4 Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 2, 2003
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Claybaugh, Steve Lillehaug, Bruce Feik, Uli Sacchet, Bethany
Tjornhom, Kurt Papke and Rich Slagle
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer, and Kristen
Wentzlaff, Planner.
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Janet & Jerry Paulsen
Debbie Lloyd
7305 Laredo Drive
7302 Laredo Drive
THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN HAS AUTHORIZED THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE
ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW DOCUMENTS (AUAR) FOR THE 2005
METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA) LOCATED SOUTH OF LYMAN
BOULEVARD, EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD, WEST OF FUTURE TH 212, AND NORTH
OF PIONEER TRAIL IN THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MN. THE PROJECT
CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 650 ACRES OF LAND INCLUDING PARKS AND
OPEN SPACE, RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY, RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY,
OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL AND OFFICE USES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Rosemary Biersdorf
Tallis Blake
Sever Peterson
Char Jeurissen
Kara Strazzanti
Bart Blinstrup
Mitch & Jill Anderson
Eric S. Theship-Rosales
2907 Butternut Drive, Chaska
2907 Butternut Drive, Chaska
15900 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie
9715 Audubon Road
2901 Forest Ridge, Chaska
18736 The Pines, Eden Prairie
2853 Timberview Trail, Chaska
9201 Audubon Road
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Mark Koegler: Thank you Kate. Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the commission.
I've got a few words and then we've got a brief presentation to cover tonight. As Kate alluded to,
the focus of the meeting this evening really is more on the air and noise. We spent a considerable
amount of time last time talking about land use and transportation issues, some of which were
responded to on the spot and some of which we have begun to respond to in the form of the early
mitigation information that I think you received in the packet. There's another generation of that
that's already been prepared that addresses more of these points and we will address all of these
as we move forward. We did get the verbatim copy of the minutes from that meeting on the 19th
so that we can ensure that we cover all of the bases that were brought up. Tonight with me are
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
other members of our project team. Gary Ehret on the far end with Kimley Horn and then Tim
Casey who with HDR who is working with Kimley and Horn on the noise and air quality portions
of this. Gary is Kimley Horn's project manager on this and they are the agency that's doing
really all of the transportation, civil and overseeing the noise and air quality work as part of the
AUAR so Gary and I are certainly available for questions that may arise. Just briefly taking up
on some of the things that Kate said in terms of timing. Tonight it is our intent to hopefully find
our way through some of these air and noise quality questions, concerns and issues and then be in
a position to have a draft that we can wrap up for the purposes of publication in the EQB Monitor
on the 15th of this month. It would be available at that point in time for broader public review.
By the rules that govern AUAR's, we're looking at a 30 to a 45 day comment period. At that
point in time comments not only from the general public but as Kate alluded to, Planning
Commission and other entities within the city, interested parties, residents, property owners and
then the various agencies. We've begun to get some very preliminary comments from agencies
but we get more definitive views from them as well. All of that kind of gets rolled together to
make sure that what we bring back in the final, final form so to speak is a mitigation plan that
addresses the issues that have been raised by all those parties, so we've still got a bit of work to
do. I'm kind of crossing the T's and dotting the I's but that comes together relatively quickly at
this point in time. So without any further comment I think it's my sense to turn it over to Tim
and he will be able to kind of wind through a brief presentation on the air and the noise
components of this, and then we certainly collectively can field any questions or comments or
directions that the commission would like to go.
Tim Casey: Thanks very much. I'm Tim Casey. I'm with HDR Engineering, it's Environmental
Acoustics Program Manager. We're working for Kimley Horn and HDR performed an air quality
and a traffic noise analysis for the proposed project. I believe our report was distributed to the
city already so I'll just go through a brief summary presentation. HDR's goals were to perform
noise and air quality analysis commensurate with AUAR guidelines and project budget. Focus on
noise and air quality issues for the project and provide support for the Planning Commission here
in the City of Chanhassen. For the noise analysis, HDR staff went out and measured ambient
noise levels for one hour at 3 locations in the private area. Our analysis used Minnesota DOT
traffic noise models called MINNOISE to evaluate future noise levels and all our tasks were
performed within the guidelines of the noise regulation portions of the Minnesota Rules. The
results of our noise monitoring activities indicated that existing traffic noise levels at the 3 levels
we measured exceeded State maximum allowable noise levels for residential land uses for both
daytime and night time periods. We measured noise approximately 50 to 80 feet off the center
line of the existing roadways. When we did our modeling analysis our evaluation predicted
future noise levels. We assumed that noise in the project area would be dominated by traffic
noise on local roadways, so we modeled traffic on proposed roads. We modeled road traffic on
the existing roadways. We used a traffic volume mix and speed projected for the year 2025. And
finally on the proposed 212/312 corridor was not included in this analysis because an
environmental review had already been completed on that project. Our traffic noise modeling
results predicted it exceeded the state daytime and night time standards at the 3 locations where
we did traffic noise monitoring. More importantly we plotted contours, noise level contours
associated with roadways proposed to be built in the project area, and the contours showed the
distance from those roadways at which traffic noise impact no longer occurred. And finally
where predicted traffic noise impacts are indicated on our figures and our analysis but future
traffic noise levels can be reduced through things such as berms and noise walls, or combinations
of the two. As development proceeds in the project area, the developers will likely be required to
evaluate noise impacts for their proposed development, and the city will be required to comply
with provisions of Rule 7030.0030 which essentially requires cities with jurisdictions over new
and developing land uses to insure that when those land uses are put into their new use, that
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
existing noise levels comply with the state rules immediately upon that new land use being
implemented. In other words, as soon as a developer finishes building homes and those homes
become occupied, the city has to have taken steps to insure that noise levels will comply with the
state noise rules. The air quality analysis that HDR performed focused on two pollutants that are
of primary concern in transportation projects, CO, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter 10
microns or less or PM10. There was no monitoring or air quality monitoring data for Carver
County so we looked at monitoring data for Hennepin County where traffic volumes are higher,
and we were getting more of a worse case depiction of ambient air quality, and monitoring data
shows that ambient air quality in Hennepin County complies with the national ambient air quality
standards. When we looked at the potential for performing any of the detailed air quality analysis
we looked at the MnDot analysis procedures. They had three screening procedures that
determined that a more detailed analysis is necessary. The first threshold for MnDot screening
procedures is a vehicle volume of 77,200 vehicles per day. Average daily traffic associated with
the AUAR is less than 30,000 vehicles per day so we didn't meet that threshold. And the other
two MnDot screening thresholds are associated with traffic at 10 specific intersections in the
metro area. This project does not affect any of those 10, therefore no detailed modeling analysis
was considered necessary, and because ambient air quality in Carver County is considered to be
better than it is in Hennepin County and we know that Hennepin County it complies with the
national ambient air quality standards, we concluded that the air quality here will also comply
with the ambient air quality standards and that the traffic would not cause and exceed those
national ambient air quality standards. In summary, conclusion of our noise analysis were that
existing traffic noise levels are high along the main roads on the west and northern perimeters of
the corridor. Future traffic noise levels along those corridors will also be high if the project
proceeds. And the finally each development should conduct it's own independent noise analysis
to help the city comply with the State rules. Finally the conclusions of the air quality analysis are
that the project does not trigger any of the analysis thresholds and that there are no air quality
effects predicted for the project. Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you. Any questions to this so far?
Papke: I'll start. Couple questions. First of all, you didn't do any measurements or analysis of
Pioneer Trail and there was also no contour on the future Powers Boulevard. Could you
comment on why neither of those two roadways were?
Tim Casey: We felt that our focus on more project related roadways compared to roadways that
were likely to be dominated by traffic from the 212/312 corridor, and were therefore most
likely...in the environmental review process associated with that. We thought it was better to
focus on roadways that were not more intimately associated with that proposed highway corridor.
And so we focused on the western and northern roads and then the roadway that's supposed to go
through.
Papke: Okay. And that brings up a second question. When we first started down the whole
process here of the AUAR, it was my understanding that the whole intent of this is to take kind of
a holistic look at everything going on within the 650 acres, yet from what you just said and from
the fact that the study specifically says you know for 212 information go see this other document,
you know I don't know that we're getting the whole picture here. Do you kind of, do you follow
what I'm saying? ! feel like, okay we took a look at the things that 212 isn't going to affect, yet
one gets the impression that 212 is likely to dominate any noise and air quality issues within the
AUAR district, and so I'm kind of missing you know what this study truly got us to. Can you
shed some light on that?
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Tim Casey: I can. I can. You know one of our goals includes balancing resources and that
includes money and time. Knowing that the 212/312 corridor had been studied and that that
environmental review document had been approved, that made our decision making process a
little bit more focused. We had limited money. We had limited resources. This work has already
been done. Are we serving the city best by spending money to spend more time to look at that
and incorporate it and do our modeling analysis or would it be a better use of the city's money
and time to kind of look at things that had not been looked at.
Papke: I hear where you're going with this is certainly data that should be looked at, but at the
end of the day I believe the result of this process is to put forth a certain number of mitigation
proposals, and I would think that the 212/312 data would have to be taken into account in those
proposals, is that a true statement?
Tim Casey: I support your instincts, yes. 212/312 should be taken into account.
Papke: So if we are to then look at those mitigation proposals in light of all the data, it would
seem from my naYve perspective, not being a traffic engineer, that you would want to look at the
212 data.
Gary Ehret: The caution that I would offer is, what we are trying to address are the impacts
specific to this development as compared to 212/312, number one.
Papke: By this development you mean the whole AUAR?
Gary Ehret: Excuse me, the whole AUAR.
Papke: Okay.
Gary Ehret: And secondly, that we assess reasonable and due diligence impacts associated with
this development as compared to 212 so that's the only caution I would offer is how we make
sure to not be mixing and matching impacts, assessment and mitigation associated with 212 in
this development, and that was our judgment is that the impacts of, to noise and air and the
mitigation associated with that had been addressed in the 212 study and need not be duplicated
here.
Sacchet: So there is a separate study for the highway, that's what we're saying?
Tim Casey: The Environmental Impact Statement for the 212/312 was done and completed and
approved.
Papke: I'm kind of a newby here on the Planning Commission so perhaps I wasn't present
during, as the Planning Commission looked at that in a previous time?
Aanenson: No. Maybe that's something that we want to talk about is what we want to include
on, what's already been in place for the mitigation for tools, I think that would be helpful.
Second, I think what you heard tonight is the direction that we need to hear and that is each
development as it comes in is going to have to do a noise study. That's the direction we're
looking for and that's what the consultant's saying is that each project needs to come in with their
own noise study. Whether it's on Pioneer Trail or Powers, they're going to have to demonstrate
that they're mitigating, because they've said that it exceeds. So they'll have to demonstrate.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Papke: So we've kind of gotten the answer that we were looking for from a guidance perspective
that each development will have to look at.
Aanenson: That's my understanding.
Papke: The noise quality.
Aanenson: In what they stated. And the second one is that it's not exceeding the air quality
based on the trip generations on a broader scale. Now there is mitigation that we've asked for in
detail on the 212 and I think that's something we need to show you so that's, and we can do that
as part of this mitigation as it comes back for final plans so you can see what noise walls and
berming is being put in place with that. So I think kind of what Gary was trying to say is there's
kind of some macro issues here and then micro, specific to this.
Papke: So the 212 study looks at Powers Boulevard. Looks at Pioneer Trail. I just want to make
sure there's nothing that's falling through the cracks.
Aanenson: Yes. We'll make sure that that's included in your mitigation.
Papke: Okay. Okay. Last question before.
Aanenson: Let me just add one more thing, just to be clear. If there's existing development,
there's some, MnDot has different rules as far as what they're going to put in place so it's still
probably just to be clear, a lot of this is still going to be development driven to mitigate and I
think that's the point I heard. Is whether it's along 212 or someone's building next to that,
they're going to have to provide the mitigation. MnDot probably won't so there will be a process
in place that they need to demonstrate that noise study.
Papke: Okay. Just one last kind of going from the macro to the micro level here. Within your
data and so on, there's statistics for both an L10 and an L50 decibel reading. Could you tell me
what the LI0 and L50 stands for? What does that mean?
Tim Casey: Sure. Those are time descriptors and they represent the noise level exceeded 50
percent of the time and the noise level exceeded 10 percent of the time.
Papke: Okay, so it's kind of a duty factor kind of.
Tim Casey: It has a time domain built in. So if you think about, these are hourly, we're dealing
with hourly time increments so 50 percent of the time...
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Bethany.
Tjornhom: Touching on what Kurt said, this study has been done and there have been obviously
things have been monitored and calculated and written down on graphs and so when a developer
comes in like Town and Country or the school district or anyone else comes in, will they have to
do it once again, this same test?
Aanenson: What they'll have to do is do a plan that shows they meet the standards, and how they
can achieve that whether for example when we did Pulte Homes, we made it a condition that they
put air conditioning units in. That's a way to mitigate noise. There's berms. There's noise walls
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
but what they'll have to do is show us what they're going to do to mitigate the noise, and there's
different techniques which the consultant alluded to.
Tjornhom: But they'll be using this information?
Aanenson: Correct.
Tjornhom: Okay.
Tim Casey: Likely in addition to whatever study they have done.
Tjornhom: Okay.
Tim Casey: If I just could make one other comment. One additional value of the report HDR
provided is in the contours and there's a table that shows the contour distances. When future
development comes in along the roads that we modeled, you can refer back to the HDR report
that predicted you know traffic noise level impacts at that fixed distances from the roadway and
you can look at the development plan, the plat plan and say well you're putting homes in, you
know in this distance. What the state rules does is it regulates outdoor noise levels, so anywhere
on your property it's required to be compliance with state noise levels. I guess I wanted to
encourage the City to keep in mind that it is outdoor noise levels. While air conditioning is often
offered as a mitigation technique, it doesn't do anything for outside and that's what the rules are
actually formed to do.
Slagle: So you're suggesting we have 81 foot setbacks from all roads.
Tim Casey: There is no, well that's a good point though.
Slagle: A couple questions.
Sacchet: Go ahead.
Slagle: You mentioned, are you done Bethany?
Tjornhom: I'm done.
Slagle: You mentioned 312 and 212 falling under that environmental study. Do you have any
recollection as to what, there's a comparison to noise levels that called for or anticipated? I mean
just trying to compare your study with 81 feet from 212.
Tim Casey: I don't. I didn't do those.
Slagle: Okay. And the reason I ask is because the question was asked earlier of not including
Audubon as an example because it was, or would be affected by 212. Powers or Audubon. I
mean I think the question was.
Papke: It was Powers and Pioneer.
Slagle: Okay, I'm sorry. My question is, yeah Powers was that if that indeed would be included
in a study, say you were able to do that, to me that seems like that is going to be a major area.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Tim Casey: You should be able to look at either the draft of the final EIS for the 212/312 project
and pull out a figure that shows noise contours. They'll represent the same thing that was
represented in the HDR contours. This is the distance from the roadway at which traffic noise
levels will no longer exceed state rules, and so where there's going to be development inside
those contours in the right-of-way, there has to be some consideration for noise.
Slagle: And if I can ask Kate, is this where, if you read the paper yesterday the folks in Eden
Prairie talking about trying to get MnDot to.
Aanenson: That was today's.
Slagle: Today's? Lower the 212, okay that would be one way to mitigate?
Aanenson: Right, and that is one of the things that, the design is to have a recessed contour to
help for noise mitigation.
Slagle: Next question, and Kate maybe this is your's. Before we get that information, or as you
forward it on or you get it to us, is that past us in the process? Is that now at the City Council
where they're mitigating? So will not come before this commission.
Aanenson: No, but we'll give it to you for your edification if you want to make comments on it
but yeah, you don't at this point.
Slagle: Alright. Last question I had was with respect with, on page 7, you state or this report
states despite population growth in most metropolitan areas of the country, the reduction in per
vehicle CO emissions has more than offset the increase number of vehicles traveling the
highways. And I follow that I guess but then I ask, would you feel comfortable saying that out
here in more the rural sort of outer ring suburbs, because I mean more cars are coming here. It
should mean more emissions.
Tim Casey: Keep in mind that the, one of the determining factors in the evaluation of future
compliance with ambient air quality standards was kind of a look towards counties with existing
traffic. More existing traffic than the county has, and HDR's logic was, if Hennepin County is in
compliance with national ambient air quality standards, and the planning window for this AUAR
is reasonable, and based on the traffic volumes that are projected for 2025, which is the end of the
planning window for the AUAR. Knowing both of those pieces of information, it's reasonable
and still conservative to conclude that future air quality in the project area will comply with the
national ambient air quality standards.
Slagle: Or said another way, would be similar perhaps to Hennepin County. As far as meeting
the, falling under the.
Tim Casey: Yeah, I guess I would caution you that Hennepin County probably has more cars
than Carver but.
Slagle: Understand. I'm just trying to draw a comparison, if I'm a resident here, you know in my
mind, based upon this argument, that the guideline, the baseline is Hennepin County. And wow,
we'll be okay to be Hennepin County. My guess is most people have moved out here didn't want
to be in Hennepin County. You know.
Tim Casey: I'm not sure ambient air quality standards...
7
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Slagle: Well I don't know if I would be as specific as that but I would say the environment
certainly would have played a part in people deciding to move out here.
Mark Koegler: One thing I would interject if I may is that, you know bear in mind the standard
that we measure against is not Hennepin County as was talked about. It is these national and state
standards so those are the bar so to speak and the comparison was only that obviously if the
neighbor next door is more intensive doesn't begin to meet that, we don't meet that either. That
doesn't really say anything...smell and odor or not smell and odor. It really is the letter of the
law that all of this that the city and the developers have to work with.
Slagle: Well absolutely, but I'm hoping, my desire as a commission is that the city hopes and
plans to be better than the Hennepin' s or the LA' s or the Detroit' s or you can go on.
Mark Koegler: Fortunately we're not talking LA or Detroit.
Slagle: Exactly.
Sacchet: Is that it Rich? Craig.
Claybaugh: Yes, going back to your table on page 4 of 8. They noted the traffic levels. Peak
Hourly Traffic volumes. On the current study I was a little perplexed. What scenario would have
to take place where currently the current existing road study would pass? My question is, what is
the primary determining factor? I would have thought right now that the level of road noise
would have certainly complied and we're entertaining more intensive development in the future.
I'm a little perplexed that we didn't ask at this time what's...what kind of things contributed to it?
Why do you think we didn't pass at this time and what does that mean to increased volume of 10,
20 fold down the line?
Tim Casey: It didn't surprise me that daytime and night time noise levels measured for the
project exceeded the state standards. It didn't surprise me at all. I'm a city boy and when I've
been out here in God's country I notice that when you get out in these rural roads, you tend to go
a little bit faster than the speed limit sometimes. And then more importantly speed limits are
higher than they are in developed areas like the city neighborhoods are where I grew up I should
say. Where my point is that, when we performed traffic noise monitoring, one thing I noted, and
the engineers did it for, he noticed a lot of fast moving traffic. Fast moving, free flowing traffic
on the roadways. Traffic noise is highly dependent on speed. A relatively large volume of heavy
trucks like semi's will affect it significantly, but I don't think he noticed a large volume of heavy
traffic.
Claybaugh: He noted 2 percent I believe.
Tim Casey: Which is low. Something higher.
Claybaugh: He didn't address the volume at all through that, the current study. Do you have any
figures available on that?
Tim Casey: We don't, no. So I guess to address your question, traffic noise levels are high
because what you have is, long stretches of road with fairly high speed limits. There's not many
breaks in the corridor for traffic to enter which would perhaps slow down the flow of traffic on
the roadway, so it's a lot of free flowing movement. A lot of fast moving vehicles. And that's
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
really what affects traffic noise levels the most. So maybe in the ultimate build-out there'd be
more intersections. Speed limits would be reduced because of residential density and I don't
know.
Claybaugh: There's a section of road on 94 just outside of St. Cloud that when you drive it you
can't even hear your radio from the road surface. From the tire noise. What kind of
consideration with respect to that, what kind of criteria presumptions are made in calculating the
report? How did something like that happen on that section of roadway outside of St. Cloud?
How do we see that it doesn't happen here? Obviously that's a contributing factor. Are those
things provided for?
Tim Casey: MnDot performed traffic pavement noise studies. Pavement wear studies on a
variety of pavement related studies...DOT's across the nation. And in fact ! did a presentation
with people from MnDot Central Environmental Services office where they presented their tire
pavement study. With different types of pavements, they finished where concrete with different
surfaces for traction so you would try a quiet pavement.
Claybaugh: Is that part of our pavement, as a part of our study?
Tim Casey: Not part of the noise study, no. We didn't take that into account. The MnDot noise
model does not have the capability with the different pavement types. There are models out there
that do and they're in use in just about every other state, but the Minnesota models does not have
the capability.
Claybaugh: Certainly a valid consideration?
Tim Casey: It is.
Claybaugh: Just to come back with what some of the fellow commissioners, I just want to be
clear myself about the 212/312 environmental study. Two studies done with base line isolation,
the way it sounds, but with some overlap of each, so there is no open area inbetween?
Tim Casey: If you were to take a transparency and overlay our contours on a transparency of
212/312 contours, you'd see a little of your AUAR project area not affected by any of those
contours.
Claybaugh: Alright, that's all the questions.
Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Bruce.
Feik: Help me out here a little bit. Going forward we have the new regulations that will be going
forward for a development, or will need to submit the projected noise and then work it in, and
then they're going to have to pass the hurdle. When did that take effect?
Tim Casey: In my experience we have been hired by developers to do noise studies for them, and
the results of our noise study helps them get approval from municipalities...
Feik: Officially when is that rule enforced I guess is where I'm going with this.
Tim Casey: Compliance has to be, the compliant point is the day the first resident moves in.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Feik: But it's in force today?
Tim Casey: Yes it is.
Feik: Okay, okay. Does it, so if I'm a developer inside this parcel and I've already got sites
along Audubon and Lyman that do not conform, correct? There's three sites on your map that
you chose that exceed the noise, the night time and daytime noise modeling requirements. What
is the requirement of the developer as it relates to the noise outside of their specific subject
property, i.e. down the block and around the comer? Are they required in their noise abatement
or their noise plan to deal with what's downstream, you know if it's 100 yards past their
property?
Tim Casey: Well they do not really have the authority or the right to do anything outside their
property.
Feik: No, no, but are they responsible for the increase in noise that's 300 yards away from their
property? That their residents or whatever developments they did generated. Or is it just within
the confines of the development? See where I'm going with this?
Tim Casey: The rule doesn't get to that level of detail and I'm inclined to say it's subject to the
whim of the municipalities.
Feik: So what I'm seeing, or what I'm, if we already exceed the noise now, and we're going to
have a compounding factor that we're going to exceed it more and more and more as this
development, or as this area develops down stream, outside of the boundaries of the AUAR,
specifically up and down Lyman. Up and down Audubon. Up and down Powers, is that correct?
And a developer would have no ability to mitigate the noise outside of the parcel they're working
on. So what's the point?
Tim Casey: Well through land use planning, as each subdivision is developed, you make your
incremental affects to noise levels. You make your incremental changes or.
Feik: Right, but at some point the noise becomes over bearing. It's too much. And so it gets to
be a little bit, from what I'm hearing, a first come first serve kind of a deal. If you're the first
developer in here and you can throw a thousand cars on and it only exceeds by another 20
percent, but boy if you're the last developer and we've exceeded all the monitoring stations out
there, you're just stuck holding the bag.
Aanenson: Let me address that a little bit.
Feik: I'm missing something here.
Aanenson: Yeah you are because you're making the assumption that they're mitigating the traffic
that they're generating. They're not doing that. They're mitigating all traffic on their project. So
whether you're the first in or last in, you're mitigating the ultimate impact of the entire project.
Not just what they're generating.
Feik: Within the parcel that they're working on, no?
Aanenson: No. No. The whole study. They have to mitigate for their project the background
noise.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Feik: That's half a mile away?
Aanenson: Correct.
Feik: How do they do that?
Aanenson: That's what they have to use a consultant to provide whether it's a berm or a noise
wall. I mean we do that all the time. Developments will come in and show us what the noise is at
certain points and what I heard is that, fiat it's 81 feet setback, at a minimum. If they want to go
closer they have to provide some other type of berming or landscaping, or noise wall.
Feik: But this berming or landscaping might not necessarily be on their property.
Aanenson: It would have to be.
Feik: Well that's what I'm getting to. I'm missing, we're missing here a little bit. My thought,
I'm going to hold this up. We exceed in these three areas. Now if I'm building down here and
the impact of my building up here dramatically affects what goes on up here, as a builder, as a
developer, am I going to have to put a berm on somebody else's property? How am I going to
mitigate that?
Aanenson: You're mitigating your piece. You're mitigating on your property to protect your
property, not somebody else's down the road. It's site specific, just like any other development
that we've done with the business park. They do it around the perimeter of that business park,
that subdivision, that site plan, it's around the perimeter of that, mitigating that individual parcel.
Now there might be pieces that are done in phases or bigger and that's, we'll have to look at it
incrementally as each comes in so we're measuring against the whole, and that's the purpose of
this study, is that you've got the outside parameters to say what is the noise, to mitigate each little
piece. Now this is some of the crux of the argument that we've had with 212 is that they're trying
to push some of the burden back on the city to say you know you need to provide some of this
mitigation...development costs and kind of what you're going through, and aesthetics and some
of those sort of things that we're trying to work through and those might be some of the things
that we want to think about aesthetically if you're driving 312 it has a lot of berms. Do we want
that look? And that's something that actually Mark and I were just talking about before this
meeting, that kind of might be an evolution that we might want to talk about is what type of
treatments do we want to have so we don't have just big walls around the entire perimeter of this
project. What aesthetically works? So I think that might be something we want to discuss.
Feik: But that protects the noise within the project. It doesn't protect the noise that spills to the
other side of the road.
Aanenson: Well there's going to be noise on Audubon. There's nobody in Chanhassen's side
right now that there's noise on Audubon that we're not contributing to. What the goal is to
mitigate the people that are going in and mitigate the noise that they're being affected by.
Slagle: How about minimize?
Aanenson: Minimize?
Slagle: The numbers.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Aanenson: Sure, yep.
Sacchet: Bruce, is that it for you?
Feik: That's it for me. Muddling through this.
Sacchet: Steve, go ahead.
Lillehaug: And I kind of have the same questions. So you're indicating that each development
will do it's own analysis. What parameters are they going to have different when they do their
analysis that you weren't using now, and to elaborate on that a little, kind of what Bruce is
saying, is say one portion of the development is done year 1 and the other end is done year 10.
Where the traffic levels may have increased by you know dramatically incrementally. And I'm
just not quite getting the fact that Bruce lives on the north side of Audubon. You're not doing
anything to mitigate the increase volume for that development up there. And that's, MnDot's
addressing it by lowering their road for the existing developments and for the proposed, whereas
this plan is doing nothing for the existing neighborhoods. Did I have a question there?
Sacchet: Isn't the impact zone what you defined as the noise impact portion?
Tim Casey: In the contours. I mean that's what the contours do. They kind of show you where
you're going to have traffic noise impacts. If that land is developed as residential, as an
environmental acoustician, one of my recommendations is don't develop that land as residential.
Not a good land use planning strategy. Don't put homes where it's going to be noisy. You have
a highway coming through your community, don't put homes next to it. Put your strip malls. Put
your commercial and industrial. Put everything else where people don't sleep. And then you get
rid of that one first hurdle, the traffic noise impacts and the contours. Well, they're no longer an
issue because it's not residential anymore. And anywhere there's traffic on the streets that run the
600 and some acre parcel, and all the streets that will be developed by each individual
development as they come in, well speed limits on those streets are going to be much lower than
they are on the existing perimeters. And there's going to be a lot more stop and go's. So traffic
noise level will be lower, and if you look at traffic restrictions like no semi's on local streets,
that's an even better land use planning strategy to reduce traffic related noise levels. So the
primary difference between what we did for the AUAR and what your developers are going to do
when they come in for any...development is they'll have a much more focused, specific analysis
of individual parcels along new roadways, existing roadways, rather than our kind of broad brush
stroke, and as the city looks at each planned development, you can say well it kind of makes
sense not to have homes right there. Kind of makes sense to put our commercial properties in
there. Those kinds of things so it's both city and developers that participate in building the
community, a quiet community.
