The URL can be used to link to this page

1987 04 22 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 22, 1987 ~airman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Howard Noziska and James Wildermuth STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner; Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner; and Gary Warren, City Engineer. CENTEX HOMES CORPORATION, PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LAKE LUCY ROAD AND COUNTY ROAD 17: A. SUBDIVISION OF 53 ACRES INTO 81 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. -- -- B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALTER CLASS B WETLANDS. Public Present: Name Address Jim Donovan Franco LOl'is William Larson .11Y Larson rry Kerber Brian Tichy Joe Morin 1375 Lilac Lane 6400 Teton Lane 6471 Yosemite 6471 Yosemite 6420 Powers Blvd. 1471 Lake Lucy Road 15820 So. Eden Drive, Eden prairie (building on Lake Lucy Road) Merrill Stellar Ted R. Coey Karen Reamer vicki Stanley Gentry Stanley A.W. Owens Ruthanne Owens Donna pickard Millie O'Brien Terrance O'Brien Kevin Clark Dean Valentine David Luse Frank Natole Florence Natole Marc Simcox M/M S.W. Wilcox Richard Carlson Naomi Carlson 1931 Crestview Circle 1381 Lake Lucy Road 6280 Teton Lane 7510 77th Street 7510 77th Street 6535 Peaceful Lane 6535 Peaceful Lane 1215 Lilac Lane 1420 Lake Lucy Road 1420 Lake Lucy Road 3841 Red Cedar Point Drive 507 Chan View 14358 Golfview Drive, Eden prairie 6251 Teton Lane 6251 Teton Lane 21600 Lilac Lane 6180 Mill Street, Shorewood 5955 Cathcart Drive, Shorewood 5955 Cathcart Drive, Shorewood 4IJAnn Olsen presented the Staff Report on this item. Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 2 4Itm Boyce: I'm the President of the Minnesota Division of Centex Homes. We will be the developer a s we 11 as the bu i lder on the proj ect. Cen tex Homes in Minnesota is a relatively small company. We build between 150 and 250 homes a year in the Twin Cities area. We are a subsidiary of Centex Homes Corporation which is listed on the New York Stock Exchange. I have a couple other people here with me tonight. Dick Putnam is with Tandem Corporation and is our planning consultant on the project. Keith Nelson is here from Westwood Planning and Enginner as the engineer on the project. I think Dick has some things that he would like to respond to in the Staff Report. I'm here from Centex and Keith is also here so we should be able to answer any questions that anyone would have. Dick Putnam: To keep this quite brief and I guess we can answer any questions that you might have later but if I could just respond to the Staff Report. Some of the recommendations in it. By and large, I guess we agree with the report and we have been working with the Staff now for quite some time to get a plan that is workable. We've also talked with a number of folks that live around the project going back to the end of last year. We started working on the project in September and then October, November and the Christman Holiday period and we're not here so it hasn't been a particularily quick project to figure out what to do. In the Staff Report it mentioned the issue of Teton Lane which is this Road G at the top. I would like to say this, some people that live on Teton or perhaps on Lilac are here and they will have some comments. The reason that we've worked out ~purchase arrangement with Mr. Carlson who has an exception that's listed ~ht here. He also owns a Teton Lane easement and there has been a lot of questions from Mr. Carlson at least and some of the other neighbors and then also the City Staff as to what to do with that particular easement. I guess what we did was sort of grab the bull by the horns and said perhaps the best thing to do would be to acquire the easement all the way to Lilac and if this project is approved and so forth, dedicate that to the City, that would solve Mr. Carlson's problem. It would solve the problem of access to all of these people's lots if Mr. Carlson were to not maintain the road. It would also give the City the opportunity to hold a public hearing and feasibility reports to determine just what to do with it. I understand that you have a letter from Shorewood that you received today that questioned whether that road should be a public street at all and I guess our feeling is, we'll provide the road and let everybody who's involved fight about it. Rather than the way it is right now, it's just a single person's ownership with probably 15 or 16 easements for all these difference parcels so what we tried to do is provide the opportunity for the city to solve the problem by having that right-of-way at least owned by the City. The other question, the only other major concern in the Staff Report relates to the 90 foot issue on the lots and the flag lots that we have in a couple locations. The reason that we've provided it that way is that in each of those cases, for instance, the lot in this area is over an acre in size or pretty close to it, 40,000 square feet. It's a really, really pretty area with trees on either side of it and that's the best way to get to it without goofing up all the property. The same thing holds true right here. It's actually on the site where the building pad is for the barn. The riding arena is part e where that building is. We also provide a trail connection here which is Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 3 ~other 20 foot strip. I guess the things that concerned us and the way the Ordinance is written is that all the lots that are not 90 feet at the 30 foot line, have far in excess of 90 feet but is back further. For example, this has a pad of I believe it's 140 feet wide but yet 30 feet back is probably 45 feet wide and I guess that's a good situation. In other cases, particularly on the cul-de-sacs or on some of these curvy streets like in through here, our intention is not to locate the houses at the 30 foot line but rather in a case like this or in a case like this, to have those houses back farther and not have every lot at 30 feet. So our intention is, and I guess the way we interpretted the Ordinance was where the building would be located on the lot, the minimum lot width to be 90 feet. Not at 30 feet because if you wanted a 50 or 60 foot setback as we have on some of the lots up here, it wouldn't seem to make sense and it should encourage you to put the homes back further. That's particularly true up in this area where we get into lots that are 30,000, 40,000, 50,000 square feet and the home sizes are going to be larger and more expensive. Frankly folks would rather have a longer driveway, a circular driveway. There are all sorts of things they tend to do in a little higher price so I guess we are asking that if a variance is required because of that 30 foot line, it might be less than 90, that we look at each lot that may require that variance and apply to the 90 foot distance of where the building pad would be rather than at the 30 foot line. In terms of the ponding and that sort of thing, Keith can answer specific questions you might have. When we met with the Parks Commission and we talked about the drainage area here and the pond, we did not know t;t the calculations they referred to in the Staff Report were. Since that ting, the calculations have been done by the Engineer and we have found t at we had more storage capacity in these ponds then we thought and in effect, the amount of area in the park, the outfield of the softball field that might be inundated by a 30 or 100 year storm is really going to be very minimal. We were anticipating much more of the park might flood in that torrential rain but as a practical matter, most of it is going to be contained within the pond areas shown and only in the most severe rains would we have any encroachment out over it and those calculations will be provided to the Staff so they can look at them. I don't think you and I could figure out what they mean anyway but the City Engineer and our engineer can tell us. Our proposal on the park is to do the grading that is necessary here for the park construction and that we would do that at our cost as well as convey the property. The trail system that we have along the main road in the project would be put in by us at the time the development is done. The Park Commission recommended that along Lake Lucy Road there be a detached sidewalk trail. Currently it's under construction as a stripped bike lane, as I understand it or extra wide shoulder. That project was too far along really to change it by the time we showed up on the scene. What we said is, if the City wants to put in a detached sidewalk and change order a trail along that road, we'll do that but I have a sneaking suspicion it's probably too far along to do that but that was one recommendation made that I'm not sure anybody can really implement at this point. So, with that I guess I would be happy to answer any questions that you have later on or at this time. e Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 4 ~ry O'Brien: How long do you think this will take to finish? any idea or do you go by how fast it sells or what? Do you have Tom Boyce: We're estimating 2 to 3 years. be tomorrow is always the question. I think fastest we could build it and I don't think should be in that timeframe. What interest rates are going to 2 years would be the absolute we'll take as long as 4. We Terry O'Brien: When would you start it? Tom Boyce: As soon as we've got all the paperwork done. Hopefully in June or July. Jim Donovan: I'm concerned about the Teton Lane section. I would like to ask a question on that concerning the right-of-way and how wide the road would be. I guess I don't understand. Right now it's like 30 feet deep. Is that it? Teton Lane? Conrad: I think so. Jim Donovan: And how wide would it be if this development is approved? Would it stay 30 feet deep because I own the property on the west side of it? Would the City take my property or what would you do? ~sen: If it became a public road, it would be increased to a 50 foot .ht-of-way so it would be increased by 17 feet. 28 feet would be the wIdth of the road and that would be curb and gutter. Jim Donovan: Would it all come from my side of the street or what? Olsen: We would look at both sides to obtain the additional right-of-way so we would definitely look at the feasibility of obtaining part from you. Jim Donovan: Would I be assessed for sewer and water along the whole length of that? Olsen: No but the road assessment could possibly be assessed back to you. Jim Donovan: The whole road assessment? Olsen: No, just along the length of your property. Jim Donovan: That's the whole road. Olsen: Sometimes we do it by footage and other times they do it by the number of units. Gary Warren: That's the purpose of the feasibility study would be to look at those issues. One of the charges is to come up with the assessment policy that has to be approved by the Council. e Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 5 tltrad: Does that answer any of your questions. the right answer that you wanted to hear. I don't know if you heard Jim Donovan: It answered my question but it doesn't make me happy. Conrad: Generally, can you give him an idea. I don't know how many feet that is, there's a couple hundred feet. Jim Donovan: More than that. It's over 81313 feet at least because I've got two on there that are on easements. What I'm concerned about is that they'll take it all from one side and from my side. I can assume because it's farmland and will never be developed that that would be the logical side to take it from but would that mean that I would incur the total cost of everything then? Warren: Typically we split right-of-ways on property lines and take equal sides to participate but with this being an easement, it's a little bit different situation. I think our preference would be to try to split it on both sides if that's at all feasible or not. Again, that's the purpose of the study. Conrad: But there is a house fairly close to the road on the north and more than likely the right-of-way or easement would be coming from your land. I guess I would be more concerned with the assessment for the street i.i.provements and how that gets divided up but again, that goes back to a ..,sibility study and what the City Council determines is fair in the long run which means you should stay involved with this as it goes through and up towards City Council and through the feasibility study stages. Karen Reamer: Staff said that there had been problems with Teton Lane. We have an easement over it. If there were problems with Teton Lane, I think it's been because of the heavy traffic with the horse stables. If that traffic goes away, it would seem to me the traffic would be minimal and the problems would disappear or are there more problems that have corne to the City that the neighbors and the people who have been trying to maintain it and have absorbed the cost for trying to maintain it over the years don't know about? Why is the City concerning itself with a road that will have very little traffic once the stables are closed? Olsen: It's going to be servicing the subdivision and the existing homes that are on it right now. Karen Reamer: So you are saying that the few landowners in that area are then going to have to pay the assessments for an improved road for the new purchasers of this property? Is that it? Olsen: The feasibility study will look at exactly who is benefitting from this and I'm sure that the developer will also be included in the project assessments. e Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 6 tIlen Reamer: The developer indicated that he was going to dedicate the land back to the City. There is a possibility then that Donovan for instance or the Natoles would not necessarily have to bear the brunt of this but the 81 buyers might also be assessed some portion of this? Olsen: I don't think that the people along will not be assessed at all. Karen Reamer: I didn't say that. I said would the 81 people also have to bear some of the cost of improvements? Warren: It will corne down to... Torn Boyce: One of the costs that I already bore is I went ahead and bought it and I'm going to give it to the City. To be honest, we've been kind of put in the position of Teton Lane that we really don't know what to do with it to be honest with you. By buying it I'm trying to solve the problem. Karen Reamer: You see that's my biggest question. Who's property is it? Torn Boyce: Well, I won't buy it if some of the neighbors would like to keep it. Karen Reamer: The City has not concerned itself with it before. They .ven't plowed the road in the winter. They have absorbed no cost in intaining it. It would seem that the problem now is a problem for the 81 new buyers and they have not addressed the problem for the neighbors in the past 20 years that I've lived there. Dick Putnam: If you recall, we went through a number of alternatives that completely eliminated Teton Lane. Just left it alone. You want to know our ultimate, number one priority? That would be our alternative if we were to do it all by ourselves. We got a lot of feedback from different owners. Everybody says that Teton Lane is fine except the guy who owns it and he says I don't want the hassle anymore. If you remember at one of the meetings he said, if somebody wants to contribute because we've got a culvert that you could put your foot through and somebody is going to step in it and break his foot and then somebody is going to get sued. What I'm hearing from the guy that owns the road is, he doesn't want any part of it anymore. He doesn't own the stables, which is the major traffic on it, which you are absolutely right and I guess we saw a problem out there that took us about three months and it cost Centex a lot of money actually, to at least get it to a point now where if it's given to the City and all the folks around it don't want it as a public street, I've got a feeling the City may say, I don't care. You guys keep the right-of-way and you maintain it and you pay for it. You pay to fix the culvert because Mr. Carlson doesn't want to do it anymore and that's really the problem. Karen Reamer: My husband and I offered to do that. the costs. In the past I think what has happened to tlfak for all of them, but our feeling has been that We offered to share in the neighbors, I can't the business traffic Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 7 &r that road to the stables were 98% of the wear on the road and when that stable was willing to pick up 98% of the cost of the maintenance, we would all chip in but what I'm hearing now is there has been a road problem and that the City somehow is involved in solving the problem. We use the road and if there is a problem that there has been coalition of the neighbors addressing the problem, we didn't know about it. That's what I'm asking. What is the basic problem? Dick Putnam: The problem, as I understand it, is you've been getting calls on dust. You've been getting calls like the City never plows it because it isn't their road so they don't plow it. There are problems, there is a culvert right now that has a hole in it. There are problems that the culvert is plugged and the City doesn't fix them because it isn't part of their drainage system. Karen Reamer: The City has been getting calls on those types of things? 01 sen : Yes. Karen Reamer: Okay, that was my basic question. That's what I wanted to know. Dick Putnam: We heard that at neighborhood meetings from people. They may not stand up at the meeting and say it but when we talk afterwards, people Iy, the gentleman tonight says all the gravel is in my yard or on my deck whatever. Karen Reamer: I find it so interesting that if this problem has been in existence all these years that somehow Centex got pulled into solving the problem that is quite separate from the development isn't it? That's what I'm trying to figure out. Conrad: The direction that the feasibility study goes in, tell me how that operates so the neighborhood can track that process. As a Planning Commission we don't get involved in some of the assessment issues. We are interested in road improvements but in this particular case, because there i s a s t u d Y t hat has bee n d ire c ted, tell us how t hat s t u d Y w 0 u 1 d bee on due t e d and what chance the public has for involvement in the results of that study. Olsen: The City would initiate a feasibility study which would review the improvement of Teton Lane. The cost. Who would benefit from it. Who would bear the assessments. The public is notified throughout the whole process. They have the right to speak. Conrad: In what format? Warren: It's a public hearing. Conrad: Is it brought back here or brought back to the City Council? e Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 8 ~ren: The City Council. The format is very rigid. The purpose of the feasibility study, especially if there would be the assessment program coming out of it under the State Statutes, require that the feasibility be done to evaluate the feasibility of accomplishing the project, constructing the project and then exactly to look at who has benefitted and the assessment scenarios. That is a very integral part of the feasibility study. Conrad: On what kind of timeframe does this get done? Warren: Typically we hire a consultant and I would say within 4 weeks time considering the legal notices that we have to provide the public to the hearing and such. Conrad: So within 4 weeks the neighborhood could come back and take a look or be involved in the study? Warren: From when the Council authorized the preparation. Franco Lovis: I live up in the main house and if the village could go back to their records about 15 years ago, the Charles McManns dedicated the road to the City. The City didn't want it at that time. Why is it so important at this time to change that road? Is it for our interest or for Centex's interest because obviously we're not very happy. I'm not knocking success. I think that it's about time that they put a few more homes up there. 