any vote ' s taken and any developer or anyone else goes ahead and makes big plans and spends a lot of money. . .Thank you. Batzli : Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Other than the applicant. They' ll be given a chance. Terry Barke: I ' ll try to be very brief also. My name is Terry Barke. I live at 9. . .Lake Lucy Road. I 'd like to make three basic points here. In kind of response to what Mr. Beddor was saying. He started his presentation by talking about two points. One that 214 residents were opposed to this connection between Nez Perce and Pleasant View Road. It seems to me that that ' s already a done issue. As part of the conditions of Mr. Beddor being able to develop the Troendle Addition, you can see on the second bullet there it ' s pretty clear that that connection being made was one of the conditions and they agreed to that when they developed the addition. But I see that as outside of the scope of this meeting tonight. Second issue regarding concerns for the trees . I 'm concerned about the trees. People on my street are Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 70 concerned about trees. I think we ' re all concerned about trees. I noticed that shortly after the City Council decided on the connection of Nez Perce and Pleasant View, on Mr. Beddor ' s property there seems to be a bunch of pine trees that have been planted right behind the barricade and the sign on the barricade saying this street will be extended in the future. To me that doesn't seem consistent with an argument about protecting trees and I 'm just saying that it sounds to me like the developer has done the best job he can to take care of the trees and I hope these trees that have been just recently planted back there don't become an issue later on. That seems kind. . .As a third point that I ' d like to make is that, I feel like I can speak for the people on Lake Lucy Road. We are in agreement that we like the JMS proposal . We think that equitably shares traffic in that area between Lake Lucy Road and Pleasant View and we think it ' s a nice plan. Thank you. Batzli: Terry, could you show us on the map where you live on Lake Lucy? You live on Lake Lucy Road right? Terry Barke: Yeah, I live on Lake Lucy Road. Batzli : Can you show us on this map or another map. Maybe Sharmin has a little bit bigger one so people can see it. Where do you live on Lake Lucy Road. Terry Barke: I live right here. Batzli : About halfway down? Terry Barke: About halfway. On the north. Batzli : Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Renelle Ulrich: Hi . My name ' s Renelle Ulrich and I live 6581 Nez Perce Drive. I am against the connection and I still see viable alternatives and I would like the opportunity to work with the Councilmembers. Work with the planners and everything to come up with a solution that everyone can be happy with. I see that if the connection goes through, I see Nez Perce becoming very busy and it is very similar to Pleasant view in that it is a windy, curving road. A lot of overgrowth in the vegetation and _ that has to be taken into account. There are a lot of turns, there are a lot of hills and having a connection there is going to make it not a very safe street. There are other ways around it and I think that as a resident of Vineland Forest, I 've only been there a year but I 'm there. There are other people who have not been there a long time but we are there and there have been Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 71 many changes in the last 4 years and we really deserve the right to be heard. It ' s very frustrating when other alternatives are presented when we 're still in the planning stages and people are shaking their head and looking around and kind of relaying a real sense of cynicism toward us and that ' s very frustrating to deal with and I 'm hearing some Council people saying, well you know the system does work. Well I 'd like to see the system work. I 'd like to see everyone happy with the solution. And that means going back and looking at some of the alternatives and hopefully you will allow us to do a presentation. Thank you. Dan Rogers: My name is Dan Rogers. I live at 6500 Nez Perce Drive. My concern with the proposal tonight is that it will lock us into putting Nez Perce through to Pleasant View. My concerns with that are, that it will increase access to the entire area. I mean Pleasant View, Lake Lucy and Nez Perce. What I 've noticed at these council meetings is that the City Council is relying on 4 year old information, before Target was a. . .and we 're going to increase, by increasing access to the area, we're going to increase traffic to the whole area, including Lake Lucy. Even though it was never stated, I get the feeling that there ' s a belief that by putting Nez Perce through to Pleasant View, it ' s going to take a lot of traffic off of Lake Lucy and onto Nez Perce. I don't think that ' s really going to happen. I think it's going to increase traffic for all of us and I think what we all want, since we 're all neighbors, our kids all play together, and basically the whole area is our neighborhood. We want an equitable distribution of the traffic and for that reason I would like to look at some other options other than the one we see, looked at this evening. . . Batzli : Thank you very much. Anyone else like to address the Commission? I think somebody' s passing the child. We ' ll let her come up first. Sharon Rogers: Sorry, I thought we 'd be through earlier too so. My name is Sharon Rogers . I live at 6500 Nez Perce Drive and I guess I basically just want to repeat what these people said. I do not think the road should go through. If this development is done as it is proposed, it will go through and it will cause a lot of problems. . .and also I just want to say that, Mr. Beddor refers to the Vineland Forest residents signing the covenants. That says we are not going to disapprove of any connections for any extension. That ' s what it says. It doesn 't say a connection. When we moved in we were aware that there was going to be a development behind us. That ' s how far I thought it was going to be extended. It ended up not, and it ' s the same thing. I did not accept that it was going to be extended to Pleasant View and so I am fighting for that and I am willing to fight with Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 72 Mr. Beddor until and hopefully it will be, you will listen to the citizens in Vineland Forest because we weren't there 4 years ago and we really feel that we have been ignored and we really would like to be listened to and there are a lot of safety issues involved. Thank you. Mary Stasson: My name is Mary Stasson. I live at 5400 Peaceful Lane and perhaps Sharmin could point to where our home is. We 're directly affected by the traffic that will come swerving across and headlights coming into our south windows and all that other kind of great stuff. And I submitted a letter today that I asked Sharmin to give to all of you. . . Mancino: Are you the corner lot? Mary Stasson: One of the corner lots. Mancino: And you're very close. Mary Stasson: We 're very close to Peaceful Lane. About 35 feet from that road so we 're very concerned about the. . . of this road and preserving the property that we have now. On that particular corner where we ' re at, we 've. . . last 3 years and we've also had. . . Also we were never notified 4 years ago when all this was happening and so by the time we came up here to say anything, it was like it was already a done deal . Nobody was willing to listen to us so. . .thank you. Batzli : Okay, thank you very much. Yes sir. Brad Johnson: My name is Brad Johnson. I live at 1. . .Lake Lucy Road. The residents of Lake Lucy Road. . . traffic on our road is going to decrease if this connection. . . Also there seems to be in Mr. Beddor ' s presentation an assumption that all cars traveling from Nez Perce and Peaceful Lane will turn right and go east on Pleasant View to TH 101. I think the vast majority will turn left and go. . . CR 17 . Batzli: Thank you. Todd Novacheck: Hi, I 'm Todd Novacheck. I live at 6371 Pleasant View Cove. I 'd like to just speak to the safety issues again. We have, from our residence, we have to turn out onto Pleasant View Road whether we're going east or west. And it is very dangerous. Cars right now coming over the hill and it ' s a very dangerous situation. In the wintertime a neighbor and I were just talking, even though we live there and we know it, sometimes we 've come down that road and you start applying your breaks and we just keep sliding and almost right down to Powers Blvd to CR Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 73 17 . And so now by taking more cars from the south and bringing them onto Pleasant View Road, you ' re going to increase. . .problems and as the gal just said, there ' s been several pretty severe accidents right at that intersection in the last couple years, that we 've seen. I think you really have to take a look at it. My daughter is 10 years old and got off a school bus just this year with the stop sign out onthe school bus. Came around the front and a car was coming over, going west on Pleasant View Road and the bus driver said she just barely got missed. The car literally had to swerve around because the speed coming down Pleasant View Road, it ' s a blind intersection right there at Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road. So you're going to dump more cars in there. I think you 're going to really increase a problem. I think the solution brings people out of that area or into that area and will take them right back out to CR 17 and if they choose then to come around and use Pleasant View Road, that ' s fine but the point is it takes them, the solution takes them out. They would go west on Lake Lucy and hit CR 17 . Then they could go north or south. So from a safety standpoint, somebody really needs to go out there and document what has happened in the past and potentially what could happen. So appreciate your time. Thank you. Tim Foster: Good morning. Batzli : It ' s going to get there. Tim Foster: Tim Foster at 6370 Pleasant View Cove and I have to agree with Todd ' s statement, and I 'm Todd ' s neighbor. We use the same cul-de-sac. . . it is a safety factor. I somewhat view this connection that everyone to the south from Highway 5 can now have somehow access to Pleasant View. I think that the solution and based on the information that we have reviewed as a group, in the form of a petition, I feel that if I had your job and I was doing the stewards of the community, that I would view it as an impact that this is a situation where you cannot make the right decision on the wrong type of program. I think it' s wrong and I think it creates a safety issue. . . Batzli : Okay, thank you. Did we already hear from you? Dan Rogers: I 'd like to address the safety issue. Batzli : I 'd like to hear from everybody before I get anyone a second chance. Is there anyone else that 'd like to address the Commission? Sandy Post: My name is Sandy Post. I live on 489 Pleasant View and I live at the stop sign on the corner there and the safety Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 74 issue about a concern, we 'd like you to look at the alternative. We are always in danger of pulling out of our driveway because they make the stop sign, make the corner and our driveway ' s right there. I 'm afraid to let my children get the mail because it ' s bad. I just don't want to see anymore traffic come on. Batzli: Thank you. Valerie Rossbach: My name is Valerie Rossbach. I live at 670 Pleasant View Road. I 've been living there for 10 years. This issue on Pleasant View that ' s come up repeatedly. I attended meetings when they were putting in the Near Mountain development. At that time the Pleasant View Road safety issue was raised. They were making efforts to prevent more traffic on that road. Since then increase. . .development and I think it cannot support another, that road cannot support another road into that. Dave Beddor: Hi, I 'm Dave Beddor. I live at 1050 Pleasant View. In some ways it sounds like we in the room are opposed, I really think everybody stands together. They stand together for a principle and the principle that everybody ' s fighting for from their own perspective, is safety. Lake Lucy doesn't want their kids being run over. People on Pleasant View are concerned. We hear that time and again. But we 're all very emotionally connected to our little piece and are very vested in, you know I 'm vested in Pleasant View Road and Nez Perce and Lake Lucy. What I 'm hoping is that you can look at it from a more macro perspective and keep all those pieces in mind so it doesn't come out where there ' s one road that ' s winning and one road that ' s losing. Take a look from the perspective of on Pleasant View, how many people are funneled in from Fox Chase and Near Mountain and so forth. I can respect also. . .bias to the Pleasant View standpoint. I can respect that people on Lake Lucy are concerned that they have an extra 15 houses coming in. Maybe the fairest way of looking at it is saying, how many people, how many cars drive by my driveway you know every morning. . . Distributing it. What ' s fair? How should we look at distributing new cars there coming in. Everyone' s going to say the same thing. Nobody wants more and so maybe there should be time taken on that study to take a look at how many cars are taking up. Where should it be funneled to? I sort of sat here sort of watching and it feels like, well you know I connect a road to that. . .old issue and I 'm sure we can find technical reasons for both ways and I guess I 'm just kind of hoping that you ' ll look at it from a little more macro perspective than what we all are because we 're all vested in our own pieces and our own kids so thank you. Batzli : Thank you. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 75 Conrad Eggan: Good evening. My name is Conrad Eggan. I live at 6500 Peaceful Lane which happens to be directly across from where this connecter road would exit. Would connect with Peaceful Lane. Now I don 't, right now I probably will see the largest increase percentage wise of anybody here in terms of traffic. I have the Art Owens residence beyond me. No one else so I will see a huge increase compared to what I have now. I don't have a problem with 12 or 13 residences being built up on that hill coming past me. What I have a problem with is the connection itself and bringing all the people up Nez Perce and those who might want to come through on Pleasant View and access Nez Perce. I just don't think it ' s necessary. Simply not necessary. And if approving this plat forces that connection, then I also must approve, must oppose the approval of this plat. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission for the first time? Doug Olson: Hello. My name is Doug Olson. I live at 901 Vineland Court. I 'm also opposed to this connection of Pleasant View to, or Nez Perce to Pleasant View. My biggest concern is that this road will be used a cut through from Pleasant View to other areas via Nez Perce. . .There ' s really two major issues here that I have a problem with and the first I mentioned is that it generates heavier volumes of traffic through a residential area that really shouldn ' t have to share that volume of cut through • traffic because if you look at who is this serving, is it serving the residents of the area that live there or is it serving commuters just traveling through our residential area? It also creates a larger volume of traffic for Pleasant View and as you know, I think widening or expanding Pleasant View would be difficult at best and I don 't think it would serve a public interest to create traffic on such a convoluted street. I had a lot of issues here but most of them have been discussed. A lot of safety issues. I think that there are more viable alternatives and that ' s what we should be looking at. Whether it ' s to bring Nez Perce back to Lake Lucy or to look at cul-de-sacing Nez Perce and Troendle. Maybe having Troendle come off Pleasant View. I think there are some alternatives that haven 't been looked at. I think that the decisions maybe were made in the past based on misinformation. Whether it was grading limits or wrong calculations on slopes of roadway contours, I think that we 've got to go back and stop what we 're doing here and look at some of the decisions that were made in the past based on misinformation and I think there are much better alternatives. . .there shouldn't be a cost associated with the connection here. Who ' s going to bear that cost. I think a lot of homeowners in the area would agree that living on a road that ' s going to be used as a cut through, could actually decrease property values and perhaps the Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 76 market values of the homes would drop and of course not only a drop in that would also likely reduce the tax base for the city of Chanhassen. Not to mention condemnation of property that this connection would create. In conclusion I hope that the Planning Commission would look at all pertinent issues of this decision making process and reach the conclusion that more viable alternatives exist that are more environmentally and fiscally responsible and residentially sensitive to a better solution. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Doug Olson: One other quick question. Who prepares an EAW? Batzli : Paul , who prepares it? Krauss: Well this is, it ' s not a mandatory connection. The City Council received a petition signed by, I don't know, a number of individuals in the area. 25 have to sign it. They will receive that on Monday evening. It' s our recommendation that they go ahead and do it. The City Council is the RGU. Is the Responsible Governmental Unit. It ' s up to the City Council to figure out who should do it. Right now we recommended that it be a different engineering firm than did the feasibility study so there ' s a checks and balance kind of arrangement. We asked Barton-Aschman to do an EA. . . EA on Highway 5 . They gave us an estimate on that. That ' s what we ' re going to be bringing to the Council . Batzli : Does approval of this have to be contingent on successful EAW for Nez Perce? Krauss: We added that condition. I mean at this point it ' s unclear as to whether or not the City Council ' s going to order an EAW. It ' s completely elective on their part. We 've recommended that they do one. It ' s really their call. Harberts: Who pays? Krauss: Taxpayers are going to pay. It ' s a city cost. There' s also a suit that ' s been brought in this case. The City Council was served on Friday. So the Council is dealing with a lot but right now, we delayed this item once before. In June I believe because at that point the City Council was asked to reconsider their decision. We took this back to the City Council to tell us what you' re going to do. They said they wanted to go ahead with the roadway at that point. I don't know what else to do at this point. We asked that this be approved contingent upon the Findings of the EAW. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 77 Mancino: And the lawsuit? Krauss: The lawsuit ' s unclear. Batzli : I 'm sorry, who filed the lawsuit? Krauss: I don't recall which names were on it. It was I think three families. Batzli: Okay, proposing to block this subdivision? Krauss: Well I guess, Elliott did you have a chance to read through that? Elliott Knetsch: No I haven't. Krauss: There were a number of issues that were cited, similar issues to those which were cited with the EAW. Batzli : Okay. Doug Olson: So am I correct in assuming that they're timing, that the timing of completing this EAW with whether this connection should be made. Is that up to City Council to decide? Batzli : They would not be able to proceed until the EAW was completed, if they determined to proceed with that. Doug Olson: And that ' s up to the City Council to decide if they want to do an EAW. Batzli : Yes, and that will be decided at the next Council meeting. Harberts : Which is Monday? Batzli: Monday. Doug Olson: Do we know about what kind of a timeframe the EAW would take? How long? Krauss: I 'm not sure. I 'm guessing, I asked for an estimate. . . on very short notice and I got a fax today that gave me the cost but not the time. I 'm assuming it ' s going to be probably a 6 week, give and take. Batzli : Multiply that by 2 . Maybe 4 yeah. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 78 Doug Olson: I assume what the EAW is going to do is address most of the issues that we raised here and your thinking is that an engineering firm may be involved. Krauss: Oh clearly, yeah. I mean there ' s enough questions that have been raised. I take strong exception to the tossing about of misinformation. I mean this has been a 4 year continuous process with multiple public hearings and new information being contributed ad infinitum. But at this point we 're taking the position that there ' s nothing more city staff can or should add to this process. We 've already had a feasibility study done by one engineering firm. Let' s bring in somebody fresh. Have them take a run at it and let it come back with the information and let the City Council decide. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Tom Meier: Good evening. I 'm Tom Meier and I live at 6410 Fox Path in Fox Chase and I 'd like to address two issues. The first one being safety. We live at the bottom of a big hill on Pleasant View and most of the cars coming down there don't use their brakes and they can easily obtain speeds of 45-50 mph. It' s extremely dangerous on Pleasant View to the point where you can't even walk it. We 've been near hit by many cars trying to walk that and we 're pretty well forced to use Ridge Road, which is a private road. The residents right now are gracious enough to let us use it but they certainly have every right not to. We also have a large deer population in the area and I think any additional traffic is going to create some serious problems and also I think Nez Perce has got a problem and if you create a connecter, you ' re going to have a third problem. The other issue is I had a chance to go through Art Owens property earlier this year and I was shocked to find out that they were going to try and take out as many of those old grove trees that are sitting there in this day and age of environment, it ' s for me to believe that anybody would consider that. Thank you. Dave Rossbach: My name' s Dave Rossbach and I live at 670 Pleasant View Road. And there' s a lot of people here that think this is a done deal and there ' s a lot of people that, over 200 people that don ' t think it should be a done deal. I just hope you people can kick back and look at this and take a strong look at the other alternative. And if there ' s a better possible way of doing this, I think you should really consider it. It ' s kind of like main street in Chanhassen. You know maybe there were some mistakes made there with some particular corners. They could have been done the right way. You could have kicked back and checked it out one more time. Thanks. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 79 Jim Stasson: My name is Jim Stasson. I live at 6400 Peaceful Lane. One thing that nobody' s brought up about is who ' s going to pay for all this. We 've been informed that the developer will pay for connections and all this stuff. We hate to have our property devalued and also be assessed for all this stuff. Thank you. Kelby Bailey: My name is Kelby Bailey. I live at 6580 Pleasant View Lane. I 've been a homeowner there for about 2 years. I 've seen the traffic on Pleasant View Road increase in that amount of time. I want to first thank the city of Chanhassen for paving the west portion of it. That was badly needed. Since then I wake up at night to traffic squealing in the corners. . . What I would encourage you to do is to re-evaluate some other possibility that could save some tax dollars and use that tax money to slow the traffic down on Pleasant View Road. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Hold on one second. I think I 've got a first taker over here. Okay. Did you guys want to say something else? Dennis Troy: Dennis Troy again with a couple brief questions and a couple comments. Do you have a copy of the petition here? Batzli : I 've not seen it. Dennis Troy: It ' s not been presented to the City? Frank Beddor: It was all given to the Council. Resident: It ' s being presented to the City Council. Frank Beddor: I believe I mailed one to Jeff but if not, I ' ll send you one. Dennis Troy: So really we don't know what it says here tonight. If we could get a copy of it to see what it says . Whether it ' s just against traffic or against this particular development. Batzli: No, we don't know at this point. Dennis Troy: So I guess I question whether it really poses this particular development. It may say we 're in favor of safety on Pleasant View. Because the people that are here, the other 200 people that are claiming that petition, I guess I would like to know what they signed up for. We don't know it tonight. My next point, I ' ll go back is, so what? So what? So what? This is what ' s at issue tonight. This. Staff recommends it subject to conditions. Those conditions are not with in the purview of this Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 80 particular body. What ' s the legal basis to deny it? It conforms with your ordinances. We'd like it approved. Roger Anderson: Chairman and Planning Commission. Roger Anderson. I feel I have to take issue with some of the misleading information that was presented on the street grades and the things we've done to make this plat fit into that piece of property. Mr. Beddor threw out some numbers here that were obviously incorrect. I think the correct numbers should be brought forth. Maybe Dave can help me. What' s the allowable - stree grade in the city Dave? Hempel : 7% street grade. Roger Anderson: And do you know what street grade we're proposing in our subdivision? Hempel : I believe it ' s 6% . Roger Anderson: 6%? That ' s less than the allowable and it ' s a comfortable grade. Hempel: That ' s correct. It meets the ordinance. Roger Anderson: And Mr. Beddor had thrown out a number of over 10% which was totally inaccurate. Never has been shown on our plans. Never has been presented by anything we ' ve submitted to - the city. Another grade he threw out was the grade coming up to Lake Lucy. That outlotted and made available apparently by some platting in the past. The city has rejected that location for a road because they recognize the grades are too steep. I 've got a plan here with the elevation of the street where that outlot comes out and I 'd be glad to give it to you. Confirmed from the city from Dan in your engineering office in June. He gave me the elevation of the manhole down there. I compute up to our street and I come up with over 9% on a straight base. We 'd need a large landing area down there coming off the hill. Easily pushing us up to 10% or 11% . We can have the exact numbers if we want to but that' s well over what the City could possibly approve according to their requirements. And it will not work, in spite of Mr. Beddor ' s presentation. I 'd like to see his numbers to see how that grade was computed. We haven't seen those. I put this in the record tonight but we' ll confirm it for the next meeting. The other issue was the trees and again we have taken great pains to minimize damage to the trees. Work with staff and work with us and I think done a reasonably good job. Are some trees going to come down? Absolutely. Did we do our best to minimize the activity? You bet we did. Is the proposal Mr. Beddor has to come up the corner of the property any better? Go out and look Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 81 at the trees behind Mr. Owens swimming pool, and behind his house and then you come back and tell us. If there ' s any difference, it ' s minimal and the tree impact is still going to be there. It ' s not a black and white issue. There ' s still trees that are going to have to come down. Thank you. Jeff Schameter: It ' s not us and them. We 're just trying to plat a piece of land. There ' s no personal vendetta. No objective here other than to plat 12 new homes. Safety is an issue. It will be an issue for 12 new residents to this neighborhood. Over the next 3 years only 12 new homes are going to be added to the city of Chanhassen. That ' s 12 more taxpayers. 