Lillehaug: So the city will require the developers to expand on what's already been done, rather
than just...
Aanenson: Yep, and that's part of the strategy that will be a mitigation strategy, is each
development will have to do a noise study. I'm pretty confident that will come out Mark.
Sacchet: Did you have something Kurt?
12
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Papke: Let me take a stab at it and make sure I understand where some of my fellow
commissioners were going. If I understand it, you have table number 5 on page 4 here that states
at full build out in 2025 we're going to have a certain number of peak cars per hour going down
these various highways, and you built your contour lines around this peak volume. So that from
the perspective, if the developers were to follow Rich's lead and have all their setbacks according
to Table 7, they're home free. Doesn't make any difference if they're the first one or the last one
within this AUAR area. Is that a correct statement? Am I correctly interpreting it so far?
Tim Casey: Yes, assuming this traffic volume occurs in 2025, and this vehicle mix occurs in
2025, using the speed limits that were shown. I mean this is what you can easily.
Papke: Okay. So from that perspective it doesn't really make too much difference what order
people end up developing, because they have to meet whatever's here on Table 5, providing they
do nothing.
Aanenson: Correct.
Papke: Okay. Now if they want to not follow that setback, then they have to do some other
mitigation process, berms, whatever it may be, to be able to push closer to the roadway to meet
the standards you're proposing here?
Aanenson: Yes.
Papke: Okay. I think I've got it now.
Sacchet: Okay. I have a few more questions. So we looked at noise. We found there is an issue.
We set a framework. We have contours. We look at air. We found there is not an issue. When
we look at air that includes dust and odors? Because like in the overall report we were, at
somewhere it says air quality, dust and odors. That's three separate things.
Tim Casey: Air quality analysis focused on the two pollutants of concern for traffic, which are
carbon monoxide and particulate matter. Dust and odors really are not transportation related
pollutants or pollutants of concern when you're focused on transportation.
Sacchet: So are those items that we still need to address at some point within this AUAR study?
Tim Casey: They would be addressed with a simple statement, and that's it. They really are not
pollutants of concern in the study. If it were a feedlot, then we'd have an odor issue, and perhaps
even a noise issue.
Mark Koegler: But for example one of the mitigation strategies will be for on site construction
practices, and dealing with control, dust particularly during construction activities because that
obviously is a major contributor in a residential area.
Sacchet: So since we're focusing on mitigation aspects, I mean the good news about this air thing
is that there can be berms. There can be trees. There can be this things. There can be shuffle
around's so that is actually mitigatible. When we discussed this last time we found another very
delicate area in the study which is the traffic, and there we don't really have, do we have a
mitigation plan or is that something that's still coming or are we planning to have some
mitigation ideas on what we can do about the traffic issues?
13
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Mark Koegler: Yes, most certainly. And some of that has been alluded to in the past with regard
to some of the intersection lane configurations and segment improvements that Gary has noted.
We are responding though continually to traffic issues that were brought up at our meeting on the
19th and we'll incorporate that in the draft.
Sacchet: So that's still ongoing in other words.
Mark Koegler: A portion of that is still ongoing.
Sacchet: Okay. Yeah, another area that was in the previous draft report for an area that would
need to be looked at is historic archeological architectural. We decided that is not an issue? Just
want to confirm that aspect.
Mark Koegler: I would not say it's not an issue, but it is an issue to the degree that there are
some recognized sites within the project area, the peripheral area which will need in some cases
to have some subsequent field investigation. If you recall one of them I think was within
MnDot's right-of-way on Powers Boulevard. For example when they get more serious about
building that road, they will have to do some on-site review of that area to insure that there is or
isn't something present. The information that we have available at this point, and that kind of
throws up a red flag as much as it does anything quite honestly, it says when you get to a certain
point you're going to have to look more closely right here so we're flagging those again.
Sacchet: Yeah, that's what I'm trying to understand a little clear, in terms of what the flow is. I
mean I understand from our role at the Planning Commission, we're more facilitating getting this
complete and there are things that are still being completed as this goes on. I mean I'm trying to
get a little bit of a sense what some of the items that still need to be addressed before this is
considered complete and can be published, like when you made your list of mitigation plan
initiatives, you mentioned roadway and traffic initiatives. We touched on that. Mentioned
identification and utilization of Best Management Practices. That's an area that you would still
go into further as well? Updating storm water management plans. Same thing. Land use
management tools. Park and open space acquisition. Development strategies. But those things
are still being worked on or what's the status there?
Mark Koegler: Yes, they are. However I just want to throw out a cautionary. In some cases it
may be sufficient to simply reference BMP techniques that are already in place. And so we want
to make sure you know serve up as a reminder so to speak that those kind of techniques are part
of a standard package of what you might call mitigation anyway. In some cases it may go beyond
that.
Sacchet: So what we're really doing is we're laying the foundation framework for when
developers come in with specific proposals we can measure these proposals against this study and
see where are areas that need to be further mitigated, is that about where we're at?
Mark Koegler: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay, I think I took enough time. I do want to head for our continuation of public
hearing. Rich.
Slagle: I still wanted to throw out, if I may Mr. Chair, the question and Mark you refer to it as
being incorporated, addressing some of the concerns that we had on the 19th. I guess my question
about the traffic, correct me if I'm wrong fellow commissioners but I thought that there was a
14
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
bringing up if you will of actually having on site traffic study, similar to what we did with noise.
It looks like it was on two different dates. Did we incorporate on site, whether it be Audubon,
Pioneer, Lyman, or are we still going with the sort of statistical numbers from the country or
whatever it comes from?
Mark Koegler: That question last time was posed with Jim Renshaw and his response was that
we, in the instance of you putting this together, we'll be going with the statistical approach that's
based on kind of what I would call is a non-engineering engineering manuals kind of thing. He
did allude to the fact that some circumstances you can do more on site counts in order to draw a
correlation to what's going on. But the basis of this thus far is indeed kind of standards, and Gary
might want to elaborate further.
Gary Ehret: I would answer that by saying, I wasn't at the meeting but I got debriefed and there
were a number of issues raised such as Lyman and Audubon. Audubon and Butternut, Pioneer
and Audubon, etc. Although the normal process is the process we followed, I want to answer
your question by saying, we did specifically go out and do some field counts and field
measurements at those three specific locations. So we did go out and look at some p.m. peak
hour impacts at those three and we're formulating and working with staff on what the response
should be to those concerns.
Slagle: If I can, last comment, respond to that, and I appreciate if indeed you did, and I trust you
did. We hear often from traffic, applicants and their consultants, whether it be on traffic, in some
cases noise, that there's way to mitigate, if you will, so that the development goes through. Not
once in 2 V2 years have I actually heard a consultant come up and say noise is too loud. Don't
recommend that this project go forward or the traffic count is too high, this won't work. It's
always a way to make it work and I'm going to say if that's the way it is, that's the way it is but
boy I tell you. It just seems to me that the credibility of this would be further increased by
coming back and saying we measured on 5 different days, X number of hours, and here's the
traffic count and guess what folks, it's actually lower than we thought. Now as a betting may I'm
going to wager that most people in this room would think it's probably higher than the numbers,
that either you're calculating or projecting. I'm just telling you from just an average person, it
seems like there's going to be a lot of traffic. And we're sort of saying well it's going to be in the
report that finally makes it to the City Council. I hope it is. I really do.
Mark Koegler: There will be mitigation strategies certainly as a part of that.
Slagle: Okay but Mark, if I can ask you though, your predecessor on the 19th claimed on a couple
intersections that were ranked E or F, that were bad news like you want to avoid those
intersections. That the mitigating factor would only potentially bring it up to a C or a D. I don't
want to put words in his mouth but something to that effect. So folks, even if we try and fix it,
it's going to be bad. Or it's going to be not very good. However you want to define it. So I'm
just sitting here going, why do we keep going towards not very good and bad and not figure out a
way to make it really good? And maybe it's just so idealistic Kate that you know, who knows.
You can't do it. But boy I tell you, people are going to see a lot of traffic in the next 10-15 years.
Mark Koegler: That is I'm sure that's a true statement, just as the people who have seen a lot of
traffic in the last 10 or 15 years. When I first started as Chanhassen's Planning Director, I think
there were about 5,900 people in this town, and I'm sure the intersections performed a little better
at that point in time in many cases than they did today so you're right, there's been an
incremental growth of everybody, of the thousands that have moved out here and that will
continue until the issue becomes one from a traffic, a noise and air quality perspective, is
15
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
managing those within acceptable guidelines. Just as basically has had to be done within the last
10 or 15 years with all the homes that have been built to date. It is a challenge. It's a balance and
a challenge to make that work and that's why this AUAR looks at the big picture issues and tries
to take those into account.
Slagle: The only thing I would add Mark is, with your hindsight of being a planning director so
many years ago, you know, not for tonight but what would you have done differently? You
know.
Mark Koegler: I'd like to think you've built a pretty swell community here, and are continuing to
do so but we could certainly pursue that sometime outside of these...
Sacchet: Is that it Rich?
Slagle: Yes.
Sacchet: Alright. Yes Steve, go quick.
Lillehaug: Are we done with questions at this point?
Sacchet: I was going to continue the public hearing, yes. We can still ask more questions.
Lillehaug: Questions on, you know I went back and stewed on a few of these things that we
talked about last time. Are we done asking questions on that stuff? Do we do a comment period
after public hearing here or is it a written comment?
Aanenson: You're certainly welcome. The comment period's open til they close the EQB. You
can forward comments at any time.
Sacchet: Are they questions that you would want to have in the public record Steve?
Lillehaug: Sure, definitely.
Sacchet: Why don't you give them to stab then.
Lillehaug: You recommended an east/west connector road that's been shown since the get go here
on the AUAR. It doesn't appear to me, traveling from east to west on that east/west road that
runs right through the middle, that the very westerly end is really a destination point. With that
said, is there really, are there other alternatives that should and could be looked at as far as a road
going through or maybe even around the development? And Kate, if you could put up that first
sketch that you had under the, on the screen with the whole picture, and maybe it's sitting up
there right now.
Aanenson: No, I put it away.
Lillehaug: But if I could give an example.
be a frontage road that comes off of Pioneer.
and north, right there.
Paralleling 212 on the south, there is a, it appears to
No, and then there's one that goes further to the east
16
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Aanenson: That was put in, and maybe Gary can comment a little bit more on that but that road
was put in to service a specific piece of property. That property has been bought. It may not to
be, that was to provide access to that specific piece of property.
Lillehaug: Okay but I guess let me just continue. As an alternative to maybe lessen the impacts
on Bluff Creek, it appears to me that a destination point is more to the southwest rather than right
to the middle of the development on the west, where maybe that frontage road could be connected
up to the existing east connection point of that middle road. And what I'm saying here is, we're
seeing one alternate here, or we're seeing one plan and we're not looking at any other routes or
any other options and I think we'd be good to look at a couple different options and I have a
couple suggestions for options, and maybe it'd be better if I sketched them out and showed you
them. But is it appropriate to look at other options?
Sacchet: It's my understanding that what's presented was not necessarily fixed very specific
location of this road. It's more like a general pattern. Are you saying you would have
alternatives to the pattern or the specific location?
Lillehaug: Both.
Sacchet: Both, okay. Because I think the location, it's not necessarily a fixed thing totally at this
point.
Aanenson: Well there is two fixed points that MnDot and Carver County's agreed to.
Sacchet: Where we have...
Aanenson: Right, the touch down point at Butternut, and the touch down point at Powers. Those
are fixed. Agreed by the County and MnDot who have jurisdiction on both those roads, so what
Steve.
Lillehaug: So they are fixed?
Aanenson: They are fixed points and I thought we made that clear last time. What the variability
is, is the curving of the road between trying to minimize the creek crossing, but those points were
met, we had several meetings. Gary, the City Engineer, Carver County and MnDot trying to
reconcile. That was the first thing we tried to get concurrence on before we did a lot of this other
study. And providing access to all properties and that sort of thing so that was kind of the first
thing we tried to get some agreement on.
Lillehaug: And when they gave these fixed points, did they indicate that it has to be a road that
connects east to west?
Aanenson: Maybe that might be a discussion you want to have with, but yes. I don't know if you
want to comment on that Gary but.
Gary Ehret: Well basically in order to balance all the issues. I don't want to imply that the
roadway alignment that you see on the map is the only alignment. That's not true, but the access
points were fixed. The other issue we're trying to address in the AUAR is land access.
Maximizing development potential, and you may not go there but that was the basis. Avoiding or
minimizing environmental constraints.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Aanenson: Topography.
Gary Ehret: Topography and conveying the traffic, or the estimated potential traffic. So the
general road alignment was intended to do that. To suggest that is the only thing that works
would be false. I think that there could be some other modifications to that, for example in an
couple of those task force meetings, one of the concerns that was expressed was speed and cut
through, and we've talked about the fact that there are potential mitigation measures, traffic
calming, etc that could be employed.
Sacchet: If I may add a question for you Kate. Are we within this study to this point of detail
where we're actually locking in to specific road alignments, or is that something that's going to
shift and be revisited in the context of development proposals that come in front of us?
Aanenson: Again I'll go back to the touch down point. I believe Butternut is pretty fixed. I
mean you can just as the development that's adjacent to Audubon come out and drop the rest of it
down onto Pioneer, ultimately comes out onto Audubon because people are going to want to
make that movement, and that was part of the background traffic, looking at the directional
east/west movement.
Sacchet: And we need to have an east/west connector, I think is part of Steve's question is why
do we even have it go all the way across.
Lillehaug: And the basis of that is, if you look at your traffic volumes, you start at the east. You
have 11,600 vehicles and you get to your westerly data point there, or connection point and you
only have 4,500 vehicles. So it looks like a lot of the vehicles are dispersing even before it gets
across the creek. So that's where I'm generating my comments from is, is that connection really
necessary because it doesn't look like those cars, the destination point goes across the creek. And
I'm looking at minimizing environmental impacts strictly by eliminating that road if possible.
And shifting it down to that south, where that frontage road appeared to be because it looked like
it was already being impacted there. So it'd be one less river crossing. And I guess that's really
all I had.
Sacchet: Alright. Are you taking a deep breath Bruce?
Feik: I'm not sure. Is this our final comment timeframe on this for the Planning Commission?
Sacchet: Well before we do comments let's do the hearing.
Feik: I'm just trying to see where we're at in the process.
Aanenson: Yes, you certainly have a right to comment. We'll give you the mitigation all the way
up to the EQB is closed as part of the publication and comment period during that.
Slagle: But in a public setting, this is it.
Aanenson: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay? But then we get the proposals, the development proposals to look at and that's
where we come into play. We're not reviewing this like we would a development proposal.
We're facilitating the creation of this more than reviewing it.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Claybaugh: But it'd be helpful as part of the EQB process we're allowed as citizens to just
submit comments to that process?
Aanenson: Right. And what I said at the beginning of the meeting is that you'll be getting a copy
of the mitigation and as a group you want to, as a part of your agenda item, discuss those and
have those as part of the record and forwarded, that's fine too.
Feik: I think I should just make a couple quick comments.
Sacchet: Okay, go ahead. Or can we wait with comments until after the public.
Feik: Sure, absolutely.
Sacchet: We get comments. We will get a chance to get comments, alright. Alright. With that I
would like to continue the public hearing that we opened last time. I appreciate your patience
listening to everything we have to say up here and looks like we'll have to say more still about all
this. But we opened the public hearing last time inviting you all to comment and express your
concerns. If you have questions to bring them up. ! would like to ask you to consider that we
want to focus on the new information that's in front of us. I mentioned that last time, that hearing
the same thing multiple times does not necessarily add more weight to it. I mean if somebody has
a good point, that's why I asked last time if there is any spokesperson for the neighborhoods, and
there was actually one. So with that framework I'd like to invite you to come up to the podium.
State your name and address for the record and let us know if you have comments, concerns,
aspects you'd like to share with us here tonight in the continuation of this public hearing. It's all
your's.
Mitch Anderson: Good evening again. Mitch Anderson, 2853 Timberview Trail, Chaska. Good
information tonight and again I think reinforces some of the concerns that our neighborhood had
originally that the impact of the traffic is not just the traffic itself, but also the noise. In Autumn
Woods we do have a number of homes that back up to Audubon and they already I guess would
validate what you said, that the level of noise is unacceptable today, and likely to get worse as the
traffic increases so certainly appreciate your weighing those concerns as you look at this plan and
look at your future development proposals. I think a couple of excellent points have been made
tonight, that it seems like very often we allow things to happen and then worry about not to
mitigate. And it would be wonderful if we could get a little bit ahead of that steamroller and try
and figure out how to lessen the impacts on the front end rather than on the back end. I mean we
can always build walls and fences and high berms and things, but if we can lower speed limits or
reduce traffic and doing other things, that's I think a proactive way to address traffic and noise
and I'm sure on behalf of the residents of Autumn Woods we'd really appreciate that kind of
thought process as we continue this, so thank you very much and appreciate the time.
Sacchet: Thank you. Who else wants to comment to this study of the AUAR? Anybody else?
Seems like a pretty brief continuation of public hearing. Nobody else wants to address this item?
I will close this hearing. Yeah, there's somebody itching there. Are you? No? Yeah.
Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I just have a question
about your traffic study. Was that done with school was going? Or was it done in the summer?
Of the local traffic that you did at certain streets.
Tim Casey: The noise monitoring was performed just a week or two ago.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Janet Paulsen: Well, it's very busy when school's going on.
Sacchet: Good point Janet, thank you. Anybody else? If not I am closing this public hearing.
Thank you for all your comments tonight, and also last time. Very good comments. Always
better to do it right in the first place than try to fix it later. Appreciate that. We're certainly
trying to do the best with that we can. Now we can have a round of some comments here. Why
don't we start over here.
Feik: Sure. I just have three, more or less sort of global comments regarding the process and
where we are to date and the...so far. We started this process, at least internally here about a year
ago and part of the underlying concerns that we had just, at least most of us who were here, at the
time had was the underlying zoning and uses, which was never addressed. I really thought we
were going to be doing that during this process, so I think I'm pretty disappointed that we didn't
go back and. Am I off?
Sacchet: I think you're off.
Feik: Oh sorry. I'm pretty disappointed we did not go back and address some of the underlying
zoning uses. I thought we were going to do that. Second of all, the sound and traffic concerns
outside of the subject property were really not addressed. I would have liked to have seen a
bubble, something larger than the property so we could really identify what the impact of this is.
Though since it was city funded, for the betterment of the city not just this parcel, I'm very
disappointed were didn't analysis how this affects a larger piece, not just what's in the confines of
the parcels. And then lastly, I thought we were really going to, the reason we were doing the
large comprehensive AUAR was that we would be able to get a better study than if this had come
in as a dozen or a 15 separate studies over the next course of 2, 3, 4 years and I'd have to say
fellow commissioners, the only thing I see that's coordinated out of here is the intersection of the
roadways. I don't see a whole lot of higher and better analysis out of this project as it relates to
impacting the city, than if this had come in piecemeal. That's my comments.
Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Craig, you want to jump in?
Claybaugh: I don't have anything new to add.
Sacchet: Okay, Steve.
Lillehaug: I think I will address my comments written. I think I've hit on my concern here.
Sacchet: Okay. Kurt. Bethany?
Tjornhom: I'm fine too.
Sacchet: Rich.
Slagle: I just have to say a couple of things. I want to thank Kate and her staff and these folks, in
all seriousness they've put a lot of time and energy into this. I will tell you though as more of a
citizen than a commissioner. I do think that we do have the cart before the horse, and what I
mean by that is, is when I hear the discussions of, we've designed the roads for maximum
density, and again we get this whole worst case scenario thing again. I would have loved to have
had the city, that's all of us, approach this as how do we want 650 acres to be developed, looking
at the current comp plan. Can it be changed? Because I think if you ask the average citizen out
2O
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
there do you want 1,500-2,000 townhomes in that 650 acres, majority of them would say no.
They like Chanhassen the way it is. They will allow for growth. That's not to say there won't be
townhomes. There won't be corporate, won't be retail, but the maximum allowed density or the
worst case scenario is really what I've had an issue with from the beginning. And so I'll make
this short, if the east/west connector had been built or designed or projected to be very curvy and
with limited access points, you would then not be able to have a fully blown developed 650 acres.
Now I'm not a legal guy and I can't tell you what that means to landowners there, but if you
allow them an opportunity to develop their land, it just won't be 1,000 townhomes or whatever it
ends up being, then maybe that's fair. And I'm not well versed on the legal issues but I'm just
telling you from a citizen I think that most people would hope that that area does not end up being
worst case scenario. I would rather have us plan for medium case scenarios and live within that
so with that said.
Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Steve, you have something?
Lillehaug: Kate, as part of this AUAR, we had a land use plan set in place for us. Really was
looking at the land use part of the AUAR?
Aanenson: No. No. My expectation is that you're going to, as a part of this, give some direction
back to staff and to council to examine some of those land uses. I'm anticipating that as one of
your things that you want to talk to the council about, to re-examine some of those land uses.
Sacchet: I have just a brief comment. It's tricky because we have a classic situation here, is the
glass half empty or is it half full? I have to be honest, my expectations of this AUAR process
were somewhat different. As I went into it as I see it now, and I think I learned a lot in terms of
what this process actually is. I mean I did not understand it at first. I certainly don't fully
understand it now but I understand it a little better, and I've come to understand that the point
with the study is, we study the whole area rather than just look at a particular parcel. Now is that
sufficient? Like you made a strong point Bruce. Well, shouldn't we look at not just that
development area but also the neighboring areas beyond it? Well, we made a big step in that
direction but instead of looking at particular development parcels, we look at the whole 2005
MUSA area. Now, could we go further? Of course, we can always go further but we actually
made a very significant step in looking at a bigger framework. In terms of mitigation aspects, I
expected a little more to be honest, in terms of what can be done. I mean I understand why we're
studying the maximum impact because we want to see what is the maximum impact that can
have. I mean that's what we're studying, so we can mitigate. And we know what do we need to
look forward to deal with carefully. Traffic, noise certainly came out very clearly. But that
doesn't mean it has to be that most dense scenario. It gives us a reference point, a stake in the
ground and I think that's good. Do we need to have an east/west road going across Bluff Creek?
I think Steve brought up a very good point that might deserve to be considered to some extent as
we look forward. Is that really necessary? I mean Steve looked at the traffic figures. I mean you
have 10,000 on one end and 10,000 on the other, and only a couple thousand in the middle, do
you really need that middle part for a couple thousand. I think it's a valid question. I think we
found very important aspects through this process, and I do think it's worth it. I do think it's
valid. In terms of re-visiting the zoning aspect. We did have a concern as we went into this that
we, how does that work? I mean if we have an area that has two land uses designated, does that
mean we want to shift it one way or the other? That we maybe need to do a rezoning or up
zoning or down zoning? That is not an environmental impact so that's not part of this study but
that's certainly something that we can still pursue as appropriate. So I do want to thank you for
all your effort that has gone into this. It's a little bit from our side, from the Planning
Commission a little frustrating to be involved so early in this process when we'd like to help
21
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
shape it further, but I sure hope that our contribution up to this point has been helpful and I look
forward to see how this process continues from here. Now Kate help me out. I think it's our task
at this point to see whether we can pass a motion to move this onto City Council or what's the
next step? Or for publication first.
Aanenson: ...that we go for publication.
Sacchet: For publication?
Aanenson: Right.
Sacchet: And the idea is that for publication there will be further elements added in. Could you
maybe give us an idea of what will be added? I mean if we make a motion that this be published,
we should know what is still going to be added.
Mark Koegler: Mr. Chairman, the principle piece of the addition to this, and Kate has a copy of
everything that is current literally to this afternoon, evolves around mitigation practices and
techniques and that will focus on the gamut of issues that have been raised, ranging from land use
to transportation to other noise issues that we have talked about tonight, and environmental issues
as well, so that's probably the principle piece that's not there today. There are a couple of items,
technical items like some depth of bedrock and a couple of others what I would classify as
relatively minor additions that are still being plugged in there. Some mapping, some of those
kinds of things but by and large it is intact with the exception of kind of flushing out final
mitigation strategies. And finally I would put in quotes, because we may learn more from the
comment period that causes us to go back if you will once again and re-think strategies...so it is
not final until the comment period closes and hopefully it comes back before the city for action.
Sacchet: I think that's an important point. I mean we're not talking final. We're talking
publication in order to get more feedback.
Mark Koegler: Correct.
Sacchet: Because I would have a little mixed feelings to make a motion for publication of a final
because it's not final.
Aanenson: No, it's not.
Mark Koegler: If I might elaborate. The only essence of the action tonight is not approval of the
AUAR. It's simply is an approval of the ability to take this forward to garner public comment.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay. I think that's pretty clear framework.
Claybaugh: ...the process on the back end of that. That goes out to the Corps of Engineers,
DNR, all the other environmental agencies... That's the primary function of the publishing.
Aanenson: Correct.
Claybaugh: The best forum for the public is right here actually.
Aanenson: Right.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Claybaugh: Once that goes back out and that comment period closes, those environmental
agencies make their comments, what happens after that from the public's perspective?
Mark Koegler: We will certainly be responding to all of those issues that are raised within the
context of the...document itself. It will be coming back before the City Council for final action.
At that point in time there's another public forum for any of those comments to be re-discussed.
Claybaugh: Would it be accurate to say if it went out to the EQB and there was no negative
adverse comments, and what was submitted came back reasonably intact, that that could go
straight to council without further debate and be voted on?
Mark Koegler: I think that would be a theoretical leap because there are always issues that come
up and there's always things that we will have to.
Claybaugh: Distinguish between the different environmental agencies and the public ...those
revisions by the different environmental agencies. And those were incorporated into your report.
From a public perspective, will the people here or the Planning Commission get another look at
this or do they in fact not get another look at it? It goes straight to the council.
Mark Koegler: No, as I alluded to, the council will be the forum for that to occur but indeed we
will be responding not only to the public agencies comments that are received, but the...and
comments that are received as well. So all of it will...to City Council for final action,
Claybaugh: So that will be the public's next opportunity to comment on it is in advance of the
City Council casting their votes.
Sacchet: So we're making.
Claybaugh: So there's more happening on our level here. Our only recourse in terms of
submitting our comments as part of this EQB, we may not get another look at this. Another open
comment period like this.
Sacchet: Correct. And the way I understand it, we're being asked to make a motion to publish
this document for further public comment and the comments from the agencies that need to see it,
okay. Anybody want to make a motion like that so we can move forward?
Lillehaug: I make the motion the Planning Commission recommends the AUAR be published in
the September 15, 2003 Environmental Quality Board Monitor.
Sacchet: There's a motion. Is there a second?
Papke: Second.
Lillehaug moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Conunission recommends that the
AUAR be published in the September 15, 2003 Environmental Quality Board Monitor. All
voted in favor, except Feik, Slagle and Ciaybaugh who opposed. The motion carried with a
vote of 4 to 3.
Sacchet: We have 3 opposed and 4 ayes, is that correct? Is that enough to pass this?
Aanenson: Yes.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Sacchet: Comments for the nays.
Feik: I made my comments earlier. I don't think it's complete. Complete in scope. Excuse me.
Claybaugh: I'm not sure that we fully understand everything that's in front of us is my concern,
and that's an individual concern. My vote wasn't cast in anything beyond that.
Sacchet: Okay. Rich.
Slagle: I think with all respect just the initial baseline of worst case scenario versus medium case
scenario.
Sacchet: Okay. Alright, with that we move on.
CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF SMG, INC. REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REQUEST WITH VARIANCES FOR A GOLF COURSE ON
PROPERTY ZONED A2, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE
INTERSECTION OF PIONEER TRAIL AND GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD.
Public Present:
Name Address
Sharon Gatto
Jeff Sorum
John Lonstein
Gary A. Koch
Mike Conroy
9631 Foxford Road
9900 Deerbrook Drive
9861 Deerbrook Drive
9901 Deerbrook Drive
9921 Deerbrook Drive
Sharmeen A1-Jaff and Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Questions from the engineer?