81 ~es on that property could turn out like Chaparrel which is absolutely ~~astrous. Just a bunch of boxes sitting there. I think that Chanhassen should look at it a little bit better for a development that sort of fits in with the area and not related to Chaparrel type houses. Olsen: To answer the street question, the City's main purpose is to provide protection of the health and welfare of it's citizens and we see this as an opportunity to improve a street problem that we do get complaints about. About it not being maintained and such. The City does not own it. It's not a public street so we don't maintain it now. It will be servicing existing homes there now and it will be servicing the additional 81 homes and that is why we are pursuing to improve Teton Lane at this time. Conrad: Every time there is a major development that goes into a neighborhood, and there are a lot of them, I think it's a time that City and Planning Commission and City Council looks at general traffic in that area and because of the responsibilities of traffic flow and fire and police protection, we look at all of those. It doesn't mean that we always bundle in everything around it but it is a good idea to review the entire traffic of the neighborhood. In this particular case I think that's what Staff is looking at. They are saying, there is a major development that is obviously going to impact the area and we should take a look at all the roads that lead into it or close to it. That's how I view the feasibility study. I understand your concern with a development coming in close to you but I think it's a good way for the City to manage it's street system and take a e Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 9 ~d look at it and what is needed. and from a future neighborhood. From the old neighborhood standpoint Marc Simcox: I can give you a little background on Teton Lane as well. I have a particularly difficult problem because I live in Shorewood which is a different county and Teton Lane is in Carver County so my request for dust control and so forth, many times has fallen on deaf ears. I think I have to go along exactly with what Mrs. Reamer said in that it appears very conveniently the City has refused to accept that road so many times in the past. They did do dust control 3 years ago after I had to stand in the engineer's office upstairs and I wasn't going to leave until he resolved to do something. I was going to stay until whatever happened so they finally did some dust control and at that time, the following year, to do more dust control. I called again this spring because summertime is the problem. They told me that the owner of the road was in bankruptcy and that they couldn't assess any taxes to it. This last spring I was told that they were going to shut the road off. Put posts up in front of the road. They did the minimal dust control under the Nuisance Ordinance and if that's not one of the biggest nuisances in Chanhassen, I can't imagine what is worse than the people who are living under the cloud of dust that rolls in like fog. It's unbelievable. I do not understand why the City of Chanhassen now, in order to reap the taxes from the development of 81 homes, which is not in keeping with the existing homes in that particular neighborhood, a much higher density of housing, why now they decide to take Teton Drive, and of ~urse I might be wrong but obviously the approval is being recommended, at ~st according to what we've heard so far. The Staff is recommending approval so I'm thinking that this is really all just academic because nothing is going to change but I don't understand why it is, exactly what Mrs. Reamer said, the fact that when Centex Homes comes in and puts in a high density housing project that now the City has decided that they are going to accept this easement and then do the feasibility study after they have already accepted this easement from Centex Homes, they are going to turn it over to the City, why isn't the feasibility study done prior to accepting this easement from Centex Homes? It appears to me that the cart is being put before the horse. If the horse stable is being moved out and the business is being moved out, the problem on Teton Lane disappears. It vanishes for those people who live out there. That problem of the dust and erosion and so forth, is gone so there is no reason for the City to take that and assess the owners. Particularly Jim Donovan who owns the biggest bulk of property on that road, Virtually the whole section of road, to satisfy the needs of Centex Homes to build an extremely high density housing area where most other residents in the area, to divide up were required just a year ago to make it 3 acres. Could the Staff maybe address the reason for that? Why it is the feasibility comes after they have already accepted it when in reality they are going to have to do it anyway? Dacy: I hear three issues from your comments. Number one is why is this under consideration now to improve Teton? Typically, public streets are improved when we get subdivision requests such as this of this size. The second way to do that is when we receive a petition from property owners who 41ft a particular street improved. Up until the Centex application, we had Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 10 a had a petition from Teton Lane owners to improve the street. It goes beyond the nuisance problem because in the proposed development, the Teton Lane access is providing access to 10 or 15 homes. It's needed for proper traffic circulation from the development from Lake Lucy, Powers and out to Lilac. Secondly, the feasibility study is not conducted until after a preliminary plat is approved. The purpose for the Planning Commission and Council consideration is to determine where and/or if and what location should a road be located. The Planning Commission's objective tonight is to determine whether or not the proposed road pattern is appropriate. Basically, if you wanted to narrow down the issue, they could be deciding yes, we need the Teton Lane connection or two, we do not. Staff is recommending that they have the Teton Lane connection because it is an integral part of the circulation system. Third, this is not a high density proposal. This land has always been within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and has been zoned for single family purposes. Prior to the adoption of our Zoning Ordinance in 1987, it was zoned for 2 1/2 acre lots primarily because of the existence of the horse farm but it has always been part of the Urban Service Area. It is zoned Single Family Residential. The minimal lot size is 15,000 square feet. The net density meaning the calculation of the number of units minus the road, the park, etc. is 2.13 units per acre. That is lower than the Chaparrel development also. Marc Simcox: You said the zoning was changed in 1987 this year? ~y: Right. ~c Simcox: And Centex started working on this in 1986 last Fall? Dacy: If we have the past Zoning Ordinance, they would be in here also for an application for single family zoning. All land within the Urban Service Area in the City of Chanhassen is zoned Single Family Residential except for obviously commercial and industrial areas. The zoning that was acquired in 1987 under our Ordinance was to match the areas within the Urban Service Area because applications like this and in other parts of the City, Chanhassen is growing. This situation, it's on the border of the MUSA line but the Dodd property has been completely within the MUSA area ever since the early 1970's. Conrad: The Zoning basically did not change anything. We looked at all the zoning in Chanhassen and updated it according to some standards that we thought were reasonable. We sent out notification in the papers and what have you to all the citizens of Chanhassen for input. In your particular neighborhood there was not an impact in terms of the zoning, isn't that right Barbara? Dacy: Yes. Conrad: So whatever happened in 1987 is not an issue in terms of when the developer came in and where we are right now. tlJy: Again, the feasibility study determines what I describe as the nuts Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 11 ~ bolts. How wide is the street pavement? The elevations of the sewer and water. How much cost and as the City Engineer talked about earlier, what particular assessment philosophy would be entertained. However, prior to getting to the feasibility study, the City, the Planning Commission and Council have to decide whether or not what is being proposed is appropriate. Marc Simcox: One other question. This property is now owned by Centex Homes or whoever owns it, who is not responsible because obviously they can't start any work on it until mid-summer at the earliest and this development will take a minimum of 2 years or more likely closer to 4 years, who is responsible for the dust bans and dust control? In the past, if you go by the City no one was around to be assessed because it was in bankruptcy or whatever the problem and now that there is a new owner of the property, who now gets assessed and who now pays for the drainage and maintenance and dust control on that road? Dacy: You're saying who now, right now or after this is approved? Marc Simcox: Right now. I understand that the road has been sold to Centex by Mr. Carlson. That's what we were just told a few minutes ago. Is that correct? Tom Boyce: We are what I guess I'll call a contract purchaser. If the development is approved, I have the right to buy the road. Arc Simcox: Okay but that isn't what you said. You said you bought it. ~ want to know who we have to go to... Tom Boyce: I'm not going to purchase the road unless the plan is approved. Marc Simcox: I know everyone along Teton Lane now wants to know who this year, because we've been shut off again, who we go to complain to to get dust control done under the Nuisance Ordinance? Who is the owner? Dacy: The owner in a Contract for Deed situation is still Mr. Carlson. He still has fee simple ownership to the land. You are correct, the City did do dust application in the past and maybe we could entertain that again under the Nuisance Ordinance. Marc Simcox: We got a letter a short while ago that he went bankrupt and he don't own the road anymore. Warren: As I understand it and I wasn't here at the time, was that they utilized the Nuisance Ordinance to have that accomplished and that's an exception that we try to avoid because obviously in order to have that a pp 1 i cat ion i t co s t s t he C i t Y m 0 n e y to dot hat as well a san ybo dye 1 s e so typically, we try to go back, if there is a difficulty like this to the owner of the property who is causing the nuisance and have them take care of it. If that is not able to be done, for whatever reason, the City can go in and have it accomplished and I would have to check the record whether we esessed or somehow got that cost back to the owner of the property but that Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 12 tltld be typically the case. We would prefer in all cases that if it's private property, we don't own it and therefore we try to have the owner take care of his own nuisance. Richard Carlson: My name is Richard Carlson and I own the road. It's not in bankruptcy. It's owned under the name of a corporation that we purchased all this lot. I don't know where all the bankruptcy stuff comes from. Here is the fact of the matter. The road was owned by Carl McMann, not Charles McMann. He died. We bought the company that owned the road from him before he died. We have paid for the snowplowing. We have paid for 90% of the gravel and the upkeep on the road. Public: What upkeep? Richard Carlson: Well, next time I'll send you the bills then you'll know what I mean. We paid for the first rock application. We don't want the road. We have a little property back there and it's rented to three tenants. Actually four tenants. Two woodshops. One guy spray paints custom brass parts. There are two woodshops in there and one guy restores antique motorcycles. One of the woodshops is my brother and he has one vehicle that goes in there once or twice a week. The woodshop drives in two vehicle in the morning, two leave at night and the motorcycle shop is the same so we don't use the road hardly at all. It's been Pat Jensen's Riding Stables who have school buses, multi-axle trailers, lots of pick-up trucks. iir pick-up truck which makes at least 100 trips a day back and forth for e reason but the only reason we have not really been real excited about oing anything with that road is that those trailers bouncing and those trucks bouncing and everything else, every time we get the road graded, in 3 weeks time it is nothing but a washboard. Now it's a dangerous road. It's a no good, old, old road. We had I think 20 truckloads of rock put on it since we've owned it for 3 1/2 years. We don't feel like spending any more money on the road. We didn't want to stop Pat Jensen's Christian Riding School. They use our property to park on it and run that think with. Now we hear they are going. Centex has an option. If they want to force the option, they are right when they say they own the road because if they want to buy it, they can buy it. I signed a contract saying that we are going to sell it to them. I want them to buy it. I want them to develop it and I want a decent tar road corning in there and serving our property and I want the sewer and water corning in to save us, as property owners, we also own a little house there, the assessments which can be extremely high. I think Centex is probably doing us a favor and that's our attitude on it. If anybody wants to talk to me about the road, they can call me. Woman from Public: Mr. Carlson you don't live there yourself. Richard Carlson: That's true. Woman from Public: Then you don't know what it is. Richard Carlson: But I happen to pay more taxes on that road than you do. e Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 13 e Conrad: I think we hear some of the issues on the road and I would really prefer to stay away from the road unless it's brand new information. I think the Planning Commission is getting the drift and we will address that when we get our opportunity to talk to Staff and you. If you have new points, we would sure like to hear those. Karen Reamer: I just want to clarify one thing. I did not mean to be in opposition to it. I wanted to understand where the problems came from and if the City got complaints about the road, the attitude of the neighbors, although it's hardly a close coalition of neighbors, I think the City gave Pat Jensen the permit for those stables and then when there were problems attendant with the stables, the City said we can't do anything about it. I'm in comizeration with Mr. Carlson. He's in a no win situation. e Ted Coey: There are three things. First of all, what has typically happened in that area with easements and Mr. Dodd was concerned about his getting killed and we had the same situation which is on Lake Lucy Road now where I live and I've got about 1,000 feet on that road and I got hit pretty good on that and we complained that Klingelhutz' property down at the end of Lake Lucy Road was going to benefit directly from that thing coming in. Obviously he was using that as a sign point plus he was selling some lots back up to that that are going to back up to no road because they are going to dead end it there. When we got done with all the yelling and screaming last year, Bill Monk finally said that they could not assess, the Attorney was sitting right here, said they could not assess Klingelhutz even if they were going to use the hell out of that road because they did not have any frontage on it so you are going to have that same problem trying to come back to Centex to hit them for anything because they don't have any property that abuts on that road. We just went through this last year. That's number one. Number two, you've also got a situation where according to their map they have three exits coming onto Lake Lucy Road. Now, Lake Lucy Road is going to be a major thoroughfare the way they're putting in this super freeway here. They will have to put up a 65 mph sign. It's built for that and you are going to have some problems with three exits coming off from their development onto Lake Lucy Road with all the traffic. You've got to address that. Plus they've got the ones on the major intersection. We have a hard enough time getting out onto CR 17 when it's busy and they are going to have another heavy access coming onto CR 17 right down the road. The final thing is, if you ever go down Lake Lucy Road, all the property west of this development are all large tracts of land. 5 acres and more most of them and we firmly believe, if you put to the property owners on Lake Lucy Road, that their project does not conform with the rest of the area. You should have a much lower density. Now Barbara is talking that it's not a high density area. We disagree. It's high density from the rest of the makeup for the area. I don't care if they've got sewer available there, we would like to see 4 or 5 acre plots there and see some $400,000.00 to $500,000.00. The City will still get their tax base and we're not going to have to look at 80 homes on that road which does not belong on that road. I've got 20 acres. All my neighbors have 5 or 10 acres and you are going