12 nice new homes. It ' s a development that was reasonably anticipated 4 or 5 years ago. The plan that we 're proposing was contemplated by someone other than myself long before I ever heard about this piece of property. None of this is new news. We 're only taking, I want to clarify a couple issues. We ' re only removing 5 significant trees in the area of the entrance to the development. Not 30 or 40, 5 . The 5 brown dots shown between Lots 1 and 13 on this plan. We 've submitted a nice reforestation plan. We think we've been very sensitive. It ' s in my best interest to create a neighborhood that ' s going to have a good tone. A nice feel. We don ' t plan to go in there and mass grade the site and take down every tree. Not that those trees couldn 't be harvested tomorrow for firewood. Grades less than 7% . That ' s been reviewed. We 're sensitive to safety issues. We 've reviewed all the other options. I 've had more options for this site put in front of me than any other development I 've been associated with, and I 've been associated in the last 8 years, various levels, with over 50 - different subdivisions in 11 different communities. I think I understand what makes a good plat. All I want to do is move forward. We 're doing the best we can. We realize there ' s a lot of political issues with this plat. Thank you. Batzli : Thank you. Okay, Mr. Beddor. Frank Beddor: Well this is a planning commission meeting and I hope you do some more planning. I think by all the questions that have been brought up, you see there are some unanswered questions. I 'd be happy to get a copy of both petitions to you. One that ' s been signed for the Nez Perce and the other one was signed for the JMS development and I ' ll see that all of you get a copy of that. The trees they talk about that I planted, my wife and I on the lot, on property we own, those trees were moved in and can be planted and they 're pines. They are dogwood and they're also dogwood hedges and they're also willows and some other trees. They can be taken back out again. So I said I didn ' t get a chance to read all the report. I got it late from the Planning Commission tonight but I just read that there was 15 Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 82 significant trees on what ' s called the right-of-way area . So that is a very substantial amount. As we mentioned before. . .was not done. The thing that ' s very discouraging is that there seems to be such a closed mind. This is a Planning Commission meeting and I hope the planners keep an open mind because staff seems, well we 've done everything we can. We can 't do anymore. We don 't want to look at anything else and I think that ' s wrong. Now we have undertaken ourselves at our own expense and we have two firms that are working with and we 're going to award a contract to one, to do a traffic study because I think that' s important to _ look at this overall, to do a traffic study so that you know what is proposed in this area. And in closing, you were talking about this suit. I am one of the people, my wife and I who instigated this suit the city just got. Our attorney' s here and I 'd like him just to update you, the Planning Commission now on what ' s involved in that suit, if I may. Batzli : Okay. Do you have a 2 minute synopsis? Attorney for Mr. Beddor: Yeah, I 'm not planning on going into detail . There was a question about the suit and I did want to provide some information. We filed out suit on Friday, the 13th on behalf of several residents. Mr. Beddor being one of them and other residents of the Pleasant View Road area and Nez Perce Road area. It ' s based on the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. The meat of the coconut of that suit basically is that you can 't destroy protected natural resources if there ' s a reasonable alternative. You certainly heard tonight that we believe that there is a reasonable alternative that doesn't involve damage to the environment to the extent that the proposal before you does. You should also know that with respect to the environmental assessment worksheet issue, we were the ones that filed that. That was I think on June 26th. There will be a decision made on that. If the petition for an EAW is denied, then our lawsuit would encompass that as an additional point. The third front legally is the condemnation hearing. It' s our view, and I think it ' s agreed to by our, the attorneys on the other side. You can' t have a resolution of the condemnation hearing until these environmental issues are resolved. There was a condemnation hearing scheduled for August 25th. It was continued. Delayed almost immediately after we filed. . .because under the Minnesota Supreme Court law, condemnation issues are inextribly related with these environmental issues. The power of a city to condemn is limited by the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. I suppose the bottom line is, I 'm certainly not going to argue the merits but I can tell you that on all of this is going to involve expense, delay and it ' s also going to generate new information. I think that ' s one point that really isn't legal but I 'd like to make. In listening to the people here tonight. This is really Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 83 sort of early in my history in this controversy, but person after person has talked to you about the safety issues. Not just the environmental issues and there is going to be new information generated. We are the ones that are talking to these traffic consultants. We 're going to hire a traffic consultant. There' s going to be traffic studies. There ' s maybe going to be an EAW. So why in the world would the Planning Commission and the City Council, when all this new and I think very important new information is going to become available, want to make a decision that will approve a plat. Perhaps give this developer a vested right of some sort that you're then going to have to argue about it if there ' s ever a reversal. Of the decision to go forward with this project. Obviously the neighboring residents are opposed to this in large measure and so I 'm asking you both as an attorney and as an interested party to reconsider this and not to simply go forward because somebody else made a decision in the past to, that this was a good idea. Thank you. Batzli : Thank you. Okay. I ' d like to close the public hearing if I could. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Harberts moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli : The interesting thing here is we 've heard a lot of comment that we ' re the Planning Commission and that we should be planning. I feel like I 've been doing that for the last several years on this issue. But on the other hand, there ' s a lot of people that feel kind of like that old Dudley Riggs show. I hear what you ' re saying but I really don 't care, is the reaction they 're getting. I don ' t think that any of us feel that way. It also reminds me, for those of you who read weird science fiction, or watch Channel 2 , of the Hitchhiker ' s Guide to the Galaxy where the prime character is having his house bulldozed down and simultaneously the vogones are coming to destroy the earth and they 're told that, well the plans have been located at the nearest star which is 5 light years away. Where 've you been? The person lying in front of the bulldozer is told that it' s in the City Hall, in the basement behind the third filing cabinet but the light bulb ' s out. So you know, I don't think in this case it was quite that obscure to find the information but yet I don 't want to appear calloused because obviously a lot of people are fairly surprised by this whole process and I assure you that the Planning Commission is taking seriously and we 've taken it seriously in the past and I hope you don't all leave with a negative impression. We 're all residents of Chanhassen. We face these issues every day. In my neighborhood, they put through a cul-de-sac that I was assured by the developer was a cul-de-sac. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 84 In fact it spills onto Pleasant View and it amazed us and it was the process and it probably worked but I was bitter for years. In fact that' s what led me to join this commission. I also heard a comment that the main concern is safety and I agree. And a cynic would say that there ' s also an element, and forgive me for saying this because I know the former Mayor of Minnetonka got in big trouble for saying this but. Harberts: You' re not an elected official are you? Batzli: Yeah. It ' s a nimby problem. Not in my back yard. And to some extent that ' s true because obviously you want your yard to be safe and you want your children to be safe and you want the traffic on your street to be lessen because obviously the thought is, it ' s safer. Less to worry about. Property values perhaps are increased. And we take those issues seriously. When we first started this process 4 or 5 years ago, the point was safety and the point was that it was safer to connect streets and there really wasn ' t a north/south connection between Pleasant View and Lake Lucy Drive and the world would be safer if there was that connection. And that ' s what started this whole process was safety amazingly enough and perhaps ironically. And we looked at these alternatives and we thought this was the best one. Perhaps it ' s not in hindsight. I know that the City Council recently was asked whether they wanted to look at it again and they said no. As a Planning Commission person, oftentimes we try to take our lead from the City Council as to whether we ' ll be wasting our time and effort. If they say they're not going to look at it again, it ' s difficult for us to direct staff to look at it again. That ' s not to say that we can't request it but certainly we recommend to the City Council and they make the final decisions. So as you all know, you're all familiar with this process . You need to carry your issue up to the City Council because they will . be making the final decision regardless of how the Planning Commission decides tonight. I do have two questions for city staff before I ask for comments from the other commissioners. One is, do either you Paul or you Dave feel that the traffic study that ' s going to conducted by Mr. Beddor and his fellow contributers to the study, whoever they are, and maybe it ' s just Mr. Beddor, will that shed any information that would be useful for us to decide on whether we are creating a safety hazard here? Krauss: That' s a leading question. We 've looked at this thing inside and out. This is not a decision that was made on the spur of the moment. This was a decision that was made after 6 months of hearings 4 years ago. It was a decision that was reaffirmed on at least 4 different occasions in public hearings. We still think it makes good sense from a traffic standpoint. A specific traffic study was never done. I just hear tonight Mr. Beddor ' s Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 85 going to commission a study. Part of doing an EAW is another study so we 're not doing the study. I wouldn 't at all surprised if they said the complete opposite of each other. That ' s what consultants do. Batzli: But does it makes sense for us to table in anticipation of receiving some additional information from either one of those studies? Krauss : Well, I 've got a couple things for that and maybe Elliott would like to add something to that. We received a request to act on a petition to subdivide property. In microcosm that ' s what you 're being asked to deal with. You're dealing with it on the currently available information. Not made on 4 year old decisions. Made on decisions that were made 6 weeks ago. Made on decisions that were made specifically so that we could come back to you and say, what did the City Council want you to do. We delayed this thing several times already. I think we 're under some obligation to move it along. In terms of implications that in so doing the die is cast, that 's not true at all . I mean there ' s a condition that blatantly says, that is not the case. If the City Council does reverse itself and decide to come up with another solution, the platting that ' s been done to date isn't going anywhere. It ' s got to come back through the revised plan. What the outcome of all this will be, I have no idea. I wouldn 't even hazard to guess. Is there going to be more information available? Yeah. Will it tend to lead the discussions one way or the other? I honestly don ' t know. I mean I 'm afraid that we have a situation here where you have a no win situation. I wish there was a solution that made everybody content. You almost think that the best thing to do here is to step aside and let a mediator come up with some answer. I don 't know. Maybe. . .There ' s a lot of issues being raised on Pleasant View Road. We ' re not looking at Pleasant View Road in macro scale. I think Pleasant View Road