Feik: I had one. With the possible realignment of the gravel driveway northward to the Halla
entrance, help me out a little bit. Show me on the map exactly where the property line is of the
subject parcel. Is it at that sort of 45 degree angle there in the southwest comer? Would we be
taking.
Saam: Yeah, this is the property comer right there where my pen is.
Feik: So there would be a taking of a portion of this parcel to accommodate that roadway?
Saam: Let me clarify. This would be a private street.
way. There's no taking by the City of right-of-way.
benefit of these existing properties.
There wouldn't be any public right-of-
An easement would be required in the
Feik: And the road would go in at who's expense? The people who benefit from the driveway or
the developer in this case?
Saam: The developer who's proposing this golf course.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Feik: Okay.
Saam: As with other developments, when they come in we see, from the city's standpoint that's
our chance to get improvements made and that's our standard practice.
Sacchet: If I may jump in here. Is that part of the, that's being caused partially by the vacating of
the plat that was originally on that lot that is now proposed to be a golf course because there were
probably some roads planned in there? Can you give a little brief...
Saam: Yeah, in the original plat and Sharmeen jump in because ! think you worked on it but in
that plat that was vacated I believe the road was lined up with Halla Nursery Drive, and yes that
had right-of-way and that's been vacated which basically means you know the City doesn't have
right-of-way in there anymore. It reverts back to the property owner. But I don't see how that
ties in with the existing gravel drive.
Sacchet: Go ahead Rich.
Slagle: You touched on that Matt, and maybe you know the answer, maybe you don't but if you
take a look at page 2 of our program where it shows the old scenario before the golf course, was
proposed. You are correct that it's next across from Halla Nursery Drive. My question is this. If
those parcels to the south were to develop, how would you see the roadway? And what I'm
getting at, maybe this will help you, is I'm not sure for 5 or 6 parcels it makes sense to ask the
developer to incur costs to improve a driveway, if you will. But if someone came and said hey
we're going to be putting in 60 homes, or something to that effect, then I think that kind of
driveway or that kind of road would be certainly insufficient and would need to be upgraded and
be safer and so forth. Not saying it shouldn't be safe for those families but you know where I'm
getting at? So my question, I mean you would probably I guess have roads coming off 101
further south, right? Into those parcels.
Saam: Possibly. Another point I should mention is with the golf course, it's obviously going to
be more traffic coming to this area. More traffic going by this existing driveway, which I think
everyone agrees isn't the safest intersection. The safest place to pull out. So with more traffic
there, I guess we wrestle with the question are we doing a good job in saying well you know
that's off their site, that's fine. Let's just not deal with that but sure, we'll approve this and add
all the traffic but not correct this bad situation. I guess that's what we wrestle with.
Slagle: Be careful about traffic. Given what's gone on in the last 2 hours. Okay, a couple more.
Sacchet: Go ahead Rich. We're going to go back to Sharmeen. We're not necessarily
exhausting our staff questions. This is engineering questions.
Slagle: Alright, well I'll leave it for Sharmeen then.
Sacchet: Well we want to make sure we save something for her. Do you have an engineering
question? Alright.
Lillehaug: I just blew through the County comments here. Thanks for getting that from them.
They said there currently on Pioneer exists a by-pass lane which would indicate to me that there's
a left turn lane on Pioneer going into Foxford Road. So if we're just going to re-stripe a right turn
lane, that means we're getting rid of the left turn lane and, am I following that correctly?
25
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Saam: I believe it's a, and I think the applicant, since he lives up there, Ron Saatzer can speak to
this but I believe it's a straight through left now. So that would be the same condition as I think
what you're getting to but I'll let you finish.
Lillehaug: Okay, with a by-pass lane, if there's a by-pass lane that means a car can sit in that
through left turn lane to make a left turn.
Saam: Right, but if there's not a car there, cars are just going straight, so it's not a dedicated left.
Lillehaug: So with the by-pass lane, that typically indicates a left turn lane is warranted and by re-
striping it for a right turn lane you're getting rid of a left turn lane.
Claybaugh: You're losing the by-pass.
Saam: Yep.
Lillehaug: In my opinion isn't a left turn lane typically more warranted than a right turn lane?
Saam: I guess you could argue that, sure. Again I would leave that, I mean that's a County road.
It is their jurisdiction. We can certainly recommend that and put in a condition that the County
look at this and keep it in mind. But that's ultimately their jurisdiction and ! believe with the
upgrade of 101 and Pioneer Trail they are going to be looking at adding dedicated left turn lanes,
right turn lanes, that sort of thing with the signal going in there.
Lillehaug: Then on comment number 3 from the County they hit on, it seemed like pretty
extensive right-of-way impacts to the short course property here. Does the short course take into
account these right-of-way impacts? Or are they simply, you know not mitigate them for them at
this point because it really appears that with the reconstruction of that intersection that they're
going to take a swath out of that southwest comer of right-of-way.
Saam: Yeah. I don't believe that they have taken into account all of the right-of-way that MnDot
and the County say they're going to require.
Slagle: Point of clarification. Northwest comer or southwest?
Saam: Southeast corner...but again that's the point of these County comments. To put both the
City, the applicant, everybody on notice. Say hey, this is coming. You know if you don't plan
for it, it's kind of the developer's own fault if they don't plan for it. They've been put on notice
now by the County.
Lillehaug: We can say that now but you know as soon as it's done, I mean it's the applicant's
property. I mean I think right now is the time to be ensuring that we're taking it into account and
I' m not sure if it' s taken into account right now.
Saam: Well one thing that's tricky, I mean with this they're not platting so, and we can't require
right-of-way. So that gets into a gray area when the County and MnDot are both saying well hey,
we need this right-of-way. I believe it's incumbent upon them to approach the residents and offer
a price you know for that land.
26
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Lillehaug: A couple more questions here. MnDot responded in one letter to the net issue, and
then they, what generated another response about the net? I mean it appears that it's pretty clear
in the first letter that they require a net, then all of a sudden they take another look at it.
Saam: I believe and jump in if you want, but I believe the applicant or the applicant's architect
contacted them. Is that true Sharmeen?
A1-Jaff: That's correct.
Saam: Yeah, so it's applicant...
Lillehaug: And then I want to hit on this driveway again here. You know this is adjacent
property. It's not part of the applicant's property. Is there some sort of tie between the properties
that we can require the applicant to make an improvement and dedicate basically an easement
here? I mean how can we require the applicant to do that?
Saam: Sure. I guess as I've said, this development's going to be generating additional traffic.
We already know we don't have that safe of a driveway there, and in order to realign this
driveway, make it safe, it would require going through the applicant's property to align it with
that street right there. So I guess that's our tie in. We did, just so you know, get the opinion of
the city attorney. See if that was a reasonable condition to attach. In his opinion yes it was. So
we did check with him because we had your same concern. Can we do this?
Lillehaug: But the properties aren't tied together by ownership in any way, is that correct?
Saam: I don't believe so. No.
Lillehaug: Alright. That's it.
Sacchet: Alright. That's engineering. Thanks Matt. Appreciate it. Back to you Sharmeen.
Al-Jaff: The handout that I gave you, I just wanted to go through one condition and that's
condition number 3 under the conditional use permit. Initially we said no commercial kitchen
permitted in the club house. The applicant submitted some septic system calculations and our
plumbing inspector received the results late afternoon today. We went through the calculations
and basically what he determined is there isn't a filter for a treatment system for grease. Cooking
grease if you will, and he requested that we add a condition that no cooking equipment be
permitted on the premises, unless it's a microwave oven or a toaster oven, and again the intent is
to put the golf course on notice that the septic system design does not allow for any cooking
grease to be disposed through the system and if there was grease it will cause it to fail. So I just
wanted to point that one out. We are recommending approval with conditions and will be happy
to answer any of your questions.
Sacchet: Rich, questions from Sharmeen.
Slagle: She's looking at me. I just had two, and they deal with the questions that I asked which I
think for the most part were addressed in the conditions so thank you for doing that. The one is
getting back to the water. I just want this for the record that with the city growing like it is,
taking into account the last two hours of discussion, if a user, and it doesn't matter if it's Ron
property or someone else's, uses 150-200,000 gallons of water a day, all you've got to do is pick
up the newspaper the last month in different areas of this state that are having the problems
27
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
they're having. I'm just wanting to know, and I don't need to know tonight but asking staff to
really be diligent on this for any applicant using lots of water, is that what is the plan because I
think the plan, the conditions, the steps that you address here are more vague and any attorney or
what not faced with this, there's a lot of loopholes and I'm not saying it should be iron tight or
anything like that but just, you know you can look at that a little bit more. The last thing is
regarding phosphorus. In the paper again just recently the seven metro area, all residents, if I'm
not mistaken next year, no phosphorus at all. In 2004. I live next to a gentleman who's 95 year
old father goes to a special store somewhere and he gets Tee Time I think it's called, and they
have the greenest grass in the world. Obviously not good for the environment. My question is,
how will Ron's property and I know I keep referring to Ron but Ron's a good man. Ron's
property and others, you know what is the plan going forward for commercial operations? And
again I don't need the answer now but if that particular property is the equivalent of x number of
households, that needs to be addressed. Other than that I think it's great.
Sacchet: Thanks. Bethany.
Tjomhom: Yeah, I have, I'm confused I guess. There's a section in here that is specifically
related or dedicated to driveway realignment and at the last time we were here there were
applicants that were concerned about the safety of their property and driving in and out and the
whole, they had horses I believe and there was a whole, it was a concern to them. And then I read
in here, and is this from the golf course? This reading or submitting this or is this the City that's
saying that you know, this really isn't their problem. It should be dealt more with the City and
the homeowners. Do you know what I'm referring to? I wish there was a page.
Slagle: What page are you on?
Tjornhom: I wish I could tell you. There's no page number.
Slagle: It's toward the back of our original.
Sacchet: It's the letter.
AI-Jaff: That was sent in and it's a narrative that was submitted by.
Sacchet: The applicant.
Tjomhom: By the applicant. But I guess I question that logic that it really isn't their problem.
It's more the City's problem. I don't think the neighbors or these four existing homeowners
would have a problem, or they didn't have a problem until the golf course was being proposed.
It's under the driveway realignment.
Al-Jaff: Okay, and it's signed by Ron Saatzer.
Tjornhom: Okay, yes it is.
A1-Jaff: Okay. That is the applicant's perspective.
Tjornhom: Okay, and what is the City's perspective then on that?
AI-Jaff: That the realignment does take place.
28
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Tjornhom: And that it is the golf course's responsibility.
A1-Jaff: Responsibility.
Tjornhom: And not the City's?
Al-Jaff: No.
Tjornhom: Okay. Alright, ! was just confused about that. That issue. And were there parts of
the bluff or the Bluff Creek area, were they delineated? Or I mean from the map that was shown
earlier.
AI-Jaff: Yes.
Tjornhom: And they're on the map now or?
AI-Jaff: Yes.
Tjornhom: Okay. Okay, that was my only I guess I didn't understand part of that. Thank you.
That' s it.
Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Kurt.
Papke: Two short ones. Last time there was some discussion about the, on Hole 3 by the bluff
line there, there was some discussion about the path construction there and grading and so on of
that area. The plans, the latest plans we have still show that golf cart path going right along the
bluff line there. Are there any, does that maintain the 20 foot bluff grading restriction? Are there
any issues or concerns with that that you have Sharmeen?
Al-Jaff: I discussed this issue with Lori Haak and.
Sacchet: Lori Haak being.
Al-Jaff: Being the Water Resource Coordinator.
Sacchet: Thank you.
AI-Jaff: Thank you. And she had gone out to the site. She has looked at it and she says that the
path is in keeping with the requirements of the ordinance so she is.
Papke: So we're allowing some grading in that area?
Al-Jaff: No grading.
Papke: No grading, just the construction of the path?
A1-Jaff: The construction of the path.
Papke: Okay. With that path, it looks like it comes pretty close to about a 50 foot decline here in
there. Do you have any concerns with safety along that with golf carts? Is there any issue or
concern with that there? Am I reading the map wrong or is there? If you look at the path it
29
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
comes within about 10 or 20 feet of the edge of a 50 foot bluff, and I'm just wondering if there's
any safety concerns there.
A1-Jaff: When we walked the site, and it really is extremely difficult to get close to the bluff just
because of the existing vegetation that's around the bluff area. It's not, the vegetation is fairly tall
and it's not simple.
Papke: So no need for a guardrail or anything like that there? Okay. Last question I had, and
maybe I should have asked it when Matt was still up there but the MnDot letter mentions the
potential future realignment of 101 and they raise some concerns with this golf course going into
place, that that would make that future alignment more expensive.
Saam: Yes, for them it would.
Papke: For them.
Saam: Well, yeah them as government. We're all taxpayers, yes.
Papke: So do we have any idea on time frames and how that plays into this?
Saam: For the upgrade of 101, no. Not at this time, other than the signal going in at 101 and
Pioneer Trail. But again let me reiterate their comments, that's the point of their comments so the
applicant can mitigate, can plan for it. You know move, if they've got to move trees back where
there's going to be a road, you know they can do so. So it's kind of like MnDot's putting them
on notice that hey, at some point we're going to be doing this so you might want to plan for it.
Papke: Okay, so they raised the red flags but there's no recommendation for us to really need to
take that into consideration at all?
Saam: If you feel we can certainly attach conditions.
Papke: I'm not recommending that. I'm just trying to get your level of concern with that. Is this
going to be, is this a non-issue or is this?
Saam: I guess yes, from our perspective it is.
Papke: Okay, that's all.
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Steve.
Lillehaug: I have a couple questions. Number one, the trash enclosure. We have an applicant
coming in later tonight. Holiday Inn Express where they have a trash enclosure that's built out of
brick, but I think it has a roof on it and this applicant has a 5 foot fence surrounding the trash
enclosure. Is there a double standard here? I mean do you think the applicant's proposal is
adequate?
Al-Jarl: Well with this application what they're attempting to do is use the same material as the
building, which is the cedar siding.
Lillehaug: As a fence.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Al-Jaff: Correct. And maintain that rural look if you will.
Lillehaug: So staff's position is it's, we're treating them equal to other site plans?
AI-Jaff: If this was in downtown it would be a little different. You're looking at a site that is in a
rural residential district, or agricultural estate district, I'm sorry.
Lillehaug: I'm looking at a site in Chanhassen I guess.
AI-Jaff: Okay, that's fair too. The way the ordinance reads, it says enclosure around the
dumpster basically, and this does meet the requirement.
Lillehaug: Okay. The trail in the, I think within MnDot right-of-way there. Would the City
typically pay for a trail in a similar development there, or do we require the developer to either
pay or put in the trail? Under their site plan.
Al-Jaff: Under site plans, in this case our park and recreation director felt that currently there is a
trail to the north of Pioneer Trail. In this case traffic, bike traffic basically and teens coming to
the site will probably need an additional pathway to get to this site. And it is his recommendation
that the applicant pay for the construction of.
Lillehaug: Is that how your report reads? That the applicant pay for that?
Al-Jaff: Yes. It is the applicant's responsibility.
Lillehaug: Okay, the applicant's. Okay. I must have put words in or read it wrong then. And
then in our last meeting I requested the applicant include the roadway on the, paralleling the south
property line right to the north of their property that leads to the bluff. Just looks like a driveway
or a road that goes directly to the bluff for no purpose other than dumping back in the bluff. Does
staff have, is there any other reasons to maintain that road back there?
AI-Jaff: Well for restoration of the 20 foot bluff impact zone will basically put a stop to that.
With the dumping.
Lillehaug: Okay, so what's the reason for the road there then I'm saying? You know as part of
the site plan, that road has no reason for use. Why are we even leaving it there?
A1-Jaff: We can make it a condition that it be eliminated.
Lillehaug: So is it your opinion that it's not needed there for any reason? And I can ask the
applicant.
AI-Jaff: Today?
Lillehaug: I'll ask the applicant.
A1-Jaff: Up to date the use of that driveway has been for dumping purposes.
Lillehaug: Okay, thanks.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Bruce.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Feik: I'll be quick. The change regarding the no cooking equipment, that was discussed with the
applicant and he's okay with it?
AI-Jaff: Yes.
Feik: Thank you. And I'm going to beat something to death here a little bit I think. The water. I
feel for the neighbors. So before I go further on this I'd like to hear, if I were living out there or I
owned for that matter Bluff Creek Nursery, or Bluff Creek Golf Course or Halla Nursery, what
are the requirements, if I'm not going through a permitting process for something like this, for me
to sink a well?
Saam: I'm not an expert but they would have to get at a minimum a permit through our building
department for the well. Also through the Department of Health, they would need a permit. If I
can reference this case. I believe the Department of Health will require test well, you know to get
pumping rates to ensure that there's going to be sufficient water to provide for this site, and also
take into account that it's not going to affect, at least from their perspective, surrounding
neighbors...
Feik: So that's my concern in that I don't want to over burden this developer if Bluff Creek goes
out and sinks three new wells a year from now. As this is drafted if there is an impact on the
neighbors, we really don't really have to establish where it came from. We can assume it came
from this applicant. If the wells are put in by Halla Nursery across the street, or they're put in by
Bluff Creek Golf Course, they could have significantly greater impact on these residents than this
little par 3.
Saam: Well let me go back to what I said earlier. There will be modeling done by.
Feik: So you will benchmark where they're at today somehow before the well goes in? And then
measure after. So you actually do some measurements?
Saam: Yes, we can do that. The Department of Health though is the one that has that type of
data and it's a State permit. They're doing it already, but if you want to say that the City will do
it, I guess we could do that too to ensure that it's going to get done.
Feik: Well ! just don't want to over burden, assuming this goes forward, I don't want to over
burden this applicant by activities that would be going on around this site that could have a
greater impact on the aquifer than this applicant himself.
Saam: And that's a good point, but I just want to make the point that there are modeling
programs that will look at zone of influence to try to narrow it down to say hey, this is the one
that's drawing the water. Not Halla Nursery a mile away, or whatever.
Feik: So let me ask you this then, as drafted this item 20, you're comfortable with the wording?
That we're not over burdening.
Saam: Can you repeat that, condition 20?
Feik: Condition 20. That we're not over burdening because...
32
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Saam: ...so we're saying if that one causes interference with the surrounding wells, so we're not
allowing it to be.
Feik: I'm not injurious so I'll trust you, thank you. I just, okay. That works for me. Thanks.
Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Craig.
Claybaugh: Yeah, I would just like to dovetail Bruce's comments with regard to condition
number 20. And what would be, you touched on some modeling capabilities of the Department
of Health, but when you're making your presentation you identified that one of your criteria's
would be receiving phone calls regarding water pressure. Just want to make sure that there was a
definable process in place so it didn't become a circular debate if there was a problem, and I don't
know if any, the city' s best management practices or if there' s something that can be incorporated
by reference but something that makes it more objective and less subjective.
Saam: Sure. Well again the Department of Health will have base line data for the surrounding
properties, and we can get that too. So using that data, and the modeling and the test well data,
before the actual well goes in they'll be able to determine if hey, this well might need to go down
deeper. Something to that effect. Now, even if they do that, this well could potentially affect the
surrounding properties so that's where I was saying you know phone calls later on. But as I said
when Commissioner Feik spoke, if you wanted to attach a condition that the City would verify
with the Department of Health that this well...
Claybaugh: I think something needs to be attached or something needs to be done to give it a
little bit more teeth. One, to protect the developer and two, to protect the residents. It needs to be
more of a definable process rather than somebody calling down and thinking, commenting that I
think I have less water pressure. Like I said, that will just become a circular debate so if there is
something within your grasp and can be incorporated in there that defines the process or how it
would happen so you know, it doesn't get bogged down, I think that would be advantageous.
Saam: Okay.
Claybaugh: That's all the comments I have.
Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Couple of quick questions. First of ali, a conditional use permit goes
with the property, correct?
AI-Jaff: Correct.
Sacchet: But this potentially is just limited time use, so why didn't we consider an interim use?
A1-Jaff: The applicant could continue this use and it's permitted as a conditional use under our
ordinance.
Sacchet: Oh it is? So that's the framework that this fits in from the start?
A1-Jaff: That is correct.
Sacchet: Okay, whether it's permanent or temporary doesn't play into that then.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Al-Jaff: The applicant has leased the property but he could purchase it and the use could
continue.
Sacchet: Okay. For the private street alignment, is there actually a condition in the conditions
right now? Because I was not sure.
Saam: Yes, number 21 in the new sheet that Sharmeen handed out.
Sacchet: Okay, so that's reference to the plan of July 18 is the realignment with Halla Nursery
Drive?
Saam: Correct.
Sacchet: And Sharmeen you confirmed that the dumping into the bluff has been taken care of?.
That there's no more dump.
A1-Jaff: We're working on it with Carver County Soil Conservation and yes, I have asked the
owner of the property to stop dumping. I have had a conversation.
Sacchet: They seemed receptive to the idea? I mean telling them.
Al-Jaff: We're working on it.
Sacchet: They've been told before, I would think. Last time when we discussed this item there
was an item of no lighting. I think that's a condition we probably would still want to add. That
would go under the conditional use, right? Not under site plan.
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Sacchet: So that's going to be a number 9. Now the water regulation, it seems like that was
pretty much cleared up that the water regulation is on a State level, so generally we would not go,
this is an engineering question Matt. So generally we rely on the State agencies to deal with the
water issues in terms of the wells and coordinate that? Normally the City does not get involved
with that?
Saam: Not to a huge extent. As I said, there's a permit through our building department, but
other than that the State Department of Health permits all the wells that go in the ground.
Sacchet: That's where the coordination really takes place.
Saam: Yes. But we can sure help to facilitate it or double check on this one if that's a big
concern, and I'm hearing that it is so.
Sacchet: Yeah, you said that before. In terms of the improvements to 101 and Pioneer, there are
easements in place that would allow for those roads to be wider and so forth. So we're basically
just asking the applicant to be aware of that and do the landscaping according, is that pretty much
the...
Saam: Are you referring to the State letter, the MnDot letter and the Carver County letter?
Sacchet: Yes, those two.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Saam: ...for future upgrades.
Sacchet: Yes, that's what I'm referring to.
Saam: I didn't get that impression from their letter. What I got was that they're going to be
looking to purchase additional right-of-way from this property owner.
Sacchet: So that they would impact that property further basically.
Saam: Correct.
Sacchet: Potentially at least. Okay. Alright, that's all my questions.
Claybaugh: Mr. Chair?
Sacchet: Yes.
Claybaugh: Just coming back to the point that Steve raised regarding the right turn lane on
Pioneer, where that shake out with the left turn by-pass. Right turn direct. When Matt made his
presentation I identified we should probably add it as a condition, a right turn lane on Pioneer, or
right turn striping. Steve came back and commented that would be contradictory to a left lane by-
pass. Where'd that all shake out?
Sacchet: I believe the letter actually says it has to be re-organized or what, can you comment on
that please Matt.
Saam: Sure. I mean the County letter says presently by-pass lane is striped. Traffic markings
will need to be changed to reflect a right turn lane, and then Steve brought up well won't a left
turn lane be needed there too. I agree that it will be and I know with the upgrades of 101 and
Pioneer Trail they're going to be adding lanes. That's why they want the future right-of-way.
But I deferred to the County on that since it's their road. I would recommend that, yeah a left
turn will be needed there, but I don't know that we can require the developer to do. Ultimately
it's going to be the County who's issuing the permit who will require it, so.
Claybaugh: My comment was specifically that he identified that we may want to add that as a
condition.
Saam: Yes, the right turn lane.
Claybaugh: Is that still your opinion or?
Saam: Correct, yes. Yes, that's my opinion.
Sacchet: Rich.
Slagle: I just had one last thing on MnDot for the potential upgrade of 101 and it sounds like,
from what I have either seen or not seen, that there really isn't anything in writing that shows
where that potential road will go, at least tonight that I can see.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Saam: Yeah, the traffic signal we saw very preliminary plans on that upgrade, and when I say
preliminary it was just lines drawn on a topo map so nothing was really designed or anything yet.
But as for any other upgrades, no. We haven't seen any of that, at least to my knowledge.
Slagle: Here's what I'm getting at Matt, and Ron it might be just more FYI than anything but
you've got the big curve at Halla, okay? ! think everybody would agree it's probably not a safe
curve, and if the State is going to upgrade Highway 101, my guess is one of the things they'd
look at is not to have this sharp curve. So I mean potentially someone could come and say gosh,
this golf course, Hole number 8 and Hole number 7 in the way. So I know, it's hypothetical but I
mean my question to staff is.
Lillehaug: Eminent domain.
Slagle: Well I know but I mean here we are in this, ready to approve I think this proposal and.
Claybaugh: It's a snapshot in time. Everybody knows what the potential is. They make
decisions based on the information at hand.
Sacchet: It really all it would do is to shorten 8 potentially.
Slagle: Which would be good for us.
Claybaugh: You might be shooting par Rich.
Slagle: I can reach.
Feik: If you leave it at 4.
Slagle: Atright, just thought I'd bring it up.
Sacchet: Alright, thanks. Alright, that was questions of staff. So I would like to ask the
applicant to come forward if you want to add, what changed since time. Comments to what
you've heard from our discussion, appreciate it. If you can state your name and address for the
record please.
Kevin Norby: Thank you. Kevin Norby, golf course architect representing Ron Saatzer. I'll just
touch on a couple things that, I'm not sure you got the answers you were looking for yet.
Number one, it is our intent, if possible, to get approval from you and then the City Council and
begin construction on the golf course this fall. Our hope would be to dig the irrigation pond,
maybe start roughing in the parking lot, and the driving range.
Sacchet: And seeding.
Kevin Norby: And seeding those areas. We understand that the process of getting permits from
MnDot and the County may take more time than that and so it's not our intent to begin
construction in the right-of-way. I did have a number of conversations with both the County and
the State and that's why you have the letters that you see tonight, is that we, after the last meeting
we did approach them and ask them for their thoughts. When we got their initial letter from
MnDot, one of the questions we had was where did the net issue come from and which plans
were you looking at, because I had not sent them plans. They said that they received plans from
the City. Had not had a chance to respond, and based on the plans it looked to them like maybe
36
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
they needed a net along the side of that hole and I said did the plans you have show any trees or
have you seen the updated plans that showed the hole realigned, and they indicated they had not.
And I asked if it was a reasonable thing to ask that they review either the completed plans or the
project once it was completed before they made a judgment on the net and they thought that was
reasonable. That's why you see the second letter clarifying that it wasn't their intent to require a
net, just a suggestion and that they now would just like to reserve the ability to look at that later.
So I also pointed out the plans were still being generated for the improvements at 101 and Pioneer
and that they didn't expect to have those plans out and ready for bid until the fall of 2004, with
construction starting in 2005. So it would be our intent to actually finish this project in the fall of
2004, at which point we would still not have necessarily all the answers but could probably apply
for permits for access roads and so forth. So the suggestion they made and it's on the letter there
was that maybe you ought to not put trails in, put landscaping in and we'll continue to work with
you, mesh our plans so that all the information works. I did ask him about right-of-way because
there was a reference there to a 10 foot, possible 10 foot right-of-way acquisition. He asked how
far exactly we were from the right-of-way and I told him I thought we were 40 to 50 feet with the
parking lot and we were in excess of that with Hole number 9. He said that was more than
enough. That the only reason they would need the 10 feet would be to extend the culvert that
goes under Pioneer Trail, and then they would need a 20 or 30 foot construction easement,
temporary easement so they could do whatever grading they needed. So we're feeling pretty
good and pretty comfortable. We've talked with Matt and we talked with Sharmeen and I think
that as long as we can move ahead with some construction here this fall and next spring and then
continue to modify maybe exactly how that tie in aligns with Foxford Road, we think that will
work well for us. We can deal with that. So on the dumping issue, I understand from Sharmeen
that you're working with Mr. Halla and Carver County. Again we're feeling a little bit like that's
not really Ron's issue. We're hoping that that's not a condition of approval that is going to come
back and hurt him at some point. It sounds like it's moving along pretty well and we'll leave that
be I guess. As far as the well issue, I asked Ron while we were listening to your comments if
he'd be willing to be involved in the monitoring of some of the neighborhood wells, and I know
for a fact that the Department of Health does monitor neighboring wells so that they have some
benchmark for these sort of phone calls. Phone calls are not a good way to monitor whether
we're having problems in the area so I think if the Department of Health or the City wants to test
some wells, have a benchmark, Ron would be in support of that. ! think it would actually be in
his best interest to know and to have that benchmark. And then I should just point out that based
on some of your comments last time, we have realigned number 7, Hole number 7. We've moved
it away from that south property line. We've located some of the existing trees that are in there.