to have people there with less than an acre. I think that's a major issue from where a lot of people live on this road. You can't expect someone not to e Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 14 e use that land for something. It's but the way to come through that Why can't you put in 5 acre lots? project completely. going to be used for something obviously land is, it's set up for bigger parcels. That's how we feel. We are against the Conrad: Zoning does permit what they are asking for. Ted Coey: I understand that. Conrad: And maybe in the last year we put out feelers to create zoning districts that had larger lot sizes than what we currently do and we really didn't get a round of support from the community for larger lot sizes. In essence, a lot of what we did in the current zoning was to create larger lots, either through subdivision standards or PUD standards. The sizes went up a little bit in general but not to the acre, 2 1/2 acre that Ted I think you are looking for. And it's a tough issue because in any neighborhood you are going to have some people who live on 10,000 to 15,000 square foot parcels and you are going to have some people who live on 5 acre parcels and there is no consensus on what to do in a lot of situations. Ted Coey: The difference is that the majority of the City is on smaller acreage which is why you probably got a lot of support but we're in kind of a unique area on Lake Lucy Road. There are not a lot of areas like that in the city so we're definitely a minority. You could at least listen. That's what we would like. We've been there for upteen years and we're not exactly e happy with 81 homes coming across the street. Conrad: All I can do is, remember we had a 40,000 square foot minimum lot zoned and we got no support from the community to put that in. 40,000 is still not 2 1/2 acre but it's still bigger than what you are looking at but again, we didn't have rousing support for that. Anyway, just to pass that along to you. Other issues. Other things you would like to make us aware of. Joe Morin: It seems to me that Ted has a good point in that there should be more of a gradual transition from the 5 acre parcels on the other side of Lake Lucy Road to the higher density areas being developed. That's one point. I think a gradual transition might be something that we would ask the Planning Commission to consider in revising it's plan. A second point and a more immediate point is the way that Lake Lucy Road is currently being developed now with a bike path as the only access to that parkland could present a hazard to children living in the area or who will live in the area who want to go down Lake Lucy Road to get into that park and I would recommend that the Planning Commission reconsider the original recommendation that you made some time ago and have it a detached pathway or a detached sidewalk. Erhart moved, Emmings seconed to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. e Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 15 ~ Erhart: The point of the problem with the dust on the road, I have a question on Pat Jensen's riding stables. Is that going to close whether or not this subdivision goes in or is that sort of part of the plan? Dacy: I think she is leaving to another place. Erhart: Whether or not we do the subdivision. The other point to look at is from the standpoint that the organization using the road at that time, there is no guarantee that that problem is going to be solved if the subdivision doesn't go in so in this sense this may provide a solution. Jim Donovan: Excuse me. Pat Jensen has bought property elsewhere and is leaving. That's fact. She is waiting for the road restrictions to lift so she can move some of her things off there and move to her other property. Erhart: The other point was, essentially your initial plan was to avoid using Teton Lane whatsoever? Torn Boyce: One of the plans, yes. e Erhart: So that still is an alternative. Overall I get the impression that this is ~ot a bad subdivision other than the fact that the lots here are inconsistent with the surrounding area. I have a particular problem with that in that I think the Metropolitan Council has put that problem onto us. I don't know if the City can solve it. I think their MUSA line approach to controlling growth has forced these problems on large lot owners in the areas where they have surrounded the MUSA line with large lot homes. It economically forces undeveloped areas to make 15,000 square foot lots so ask the Metropolitan Council, not the City. Looking at the plan itself, I think the developer has done an outstanding job of improving the wetland areas. I was out there and looked at it and it certainly could use improvement. We have a lot of access outside the development with the street layout. We have the two since Lake Lucy is getting reconstructed right now and it comes out on CR 17 and then just north of that, about 1,000 to 1,200 feet approximately we have another one for 81 lots and then another 2,000 feet north of that there is another one with Teton Lane to Lilac and that seems like a lot on CR 17 which is considered a minor arterial and I question whether we need all those. Then again, Lake Lucy, that's considered a collector, there are driveway provisions on 400 feet. Dacy: And those are driveways. Erhart: I real i ze tha t. I'm just trying to relate that to how many accesses do you have in terms of streets so it looks like they are right around 400 feet apart. The question I had and maybe you could answer it, why do you need so many accesses onto CR 17? Couldn't the street pattern be such that you use Lake Lucy and Teton Road as the access to the area as opposed to this road three accesses. e Dick Putnam: I think the Commission probably got a little flavor of why Teton Lane and the access was a problem when we first talked to everybody. Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 16 e There is not agreement believe me. Recognizing that fact, we're not stupid so we said, Teton Lane may not be an access point. Recognize that it makes planning sense and all those good things but the realities of the folks involved, it may not work. How many places do you want to come into a project. You ought to have two. If we took them all off of Lake Lucy Road, there would basically be one way in and that is Lake Lucy Road. Fortunately, we had an access point over on Powers Blvd. that is just a 50 foot w ide space where it touches down and 1 uck i ly for us I guess it' s far enough away according to the County anyway when they looked at it and the sight distance is reasonable that it is an acceptable access point. The other reason is that if you put traffic onto a couple different roads like that, it doesn't overload anyone and the gentlemen mentioned that right now with Lake Lucy Road and CR 17, it's congested at some times with people going on. By putting in an access point like we have it on CR 17, it relieves some of that. Quite frankly, we think that will be the major way that most people go into the project because they will be splitting the traffic going each way and it's going to closer for something. Obviously the people along Lake Lucy Road, which there's not that many homes. There are three on that one little bubble to the west and only six on the other one, they will use Lake Lucy Road because it's more convenient but I suspect the main access and frankly what we look at as the monument area in the kind of business is off of Powers Blvd.. Now the gentleman that lives next door to that has had concern about an access point there too. I didn't see him here this evening but his concern was of what's the impact on my property right there so that's the reason why we've done it that way. e Erhart: That's not my concern. My concern is trying to minimize access on arterials. I have a question for the Commission here in that we generally, in fact I think the Zoning Ordinance says in a cul-de-sac it's 90 feet at the setback and I wonder if we shouldn't think about this Ordinance. Maybe 90 feet at the setback for all lots isn't, it might be something worthwhile thinking about because anytime you get an inside curve, you are going to deal with that same question. Conrad: Why don't you pose that to the Staff. Is there any other reason besides, in a pie shape configuration, tell us about a pie shape configuration. Is it just simply we're trying to keep houses a fair distance apart at the building pad distance or are there other factors? Do we care that there are only 30 feet on the road for some reason? Olsen: You have to have some minimum standards. Like flag lots are more triangular lots and if you have it, wherever the setback is, if you have the lot width at where the house is going to be built, you need to have a minimum frontage to provide that protection. Erhart: Then we should be looking at flag lots and triangular lots. Olsen: Even on a flag lot there could be 100 feet, 30 feet wide then if it's wide where the house is going to be. e Erhart: But I'm referring to the lots up on Block 6. I repeatedly heard Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 17 e that Staff does not like triangle shaped lots and I've never heard a real good reason. Just because we don't want to define some rules for it. Olsen: We have had difficulty in enforcing the setbacks if people ever want to do accessory structures in their rearyard. Erhart: I guess what I'm saying, let's bring that up sometime. I would like to see us look at that a little harder so we won't have to deal with those issues as a part of a particular development. The easements on all the rest of the streets are 60 feet. In the private drives. Warren: 50 foot right-of-way on the public streets. Erhart: Okay. Up on Sunset then, there is 33 and 17 with the right-of-way already there. Olsen: On Lilac? Erhart: On Lilac the right-of-way is already there so we're in good shape so we have to deal with Shorewood simply to address, not additional right- of-way but whether they... Olsen: We haven't got it right now. e Erhart: news on I too am in favor of the detached sidewalks. that? Do you have any later Olsen: That is part of the recommendation from the Along the interior streets and also along Lake Lucy. today. Even though there is an on-street bike path, off-street along Lake Lucy. Park and Rec Commission. I confirmed that they still want the Erhart: I guess I didn't quite understand why your recommendation did not for example call one of these cul-de-sacs Lake Lucy something. Olsen: It gets a little confusing. Erhart: You are trying to change this in general now? Olsen: Yes. We just don't want duplications with Lake Lucy and somebody on the Fire Department requested that. Headla: The comment on the trail, putting in a different trail down to the park. Joe Morin: My concern was, I understood the developer to say that the only access to the park would be through a bicycle trail that would be separated from the road with a wh i te line and tha tit would not be a detached sidewalk. e Olsen: There will be a detached sidewalk. Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 18 ~ Joe Morin: Along Lake Lucy? Olsen: Also along Lake Lucy. There will also be a bike path on the street but the Park and Recreation Commission is also recommending that an off- street trail be provided but it will only be on the northern side of Lake Lucy. It won't be on the southern side. Headla: Does that satisfy your concern? ...1 zeroed in on your recommendations and I agree with what you have assigned to those lots but on number 3, a feasibility study, I would like to see that reworded. To me, the way you're saying it now in regards to the results of the feasibility study means to go ahead. I would like to see something stating the approval of the feasibility study. Did I make my point clear on that? Olsen: You want us to condition that we recommend approval of the feasibility study? Warren: Upon approval? Headla: Upon approval of the feasibility study because to say to have someone do a feasibility study, we're not saying it has to be good or bad or whatever. e Conrad: I want to get back to the 90 foot width situation. Does this plan meet the intent of having the 90 foot lot width even though it doesn't at our 30 foot setback? But intent wise, where the building pads would go, does it meet the intent of the Ordinance? Olsen: The buildable area, the place where the home will go do pass as the width. Whether that meets the intent. The flag lots are an extreme and they do preserve some of the slope areas. Conrad: If we grant variances to the lots that don't meet our standards, I want to know that the developer is meeting the intent of the standards. Maybe not the letter of the law. Olsen: To grant the variance you have to find that there is a hardship that the developer could not meet that. Conrad: And we don't know that there is a hardship yet is the developer preserving something that I don't know about. Olsen: In the flag lots, you can argue that there is a hardship but if they provided the 90 foot street frontage along that lot it would wipe out a lot of trees and slope. As far as the lots along the cul-de-sac, Staff feels that they can meet that 90 feet. They can arrange the lot lines to still provide the 90 feet at the 30 foot setback so in that case we feel it can be met. Headla: Jo Ann, on Lake Lucy Road, how close can the driveways be? e Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 19 ~ Olsen: The driveways themselves on Lake Lucy Road? Headla: Yes. Olsen: 400 feet. Headla: Are we hurting the property owners to the east and to the west by allowing driveways to come where they are? Olsen: Those are public streets. The access points onto Lake Lucy are direction street frontage so that wouldn't impact that. Conrad: What other road configurations were looked at? one that Staff saw? Is this the best Olsen: I'll let Dick go through these. There are several of them that went right between the low areas and really would have impacted the wetland and the slopes and the vegetation so what they came back with is in the final one. They just pulled it up with a cul-de-sac and that restored that whole area and same with this area over here. Conrad: Alright. Are there any others? Dick Putnam: These go through F I think. This was 100 lot project. You can see the difference here. This one has the road going through Franco's ~ front yard which gives him some lots but he wasn't real enamored with that ~ idea. It also connects to Teton. This was also a 100 lot plan. This is 93 and has the same road configuration up in this area but takes a cul-de-sac down here to the south off of Lake Lucy Road and goes between the ponds. Ends up with a different way to get there but kind of creates problems here. Here's a 99 lot plan and it's using Teton. This had a road to serve Jim Donovan's property, it just continued on to the west. This had a street coming in and stopping here and another one coming from down below. This is one that is a little different as it comes up in through here. This was just this portion and it connected out to CR 17 right out through the city property that they own. One of the suggestions was to tie in the remaining houses so we talked with the people who had property for sale up there but there was an awful lot of grading and it really didn't work very well. E was one that I mentioned didn't even use Teton Lane. In other words we just run a road up and stop it in our property right between Reamer's and Teton and we could care less what happens to Teton. That didn't solve some of the other problems in the neighborhood. It also went up the hill which works grade wise but is a lot of grading to get through in this area. There were a number of other little ones off of that but we kind of conformed to the lots. Conrad: Appreciate the run through. The Road B that would that basically run into the wetland or the pond? perspective. What's on the other side of Lake Lucy at that the pond or wetland that we have? we've got on our plan, Give me some that juncture? Is e Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 20 ~ Olsen: On the other side of Lake Lucy? Conrad: On the south side of Lake Lucy. So whatever we have on Road B will run into that pond. Olsen: You mean as far as drainage? Conrad: No, I'm just trying to gauge where it is and impact to neighbors and thinking about residents to the south. Where are they located? We don't have houses sitting there. There are some benefits Ted to this particular plan. The lots that are closer to your house are sure bigger lots than anyplace else in the subdivision as I see it. There are some good aspects. The developers did a very nice job of working with the wetlands and working to minimize impact on the natural surroundings which is of interest to me. I think it looks like a good job from the preservation standpoint on the southerly parts of the plan. I guess those are my concerns. I think who would make a motion may want to consider how we want that feasibility study, I don't know if whoever makes the motion wants to address the nature of the feasibility studay and how it ties in with this as it goes to City Council. It certainly is a neighborhood concern and I guess I would like to see how we can tie that feasibility study into what gets to the City Council when they look at this particular plat and subdivision. Emmings: I don't understand the feasibility study process. Maybe Gary could fill me in. The feasibility study is, first of all, authorized by ~ the City Council. Is that right? Warren: That's correct. Emmings: They say go ahead and look at it. Who is responsible for doing that? Is that something that you do? Warren: As far as actually doing the feasibility study? Emmings: Yes. Warren: Typically we hire a consultant to do the study. Conrad: But it doesn't get done until it get to the City Council. Warren: The City Council authorizes the preparation of the feasibility study. We then hire a consultant to prepare the feasibility study. That's brought back to the Council for review and Staff recommendation. The terminology is the Council accepts the feasibility study. We don't say approve or disapprove, we accept it if it's acceptable and then call a public hearing to notify the impacted parties that are identified as part of the assessment program which is evaluated in the feasibility study. A public hearing is held. That comment is taken and the Council then has the opportunity to either authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for the construction of the feasible alternative or they can deny the ~ project and let it go away. Either way. If they approve it, doing the Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 21 ~Plans and specifications is done, those plans corne in and then they accept those and authorize taking of construction bids. Emmings: decides assume, whether Now let's assume that the feasibility study is done, the they don't want to do this project for whatever reason and will this plan be approved prior to the time when the City or not that road is going to be there? City I also decides Dacy: By approving the plat, they will be approving the Teton Lane connection but the feasibility study will analyze how much it's going to cost. Warren: And exactly how it should be done. Emmings: So are you saying that there is no chance that the City Council, after receiving the feasibility study, would say they are not going to do it? Dacy: The purpose of the plat application is you are looking from the Planning Commission's standpoint. Looking at the traffic circulation pattern and you are going to be making a recommendation as to whether or not you think a Teton Lane connection is appropriate. e Emmings: Right, and I personally do. I guess my concern is somehow this development gets approved and gets underway and looking at the feasibility study, decides we're not going to road, or whatever, and now what kind of a road pattern do we this development? this. That the City, after build this wind up with in Dacy: It changes the development of the northerly portion of what they are proposing here. Emmings: I assume that both wouldn't go in the same way? Dacy: It would have to change some. Warren: I think as a part of the Planning Commission's stance here, to give direction to the feasibility study, if there is feeling here that you want Teton to be connected or not connected, that should be the request of the Commission here as a part of the feasibility. In other words, making the recommendation that Teton should be connected. Then when the feasibility study is done, basically if the Council accepts that recommendation, then we would not consider cul-de-sacing the connection for example here. That actually would be connected and we can forward. Otherwise, the feasibility study, quite frankly could look at the impacts and I think I would say it should of not making the connection. That always is one alternative to do nothing so to speak. Emmings: Does a feasibility study typically present alternatives? e Warren: In this type of a case, yes. Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 22 ~ Emmings: And the neighborhood can have input into that process at the public hearing stage? Warren: There is a public hearing phase and we typically like to have it, if there is need for input from the public, we encourage the consultant to work with the public to receive those factors as a part of the preparation of the study but an official public hearing is mandated. Emmings: I would assume that the developer wouldn't want to do a lot of work in that northern part or commit themselves prior to knowing whether or not that Teton connection is going to be made. Dick Putnam: To answer your question for you. Road H, which is the one that goes back to Reamer's house right now, as well as Road G, which is part of Teton Lane, we're proposing to build that at our cost. It doesn't affect Jim Donovan. It doesn't affect the folks across the street to that point at our cost. Regardless of what the City plans to do with Teton. If you want to put a barricade across that, that's your choice. So no, to answer your question, if the feasibility study says don't connect the road to the north, that's fine with us. When I went through the other alternatives, when we started out, how can we design the thing so we don't even affect Teton but I think at this point we're saying we'll build these at our costs. These folks aren't going to get assessed for what you see. If the Ci ty and neighbors decide to extend it north, we'll provide you that right-of-way to do it. If the City decides not to extend the right-of-way north, we end up ~ with the right-of-way. We will give it to the abutting property owners and . they can maintain it. The answer is we will build what you see at our cost. The other thing is, in phasing the project, the southern half, including the park, is what is going to go this year if it's approved. The northern portion, which is up along Teton, is next year's project if all goes well so there is a whole year before anything would happen up there in any event so it would give you time to look at the feasibility, look at costs. Conrad: Literally, if we don't have a connection to Teton, we can't approve this road configuration. It's that simple. Erhart: Don't we have some rules as to maximum length on a cul-de-sac? Conrad: We couldn't allow it. It just wouldn't be good. Erhart: Don't we have 1,000 foot maximum? Dacy: Not specifically. Conrad: The City of Shorewood got involved at the last second and they were made aware how? How did they become involved? Olsen: We contacted them and sent them a copy. Conrad: So they really haven't had time to consider it. - Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 23 e Olsen: They wanted to bring it before their City Council and that's why they did not have time. They did not want to make any comments until the Council could see it. Warren: As part of the feasibility I think we would be looking at Lilac. Also it would really make sense from upgrading Lilac and that would be a good opportunity to receive Shorewood's input. *At this point a motion was made and the following discussion occured. Erhart: I'm not sure that it has to be so complicated. How about if we say your item 3, tha t Teton Lane will be connected and upgraded to urban standards. That way if it doesn't, it has to come back. Emmings: We can't impose that condition because we can't make that decision. Erhart: But if it's not approved by us and the City Council and everybody else. If after the study has been done and it says we will connect Teton Lane and upgrade it to an urban standard. Emmings: We're approving it on the condition that Teton connection be made. I would amend my motion for number 3. Conrad: Steve, you are withdrawing your number 3 to be, at least the way ~ you stated it to be more in terms the way Tim said? Emmings: I think Tim and I are saying the same thing. I think what Tim is doing is simpler and I like it better for that reason. Conrad: Steve, would you like to restate your number 3? Emmings: Yes, condition 3 would be, Teton Lane will be upgraded to urban standards and provide access to this project to Lilac Lane. Erhart seconded. Headla: Are you going to have another one? Erhart: Yes but we should discuss this one first. Siegel: I don't have anything else to add to that but I was just wondering what the definition of the feasibility study was? It seems to me that it would be upgraded to urban standards. The whole purpose of the feasibility study would be to determine that. I don't understand what we're doing. Erhart: I don't think it was necessarily clear that if somehow the feasibility study came back and said this was not a good idea, I'm not sure that it's clear that we are going to get this thing back and Steve made a lot of words to make that clear but this way it's an absolute. e Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 24 ~ Siegel: My question here then to Staff is the feasibility study public hearing is done by the City Council and after that public hearing Council takes action, they have no obligation to send it back to us in any case do they? Dacy: 11m going to try and sort out the motion here. Your recommendation is stating that the Planning Commission is recommending connection of the Teton Lane street and upgrade. If the Council would, at the preliminary plat stage, override that and say that it wouldnlt be connected, the City Staffls position would be that we would want to relook at the traffic circulation pattern because there would be some results in long cul-de-sacs. The developer I think would probably still want to keep their current proposal and maybe they can clarify that position. The City Engineer also suggested that the feasibility study could also look at what happens if Teton Lane is not connected as an alternative. Correct? Warren: What I was asking to clarify, to nail down that loose end and to have the Commission, if they felt that way, to either say yes, we want that evaluated or say no, we want the Teton connection to be made. Just when you do the feasibility study, evaluate how itls going to be done. Thatls what I was trying to clarify. Siegel: Thatls what I think would be a stronger addition to this rather than to look at this the way itls stated because the Council has no obligation to send it back to our jurisdiction after they move on it. 4ItYoulre better off putting some strength into that if you feel that strongly , about it. Erhart: I think thatls what welre saying. Welre only approving this as long as itls connected and upgraded. Thatls the only way. Headla: Canlt we go another way and just say we strongly recommend that it be upgraded to an urban standard? Conrad: Thatls just what we said. Headla: Otherwise it wonlt come back but all we can do is just flag it to them. Thatls what we want to do really. Conrad: Do you want to make another addendum? Erhart: Okay, then two. I think that forcing the developer to take the triangle lots out so I would move for an addendum to remove item 2 from the requirements and see if I get a second. Conrad: Is there a second? 11m still pondering the motion. As Staff sees it. What alternatives does the developer have? Based on this lot configuration, what can they do to resolve the problem? I donlt see a solution. e Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 25 e Olsen: We worked out a couple drawings that could maybe. He needs to rearrange some to have four sided lots. Specifically, he would have to go through the whole thing and figure out, either take out a lot... Siegel: I didn't hear any objection from the developer to that condition so I assumed that they could work it out. Conrad: I'm sure they would rather not. Headla: Tim, would you consider rewording that, that the Staff and developer would work out some mutual agreeable layout for that particular area? Erhart: I think in his original proposal that's what he's saying so if I don't get a second, I think that's going to be on that. Conrad: Is there a second? The motion dies for lack of second. Olsen: Before you make the final motion, with numnber 1, would you like to address the lot width? Headla: That's the one I want to bring out. I think the builder, as I see it anyway, on Lot 13. Is there another one that didn't meet that rule? Olsen: - Dacy: Lot 6? Lot 6, Block 5. Headla: No, that's over an acre too so I guess I would like to leave those two as is. Is that addendum the right words? Conrad: You'll have to get a second. Erhart: According to their discussion here, there are 8 lots that don't meet the 90 foot setback. Headla: These two, they are on public land and it seems like the developer is put on that. Conrad: Did you second that Steve? Emmings: Yes. Conrad: Basically you are saying we should grant a variance in those particular two lot cases. Erhart: These are in addition to the two flag lots then? Dacy: Just for clarification. We have recommendation 1, two variances for Lot 6, Block 5 and another one for Lot 13, Block 2. Number 2 stands as is. e . Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 26 Number 3 has been changed as has been di scussed and 4 through 13 and you want 14 to remain? Conrad: Yes. Olsen: And 5 should be removed because there are hydrants there. Ernmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #87-19 as shown on the preliminary plat dated April 2, 1987 and subject to the following conditions: 2. 3. 4. e 5. 6. 7. 8. 1. Lot 13, Block 3, Lot 6, Block 5 and Lot 15, Block 2 shall receive a variance to the 90 foot lot frontage requirement and all other lots shall meet the 90 foot frontage requirement. The triangular lots shall be changed to reflect a more standard lot configuration. Teton Lane shall be improved to an urban section and shall connect the subdivision with Lilac Lane. An access permit for Road D shall be required from Carver County. A conservation easement at the 982 foot contour shall be provided around the westerly side of the pond in Block 2 and along the southerly side of the park area. A conservation easement at the 992 foot contour shall be provided along the northerly side of the park area. All necessary drainage and utility easements shall be provided. The conditions as established by the Park and Recreation Commission April 9, 1987. 9. The applicant shall provide acceptable drainage calculations for the determination that the park area will drain properly. 10. The outlots shall not be considered buildable. 11. The street names shall not contain the names Lake Lucy or Teton. 12. The conditions as established by the City Engineer in his report dated April 17, 1987. 13. Staff shall work with the City of Shorewood to address their concerns on the impacts on Teton and Lilac Lane and if the street configuration is changed, the preliminary plat shall again be reviewed by the Planning Commission. ~ All voted in favor and motion carried. . e e Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 27 Siegel moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #87-6 with the following conditions: 1. The Class A wetland shall be preserved by a conservation easement established at 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark. 2. The applicant shall provide drainage easements over the ponding areas throughout the site and not allow any alteration to the areas. All voted in favor and motion carried. Erhart: Can you explain what item number 2 in your recomnendation means. Olsen: What they are providing, in what they call a storm water easement, I'm just making sure that they definitely provide easements over that and that those are protected areas so they won't be altered. Erhart: Altered? Olsen: Such as mowing the lawn. SWINGS RECREATION, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGH~AY 5 AND CO. RD. 117, JOHN PRYZMUS, APPLICANT: A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REQUEST TO AMEND THE A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT TO-ALLOW GOLF DRIVING RANGES;-MINIA'ifURE GOLF COURSES AND INDOOR BATTING BUILDINGS AS A CONDITIONAL US~ B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A GOLF DRIVING RANGE, MINIATURE GOLF COURSE, AND AN INDOOR BATTING BU~NG. C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT REQUEST TO FILL IN A CLASS A WETLAND. Barbara Dacy presented the Staff report on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment request. Conrad: Where else would a golf driving range be in the city? Dacy: Currently a golf driving range is not listed in any other commercial districts so basically a golf course or golf driving range is not a permitted or conditional use within the City of Chanhassen. Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 28 ~ Conrad: Can you refresh my memory why that is? I'm looking at some notes where we specifically said we did not want that in agricultural area and I have a hard time recalling that. Dacy: What happened was, during the Zoning Ordinance review process we met several times in 1985 and 1986. The Bluff Creek golf course now is a non- conforming use as a golf course but we do recall discussion that the Commission did have problems with a golf driving range in the rural area. You didn't think it was appropriate. It created some traffic along those roads so it wasn't approved as a part of the new Ordinance thus the application. Conrad: John, you are the applicant. Specifically John we're talking on the zoning and before you tell us what your range and what your configuration would look like. I don't know how I can limit you to just one subject. You are asking for a zoning change or you are asking to amend the Ordinance based on a project that you've got. I don't want to review the project yet. I really do want to review the concept. Of the three things that you've asked for, in general in the City of Chanhassen. Can you keep us away from your project for a while? Do you have anything to tell us about driving ranges in Chanhassen? Persuade us that we should have driving ranges in Chanhassen is what my challenge to you would be. John Pryzrnus: On page 8, basically my feelings in the Chaska Herald is an ad I developed. I spent a lot of time with the people planning the driving ~ range out there now. I've been in front of the City Council about two months ago and at that time we didn't have the total plans and the layout of the new facility. It had been approved originally five years ago for a driving range and I never did open it. I worked on it gradually over the last 5 years and being that the little one I had in town, there was no development on it, I never had a reason to open the new one. I brought in people from Chicago, John Jacobsford Golf and we went and looked at every driving range in the Twin Cities area and there are a lot of driving ranges that aren't kept up very well and a lot of them are just an intern use for a piece of property until you put it into an industrial park or whatever. You aren't going to buy an industrial park for driving ranges but you do buy a driving range for industrial parks. With this project, I'm not proposing it to be used as an industrial park down the road. It's a half a million dollar project that should enhance the recreational facilities for the community. In all the response I've had, they are 100% for the project. I feel by getting community support, I feel that I want to show the Council and the Planning Commission that not only do I want to make a business venture out there, I've already spent a lot of money buying the land. I bought it on a contingency that I could have a driving range then that was approved so I guess what I want to do now. I originally proposed a miniature golf in my original proposal and that was turned down but what I want to do is make it financially feasible for me to do it as an investment and also make it a good thing for the community. With the nature of TH 5 and there is not really a traffic problem. These numbers might not all be right but you have approximately 20,000 cars going by there a day so there e won't be a traffic impact. They would be corning off of TH 5 and going down Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 29 ~ 100 yards on a major collector road which is tar. Conrad: John, I think you are getting into the specifics of the project and I'm really trying to focus on the Ordinance itself right now. We have to look at the Ordinance and say does it make sense to allow driving ranges? Does it make sense to allow some buildings out there