is in itself and has been a long standing issue. There are legitimate concerns. We always know it ' s there. And I can tell you that nobody on city staff relishes or even thinks about the idea of broaching anything like a trail on Pleasant View Road or anything else. It ' s not something staff is inclined to do unless we receive some kind of an indication from the residents that that ' s what they want. The addition of 12 lots or 14 lots or all 45 lots to Pleasant View Road, it ' s going to be a minor little increment to what' s going on there. What ' s going on there has to do with the fact that Pleasant View Road is the only road between Highway 7 and Highway 5 . The fact that the Crosstown Highway is extended. The fact that Chanhassen ' s developing. I mean those issues aren't going to go away. Even if this never gets connected, I 'm convinced that Pleasant View Road issue is going to be back before the City Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 86 Council in a year or two because the safety issue is not going to go away. Is that a long way of answering your question? I don't know. There ' s going to be. . . Mancino: I appreciate it because I think it ' s very unsafe. I drive it all the time from Lake Lucy and Galpin. Scott: Within the speed limit. Mancino: Within the speed limit, it' s hard. Farmakes: I won 't drive it. I 'd just as soon take CR 17 down to 78th and go down TH 101. . . Batzli : Dave, what do you think? I heard Paul ' s answer. You' re not going to say anything different from Paul huh? Hempel : I basically concur with Paul. . .Pleasant View Road is, does have safety problems. There ' s no doubt. I was on record with a staff report to Jo Ann. There are things that can be done on that road to improve that safety aspects of it. But again tonight we ' re not really dealing with that. We ' re dealing with the plat before us. The traffic studies as part of the EAW or a part of Mr. Beddor will give you some more information. Whether it tells you, I don ' t think it ' s going to tell you the city needs a stop light at that intersection obviously. I don't believe it ' s going to tell you need a 3 way stop at that intersection also at Pleasant View and Peaceful. But it will give you some trip generations proposed through the neighborhood. Batzli : Well assuming Paul, that we act on this one way or another, positively or negatively, it ' s going to go to the Council and they're going to have to, it ' s probably not going to get on next Monday' s obviously. Right? Krauss: No. Batzli: So they're going to be deciding the EAW on Monday and then they will proceed with this, or they really can' t proceed with this assuming they go ahead with the EAW, until the EAW is completed. Krauss : Well I would appreciate the advice of counsel but yeah. What I would understand it to be is if the City Council does proceed with the EAW, everything' s put on hold until that ' s completed and a finding ' s returned. And then there' s a public hearing held at the City Council to determine whether or not it was satisfactory. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 87 Harberts: So it comes back through this process again if they do do an EAW? The findings come back here? Hempel : Before the Council. Harberts: Or does it just stay at the Council? Hempel : The Council . Harberts: It just stays at the Council level. Krauss: The Council may ask you to review it. Harberts: But they can just handle it at their level. Krauss: I would think so. Batzli : Okay. Diane, why don 't you lead off. Harberts: Let ' s talk about trees. Did staff have a chance to review this? According to your staff report, you were going to review it and are you comfortable with what ' s presented in here then? Al-Jaff : Yes we are. Harberts : Okay. You know I heard a lot of comments with regard to public safety and in my profession that certainly is one of main priorities. The way I understand it, that the issue that ' s before us, is having to deal with the four issues. I feel that the developer has met the four issues, at least to my satisfaction. With solutions that are outlined by staff. And as I understand then with the EAW, that that ' s an issue for the Council. That will address hopefully the safety issues. You know that connection with Nez Perce, I see that really at the level of the Council . What I see before me to deal with is the four issues and I 'm comfortable with that the developers have met those issues. That ' s all I 've got to say. Scott: I was focusing in on the issues that we left the developer with at our last meeting. They 've been met satisfactorily so I see no reason but to go forward with this plat. Mancino: I concur. My only question is, on recommendation number 9 . If we increase the street width right-of-way to 60 feet in width, will Lot 4 be of a smaller size than 15 , 000? Right now Sharmin it' s at 15 , 100. If we take 73 and added 10 feet, will we be below the minimum lot requirement? Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 88 Krauss: That can be fixed by kicking out the rear lot line. You can pick it back up again. Mancino: Okay. You pick up the rear. Krauss: Just move it over. If you take the rear lot line and move it around to the south a little bit, you can. . . - Mancino: Okay. Krauss: Yeah, Lot 5 next to it is 26, 000 square feet. Mancino: I think that that ' s the only lot that might have a problem with this 60 foot right-of-way so I 'd like that added to our recommendation. It would be increased that Lot 4 meets our minimums. That ' s all. Farmakes: I don't disagree with the comments that Diane made. I - think the issue that was supposed to be discussed here tonight. The issues that are on. . . I 'm not saying that we shouldn 't talk about this when people make the effort to come here . It seems to me that there ' s been little talk here talking about the actual plat development that ' s being proposed here. What we 're talking about here is a concern there is the street connection. By a fluke of geography much of the work that was done on the plot and so on is really not relevant to the argument that ' s going on here. I think really, having lived here for a fair amount of time, Pleasant View is a dangerous street and it ' s a separate issue from this. To make the case that connecting that street will mean a majority or a significant amount of traffic will . . . rather than turn to the left, is going to be the result of traffic studies and I haven ' t seen anything significant that says the majority of the people who will be coming up that connection will be turning to the right. I 've heard opinions. But as I said before, I wouldn 't be one of those people. I would not be connecting 101. The road, Pleasant View is an old road. It ' s back from the 20 ' s. There are cabins on that north side of Lotus that are from the 20 ' s at least. It wasn't meant for the amount of traffic that it ' s getting, but in this case, being so close to CR 17 , the argument that' s being made here, it seems to me, has a lot of holes in it. But I believe that anytime that citizens come in here and are concerned about their safety, I don't want them to think that I 'm not listening to what they're saying. I think that any city staff, anybody on the Commission should listen to that. It ' s a question of how many times and how many studies do we do. The first time that we looked at this issue overall, it was, it ' s almost 5 years now isn't it? Certainly the city staff and the commissions have given this problem a long consideration. And there are times when there won't be an Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 89 agreement. But again it' s how many times do we do this, and unless the City Council directs us otherwise, I 'm willing to pass this up to them now. If they want to send this back and have us look at this again, fine. But it seems to me based on the information we 've been provided, that I don't see any - justification for continuing this here at this point. Batzli : Okay. I guess the comment that I wouldn't agree with that you made. I think you spoke well on your position but in saying where Nez Perce is going to go, that dictated how this development was going to be laid out. And so I think the issue is related because it may affect the safety of Pleasant View and if we have to realign Nez Perce, then this development may have to be realigned and I guess that ' s how the issue ' s related. Farmakes: I don't disagree with that. I was using that in the connection between discussing the plot itself and a connection. I believe the majority of people here are, and understandably so are here talking about the connection, not the development to the - 12 houses. Batzli : I would agree. I would agree. My feeling and not having been here at the last meeting, because I was on vacation. I sound kind of that last thing that was on the agenda. But the meeting that we had before that, I did raise the issue of, or at least acknowledge the issue of safety turning left from Peaceful Lane onto Pleasant View and I don 't know if that was addressed last meeting or not. It ' s going to be around the corner, up the hill kind of a deal . And I think that interestingly enough as I said, our original intent was to gain a north/south connection for the purpose of safety. I don 't recall, to be quite candid, when it became a sweeping connection that people might be tempted to take to get onto County Road 17 . I seem to remember at least some plans that made it accessible from north to south but, and that ' s kind of what I was thinking of as I was looking at the alternative here proposed by Mr. Beddor when that was, was there an alternative that kind of connected from cul-de-sacs but made it very inconvenient to take as a thru street? And I don 't remember to be quite honest but it seems to me that that ' s kind of the nut of the issue, at least as between the city staff and perhaps, and maybe even the Council, I don't know. And a lot of residents is that we are changing the traffic flow and perhaps it ' s being, we 've gone beyond our initial consideration on the Planning Commission was to connect it to increase safety and for purposes of emergency vehicles, etc. And that ' s what troubles me about not really having a new traffic study is that I think having looked at it and listened to everyone, I think we may affect the traffic. It sounds to me like everybody wants to move on and let the Council decide. So I don 't think there ' s any Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 90 support other than me to slow this baby down. I know Paul would probably come up here and slug me if I suggested it so. Having said that, I would entertain a motion. Scott: I move that the Planning Commission recommend that City Council adopt the following motion. The City Council approve Subdivision #93-12 for Tower Heights Addition as shown on the plans dated June 8 , 1993 subject to the conditions as listed in the staff report, 1 thru 18 . And if there are other conditions that would be added by other members of the Planning Commission, I would entertain those at this time. Mancino: I would like to add the condition that Lot 4 shall meet the city ' s 15, 000 square foot minimum. Scott: Okay, that ' d be condition 19 . Any others? Harberts: Does number 10 address the resolution of the Nez Perce issue concerning EAW, staff? Krauss: I think so. It might be useful to read it so those. . . Harberts: To read what? Krauss: Read the condition so that they understood what is being placed on this plat. Scott: All of just number 10. Harberts: Yeah, it was number 10 . Scott: Number 10 is the preliminary and final plat approval should be contingent upon the City upgrading Peaceful Lane and extending Nez Perce Drive out to Pleasant View Road from the Troendle Addition. The final plat may not be recorded nor site construction proceed until the city has authorized a public improvement project for the extension of Nez Perce Drive. Should the City Council determine that the preparation of an EAW, which is an Environment Assessment Worksheet, for the Nez Perce extension is warranted, preliminary plat approval for Tower Heights is contingent upon it ' s completion and resolution of issues raised therein. So what does that mean? Batzli : Why don 't you finish making your motion and then let ' s discuss that. Scott: Okay. Would include the 18 conditions as listed in the staff report and then add condition 19 that Lot 4 conform with the city ' s minimum size of 15, 000 square feet. Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 91 Batzli: Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Batzli: Discussion. Now ask your question. What does that — mean? Scott: What does that mean? Nothing happens until the EAW is. — Batzli: If. Scott: If they decide they want to have it. That was a rhetorical — question. Batzli: Okay. I thought you actually wanted us to discuss it. — Harberts: I have a comment or question. Earlier in the discussion there was discussion about a retaining wall in the right-of-way. — Scott: The vacated? Harberts: Yeah, in terms of where it went. Mancino: On the east side of Tower Heights Drive. Wasn't it — Dave? Hempel: That 's correct. Yeah staff is comfortable with an effort to preserve trees from existing. . .we would entertain placing of a — retaining wall within the city right-of-way with the understanding the property owner or applicant enter into an encroachment agreement for maintenance of that retaining wall in — the city right-of-way. Harberts: Is that necessary as a condition? Batzli: Don't they have to come in for a permit to build it? Hempel: For construction, yes. — Batzli: But you need the easement for maintenance right now in the conditions? — Hempel: We can get that when the party comes in for construction of a retaining wall within the right-of-way. — Harberts: Does it need to be a condition? Hempel: I think it would be helpful to clarify placement of it. — Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 92 Harberts: So is that a yes as a condition Dave? Hempel : Yes it is. That' s correct. Harberts: I ' d like to offer a friendly amendment. Item number 19 then. Scott: 20. Harberts: 20, sorry. Long day. With terminology that the applicant will work with staff to locate a retaining wall within the city right-of-way and would be subject to city receiving an encroachment easement. - Hempel : Agreement. Harberts: Agreement from the applicant. Hempel : Property owner. Harberts: Property owner, thank you. Batzli : Do you accept that? Scott: I accept that. Mancino: Second. Batzli : Okay. Any other discussion? Paul. Krauss: If I could raise an issue or concern about. The City Council ' s going to be asked about whether or not the EAW. . . recommendation to go ahead and do that. If there ' s a sense. I mean clearly it ' s the City council ' s call but if there ' s a sense the Planning Commission has as to which way they should go on it, maybe it 'd be useful for me to include that in your motion so we could convey that to them. I mean do you think it would be useful in the decision making process to tell us to forward your recommendation. Batzli : Okay. Diane, do you think it would be useful to the Council to proceed with the EAW? Harberts: Well I guess with the discussion with the traffic studies proposed by the residents of that area, it sounds like if the city wants to have a traffic study, I guess I would be in support of an EAW. I 'm not real happy that it ' s at the expense of the entire city but I guess that ' s one of the impacts. I guess I would also like to add, what I 'm hearing from the safety issue, Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 93 that I think it is a Pleasant View Road issue rather than just 12 more houses being built. That ' s my personal opinion. Resident: Excuse me, it ' s a Nez Perce issue and we 've been ignored and I 'm sorry. I know I 'm not supposed to blurt that out but I can't stay quiet. It' s Nez Perce. We are. . .but it ' s both. Harberts: I appreciate your opinion. I appreciate it and like I said, that' s where my views are. Batzli : Okay. Joe, would you support an EAW? Scott: Yeah, I think that ' s not the answer to the question. I would say no. I would not recommend doing it. I think that if we 're going to commission a study to figure out what the heck to _ do with Pleasant View, that ' s another issue. But I mean I look at it, 12 houses. 24 cars. It ' s not in my back yard obviously but if we ' re talking about 190 units, like we are with Mission, that ' s definitely a major impact so I would say, personally I would say no. Batzli : Okay. Nancy. Mancino: I support the new traffic study and I would like to, excuse me. I would support it because of the traffic study. Scott: Are those one in the same? A traffic study I would say yes but is the EAW a traffic study? Mancino: It ' s part of the EAW. It encompasses that. So current new information. Batzli: What do you think? Farmakes: I would support it. Also outside of this, support that the city take a look at Pleasant View as the issue itself. And I 'm not talking about the connection with Nez Perce and Pleasant View that we 're looking at here. I 'm talking about Pleasant View as it goes to the east, in particular once it wraps around Lotus Lake, which has nothing to do with what we 're talking about here but I think that it is a major traffic hazard. I do think that the people who organized for this particular issue should not let that drop. I think that there ' s more to. . . Frank Beddor: And believe me, we 're not. However there ' s nothing we can do except keep traffic down unless you want to widen the road. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 94 Farmakes: No, I 'm talking again that I would support the issue that you ' re looking at from all points of view. I don't believe that, unless the study shows otherwise, that this development and that connection is going to generate that traffic that you believe to be. . . I 'm willing to be proved wrong on that. Batzli : Well we may have several studies that tell us whether it does or doesn 't, and I would support the EAW as well. Is there any other discussion? Scott moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #93-12 for Tower Heights Addition as shown on the plans dated June 8, 1993, subject to the following conditions: 1 . All lots are required to have access from Tower Heights Drive. 2 . The developer shall dedicate eto the city the utilities within the right-of-way for permanent ownership. 3 . Parks: Full park fees shall be accepted in lieu of land dedication. These fees are to be paid at the time of building permit application at the rate then in force. Current park fees are $600 . 00 per lot. Trails: a. A 20 ft easement for trail purposes shall be dedicated over the vacated section of Peaceful Lane. b. The applicant shall construct an 8 ft wide bituminous trail in this easement per city specifications. c. The applicant shall be granted full trail fee credit in consideration for this construction. Documented expenses above and beyond the $2 , 400. 00 in trail fee credits to be paid by the city. 4 . All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the city' s (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3 : 1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. 5. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a reforestation plan on the site. This plan shall include a list of all trees proposed to be removed and their size. The Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 95 vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4 ' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description. Lot 12 shall be custom graded and shall provide a tree preservation plan for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. The same condition is applicable to Lot 13 should the applicant resolve the frontage and grading issues. Staff shall have the right to require a change in house pad and location if it will result in saving significant vegetation. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the tree preservation easement prior to grading. A retaining wall shall be incorporated along the front property line of Lots 1, 12 and 13 , in an effort to preserve trees immediately adjacent to the right-of-way. 6. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City ' s standard specifications and detail plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval . 7 . The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i . e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, and comply with their conditions of approval. 8 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 9 . Street right-of-way shall be increased to 60 feet in width. 10 . The preliminary and final plat approval should be contingent upon the City upgrading Peaceful Lane and extending Nez Perce Drive out to Pleasant View Road from Troendle Addition. The final plat may not be recorded nor site construction proceed until the city has authorized a public improvement project for the extension of Nez Perce Drive. Should the City Council determine that preparation of an EAW for the Nez Perce extension is warranted, preliminary plat approval for Tower Heights is contingent upon it ' s completion and resolution of issues raised therein. 11 . The applicant shall be responsible for relocating the two existing driveways (6500 and 6535 Peaceful Lane) to be perpendicular with the new street and paved with a bituminous or Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 96 concrete surface between the existing driveway and the street. 12 . The applicant shall be responsible for disconnecting and reconnecting the sanitary sewer and water service to the existing home on Lot 1 (Art Owens) . An additional fire hydrant shall be incorporated into the construction plans just north of Lot 13 along Tower Heights Drive. 13 . The grading plan shall be amended to provide drainage swales along the common lot lines to convey drainage away from the house sites along Lots 10, 11, 12 and 13 . The applicant shall supply detailed storms sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event and provide ponding calculations for retention ponds in accordance with City ordinance for the City Engineer to review and approve. 14 . The applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information and include a draintile system in accordance to City standards with the construction plans . 15 . The garage on Lot 12 shall be removed prior to approval of the final plat and/or escrow if $5 , 000. shall be included in with the financial securities to insure the removal of the garage. 16 . The city shall sell a portion of the Water Tower land to the developer for a price to be determined by the City Council. 17 . The address for the existing home on Lot 1 (6535 Peaceful Lane) shall be changed to an address on Tower Heights Drive. 18 . The segment of Tower Height Drive between the extension of Nez Perce Drive and the subdivision will be assessed back to the developer as well as their fair share for the upgrade of Peaceful Lane. 19 . Lot 4 shall meet the City' s 15, 000 square foot minimum requirement for lot size. 20. The applicant will work with city staff to locate a retaining wall within the city right-of-way and would be subject to an encroachment agreement with the property owner. All voted in favor, except Batzli who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Batzli: My reasons for opposing is to make the record perfectly clear that there ' s a lot of people here that have safety concerns . The city staff, regardless of whether they really want to look at it one more time or not, needs to take a good look at that. Thank you very much. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 97 REVISED PLANS FOR THE HANUS SITE, FRED HOISINGTON. Fred Hoisington: . . .you' ll remember the last time we all met on a Wednesday morning, as I remember, we had presented an alternative to you that suggested there may be some changes to the Hanus building site plan. And I 'd like to just kind of call to your attention what changes have occurred since that time. Sorry, I can ' t show one up in front. But if you look at the site plans that we have here, Jeff you may have a little bit more difficulty seeing it down there. We have negotiated or talked with the two key occupants of this building, being Gary Brown and the Toll Company and they are the two that have the long term lease of about 25 years. So they have a very strong interest in this building. The only changes we really had to make was to add a couple of parking places here for Gary Brown with a rolled curb in this area. The idea being that he can put higher value cars in here and not have to park them in this area. And we did take out one island here in the front because he does plow the snow here and he felt that it would be a lot easier. He could accept this one but he could not accept the one at the other end, and frankly with the landscaping we 're proposing here, it doesn 't bother us a great deal. So we 're quite satisfied with that. One other change that the Toll Company suggested was you may remember we had this sort of a peculiar configuration so we could get some berming in here. Their problem is that they need to manuever trucks to back into this area and our concern, after listening to them was that they would drive over that curb all the time. So we decided to pull it back. Put a retaining wall in that would be about 2 ' 10" above the retaining wall that' s there now and then there will be large trees planted in this area, and I ' ll show you that in a minute. So not substantial changes to what you've seen already. This shows a little bit about the grading. A small berm in this area. About 6 to 7 foot berm and the area behind. Closing this off so really the only avenue into this is passing on the public way into the parking lot. That ' s out of way but we have made this entry 30 feet wide because semi ' s have to get in here that are 55 feet long and we spent a long time at Toll this morning who didn 't believe we could make that maneuver and we showed them how it could be done and made a slight modification of this radius to make sure that it could be done if they ever needed to actually manuever within this cul-de-sac. This is the landscaping that ' s proposed and we kind of need some input from you in that regard. Batzli : More. Fred Hoisington: More landscaping? Well, Brian there' s a lot of landscaping here. What we 're going to be doing is irrigating everything within this parameter. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 98 Batzli: He finds no humor at quarter to 1 : 00 in the morning. Fred Hoisington: There is at this time there can be no humor. On the top of this berm there will be a 4 foot coniferous varieties of vegetation and then within this area, Austrian pine and they will be 6 foot tall when they're planted. Mancino: But they don' t really screen. Austrian pine. Fred Hoisington: Austrian pine tends to be thinner. They 're very tolerate however of the condition that exists here. Salt tolerate trees. We can try Nancy a more dense tree here. Mancino: Or your planting can be staggered. Fred Hoisington: We don 't have room to stagger. That ' s the problem. There just isn 't a whole lot of space. If you ' re looking from this direction, you simply won't see this building. (There were a number of conversations going on at one time at this point. ) Fred Hoisington: You know I have no problem with lower vegetation here because I think a certain amount of this building should show. What I don't want to see show are the fronts of the cars essentially. I don 't mind seeing the tops of the cars but I don't really want to see the fronts of the cars. Mancino: But I would like to do year round vegetation. So it would be evergreens. You could use, or you could cut evergreens at the top and use them as hedges. Batzli : How about a red leaf dogwood? Fred Hoisington: That ' s okay except we won't have any cover really during the winter. A lot of twigs. We could use some arborvitae. Arborvitae can be controlled as far as height is concerned. If you 're in agreement with something a little bit lower in there, I think maybe we can do more investigation of that and see what we can do because what we 'd really, I don 't want to get into an argument over it with him and I 'm really not that concerned about the building showing. The building is going to be very nice looking. It ' s going to be completely painted. Scott: Yeah but the Rapid Oil Change, which is pretty obnoxious but you know, it ' s nice looking for being obnoxious. Fred Hoisington: At least it looks nice and clean there and so forth and I think this building once it ' s done is also going to Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 99 look nice and clean. That ' s why we 're not trying to screen this edge . We ' re going to paint it. And we probably won't paint it until next year because of the signage that ' s there. When we take that signage down, we have to grade and put the new signage up and so we won 't paint and put the roof on until next year. The roof situation is the partial roof. Remember we talked about. . .What we determined was that the mechanicals in there would not, we have 12 stacks coming out of that full roof and therefore we ' ll have a partial roof which is a little bit lower and so forth but it will make a tremendous difference on this building. The question will then be color, and of course we talked about it. Jeff, I don 't know if you have the slide of color. . . Farmakes: . . . ask Sharmin. I gave her some slides. I have some more if they don ' t have them. I still don 't understand, if I park my Mercedes there in that corner, he doesn't need to move anything so I don 't understand the reasoning for expanding the parking lot. Fred Hoisington: I think if you put it in there yourself, he doesn 't care and that ' s fine. If they have to move it around, he would prefer not to take that risk and move it into a place where it ' s not going to get bumped by even his own people. So I think that ' s what he ' s, that ' s what he does now. He puts it in there now. Now if you want tell him Gary, you can't do that. I don't have any problem with that. We can put a full curb up to this point which means we only have to leave this area open. Farmakes : That ' s how I see all the drawings currently. I see the original ones going like that and I see it like that. I know that on occasions I have seen stuff parked up on that knoll up there. You can see it from the highway. It doesn 't look very good. I 'm just wondering if there isn 't an exemplary reason for that, if it shouldn' t be more like the plan showed there. Fred Hoisington: I 'd prefer to have it more like the plans showing. Batzli : What do you need from us tonight Fred? Do you need a motion? Do you need something? Krauss: It ' s not an official site plan. It doesn 't require a public hearing. Batzli : We ' re going to see this though, or aren't we? Krauss : No. It doesn't require any official action. . . Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 100 Batzli: Is Council going to end up with the final say on what happens here? Krauss : The HRA. Batzli : HRA? Okay. So if people want to see something, you might as well, you could have a motion that this is what we want the HRA to do with it. Farmakes: I would just throw this out quickly. If it ' s possible to expand that back to the arch of the curve like that and put in a second tier so they can rise it up higher without affecting the truck movement into those two bays over there. That would offer you some more options. Batzli : So that ' s one thing. What do people think about landscaping on the west side there? Harberts: I don 't have any problem with it if it covers cars. Batzli: We 're not trying to cover the building. Harberts: No. Batzli: And what was the other thing you had? Mancino: I 'd like to make sure interior parking landscape is in compliance with our new city ordinance. Are we going to have a problem if the city is going in and developing something and we 're not even doing what we 're asking others to do? Private developers. Krauss: First of all, we ' ll bring that ordinance back to the Tree Board and one of the things that was pointed out to me by Brad Johnson. . .was that when you have small parking lots like this, it ' s really not possible typically to meet that standard within the parking. Where it need it. . . Scott: No, you don 't want to be goofing around with a parking lot that ' s that small . Mancino: Okay. I just want to make sure one side knows what the other one is doing. Krauss: This is a remediation too Nancy. We ' re trying to fix a problem that ' s 12 years old with limited land to do it. I 'm pretty confident that ' s the way to go. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 101 Farmakes: I would also make a motion not to expand that parking lot as it ' s shown here. Yeah. - Scott: What' s this deal? Harberts: It' s a tree isn 't it? A tree planter. Fred Hoisington: That ' s a detail. So what they're going to show is there will be no curb but it will be a little bit different texture and I believe this is concrete and there will be a tree. . . (There were a number of conversations going on at one time at this point. ) ADDITIONAL FACILITIES PROPOSED AT THE NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, COUNTY ROAD 117 AND HIGHWAY 5 . Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Dave Leschak: Well to be very brief, my name is Dave Leschak. I 'm an architect with Hammel-Green-Abrahamson. I 've been hired by the School District for the plans for the new elementary school. With me tonight is Bob Rothman from HGA as well as John Gockel who is construction representative for the school district. I would like, I realize that you all have a copy containing the program information to date. One change I would like to draw your attention to is the Chanhassen exterior activities which is page 31. We have revised that which originally had shown 6 ballfields and 6 soccer fields. . .and it ' s represented on the conceptual site plan. Other than that. Scott: Excuse me, 31? Dave Leschak: Yes, page 31. Well 31 in my. . . It ' s the Chanhassen Exterior Activities. Farmakes: 33 . Dave Leschak: 33 . So we went from 6 , which I believe your program information shows. We have revised that to 4 . To be brief, I would ask if you have any questions. I could review the entire document if you want. But knowing that you people have had this information, I would just ask if you have any questions concerning the program or issues with the program. If not, I would turn the presentation over to Bob Rothman who will take you through that conceptual site plan. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 102 Farmakes: I have one quick question. How would you put 2 more ballfields and soccer fields in that. . . Dave Leschak: How would we have? Well initially we had hoped that the site would have been capable to handle the additional fields. The school district is looking at this land for this facility as being prototype and for that reason we are looking to keep this building as a single level rather than maybe being 2 levels which would reduce the size of the footprint. So as a result this building significantly. . . 2 stories as a result of loss of potential. . .useage on this site as well as the different boundaries between Highway 5 and where it will be in the future as well as the widening of Galpin so when we were in the planning phase, we were talking about another 20 acres that the park district was going to develop. We maybe in there some neighborhood but not quite the entire 20 acres. . Harberts: Will someone else address it but why is the school district going to a single level rather than a tier? Dave Leschak: Well the school district is looking at this facility as becoming a prototype for them, which they would then be able to put on other sites that they may have. Now it might not include for instance a community program but the vast majority of this building would be able to be replicated on another site. Farmakes: How would that serve the community? Harberts: Well I don't know if they're that interested in serving the community. Farmakes : Well the community is making a contribution either directly or indirectly. John Dockel : My name is John Dockel and I 'm the construction representative for the District. Under normal, I shouldn 't say normal but I should say the most frequently used scenario, the owner of a building does not own the design of the building. The district in order to save costs negotiated with the architect in such a way that the district will own the design of the building. They own the drawing. They can replicate that building with an agreement with the architect on other sites . The advantage to taxpayers obviously is lower taxes. Harberts: Because it ' s a lower cost building? Farmakes: You ' re saying the district gets income from replicating the building? Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 103 John Dockel: No, they don ' t get income. Harberts: They save architect costs. It ' s like using a stat over and over and over. John Dockel : What happened on this site, number one there ' s topography that dictates what happens and as Mr. Leschak said, when we initially looked at the site, we looked at a nominal 40 acres. Well we ' re still looking at a nominal 40 acres but then all of a sudden when you lay the anticipated right-of-ways of Highway 5, the access road to the south and Galpin, you don't have 40 acres anymore. Farmakes: Isn ' t that all the more reason to go to 2 stories? Harberts: Well exactly. My understanding when you build a, and maybe I 'm wrong here, that when you build out like that, it ' s going to cost more. It ' s cheaper to build up than it is out. Dave Leschak: Not necessarily. John Dockel : Not necessarily. The other thing to keep in mind, the school hasn 't been designed yet. This is very early schematics. Bob Rothman: It ' s a concept plan. I think the second thing, another thing to realize is what we 've shown here is probably the worst case, one story building. The building hasn't been designed yet so there ' s a possibility it could go to 2 stories. Secondly, if it did go to 2 story, I think what we found by doing this exercise is that even if it did go to 2 story, I don't think we would save enough room on the site to fit more fields on there as it is. Farmakes: Okay. That would be a major question for me. . . inherent conflict of interest between the school district and the community, although they 're a partnership on this. Going back to the city relationship here behind us in relationship to the receational community with the park. . . and cross use of that. That was a major issue on the site development. That community also would have some access when it was not being used to the receational facilities. If there ' s a reason for going out rather than up, and one way or another you couldn ' t get any additional facilities there to utilize that property to the greatest extent possible. That ' s certainly a question that would come up and I hope you have a good response for that. - John Dockel : Another thing, and this is a, Dave you can talk about this. This is an elementary school for 1 thru 5. And yes Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 104 you can do 2 story buildings in an elementary school but it ' s not the most desireable. Farmakes: And of course when you get city type recreation, you get it all at the same time. In other words, you get slews of 5th graders and 3rd graders playing baseball or whatever. They're all in the evening and they're all at the same time so by having additional facilities available of course is a primary benefit to the city. But perhaps not the school system. Dave Leschak: Any other questions? Do you want me to review or additional questions? Batzli : We ' ll probably have a couple questions. I 'd like to hear from Todd. What do you think about this? Hoffman: Chairman Batzli and Commission members. Again it, I think what you 're being asked this evening and what the City Council will be asked on Monday evening is to approve or disprove the concept of entering into a cooperative agreement to enhance both the school system, presence in the city of Chanhassen and recreational presence in the city of Chanhassen. It is certainly my interest and the interest of the Park Commission to maximize the recreational facilities on this site. However, the school district certainly has a vested interest in half of the site so what discretion we have over instructing or amending what they do. . . I cannot answer that for you. The remaining 20 acres which is under the auspices of the City of Chanhassen, we certainly want to maximize what we have on that facility. Scott: Can they draw us a line? Hoffman: I think he can probably pencil one in there. Bob Rothman: The site ' s been organized with the community fields to the. . . Scott: So that ' s the city stuff? How about city stuff, school stuff? Bob Rothman: Basically city stuff is oh somewhere right about here. Scott: Okay. So that' s the facility that can be cross used. And then Todd you're basically going to be the guru. You ' re going to have free, you and your people are going to have control . I ' ll use that word, control over the city stuff. The school will have control over the school stuff and then you guys will work together to trade and go back and forth so basically Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 