There's a large grouping of trees. I'm sure you'll find those homeowners are happy with that new
location. We've also pushed the tee for number 8 closer to 101, which changes the alignment of
that hole, therefore hitting away from number, excuse me Highway 101 a little more. We've also
pushed that dog leg, that turning point further away from 101 so it now is we believe a safer
condition. I think if you were to drive by there you'd see that there's probably 40 or 50 trees that
are 25 to 35 feet tall that will remain there, and the opportunity to review that netting situation in
the future I think is appropriate. As far as the railing, I'll just comment quickly, on Hole number
3. Ron was indicating when you were talking about the railing that in his opinion he would like a
railing there. Just as a safety factor, even though you may not require that, I think as a landowner
and as a business owner, he would want the railing there so he's looking out for the public
interest. As far as the bike trail along Pioneer Trail, you'll note, if you can read it on the plan that
Ron has offered to construct the bike trail on the private property, that is the property between the
pond and the parking lot, but he's asking that since the trail can't be built in the right-of-way
along Pioneer Trail at this time, that that's something that the City look at doing with their bike
trail funding if they have that, or look for some alternative means. We're not sure, or Ron's not
sure that acquiring permits from the County and going through that process of constructing that is
37
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
something that should be his responsibility, and we'll defer that to your judgment I guess. And
then lastly, as far as the proposed realignment of the driveway at the southwest corner of the
property, I believe what we heard last time from the homeowners was that they didn't see this as
an existing problem, and Ron's feeling is again he will participate in resolving that if he can, but
since he doesn't own the property, if the City and Mr. Halla can come to terms on how that
project or how that realignment is resolved, he's willing to participate and help construct that.
One of the homeowners I think suggested that maybe even a 50 foot alignment instead of the
complete realignment might be a suggestion. So I think that's all we have at this point. Oh, you
had asked why we were showing the gravel road, existing gravel road on the south side of the
property. We simply showed that because you had indicated you wanted to see it. At this point I
don't know that we have intentions one way or the other. I think that was quite honestly it was a
gravel road that Mr. Halla was using for accessing that portion of the site so we don't have a
particular need for it.
Sacchet: Any questions from the applicant?
Slagle: Just a couple. On the bike path, if I understood you right Kevin, that Ron will support the
path between the pond and the parking lot out to whatever portion of his land and then, am I to
understand in discussion with staff, am I to understand that with the work on Pioneer and 101,
that would be prior to them opening for business or would be afterwards, and what I'm getting at
is, if there's a temporary path, and what my goal is to allow the kids to be able to ride their bikes
to the course, even if it's not a complete path. Is everybody okay with that? Staff? Applicant?
Al-Jaff: What we have done in the past is taken a letter of credit that guarantees the work be
completed. Now in this situation there will be construction taking place dealing, by construction
I mean the widening of Pioneer, realignment of the road. They could do it at a later date but there
will be a path, a temporary pathway will be acceptable until the permanent path is in.
Slagle: Okay, and I guess on the applicant's behalf we wouldn't expect the applicant who has to
pay for the temporary, if it's going to be torn up and then pay for a new one, is that what we're
sort of asking?
AI-Jaff: If you look at page 14 of the staff report, condition number 6, is the Park and Recreation
Director's condition to have the applicant to provide the connection.
Slagle: I'll leave that up to you guys. Just trying to be fair you know.
Claybaugh: On that, you had indicated in your comments on that that you're looking at taking it
to the right-of-way. Could you refer to the map and just definitively show what areas you're
taking responsibility for at this stage.
Kevin Norby: What Ron has indicated he's willing to do is to pay for the construction of the trail
from this point, basically the club house to the right-of-way. His expectation or request is that the
City be responsible for construction of the trail within the right-of-way, and whatever permits the
County requires for that. I believe they actually constructed a trail on the north side of the road
and again similar situation. Ron understands that there would have to be a letter of credit for the
landscaping and the work that can't be completed at this time because of the realignment of the
road. I don't think he's looking to contribute on the bike trail within the right-of-way so.
Claybaugh: Sharmeen, just for clarification though, staff's condition number 6 identifies that the
applicant would be responsible for taking it all the way to the intersection, is that correct?
38
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Claybaugh: So there is a contradiction, okay. I just want to make sure that I was clear on that.
Kevin Norby: We'll defer that to you.
Slagle: One last question, the phosphorus Kevin. Any thoughts?
Kevin Norby: Yeah. Actually them was some discussion last time about some testing and some
base line monitoring. My suggestion to Sharmeen was that we might include a condition for
instance that says that the golf course superintendent who is responsible for taking care of the turf
grass at the golf course, be a licensed pesticide and fertilizer applicator. That's a State issued
permit. There's continuing education that goes along with that and I think you'll find any
reasonable golf course operation would have a qualified superintendent who meets that criteria,
that license requirement.
Slagle: Is there a diminishing use of phosphorus by golf courses or increased?
Kevin Norby: I think what's happening is that the golf course superintendents are becoming
more and more educated, and so they're going through again not only the initial permitting and
testing, plus the licenses to buy fertilizer, but they're doing the continuing education and trying to
understand how much of the chemical, a particular nutrient is needed. Fertilizer is very expensive
to put down on a golf course. I mean they spend thousands of dollars a year and they don't want
to spend any more than they have to so typically what's happening is they're now applying,
instead of large doses 2 or 3 times a year, like you might on your lawn, they're actually doing
what they call spoon feeding the fertilizer so they're putting down very small amounts of
fertilizer, almost on a weekly basis, and that minimizes the amount of runoff and potential
nutrient leeching into lakes and streams and so forth. So again this might be one of those issues
that would be a little difficult for the City or anybody else to monitor, but through proper
education and permitting and licensing, ! guess you could at least meet the current standard. I
think if you wanted to do some sort of testing, again you'd have to determine somehow what
you're going to use as a base line, and I think the comment in the staff report was that if there was
sufficient nutrients in the soil you wouldn't apply any. That's sort of a difficult one to monitor or
to deal with because you know what's available in the top half inch might be different than
what's available 6 inches or a foot down.
Slagle: Again I think it would be fair though to ask, I mean as I have your thought. I mean if
there's a seven county metro wide ban on phosphorus starting next year, that staff's condition of
saying no fertilizer containing phosphorus may be applied unless the soil test results demonstrate
deficiency in phosphorus. However that baseline is arrived at seems like a fair request.
Kevin Norby: Yeah, I don't think that we can contradict or refute a state wide or a county wide
requirement, so I'm not familiar with that requirement but if, I'm sure a good superintendent
would be, and if testing proves that he needs it or doesn't need it, I would assume he would
handle it in an appropriate manner.
Slagle: I'm certainly not against this applicant here...
Sacchet: Any other questions from the applicant?
39
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Feik: One quick question for Kevin. The exterior lighting. As the applicant's representative,
you're comfortable with not having exterior lighting on the site?
Kevin Norby: Yes.
Feik: Would there be a need so we're, I don't want to be too mundane about this, but do you
need convenience lighting at the exits of the buildings?
Kevin Norby: Well I believe that there would be.
Feik: Your steps and stuff.
Some lighting at the, I guess we're talking about area lighting.
Kevin Norby:
Feik: Right.
Kevin Norby:
Like parking lot lighting.
Feik: I don't want to just blanket say no exterior lighting.
Kevin Norby: I'm not that familiar with that portion of the city's ordinance but I believe we're
talking about area lighting. ! think we would want lights at the club house entries. We might
want them at, adjacent to the sidewalk and maybe at the sign, you know lighting the entrance sign
or something in that order.
Feik: Okay, thanks.
Sacchet: Steve.
Lillehaug: Yeah, just a quick comment/question. The drive road at the south. Previously I asked
you guys to show it because it wasn't shown on the plans and I didn't know where the existing
roadway is. Now I know that it is on the property for this site. What is your comment as far as
removing that road? To obliterate it and...
Ron Saatzer: The road really has nothing to do with the golf course or me personally. I'm not
going to use the road so I don't really have any say in what goes on with that road.
Kevin Norby: I think that's, maybe that's an issue that again as part of the resolution for the
dumping, you know or the bluff re-establishment. Maybe that's something that can be resolved
with Mr. Halla. I'm not sure if that's even in the portion of land that you're leasing, is it?
Ron Saatzer: No, that has nothing, we talked about that the first time around. That has nothing to
do with me as the applicant and it has nothing to do with my property lease either so it's really
kind of a moot point. I mean you guys asked for it.
Lillehaug: It isn't a moot point though. When we look at this site, the City's looking at
realigning the driveway that's not on your property either. This is part of the site. This roadway
is part of the site. When we look at the site plan, the whole parcel is part of the site, correct me if
I'm not wrong staff.
Al-Jaff: It is part of the site. It's shown on the plans.
40
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Lillehaug: And this is the tool, one of the tools the City has to mitigate a problem, an ongoing
problem out there. So that's why I requested to have it shown on the plan.
Kevin Norby: At the time we last presented this, and it wasn't on there, I don't think there'd been
any discussions between Sharmeen and the owner about how to deal with the bluff issue. We
showed it and quite honestly until tonight I wasn't aware that they had been discussing it as fairly
as they had so.
Lillehaug: Okay, that's it.
Sacchet: One more quick question. This netting stuff. So it's my understanding that you're
opinion is that the trees should be sufficiently protecting the cars on 101.
Kevin Norby: The trees and the alignment of the hole.
Sacchet: Between the alignment and the trees.
Kevin Norby: Correct.
Sacchet: You consider from your experience, which I understand is certainly more extensive than
anybody else's in here with golf courses, from your experience you don't see a need for netting?
Kevin Norby: I do not.
Sacchet: Okay, that's what I wanted to hear. Okay, if we don't have further questions from the
applicant, I'd like to open this public hearing that anybody would like to come forward, comment
to this proposal, please come forward now. State your name and address for the record and let us
hear what you have to say please.
John Lonstein: Thank you. I'm John Lonstein, 9861 Deerbrook Drive and my concern is with
the water and availability of water in the future. When we put our house down 10 years ago we
sank a well. We had to sink it deeper because we didn't get water initially. Since then for water
treatment I've had to put in two water treatment systems because of the quality of the water, at
great expense. The water use I understand for this development is going to be about a million
dollars, I'm sorry, a million gallons a week. I don't know what this means in how many houses
does a million gallons or how many townhouses does a million gallons a week equate to. I've
heard that this is being monitored by the Department of Health. They have never been to my
property to see what my use is and how much water I'm using and what my pressure is, so
they've got no prior history to know what's happening in the last 10 years. I don't know what
condition 20 says in detail, in other words if I have no water, or my water pressure drops...what
have been taken from the aquifer, what recourse do I have? If I'm suddenly without water, what
do I do and who do I call? Making a phone call's not going to solve my water problem. That's
the one comment. The other one is just, I'm a little amazed as a resident of Chanhassen, we've
had two proposals this evening where one big problem that has come up has been traffic, and it's
kind of been solved as where do we put in an access road and how do we take care of it, rather
than not looking at the big picture. The impact on Chanhassen. The impact on 494 and the
impact on the area. Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you. Matt, could you address what somebody would do when their water
vanishes.
41
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Saam: Well I guess if I could tackle it this way. What I would recommend, after listening to
everybody is that we propose a condition similar to the developer to assist the City or to finance
the monitoring of the adjacent wells to ensure, to find that baseline and to ensure that this
commercial well will not adversely impact those neighboring wells. So I'm hearing that's a real
big concern tonight, and it was last time so maybe we need to add a little more teeth to that.
Sacchet: And would you also be able to address Commissioner Feik's concern about even larger
water users impacting this particular applicant so that, I mean it's protecting both ways.
Saam: Yes. I think.
Sacchet: This is not as easy, it's very.
Saam: With neighboring wells being drilled, I guess we could add a condition at that like if
Halla, as Commissioner Feik brought up, if he would come in for an expansion of his site would
require a permit, we could add the same type of condition upon installation of that.
Sacchet: Or the other golf course for that matter, yeah.
Saam: Yes.
Sacchet: You wanted to add something to that?
John Lonstein: Yes. That still doesn't answer the problem because nobody knows how much
water is in the aquifer. I can bet nobody can predict what's going to happen in the future with the
water taken out. Nobody has predicted in the past, you know Highway 5 was built and
remodeled. I would put my money down, and I'm not a betting may, I would put my money
down that the projections made for traffic volumes today are far lower than the actual traffic
volumes, so we can't predict what the water's going to be. I want to know what's going to
happen. It's no good monitoring and saying we'll see what it is and we'll project if there's
enough water. You don't know how much is in the aquifer. It's impossible to know.
Sacchet: So the good thing is we'll find out, but then the bad thing is we'll find out.
John Lonstein: Right, and what happens to me? You know I can see what's going to happen.
What will happen is, the City will come to me and say sorry you have no water. We'll have an
assessment so we'll bring in water to you. We're putting sewer lines and water lines. That's not
solving the problem.
Tjornhom: I have a comment. Obviously this isn't the first golf course being built in the Twin
Cities, you know that doesn't run on city water and do other golf courses drain the wells dry
from, I don't even know where there would be, I don't golf. I don't know whether there would be
a golf course not on, you know or you know what I' m saying.
Saam: I don't have experience with golf courses and their impacts on the private wells.
Sacchet: But that's a good comment Bethany. It's obviously not the first golf course. Let's
maybe hold our comments til we get through with the public hearing. It's a good comment
though, thank you. Anybody else? I'm sure there are other people that would like to address this
particular topic. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record please.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. If you end up recommending the private street
realignment which I believe is point 17 on the condition, if that hasn't changed to 21.
Sacchet: It's still 17.
Debbie Lloyd: Then I would like you to add the developer shall provide inspection reports to the
City for the private street, because without that clause there's no inspection of private streets.
Correct?
Saam: Yes, that's a good point.
Claybaugh: I thought previously we had incorporated that into more of a standard that there
would be, that the entity providing a private street would provide a monitoring process and testing
and submit those final results to the city.
Saam: Yeah, and the standard procedure as a condition, more of a standard condition...
Claybaugh: So each time it needs to be incorporated as a condition.
Saam: Correct. We haven't changed the code.
Claybaugh: Okay.
Sacchet: Alright.
Debbie Lloyd: And then I do have one other question, comment, concern, whatever. Hearing
about the water and remembering some discussion in the past about the fen. That development
upland from the fen can have an impact on the fen and I'm just wondering if that has been at all
looked into relative to the golf course. That's it, thank you.
Sacchet: Thanks. This is not in the watershed for the fen is it? Not directly.
Saam: I don't believe that this will affect the fen but that could be looked at. The fen, the
Seminary Fen down on 212.
Sacchet: It's a little further west.
Saam: Yep.
Sacchet: Alright, more comments. This is public hearing. Anybody else like to address this
item, express your concerns, questions, opinions, views of the world, please come forward and let
us know what you have to say. Name and address for the record please.
David Walstad: David Walstad, 10071 Great Plains Boulevard, and you really don't want my
views of the world I'm assuming.
Sacchet: It's getting late without that.
Steve Walstad: No. Just a couple of things, as far as well testing, oh by the way I'm just south of
the practice range right here. So I'm one of the closest properties here and I am on the I'm
43
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
assuming the aquifer will flow toward the river so I'd be after the water would be taken out here.
Yeah I guess I have not heard of any problems with the golf course drawing water out of the, with
Bluff Creek right next door, much larger property and with the Nursery is also drawing a lot of
water. I'm not an expert but I think it is something, a valid concern and it would be, I agree with
the previous gentleman. It's a big issue that if my well runs dry I want to know why. I don't
want to just blame somebody and have Ron, who's excellent to work with by the way.
Appreciate all you've done but I don't want to put him on the defensive, nor do I want to blame
Halla nor do I want all finger pointing all around, but I think it's a good point that we really need
a structure of okay, in the meantime I don't have any water and what happens. My well bums
out. You have to pay for that, and it's a he said, she said type thing. I think there's got to be
some kind of testing done, or some kind of monitoring to know that. We've gone almost what, a
month and a half with very little rainfall, and don't want it blamed on that. Well it's not me, it's
that. And again, it can't be that subjective. There's got to be some ways of doing that. As far as
the driveway again that is, I am one of the properties on that driveway and a couple of things just
to clarify. This is something that the neighbors that have been on that driveway have talked about
quite extensively obviously and it impacts us directly. I've been there 5 years. It hasn't been a
huge issue. I can see it is a safety issue. However turning the driveway north and putting us in
line with the people driving golf balls is also a safety issue. And I'm just, I know that they're
doing their best to align the holes for the state highway and everything else but if we align the tee
for number 8 to the west, how does that leave room for an access road change? Is it critical to me
that that changes that we have a safer access? It would be nice to be safer. Is it critical? I guess I
don't think it is critical. As far as the future development, and this being a temporary type lease
situation, I think it'd be very naYve of me to assume that after 10 or however long years the lease
is that this, when the MUSA line comes through that this wouldn't instantly be turned into private
properties again so I think it'd, I know it'd be great to have a golf course that stays there but
dollar wise I'm not a developer but I can see some developers looking very strongly at that
property and making very attractive offers so. And I'm assuming at that time any temporary type
road changes to the private drive would again be addressed when it gets redeveloped. And so this
is kind of a temporary situation as far as realigning the road. There was something else but I
can't think of it right now so I won't take your time but I do appreciate. One thing I'd like to say,
I think there's been a lot of thought that's gone into this from everyone here and I do appreciate
your keeping the concerns of the neighbors in the fore front, thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you very much for your comments. Anybody else? Please come forward. State
your name and address for the record and let us hear what you have to say please.
Gary Koch: Gary Koch, 9901 Deerbrook Drive. More just a comment. I believe that we've got
12 residents on Deerbrook Drive that are very concerned about the water situation. I don't know
why we're building a 9 hole golf course. I believe...saying, I think there's an end game here and
I think it's from a development perspective, but if we have an issue with water, we need to get
that resolved now. Not then. Because I'm going to be quite pissed off if I can't take a shower in
the morning. So study it and understand that you've got 12, what have we got? 12. They pay a
bunch of taxes on that road and we need some water and I think that if it becomes an issue, it will
be your issue.
Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else?
David Teich: Hello, my name's David Teich. I'm at 1217 South Monroe in Shakopee,
Minnesota. I own the property to the south of this project, and was born and raised on that farm.
All the property being talked about here was where I was born and raised. I've got an issue with
the road. The access that's being proposed.
44
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Sacchet: The realignment of.
David Teich: The realignment of the access and then the, that would involve I think easements.
Creation of easements on Halla property to get to the property that I own. I do not wish to see
that. It's a complicated, impractical procedure as I see it. As I understand it, the golf course is
not to use that road. They have no need for the road so why'd they make that part of this project,
I don't understand. I can appreciate the concern of the safety of the road, but I think the City's
concern of the safety would have to be a concern when the road becomes public and it's not
public. It's a private road. So I think that's about all I've got to say.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Appreciate your comment. Who else would like to address this
item? This is your chance.
Tom Gertz: Hello. My name is Tom Gertz. I'm at 10001 Great Plains Boulevard. This property
right here. Regarding the, I'll only be slightly redundant, regarding the realignment. I don't
support it. It's nice to get something for free once in a while but I don't think this is applicable. I
think the change for safety concerns is only a slight change in safety. I think it's marginal. It
doesn't warrant all the effort, the expense, and I think it increases, I mentioned this last time. I
think it may increase our hazard for aligning us with that tee box, especially if it's going to move
to the left. I enter that driveway 5 times every day, and it already is extremely close to our
entrance, so with the new alignment of that tee box, I'm not sure there's any space any longer so
it may require some more complications. As far as an easement from Halla, maybe. But this is
leased property and I don't know what happens in 10 years when that expires and Halla owns the
property. Someone else owns the property. Perhaps the developer, and if you close off the
existing access we have now to Great Plains, can we re-open that? And I don't know who's in
the power position at that point. Maybe because it was existing they have to work around that.
Someone has to buy it. I'm not sure, I just think it might be, I think the whole issue is kind of
complicated and I think a lot of things go away if we just go back to what's existing, and maybe
there's some, and I mentioned this last time too. Maybe we can just improve it a little bit. But I
don't see it as a huge hazard. Also in this, and maybe this is for the engineer. This doesn't show
it, but the way that the proposed entrance is, is that that curve, currently it's very difficult to get a
large truck in there. I know we had our moving vans come in, they're 48, 60 foot tractor trailers.
They almost cannot make that turn now, and if you look at the proposed curvature where we're
aligned with 101 and then we have to swing, I think it would have to be re-done again. To move
around that. If this is to scale, and I assume it is, it's already difficult to get around that corner so
I just don't know how much space there is to work with that. I appreciate the due diligence of
you all in the city and helping us with this but ! think that's one helping hand we don't need.
Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Who else would like to address this item? This is your turn to
speak up about this. Concerns. Issues. Nobody else wants to address this, I am closing the
public hearing and bring it back to commissioners for comments. You want to start over there?
Slagle: Sure. I think simply put, I'm in support of the golf course application with this following
caveat if you will. And that is, I believe in it like a macro sense. Our look, our process of how
we look at water usage has been interesting in this process and what I mean by that is, and I don't
know if this is the largest application, certainly in my time here, that is well based. If this was
city, you know I think maybe I and others would just sort of think well the city, it's just city
water. The city gets it's water somewhere, but it comes from the same place these wells do so in
45
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
some respects I think it's really an issue for the city. Not just the folks at Deerbrook because if
they eventually get hooked up, or Bluff Creek does. Is Bluff Creek well at this point?
Aanenson: Yes.
Slagle: Can I ask a question that I think, sorry now I've just thought of something.
Sacchet: Go ahead.
Slagle: What's an average household use a day? Any idea from staff? So we don't even know
what an average household uses for gallons.
Saam: 1,000. Throw out that.
Slagle: 1,0007 Okay. Anyway, make a long story short. I just think that the process has been
somewhat interesting and I am willing to approve this application with a, it doesn't have to be a
condition but just a real plea to staff to get our hands around this water usage because as time
goes on, I just came from up north, I mean just as an FYI. Castleton, North Dakota ran out of
water. The Army had to deliver trucks and there was some reason that the tower lost pressure but
basically folks, their source of water was drying up. And it happens. So that's it.
Sacchet: Bethany.
Tjornhom: For the record I just want to say that I am concerned about everyone's wells and their
water and my comment about this can't be the first golf course ever created that doesn't run on
city water, wasn't really what I meant. It obviously works for other places and you know. My
next comment is, were you saying that you didn't want your driveways corrected? When you
were up here. Is that what you were saying?
Sacchet: That's what I heard.
Tjornhom: Okay. So, well with that then I guess I think too it would be a good asset to the
community. It'd be good for kids to be able to go and learn to play golf so I too support it.
Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Kurt.
Papke: In talking to some other area residents over the past couple weeks, everybody I've talked
to seems to feel this is a lot better than a bunch of houses on the same property so I think it's an
overall good for the area. I agree with Rich, it's been an interesting process to see how the water
has become such a central issue where we didn't really start out with that as much of an issue
when we began the process two weeks ago. And ! guess I'd like to make sure, ! understand with
staff what our level of discretion is here. I mean if the applicant follows all required permitting,
licensing, etc, etc, etc, are our hands tied behind us and just cruises on through or what, outside of
the obvious.
Saam: ...add additional conditions but typically that's the way.
Papke: But that's it. I mean we can put a couple conditions on it but if they follow the rules.
Aanenson: No, let me just... If you go to page 4 of your staff report, there are findings of a
conditional use. General issuance standards.
46
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Papke: Right.
Aanenson: And you have to find findings that they meet those. Will not be detrimental or
endanger public health, safety, comfort of the general neighborhood. Okay, so that finding says it
won't be but it seems to me that there still is a little bit of a question that you're asking us to
follow up on regarding water. If there was lack of water that could be detrimental to the
neighborhood, so yes. You have to find findings in the general issuance also. And how you can
do that is add conditions to mitigate or.
Slagle: But with all due respect, if I can just ask, in defense of, not defense of the applicant but
just thinking of the applicant, water usage goes down 6 months from now or next summer to the
point where people's wells run dry. How in the world are you going to ascertain legally that it
was due to this golf course?
Saam: I don't have that answer. That'd be something we'd have to explore with the Department
of Health. That's not something we deal with on a day to day basis.
Papke: Okay. Overall I think it's a very good plan and I think we've done our due diligence
here. That's about it.
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Steve.
Lillehaug: I want to hit on the water a little more too. First off Mr. Saatzer has mineral and water
rights to his property period. The city does not regulate his water rights. We have a city code
that the Planning Commission enforces and that does not address water rights. The Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Health are the ones that regulate and
monitor well usage. Mr. Saatzer's well contractor has indicated that they're going to have to go
into an aquifer well below the bedrock. Well below all the residents aquifers that they're using.
It's not the city's position to monitor or regulate. The city can ensure that the applicant is doing
what he's supposed to do with the Department of Health but for residents to hold the Planning
Commission and the city staff responsible for their well running dry I don't think is appropriate
because it's not the city's position and they're not the regulating authority so I do want to just say
that that is my interpretation of it. I agree with the applicant that he shouldn't be held to the
standard to correct that driveway to the south. I think with the unknown of the possible
realignment of 101, that it's just not providing a big enough benefit at this time to put the burden
on the applicant to address realigning that driveway. And ! would also like to indicate that if a
driveway, if it stays in it's current position where it is, I think the applicant tree plan has to be
modified to actually delete the trees right adjacent to that driveway to provide a better sight
distance. So there's a portion of the trees there adjacent to the driveway that I think staff should
review with the applicant to ensure that appropriate sight lines are obtained because the way it
sounds, that driveway may be left as it is. Looking at the construction of 101 and Pioneer, the
County's indicated that bid letting is 2004 with a construction of 2005 so does it make sense to
have the applicant put a temporary or even a permanent trail in MnDot or County right-of-way? I
don't think it does at this point. I think the better result is just for, as Sharmeen indicated, to
withhold money to complete that trail as part of that project rather than constructing a temporary
at this point because with the staging, it sounds like the temporary would get ripped up before it'd
be utilized also. I would like also to ask staff, to re-address with the County the left and right turn
lane at Foxford because it's my opinion that the left turn lane is more important and more
significant than having a, putting a right turn lane in there, so I think it'd be good to talk with Mr.
47
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Weckman with the County there to ensure that he hasn't overlooked something there. I think that
is all I have, thank you.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Bruce.
Lillehaug: One more. One more.
Sacchet: Go ahead.
Lillehaug: In absence of seeing where the applicant's leased property is versus non-leased
property, I don't have a boundary on here and I think it is viable to have that access road removed
on the south there going to the bluff. I think it's low cost. I don't like putting costs on Mr.
Saatzer but I think this is something that can easily be incorporated into this plan, thank you.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Bruce.
Feik: I'm generally in favor of the plan. I'd like to thank the applicant for coming back two
weeks later and bearing with the process. I know it's frustrating for you. I fully agree that we
should not be relocating or realigning the road, the gravel driveway on the south side. I look at
that as basically a taking. There is no benefit to this property as it's being conceived at this point.
There's no access for it. I really don't see any reason to move that driveway at this point. I have
a bigger concern with the curve that's further south than the driveway itself. So I'm in support of
the application.
Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Craig.
Claybaugh: Likewise I'm in support of the application. I agree with my fellow commissioner
that in lieu of putting in the bike trail, that the applicant should submit a letter of credit and
coordinate that with MnDot improvements. With condition 20, which deals with the well, again
that's a two edge sword. It's not just to protect the residents. It's to protect the applicant as well,
and it may come down on further investigation from the staff that it's just a function of shedding
the facts or light on the facts so both the residents and the applicant know what to expect. But
that certainly needs to be cleared up. I guess that's all the comments I have.
Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Real quick, will not be lengthy hopefully. I do want to thank the
applicant for really addressing a lot of issues in a very short time. It's very commendable the
progress that's been made. Also staff has addressed some of the issues in addition so I think
we've come a very long way with this application. It's a great application. The water issue, the
water issue is huge. The water issue affects all of us, and I think it'd be unfair to penalize one
particular applicant for a problem that potentially could affect us all at some point. At this point
we have to deal with the framework that's in place for that, which is it's being regulated on a
State level, and are those regulations adequate or not? I don't know. Frankly personally I think
they're probably not in terms of what we're envisioning. What the situation could become with
water usage and water needs. On the other hand here in Minnesota we're probably better off
with water than anywhere, or most other places in the world. The private drive, I think we have
pretty clear input from the neighbors that they don't really care about this being improved, and I
do have a problem with this going in to, onto a property that has no benefit from it. It's a
dichotomy there. I would think that once this area is going to be changed in use, which is more
than likely once sewer and water becomes available there, that it will be developed for residential.
Then there will be roads and then that will be the time to make a good solution. Whether it
includes that property with the golf course or not, whether it's just the property on the south,
48
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
either way there would be a road system put in place that at that point issues could be addressed
in a permanent solid way. To open the sight lines a little bit I think is a very important aspect.
That's something that can be done right now so when you come out that driveway you see further
than just a tree. I think that's reasonable, responsible action to do. I do believe there are a few
things to still look at as this goes forward from here, assuming that we pass this tonight to the
council. I would like to make sure that the MnDot and Carver comments are fully integrated and
looked at. I mean we saw the Carver County comments first time tonight. The MnDot comments
were attached to the report but weren't really fully integrated yet. They're a little bit integrated
into the conditions now. I would like to request to really full due diligence to make sure to fine
tune and solid integrated before this goes to council. That's pretty much my comment. With that
I would ask for a motion here.
Feik: I'll make a motion.
Slagle: Just point of clarification. Do you think we should at least share that...
Sacchet: Where does it come from? Okay Matt, just for information, since we were talking
about water usage, our engineer... 100 to 200 gallons a day, so that gives us 1,500.
Slagle: So Matt, if I can use my math, would be the equivalent of the, our first subject site
tonight for 650 acres that we talked about. 1,500, so again. It's not the applicant's issue but I
hope going forward City Council water will be an issue.
Sacchet: Thanks for clarifying that Rich. Do you want to make a motion Bruce?
Feik: I would like to make a motion. I move that the Planning Commission recommend the
approval of Conditional Use Permit #2003-4 CUP for the construction of a golf course with club
house as shown on plans dated August 25, 2003, with the following conditions 1 through 8. And
a ninth being added that no exterior lighting shall be permitted with the exception of convenience
lighting for safety.
Sacchet: There is a motion. Is there a second?
Lillehaug: Second.
Feik moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommend the approval of
Conditional Use Permit ~2003-4 CUP for the construction of a golf course with club house
as shown on plans dated August 25, 2003, with the following conditions:
1. Hours of operation shall be seasonal and limited to sunrise to sunset.
2. No outdoor speaker system shall be permitted (individual pager systems are permissible).
No commercial kitchen shall be permitted in the club house. There shall be no cooking
equipment permitted on the premises with the exception of a microwave oven, pizza/
toaster oven, etc. The intent of this condition is to put the golf course operator on notice.
The proposed septic system design does not allow for any cooking grease to be disposed
through the system which will cause the system to fail.
Approval of the Conditional Use Permit is contingent upon approval of Site Plan Review
#2003-7 SPR.
49
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Soil tests must be performed at least once a year. Results of all soil testing must be
submitted to the City of Chanhassen. In addition, annual reports detailing all applications
of fertilizer (including nutrient content for nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium;
application rate in pounds per acre; date of application; and total quantity of fertilizer
applied) must be submitted to the City of Chanhassen. No fertilizer containing
phosphorus may be applied unless the soil test results demonstrate a deficiency in
phosphorus.
No grading, disturbance or dumping shall be permitted in areas designated as bluff or in
bluff impact zones. Runoff from cart paths, fairways, greens or tee boxes on Hole 3 shall
not be directed into bluff impact zones or bluff areas.
On-site grading may not increase the rate or volume of runoff downstream from the site
or onto adjacent properties.
8. The applicant shall enter into a conditional use permit with the City.
o
No exterior lighting shall be permitted with the exception of convenience lighting for
safety.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Sacchet: Can I have a second motion on the site plan?
Feik: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend the approval of Site Plan
Review #2003-7 SPR for the construction of a club house and a maintenance building for a golf
course as shown in plans dated August 25, 2003, with the following conditions, listen closely
please. 1 through 20 with the following additional deletions. So I'm deleting 21 and 22. I'm
deleting, as shown, 2, 3, 8(c), 9(c), (d), (f), (h), (i), 10, 11, 14, 17, and the last sentence of 19 as
shown.
Saam: Commissioner Feik I'd also recommend, if you're going to delete 17, which is the
realignment, you delete 18. That ties to it.
Feik: Works for me. 18 as well.
Lillehaug: And 167
Feik: With the access from the north side, he still needs to get that.
Lillehaug: That's County. That's a County road.
Saam: I think the MnDot letter though says you're going to need a, they're going to need a
drainage permit.
Lillehaug: Okay so.
Sacchet: So leave it or take it?
Saam: I guess you could delete the, end at MnDot permit period, if you wanted.
50
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Feik: So we'll delete a period after the word permit. Delete the words for the new access.
Saam: Yes.
Slagle: Point of clarification. Do you want to keep in 20? Do you want to re-word it? Do you
want to.
Feik: I'm willing to discuss it. I'm willing to delete it if that works. I'm willing to try to carve it
up and make it work but as drawn, or as, it's very subjective. I don't really want to burden the
city with a lot of testing and monitoring.
Liltehaug: It might not have any merit. I mean it might be here but doesn't hold any weight. I
really don't think it does.
Sacchet: It doesn't.
Feik: I'm willing to delete it at this point. But I'm also willing to discuss modifications that you
guys can make it work because as it's drafted it doesn't work.
Slagle: Well I would be in favor of deleting it because legally I think there's no basis but I don't
think in fairness of either the applicant or the citizens, I mean what I'm getting at here, I think
there's got to be something to staff or, saying help us. You know I mean, leave it up to the staff
and the city attorney or I don't know.
Feik: Why don't you make a second and do a friendly amendment.
Slagle: Oh, no way.
Lillehaug: I'll second it.
Ron Saatzer: ...if there really was interference with surrounding wells, wouldn't...
Saam: Yes, and the city would get involved too of course.
Ron Saatzer: So doesn't that make this redundant?
Claybaugh: I don't believe it makes it redundant. I think there's a little more due diligence that's
required at this point, like the gentleman said. The day you come in and turn your spigot on and
nothing comes out, he doesn't want to be responsible, if he's not responsible for the problem. It
could be something else. Some other source of the problem. These people want to know what
direction it's going to go I think that at least some preliminary framework, whether you leave
condition 20 in and just say, to be developed by staff through discussions with the residents and
the applicant, so you have something to present to council but even if it's just something there.
There's been a lot of discussion about it. It's something that needs to be investigated further.
The only options as I see it is to table it or to take that condition 20 and basically allow staff to
investigate it further because we don't have sufficient facts or information tonight to really put
something meaningful forward.
51
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Sacchet: Could we take condition 20 out, however instruct staff to study that particular issue
further before it goes to council. If appropriate add maybe more refined, fine tuned condition to
this for council.
Claybaugh: I think more time is required to investigate...
Saam: Yes, we'd certainly research it with the Department of Health and the DNR.
Feik: I don't want to slow the application up. So I.
Sacchet: So are we leaving it in or taking it out?
Feik: I mean how much time do we need for this discussion and.
Sacchet: Between now and when it goes to council. Not coming back to us.
Feik: Okay.
Sacchet: But the question is do we leave 20 in or not?
Claybaugh: How can we write 20 that it leaves it open ended so you can do what you're directed
to do? Or is that not possible.
Aanenson: How about this. When you do your.
Sacchet: We make summary comments.
Aanenson: Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you, alright. We take it out.
Feik: Delete number 20. Delete 20. And we need a second still.
Lillehaug: I seconded it.
Sacchet: Do we have the right turn lane on Pioneer in there somewhere. He already seconded it,
yeah.
Saam: No, it's not in there. I checked.
Sacchet: Do we want to add a right turn lane for Pioneer?
Feik: I think that's going to come out when he gets his permit for access. What MnDot or...
Sacchet: So that would clarify 167
Feik: You bet.
Saam: We should maybe add, I'd recommend comply with MnDot and Carver County permits.
Claybaugh: Do you want to expand on 167
52
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Lillehaug: How bout just a new one? Would it be 23? The applicant shall comply with the
county access permit and all the standards set forth in the permit.
Feik: The county and MnDot?
Lillehaug: Well they already got one for MnDot. This one would be specifically for the county.
Sacchet: Is that acceptable?
Feik: Why don't we just add County and MnDot to 16.
Sacchet: Do 16 to say MnDot and Carver County permit. Okay.
Feik: That works if you want to just add County to number 16.
Lillehaug: Yep.
Sacchet: That's.
Feik: Acceptable.
Sacchet: Acceptable, okay. We have a motion. We have a second. We have accepted friendly
amendment and we want to hear everybody in favor say aye.
Feik moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site
Plan Review #2003-7 SPR for the construction of a Club House and Maintenance Building
for a golf course as shown on plans dated August 25, 2003, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Approval of the Site Plan Review application is contingent upon approval of the
Conditional Use Permit.
All trees to be preserved must be protected by tree protection fencing. Fencing must be
installed prior to grading.
3. No vegetation may be removed within the bluff impact zone.
The applicant shall provide a pedestrian/bikeway connection to the City's trail system at
the intersection of Gmat Plains Boulevard and Pioneer Trail.
5. Fire Department Conditions:
ao
Please contact the Building Official and Fire Marshal to discuss the sprinklering
requirements for the club house and storage/maintenance building.
If a fire hydrant is available, a 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire
hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV,
and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located
and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
53
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Co
"No Parking Fire Lane" signs and yellow curbing will be required. Please contact
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of signs and curbs to be painted
yellow.
do
The builder must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Division regarding maximum allowable size of domestic water on a combination
water/sprinkler supply line. This is only if a sprinkler is required. Pursuant to
Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #36-1994.
The builder must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Division regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire
Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992.
A post indicator valve will be required on any building that will have a sprinkler
system.
go
Submit radius turns and dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
Building Official conditions:
Submit a detailed floor plan of the club house so the occupancy classification and
fire suppression requirements can be determined.
The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed
in the State of Minnesota.
c. An accessible route must be provided to all facilities on the site.
do
Submit a design of the on-site sewage treatment system for review and approval.
Two sites must be provided and these sites must be protected from damage prior
to beginning any construction activity on the site. The system must comply with
the requirements of Minnesota Rules 7080.0600.
eo
Detailed occupancy related requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans
are submitted.
f°
The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as
soon as possible to discuss plan review, permit procedures and fire suppression
options.
Engineering Department conditions:
ao
Staff recommends that Type I silt fence be used along the northwesterly and
southerly property lines. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading
will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. All disturbed areas
are required to be restored with seed and mulch within two weeks of grading
completion.
Add the following City of Chanhassen latest Detail Plate Numbers: 5201, 5203,
5207, 5300 and 3001.
54
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
The applicant is responsible to obtain and comply with all regulatory agency
permits.
d. On the grading plan add a benchmark.
The applicant must submit detailed architectural plans for the club house and
maintenance building that meet the design ordinance requirement.
The applicant shall enter into a Site Plan Agreement and provide financial guarantees to
insure compliance with the project.
10.
Only one (1) monument sign may be permitted on the site. The total sign area shall not
exceed twenty-four (24) square feet of sign display area, nor be more than five (5) feet in
height.
11.
The applicant is responsible to obtain and comply with a MnDot and Carver County
permit.
12.
Per MnDot's review memo dated September 2, 2003, the need for a net along TH 101 will
be evaluated upon completion of the golf course. If it is determined that a net is needed,
then the applicant will be required to install it.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Sacchet: This goes to council. Summary for council. We find that the most sticky issue that is
far bigger than this application is the water issue, and we would like to, engineering to further
study how the water situation can be mitigated should the unfortunate circumstance arise that
some wells get negatively affected. In order to find out how, what affects it. How does it come
and can any responsibilities be assigned for that, how does that get dealt with. We would like to
instruct staff to have a clear understanding how the State agencies deal with these type of issues
so that we are ahead of the curve and not reactive should ever anything happen in this context.
That's the water issue. The issue with.
Claybaugh: Can that information be forwarded to anyone that was here at the meeting?
Sacchet: And we request that we would see maybe that as well, is that something that you could
include for information to the Planning Commission?
Slagle: I think also residents.
Claybaugh: Residents yes.
Sacchet: And residents that.
Claybaugh: Certainly the affected residents that receive mailings as part of this application that
showed up at the meeting.
Sacchet: Do we want to just use the residents that signed in or would we want to? You know
how to do it? Okay. You know how to do it, that's good enough for me. Any other water
aspects?
55
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Lillehaug: I have a couple other comments.
Sacchet: Let's do water. The private drive to the south, we figured based on the neighbors, what
seemed quite unanimous statements that they're not interested in this line up and we had some
reservations impacting the Hatla property, which at this point does not benefit from that driveway
at all. That we feel that a better solution for this drive can be found once further development
occurs in that area, either on the Halla property or to the south. And however that we would like
to see some tree trimming where that drive comes out on 101 at this point, to maximize sight
distance without having to do an actual realignment. Anything else on the driveway? Alright,
other things Steve?
Lillehaug: For staff to work with the applicant to insure that the sight line is adequate with the
tree layout.
Feik: He just said that.
Lillehaug: Did you?
Sacchet: Yeah, I just touched on that.
Lillehaug: I thought he said tree trimming.
Sacchet: Same idea. Anything else you want to add for summary to council?
Saam: Nets on 101.
Sacchet: Nets on 101, yes. To the south.
Saam: To the driveway.
Sacchet: The private road. The private road. I do want to mention in summary to council that
the applicant has shown really good effort addressing the issues that we brought up the first time
we looked at this application and asked to be looked at. I mean that's important because I really
appreciate that.
Lillehaug: I have one more.
Sacchet: Yes Steve.
Lillehaug: It didn't get put in as a condition but I'd like staff to work with the applicant and the
current owner of the land to get that roadway removed. Going to the bluff.
Sacchet: The gravel drive to the bluff, that should be eliminated with clean-up of the bluff.
Stopping of the dumping. There's no road needed any more. Might as well get rid of that road.
Good point. Is that it? Alright. Wow, do we need two minutes of a bio break? I think we need,
we'll get back, let's shoot for 10:15.
56
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF PATRICK AND ANGELA SIMMONS
REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION
LOCATED AT 9203 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD.
Kristen Wentzlaff presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Questions from staff. Do you want to start Craig?
Claybaugh: Yes. Let's see, we just got the light side elevation. Is that a rambler? Is it a two
story? What type structure is it?
Wentzlaff: It's a rambler.
Claybaugh: Okay.
Sacchet: Walk out type? Walk out?
Claybaugh: Yeah, a walk out.
Wentzlaff: Yep, walk out.
Claybaugh: Do you know what the current square footage is?
Wentzlaff: Yes I do. For the house I had 2,109.82. The garage, 851. The driveway 960 and the
proposed addition adds an additional 450 square feet for a total of 4,370.82.
Claybaugh: It sounds like we're well over, and Kate if you can help me, when we review
properties in Carver Beach, there's certain square footages that go with for what our current
standards are.
Wentzlaff: That's 960. I'm sorry, yes. For a one story rambler is the standard.
Claybaugh: Okay. And I don't have the other elevations and this may be a question for the
applicant but they've got a hip end drawn on this end of the structure there. I don't know if they
could possibly incorporate a gable and then eliminate 1.75 feet of that and minimize that variance
but, is that something that was discussed with staff?.
Wentzlaff: I did call the applicant and discuss the possibility of just moving the addition over.
Claybaugh: Okay, but not necessarily the roof types?
Wentzlaff: No I didn't discuss that.
Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have right now.
Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Any other questions from staff? Questions from staff. Rich.
Slagle: I just have one, and I don't know if you were here but we had, it was the Suter's.
Aanenson: Yes.
57
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Slagle: That came in, which I think is just a few lots down.
Wentzlaff: Yes, that's correct.
Slagle: And I remember there was discussion, Craig I think you brought it up about the eaves and
the roof line and setbacks. I don't remember what we ended up deciding. Can somebody help
me?
Wentzlaff: I read through that report, being that it was in the neighborhood and the condition that
you put in just basically said that the certain setback was required with the eaves extending so far
into that, because the ordinance reads that nothing can extend into the setback when there's a
variance in place, including eaves or bay windows or anything like that.
Slagle: So you're suggesting that we allowed a variance with the eaves extending into no man's
land or did we require that the setback be inclusive of the eaves?
Wentzlaff: You required that it included.
Slagle: So in this case we would deny it similar to those, that logic.
Aanenson: Or approve it as Craig was saying and change the, to a hip.
Slagle: I just want to make sure that on the application with this same, I shouldn't say same.
Similar situation we denied the request.
Aanenson: Or we were consistent. Be consistent.
Lillehaug: I don't think, you guys denied it.
Wentzlaff: Well you did deny it.
Aanenson: There wasn't a majority vote. They had to have a 75 percent. You didn't make the
75 percent rule so that did get appealed to the City Council. It wasn't the 75 percent rule. You
were not all in concurrence. There were some that.
Claybaugh: Right, and ! don't remember what the square footage was or other mitigating factors
on that property.
Aanenson: Much smaller lot.
Claybaugh: Not as big a structure.
Sacchet: It was a smaller structure too.
Claybaugh: Smaller structure, yeah.
Sacchet: Any other questions from staff? Steve has a question from staff?. Go ahead.
Lillehaug: So on that other application, what was the actual variance that we approved on the
south side? Was it like 1.7 feet or...
58
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Wentzlaff:
manenson:
Wentzlaff:
For the 1991 variance you mean?
No, the Suter's.
Oh for the Suter' s.
Sacchet: It was like 3 feet or 4 feet.
Aanenson: 3 1/2 or 4, yeah.
Sacchet: Now here we're talking 7 or 8.
Lillehaug: Here we're talking 8.8 feet to the structure.
Sacchet: Good point. Good question.
Wentzlaff: Just a minute.
Sacchet: Well in all fairness I think that needs to be looked at.
Wentzlaff: Okay, they had a 4.5 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback. Was that your
question?
Sacchet: Yeah it was less on one side.
Wentzlaff: And that's kind of how I wrote this one too. The 3 foot includes the eaves.
Claybaugh: Like I said, looking at that in isolation may not tell the whole picture. One was the
overall square footage of the structure. Another one was the lot width that they had to work with.
So like I said, that's part of it but that's not the whole picture.
Lillehaug: Would that be the setback on the north side of the house though? Because the one on
the south side wasn't even addressed because it was already a non-conforming, and that was
allowed to be.
Aanenson: Well there was a lot of discussion on continuing the non-conforming. That was kind
of the crux them.
Lillehaug: But my argument is it's the same case here. You're increasing the intensity and
that's not the setback that we're talking about there because the one on the south side was less
than 4.5. It was more in the 3 foot neighborhood and I don't know if it was even addressed
because there was an existing...
Aanenson: No, they wanted to continue the same line down.
Claybaugh: That part was denied I thought.
Aanenson: No, there wasn't a 75 percent so it had to go to council.
Claybaugh: Okay.
59
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Sacchet: One more question from staff. Just, I was kind of, want to make sure I read this
correctly. On page 2 it says the part that encroaches into the setback is 7.2 square feet.
Wentzlaff: Yes.
Sacchet: 7.2. Like 7 square feet.
Wentzlaff: Yes, because only 1.2 goes into the setback by 6, so that is.
Sacchet: So from that addition really only that little corner.
Wentzlaff: Is encroaching, yes.
Sacchet: And okay. And that comer is really necessary for the construction with the roof and
everything? I mean they couldn't just not do that teeny little corner? I mean that's 7 square feet.
What can you do with 7 square feet? You can put a garbage can.
Wentzlaff: Is that a question for the applicant? I did speak with the applicant about that and they
just had told me that they wanted to avoid extra interior angles so that it's square.
Sacchet: Well we can ask the applicant a little more. I guess we'll have to look at it and make
some sense. Okay, any other questions from staff?. No other questions of staff. Would the
applicant want to come forward and tell us your story. Please state your name and address for the
record.
Pat Simmons: Sure, thanks. Pat Simmons, 9203 Lake Riley Boulevard and first of all thanks
Kristen for all the work. She's been terrific on working with myself and my wife on this project
so, yeah. You kind of got to the nuts and bolts of it. Really we want to extend on the existing
foundation, so take the existing foundation. Extend it an additional 6 feet. It adds up to 7.2
square feet. The rest of the addition is all within, you know it doesn't require any variance at all.
We made sure that we're very focused on not trying to intrude on the lake side of the property at
all. I mean we had moved 6 feet but we're still well back from the 75 feet.
Sacchet: Questions from the applicant? Gentlemen, lady.
Tjomhom: Staff in the staff report they said that there really wasn't a hardship and I saw you
deny that back there. What is your hardship? Maybe you have a different perspective or.
Pat Simmons: I mean I think it would be pretty hard for me to stand here and say we have a
hardship as defined in the text that is written there. It certainly would be strange to have an
indent, if you look at it from the outside of the house, you would look at it and all of a sudden you
would have an indent from that last one foot. Okay, for about 6 feet and then you would go back
out to the existing foundation so that would be one. Okay, it would not look right. Inside or
outside. The other is, the reason we're doing this is because this was the old 1950's side of the
house that was never brought up to code and everything. Not necessarily code, ! shouldn't
probably say it that way. It was never brought up to the level of the rest of the house which was
built in the early 90's, and so what we're trying to do is raise the ceilings. Get the roof up a little
bit as well and basically take, bring the whole thing up to a 90's look, so that's the objective.
That is certainly not hardship as it's defined here. It's reality and I want to make sure you guys
hear kind of what we're trying to do.
60
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Sacchet: Other questions from the applicant.
Claybaugh: So that hip roof extends that, now that I'm looking at the Certificate of Survey, the
entire north elevation.
Pat Simmons: It does, yes. That's how we've currently got it, have it drawn in.
Lillehaug: So that'd be your, you need a hardship so that'd be your hardship.
Pat Simmons: That would be my hardship. Yes.
Sacchet: I have a quick question too. Your neighbor to the site where this is, they're selling the
house so there's not really a neighbor there right now?
Pat Simmons: Pardon?
Sacchet: There is not really a neighbor there?
Pat Simmons: No, they're still there. They actually, they're them about half the time or so.
Sacchet: Okay, they don't have an issue with it? Have you talked with them about it?
Pat Simmons: We've talked to them about doing some addition stuff. They haven't had any
issue there at all.
Sacchet: Because right now it's kind of dead space there. It's like you have a couple of retaining
wall rocks and then.
Pat Simmons: It's actually a bit of a wooden fence for about half of it and a little bit of some
retaining rock so yep.
Sacchet: And the deck that is currently in that location actually sticks as far as, further up...
Pat Simmons: It goes right along that north edge of the property, but it goes further toward the
lake than we are going to go with.
Sacchet: And the deck is going to go?
Pat Simmons: And the deck is going to go away, so yes.
Sacchet: So that could be considered at least a little bit of the reduction of encroachment.
Pat Simmons: Absolutely, so the actual physical property that we've got will actually be further
back away from the lake than the current deck is.
Sacchet: Okay. Is that it for questions from the applicant? Thank you very much. Now this is a
public hearing. Anybody want to come forward, address this item. Do it real fast while the
hearing is open because I'm going to close it as fast. Anybody want to talk about this? Going
once, going twice, gone. Nobody came forward. The public hearing is closed. Bring it back to
commission. Comments. Who wants to start? Craig.
61
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Claybaugh: I think the square footage involved here is a net of a non-issue to me, given the
circumstances of what they're trying to accomplish. In first reading I thought it was the north
elevation but it's just that portion of the square footage so I can support it.
Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Bruce.
Feik: Technically on the hardship I have a hard time finding a hardship here. On the other hand
it is only 7.2 so you know I'm not sure what the big deal is on this I guess. I can support it.
Sacchet: Thanks. Steve.
Lillehaug: Real quick. A few months ago on that previous application for a few properties down,
I didn't support increasing that intensity. We're talking it was only a few feet from the property
line here. Here we're talking an insignificant amount of property. We're talking 7.2 square feet.
6 foot addition. 1.2 feet into the side yard. Not an issue. I can support it.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Kurt.
Papke: It seems like the only alternative to approving this would be for the applicant to have an
indent into the home which would be aesthetically unpleasing so even though this goes against,
this extends an existing variance, it seems to be the right thing to do under the circumstances so I
support it.
Sacchet: Bethany.
Tjornhom: I agree with my fellow commissioners that I support it also.
Sacchet: Thanks. Rich.
Slagle: No comment.
Sacchet: Alright. Well I don't have too much comment either. We could be creative and
consider the deck going as a little bit of a lessening of the impact. Is there a hardship? Right now
it's really dead space. I went out there and it's kind of a dry place where really a useless spot and
do you make use out of it? I think it's good. The only concern I had is with the neighbor. It
brings the house a little further up, but it's not significant and the applicant assures us that the
current neighbors doesn't have much of an issue. On the other hand he's trying to sell their
house. But enough of that.
Feik: A little cause and effect going on here.
Sacchet: Well yeah, we can only deal with what we know. I support it. This is just, it's a
reasonable request. If we want to debate the hardship, I think we all could agree that it's a
reasonable request. On that basis I'd like to have a motion please.
Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning Commission approves Variance #2003-12 to allow a 7
foot side setback on the north side of the property with the following conditions, I through 6.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Second?
62
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Claybaugh: Second.
Lillehaug moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance
#2003-12 to allow a 7 foot side setback on the north side of the property, with the following
conditions:
A building permit must be applied for within one year of approval of the variance or the
variance shall become void.
2. The addition must be built per plans submitted on August 15, 2003.
A Registered Land Surveyor shall examine the slope and determine if a bluff exists. If it
is found that a bluff exists, the survey must incorporate the top, side, impact zone and
bluff setback.
4. Show all existing easements within the property lines on the survey.
Type III silt fence will need to be installed in the rear yard of the property to prevent
excavated material from going into the lake. Show this on the survey.
Show where the excavated material for the new foundation will be placed. If the material
will stay on site, proposed and existing contours are needed on the survey.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF 1.56 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY AND VACATION OF A PORTIOAN OF SANTA FE TRAIL,
LOCATED AT 7551 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, ERNEST PIVEC, LAHAYE
ADDITION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Nancy Mancino
Wyck Linder
7552 Great Plains Boulevard
7550 Great Plains Boulevard
Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Questions from staff. Who wants to start? Bethany? Kurt?
Papke: Any issues with the proposed vacation of the extension to Santa Fe Trail there? I mean
there's no intention of ever, ever, ever, making that a through street?
Al-Jaff: The grades are extremely steep to accommodate the road, so no.
Sacchet: Craig.
63
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Claybaugh: No. No new questions.
Sacchet: Bruce.
Feik: Yes. In the original application that we saw in April, the access to these two lots was
different. The lot to the east, which I think came over, came across the...by easement. Is that
access, that did not access off the private drive technically?
AI-Jaff: No it didn't.
Feik: Under this proposal do both driveways access the private drive? Because I know there was
some significant concern regarding some of the neighbors to the south regarding the limitation on
the number of dwellings that could access a private drive and there was talk about adding the
driveway to the existing house on the left side of the private drive and where they're maximizing
the number of access points.
A1-Jaff: If you look at this portion, this is part of the turn around. And it's part of the public
street.
Feik: Okay, so Lot 2 does not access the private drive?
A1-Jaff: No. It's on it's own.
Feik: And the existing house west of the private drive, which was going to have a circle.
Al-Jarl: Correct. Actually.
Feik: ...deleted that circle is deleted?
That's correct. If you go out there today you'll notice that this driveway has been
Al-Jaff:
removed.
Sacchet:
AI-Jaff:
It's gone already.
It's gone, and all of this has been sodded.
Feik: So now we have four driveways accessing the private drive.
A1-Jaff: Three. 1, 2 and this is 1. This is the existing garage and that goes with this house.
Feik: That's my question, thank you.
Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Steve.
Lillehaug: Condition number 11 on page 12, it says Lot 2 cannot use the same driveway access
off of Great Plains Boulevard as the private street. I'm not following that.
Saam: Maybe I can add something to that. There were two alternates submitted. Alternate A for
the hammerhead. Alternate B for the full circle. That condition applies if Alternate B would go
forward. If Alternate B doesn't go forward then that condition dies.
64
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Lillehaug: So why, I don't understand why that changes it. It doesn't go to public right-of-way?
Saam: Yeah, with the Alternate B which is the full turn around, the city would maintain just that
circle. The full turn around, but with Alternate A, which is the hammerhead, we need basically
that little.
Lillehaug: Where's public right-of-way going to be now?
Saam: Right now?
Lillehaug: Yep. On this plan.
Saam: Right here.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Saam: And that's going to stay. Because we're going to vacate all this right-of-way.
Lillehaug: And then another question. Is if you can go right to where Lot 1 and Lot 2 driveways
splits, if you could point to that. There's two trees. And then right up here I see a triangle that
isn't covered under, maybe a driveway. Driveway access.
Saam: Yeah right here.
Lillehaug: There's a triangle right there, exactly. How is that addressed?
Saam: I believe we have a condition in there to make sure that this has an easement I'm almost
sure that condition's in there. I can double check that. Yeah, number 10. Proposed private street
upgrades and then it says and a 30 foot wide private easement dedicated to the benefiting property
owners.
Lillehaug: So does that need to be showed on the plat?
Saam: Yes. That would be a good condition. I think we say to show all easements but typically
of course the private easement isn't on the final plat but we like to see those on our plans.
Lillehaug: Okay. The sanitary sewer line, you say you're requiring a 30 foot easement, 15 foot
on each side of the possible sewer main location. Here we go with that possible sewer line
location again.
Saam: I'm confident that it's where they show it. I mean it goes straight from the 2 man holes.
Lillehaug: Okay, the edge of that house I think is closer than 15 foot to that sewer line, is that
correct? Is my scale right? Maybe I'm scaling wrong. I don't have a scale on me.
Saam: Yes, it's 12 feet off so that will have to be moved a little. Just a little to the north.
Lillehaug: Okay. And the proposed road vacation, I hit on this last time. That stretches from
Frontier to the hammerhead turn around. You know there's a vacation. Half of it is going to this
Lot number 2, correct?
65
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Saam: Yes.
Lillehaug: Is that half a vacated portion, is that being considered into the calc's for the storm
water assessment fees, sanitary, watermain, etc.?
Saam: I would believe so because those fees are based on the amount of, the size of the two lots
added together. And the size on there includes that vacated portion.
Lillehaug: Alright, thanks.
Sacchet: A couple of quick questions. First of all on page 3, I believe the labeling of the drawing
is reversed. The proposed layout is actually the original layout and the original layout is actually
the proposed layout.
Al-Jaff: That's correct.
Sacchet: And then on page 5, we're talking that the catch basin be installed. It's the first bullet
there. The catch basin be installed at the low point in the turn around with the storm sewer that
discharges just east of the proposed driveway for Lot 2. Is there a condition for that or does it
need a condition or does it not?
Saam: I could have missed it but I believe we added the condition. If you give me just a minute
to check.
Sacchet: Okay, while we look for that, and the next question.
Saam: Condition number 8.
Sacchet: It's condition number 8? It is in there, alright. Thank you very much. The first bullet
about utilities, it talks about water service for Lot 2 will have to be obtained from the existing
main in Frontier Trail. But Lot 1, where does Lot 1 get water from?
Saam: That's a good question. Well yeah it's an existing service but you're asking where that
comes from. We believe, and we're not completely sure because this is old, we believe it comes
from Great Plains.
Sacchet: So why wouldn't Lot 2 then get it from Great Plains? I mean it seems kind of funky if
one lot gets it from up and the other one has to get it from down. They have to cut through all the
trees. Doesn't make no sense to me. Alright, we're not at comments yet. Excuse me, we're at
questions. Page 6 it talks about the private streets. Nann, can you give the table once more? So
there is a 5 foot division between the access for the private road and the access to Lot 2 with this
drawing? Are we actually accommodating that there?
Saam: No, again that condition 11 goes back to the Alternate B proposal.
Sacchet: So should we just get rid of 117
Saam: We're recommending Alternate A so yeah, in your approval you can delete that.
66
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Sacchet: Okay. And then the right-of-way, the 60 foot right-of-way where we give them half of
it. The 30 foot, is that right-of-way, is that actually owned by the City currently? So we're just
giving away land here? Lucky winner gets 30 feet?
Saam: Yeah, we're retaining easements for utilities.
Sacchet: Should they not pay something for that?
Aanenson: They will when they pay their taxes.
Sacchet: And so do we all, everybody who lives in the city?
Saam: Well and they're paying this process too to vacate as part of this application.
Sacchet: Because it kind of struck me funny that we give away land basically just like that.
Aanenson: Well it's a vacation.
Lillehaug: Does the city want to maintain it?
A1-Jaff: We got it for nothing.
Sacchet: We got it for nothing, so we give it away for nothing. Okay, there's a balance there.
That's I believe, no there's one more. Hang on. No, that's my questions. Alright, do we have an
applicant?
A1-Jaff: He's not here. He's aware that this is on.
Sacchet: Airight, we don't have applicant presentation. In that case we have public hearing.
Anybody want to address this item please come forward. This is your chance.
Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. Okay, under streets. Page 5. In order to save
the two existing oak trees on each side of the private street near the proposed cul-de-sac, staff
would like the flexibility to narrow or keep the same street width in this area. What is the street
width? I mean our standards are 20 feet. What is the width now, and as these oaks grow, I mean
if it' s less than 20 feet.
Sacchet: Can you address this Matt?
Saam: Well scaling it off here and going out there, it scales 12 feet. I would say that's accurate.
Sacchet: That's adequate, is that adequate?
Debbie Lloyd: No.
Saam: For a private one, no. It doesn't meet our ordinance but we're asking in order to save the
oak trees, if you'd allow us to slim up just in that area. You know we don't want to damage the
roots.
Sacchet: I love trees.
67
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Al-Jaff: Can we also add that they're not increasing the number of homes served through that
private street?
Debbie Lloyd: 12 feet in a public, I don't know what kind of opinion I should have but 12 feet is
extremely narrow for 4 homes being served by a, did you say 2? It will ultimately be 4 because
the private street will ultimately serve 4 homes is what the report says.
Saam: Just as a reminder, at least before the tearing down of the house and everything it was
serving 4 homes.
Debbie Lloyd: So as time goes on and I don't know, as these trees grow, granted oaks grow
slowly, that roadway's going to get narrower than 12 feet. And that is what a van must go
through or whatever. Is there no alternate for that private street? Can it be moved? That would
be a question. And then the other point I'd like to make is, the same point I made before. Under
point number, condition number 10. When you talk about the 20 foot pavement, built to 7 tons.
Could you please include the terminology, the developer shall provide inspection reports to the
city for the private street because again without that there's no way to insure that that occurs.
Thank you.
Sacchet: Thanks. We have somebody else who wants to comment. Please come forward. State
your name and address for the record please.
Wyck Linder: Good evening. My name is Wyck Linder. I live at 7550 Great Plains Boulevard
and have been there for about 18 years. I have a couple of comments and a couple of questions I
guess too. I've talked to some of my neighbors and they couldn't make it here tonight but we had
a couple of questions about this area right down here.
Sacchet: Can you point at it again please because we didn't see it.
Wyck Linder: This area right in here. We knew that there were a couple of versions that were
being looked at there. One was the hammerhead and then there was also another one, the one that
goes all the way around here. And after discussing it with my neighbors, we favored the
hammerhead version and I guess that's what you're recommending here. Primarily because of
traffic control. I've got a pretty good vantage point from my home right here, and I can see down
here. There's getting to be a lot more speeders and people traveling, you know driving at high
rates of speed so I was thinking that that road, all the way around might cause some problems
with traffic control. So was hoping that you would evaluate that thoroughly. And I live right
down here, and this road right along here is owned by myself, one-third and then by Tom... two-
thirds so it's privately owned. I guess you know that and I think it's 33 feet wide. I think you
mentioned 30 feet so I'm not sure if that's that important or not, but those are my only comments.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Hang on.
Claybaugh: I just wanted you to comment on the distance between the two oaks where it
currently runs through there. We've heard 12 feet and.
Wyck Linder: Well are these the two oaks that are being discussed?
Sacchet: Yes.
68
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Wyck Linder: I'm not sure what the distance is but it seems to be adequate now. I mean they
drive, there have been some big trucks driven in there during the past and semi's and everything
else so I don't think there's a problem,
Sacchet: So you don't have an issue with it being narrow at this point there?
Wyck Linder: No. It doesn't seem to be too narrow at this point but again my only comment was
I think there's a 33 foot easement here. I think that's what some of the records say. Looks like a
good plan and thank you all for paying attention.
Sacchet: Thank you for your comments. Anybody else wants to address this item? If not, I'm
closing the public hearing and bring it back to commission for comments. Who wants to start?
Claybaugh: Comments. I can support the application and I'll be sure that Ms. Debbie Lloyd's
comments that the developer shall provide independent testing and inspections is incorporated.
That's all my comments.
Sacchet: Bruce.
Feik: I have no concerns.
Sacchet: Steve.
Lillehaug: The easement on that driveway. Does the applicant have to get an easement from the
current property owner because he's not the property owner of that land, correct?
Saam: Correct per the last resident's comments.
Feik: Isn't there a current easement for the old house?
A1-Jaff: There is an existing easement.
Saam: That's my belief that there's an existing easement, yeah.
Lillehaug: But there isn't for that one little triangle portion that we discussed, right?
Saam: I'm sorry, say it again.
Lillehaug: There isn't for that one little triangle portion of north of the two oaks that we
discussed. There's not a current easement for that portion of the existing road.
Saam: It was my belief for the area outside the right-of-way for that driveway that there is a
current easement for the entire length. Did that answer your question?
Lillehaug: Well then it's not shown on the plat, right?
Saam: Correct, the easement. Yeah, the easement isn't shown.
Sacchet: Here's one but it's not shown because it's a private road easement.
Lillehaug: So that's it, thanks.
69
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Sacchet: Kurt.
Papke: No comments other than we need to clear up the discrepancy of how wide those oak trees
really are apart. It looks like 30 feet if the drawing is to scale but, that's it.
Sacchet: Bethany.
Tjornhom: I have no comments.
Sacchet: Rich.
Slagle: No comments.
Sacchet: My comment, I think the oak tree's going to resolve itself. I mean if it gets in the way
they're going to probably cut one. It's very simple. Is there a condition that says water for Lot 2
has to come from Frontier, or is that?
Saam: Yes.
Sacchet: Which one is that? Can you tell me which number please.
Saam: Yeah, number 9.
Sacchet: Oh there it is. I even highlighted it. Yes I support it. I think this is far better than the
original subdivision. It preserves the trees. It puts the houses where there is open space and lines
them up much better, and I would like to have a motion.
Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning, oh wait a minute.
Sacchet: There is actually a variance.
Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning Commission approves the vacation.
Sacchet: That's City Council. We don't need to do that.
Lillehaug: It's all under one?
Sacchet: No you're fine, keep going.
Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary
plat for Subdivision ~O3-3 for LaHaye Addition for two lots and a variance to allow a double
frontage lot as shown on the plans received August 15, 2003 subject to the following conditions,
I through 23 and modify 10 to add that inspection reports are given to the city upon completion
of the street improvement. Private street improvements. And ! think that would be it.
Saam: Delete 11.
Sacchet: Delete 11.
Lillehaug: Yep, delete 11.
70
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Sacchet: Okay, there is a motion. Is there a second?
Feik: Second.
Sacchet: There's a motion and a second. Friendly amendments? I'd like to do something with
condition 9. Does not make sense to request that they get it from Frontier Trail if the lot next to it
gets it from Pioneer. Or whatever the thing is out there, the other one.
Saam: Yeah if I can just add one thing. Our only thinking was if they weren't going to be tearing
up the street already, then we didn't want them to come from there but since they are, I agree that
they could come from Great Plains Boulevard.
Sacchet: So if we would delete condition 9.
Saam: That'd be fine. We'd just work with them with getting an alignment from Great Plains
Boulevard.
Sacchet: I would make a friendly amendment delete number 9.
Lillehaug: How about, would you accept this? The water service for Lot 2 will be coordinated
with the city.
Sacchet: Sure. That'd be, making me happy. So it's not overlooked. Did you accept your own
friendly amendment I suppose.
Lillehaug: Sure I accept that.
Lillehaug moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the preliminary plat for Subdivision ~03-3 for LaHaye Addition for two lots and a variance
to allow a double frontage lot as shown on the plans received August 15, 2003 subject to the
following conditions:
1. Install sod in all of the pavement removal areas.
o
If grading material will need to be imported or exported to construct the lots and street,
the applicant and/or the contractor must supply the City Engineer with a detailed haul
route for review and approval prior to site grading.
The new turnaround on Great Plains Boulevard shall be constructed to current city design
standards with 28 foot wide pavement, B-618 curb and gutter and concrete driveway
aprons.
A minimum 30 foot wide drainage and utility easement is required over the public
sanitary sewer line in the vacated road area.
Any grading or utility work outside of the property limits or right-of-way will require a
temporary easement.
6. Revise the grading plan as follows:
71
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Show the proposed grades for the private street and turnaround upgrades.
Add a benchmark and legend to the plan. The legend should define all of the
different line types, easements, silt fence, etc.
Show all existing and proposed easements on the plans.
Add tree preservation fencing around any and all trees to be saved.
Show the existing storm sewer and culverts under the existing driveways.
Revise the utility plan as follows:
Show the existing sanitary sewer line in Great Plains Boulevard.
Show the existing watermains in Great Plains Boulevard and Frontier Trail.
Add a legend to the plan.
Label the existing size and type of pipe for both the sanitary and watermains.
Show the existing storm sewer and culverts under the existing driveways.
Add a catch basin at the low point in the turnaround with a storm sewer line that
discharges just east of the proposed driveway for Lot 2.
The water service for Lot 2 will be coordinated with the City.
The proposed private street upgrades shall include a 20 foot wide pavement, built to a 7
ton design, and a 30 foot wide private easement dedicated to the benefiting property
owners. In order to save the two existing oak trees on each side of the private street, the
street width may be narrowed in this area. The developer shall provide inspection
reports for the private street to the City.
Deleted.
Detailed street construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest
edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates will be required for review and
approval by the City Council at the time of final plat consideration. Since the street
improvements will become owned and maintained by the City, the applicant must enter
into a development contract with the City and provide financial security in the form of a
letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee construction of the public improvements.
Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including but not
limited to Watershed District, MPCA, etc.
The site will be subject to one sanitary sewer and water connection charge for the new lot.
The 2003 connection charges for both sanitary sewer and water are $4,513. The property
is also subject to sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges for the new lot. The 2003
trunk utility hook-up charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit
for water. The 2003 SAC charge is $1,275 per unit. These charges are collected prior to
the building permit issuance.
Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any
construction.
Building official conditions:
Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division
before building permits will be issued.
72
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
Retaining walls over 4 feet high require a permit and must be designed by an
engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota.
16. Fire Marshal conditions:
ao
An address monument sign shall be installed at the common driveway entrance
where they split. Plans must be submitted to the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
review and approval. Also, if the address numbers installed on the houses are not
visible from the common driveway, additional numbers will be required at the
driveway entrances. These requirements are pursuant to Chanhassen Fire
Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed.
17.
Storm water calculations should be submitted to demonstrate that the proposed
subdivision maintains existing runoff rates and volumes.
18.
Impervious surfaces should be minimized to the greatest extent possible due to the lack of
storm water infrastructure. This includes the construction of Alternate A (Hammerhead
Turnaround) instead of Alternate B (Complete Circle).
19. The bluff impact zone and bluff setback should be shown and labeled on the grading plan.
20.
Based on the proposed developed area of 1.57 acres, the water quality fees associated
with this project are estimated at $1,490 and the water quantity fees associated with this
project are estimated at $3,686. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are
dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time the
estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the city at the time of final plat recording is
$5,176.
21.
Approval of the subdivision is contingent upon the City Council approving the vacation
of the right-of-way.
22.
Full park and trail fees will be collected in lieu of land dedication for the newly created
lot in the amount of $2,400.
23. Access to Lot 2 shall be prohibited off of Frontier Trail.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TO CREATE TWO
LOTS ON 5.13 ACRES OF LAND AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A THREE STORY,
89 UNIT HOTEL ON 3.01 ACRES WITH VARIANCES FOR SIGNAGE AND DESIGN
STANDARDS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND
CENTURY BOULEVARD, PROPERTY ZONED PUD, STEINER CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES, INC., AND STEVE SLOWEY, HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Questions from staff. Rich.
73
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Slagle: Bob. Can you, if you may, at the map, can you show me where the trail, sidewalk would
be.
Generous: They show up in blue on this. There's an existing trail on Century Boulevard. They
have had one over to Century Boulevard on the south side of the parking lot and we'd have to
provide connections to the developments on the north. And the future trail down the hill, and
then a trail within the city's parkland. And this will connect over to the Autumn Ridge
development which is located east of the 100 acres of park that we have.
Slagle: Okay. Next question is, can you tell me what, if any proposals have been tossed around
for Lot 1.
Generous: They're proposing that as a restaurant site but I don't believe they have any specific
takers and the developer could address that further.
Slagle: Okay. The reason I ask that second question is, just again for consideration, is that you
might want to have a more direct access to the restaurant from the hotel lobby, if it is a restaurant.
Talking i.e. sidewalks. In other words right now what you've asked them to do is walk down,
walk across and walk back up. My guess is you have a fair amount of people that would just
come out the lobby door, go straight across the parking lot.
Sacchet: Skyway.
Slagle: You know but I mean seriously, I would ask the developer to consider how he's going to
handle that traffic flow. But other than that, I don't have any questions.
Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Bethany, questions.
Tjomhom: You know my one question was what was going to be on Lot 1 and I guess that was
answered so now I have no questions.
Sacchet: Kurt.
Papke: Do you have any concerns with the traffic flow in here? It just seems like the traffic flow
coming in past the future restaurant or whatever and then coming around into the canopy area, it
just seems really kind of cramped if you will. Do you have from a planning perspective any
concems?
Saam: On the interior site, the flow around and getting in and out?
Papke: Yeah.
Saam: I looked at it with the fire marshal for emergency access. For car access, no. I think it
works nicely. And from emergency access also.
Sacchet: So trucks can do it?
Saam: Yes.
Papke: That blueprint is deceiving. That's just my observation. That's all.
74
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Sacchet: Steve.
Lillehaug: Pedestrian curb ramp. Does the city currently, has it currently switched to the new
ADA requirement for trunk heated domes as MnDot has switched to? Is the city up to par?
Saam: You've got me on that one. I have no idea on that. That's something I'd have to check on.
Lillehaug: The Lot 1, is that portion to the south of the parking lot, is that Lot 17
Generous: Yes.
Lillehaug: Okay. The shared drive aisle. That's going to be a public street with parking spaces
on both sides. Is that typical? Adequate? Is that what we do in the city?
Saam: It won't be a public street. It'd be a private street.
Lillehaug: Private I mean, yep. And that's typical?
Saam: Yes. We do have areas where, if you're concerned with the parking on both sides of it. I
guess that would be the only concern I could see is people backing out into that main drive aisle,
but I think because of that existing slope on the site, they're limited...
Lillehaug: Okay, page 11, condition 5. Vacate the permanent roadway, drainage and utility
easement on the southwest comer. ! am not following why, what is quite going on there.
Saam: And what we need back is the public right-of-way. The idea is prior to platting of this we
finish Century Boulevard and in doing so we needed additional land for the street. So we
obtained an easement for roadway in that area. Now that the, so an easement, the applicant still
owns property. We just have rights. Now that that the applicant is platting it, we're saying well
we'll vacate the easement and then they'll just dedicate that right-of-way back to us. With the
plat, and we typically do those type of things with the plat. So my one correction if I could just
mention it now on that item 5, condition 5. It should say vacate that easement on the southwest
comer of the parcel and dedicate the public right-of-way and drainage and utilities. Did ! answer
your question?
Lillehaug: Yep.
Sacchet: Any other questions Steve?
Lillehaug: Private easement for shared storm sewer. I saw that somewhere in there. Is that
typically what the city requires? I don't remember doing that on.
Saam: Like the north side of Highway 5 we're doing that. On Arboretum Shopping Center
which you all saw maybe a month or two ago. Kwik Trip we did that there. Something we do on
the commercial lots.
Lillehaug: Alright. The full access. I contacted you guys regarding that full access on Century
Boulevard. Looking at the traffic analysis that was done previously to the previous applicants,
has the city fully looked at this traffic analysis and taken every recommendation in this traffic
analysis into account and implemented them? And that's probably not a fair question.
75
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Sacchet: Try to narrow it one more step Steve.
Lillehaug: The analysis indicates that a left turn lane in both directions should be provided.
Saam: That is on Century Boulevard.
Lillehaug: On Century Boulevard at that access.
Saam: Yeah we disagreed with that. So we didn't implement that.
Lillehaug: So that traffic analysis city staff disagreed with that portion of it. The traffic analysis
addressed both the overall intersection operation. The traffic analysis did not address risk and
safety factors taken into providing a full access there. Is it the staffs position that there is not a
risk and safety factor by leaving that a full access?
Saam: We think it's a hairy subject. We looked at it. Really I think it is. Obviously
Commissioner Lillehaug's opinion it is a safety issue and one could sure make a good argument
for that. We looked at it from the traffic standpoint first and the traffic study showed that that
area would operate sufficiently. Wouldn't cause congestion, that sort of thing. Going on that
same angle, if it's not going to be hazardous due to congestion, turning movements, that sort of
thing, then we took a step from there and said well, it should be safe also and allow that median to
be opened up and to go forward. I mean we could argue or debate back and forth any driveway
accessing onto West 78th Street.
Lillehaug: This isn't a dual left turn lane. That's a caveat that you don't see this and if you do
see it, it's only an existing condition. This is, it's you know you go out there today, there's no
traffic out there but does the city feel that once this whole area is developed that that's not a
safety issue because.
Saam: We feel it will operate safely, at least from the data we've been supplied, we feel it will
operate safely. However we did add the condition that if we don't think it's operating safely or
the property owners have a disagreement with it, then we have the option to go in there and redo
it, and I think that's outlined in condition 12.
Lillehaug: Sure, it's outlined. I'm not...
Sacchet: Point of clarification. How close is that driveway to the intersection of Century and
Highway 5? Do you know?
Saam: We can find out very quickly. From the center line it's approximately 370, 380 feet.
Sacchet: So it's more than 300 feet from the actual roadway.
Saam: Yeah.
Sacchet: From center line of 5 it is.
Lillehaug: So who's going to be liable if there's an accident there? Can the city be liable for an
accident there?
76
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Saam: I don't know. I guess that I don't know. I mean anybody could bring a lawsuit against
anybody.
Lillehaug: Sure, but this is a specific case.
Saam: I guess we would go back then to, I mean if that would happen we would go back to the
traffic study that was done showing that that intersection operates sufficiently.
Lillehaug: You go back to this traffic study and the traffic study recommends left tums for that
full access there.
Saam: They recommended a number of conditions or major conclusions and some of them we
agreed with, some we didn't. And there were economic factors.
Lillehaug: So then it's really staff's opinion, I mean you can throw this analysis out the window
because staff agreed with a couple of them and they didn't agree with all of them and the major
conclusions here were every conclusion be implemented here. Not just one or two of them so it
brings it back to the city period. So the city is liable in my mind. And I don't want the city to
even be liable for this.
Slagle: So it'd be a right.
Lillehaug: Right-in/right-out. No more questions.
Sacchet: Bruce.
Feik: Yeah a few. Mechanical. Where is the mechanical for the back of the house space and the
common areas? We've got window shakers in the rooms and I'm assuming, where's the
mechanical for the pool area, common areas?
Sacchet: Is that a Matt question or.
Feik: I don't know, Bob how about you?
Sacchet: Do you want to wait for the applicant with that?
Feik: No. I don't.
Sacchet: Alright.
Generous: They have a pool equipment room.
Feik: Where's the mechanical for the building? For the common area mechanical. The HVAC
equipment. Where is that? Is that roof top? Buried in the roof? Is it carved out? Is it on the
pad someplace outside of the building?
Generous: I'm not certain.
Sacchet: So we don't know yet.
77
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Feik: I'm going to belabor one point briefly now I guess and we can really hit on it later. Here
on number 12, an opinion or the property owner. The conditions are not safe. We've got
numerous conflicting property owners out here now in this intersection. What if the daycare
across the street decides it's not safe but 3 of the other property owners do think it's safe. What if
U.S. Bank says it's not safe? Or what if the owner of Lot 1 decides it's not safe? We're leaving
this issue of this full access intersection, at least in this clause, to the whims of the property owner
and owners. So I'm real uncomfortable with that.
Sacchet: We're not at comments yet. Is there a question in there? We're at questions.
Feik: I don't care.
Sacchet: I know.
Feik: Thank you. And then I'd like to ask you, I guess this is really a Bob question. I don't care
how long this takes by the way so, sit back and get comfortable.
Sacchet: I am comfortable.
Feik: Page 4. This brought me around in circles. Tell me what we're doing here in this trails
thing? This whole dialogue on the trails.
Generous: We're requiring the developer to build the north trail as part of this project.
Feik: The south trail.
Generous: No it's the north trail because on the south side of Coulter there's a south trail that
connects to the properties to the east. There's a circular trail system that goes around this park
space. As the property adjacent to that develops, and is platted, the developer's required to install
that trail. They pay park and trail fees for the platting of the property. They pay trail fees in this
instance. The city then reimburses them for their construction costs plus 10 percent overhead
design yes. And we'll see it again once the property, there's another outlot south of Coulter that
will come in for final platting and at that time we'll get the south trail around the open space and
the same conditions will apply.
Feik: So then the trail that goes to Lot 1, I guess there really isn't a trail to Lot 1 is there?
Generous: No, there's just a sidewalk there and we consider this a sidewalk down to our trail
system.
Slagle: Are you getting dizzy?
Claybaugh: It's all clear now.
Feik: It's all crystal clear. We're okay on trees. With the changes you recommended in the
islands...
Sacchet: Thank you Bruce. Craig.
Claybaugh: Down to comments.
78
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Sacchet: Comments will come in a minute. You don't have questions, is that what you're
saying?
Claybaugh: No, nothing new to add.
Sacchet: Okay, I have a couple questions real quick. There is this whole zoo of easements on the
southwest part of the, there's a whole collection of easements. It's just a whole zoo. A whole
collection of easements it seems on the southwest part. Is that, did you clean that up?
Saam: Yeah, that's part of that vacating... One of them's a temporary one that goes away.
Sacchet: So that will be taken care of?
Saam: Yes.
Sacchet: Do we, just for curiosity sake, do we know how much percentage EIFS is on this?
Almost like 5 percent. Signage. Signage. I'm very confused. I mean the text talks about a
variance for signage on the eastern side. The drawing, they're almost colorful drawing shows a
sign on the west side. So this is not an applicant, we will get to you. Staff is going to refer that to
applicant. Monument sign. I guess that just needs to be in a different place, right?
Generous: Yes. It's in the right-of-way.
Sacchet: Okay. My question about the elevation on the east elevation. Is there enough interest
on that side? Do we need more windows there or are we okay with those blank walls? Does that
meet the development standards? Well there's only one here.
Generous: It's this elevation right here that you're talking about.
Sacchet: Yes I'm talking about those two.
Generous: I believe this area is a stairwell down to the ground floor. I don't know.
Sacchet: Does it meet design standards.
Generous: Yes because you're blocking it to the west with landscaping .... projection out so this
is actually dropping down. At the end of the building and then it drops to the west.
Sacchet: Okay so it's not really.
Generous: Then it drops again and then you have the...
Sacchet: So we're saying it meets design standards yes and it's recessed, not very visible, okay.
On let's see, we talked about the full access. Steve you took care of that. The opinion of the
property owner we talked about. Okay, that's all the questions ! have. Thank you very much.
Applicant, do you want to, yes. Mr. Rich.
Slagle: One more question for staff.
Sacchet: Go ahead.
79
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Slagle: Dove tailing on Kurt's comment, I just want to make it clear, or ask that it be clear that
you are saying Bob and staff that in your opinion, so I'm pulling in on whatever drive that will be
with parking spots all to the south, as you drive in, and then your turn radius to get to what I'll
call the lobby appears to have a fairly tight turning radius in there. You see where it says hydrant,
a couple parking spots for handicap. I'm just saying that that isn't the entrance that I would
expect for a hotel. I mean it' s sort of like driving behind Axel' s you know as an example. Maybe
my scales are off but it appears to be pretty tight. My question to staff is, do you think that
there's concern there and have you discussed at all whether all those parking spots are needed or.
Saam: I can add a couple things there. First off, the drive aisle's got to be 26 foot wide. I
believe it's showing 24 between Lot 1 and 2, and that's addressed in a condition in there. So it'd
be a little wider, but I do agree that it's not the ultimate situation when you pull in to have other
cars parking off that main drive aisle. However, as I stated earlier, because of a slope on the site,
I mean if we pushed them down to the south, now we're getting into a retaining wall and slope.
You know steep slopes and I don't know if that's something we want to do.
Slagle: Are they absolutely necessary?
Saam: Are those parking stalls?
Slagle: Yeah. In other words in Lot 1, whatever's going to be proposed, not require.
Aanenson: It could, but we don't have a plan in yet.
Generous: We don't know how big the restaurant is or if it's an office user, it may be different
parking requirements. They just showed a sketch plan for a restaurant of this size with parking
around it. And how they would facilitate that.
Sacchet: Okay. Alright, does the applicant want to make a presentation please. Come forward.
State your name. Address for the record. Tell us your story please.
Phillip Baum: My name is Phillip Baum. I'm President of Steiner Construction Services, which
is owned by Steiner Development. And Steve Slowey lives in Aitkin, South Dakota and didn't
make the trip today for this. But I do want to address the signage. There was an error. Initially
the owner, our client wanted, had concerns with the westbound traffic and wanted these so you
would see a sign up on that west/east elevation gable. And then, but didn't relay that to the
architect. We got our submittal in. It shows a sign on both sides. But to throw a little curve ball
and that is the client contacted me today after I reviewed the staff report with him, that Bob was
not recommending the variance for the sign on the east elevation. And he says you know, I've
been thinking about that and I can live with that. But he said I would really like to see it the way
it's shown on the rendering and have it on the north and west because Holiday Inn feels strongly
about that. Up on those gables because you can't see the building from 41, and so we're here to
respectfully request the variance from the east over to the west. Because if it was on, facing
Century and 5 it would be okay but because of the restaurant's there, therefore you don't, it
requires the variance. So if we look at the rendering, this one. Where it shows the sign on the
north elevation and he feels strongly, or Holiday Inn feels strongly about it being above the
canopy entrance at that location. Other than that, there was a few other things with outdoor
furniture. We have no problem with and we've worked with Bob and his staff closely on the
design with the brick. We went for, this will be one of the nicest Holiday Inn Expresses I think in
the country. It's literally all brick. The light color on the rendering shows up somewhat fairly
8O
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
white but it's actually going to be a beige color brick. Here's a bigger sample. This being the
other color brick so it's somewhat attractive. And then you've got the big pool with the three
story slide going in there. That type of thing. Anything else Neil? The architect of record is out
of Fargo, North Dakota and the client has also hired Neil Webber from Webber Architects to
what was involved with the site plan design. In that regard working with us and Schoell and
Madsen, civil engineers and Neil is here as well to help with any architectural questions.
Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from the applicant? Rich, you have some?
Slagle: In helping with background, we've seen a few applications that have come in that have
been on the south side of 5, mainly a church a little further east. What I'm getting at is, this is a
hotel, 24 hour. Lights. Has there been any discussion or not regarding the residents to the north
of 5 where you'll have a townhome development and soon to be homes.
Phillip Baum: Discussions with whom? No, we haven't had detailed discussions with Bob in
that regard yet, no.
Neil Webber: You're talking about...development across the street?
Slagle: In the Lundgren.
Neil Webber: Well they're way out of the proposal...
Phillip Baum: To answer your question have we had discussions directly with them, no.
Slagle: Your thoughts on the comment of the entrance.
Phillip Baum: That's a good point. I think what I'm going to do is take that up with Neil and
Schoell and Madsen and get back.
Neil Webber: That was discussed and basically what the, it was reviewed as a combination and
that's what we found with the restaurant. The combination of the restaurant and hotel, we've
oriented the entrance to the hotel visible from the street side, so basically when you're entering
into it, it's like entering a complex. It's not viewed as strictly a hotel entrance. It's an entrance to
the combination of it. You talk about the access from the hotel and you're absolutely correct, but
there would be direct access from the lobby straight across. That would be shown when they
would come back with the site plan when a restaurant user is determined. But you're right, that is
critical.
Slagle: I just think from aesthetics you have a person driving in, I mean the last thing I would
want as a business traveler is to have 3 or 4 cars backing up and I have to wait when all I'm doing
is going to the hotel lobby. Or going to the hotel parking lot.
Neil Webber: The advantage you have with the combination of the uses is that they tend to peak
at different times which helps with a mixed use development. You're driving in past the parking
is really no different than you see in an awful lot of retail developments. In fact this is actually
better because it's a mixed use and it's relatively low density use, in spite of what it looks like.
You're talking 89 units.
Sacchet: Any other questions from the applicant? You got some Bruce?
81
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Feik: Where's the mechanical for the common area?
Phillip Baum: Common area, on the corridors on the west entrance would be more of a sky pack,
magic pack system, and then the common where the lobby is, will be a ground mounted on the
inside of the L. The condenser unit will sit out there.
Feik: On the inside back behind the pool?
Phillip Baum: Yes.
Feik: On the south side and that would also serve the pool?
Phillip Baum: That's correct.
Feik: And that would be for all of your.
Phillip Baum: That would just be for yeah, that little bit of lobby area. You get up on the
corridors going down the west, they're going to be that stand up combination, some people call
them sky packs. Some people call them magic packs. On the very west end. Or east end, I'm
sorry.
Feik: The east end.
Phillip Baum: East end, yes. Of the corridor. And we'll just run duct work down the...
Feik: Will that be fully screened then?
Phillip Baum: It's usually just a louver that matches the brick work on the outside.
Feik: Alright, thank you.
Sacchet: Other questions from the applicant?
Claybaugh: No I don't have any more.
Lillehaug: I have one.
Sacchet: Go ahead.
Lillehaug: What's your opinion as far as closing that access now versus later?
Phillip Baum: Closing the access, I'm not following.
Lillehaug: Closing the full access on Century Boulevard.
Sacchet: Making it right-in/right-out only.
Nell Webber: It'd probably kill the project. It would kill everything on that whole comer. If that
was an issue...
Feik: It's been an issue.
82
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Neil Webber: Yeah, but I mean we didn't know about the issue until just now, tonight. It never
came up in any of our discussions.
Lillehaug: So what you're saying is, is you're basically disregarding condition 12 because if it
happens, you're basically disregarding condition 127
Phillip Baum: Condition 12 is the one that states in regards to, if there's a safety concern that
we'll do something about it. Is that condition 127 Going off memory.
Feik: Isn't that also attached to the property owners to the west side of this intersection? So they
would have the authority to close that and you wouldn't have a vote.
Aanenson: Well that's up to the council to decide. The council would hold a hearing and take
some public comment. I don't think they would just come in and close the road.
Neil Webber: It would hurt them just as bad because you'd have everybody coming out of the
bank, you can't make a left turn. I mean it'd kill them.
Saam: And that's actually the project that came up on.
Feik: Right it is. On both of those. Both U.S. Bank and the daycare.
Lillehaug: So you're saying that this condition it also says if there's ever a level of service F or
level of service D.
Phillip Baum: Well no, you made a comment that we're ignoring it. I don't think we're ignoring
it. We probably just don't agree that we feel it's a safety concern with the two lanes there and
turning in and out. We feel strongly that it's not a safety concern, so if it turns out that there's a
lot of crashes out there or a crash out there, then we're going to certainly address that, both from
Steiner Development as a developer. Steve Slowey as the owner of this hotel. And the neighbors
across the street, whether it be Helsene, the new retail that's going to go in. The bank. They're
all friends of our' s.
Lillehaug: So you'll take the liability off the city then?
Phillip Baum: Who? Steiner Development take the liability off the City? Well.
Lillehaug: I don't want to pay for an accident.
Phillip Baum: If someone takes a left turn in front of you, you have a concern that the city would
be liable, not the person that took the left turn into somebody? I'm not sure I follow. That's all.
Sacchet: Any other questions from the applicant? Kurt.
Papke: Yeah, you mentioned a 3 story water slide.
Phillip Baum: Yeah that pool, there's a pool and then right now there's proposed is a big water
slide. Americlnn I think calls it the Splash Adventure. This is a Holiday Inn, they call it
something else. I'm not sure what.
83
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Papke: What are you doing to address any safety concerns? Is the slide enclosed and what, I just
have some overall concerns about.
Phillip Baum: Yeah, it's one that goes around and it's enclosed.
Papke: Okay. I take it that will go into more detail later on when we get into.
Phillip Baum: That's in preliminary right now.
Sacchet: Any other questions? Craig, you have questions? You already explained about the
sign, what you would like. On the west instead of on the east.
Phillip Baum: Yeah, we'd just like to see what your thoughts are on this because like I said, we
just got contacted today from both the owner and the franchiser of Holiday Inn that that was part
of the design.
Sacchet: From staff's point of view, that's still off street frontage because it's a little further
away from Century?
Generous: Because there's a lot inbetween.
Sacchet: There's a lot inbetween so it would still need a variance.
Generous: If it stayed as one lot, which they could do, they could have street frontage.
Sacchet: If it was one lot it would not need a variance, alright. That makes it even more murky.
Moving the monument sign, is that an issue for you guys?
Phillip Baum: No.
Sacchet: No issue there. You pointed, my comment here about these blank walls on the east
side. Your point is that functionally you can't really have anything else here. Is that what I
heard?
Phillip Baum: Yeah because that's just the back side of the pool area.
Neil Webber: It's the mechanical part of the pool.
Sacchet: It's the mechanical part of the pool. And you see recessed, so it's not really visible
from.
Neil Webber: Well the front part of the hall is actually four units down. It's not in the same
plane. You're looking at, when you look at this elevation here you're seeing the stairwell here
which is and then this is actually the mechanical room and it's set back.
Sacchet: So you don't see the pool part.
Neil Webber: It's not the same. The elevation gives you a distorted view of what you're seeing.
Sacchet: ...your feelings about the road access. And that's all my questions from the applicant.
Thank you. This is a public hearing. If anybody named Debbie wants to address that.
84
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I happen to be in the hotel industry and I want
to tell you that the Holiday Inn Express product is really a great product so I think the design is
tremendous. Thank you.
Sacchet: Appreciate it. With that I close the public hearing. Bring it back to comments from the
commissioners. Who wants to start? Ladies first?
Tjornhom: Okay. You know I guess I don't really have a lot of strong comments about the
whole thing. I think the project looks really nice. I think the community will be well served with
it, and I'm going to vote to approve it.
Sacchet: Thanks. Kurt.
Papke: I'm just going to be a little bit of a broken record here on the traffic flow being a frequent
user of such facilities, and again kind of echoing some of Rich's concerns. I think obviously we
don't know what's going onto Lot 1 but I just have concerns that with the whole traffic flow
around here, cars pulling in and out of both sides, I think we're going to have some safety issues
there but that's my only concern.
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt.
Slagle: Same. Traffic.
Sacchet: Steve.
Lillehaug: I'm going to be a broken record here, but first if staff could look at curb ramps.
MnDot is requiring a different you know ADA with curb ramping. It's called a trunk heated
dome. It's on their web site so look at that. Silt fence, there's a detail on Sheet C-4. I think
you're using a machine slice type silt fence which doesn't match the detail on Sheet 4. So take a
look at that. And then, I'm going to comment on the full access a little more. It's in my mind it's
strictly a political issue. You know as the applicant said, it's a deal breaker and I think that's why
it's a full access to this point and I disagree with it. It is a risk factor. It's a risk. It's a safety
issue. Allowing a full access in a dual left turn lane, current MnDot standards are not to allow
this. It's a safety issue. When you have full development to that area out there, there's going to
be a significant amount of more traffic and it only takes one car to be hanging in that through lane
to turn left there, right at the beginning of that dual left turn lane, you know to cause confusion.
It's not a typical, it's not what drivers are expecting and it's a safety issue. My recommendation
is to take care of it now rather than later because you're going to certainly ruffle a lot more
feathers later if this full access is closed. Compared to closing it now and I think it's a wrong
move for city staff to support maintaining this access open. And I'd like to reiterate that I would
like staff to look at a traffic analysis that was performed specifically for this. It addresses the
operation analysis of this intersection. A few of the recommendations and conclusions weren't
implemented here, and I'd also like to reiterate that this traffic analysis doesn't specifically
address a safety risk factor, kind of separate from the operation analysis of providing a full
intersection there. So I'd like staff to take a look at that again and insure that that's what the
direction they want the city to head here and that's my only comment and I'm not going to
comment on that access again with any other...
85
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Slagle: Well you might have to. Just a point of clarification. If I can remember on the U.S.
Bank and then the subsequent daycare, did we as a commission vote for a right-in/right-out and
was it over ruled by council?
Sacchet: I believe so.
Lillehaug: Yep.
Slagle: Is that correct?
Saam: It may have been.
Sacchet: I'm pretty sure it was.
Lillehaug: And then we attached it for the next one that came in too.
Sacchet: And we can attach it again.
Lillehaug: I attached it again and it got voted, taken off again. I'm going to put it on there one
more time though. If I can.
Sacchet: Sure. Alright, next. Bruce.
Feik: On that condition number 12. Specifically I would like to see the language changed. In the
opinion of the City. Not the property owners. If the conditions are met, it gets changed. I think
as a property owner, future operator, however this is all going, I think I'm of a mind of most of
the I think the commission up here that it's just a matter of time before that intersection gets
closed. I've driven it. I've got my daughter in dance and stuff up in that neighborhood, and with
this and a hotel and ultimately with our flag ship, corporate center that's going to go up on the
extreme north, hopefully, extreme northeast corner of that intersection, there's going to be a ton
of traffic over there. Coming in and I think it's just a matter of time before that intersection is
closed. That's my comment.
Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Craig.
Claybaugh: Same issues. Item 12. The intersection as well as the confusion with cars backing
up and out at the entry of the canopy.
Sacchet: Is that it?
Claybaugh: Yeah, that's all.
Sacchet: That 12 really doesn't compute for me. I'd rather have something crisp and say right-
in/right-out only. That is consistent with what we attached to the other applications that went in
there and that way we express our concern and let council deal with it and make a decision on it.
And the other thing is the sign variance. I don't really know whether we even can consider a sign
variance that is different from what's in the staff report so.
Generous: It wasn't noticed specific to elevation. It just said sign variance.
Feik: So you could just say specifically to the west.
86
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Sacchet: So we could say west. Now, would they also need a sign variance if they put it on the
little canopy and not up on the gable?
Aanenson: Either way.
Sacchet: Either way.
Aanenson: They get one or the other. They don't get both. It either goes with the awning or at
the top of the building. Is that your question?
Sacchet: No. On the west elevation they have that little roof thing sticking out.
Feik: Above the canopy.
Aanenson: That's what I'm talking about. It's either one or the other. It's not both.
Sacchet: They can do one or the other?
Feik: No, no, no. She's saying either here or here, not both of them.
Sacchet: Right. Not both, yes. But it doesn't matter, either way they need a variance.
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. And we can say we deny a variance?
Aanenson: Yes you can.
Sacchet: Or could we say we approve it because we haven't really looked at it on that side? The
rules are the same though. So we could go either way, okay. I can understand that they'd like to
have their name over their entrance.
Feik: I look at what we've done or what has been done over with AmericInn and their multiple
signs on multiple elevations and things like that. You're coming down eastbound into the city.
It's going to be above the restaurant. I like this a whole lot better than I like a cupola sticking up.
Sacchet: Yeah, with it on every side. I mean there's a big difference there. Okay. With that I
think we could actually support even a variance. Nice. I think that's all my comments. I'd like
motions. Who wants to make a motion on the preliminary plat?
Feik: I'll make it.
Sacchet: Alright Bruce, go ahead. Page 10.
Feik: I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat
Subdivision #2003-13 as shown on plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen Inc., dated received
August 1, 2003 and dated 7/01/03 respectively, based on the findings in the attached findings of
fact and recommendation and subject to the following conditions 1 through 26 with change in
number.
87
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Sacchet: Wait, I only have 24.
Feik: 1 through 24. 1 through 24 with a change in number 12. In the second line, striking the
property owner and inserting the City.
Sacchet: In the first sentence it says property owner, not the second line?
Feik: The second line.
Sacchet: Yes in the second line. Alright, we have a motion. Is there a second?
Slagle: I have a friendly amendment.
Sacchet: We need a second first.
Claybaugh: I'll second.
Sacchet: Second there. Alright, friendly amendment.
Slagle: I would recommend that we delete 12 the way it stands and that we put the access onto
Century Boulevard will be a right-in/right-out.
Sacchet: Is that acceptable Bruce?
Feik: Why?
Sacchet: Because it's consistent with what we did in the past.
Feik: It's consistent but it's also inconsistent with what City Council has been approving in that
direction.
Sacchet: Then they can be consistent and turn it down again.
Lillehaug: What did you approve last time?
Feik: I'm sure it was right-in/right-out. I'm just getting tired. You know, yeah. Yeah, I'll go
with that. Let's let City Council make that, I think 1, 2, 3, there's 4 of us that certainly have some
strong concerns on that subject.
Sacchet: He accepted it. Any other friendly's?
Saam: Condition 5, if I could remind you, adding that right-of-way. Dedicate the right-of-way in
addition to the easement. If we could just include that.
Feik: Thank you.
Sacchet: We do that Bruce?
Feik; Yes.
Sacchet: Dedicate right-of-way.
88
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Feik moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the preliminary plat Subdivision #2003-13 as shown on plans prepared by Schoell &
Madsen Inc., dated received August 1, 2003 and dated 7/01/03 respectively, based on the
findings in the attached findings of fact and recommendation and subject to the following
conditions:
The development of the individual lots must comply with the Arboretum Business Park
Development Design Standards.
The developer shall be responsible for planning, engineering, and constructing the
"wetland trail". The city shall compensate the developer full costs of trail construction
plus a 10% design and construction management fee.
Full trail fees shall be collected pursuant to city ordinance for all lots in the Arboretum
Business Park 6m Addition.
If the trail alignment is within property not owned by the City, then the developer shall
dedicate a 20 foot wide trail easement centered on the trail alignment.
o
Vacate the permanent roadway, drainage and utility easement on the southwest comer of
the parcel and dedicate the public right-of-way, drainage and utility easement with the
plat.
Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the
City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction
plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will
also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the
necessary security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation
of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Before building permit
issuance, permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including
but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, MnDot, etc.
A private storm sewer easement against Lot 1 must be obtained from the owners and
recorded before the building permit issuance.
The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer, water, and street
improvements. The remaining assessment due payable to the City is $137,272.40. This
remaining balance may be re-spread against the newly platted lots on a per area basis. In
addition, the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the
new lots. The 2003 trunk hookup charges are $1440 for sanitary sewer and $1876 for
watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against
the parcel at the time of the building permit issuance.
The proposed sanitary sewer and watermains in the main drive aisle will be considered
public utility lines since they will serve more than one lot. A minimum 35 foot wide
public utility easement will be required over the public sewer and watermain. The end of
the public sewer and watermain shall be at the property line between Lot 1 and Lot 2.
10.
Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's
89
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Type III erosion control fence, which is a heavy duty silt fence be used for the area
adjacent to the existing wetland just south of the site. In addition, erosion control
blankets will be required on the steep slopes on the site.
The main drive aisle through the site will be a private street since it serves multiple lots.
As such, the road must be a minimum of 26 feet wide, built to a 9 ton design and enclosed
within a 40 foot wide private easement. A cross access easement must be obtained and
recorded before building permit issuance. The developer must submit testing reports
verifying that the driveway is built to a 9 ton design.
A right-in/right-out driveway access onto Century Boulevard will be allowed.
Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota must sign all plans.
Storm water calculations should be submitted to ensure the downstream storm water
infrastructure is sized adequately for the proposed development.
Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing and proposed storm
water infrastructure.
Private easement for the shared storm sewer must be obtained and recorded against the
lots before building permit issuance.
Erosion Control Note #4 should include straw mulch (MnDot Type I mulch) application
with seed for stabilization.
Category 3 (straw or wood fiber) blanket should be applied following seeding in the
proposed swale in the northeast comer of the site.
The silt fence used should be heavy-duty machine sliced silt fence, metal T-posts with 4
to 6 foot spacing. Existing vegetation should be conserved as much as practicable while
installing and during construction.
The silt fence end in the southwest comer of the site should be angled up slope to inhibit
water from flowing around the silt fence.
Inlet control is needed following installation of inlet structures. Inlet control methods will
be varied before and after pavement of the parking lots. Before pavement, inlet protection
could consist of heavy-duty mono-mono silt fence with 4 foot spacing of metal T-posts
andl" rock around silt fence material. After paving of parking lots, mulch socks, sand
bags or rock and wire could be used as temporary inlet control.
Based on the proposed developed area of 5.13 acres, the total SWMP fee, due payable to
the City at the time of final plat recording is $51,772.
The owner/operator of the proposed development must apply for and receive the NPDES
permit prior to beginning construction activities.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain a permit from Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek
Watershed District and comply with their conditions of approval.
90
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Sacchet: Now I'd like a motion on page 13 about the site plan.
Feik: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2003-8,
plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen, Inc. and Lightowler Johnson Associates, Inc. dated
received August 1, 2003, and dated 7/1/03 and revised 8/25/03 respectively, with a 15 percent
variance from the 50 percent fenestration requirement to permit 35 percent fenestration on the
northern building elevation on Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 6th Addition based on the
findings in the attached findings of fact and recommendation and subject to the following
conditions.
Sacchet: 1 through 26.
Feik: I through 26.
Papke: Second.
Sacchet: Alright, friendly amendment?
Slagle: On condition number 9. Internal sidewalk system shall be constructed to bring
pedestrians on the public trails on the west and south sides into the site, and some verbiage I'll
leave up to staff if you want to but, and onto the adjacent western lot in anticipation for.
Sacchet: How about between hotel and restaurant?
Feik: Well there's no restaurant so there's no orientation so there's no place to go.
Slagle: That's why I'm saying onto whatever that lot is.
Feik: You've got that little portico so what are your thoughts?
Slagle: I don't want to get into the details of it but I think we just need to make it known that
we're going to need something going west.
Sacchet: Between, to the neighboring whatever it will be.
Slagle: The adjacent lot to the west. If you don't want to add it you know.
Feik: No, that's works. I'm just thinking if it's premature. I'm fine with it.
Slagle: And then I think, I have one last one and help me if you will. Where we can add
something with respect to that entryway because that entryway is not, how should I say, it's not
premature in a sense that this lot is being developed so there is an entrance way. Right now we
currently the way the plan that's in front of us has parking spaces all the way from almost the
street to where you take a left to go into the lobby.
Feik: Before we vote let me ask a question of staff. The parking on the south side of that
entryway. Is that required in any way for the hotel?
91
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Generous: No.
Feik: You're not doing a shared parking?
Generous: No.
Sacchet: So did you make an amendment with that or not?
Slagle: Do you think that we need to, or do we just leave it up to the next tenant?
Aanenson: Well I think it's clear what your intention is when we look at that next application. I
think a lot of it has to do with the orientation of that restaurant, which way the door faces.
Obviously they're going to have some sort of relationship. Maybe the door faces the other way
and it might be access parking that wouldn't get used as frequently, depending on which way is
the front door and I think those are things that we need to look at for cueing. But I think the best
orientation for the hotel, for their front entrance, but we'll work on that when the next user comes
in and it will hopefully be our goal that that would be additional parking. Not the primary.
Slagle: Let me ask you this. From the entrance if you're on Coulter and you go in, you're
driving, I'm making the assumption that from that point to the lot line between the two lots, really
that 100 feet, 200 feet, 300 feet is really this other lot that we're not seeing tonight. Okay, so
what I guess I'm trying to say is that, again thinking...
Aanenson: Right, and when it comes in that's the, right. But we should be thinking of that.
Slagle: Now.
Aanenson: Right.
Slagle: So no additional.
Sacchet: Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. We have an amendment.
Feik moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site
Plan #2003-8, plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen, Inc. and Lightowler Johnson
Associates, Inc. dated received August 1, 2003, and dated 7/1/03 and revised 8/25/03
respectively, with a 15 percent variance from the 50 percent fenestration requirement to
permit 35 percent fenestration on the northern building elevation on Lot 2, Block 1,
Arboretum Business Park 6th Addition based on the findings in the attached findings of fact
and recommendation and subject to the following conditions:
The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the
stipulated.
2. The developer shall record the final plat for Arboretum Business Park 6th Addition.
The developer shall plant 13 overstory trees in and around the parking lot to meet
minimum requirements.
At least three grouping of overstory trees, with a minimum of three trees each, shall be
located along the south curb line.
92
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
The slope located along the southern and eastern property lines shall be left natural. The
applicant will be allowed to mow along the parking lot and trail if necessary.
A revised landscape plan shall be submitted for city review and approval.
Two landscape peninsulas shall be added, one in the northern parking lot and one in the
southern parking lot.
The developer shall install site furnishing including benches, bicycle racks, and tables.
The internal sidewalk system shall be constructed to bring pedestrians from the public
trails on the west and south sides into the site, and to the adjacent property to the west.
All signs shall require a separate sign permit.
Show the driveway dimensions on the site plan to read 26 feet in width and the access
corner radius.
Storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review before City Council
approval.
Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots. The
2003 trunk hookup charges are $1440 for sanitary sewer and $1876 for watermain.
Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at
the time of the building permit issuance.
On the grading plan:
Add storm sewer schedule.
Add silt fence around proposed storm sewer line from MH1 to the existing
manhole.
Revise the erosion control fence from Type II to Type III per city plate 5300.
Show all proposed 2' contours.
Show the pedestrian ramps at both sides of the access off Century Boulevard.
Show all existing and proposed easements.
Revise the flat elevation in the northeast portion of the parking lot.
Revise the side slope to 3:1 maximum along the north side of Lot 2.
On the utility plan:
Show the public drainage and utility easement.
Show the existing and proposed storm manholes rim elevations.
Show the water and sanitary sewer services size, type and class.
Relocate Sanitary MH3 to the property line between Lot 1 and Lot 2 where the
public sewer line must end.
All of the public watermain will be PVC C-900 pipe. Revise where necessary.
Add all applicable City of Chanhassen latest detail plates.
Show Century Boulevard existing street lights.
93
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
18.
Seed and mulch or sod the site within two weeks of grading. If dirt is required to be
brought into or out of the site, provide a haul route for review and approval.
19.
Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through
the City's Building Department.
20.
Concrete driveway apron, per city detail plate 5207 is required at the proposed access
point to the site.
21. The building must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler system.
22.
The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the
State of Minnesota.
23. Five accessible parking spaces must be provided.
24.
Accessible guest rooms and accessibility to recreation features must be provided in
accordance with Minnesota State Building Code, Chapter 1341.
25.
The building owner and/or their representative should meet with the Inspections Division
to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
26.
The plans were reviewed for general building code compliance only. A detailed plan
review cannot be done until complete plans are provided.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Sacchet: Now we have the last one that we don't know much about, the variance for the signage.
Feik: I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of a sign variance to permit
signage on the western building elevation period.
Sacchet: Do we need to specify the size?
Feik: As shown on the rendering as provided?
Aanenson: Yeah, well and I would also, if we may. For consistency that we provide some
findings and I'm just assuming that your rationale would be similar to the other hotels that have.
Feik: Yes.
Sacchet: Yes.
Aanenson: And that because it's more tasteful in the fact that it's not a cupola or an aperture onto
the building, those would be the rationale. That it's kind of incorporated into the building. That
made more sense.
Feik: Yes.
Aanenson: Okay. For the record I guess.
94
Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2003
Claybaugh: It's necessary to know where people are going. So it's helpful.
Slagle: So I'm clear, are we proposing then to approve signage on the north and west?
Feik: And the west.
Sacchet: Yes both. We have a motion. Do we have a second?
Slagle: Second.
Feik moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of sign
variance to permit signage on the western building elevation as shown on the renderings
prepared by the applicant, based on the findings that it would be consistent with other
hotels in the city and because it's more tasteful in the fact that it's not a cupola or an
aperture onto the building but is incorporated into the building. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Sacchet: Should we summarize for council? Our concern is the access. That we put in a right-
in/right-out, how we put it for the bank and the child care knowing that council has not accepted
that before. We do have enough of a concern that we add this again so at this point it's properly
considered. And other than that we support them to have signage on the west side as well
because it's much more acceptable than some of the other hotels we have in the city, in a similar
situation. Any other aspects of summary that we want to add? Doesn't look like.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Feik noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated August 19, 2003 as presented.
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 11:55 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
95
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 2, 2003
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Claybaugh, Steve Lillehaug, Bruce Feik, Uli Sacchet, Bethany
Tjornhom, Kurt Papke and Rich Slagle
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer, and Kristen
Wentzlaff, Planner.
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Janet & Jerry Paulsen
Debbie Lloyd
7305 Laredo Drive
7302 Laredo Drive
THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN HAS AUTHORIZED THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE
ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW DOCUMENTS (AUAR) FOR THE 2005
METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA) LOCATED SOUTH OF LYMAN
BOULEVARD, EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD, WEST OF FUTURE TH 212, AND NORTH
OF PIONEER TRAIL IN THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MN. THE PROJECT
CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 650 ACRES OF LAND INCLUDING PARKS AND
OPEN SPACE, RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY, RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY,
OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL AND OFFICE USES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Rosemary Biersdorf
Tallis Blake
Sever Peterson
Char Jeurissen
Kara Strazzanti
Bart Blinstrup
Mitch & Jill Anderson
Eric S. Theship-Rosales
2907 Butternut Drive, Chaska
2907 Butternut Drive, Chaska
15900 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie
9715 Audubon Road
2901 Forest Ridge, Chaska
18736 The Pines, Eden Prairie
2853 Timberview Trail, Chaska
9201 Audubon Road
Kate Aanenson presented an update on the AUAR review process and introduced Mark Koegler
from Hoisington-Koegler. He made some brief comments before introducing Gary Ehret with
Kimley Horn and Tim Casey with HDR who is working with Kimley and Horn on the noise and
air quality portions of the study. Commissioner Papke asked Tim Casey to comment on why
HDR did not do any measurements or analysis of Pioneer Trail or contours on the future Powers
Boulevard and voiced a concern that HDR did not study the 212 corridor for noise and air quality
issues. Other commissioners also asked for clarifications on the scope of the study performed by
HDR, what was and was not included in the study. Noise mitigation and air quality. Chairman
Sacchet outlined things that still needed to be addressed in the AUAR before it was considered
complete, i.e. identification and utilization of Best Management Practices, updating storm water
Planning Commission Summary - September 2, 2003
management plans, land use management tools, park and open space acquisition, development
strategies, lie stated that what the Planning Commission is really doing is laying the foundation
framework for when developers come in with specific proposals to measure these proposals
against this study to see where are areas that need to be further mitigated. Commissioner
Lillehaug asked if the Planning Commission members could still ask or submit written comments
after this meeting. Kate Aanenson stated comments could be received until the EQB is closed.
He asked for clarification on the traffic volumes on the east/west collector road and if the river
crossing was needed. Kate Aanenson stated that the Planning Commission would be getting a
copy of the mitigation and as a group, as an agenda item, could discuss and have those as part of
the record and forwarded to the EQB as well.
Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing for additional comments. Mitch Anderson, 2853
Timberview Trail, Chaska. spoke on behalf of the Autumn Woods neighborhood and stated there
was good information presented which reinforces some of the concerns that his neighborhood had
originally with the impact of the traffic is not just the traffic itself, but also the noise. He asked
that the City be proactive in addressing the traffic and noise situations. Janet Paulsen, 7305
Laredo Drive asked if the traffic study was done while school was in session. Tim Casey stated it
was done a couple weeks ago, prior to the beginning of school. Chairman Sacchet closed the
public hearing.
Commissioner Feik stated he was disappointed that the study did not address some of the
underlying zoning and uses, and that the sound and traffic concerns outside of the subject
property were really not addressed. He stated the reason for doing the large comprehensive
AUAR was to get a better study than if this had come in as separate studies over the next few
years. The only thing coordinated is the intersection of the roadways. He stated he didn't see a
whole lot of higher and better analysis out of this project as it relates to impacting the city than if
it had come in piecemeal. Commissioner Slagle stated he felt we had the cart before the horse
and as a citizen he felt that most people would hope that this area does not end up being worst
case scenario. He would rather plan for medium case scenarios and live within that. Chairman
Sacchet stated his expectations of this AUAR process were somewhat different. From the
Planning Commission aspect it's a little frustrating to be involved so early in the process when
they'd like to help shape it further. He stated he hoped the Planning Commission's contributions
to this point has been helpful and looks forward to seeing how this process continues. He asked
what information was needed before it gets published. Mark Koegler stated by and large it is
intact with the exception of flushing out final mitigation strategies but it is not final until the
comment period closes and comes back before the city for action.
Lillehaug moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the
AUAR be published in the September 15, 2003 Environmental Quality Board Monitor. All
voted in favor, except Feik, Slagle and Claybaugh who opposed. The motion carried with a
vote of 4 to 3.
Commissioner Feik felt the AUAR was not complete in scope. Commissioner Claybaugh stated
he was not sure that the Planning Commission fully understands everything that's in front of
them, and that's an individual concern. Commissioner Slagle stated with respect to the baseline
of worst case scenario versus medium case scenario.
Planning Commission Summary - September 2, 2003
CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF SMG, INC. REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REQUEST WITH VARIANCES FOR A GOLF COURSE ON
PROPERTY ZONED A2, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE
INTERSECTION OF PIONEER TRAIL AND GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD.
Public Present:
Name Address
Sharon Gatto
Jeff Sorum
John Lonstein
Gary A. Koch
Mike Conroy
9631 Foxford Road
9900 Deerbrook Drive
9861 Deerbrook Drive
9901 Deerbrook Drive
9921 Deerbrook Drive
Sharmeen Al-Jaff and Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Feik and
Commissioner Slagle had asked for clarification on the possible realignment of the gravel
driveway northward to the Halla entrance. Commissioner Lillehaug asked staff questions raised
in the letter from Carver County regarding the entrance into the golf course and right turn lanes
and left turn lanes on Pioneer. Commissioner Slagle had concerns with the impact of the well for
the golf course on neighboring properties, and concern about the use of phosphorus in the
fertilizer. Commissioner Papke asked about the path construction and grading for the golf cart
path right along the bluff line and safety concerns. He requested that a guardrail be considered.
Commissioner Lillehaug had concerns over the materials being used for the trash enclosure and
the need for the gravel road to the bluff. Commissioner Feik had concerns with the well water
impacts and over burdening this applicant when others in the area, i.e. Halla Nursery or Bluff
Creek Golf Course might be impacting the water system as well. Commissioner Claybaugh had
concerns with the wording of condition number 20 related to the well inspection process.
Kevin Norby, the golf course architect, stated the applicant was looking to get approval from the
Planning Commission and then the City Council to begin construction on the golf course this fall.
Their hope would be to dig the irrigation pond, start roughing in the parking lot and the driving
range. He addressed the concerns raised by the Planning Commission at the last meeting related
to access into the site, the proposed realignment in the southwest comer, installation of nets along
Highway 101, the proximity of the holes to 101 and the neighbors to the south, the bike trail
construction, exterior lighting, and the construction and monitoring of the well on the site.
Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing. John Lonstein, 9861 Deerbrook Drive was
concerned with the water and availability of water in the future. If he's suddenly without water,
what procedure does he follow. Making a phone call's not going to solve his water problem.
Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive asked that the Planning Commission add the phrase, the
developer provide inspection reports to the City for the private street. She also asked about
development upland from the fen can have an impact on the fen and if that has been addressed.
David Walstad, 10071 Great Plains Boulevard had concerns with the impact on his water, the
alignment of Hole 8 to TH 101, and the realignment of the access road to the south. He felt the
golf course is a temporary use until sewer and water is brought into this area, and the realignment
of that road can be addressed at that time when further development occurs. Gary Koch, 9901
Deerbrook Drive stated he and his neighbors on Deerbrook Drive were very concerned with the
water situation. David Teich at 1217 South Monroe in Shakopee, Minnesota. He owns the
property to the south of this project, and was bom and raised on that farm. The realignment of
Planning Commission Summary - September 2, 2003
the access would involve easements which is a complicated, impractical procedure. Tom Gertz,
10001 Great Plains Boulevard stated he did not support the realignment of the access road to the
south. Following commission discussion the following motions were made.
Feik moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommend the approval of
Conditional Use Permit W2003-4 CUP for the construction of a golf course with club house
as shown on plans dated August 25, 2003, with the following conditions:
1. Hours of operation shall be seasonal and limited to sunrise to sunset.
2. No outdoor speaker system shall be permitted (individual pager systems are permissible).
No commercial kitchen shall be permitted in the club house. There shall be no cooking
equipment permitted on the premises with the exception of a microwave oven, pizza/
toaster oven, etc. The intent of this condition is to put the golf course operator on notice.
The proposed septic system design does not allow for any cooking grease to be disposed
through the system which will cause the system to fail.
Approval of the Conditional Use Permit is contingent upon approval of Site Plan Review
#2003-7 SPR.
o
Soil tests must be performed at least once a year. Results of all soil testing must be
submitted to the City of Chanhassen. In addition, annual reports detailing all applications
of fertilizer (including nutrient content for nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium;
application rate in pounds per acre; date of application; and total quantity of fertilizer
applied) must be submitted to the City of Chanhassen. No fertilizer containing
phosphorus may be applied unless the soil test results demonstrate a deficiency in
phosphorus.
°
No grading, disturbance or dumping shall be permitted in areas designated as bluff or in
bluff impact zones. Runoff from cart paths, fairways, greens or tee boxes on Hole 3 shall
not be directed into bluff impact zones or bluff areas.
°
On-site grading may not increase the rate or volume of runoff downstream from the site
or onto adjacent properties.
8. The applicant shall enter into a conditional use permit with the City.
e
No exterior lighting shall be permitted with the exception of convenience lighting for
safety.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Feik moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site
Plan Review #2003-7 SPR for the construction of a Club House and Maintenance Building
for a golf course as shown on plans dated August 25, 2003, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Approval of the Site Plan Review application is contingent upon approval of the
Conditional Use Permit.
Planning Commission Summary - September 2, 2003
o
All trees to be preserved must be protected by tree protection fencing. Fencing must be
installed prior to grading.
No vegetation may be removed within the bluff impact zone.
The applicant shall provide a pedestrian/bikeway connection to the City's trail system at
the intersection of Great Plains Boulevard and Pioneer Trail.
Fire Department Conditions:
Please contact the Building Official and Fire Marshal to discuss the sprinklering
requirements for the club house and storage/maintenance building.
If a fire hydrant is available, a 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire
hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV,
and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located
and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
"No Parking Fire Lane" signs and yellow curbing will be required. Please contact
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of signs and curbs to be painted
yellow.
The builder must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Division regarding maximum allowable size of domestic water on a combination
water/sprinkler supply line. This is only if a sprinkler is required. Pursuant to
Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #36-1994.
The builder must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Division regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire
Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29q992.
A post indicator valve will be required on any building that will have a sprinkler
system.
go
Submit radius turns and dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
Building Official conditions:
Submit a detailed floor plan of the club house so the occupancy classification and
fire suppression requirements can be determined.
The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed
in the State of Minnesota.
c. An accessible route must be provided to all facilities on the site.
Submit a design of the on-site sewage treatment system for review and approval.
Two sites must be provided and these sites must be protected from damage prior
to beginning any construction activity on the site. The system must comply with
the requirements of Minnesota Rules 7080.0600.
Planning Commission Summary - September 2, 2003
Detailed occupancy related requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans
are submitted.
The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as
soon as possible to discuss plan review, permit procedures and fire suppression
options.
7. Engineering Department conditions:
Staff recommends that Type I silt fence be used along the northwesterly and
southerly property lines. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading
will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. All disturbed areas
are required to be restored with seed and mulch within two weeks of grading
completion.
Add the following City of Chanhassen latest Detail Plate Numbers: 5201, 5203,
5207, 5300 and 3001.
Co
The applicant is responsible to obtain and comply with all regulatory agency
permits.
d. On the grading plan add a benchmark.
The applicant must submit detailed architectural plans for the club house and
maintenance building that meet the design ordinance requirement.
The applicant shall enter into a Site Plan Agreement and provide financial guarantees to
insure compliance with the project.
10.
Only one (1) monument sign may be permitted on the site. The total sign area shall not
exceed twenty-four (24) square feet of sign display area, nor be more than five (5) feet in
height.
11.
The applicant is responsible to obtain and comply with a MnDot and Carver County
permit.
12.
Per MnDot's review memo dated September 2, 2003, the need for a net along TH 101 will
be evaluated upon completion of the golf course. If it is determined that a net is needed,
then the applicant will be required to install it.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Chairman Sacchet summarized the Planning Commission's concerns as the water issue.
Directing engineering to further study how the water situation can be mitigated should the
unfortunate circumstance arise that some wells get negatively affected. Staff should have a clear
understanding how the State agencies deal with these type of issues to be proactive rather than
reactive. The private drive to the south seemed quite unanimous that the neighbors in that area
were not interested in this realignment and had some reservations about impacting the Halla
property. A better solution for this drive can be found once further development occurs in that
area, either on the Halla property or to the south. The Planning Commission would like to see
Planning Commission Summary - September 2, 2003
some tree trimming where that drive comes out on 101 to maximize sight distance without having
to do an actual realignment. The gravel drive to the bluff should be eliminated with clean-up of
the bluff.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF PATRICK AND ANGELA
REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN
LOCATED AT 9203 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD.
SIMMONS
ADDITION
Kristen Wentzlaff presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Claybaugh asked for
clarification on the type and size of the house. Commissioner Slagle asked staff what action the
Planning Commission had taken on the Suter's variance request, which is a couple doors away
from this property. Pat Simmons explained the 7.2 square feet that encroaches into the setback.
Commissioner Tjomhom asked the applicant to explain the hardship in this matter. Chairman
Sacchet opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. After
discussion the following motion was made.
Lillehaug moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance
#2003-12 to allow a 7 foot side setback on the north side of the property, with the following
conditions:
A building permit must be applied for within one year of approval of the variance or the
variance shall become void.
2. The addition must be built per plans submitted on August 15, 2003.
A Registered Land Surveyor shall examine the slope and determine if a bluff exists. If it
is found that a bluff exists, the survey must incorporate the top, side, impact zone and
bluff setback.
4. Show all existing easements within the property lines on the survey.
Type III silt fence will need to be installed in the rear yard of the property to prevent
excavated material from going into the lake. Show this on the survey.
Show where the excavated material for the new foundation will be placed. If the material
will stay on site, proposed and existing contours are needed on the survey.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Planning Commission Summary - September 2, 2003
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF 1.56 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY AND VACATION OF A PORTIOAN OF SANTA FE TRAIL,
LOCATED AT 7551 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, ERNEST PIVEC, LAHAYE
ADDITION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Nancy Mancino
Wyck Linder
7552 Great Plains Boulevard
7550 Great Plains Boulevard
Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Feik asked for
clarification on the driveway access off of the private drive. Commissioner Lillehaug asked staff
to clarify condition number 11 on page 12 which says Lot 2 cannot use the same driveway access
off of Great Plains Boulevard as the private street. Chairman Sacchet asked about the location of
the catch basin, water connection for Lot 1, and the vacation. The applicant was not present to
speak.
Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive asked about the
street width of the private drive between the existing two oak trees. She also requested that
condition number 10 include the terminology, the developer shall provide inspection reports to
the city for the private street. Wyck Linder at 7550 Great Plains Boulevard who has lived in this
area for 18 years, state he and his neighbors favored the hammerhead configuration of the road
and the private street was owned by himself and one other neighbor, is 33 feet wide, not the 30
foot as mentioned. Chairman Sacchet closed the public hearing. After commission comments the
following motion was made.
Lillehaug moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the preliminary plat for Subdivision ~03-3 for LaHaye Addition for two lots and a variance
to allow a double frontage lot as shown on the plans received August 15, 2003 subject to the
following conditions:
1. Install sod in all of the pavement removal areas.
If grading material will need to be imported or exported to construct the lots and street,
the applicant and/or the contractor must supply the City Engineer with a detailed haul
route for review and approval prior to site grading.
The new turnaround on Great Plains Boulevard shall be constructed to current city design
standards with 28 foot wide pavement, B-618 curb and gutter and concrete driveway
aprons.
A minimum 30 foot wide drainage and utility easement is required over the public
sanitary sewer line in the vacated road area.
o
Any grading or utility work outside of the property limits or right-of-way will require a
temporary easement.
Planning Commission Summary - September 2, 2003
6. Revise the grading plan as follows:
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
ao
Show the proposed grades for the private street and turnaround upgrades.
Add a benchmark and legend to the plan. The legend should define all of the
different line types, easements, silt fence, etc.
Show all existing and proposed easements on the plans.
Add tree preservation fencing around any and all trees to be saved.
Show the existing storm sewer and culverts under the existing driveways.
Revise the utility plan as follows:
Show the existing sanitary sewer line in Great Plains Boulevard.
Show the existing watermains in Great Plains Boulevard and Frontier Trail.
Add a legend to the plan.
Label the existing size and type of pipe for both the sanitary and watermains.
Show the existing storm sewer and culverts under the existing driveways.
Add a catch basin at the low point in the turnaround with a storm sewer line that
discharges just east of the proposed driveway for Lot 2.
The water service for Lot 2 will be coordinated with the City.
The proposed private street upgrades shall include a 20 foot wide pavement, built to a 7
ton design, and a 30 foot wide private easement dedicated to the benefiting property
owners. In order to save the two existing oak trees on each side of the private street, the
street width may be narrowed in this area. The developer shall provide inspection
reports for the private street to the City.
Deleted.
Detailed street construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest
edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates will be required for review and
approval by the City Council at the time of final plat consideration. Since the street
improvements will become owned and maintained by the City, the applicant must enter
into a development contract with the City and provide financial security in the form of a
letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee construction of the public improvements.
Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including but not
limited to Watershed District, MPCA, etc.
The site will be subject to one sanitary sewer and water connection charge for the new lot.
The 2003 connection charges for both sanitary sewer and water are $4,513. The property
is also subject to sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges for the new lot. The 2003
trunk utility hook-up charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit
for water. The 2003 SAC charge is $1,275 per unit. These charges are collected prior to
the building permit issuance.
Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any
construction.
Building official conditions:
9
Planning Commission Summary - September 2, 2003
ao
Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division
before building permits will be issued.
Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
Retaining walls over 4 feet high require a permit and must be designed by an
engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota.
16. Fire Marshal conditions:
An address monument sign shall be installed at the common driveway entrance
where they split. Plans must be submitted to the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
review and approval. Also, if the address numbers installed on the houses are not
visible from the common driveway, additional numbers will be required at the
driveway entrances. These requirements are pursuant to Chanhassen Fire
Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy//29-1992. Copy enclosed.
17.
Storm water calculations should be submitted to demonstrate that the proposed
subdivision maintains existing runoff rates and volumes.
18.
Impervious surfaces should be minimized to the greatest extent possible due to the lack of
storm water infrastructure. This includes the construction of Alternate A (Hammerhead
Turnaround) instead of Alternate B (Complete Circle).
19. The bluff impact zone and bluff setback should be shown and labeled on the grading plan.
20.
Based on the proposed developed area of 1.57 acres, the water quality fees associated
with this project are estimated at $1,490 and the water quantity fees associated with this
project are estimated at $3,686. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are
dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time the
estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the city at the time of final plat recording is
$5,176.
21.
Approval of the subdivision is contingent upon the City Council approving the vacation
of the right-of-way.
22.
Full park and trail fees will be collected in lieu of land dedication for the newly created
lot in the amount of $2,400.
23. Access to Lot 2 shall be prohibited off of Frontier Trail.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER THE REOUEST FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TO CREATE TWO
LOTS ON 5.13 ACRES OF LAND AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A THREE STORY,
89 UNIT HOTEL ON 3.01 ACRES WITH VARIANCES FOR SIGNAGE AND DESIGN
STANDARDS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND
CENTURY BOULEVARD, PROPERTY ZONED PUD, STEINER CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES, INC., AND STEVE SLOWEY, HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS.
10
Planning Commission Summary - September 2, 2003
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Slagle asked staff to show
where the trails are on this site. He suggested that the applicant address traffic flow between the
hotel and Lot 1. Commissioner Papke had concerns with the traffic flow within the site.
Commissioner Lillehaug asked if the city has switched to the new ADA requirement for trunk
heated domes that MnDot has adopted and clarifications on easements. He addressed the traffic
analysis and asked for the city's input. He stated you can throw this analysis out the window
because staff agreed with a couple of them and didn't agree with all of them and the major
conclusions here were every conclusion be implemented, not just one or two. Commissioner Feik
asked for the location of the mechanical equipment. He stated he was uncomfortable with the
wording of condition number 12, leaving it up to the property owners to decide if the intersection
is safe and asked staff for clarification on the trail recommendation. Chairman Sacchet asked for
clarifications on the site plan. Commissioner Slagle asked if staff felt the turning radius and the
number and location of the parking stalls were adequate for the site.
Phillip Baum, President of Steiner Construction Services spoke on behalf of the applicant. He
stated they would like to see the signage as it's shown on the rendering and have it on the north
and west elevations. Commissioner Slagle asked the applicant if there had been any
consideration to the residents to the north in the design of the project. He stated they had not had
discussions with those neighbors.
Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive who is in the
hotel industry stated that the Holiday Inn Express product is really a great product and she feels
the design is tremendous. The public hearing was closed. Alter commissioner comments the
following motion was made.
Feik moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the preliminary plat Subdivision #2003-13 as shown on plans prepared by Schoell &
Madsen Inc., dated received August 1, 2003 and dated 7/01/03 respectively, based on the
findings in the attached findings of fact and recommendation and subject to the following
conditions:
The development of the individual lots must comply with the Arboretum Business Park
Development Design Standards.
The developer shall be responsible for planning, engineering, and constructing the
"wetland trail". The city shall compensate the developer full costs of trail construction
plus a 10% design and construction management fee.
o
Full trail fees shall be collected pursuant to city ordinance for all lots in the Arboretum
Business Park 6th Addition.
If the trail alignment is within property not owned by the City, then the developer shall
dedicate a 20 foot wide trail easement centered on the trail alignment.
Vacate the permanent roadway, drainage and utility easement on the southwest comer of
the parcel and dedicate the public right-of-way, drainage and utility easement with the
plat.
Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the
City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction
plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will
11
Planning Commission Summary - September 2, 2003
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the
necessary security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation
of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Before building permit
issuance, permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including
but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, MnDot, etc.
A private storm sewer easement against Lot 1 must be obtained from the owners and
recorded before the building permit issuance.
The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer, water, and street
improvements. The remaining assessment due payable to the City is $137,272.40. This
remaining balance may be re-spread against the newly platted lots on a per area basis. In
addition, the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the
new lots. The 2003 trunk hookup charges are $1440 for sanitary sewer and $1876 for
watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against
the parcel at the time of the building permit issuance.
The proposed sanitary sewer and watermains in the main drive aisle will be considered
public utility lines since they will serve more than one lot. A minimum 35 foot wide
public utility easement will be required over the public sewer and watermain. The end of
the public sewer and watermain shall be at the property line between Lot 1 and Lot 2.
Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's
Type III erosion control fence, which is a heavy duty silt fence be used for the area
adjacent to the existing wetland just south of the site. In addition, erosion control
blankets will be required on the steep slopes on the site.
The main drive aisle through the site will be a private street since it serves multiple lots.
As such, the road must be a minimum of 26 feet wide, built to a 9 ton design and enclosed
within a 40 foot wide private easement. A cross access easement must be obtained and
recorded before building permit issuance. The developer must submit testing reports
verifying that the driveway is built to a 9 ton design.
A right-in/right-out driveway access onto Century Boulevard will be allowed.
Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota must sign all plans.
Storm water calculations should be submitted to ensure the downstream storm water
infrastructure is sized adequately for the proposed development.
Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing and proposed storm
water infrastructure.
Private easement for the shared storm sewer must be obtained and recorded against the
lots before building permit issuance.
Erosion Control Note #4 should include straw mulch 'MnDot Type I mulch) application
with seed for stabilization.
12
Planning Commission Summary - September 2, 2003
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Two landscape peninsulas shall be added, one in the northern parking lot and one in the
southern parking lot.
The developer shall install site furnishing including benches, bicycle racks, and tables.
The internal sidewalk system shall be constructed to bring pedestrians from the public
trails on the west and south sides into the site, and to the adjacent property to the west.
All signs shall require a separate sign permit.
Show the driveway dimensions on the site plan to read 26 feet in width and the access
corner radius.
Storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review before City Council
approval.
Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots. The
2003 trunk hookup charges are $1440 for sanitary sewer and $1876 for watermain.
Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at
the time of the building permit issuance.
On the grading plan:
Add storm sewer schedule.
Add silt fence around proposed storm sewer line from MH1 to the existing
manhole.
Revise the erosion control fence from Type II to Type III per city plate 5300.
Show all proposed 2' contours.
Show the pedestrian ramps at both sides of the access off Century Boulevard.
Show all existing and proposed easements.
Revise the flat elevation in the northeast portion of the parking lot.
Revise the side slope to 3:1 maximum along the north side of Lot 2.
On the utility plan:
Show the public drainage and utility easement.
Show the existing and proposed storm manholes rim elevations.
Show the water and sanitary sewer services size, type and class.
Relocate Sanitary MH3 to the property line between Lot 1 and Lot 2 where the
public sewer line must end.
All of the public watermain will be PVC C-900 pipe. Revise where necessary.
Add all applicable City of Chanhassen latest detail plates.
Show Century Boulevard existing street lights.
Seed and mulch or sod the site within two weeks of grading. If dirt is required to be
brought into or out of the site, provide a haul route for review and approval.
Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through
the City's Building Department.
14
Planning Commission Summary - September 2, 2003
20.
Concrete driveway apron, per city detail plate 5207 is required at the proposed access
point to the site.
21. The building must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler system.
22.
The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the
State of Minnesota.
23. Five accessible parking spaces must be provided.
24.
Accessible guest rooms and accessibility to recreation features must be provided in
accordance with Minnesota State Building Code, Chapter 1341.
25.
The building owner and/or their representative should meet with the Inspections Division
to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
26.
The plans were reviewed for general building code compliance only. A detailed plan
review cannot be done until complete plans are provided.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Feik moved, Siagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of sign
variance to permit signage on the western building elevation as shown on the renderings
prepared by the applicant, based on the findings that it would be consistent with other
hotels in the city and because it's more tasteful in the fact that it's not a cupola or an
aperture onto the building but is incorporated into the building. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Sacchet: Should we summarize for council. Our concern is the access. That we put in a right-
in/right-out, how we put it for the bank and the child care knowing that council has not accepted
that before. We do have enough of a concern that we add this again so at this point it's properly
considered. And other than that we support them to have signage on the west side as well
because it's much more acceptable than some of the other hotels we have in the city, in a similar
situation. Any other aspects of summary that we want to add?
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Feik noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated August 19, 2003 as presented.
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 11:55 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
15