and you can come back in a few seconds to talk on the specifics but anything else that you can share with us in terms of, I know they are real closely tied together. ~ John Pryzmus: I guess maybe if I could just answer any questions you have because if I start rambling on and on I might get back into that. If there are some questions as far as if it will be compatible. My neighbors out there, I have a group home to the west of me and contractor yards to the north of me. Dale Green has a farm to the south of me. A guy named Larry Van DeVeire has the land to the east of me and I talked to him and he feels it's commercial. One of the gentlemen here, John Hennessey, he has the land to the northeast corner of me so basically what I'm trying to do by getting community support is not set a precedence in allowing any kind of commercial proj ect. Like Barb stated, a dr i ving range needs a lot of land. It isn't like putting a gas station out there. The miniature golf and the batting cages, the three of them blend together to make it financially feasible first of all but they also make it a nice project for the people in Chanhassen. Like you just had on your map, each developer gives park space. They put in baseball diamonds. The City is acquiring property to add three more diamonds just a mile to the east of this project. They are putting lights on the park because there is such a demand for a recreational facilities and as a private developer, there won't be any city money or anything like that. This will be a private venture so I think it would just be in asking too with what the City already is doing with their parks and with their recreational facilities. Roger Schmidt: I live out in that area. I guess my thinking is that I haven't seen a driving range yet in the metropolitan area that I think is a definite asset as far as aesthetics go on the community. They are usually located in more of a business area or with a golf course and even a golf course is stuck back in a corner someplace where they aren't that visible. Being a resident of that area, I'm somewhat concerned that we'll probably end up with a very similar situation that you have with 90% of the other driving ranges and I'm very much concerned from the standpoint that I don't see the City doing much policing in the area of taking care of what's out there right now. That's been, for several years, right now it's nothing but a junk pile and we've had comments from people out-of-town and in town asking us what's going on over there and it's kind of embarrassing for us to have to admit that we're living in an area that looks like that. I think that particular spot, as far as driving ranges within the City, I think there probably are spots for them but that particular one, I would think you look at it as your western gateway into town and I think you should look at that as something that you don't want to build up with things that probably aren't going to be complimentary to the City. You have to decide whether that is a complimentary activity or not and obviously the other thing that I'm concerned about is the commercialization of the district. It's not e Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 30 e allowed as far as your zoning now and I think people kind of go by the zoning issues when they decide to locate there and you don't arbitrarily change them so I think you should give that serious consideration also. Headla moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. All voted in favor and motion carried. Headla: I don't understand why having a driving range, and the batting thing and the miniature golf is different but I don't see why a driving range would be of any benefit. I think there are several downside aspects of it but I don't see any upside aspects except the person running the range. I think the people surrounding that might suffer. Conrad: You've got to consider them like a golf course. People use it. Driving ranges are used. Headla: Then if I look at the location, then I wonder about Galpin Blvd.. I'm on that road quite a bit. I ride a bike on that and right now, I don't like the way the cars are on there. Do you have any idea how much traffic comes and goes from one of those facilities? Pryzmus: I'm sure there will be some major amount of traffic. I don't know what you consider major but most of it will be coming off of TH 5 so they would be coming off TH 5 down 100 yards and turning in there. The traffic study we do have a parking lot scheduled for 16 spaces. We overbuilt the e parking lot basically. I would say a full driving range wouldn't have more than 3 or 4 cars at a time. That's comparing apples to oranges because that was a temporary thing and basically the people would want something to do down on West 79th street where this will be a business that will be maintained. Siegel: I can't recall discussing our reasons for excluding golf courses from the A-2 district. Dacy: files. I can't pinpoint the date. We did go back and look through the It was a fairly short discussion. Siegel: What was the justification or the reasoning behind us or staff recommending the exclusion from the A-2? Dacy: The way it was proposed, it was listed because it was consistent with our prior Ordinance. However, it was the specific recommendation to have golf courses and driving ranges removed. Siegel: In essence what we're doing is removing any possibility of having a golf course or driving range in the City of Chanhassen. Dacy: That's correct. The Bluff Creek golf course is now non-conforming. e Siegel: Well, that doesn't make sense to me. It just doesn't make sense. If somebody came in with a plan for a beautiful golf course in the rolling Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 31 4It hills of Chanhassen, I'm sure the City Council and the city Planning Commission would jump at the chance to invite them in with open arms to develop that as such. In lieu of that, I look at that piece of property and I guess I'm new to the history of it and I guess the applicant has been remiss in some respects in his follow through in what he has been planning for that. In all due respects, I think we should approach this as a new application for such use and look at it in that light. I think it will be an improvement on that corner and to me the location is marketable as a driving range and as a miniature golf course. I tend to favor that. Unless there is more stronger objections to granting a conditional use permit in the Zoning Ordinance, I would favor it. 4It Emmings: I agree with Bob 11313% that I can't imagine why we wouldn't have golf courses and driving ranges as a conditional use in the A-2 district. I don't have any problem with that. I agree with the Staff that miniature golf courses and indoor batting buildings such as this don't belong out there and belong in a commercial district. Then having said that, I guess putting a miniature golf course with the rest of the things that are here, the driving range and whatever a maxi-putt and putting green business all seems to be pretty cohesive and make sense in this particular project so I'm having some problems with this. I don't have any problem with the driving range being a conditional use in the A-2. I don't think there ought to be, in condition 1, I don't agree that they ought to be abutting collectors. I think they should only be on arterials. On major streets, I think we want to lean that way towards major roadways. I think the second condition is very important that they only be operated from sunrise to sunset. I think that's adequate in the summer time and I think the lights would be a real problem for anyone who lived around it. I guess that's all I got. Erhart: I disagree regarding the issue of whether we should allow golf courses and these things in the A-2 area. I agree with Bob. I think we really overlooked something in golf courses and I don't know enough that we can lump practice areas in that or not so I don't have a strong feeling about that. I do have a strong feeling about buildings in the A-I and A-2 areas. These metal buildings and they tend to be the area that acts as a transitional area from agricultural to the residental. In south Chanhassen where people have built these metal buildings out in the country and I don't know for what reason, where they have not been part of a farm homestead, they are really an eyesore. Even though some of them are well kept up, they don't fit so with respect to that, I would real against, that batting practice thing requires metal or any kind of a major industrial type, any kind of a non-farm building or a non-house, I don't think it ought to be part of the A-2 or A-I. I think it should not be part of the A-2 district. I agree with Steve entirely as far as the driving range. I guess as long as it's on TH 5 with the correct word is major arterial, I guess it's okay. Certainly the one the John ran just west of the City here, as long as there wasn't any buildings and the grass was mowed, I didn't think it was an eyesore at all. Regarding the building on the other hand, if we're going to put a driving range in here, you probably have to have some small building to keep the tractor and stuff out of the rain so I guess I wouldn't mind a small wooden garage or something just to maintain that kind of thing but - Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 32 ~ certainly not a permanent industrial type building. I agree the hours ought to be sunrise to sunset. The second concern, I think in the A-2 area is to emphasize that we do not want retail business in the A-2 area. For example, I can't have a retail nursery on my nursery farm. I can have wholesale but you can't have retail. Again, reflecting on that, we have to be real careful if we're going to use it at all, I think it should be on TH 5. That is the only appropriate place to have this in the City. So the rest of the commission can think about that retail issue and we've got to be real careful about that. We consistently said we do not want retail business activities down there. I like 4 that certainly it should not be within 500 feet of a single family residence. Our wholesale nursery and contractor yards basically have to fit with that rule. Conrad: I have nothing more to add. I think golf courses and driving ranges are appropriate in Chanhassen. I don't think that buildings out in that area, specifically indoor batting buildings, is what I want to see but to use the land that way, I think is appropriate. I would vote for that type of a use in a A-2 district. My only comments other than that are we should have, if we make a motion in favor, somebody might want to work the word golf course in. We don't need to and maybe a golf course is a whole different set of circumstances. I don't know. The other part that I would like to see is an intent statement in terms of why we're allowing this and I guess one of the intents that I would see as a conditional use, is to minimize impact on neighbors in terms of noise, traffic and lighting. I think we need some kind of intent statement along with this if we do choose to allow this as a conditional use. e Emmings: I wouldn't like to see golf courses included tonight for two reasons. First of all, it's not in front of us and that always makes me uncomfortable but secondly, Staff has obviously thought through the kinds of conditions we should impose on a driving range, if we're going to allow that as a conditional use and I don't see that they have had the opportunity to think through conditions for golf courses as a conditional use and maybe that ought to come back as a separate item. Conrad: That's a good point. *At this this point a motion was made and the following discussed occurred. Conrad: Steve, did you leave out miniature golf courses on purpose? Emmings: Yes. Siegel: Does the miniature golf course, in the eyes of us here, reflect as a retail establishment? Would that be the objection to including that miniature golf course as a conditional use? It borders in the area of retail establishment and service recreational type business. Emmings: The way I think about a miniature golf thing fits into a commercial area. It's compact. You can't put a driving range in just a city lot. You need some room. Miniature golf courses don't bother me in e Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 33 ~ the City, they bother me to think about them being out in the A-2. It just doesn't seem to fit at all. Siegel: I guess I tend to think of it as a similar type of use to a golf driving range especially in conjunction with it. If we were to talk about specifics, put a bunch of miniature golf courses 2 miles apart, maybe that would be a little bit different but we're talking about is a proposed complex here. Not one being here and one being 1 mile down the road and another one a mile down the road all in the A-2 district so I think it's a little bit different when you're looking at it as a package as just one thing. Emmings: Let me ask in that regard, let's say that we have passed this Zoning Amendment to allow it as a conditional use, if we were somehow persuaded that a miniature golf place fit in with this particular driving range project, could we allow it? Dacy: What I hear you saying is that you feel that the driving range and the miniature golf course really should act together and not a stand alone miniature golf situation so if you wanted to phrase your approval in the framework that golf driving ranges subject to these conditions. Miniature golf courses as an accessory use to the golf driving range, that would be an option. You couldn't have a miniature golf course without a driving range along with it. If that's what you're saying. ~ Siegel: I guess to me it makes sense. The whole idea of having a miniature golf course, especially when you think about fathers and mothers going out to a golf driving range and they've got a place for their kids to spend some time. It's sort of a natural. I'm surprised there aren't more combinations like that around. Emmings: If we could, I guess what I would like to do since I made the motion, is leave my motion out there the way it is and then maybe you can make a second motion to talk about miniature golf as an accessory use to the driving range. Would that be alright? Dacy: Yes, and then you should look at what a miniature golf course is. It does require more lights. You have the windmills and the people to hit the ball through and so on so you have to consider those visual aspects also. It is different than a driving range. Erhart: I would like to see us go back and spend some more time on this one and define it a little bit better. I'm really against putting anything in the A-2 area that visually is not consistent with either residential or agriculture and I think you can make a driving range consistent with agricultural but I think we ought to define what the landscaping is going to be. Buildings in some kind of terms. What buildings can be put on there? I've seen driving ranges with 16 foot high fences and then in a couple years they're falling down. e Emm i ng s : Tim, don't we retain complete control over that when it's under Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 34 e our conditional use? That to me is the whole reason that it should be in there as a conditional use rather than a permitted use because we retain a lot of control over the plan and the landscaping and what the buildings are going to be. Headla: I doubt that you have that much control over a conditional use. It has to get pretty bad. Emmings: No. When the plan comes in Dave, we look at it before anything gets built and we say we only allow you to build it if you do the landscaping this way. If you show us the plan for the building you're going to build and we approve it. Headla: I'm referring to Tim's comments. Emmings: You're talking about maintaining it after it's built. That's always a problem yes. Headla: I think Tim made the comment very well in that a conditional use permit is very hard to police at times. I think a good example of that is the horse riding farm. Once they were in there and there was a dust problem, and I was involved with that to some extent, it's hard to say you people created 80% of the dust. It's pretty hard to shut them down because there is nothing to enforce that. Once they were in there, they were in there. e Dacy: The advantage to the Zoning Ordinance now is that, that original conditional use permit was approved several years ago and we do a lot more restrictions in our current ordinance and that's the purpose of this amendment process is to establish those type of conditions. If you wanted to add no metal buidlings on the golf driving ranges or a suggested condition, just authorize a building to take tickets or whatever, can't exceed 800 square feet. I don't know but you have that ability to establish conditions through this process. Emmings: There are two other things. A conditional use permit can be revoked if they don't live up to the conditions. Mr. Pryzmus has already found that out on one occasion. That's worked here. To say that a golf driving range or golf course doesn't fit in the A-2, means that we're banning all driving ranges and that doesn't make sense to me. They are a conditional use, not as a permitted use just so anybody can put on anywhere they want to, as a conditional use. Conrad: Tim, you would like to see other conditions in that other than what we've got. Is that true? Siegel: We're talking about the Zoning Ordinance amendment now, not the conditional use permit right? Dacy: Yes. e Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 35 e Erhart: We could put it in the Zoning Ordinance so we have driving ranges are permitted as long as the club house is kept to a 35-40, we can put that in there if we want and one storage shed. You could add those as part of the Zoning Ordinance. On the other hand, I guess if all we're allowing is that the driving range it wouldn't make any economic sense to put much more than that on it. Just a small garage and small clubhouse. Maybe it would police itself. The other thing I would be more inclined to go along with is if we actually restricted it to TH 5 or TH 212 but I will not vote for it if this can be put on TH 101 or Lyman Blvd.. I just think that's dead wrong. Headla: What are we really voting on now? Conrad: We're voting on an Ordinance change and as Steve's motion said, he is recommending that golf driving ranges be a conditional use in the A-2 district. We're not talking about John's proposal now. We're talking simply about, is it appropriate to allow driving ranges in Chanhassen because right now you can't have them. Headla: So if we were to say no, we don't want any of this. We do what the Ordinance says as