105 you're going to be acting in the best interest of the city of Chanhassen, like you do with all the other recreation programs that you run. Hoffman: But again it is my hope and desire that that line will not be delineated. . . Scott: Exactly. Because you ' re going to trade. That ' s up to you. Hoffman: You could ask anybody where the line is out here and they're not going to be able to tell you so. I have had preliminary discussions with the school district on the joint _ powers agreement, we want to maximize to the benefit of the community both the indoor facilities. Both recreational, educational spaces for the school. In the schools program in the community and the community program and then likewise outside. . . share those facilities that we have to maximize the benefit both during the day and at evening. . .As it is currently scheduled, the city will have access to gymnasiums and. . . so one of the goals of the Park Commission was to allow that use. We have a lot of people who have. . .people have different schedules in today ' s society and we want to be able to accommodate those. Batzli : Okay. You 've expressed an interest to maximize. That wasn 't quite my question. Are you happy with this? Hoffman: Am I happy with this? Batzli : Yeah. Hoffman: Sure I 'm happy with this. What more can you do? Batzli : I don 't know but that ' s my question. You're the expert. You see these all the time. You've seen layouts. You know how they 're laid out. Does this look like a good plan? This is your expertise. We 're sitting here, I can see a bunch of streets lined up but I 've never looked at ballfields to see whether that ' s the way you put them. Hoffman: Okay, to answer your question. There ' s not much more you can do there to maximize. . . actual use of physical space for ballfield development. You also see that the soccer fields are overlaying on the baseball fields. That ' s, when you're ask those two user groups, they would like to see them separated because of minor conflicts you see. My response would be, we ' ll get this one done and we look to Bandimere Community Park, which is another youth park. . .The park staff and the Park and Recreation Commission has not identified what segments of the user groups will be specifically slated for this location. Now that this Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 106 facility is starting to expand, we just split those up and which groups are going to use. . .We're seeing a much higher rate of youth activity in Lake Ann Park so I can tell you. . . Farmakes: So the two that will be eliminated off of here, were not supposed to be on here? Out of 6. . .there were only supposed to be 4? There isn ' t another plan showing 6? Hoffman: No. There ' s not another plan that I 've seen showing 6 . Again the construction from the beginning was to maximize the use of that space. . . Dave Leschak: Initially what was done, if I may Todd. A menu more or less was developed with some meetings between the architects and school district and the city which developed a menu of recreational activities. Whatever they may have been. Whether they were fitness rooms, aerobic rooms, weight lifting rooms, and from there we pared that menu down to what the city felt they needed to have. At the time it was discussed that we could get 6 fields on the site, the city would certainly see the need that they could use those 6 fields. Now what you see here with the conceptual site plan is you're taking another step. At that point you really didn 't we weren 't even looking at the site. We were discussing land uses there. . .program sheet, that indicates those 6 fields. When we went in and calculated the acreage, at that time we felt as though 6 fields couldn ' t fit on this site. Now we 've gone back and taken it another step. We've gotten a, developed a conceptual site plan and realized that 6 was probably an overly optimistic number. . . Bob Rothman: 6 fields was purely a mathematical exercise with the amount of land. When you look at contours, wetlands on the site , the constraints of the enlarged, expanded Highway 5, Galpin, that realistically that turned out to be 4 . Mancino: I have a question that I see a lot of . . .racquet ball _ sports here. I don 't see any track and field for an elementary school which you usually see. They have track and field days and you have your long jump and high jump areas, etc. Is there anything like that? Dave Leschak: Normally. . . I believe in your program information was the, we have listed the school district program activities, or exterior activities and those are activities that we would normally program into an elementary school . That would be a softball field, soccer field, hard surface, multi-purpose type area that may have basketball hoops or an area where they could play four square. And playground. We don't normally provide for a track at an elementary school type of facility. Those you Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 107 would usually find at a higher, whether it be maybe a middle school and certainly at a high school . And that is partially due in part to the cost associated with doing a track. Batzli: You said there ' s a lot of four square spots. Where' s the hard surface playground? Bob Rothman: We 've got two playgrounds. One would be associated outside the cafeteria. . .another one. - Batzli: And your hockey rink is just something that would be flooded. You don ' t have permanent boards there? Bob Rothman: Well we 're talking about a few different ideas . One suggestion was put out last week was possibly making that actually concrete hard surface so in the summers they could play a roller hockey there. Batzli : Any other questions? Okay. What do we need to do with _ this Paul/Todd? Krauss : Well again, this is not something that requries official action. In the interest of getting your input. If you ' re comfortable generally with the program, I ' ll past that word up to the City Council on Monday. And again, you will be getting. . . Batzli : Okay. I 'm comfortable. I 'm pleased with what it looks like and the amenities that it will add to the community. We need multi purpose and the ballfields and stuff so I like it. Did you have something you were going to add Todd? Hoffman: To follow up on Nancy ' s question about the track and field days. They do. . . there' s a small aggregate track which is a loop around the soccer field. That was talked about at a staff level meeting with HGA and again. . .possible uses of this site are going to be. Harberts: I ' ll just add that public transit has already contacted. . . so we are on top of this. Batzli : I think we generally like it and I don't know that we had any specific. . . so we 're in favor. Go for it. Thank you for staying. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 4 , 1993 amended by Jeff Farmakes changing the word attractive to attractant on his comments regarding the Target site. Planning Commission Meeting August 18 , 1993 - Page 108 Scott moved, Mancino seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 1 : 24 a .m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY OF CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Director of Planning DATE: August 26, 1993 SUBJ: Report from Director At the Monday, August 23, 1993, City Council meeting, the following actions were taken: 1. David Donna of 88 Vineland Court spoke during the visitor presentation period. He proposed what he believed to be two alternative alignments to resolve the Nez Perce issue. One included an alignment that generally resembles the current proposal to connect Nez Perce to Pleasant View with the third leg back down to Lake Lucy Road. The second alternative can only be described as cul-de-sac everything. Staff was asked to report back to the Council on these alternatives at an upcoming meeting. Since being presented with these alternatives, I have been informed that another neighborhood group has a third alternative that sounds like a variation on the cul-de-sac everything approach. I will be meeting with them next week. We will be having these options reviewed by Bill Engelhardt, an engineering consultant who prepared the original Nez Perce feasibility study for the city. 2. Court MacFarlane, a resident, spoke on the Colonial Grove Beachlot approval during the visitor presentation period. Mr. MacFarlane indicated his opposition to the request which had been approved by the City Council and his belief that it was not based upon accurate facts. He also presented information that cast doubt on the veracity of materials that had been presented earlier. At the conclusion of his presentation, several of the Council members asked that the item be scheduled for Council presentation at the end of the meeting. This was done and the upshot of their action was to vote to reconsider their previous approval at the next City Council meeting. 3. Trotters Ridge Final Plat approval was approved on the consent agenda. 4. Receive and act upon a petition to undertake an environmental assessment worksheet for the extension of Nez Perce, north of Pleasant View Road. This item was originally Planning Commission August 26, 1993 Page 2 placed the consent agenda at the suggestion of the City Attorney. We had planned on going to the City Council recommending that an EAW be approved in view of the litigation that has been brought on the case by Mr. Beddor. It should be clear that staff in no way thinks the EAW is warranted based on the facts of the case, nor do we think it will present much in the way of new information. But we concluded that it should be done nevertheless as requested by the City Attorney. We asked Barton Aschman to give us a proposal on during the study. On short notice a proposal was prepared but we were quite honestly shocked at the proposed $43,000 cost. We did not have an opportunity to ask for proposals from several firms and in all likelihood, the cost could be trimmed somewhat by refining it. However, the bulk of the dollars being spent are being spent on a traffic study and as the Planning Commission heard at the last meeting, Mr. Beddor is doing his own traffic study. In any event, the City Council balked at this magnitude of expenditure of public dollars. Councilwoman Dockendorf expressed outrage that the city is being put in this position by an individual and faced with a significant expenditure of public dollars for something that had been approved and upheld repeatedly in the past. These sentiments were echoed by the balance of the City Council. They voted to continue the item to a special meeting to be held on Monday, August 30, 1993, and directed the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact denying the EAW request. This is not a mandatory EAW category and it is elective on the part of the City Council as to whether or not they wish to undertake one. Mr. Beddor's recourse is to take the matter to court and as you are aware he has already filed to do so. 5. Revisions of conditions of approval for Lot 2, Block 1, Washta Bay Court, Ken Lund. This matter was approved on the consent agenda but it pointed out an interesting problem. Several years ago we transferred authority for variance approval in the case of subdivisions and site plans to the Planning Commission from the Board of Adjustments. We believed that this was the reasonable way of handling things since you were fully versed in all aspects of a subdivision or site plan when you take action on a related variance request. However, the standard variance language which was developed for the _ typical setback variance or similar action contains a one year expiration date unless it is used by the applicant. In this instance, use means in essence to pull a building permit and build something. This condition was applied to the lot area variance on Washta Bay Court in what I believe to be an inappropriate interpretation but nevertheless is consistent with ordinance. I believe that when the plat was filed, the clock should have stopped ticking, however, this is not the interpretation we received. We took this matter back - before the City Council to void out that condition of approval and this action was approved. We have also asked the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amendment that will correct this oversight. 6. Preliminary plat to subdivide 50,443 square foot parcel into 3 single family lots, 6661 Nez Perce, TJO Addition, Todd Owens. This item was approved by the City Council subject to conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission August 26, 1993 Page 3 7. Preliminary and final plat to subdivide 4 acres into 4 single family lots on property zoned RSF located at 6301 Church Road, Church Road Addition, Greg Reed. This item was approved by the City Council subject to conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. 8. Milltronics site plan for a 13,653 square foot addition to an existing building located at 7870 Park Drive. This item was approved by the City Council subject to conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. 9. City Code amendment to Chapter 10 regarding sexually oriented businesses. The City Council has asked the City Attorney to respond to the Planning Commission input to include public buildings in the mandatory setback category. They have also asked the City Attorney to explore setting a higher annual license fee. The ordinance was approved on first reading and the City Attorney was asked to bring back the changes prior to second reading. 10. New Chanhassen Elementary School City Program Options. The Planning Commission reviewed this at their last meeting, although since this occurred past 1:00 a.m. in the morning, many of you may not remember it. The City Council voted to authorize the school district to go ahead with the program options as reviewed by the Planning Commission. We are currently working with the district's architect to develop a site plan submittal for your review some time during October. RELATED MA Il ERS OF INTEREST 1. After the last Planning Commission meeting, staff met with the applicants for the Mission Hills PUD. They indicated that they were not comfortable with the plan that had originally been reviewed by you on a conceptual basis. As you will recall, you recommended approval of the concept subject to a large number of conditions and modifications. Sharmin and I have since been able to review an updated concept that has been significantly altered to address many of the issues that had been raised. Rather than proceed on to the City Council, the developer and staff have agreed to bring this concept back before the Planning Commission for a second review. I expect to have this on the agenda for the next meeting. 2. Jo Ann Olsen's last day at City Hall will be September 2, 1993, and you are all invited to a get together we are having for her that evening. I am also pleased to announce that we have gone through a selection process and offered the open position to Robert Generous. Bob is a native from Minnesota and a graduate from the Humphrey Institute. He has been working in Cape Coral, Florida, for 4 years and where he was promoted to Senior Planner. I am attaching Bob's resume for your review. At this point, we expect Planning Commission August 26, 1993 Page 4 Bob and his family to be relocated to Minnesota and have him start to work on September 20. 3. Highway 5 Corridor Planning Program Wraps Up. At the time of writing, I am waiting to go downstairs to what I hope will be the final meeting of the Hwy. 5 Task Force. The plan has been assembled and if all goes well will receive the blessings of the task force. As soon as this occurs, we need to bring this up to the Planning Commission for formal approval. There are several actions you will need to take. There is a new zoning ordinance amendment covering the highway corridor district that will need to be amended as necessary and incorporated into the City Code. The plan itself needs to be brought through as an amendment to our Comprehensive Plan. Both actions require public hearings. We are planning on, in all probability, bringing the plan to you in components so that you can discuss it and become familiar with it prior to holding the public hearings. 230 S.E. 28th Terrace Cape Coral , Florida 33904 hm (813 ) 458-4364 wk ( 813 ) 574-0592 July 8 , 1993 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re : PLANNER II Dear Sir/Madam: With this letter and enclosed resume, I wish to apply for the Planner II position with the City of Chanhassen. My current position is the Senior Planner for the City of Cape Coral , Florida. In this position, I am responsible for directing and coordinating the activities of planning staff in such activities as current and long range planning , zoning case review, planned development project review, development order preparation, capital improvement programing , program planning , and preparation of various studies for the Division and other City Departments. It is also my responsiblity to provide career training and enhancement to my staff. Additionally, I am responsible for presenting zoning cases , ordinance changes, and comprehensive plan amendments to the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency and City Council as well as organizing public outreach and participation programs . I believe my education, training , and work experience qualify me for the position. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Robert Generous yam. ' ROBERT E. GENEROUS 230 SE 28th Terrace Cape Coral , Florida 33904 (813 ) 458-4364 Position Desired: PLANNER II Work Experience: June 1989 - present Senior Planner City of Cape Coral , Florida Promoted from Planner to Senior Planner in June 1990 . Responsibilities: supervisor for planners and planning technicians; prepare Division budget; coordinate capital programming for the City ; prepare revisions to the City's Comprehensive Plan with primary responsibility for the future land use map; coordinator and primary writer of the City ' s Land Use and Development Regulations; coordinated and recommended zoning changes to implement the Comprehensive Plan ; present cases to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council ; review and draft development orders for planned development projects; negotiate with and assist developers to promote development in the city ; make public presentations for the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use and Development Regulations; extensive citizen contact regarding planning issues; and writer for Planning Division Publication Trends . June 1988 - May 1989 Planning Intern City of Maplewood, Minnesota Responsibilities: revision of the City ' s Comprehensive Plan - sidewalks , bikeways, and street classifications, preparation of staff reports , phone surveys, research projects, complaint investigations and responding to citizen questions . Extensive written and oral communication. July 1986 - January 1988 Office Manager, construction company Ralph Hall & Associate, Inc . January 1985 - June 1986 Office Manager, construction company Schum Drywall Company Responsibilities : managed all facets of small business including employee supervision, accounts payable, accounts receivable, payroll , general ledger, bank statement reconciliation , tax forms and reports, union reports, computer operations, correspondence and office and construction supply orders . January 1984 - November 1984 Campaign Manager Donald Genereux - City Council , Robbinsdale, Mn. Responsibilities: supervision of phone banks, canvassing, organization of community members. September 1981 - August 1983 Clerical Support Control Data Temps Responsibilities: computer data entry, coordinator of Security Exchange Commission certification program, time management reports, assist legal librarian and general clerical duties for legal department. Education: September 1985 - June 1989 Hubert H . Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs University of Minnesota Graduate School Minneapolis, Minnesota. Master of Planning Degree, secondary concentration in public administration/management. 1979 - 1981 University of Wisconsin - Madison, Wisconsin, Bachelor of Arts Degree. Majors: English and Sociology 1977 - 1979 Marquette University - Milwaukee , Wisconsin Majors : English, Psychology and Sociology 1976 - 1977 St. John 's University - Collegeville, Minnesota, advanced standing courses Achievements: Completed Master of Planning program in urban and regional planning while working full time, GPA 3 . 5/4.0 , Dean ' s List at Marquette University, german tutor 1977 - 1978 , and dorm council member 1978. 1973 - 1977 St. John 's Preparatory School - Collegeville, Minnesota Achievements: GPA 3.86/4.0, class salutatorian, National Honor Society chapter Vice-President 1976 - 1977 , and student council member for three years. Personnel Data: Member American Planning Association. Excellent communication and interpersonal skills, computer skills - Lotus 123 , Quattro, DBase IV , and WordPerfect, leadership qualities, hardworking, versatile, dedicated and determined. References : Janis Burnett Zoning Officer City of Cape Coral P.O. Box 150027 Cape Coral , FL . 33915 (813 ) 574-0553 Max Forgey Planning Director Charlotte County 18500 Murdock Circle Port Charlotte, FL. 33948 (813 ) 743-1222 Thomas McPherson Deputy City Manager City of Las Vegas 400 East Stewart Avenue Las Vegas , NV. 89101 ( 702 ) 229-6501 Carl Rubalcava CDBG Coordinator City of Cape Coral P.O. Box 150027 Cape Coral , FL. 33915 ( 813 ) 574-0552 ( lrtc %L , 6311 Staghorn Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 August 18, 1993 Mr. Peter Pflaum President, Lundgren Bros. 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 REF: 6311 Staghorn Lane, Chanhassen, MN Dear Mr. Pflaum: Beginning this spring we noticed that several trees which had been beautiful when we purchased our house last September were not developing leaves. Hoping that they were just late bloomers, we were not too concerned. However, as spring progressed, the trees in the area west of our house never leafed. We also noticed that our neighbors at 6310 Staghorn Lane, The Hasek's, had the same problem. We both became very alarmed with the fact that these trees which must have been 30-40 years old were dead and would have to be cut down. When we purchased our house a year ago, we asked why our house cost more than the model. We were told by Dan Lowe, "Your lot cost much more because of the trees on it. We now have a lot with 9 dead trees and 7 more in jeopardy. It appears that we did not make a very good deal. I believe that not telling us that a portion of our lot had over 30" of fill, (which would probably kill our trees), was a willful act of mis-representation. Several tree experts who have assessed our lot (and our neighbors), indicated Lundgren Bros. had to know that filling our gully and covering our trees' natural ground level, would kill most trees within a matter of months. Having time on Lundgren Bros. side enabled them to sell us our treed lot looking as though it were a healthy normal lot. As if the filling of the trees well above their natural soil were not enough, Lundgren Bros. also allowed heavy machinery to travel at will over the lot bruising and cutting the existing trees with no concern for their delicate tap roots and trunks. As a result, per Mr. Jeff Schultz, Forestry Intern with the City of Chanhassen, all of our trees in the front and north gully have physical evidence of construction damage and are now dying. Not only are we faced with the ordeal of cutting down trees which are close to our house, we are also cutting away a great deal of value to our real estate. The house will no longer have the same look as it did when it was purchased, and it will not have the same value. Each tree which has been lost to our fill and construction damage is irreplaceable in value. RECEIVE S ^ 191993 . .t ,,...i. ti Mr. Peter Pflaum August 18, 1993 Pace Two At this point, I'm sure that you are wondering what you as president of Lundgren Bros. can do to placate us on our very unfair purchase of a dying treed lot. What we expect as a good faith response from Lundgren Bros. for selling us a lot with a ticking time bomb of • dying trees: 1. Professional felling of all dead trees paid by Lundgren Bros. — 2. Replacement of each felled tree by Lundgren Bros. with equal trunk size tree. 3. Landscaping area in the northwest gully to acceptable status by owners (returning original look). 4. None of the above is to be done by heavy machines which could further damage the environment of remaining landscape. If the requested response is met by Lundgren Bros., we would feel that you have done your best to restore our confidence in Lundgren Bros. and in our purchase of your real estate. Past efforts on our part to Mr. Ed Lundgren, Mr. Mike Pflaum have gone unanswered. I • can only hope that you will make a serious effort to reconcile the problem. A swift re- sponse and schedule of work by Lundgren Bros. would be most appreciated. Thank you. Most sincerely, Grady Mic ael Ferguson and Sandra Hughes-Ferguson cc: Sandy Patterson - Edina Realty Dan Lowe - Lundgren Bros. Jeff Schultz - Forestry Intern, City of Chanhassen Ed Lundgren - Lundgren Bros. CITY OF C IIANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 • (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 • August 20, 1993 Re: Status of Legion/M. A. Mortenson Planning Process Dear Property Owner: Because it has been a rather long time since we last met and it may be a while longer, it seems imperative that we provide landowners and neighborhood residents with an update of the status of the planning process for the Hwy. 5 pedestrian overpass for the Legion/M. A. Mortenson properties located at the corner of Highway 5 and Great Plains Boulevard. As you may recall,the city received a $300,000 federal grant to construct the bridge which is designed to link your neighborhood with downtown Chanhassen. We have also discussed the potential of a separate but related proposal to redevelop the adjoining parcel with a joint use development that could include a park and ride facility for Southwest Metro Transit and other potential uses. A neighborhood meeting was held in the spring to discuss the concepts on a preliminary basis. We would hope to conduct another neighborhood meeting in the near future when plans are somewhat more solid. The Highway 5 pedestrian bridge is well along the process of implementation. An architect/engineer is being recommended by city staff to the HRA on Thursday, August 19, 1993. Because of all of the federal approvals required, the design and approval process will be lengthy, leading construction in late summer of 1994. hi the meantime, a variety of concepts will be developed by the architect and photo imaging will be utilized to evaluate a range of alternative bridge designs. It will be important that this bridge make the proper statement as it frames the east gateway to the City of Chanhassen. We are continuing to talk with a motel developer, the Legion and Southwest Metro Transit Commission regarding the potential for their use of a portion of the property. We are also exploring the issues and concerns that were raised at our last neighborhood meeting. When plans are somewhat further along, we will share them with you at a second neighborhood meeting. It may be October or November before that meeting can be held. _ If, in the meantime, you have any questions or concerns. please give either me or Fred Hoisington (835- 9960) a call. We hope you are having a good summer and look forward to meeting with you again in the fall. aul Krauss, AICP Planning Director pc: City Council Planning Commission Hwy. 5 Task Force Diane Harberts, SWMT