is. That does not prohibit anyone from coming in and getting a conditional use? Conrad: They can't get a conditional use because it's prohibited right now. There is no way to apply for a driving range right now. e Headla: It is explicitedly prohibited? Dacy: Yes. The use is not allowed in any district. Conrad: But what we're saying in this request is, we will allow it as a conditional use but Dave, nobody can come into town right now and build one. John wants to build one and he's got to have us effect the Zoning Ordinance right now if he's to build anything. Dacy: If I can make one more comment before you take action on that motion. On the collector and arterial condition, it concerns me if you do limit it to just two highways or to an arterial because to me that construes that you can only get access from that arterial highway. We wouldn't want to create a driveway situation off of TH 5 so the benefit of having a collector in there, in this particular situation, is that you can have access of the major street. All the streets in the rural area are collectors or arterials anyway but I think we should preserve the arterial to keep that flow through traffic and not allow addition interruption. Erhart: What about stating within 700 feet of TH 5 or TH 212. Have access from. . . Dacy: You are saying more of a location? e Erhart: Yes exactly. What you're talking about is putting a retail business out in the rural area and I think the only place you want to do Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 36 e that is on TH 5 or TH 212. Dacy: Then in that case I guess I would recommend that you look at amending number 1 to location near an arterial street with access to a collector or arterial. Again, it all depends on it's location. Erhart: It could be a collector but as long as it was on TH 5 or TH 212. The access points can be on the collector. Dacy: It is subjective because where do you draw the lines? At 500, 1,000 or 1,500? Emmings: What if we said location on an arterial with access to a collector for ingress and egress? Siegel: Wouldn't that be part of the conditional use instead of the Zoning Ordinance? Dacy: Yes, the benefit of the conditional use will allow you to look at the individual case. Emmings: No. My motion is going to leave that in and I'll tell you why. Conrad: Leave what in? e Emmings: It's going to leave in a condition that will state that it will be located on an arterial with access to a collector for ingress and egress and the rea son is, if someone comes in and our ord i nance al ready says they can only look at places along arterials, we're going to have a lot less trouble with those people than if they come in and say, okay I wan tit over here and your Ordinance doesn't say I can't. Erhart: But you've got pioneer Trail and TH 101 and Lyman Blvd. are all arterials. Dacy: As the motion is on the floor now, item 1 is location on an arterial street as identified in Article VI, Section 25. Conrad: Steve, do you want to amend that? Emmings: Yes. Again, I think it should be located on an arterial street with access to a collector for ingress and egress. I guess what we're saying is we don't want them just anywhere in the agricultural district. We want them on major roadways but we don't want their driveway coming onto that major roadway. We want them like here, on a corner where they've got access to a collector so the turn can be made off of TH 5 onto Galpin and then get in and out on Galpin so they aren't actually turning off that arterial. They don't have their driveway on the arterial but we want them located on major roadways rather than just scattered anywhere. . e Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 37 e Siegel: Now where are we Mr. Chairman. We've had a motion and a second and we're in discussion stage and he wants to make an amendment to his motion? Conrad: That's correct so I withdraw my original second and second your motion on your change Steve just to get this going. Is there anymore discussion? Erhart moved, Headla seconded to amend the motion to limit the golf driving ranges must be adjacent to either TH 5 or TH 212 and access must be from a collector or an arterial which leads to TH 5 or TH 212. Erhart, Emmings and Headla voted in favor and Siegel and Conrad opposed the amendment, and motion carried. Emmings moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow driving ranges in the A-2 district as a conditional use with the following conditions: 1. The location is limited to being adjacent to TH 5 and TH 212 and access must be from a collector or an arterial which leads to TH 5 or TH 212. 2. Hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset. 3. provision of adequate parking areas and submission of a landscaping plan in conformance with Article VIII. e 4. No site shall be located within 500 feet of single family residences. All voted in favor except Headla who opposed. Headla: The reason being that I think there are far too many negatives situations that can happened as compared to the upside advantages. In respect to both the adjacent landowners and the City. Conrad: John we'll bring you back on board. We're going to open up the public hearing for the second stage of this which is where you are asking for a conditional use permit. You are asking for a golf driving range. Barbara, because we have turned down a miniature golf course and/or batting building, should John continue to pursue and present his proposal in full? Dacy: I think so. Pryzmus: Basically, financially I can't even proceed, by taking out the miniature golf and the indoor activities, financially for me, it makes it impossible. What you basically did was take away the foundation and the walls and you're giving me the roof so I can't enter into a contractual agreement with the City to spend $300,000.00 to basically make a beautiful driving range. I already have the driving range sprinkler systems already in. The tee area is already built. The greens are already done. The sandtrap is there. The classified parking lot that we originally was agreed e Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 38 e upon five years ago is in and I need to do some minimal grading to open it up. So when you mentioned that the miniature golf, this is a sports complex. Not just a temporary use driving range. The miniature golf as you see on 1-494 on the strip where it's all concrete and also in Excelsior where they have all rock, now on my developmental plan we are using approximately, I haven't walked and measured it all off, but for the batting cages and the miniature golf, we're using with parking somewhere around 6 acres. 5 to 6 acres in a commercially zoned area would make it financially impossible, especially when you build a building that's going to conform with all the buildings in the industrial park. But getting back to what is going to be nice for the community, as Roger said, it is part of the gateway from the west. With the landscape architecture plans that we have submitted and this will all be done through the City, we will be adding anywhere from 4 to 8 foot berms throughout the miniature golf. They will be maintained by a neighbor out there. I have a full time manager hired to run it. A full time grounds keeper. He will be there 5 days a week, or 3 or wha tever it takes. The trees, we will basically have up lighting on all the berms with the shurbs. There are, even though it hasn't been maintained as an arboretum right now, most all the trees are planted. There will be another additional 100 some trees planted. I appreciate your voting to allow driving ranges but I don't know what you want me to sign in a contractual agreement to do what when I can't have basically two-thirds of what I'm proposing. The building itself and where it's situated, this plan was drawn up before we decided where the on-site septic system would go and with the additional setbacks, the building can be set back 100 feet. With the bank a being taken down 10 feet and the berm coming up 4 feet so this building ~ would absolutely, that's 14 feet in itself and the building is only 15 feet high. No it goes from 14 feet to 15.8 basically with a flat roof. The building would be all cedar on the outside. The roof is metal but when I insulate it, it would be like a compco roof. There is a neighbor that lives south on TH 101 that is getting a price together for me now so the building would not be a tin shed. In this area there is permitted use. In fact, I have to get financing on the building so I would have to come to the City to get a building permit to build a contractor's yard, a nursery, a hog farm or whatever. I'm going to have to do something with the property and the building is already there so I do have to do something with it and I just felt that for the community and the neighbors, with all the landscaping. It used to be a tree farm so there are already 300 some trees, I think the two, the miniature golf and the driving range are just a natural. People are going to come out. If you have any children, how many people say, what can we do mommy or what can we do? There's nothing to do in Chanhassen. That's the biggest thing ever since I've been here for 13 years, there's nothing to do in this town. Here we have no booze. We have basically no noise. Golf balls don't make any noise. We have no dust problem. We really have no problems other than something that should be nice for the community. The cost of the building in the central business district, I just sold a piece of land that this would basically be the only place in Chanhassen that it could go right now and that land with the building that it would take, would cost a couple million dollars. Financially you could never do that project here so the citizens of Chanhassen won't have this project. The location e out there, being that it is on a major highway. It is not conducive to Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 39 ~estate homes. When you have 20,000 cars driving by every day, everyone knows what the land, I paid $4,000.00 per acre for 5 years ago when the land was going for a lot more because people aren't buying it for farmland. I did buy it on a contingency that I could have the driving range so by not being able to show you what...we're using pictures and dimensions from courses in California and Florida and I want this to be the nicest and well thought out miniature golf course. If you've ever played mini-putt over in Minnetonka, we measured that out and wanted to at least have the trees and shurbs and greenery that they have. We aren't proposing any elephants or ducks or geese or anything that's going to look bad. I want it to be fun. We're going to do a lot of underground things with PVC. Little kids like when the ball disappears and then it comes up. The mini-putt, to get back to what mini-putt and maxi-putt is, a mini-putt for kids anywhere from 4 or 5 years old up to 9 or 10. You take them to a real tought miniature golf course and they get very discouraged. Everybody likes to do good so it would be a real interesting little course but their ball always winds up in a good spot so they can score good but it won't be interesting enough for your 11, 12, 13 and your adults so the maxi-putt would be that. I'm trying to get something for the whole family. The batting cages, I don't know if any of you have ever had children in Little League but the worse thing that can happen is when your little guy strikes out twice in a row and he comes back crying. When I was in the Jaycees we bought one batting machine for the CAA but there just isn't enough time for all the little kids to use that one batting machine. The building itself would be basically not seen from the highway. Right now, in a farm zoned area, you can build basically a whatever you want for a hog farm, dairy farm, whatever. I want to have a .. lot nicer building than that. It's going to be totally screened but by taking away, like I say, the foundation. I appreciate your motion to allow the driving range. Dacy: Given their action, the next item on the agenda is literally a conditional use permit for a driving range. You have a couple of options. You can withdraw that application right now so they would not carry out the review of the driving range and the matter would just go on to Council to determine the Ordinance amendment but if they do allow the driving range and everything else, it will have to corne back and go through the plan review. So, do you want them to carry out the review just for the driving range or are you withdrawing your application at this point? Pryzmus: I want the driving range but what I'm saying is I can't really enter into any contracts if I only have the driving range. I appreciate your motion for the driving range. Conrad: John, I think there was some sensitivity to the miniature golf here. It wasn't voted that way but there was discussion. City Council may entertain that thought. I don't know just because we voted one way. I think they will be consistent in some of the things that we're saying. I think some philosophical things will carry out based on what we're saying but I'm sure that miniature golf is totally out but I don't know if you want to carry it forth. It's really up to you. e Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 40 ~ Pryzmus: I want to carry it forward. Dacy: What we could do is, this is going to the Council on May 4th, you could come back to the Planning Commission on May 13th for permit review if it's approved. I know you have some timing restrictions. Pryzmus: That is to enter into another agreement so they have the site plan and other additional uses. Okay. Dacy: I would have to come back and you probably wouldn't get approval before June 1st. It would be more time if they don't review it. Pryzmus: But they can't review it if you are going to leave the motion standing just for driving range. Let's just take the driving range and I'll have to spend another month. I don't know what else to do because you've made the motion and that's your feelings so I don't have an option. Conrad: advice. Well, you probably do. I guess Barb is just giving you some What did you two decide? Dacy: I think you are asking us to go ahead and review just the golf driving range. Siegel: You still want it to go before Council in total? e Pryzmus: I want it to go before Council in total because if I don't... Dacy: Okay, then the Conditional Use Permit and the Wetland Alteration Permit, they will make a motion to table that pending Council final action on the Ordinance amendment. Pryzmus: Let's do the wetland. We can do the wetlands now because that's part of the driving range. That has nothing to do with the miniature golf. Dacy: So you are saying to go ahead with the driving range? Pryzmus: Yes. Conrad: Okay, this is a public hearing. Any comments? Siegel moved, Erhart seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Emmings: One thing that I notice that there is in the landscaping it says existing ash, 2 to 2 1/2 inches in diameter and points to that whole long row of trees. When I drove by there tonight, I didn't see any trees at all. Dacy: There are trees out there. There are a number of trees out there as John has mentioned. They are small. e Emmings: 2 1/2 inches in diameter? Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 41 e Dacy: Some are but not all. Emmings: And does it go across the whole property the way it's portrayed on this? Dacy: It's along TH 5, yes. Some, I think may be dead. A lot of them didn't have leaves on them as of yesterday. Emmings: Put in a condition that they have to be living trees? Dacy: They are identifying existing conditions. The specific thing that the Commission should address is the appropriateness of the lighting and the fencing proposals. Those are some of the things that Staff kind of flagged out. with just the driving range, there was a taller lighting standard in the southwest corner. Your previous motion was for the operation of the driving range from sunrise to sunset so in my mind that lighting scheme falls out and you need to address that one way or the other. Headla: What does he need the lighting for? If you don't give him lights, that kind of insures that it doesn't go past sunset. Dacy: I realize that. I was just saying that I wanted to make sure that the Commission was comfortable with that. Emmings: Is there any reason they have the lights? That you would want the e lights? Pryzmus: As you know, there is a group home west of me. I'm not saying anything bad about group homes but the contractor's yard, the residents over here, everyone in the farm community has security lights and a person could get in and raise all kinds of heck with the putting green or whatever and I feel that I need some security maintenance out there. With the putting green being in the southwest corner, that will give me the security down there. I also had security on the front of the indoor activity building but I wouldn't propose any more lighting than the average farm has. Emmings: itself? How tall is that light? How high above the ground is that light Pryzmus: I don't know what NSP puts in. Emmings: It's just one of those standard lights? Pryzmus: It's a standard light that would be on a farm. The other thing, I guess I cut it short when the public hearing was closed but as far as the fencing, there will be the fencing around the perimeter of it will be the same as Prince's fencing down the street. It will be the black fencing and the fencing on the west and across the north border will be the fencing that's out there. It is a silver fence but it will all be 6 feet high. There won't be any need to protect any roads or anything. The driving will e be hitting to the north. Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 42 ~ Emmings: Barbara, I see one light. Are there more? Dacy: Yes, the light in the southwest corner is the only one that you had shown on the plan outside of the putting area. The miniature golf course lights but if the miniature golf course is not there, then those lights fall out. Other than those, that was the only light, correct? Pryzmus: We have lighting on the path underneath the trees. Dacy: For the tee area. Pryzmus: This is a path in back of the tee area. Dacy: You're saying these are 10 feet in height? Pryzmus: Yes, those are 10 feet in height. They would be a down light. It was to light the path but if we're not going to be open... Dacy: Along the tee area they are proposing a series of 10 foot lights there. Pryzmus: In back of the tee area there is a path. I put trees every 30 feet and then they are diagonally across from one another and the lights would be in the tree area. ~Dacy: But again, if they condition from sunrise to sunset and they are not ~ there for security reasons. Headla: Where would that 6 foot fence be? Pryzmus: A 6 foot fence would surround the whole property. Headla: Every time you drive by TH 5 you see a big black fence. Pryzmus: Yes, it would be about the same as the arboretum fence only it would be black. It would be the same as Prince's fence down half a mile. Headla: Have you people seen that fence? Go take a look at it. Pryzmus: If you don't like black fence, I don't have to put it. maybe you would like it because it was the same as Prince's. I thought Conrad: In trying to understand Staff's analysis of the wetland. In Gary's report, are those conditions bundled in to the Staff recommendations? Dacy: Yes. Conrad: And Gary, basically you have a lot of concerns with the area from a wetlands standpoint and some other things. Were your conditions as stated, were they worded so that if we decided to allow filling in the wetlands, these things have to be done? I didn't see a statement that said that. I e Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 43 e saw Rockwell's comments saying that the wetlands shouldn't be filled in. That there are some senstive areas and whatever. How do I interpret your comments at the end on the attachment? Warren: I admit it got a little confusing as we got into it. In trying to interpret our Wetlands Ordinance, that was part of the thrust that I was responding to some of the deficiencies that the submittal has in relation to the Wetlands Ordinance. I guess the final bottom line of my comments would be that if you go ahead that the recommendations that I have shown should be enforced as far as sedimentation basin and then some of these things. I guess in general that's where I was coming from. Conrad: In brief, I'm not sure that I've seen a hardship or a real reason to allow the filling in of the wetlands. I would have a tough time going along with. I don't think the measures pointed out are necessary. I prefer to keep the wetlands operating. It appears from Rockwell's comments, I wasn't sure about the trade-offs that she was mentioning. I was having a tough time interpretting that. e Dacy: When we went out to inspect the si te, as you know, the area has been cultivated. What she came back and said was that it's not good for habitat purposes. However, it is performing some type of function for storm water run-off to Bluff Creek. All that's out there now are the regrasses and so on. It is not protected by the DNR because of their particular restrictions on vegetation and so on. What she said was that they have looked at the situation where, as in the Centex case, if you alter one part of the wetland, if you improve another part of it, they will accept that. In this case, the applicant has no access to other property. He doesn't own any other property that contains additional wetlands area. He would have to gain that easement right over to do that. If you deny the wetlands alteration permit, you would in effect deny use of the property as a driving range. Conrad: There are two issues here. As a conditional use permit for the golf driving range. There is also a wetlands alteration permit that we have to respond to also. As I said, based on the Ordinance for the wetlands alteration permit, we haven't solved the problem. There hasn't been a trade. It's almost impossible to solve the problem with the wetland and therefore, I guess I would have a tough time. I don't see how he can maintain the ordinance and the intent of the ordinance with the current proposal. Is there a motion? Siegel: Barbara, don't your recommendations make the wetlands permit applicable to the wetland ordinance? Dacy: Yes. That's true. However, because we are unsure about what would happen to the ordinance amendment in the first case, we really didn't specify a motion as we do in other cases but Gary correct me, your conditions are directed toward gaining additional information and recommending a permit sedimentation basin there if alteration was allowed. e Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 44 4It Warren: Right. Siegel: project. And some of Gary's recommendations were contingent on the total Not just the golf driving range right? Warren: My recommendations are based on the total project. Siegel: You had something about run-off from the building. Warren: That's correct. Siegel: In lieu of that, does that make any change in your recommendations set by Staff? Dacy: As far as the drainage issue, it eliminates additional hard roof area, that calculation from the drainage but I think the overall drainage plan and so on still remains intact. All of these conditions could be applied for a recommendation of approval except for number 1. If you have some type of preference for the lighting scheme and you should probably identify the hours of operation if you are going to recommend approval. Siegel: I thought we already did that with the previous motion? e Dacy: Yes, you did but I guess I would prefer that you clarify it in this application. Emmings: If someone were to vote to deny the wetland alteration permit would it make the conditional use permit moot? Dacy: Yes. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the application for the Wetland Alteration Permit. All voted in favor except Siegel and motion carried. Siegel: I thought I was assured that Staff would ensure with their recommendations to satisfy the alteration permit. Conrad: You can minimize the impact on the wetland but the Ordinance says. Siegel: In essence, we are denying the property owner any use of his land. Conrad: No. For a golf driving range because he apparently needs more property. Siegel: I fail to see the effect of a golf driving range on a piece of bare land to me is less impact on it than any other type of use. Emmings: He has to fill in the wetlands to use it as a golf driving range. e Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 45 - Siegel: I still disagree. the applicant could adhere I think Staff came up with recommendations that to and meet the use of the land for his purpose. Pryzmus: That piece of land has been farmed for 100 years. It was homesteaded and last year with the wettest year we ever had, it was down twice in the spring and in the fall. There has never been any water standing there and so, when you reach your Ordinance about what is a Class A wetland or what is a protected wetland, it's anything that is going to have any water if there is a 100 year rain. Basically, most of your communities are built to Class A wetlands according to that Ordinance so I don't want you to get real carried away with thinking that I'm filling in a lake. It's a piece of farmland. It's low and it's advantageous to me to put in a couple feet of fill so my ballpicker, when it's raining, won't squeeze the balls into the ground. There isn't going to be any change. There isn't going to be any buildings close to the creek. The water will still flow very smoothly. It's going to be nothing but mowed grass and so I think sometimes you're getting a little carried away with what I'm doing in there. The wetlands seems to throw the trigger so address that. It is a farm. It always has been a farm. There are no cattails. There has never been standing water there ever. I drove through there the other day with my pick-up. Now, it's been a dry spring. Last spring it was the wettest spring we've had for years so it's not wetlands so I want people to realize that. 4laWETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO INSTALL THE LAKE ANN INTERCEPTOR AND LAKE VI RG I N IA FORCEMA I N"""""fN AND NEAR CLAS S A AND CLAS S B WETLANDS AL'ONG THE ALIGNMENT RUNNING SOUTHEASTERLY FROM TH 41 TO-TH S;THROUGH CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, NORTH OF LAKE SUSAN AND INTO EDEN PRAIRIE, METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION, APPLICANT. --- ---- ---- ----- Public Present: Leander Kerber 1620 Arboretum Blvd. Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on this item. Leander Kerber: I have concern wi th it because it's going to go right across the south end of my property on TH 5. I have the property between the City park and the nursery. My question is, as long as it's zig-zagging around, why don't they cross the highway down the road 500 feet to 1,000 feet and stay off of my property. Another question is, am I going to be assessed for that now or when am I supposed to pay for it or am I going to have to pay? If so, why? Dacy: The interceptor at this time is not proposed to be assessed during this year and in 1987. The Metropolitan Council will not allow us or allow property owners in that owner to hook up into that interceptor until after 4It the year 2000 so there are no assessments at this time. Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 46 e Leander Kerber: up to it? At this time, does that mean until we get a chance to hook Dacy: That's correct. Erhart: What are the adverse effects on your property of putting this through there? Leander Kerber: About all they do is tear up my driveway and go across, I call it my property. I pay the taxes to the center of the road. They will tear it up and dig in there and then I'll have to go through the mud until the grass grows decent again, the same as they did when the telephone company went through a couple years ago. I tried to keep it nice right up to the blacktop with mowing and I end up with wire and it wasn't long before the telephone company went through there and dug it up and things like that disturb me. If I don't have to pay until I can hook up to it, that solves part of the problem. I might not be around then. Erhart: What's the restoration policy regarding that? Bob Schunicht: What we'll be doing in front of his property, we're going a little bit north on the highway because MnDot might find that someday on expanding that to the north of the existing highway so we're looking about 30 feet north of the existing right-of-way so we will have to purchase an a. easement from this gentleman. When we go in there with the pipe and it · will probably be torn up for two weeks to a month, depending on how the weather goes during the construction. We will provide temporary access during construction and then we will restore the driveway and whatever part of his front yard is in a like or better condition than it previously would be. As a rule, we tend to do a better job than the phone company in restoring property. We have a full time inspection on the project. We will be contacting you before construction starts and you will know the people to call if you have a problem that occurs during construction and we will restore it right away after construction. Leander Kerber: Someone called me earlier this week and I'm having a meeting tomorrow morning at 11:00 with someone about going in there. Bob Schunicht: He will be talking to you about the value of your property and obtaining an easement from you to put the sewer on your property. Leander Kerber: Where the stakes are right now, is that where they are going to go? Bob Schunicht: That's the center of the pipeline. We'll be wanting to purchase an easement 10 feet on either side of the center line. Leander Kerber: There won't be much acquired because the roadway side is back a little bit from there. _ Bob Schunicht: The 10 feet is a permanent easement. We will also require Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 47 e about a 50 temporary for construction so we will be carrying it out from the highway going north... Leander Kerber: Where those stakes are right now, I cut the grass there this week, they aren't going to be there much longer. I told the fellow the other day on the phone, I said where the stakes are right now, with the grass cutting starts, they've been there since last Fall, and I try to keep them clean right up to the highway. The other thing I was concerned about was money. Erhart moved, Siegel seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Emmings: Staff is obviously satisfied that everything is being done to protect the wetlands that this is going through that can possibly be done? Dacy: Correct. Conrad: The impact is primarily temporary? Dacy: Correct. Conrad: Do we know any long term impacts? There were two areas where we are more sensitive than others. Are there long term impacts that Rockwell e discovered or our technical experts can tell us right now? Dacy: To use your definition of long term, I guess the only area that would qualify under that adjective I guess would be an area where they are going through a very wooded area where a lot of trees will be lost. However, it will revegetate naturally but in every other case, if you walk the alignment it's primarily along the existing snowmobile trail in the northwestern portion of the alignment and then they have made the best effort that they can to hit the perimeter as much as possible and at the same time try to keep the costs in line also and achieve gravity which is the whole purpose of this. Erhart: In the area where they are taking trees out, how wide is the area? Dacy: In some areas it was up to 150 or 200 feet in that area. Erhart: That wide? Bob Schunicht: We're going one hill area as you come out of Lake Ann where it is about 45 to 50 feet deep so they have to go about 100 to 150 feet wide probably. Erhart: How about where you are clear cutting trees? What is the widest area? e Bob Schunicht: That would be the widest area right there. Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 48 - Dacy: In that alternative they did look at it. In another alignment, I think it was over towards this way but that would have added half million dollars to it. Headla: What's the age of the trees? Dacy: There were some youngs ones in there as I recall. There was a good mixture. Headla: Losing the young trees, that's what really costs you. Erhart: And you are not replacing trees at all? Bob Schunicht: No. Dacy: We discussed reforestation and the experts recommended that the stub sprouts and so on would probably be more practical to have it revegetate naturally. The habitat experts also advised us that sometimes... Erhart: Who said that? Dacy: Peter, do you want to back me up on that? . Peter (Barr Engineering): Part of the area that we're talking about is up where the large oaks and older trees are found. In that particular area, I'm not sure if it's part of the approval but in any case, there is a trail through there so it isn't as though you were digging out a 100 foot strip of mature oak trees. In areas that you are referring to in the wetland where you are going to lose the shurb cover, are shurb swamp and where we're talking about vegetation is fast natural revegetation would be in areas where it is cleared of vegetation but not excavated and you will have the roots and stub of the trees there for resprouting. Erhart: If your not clearing that, why do you need such a wide area? You are requiring such a wide area in the hill... Bob Schunicht: When you are digging deep in a pile of dirt, the side of the trenches... Erhart: But then when you pile the dirt on that and then put it back in there, you're going to clear all the roots and everything out of there aren't you? Bob Schunicht: This is in the wetland area now? Erhart: I get the impression that there is some hill here that because you have to go deep you have to remove a lot mature trees. Bob Schunicht: That area where the mature trees were found... _ Peter: I think I can answer that very quickly. OSHA requires a 1 to 1 Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 49 e slope in the bottom of the trench to preserve the working area and that's the reason you have to build that. Erhart: And there are some areas where they are mature trees that are going to be removed due to that road? But essentially we are going to grade that, put it all back in and then you are going to have a lot of dirt there. Peter: This area where the mature trees are is not in that area. Erhart: I guess we're developing a concern that we're talking about a lot of our mature trees without provisions to replace them. Maybe that's not part of this wetland alteration but I guess I need to think about that one. We ask a private developer or what do we ask other people to do in these kind of situations? Conrad: I'm not sure what our clear cutting ordinance says. I have a concern there too. A private person comes in, we apply the standards. A government body comes in we say, cut it down. We don't care. Bob Schunicht: The route that we're going through is part of the joint Chanhassen Waste Control Commission problem too. It was through an area where the Waste Control Commission has promised us a lot of cooperation on the City's part to help find the easements. Some of those promises can be construed to save the City by saying you would plant some trees or something ~ but the Waste Control Commission has a policy that it not reforest the areas ~ that it goes through. That's a pretty standard policy we try to apply in the metropolitan area. We do try to minimize the trees that we take out. Erhart: I would also assume that the landowners, if you are going through and their trees are being destroyed, some 80 year old oak trees, that is also a consideration. Bob Schunicht: They will be reimbursed for the trees taken out. Erhart: That's one way to look at it. Conrad: I honestly have to justify, apply the same standards that a private party would have. Erhart: There would be no clear cutting involved but again, we do allow clear cutting for private streets. In that case I guess you could equate that. Conrad: Our Ordinance sure talks about public works in our Class A or Class B wetland that it requires a permit and that obviously is what we're doing. How do I justify this Barbara? Give me a handle to tell us. Can I justify this that we are restoring the wetlands? I think I'm comfortable that in this particular process we're restoring wetlands. We're not degrading them. I think I'm hearing that. e Dacy: That's correct. Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 50 ~ . . Conrad: I don't know specIfIcally, I haven't been made aware that there is a case where there is a permanent situation that I can see the steps being taken during construction to minimize impact. I guess I feel comfortable with that. Dacy: The type of wetlands that they are going to contain mainly are reed canary grass and that vegetates very quickly. Again, they are going around the perimeter and so on because obviously they do have very heavy areas of peat and muck. Conrad: Te 11 me one th i ng, when the nex t pr i va te owner comes in and they quote me this case study, have we set any kind of precedent here that I would rather not set? Dacy: This is one of the reasons I took this on this particular time of the agenda. To me this application is completely different than Mr. Pryzmus' application. Here he is filling in the wetland, creating a sedimentation basin and grading alteration whereas here, we're just trying to create a trench to place a pipe and then you are gone so I don't feel we're setting a precedent in this case. Emmings: It's also implementing a thing of great importance to the City of Chanhassen. Not just for one strip of land. e Erhart moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #87-3 to install the Lake Virginia Forcemain along TH 7 and the Lake Ann Interceptor from TH 41 in its proposed alignment to the existing interceptor just east of TH 101 subject to the following comments: 1. In all sections identified in this report the following shall occur: installation of silt fences, side casting of dredged material on upland areas, and proper methods of soil compression and restoration. 2. Construction in Section J shall occur during winter months. Construction in Section F shall occur in late fall. 3. Compliance with the DNR and Watershed District requirements. All voted in favor and motion carried. DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAREDO DRIVE AND WEST 78TH STREET INTERSECTION, WINFIELD DEVELOPMENT, INC. AND CHANHASSEN DOWNTOW~ DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES (CHADDA). A. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN 18,500 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 1. e Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 51 e B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL FOUR GAS PUMPS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE 18,""'5'00 SQUARE FOOT RETAILBU'ILISING~- C. SUBDIVISION OF 2.6 ACRES INTO !~Q LOTS (LOT lL 1.19 ACRES AND LOT ~ .:.2 ACRES) . Barbara Dacy presented the Staff Report on this item. Fred Hoisington: I agree with the Staff's recommendations and we're simply here to answer questions. Brad Johnson: The only question I have is I heard this fire item come up the last two times I've been to a planning meeting and the fire chief has never been here to explain. It seems like fire hydrant either is Code or is not Code. Is that something that you've just randomly come up with? Dacy: No, it's not a random recommendation. It is State Code that you have to have a fire hydrant within 300 feet. Brad Johnson: From any facility or in a commercial facility? Dacy: Commercial facility. Even in your residential subdivision there are 4t standards along the watermain. Brad Johnson: Don't they go right down 78th Street? Dacy: On the utility plans but in order to attack a fire and so on, from the Fire Department's standpoint, he relayed to me that their ultimate plan would have a drive-in pass through between the two buildings. Obviously they are working on it from a different direction. He said instead of the locations of the hydrants that these two locations could be workable. To be honest with you, I don't know where the proposed hydrants are along the street. Emmings moved, Headla seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Emmings: When it comes time to make a motion, some of these have been taken care of? Dacy: Right. Emmings: Do you want to go ahead and tell us which ones they are so we can strike them out or should we just go ahead as is. Dacy: I think you should just approve it as said. We'll correct the motions before they get to Councilor I should say, we'll tell them which specific conditions have already been handled. e Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 52 e Siegel: Barb or Brad, when and why do we exclude gas stations from the redevelopment district? Dacy: When it originally came up during initial review of the commercial districts and remember the Commission asked Fred to analyze the uses in that district. The primary concern for convenience stores and service stations was related to the intersection of the new north/south road of TH 5 and that whole area of town that would play out. However, zoning lines were changed and different street plans were evaluated through the redevelopment process so that issue fell out and was not a concern any longer. In the central business district, it was consistently not listed in the permitted or conditional uses until City Council consideration just prior to it's final adoption at the request of CHADDA. Siegel: Was that last summer? Dacy: That was last December. In the two or three years that the Planning Commission was looking at it, CHADDA was just beginning to get more so the Planning Commission really never had the opportunity to review what the Council had. Siegel: So in effect, this opens the door to gas stations in the Central Business District. If somebody on the other end, Loren for instance or somebody else wanted to get a conditional use permit for a gas station ~ within that perimeter area they are labeling the central business district, ~ we really would have no recourse to deny them? Dacy: Yes, they would have to go through the Conditional Use Permit application. Our City Attorney has advised that you have a set of standards for a conditional use permit for that particular use. You do have the ability to judge whether or not that particular application meets those standards and you could deny the conditional use permit. The applicant has the burden of proof in the conditional use application to prove that it's not going to be adverse to surrounding properties, traffic and all the standard impacts. You have clout in other words to deny it. Headla: for? I don't understand about trash enclosures. What were you looking Dacy: The applicant indicated that the fencing was going to go around the trash enclosure and we had an indication that the fence material was going to be consistent with the exterior of the building but all that we're saying is that before a building permit, we want an exact detail. Show the gate in front and the height. Headla: Most trash containers now, big metal things and people throw things in it and you always have to slam that cover. Probably those houses on either side of that can hear it. Is there anyway we can control that type of thing? e Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 53 e h . . Dacy: As far as t e CIty'S concerned, we have no ordInance really addressing that type of issue. I guess it would be more based on a complaint comment basis. If we did get a complaint from the property owners then we would work with the developer to resolve that. Headla: Could we do something to eliminate the need for complaints? Dacy: The other option would be to locate the dumpster in another location. That could be looked at. There is one here at the Riveria. Headla: Can you ask them to look at that and see what could be done. I'm not sure anything can be done but I think they ought to have consideration of the people that are around there. Jim Winkles: The heaviest user is going to be the western tenant so to move that trash area closer to the Riveria, I think that is going to present more problems. Headla: Well it makes sense to leave it about where it is but is there something that could be done to quiet it down? Dacy: That's a good point that maybe we could just try to work with the developer. ~ Headla: I'm sure if one of those dumpsters were in your neighborhood you .., would probably find some way to keep it real quiet. Siegel: What gas station is going in here? Is this just strictly pumps, it's not service? Brad Johnson: One of our requests is just pumps, there is no service. It's very restrictive on that. It's actually a convenience store with pumps. Siegel: Okay, so it's going to be sort of like cigarettes and pop? Brad Johnson: Brook's Superette is the name of it. Siegel: Are they open 24 hours a day? Brad Johnson: I'm not sure. It's like a PDQ or a Torn Thumb, that gender. Siegel: I was just wondering. I have real misgivings about having something in that location open 24 hours a day right at the entrance to a residential area which happens to be my residential area. Also, the city center and the school and fire station. I just have serious misgivings about putting gas pumps in on that site and also the repercussions of opening up the whole downtown redevelopment area to further requests for conditional use permits. We don't have any control or can we set limits on conditional use for operation numbers? It seems to me that if it were a service station like ~ down the street there that closes at 6:00 or 7:00 every night, that would be .., less of a change in that area than where we don't have any control over Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 54 ~ f . hours 0 operatIon. a draw for everybody If it is open 24 hours a day it's obviously going to be coming out of Filly's and Pauly's. Brad Johnson: I would guess they will run the hours that Kenny's runs. Siegel: Kenny's doesn't have gas. Brad Johnson: You have to remember that this isn't primarily a gas operation. It's primarily a convenience store. It just happens to have gas as part of what they use to make money. Siegel: I guess that's my objection though is the gas as being the draw on that site. I'm all for development in that area but I'm just disappointed that you can't find something more suitable as a use on that site. Conrad: Two quick questions. Fred, you made some mention about architecture has not been incorporated into the Staff's recommendation. What are your concerns at this point? Fred Hoisington: I guess our concern is that we really can't read exactly what this is. I think we just simply need to work a little bit more with the architect to be comfortable with what's being proposed. It's going to set the tone for everything that happens hereafter downtown so I guess it's only a statement of caution Ladd. That we want to be sure that it's right ~ and want to continue to work with them in that regard. Conrad: We typically stay out of architecture. At least I prefer to stay away from architecture from a Planning Commission's standpoint but what is the controlling device? If you are reviewing it for architectual precedent type of standards, is it just your good relationship with the people who are building and the architects or what is going to govern how it is built and how are you going to have any control? Dacy: In condition number 4 we are requiring the applicant to come back with detail fachia plans or architectural model so we can have another look at that. We also say the applicant shall submit for Planning Commission and City Council review so essentially you will see these folks back here again. Conrad: Under what? Dacy: Through the conditional use permit process and because of the importance of this project being the first project on the north side of West 78th Street, this will set the tone for the architectural standard through the rest of the development. The Planning Commission has just as much input into how the downtown should look as the HRA or the City Council. Conrad: What do you call that when it comes back to us? How it appears, what is that? ~ Dacy: They are complying with the conditions of the Conditional Use permit. Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 55 e If they carne back with a plan that the Commission and Council really had a lot of problems with, they can't get started with the project until the commission and Council say yes, we like what we see. Staff feels that we really want the commission and Council to make sure about how the facade is being layed out. Conrad: If it's corn ing back here then we have some kind of control. Okay, that's one question. Going back to what Bob brought up on the 24 hour a day situation. A 24 hour day gas, is anybody concerned about that? A 24 hour a day potential gas pump operation. Does anybody care? Brad Johnson: We just can't speak for the tenant but we don1t think they will be open past 10:00. Conrad: They probably won1t but we1re looking at the downtown and we1re saying we haven1t put any restrictions on that operation. Where there is a conditional use request in front of us and we haven1t looked at the hours of operation. In the beginning Brad it was not thought that gas was going to go there and now gas is going there and I'm just raising the issue. Do we care? Because it1s close to a neighborhood, do we care that it might be? Headla: What if they had a video store in there that operated 24 hours a day, would you care? e Siegel: Would a video store operate 24 hours a day? Headla: A retail store that might operate 24 hours a day. Would we care or is it just the gas pumps itself? Conrad: Is it something that1s different about operating in 2:00 in the morning or 6:00 in the afternoon? Siegel: Convenience stores have a wider variety of draw than video store does or a specialty shop so you have a much wider population to draw from if you stayed open. It1s just like a supermarket. Why do you suppose the supermarkets stay open 24 hours a day? Conrad: Because it's cost effective. Siegel: They have to do their work all night long anyway. Emmings: But most of them went to 24 hours and then they put it back and I think the same thing will happen here. Erhart: On the Q gas stations, what's the hours on that one? Dacy: There are no restrictions. They might be 24 hours. Conrad: Basically that gas pump is serving that neighborhood even though ... Bob you don1t want it there, the biggest draw is your neighborhood. It's ,., not the Dinner Theater. They will not pass by there. It will be serving Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 56 e your neighborhood when they go in and out. Siegel: Then you're saying Chanhassen State Bank just serves our neighborhood. That's in effect what you're saying. Conrad: It's a little bit different. I wanted to raise that issue. Bob's concerned with it and I'm not sure that I can deal with it. I don't know how to restrict it. I don't know if it needs restriction. Erhart: I appreciate Bob's concern for the neighborhood but I think the most important issue here is the architectural because it's the first one and it will end up leading the rest of the downtown development. I would just like to emphasize that. I think it's good that we're going to look at tha t aspect. Fred Hoisington: There is one parking space that Paul has indicated will be taken off. We have recommended that it come off and it's the first one nearest the street west of the Riviera. Since you are approving a specific site plan, you should know that that parking space isn't on there. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recomend approval of Site Plan No. 87-3 based on the site plan stamped "Received April 1, 1987" and subject to the following conditions: e 1. The gas pump location shall be revised as recommended in Hoisington's memorandum dated April 13, 1987, including shifting of the gas pump canopy to the east so that it is ten feet from the property line. 2. All driveway radii at public street lines shall be a minimum of 25 feet as well as meeting the dimensions as proposed by BRW for the entrance west of Riveria. 3. The entrance design to the east of the Riviera shall be resolved with BRW and the City Staff. 4. The applicant shall submit for Planning Commission and City Council review a model or detailed facia plans depicting _the exterior of the Retail West Building and the gas pump canopy. 5. All roof-top equipment shall be screened from view from any direction. 6. The landscaping plan shall be revised to reflect the recommendations of BRW in their memorandum of April 15, 1987. 7. The applicant must receive approval from the Watershed District. 8. The applicant shall submit an acceptable lease or easement agreement for parking on the property to the east of the subject parcel. e Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 57 e 9. The applicant shall submit a detailed signage plan for review by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to issuance of a building permit. 10. The applicant shall submit a detail of the trash enclosures prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. The applicant shall submit a detailed lighting plan detailing the lighting on the rear of the building as well as the parking area to the east of the Riviera. 12. The fire hydrants be arranged in such a manner that they comply with the State Codes per the comments of the Fire Department. All voted in favor except Siegel who abstained and the motion carried. Dacy: Before a motion is made I would like to add a condition number 8 that the canopy lighting source shall be shielded from residential property. Erhart: Are you talking about a fence shielding? Dacy: No, I was talking about the lights. Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend ~ approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 87-6 for the installation of four gas ~pumps based on revision of the site plan as noted in Fred Hoisington's memorandum of April 13, 1987, and subject to the following conditions: 1. No unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall be stored on the premises. 2. No repair, assembly or disassembly of vehicles. 3. No public address systems shall be audible from any residential parcel. 4. No sales, storage or display of merchandise or used automobiles such as motorcycles, snowmobiles-or all-terrain vehicles. 5. No parking signs shall be posted on the west end of the retail building. 6. There shall be signage on any portion of the gas pump canopy. 7. The canopy shall be located 10 feet from the west property line. 8. The canopy lighting source shall be shielded from residential property. _All voted in favor except Siegel who opposed and motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 58 -. SIegel: I just don't agree with the use in that area of gas station. Dacy: We still have the plat approval. What they're doing is creating the lots so that the lot line is going to be running between the Riviera and the retail building. Right now it is owned by John Havlik and Thomas Krueger and the lot lines are being shifted and they are both meets and bounds parcels. Erhart moved, Siegel seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Erhart moved, Siegel seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision No. 87-18 based on the preliminary plat stamped "Received April 1, 1987". All voted in favor and motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Siegel moved, Emmings seconded to approve the Minutes dated April 8, 1987 as amended on pages 37 and 16 by Emmings and Conrad. All voted in favor and motion carried. ~The Planning Commission established a special meeting date of May 6th for "'the Pemtom Company applicant. Siegel moved, Emmings seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 a.m.. Submitted by Barbara Dacy City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim e