Planning Commission - 10/07/1991 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMNIISSION
Monday, October 7, 1991
7:30 p.m.
CONEMSSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Charles Ruebling, Tim Bauer, Robert Hallett,
Karen Norman, Doug Sandstad, James Hawkins and
Katherine Kardell
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen,
Senior Planner; Don Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund,
Recording Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
U. MEMBERS REPORTS
M. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. GOLF POINTE(91-24-Z-P)by Associated Investments, Inc. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to
Low Density Residential on 2.24 acres; Zoning District Change from
• Rural to R1-13.5 on 2.24 acres with variances to be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals; Preliminary Plat of 2.24 acres into 5 single family lots
to be known as Golf Pointe. Location: South of Valley View Road and
east of the abandoned Chicago & Northwestern Railway.
B. EDEN PRAIRIE AUTO CENTER (91-25-Z-PUD) by Accent Real
Estate, Ltd. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on
16.2 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review on 16.2 acres with
waivers; Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser'District on
16.2 acres; and Site Plan Review on 16.2 acres for development of a
158,800 square foot automobile dealership to be known as Eden Prairie
Auto Center. Location: Southeast corner of Valley View Road and Plaza
Drive.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. PLANNER'S REPORTS
A. Amendment to PUD Concept Regulations, Chapter 11
B. Public Golf Course Discussion
• C. Trash Enclosure Discussion
D. Public Hearing Notice Discussion
VU. ADJOURNMENT
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1991 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Robert Hallett, James Hawkins, Katherine
Kardell, Karen Norman, Charles Ruebling, Doug Sandstad.
STAFF MEMBERS: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Planner;
Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary
ROLL CALL: Ruebling absent.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to approve the Agenda as published. Motion
carved 5-0-0.
. II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Bauer moved, seconded by Hallett to approve the Minutes of the September 23,
1991 Planning Commission meeting as published. Motion carried 5-0-1.
Sandstad abstained.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. GOLF POINTE(91-24-Z-P)by Associated Investments,Inc. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to
Low Density Residential on 2.24 acres; Zoning District Change from
Rural to R1-13.5 on 2.24 acres with variances to be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals; Preliminary Plat of 2.24 acres into five single family
lots to be known as Golf Pointe. Location: South of Valley View Road
and east of the abandoned Chicago & Northwestern Railway.
Tom Robertson, representing the proponent, stated that a previous
proposal for 15 townhomes had been approved in 1988; however, the
proponent did not proceed to 2nd Reading before the Council due to the
Graffiti Bridge situation. Robertson believed that due to a change in the
• Planning Commission
October 7, 1991 Page 2
market townhomes would not sell at this time. Robertson presented the
revised plan for five single family homes. Robertson noted that the
grading for utilities would be approximately two feet above the 100 year
storm mark. He further noted that potential buyers would be advised of
possible water problems and if necessary the elevation of the property
could be raised an additional foot.
Franzen reported that Staff was comfortable with the Guide Plan change
to low density. He noted that the proposal would be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals and Adjustments related to lot frontage'. Franzen
believed that the plan was better with the variance for the lot frontage.
Norman asked how half of this project had been approved in the
conservancy area of Purgatory Creek. Franzen replied that when the golf
course was built, the natural character of land adjacent to the creek. Since
thereare no significant trees, five single family homes would not have a
significant impact.
Hallett asked how far the homes would be locate from the fairway.
Robertson replied that the fairway was located approximately 20 feet from
the property line. Hallett then asked who was responsible for liability for
stray balls. Robertson replied that he had talked with the golf course and
they did not see this as an issue.
Hawkins asked if the liability issue had come up before. Robertson
replied no. Hawkins asked if the City could be held responsible in any
way for poor design.
Hallett stated that he knew there were problems at Olympic Hills with
property damage etc. and was surprised that this had not come up
previously.
Norman concurred that it was important to know that the City could not
be held liable. Franzen replied that he would look into the liability issue
prior to City Council review.
Delavan Dye, 14405 Fairway Drive, President of the Fairway Drive
Homeowners Association, stated that damage to adjacent properties was
an issue. He noted that one home along Fairway Drive had had the
sliding glass door replaced four times in the first year and finally a screen
was installed. He added that owners had been hit off Hole 6. Dye stated
that the person hitting the ball was held responsible; the golf course was
not responsible. Dye stated that during the flood of 1987 there was
approximately water in his condo with damage of approximately
Planning Commission
October 7, 1991 Page 3
for Mitchell Road. He added that the culvert under Valley View Road
was bigger and believed there would be less storage above Valley View
Road. Dye believed that the flood elevation could be even higher the next
time and it was possible that another 1987 storm could take place at any
time. Dye stated that he would like to see a report which showed if the
runoff would go into the creek bed or if it would go into the storm sewer
system. Dye questioned where the sanitary sewer system would be
connected. Dye stated that two homes in the association had been flooded
with sewage last week. Dye believed that the Valley View Road sanitary
sewer system had been connected to the Fairway Drive sanitary sewer
system. Dye stated that he did not object to having the five lots
developed. Dye was concerned about the introduction of three more
entrances to Valley View Road. Dye stated that he would like answers to
his questions.
Gordon Justus, 14451 Fairway Drive, Secretary of the Fairway Drive
Homeowners Association, stated that he shared the same concerns related
to water and sanitary sewer. Justus added that the railroad had been
abandoned; however, if light rail were to develop the track- would run
along this property site. Justus was concerned that the property lines were
so close to the golf course and the creek area. Justus asked what the
elevation of the homes would be. Robertson replied that the townhomes
had been approved for three stories. Justus was concerned that the
elevations would not blend in with the existing neighborhood. Robertson
replied that the elevations would be within City Code restrictions.
Hawkins asked what had caused the proponent not to proceed with the
project as approved back in 1988. Robertson replied that the Valley View
Road situation had not been settled at that time and a bridge had been
approved to go across Valley View Road. Robertson believed that light
rail would be developed only as a last resort. The project had been put on
hold until Valley View Road improvements had been completed and
during that time the market changed. Robertson believed that the impact
to the property would be significantly reduced by the new plan.
Bauer asked what the soil conditions were in the area. Robertson stated
that the soil was sandy clay. He added that Twin City Testing had
reported that the original creek bed was southwest of the proposed site and
• the poor soil was further south of this area. Bauer asked what type of
foundations would be used. Robertson replied that standard foundations
would be fine in this area.
Sandstad asked if the sanitary sewer connection would be adequate to
handle the five additional homes.
• Planning Commission
October 7, 1991 Page 4
Hawkins believed that the sanitary sewer issue was an important one.
Norman stated that the plan had been previously approved. Hawkins
believed that new information had been presented which could result in
possible problems and should be reviewed further.
Robertson stated that he. was- not aware of any new sanitary sewer
connections since 1988.
Franzen replied that he would need to discuss this issue with Engineer,
Alan Gray.
Bauer believed that it was important to get the additional information.
Hallett asked if the golf course was going to move the T-box or not.
Hallett questioned if with the bigger culvert there would be a quicker
accumulation which would result in additional flooding.
MOTION 1:
Bauer moved, seconded by Hawkins to continue the public hearing to the
October 28, 1991 Planning Commission meeting to obtain additional
information related to sanitary sewer connections, water run off plans, and
liability for golf balls.
Bauer stated that he would like to see additional information regarding soil
conditions.
Robertson stated that many of the questions asked tonight were addressed
by City Code. He added that these plans had been reviewed by the City's
Engineering Department.
Bauer stated that sometimes neighbors provide valuable information not
know by Staff. Bauer stated that this project would be within the
floodplain area and seriously questioned the soil conditions. Robertson
replied that the tests had shown good soil for the project site.
Motion carried 6-0-0.
Planning Commission
October 7, 1991 Page 5
B. EDEN PRAIRIE AUTO CENTER (91-25-Z-PUD) by Accent Real
Estate, Ltd. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on
16.2 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review on 16.2 acres with
waivers; Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser District on
16.2 acres; and Site Plan Review on 16.2 acres for development of a
158,800 square foot automobile dealership to be known as Eden Prairie
Auto Center. Location: Southeast corner of Valley View Road and Plaza
Drive.
Herbert Margolis, representing the proponent, stated that this location had
been chosen because of the exposure to the freeway. He noted that
currently Eden Prairie did not have a large outdoor retail sales area.
Margolis stated that Staff had indicated that it was important that a mass
of cars not be visible. A extensive berming system would be provided to
conceal the cars. Margolis added that cars would only be visible at grade.
The berm would be 800 feet long and 400 feet wide. To further tone
down the(mass appearance of the facility and cars approximately 34,000
feet of shrub area would be provided.
Margolis stated that the proponent had decided to keep the Outlet Centre
as it existed today. Windows, piers, and soffits would be added. The
building would be extended on both ends. He stated that initially there
would be two main dealerships. Margolis noted that it was possible to
have more than one dealership in one building. This would be a full
service facility. Four entrance towers would be added. Margolis believed
that all of these additions to the existing building would serve to enhance
the appearance.
Margolis stated that the entire project would develop over a three to five
year period. The berm would have a large sign placed on top of it and the
City had asked if the proponent would consider incorporating the City logo
on the sign. The berm would also house a highlighted ramp to showcase
four cars.
Sandstad asked if the ramp was shown on the plans. Margolis replied that
the exact location of the ramp was not shown on the plans.
Hawkins asked if the screening would have a blend of deciduous and
evergreen trees and shrubs. Margolis replied that a variety of plants
would be used.
Planning Commission
October 7, 1991 Page 6
Margolis stated that Mr. Grossman had strongly indicated that he did not
want this to look like a junk yard and that he did not want to end up with
a hodgepodge.
Margolis stated that a firm had been hired to test lighting for the site. A
neighborhood meeting had been held to show what was being proposed.
The main questions by the neighbors related to traffic and lighting.
Marcolas stated that the traffic would be approximately 50% less than a
retail outlet. Margolis stated that he would address lighting in detail when
discussing the Staff Report. Margolis stated that the neighbors seemed to
be in favor of the project.
Margolis stated that the Staff Report referred to site views from Topview
Acres. He noted that if you were to stand at the south side of the cul-de-
sac you could only see approximately 7 feet of a 35-foot light pole. He
added that even though the houses sit on top of the project, very little of
the project can be seen. Margolis said that from the intersection of Valley
iView Road and Topside you would need to come down the hill
approximately 60 feet to see the project. He added that from the
intersection itself you can not see the project.
Margolis stated that the lighting plan had been revised to use 40
footcandles in the used car area, 20 footcandles around the perimeter and
new car area, three footcandles in the storage area for security reasons.
Margolis requested that Item 2 in the Staff Recommendations be revised
to read 24 foot high downcast lighting standards.
Hawkins asked what type of lighting would be used in the ramp display
area. Margolis replied that a couple of ground fixtures would be used.
Margolis stated that signs were important to a car dealership. The factory
wanted people to know what kind of cars were being sold. Margolis noted
that if an owner wanted a dealership they were required to use standard
signs provided by that factory dealership. The proponent was requesting
four pylon signs, one sign on the berm, and a logo sign at each door. The
need for the four pylon signs would be to accommodate two major car
dealerships in the front part of the facility and the addition of possibly up
to 6 dealership toward the back of the facility. Each pylon would be
designed to handle up to three names of dealerships. Margolis stated that
it was important not to have the signs jumbled up. Margolis
Planning Commission
October 7, 1991 Page 7
recommended that Staff place a cap on the number of pylon signs to be
used. Margolis stated that the proponent concurred with restriction of use
of balloons; however, would like to add the right to request special
privileges three to four times a year for special promotions.
Sandstad asked if there was any place in the City Code which allowed for
use of balloons for special occasions. Franzen replied that balloons were
only allowed for the grand opening according to City Code. Margolis
stated that the proponent would live with whatever the City required.
Margolis stated that the proponent would like a decision on the lighting
along Valley View Road and Topside.
Hawkins asked if the proponent was asking for permission for a 40
footcandle in the northwest area. Margolis replied that the proponent
agreed to a three footcandle at this time for security; however, it had
always been the intent for a 40 footcandle in this area and would like
approval.
Franzen reported that Staff had discussed if a car dealership would be
good in this area. It was important for the proponent to screen the
majority of the cars. Staff was concerned about the view of cars in the
northeast corner. Franzen believed that the topography of the land and the
plant material would provide adequate screening.
Franzen stated that lighting was a major concern because of the location.
This is the front door to Eden Prairie. Staff was concerned about the
height of the poles and about light above the building. Staff had
recommended 20 foot poles initially. Franzen stated that he had had
reservations about 40 footcandles; however, after a site review these
reservations had been diminished. Franzen stated that a 24 foot high pole
would be acceptable. He noted that most of the poles in commercial area
were between 30 to 40 feet high. Franzen stated that he did not have a
strong concern regarding about the lighting in the northeast corner because
of reduction in the height of the poles.
Franzen stated that the monument sign on the berm while incorporating the
project identity and gives the downtown architectural features. Franzen
said that the proponent would like to keep the existing Outlet Centre Sign
plus four pylons, which would require a waiver. Franzen believed that
• Planning Commission
October 7, 1991 Page 8
trade-offs could be made; however, there was the question of setting a
precedence.
Sandra Moore, 7325 Topview Road, stated that she was pleased to see that
something was going to be done with the Outlet Centre. Moore was
concerned that additional plant material at the intersection of Valley View
Road and Topview would reduce the sight lines. She noted that she could
not see the top of the building now. Moore questioned how the traffic
would be diverted and if the utility box would be moved. Moore noted
that it currently was difficult for residents to exit from Topview Road
onto Valley View Road. Franzen replied that having a clear sight distance
was very important and the planting would have to be set back far enough
to allow for good sight line views. Hawkins replied that the utility box
was probably the property of US West and it would be up to them if it
were to be moved.
Moore asked if the semaphore would be left in place. Franzen replied that
a retail facility would generate approximately twice the traffic of the car
dealership. A two-lane highway can handle up to 10,000 cars and,
therefore, the road should be able to sufficiently handle the traffic. The
issue here is how traffic can access the roadway; this intersection does not
warrant signalization at this time. Franzen believed that the majority of
traffic,would want to go by Rainbow Foods and Plaza Drive. Moore
asked how the traffic would be directed to take Plaza Drive. Margolis
replied that the advertising and signage had been directed toward the
highway. He believe that the traffic would be mostly the same cars day
after day and would be familiar with the area. Moore asked if the signage
would be accessible enough for people to know to get off at Highway 5
exit. Margolis replied that the current Outlet sign would give the
direction.
Tom Grossman stated that there was a risk in this; there was definitely a
strong need for signage and he had opted to use the existing Outlet Sign.
Grossman believed that too many signs wouldn't make sense.
Moore believed that by the time you could see the Outlet sign you would-
already be past the Highway 5 exit. Franzen concurred that anyone
coming from Bloomington would have already passed the exit by the time
they saw the Outlet Centre sign.
Planning Commission
October 7, 1991 Page 9
Chuck Tebelius, 7174 Topview Road, stated that he would not be affected
by light. Tebelius was concerned about the Auto Mall concept on Plaza
Drive. He stated that he would like to see traffic signals at Topview Road
and Valley View Road. He added that if was difficult to make a left turn
from Topview Road onto Valley View Road because traffic was going
approximately 50 to 60 miles per hour. Tebelius asked how high the
towers would be. He noted that the present height of the building was
approximately 16 feet and believed that the open tower would add addition
light into the area. Tebelius also noted that the parking are to the
southeast was blacktopped and was concerned that the addition of the
berming would redirect the water and questioned if the existing catch
basins were in the proper locations to handle the runoff. Tebelius stated
that the waiver for the Outlet Centre sign had been approved for the Outlet
Centre and questioned if the variance should be passed on to another
owner. Tebelius questioned if all of the shrubbery would be planted as
part of the 1st Phase of development. Tebelius questioned what the area
to the northwest would be used for. He believed that overflow car parking
would create ' the potential for vandalism. Teblius concluded by
questioning if there was adequate setback to allow access to the entire
building by emergency vehicles.
Tebelius stated that he did not want to see this area look like the long
stretches of car dealerships like Highway 494 and the Roseville area.
Norman believed that the development all in this area would eliminate the
problem. Tebelius stated that there was already a proposal for Ford and
LaMettry currently existed.
Sandstad stated that the City believed that this area was acceptable for
outdoor storage.
Hallett asked that the questions related to tower height, storm drainage,
and shrubbery installation be addressed. Franzen replied that the drainage
would be sheet drainage and could dump concentrated amounts in some of
the catch basins. He added that it might be necessary to add additional
catch basins. Franzen replied that Staff had not made a recommendation
as to when the plant material should be installed. Margolis replied that it
was the intent of the proponent to install all of the shrubbery material
during the 1st Phase.
Planning Commission
October 7, 1991 Page 10
Sandstad asked if security fencing would be installed. Margolis replied
that fencing increased the hiding areas and the area needed to be kept as
open as possible. Grossman added that fencing had not been proven to
work against vandalism. Grossman noted that security would be adequate
to prevent vandalism. He also noted that the more lighting the more
secure the area.
Margolis stated that the height of the towers would be 33 feet from the top
of the base to the floor level and the peak would be an additional 10 feet.
Margolis believed that the towers were a large contribution to the
enhancement of the building.
Hawkins asked if the northwest area would be used for wrecked or
damaged cars from the body shop. Margolis replied that the cars would
be located in the northeast area.
. Norman asked what lighting had been approved for the Ford Dealership
and the Outlet Centre previously. Franzen replied that the Outlet Centre
had been approved for two to three footcandles and the Ford Dealership
had been approved for two footcandle'in the secured fence area and 10
footcandle in the front display area with 30 foot high poles. Franzen
noted that the building itself would shield lighting with the reduced pole
height.
Hawkins stated that he was concerned about approving four pylon signs
and preferred the Staff recommendation. Margolis replied that the factory
would not accept the Staff recommendation for signs. He did not believe
that a 23 foot sign was a large sign.
Kardell asked if this sign issue had come up with the Ford dealership.
Sandstad replied that the Ford dealership was a much smaller building.
Bauer believed that this was a positive project for the area. Bauer was not
concerned about the pylon signs. He noted that if the signs were to scale
they would appear to be minor. Bauer further believed that there were
some businesses where signage was a key to success and that a car
dealership was such a business.
• Planning Commission
October 7, 1991 Page 11
Margolis stated that Mr. Grossman had stated that he didn't want a lot of
signs used and, therefore, was trying to negotiate minimal effective
signage.
Hallett stated that it was offensive to have someone in Detroit be able to
tell us what size of sign can be used. Hallett believed this project would
be acceptable for this area. He applauded the proponent for an excellent
job of informing the residents of what was being proposed. Hallett stated
that he liked the screening being proposed. Hallett said that he would not
be in favor of a waiver for the additional use of balloons, etc..
Kardell stated that the residents which she had spoken with had indicated
that they wanted to see something developed on this site. She was
enthusiastic about the proposal. Kardell believed that the lighting issue
had been addressed adequately. Kardell was comfortable that Staff could
work out the signage issue. She further believed that the City was in a
• difficult position regarding signage because of the Ford Dealership.
Grossman stated that the signage issue needed to be sent to legal
department but was concerned that this not be a major issue to hold up the
project. He noted that it could delay the project for over a year. Franzen
noted that other major corporations had agreed to work with the City
requirements and changed their signs.
Norman believed that the dealership would do the right thing regarding the
signs and lighting. Norman stated that she favored the proponents signage
proposal.
Sandstad believed that this site was different from other sites due to the
freeway location and the total acreage. Sandstad did not see a problem
with the signage as proposed. Sandstad was comfortable with the project
as a whole.
Grossman stated that he was requesting signage on 12 out of the 16 sides
of the towers.
Bauer stated that he was comfortable moving the project forward.
. Hallett stated that this was a massive project and members from the Ford
Dealership are in the audience watching. Hallett questioned if something
Planning Commission
October 7, 1991 Page 12
was being missed. Hallett stated that he would not recommend denial but
questioned if it should be continued to gain clarification on some of the
items.
Franzen stated that if the Planning Commission was happy with the project
it could be passed on to the City Council. He noted that if approved it
would be on the City Council agenda for November 5, 1991; there would
still be time to have the item come back to the Planning Commission at
the next meeting and still meet the City Council schedule.
Margolis stated that many of the members of the team would be out of
town for the next Planning Commission meeting. He believed that enough
time had been spent with Staff on the issue and further believed that they
could prove their position at the City Council.
Hallett stated that he did anticipate any problems with the proposal
passing, but he would be more comfortable if all the I's were dotted and
• the T's crossed. Margolis questioned what further information could be
presented. Grossman replied that he could not give specific details related
to signs.
Hallett asked Franzen if he believed that the Ford Dealership had been
treated fairly. Franzen replied yes.
Hawkins asked if the 2600 square feet of signage had been based on 100%
occupancy. Franzen replied that this was based on all dealerships in place.
Grossman stated that the towers would not be used for signage until a
dealership was in place.
MOTION 1:
Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 4-2-0.
Hallett stated that he preferred that the item be continued for further
review prior to passing onto the City Council.
Hawkins concurred with Hallett that additional time should be taken on a
• project of this scope.
Planning Commission
October 7, 1991 Page 13
MOTION 2:
Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Accent Real Estate, Ltd., for Planned Unit
Development Concept on 16.2 acres for development of a 158,800 sq. ft.
automobile dealership to be known as Eden Prairie Auto Center, based on
plans dated October 3, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report dated October 4, 1991, with the following modifications: Page 9
1A.1; Modify the sign plan as presented by the proponent, 1A.2; Limit
the height of light standards to 24 feet and 40 footcandles. Prior to City
Council review the proponent should respond to storm drainage and catch
basin issues. The proponent would not be allowed to put up signage prior
to occupancy.
Sandstad supported the use of temporary signage twice a year.
Motion carried 6-0-0.
. MOTION 3:
Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Accent Real Estate, Ltd., for Planned Unit
Development District Review, with waivers, and Zoning District
Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser District on 16.2 acres for a 158,800 sq.
ft. automobile dealership to be known as Eden Prairie Auto Center, based
on plans dated October 3, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated October 4, 1991, with the following modifications:
Page 9 1A.1; Modify the sign plan as presented by the proponent, 1A.2;
Limit the height of light standards to 24 feet and 40 footcandles. Prior to
City Council review the proponent should respond to storm drainage and
catch basin issues. The proponent would not be allowed to put up signage
prior to occupancy.
Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 4:
Bauer move, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Accent Real Estate, Ltd., for Site Plan Review
on 16.2 acres for a 158,800 sq. ft. automobile dealership to be known as
Eden Prairie Auto Center, based on plans dated October 3, 1991, subject
Planning Commission
October 7, 1991 Page 14
to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 4, 1991, with
the following modifications: Page 9 1A.1; Modify the sign plan as
presented by the proponent, 1A.2; Limit the height of light standards to
24 feet and 40 footcandles. Prior to City Council review the proponent
should respond to storm drainage and catch basin issues. The proponent
would not be allowed to put up signage prior to occupancy.
Motion carried 6-0-0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. PLANNER'S REPORTS
A. Amendment to PUD Concept Regulations, Chapter 11
MOTION:
. Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell to recommend to the City Council that
the proposed amendment to the Planned Unit Development Concept
portion of Chapter 11 of the City Code, be adopted as presented by the
Staff Memorandum dated October 1, 1991. Motion carried 6-0-0.
B. Trash Enclosure Discussion
Item continued to next meeting.
C. Public Hearing Notice Discussion
Item continued to next meeting.
D. Public Golf Course
Bruce Gaertner, representing Ingle & Company, presented the plans for
public golf course. Gaertner stated that he was requesting a concept
approval only at this time. He added that due to the high costs of
development plans he did not wish to proceed further into the project
without a concept approval. Gaertner said that the City would sublease the
land from MAC and Ingle & Company would build and operate the
• facility. He stated that after 20 to 30 years Ingle& Company would walk
away from the facility if the City so desired at that time. This time would
Planning Commission
October 7, 1991 Page 15
allow Ingle& Company to get a return on its investment. The cost of the
project would run approximately$250,000. Gaertner said that this facility
would be the biggest practice facility in the state. The City would be
allowed to utilize the facility for lessons and it was planned that the
participants would pay a minimal $1.00 fee. Also the high school golf
teams would be allowed free access to the facility.
Hallett asked if the City and high school teams would only be allowed
access to the practice facility or the entire course. Gaertner replied they
would have access to the entire course.
Gaertner stated that the facility would have a state of the art driving range
and a putting course of approximately 10,000 square feet.
Norman believed that it was important to have a place for the kids.
Gaertner stated that the facility would be family oriented. Norman asked
• if MAC owned all of the land. Gaertner replied yes.
Hallett was concerned that this could be used as a bargaining tool for the
expansion of the runway.
Gaertner reported that synthetic materials would be used on the tees and
greens to provide top quality playing conditions.
Sandstad asked if there would be real grass on the fairways. Gaertner
replied yes.
Hawkins asked what type of bonding would be provided. Gaertner replied
that the City would not be at risk.
Gaertner noted that there was a question as to whether MAC was going to
grant the City the lease.
Bob Lambert, Director of Parks & Recreation, stated that the City had
been concerned in the past to make permanent improvements on MAC
property because of the 90 day clause.
Hawkins asked if the proponent had researched golf course liability.
• Gaertner replied that this site lended itself to a safe course and driving
range.
• Planning Commission
October 7, 1991 Page 16
Sandstad asked if the artificial turf was being considered to extend the
playing season. Gaertner replied yes. He added that he wanted to develop
a facility which would be good for all level players.
Hallett stated that he conceptually agreed with the proposal but questioned
who would decide if the 150% figure was a firm one. Gaertner replied
that the 150% was firm because they could be bought out at any time.
Hallett believed that the amount of time the high school players could use
the facility needed to be spelled out clearly. Hallett reemphasized his
concern that this could be used as a bargaining tool for the expansion of
the runway by MAC. Lambert replied that the 150% figure was firm
because Ingle&Company was taking all the risks. Lambert stated that he
had met with MAC and this type of development would work well with
the airport facility. He added that the City would not proceed if the
proposal could only be passed contingent on the airport expansion.
Lambert stated that if the concept approval was approved the proposal
• would be reviewed in detail by the City Attorney and then would go to
MAC.
Hawkins believed that this was a good example of private enterprise and
City government working together.
MOTION:
Kardell moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council
approval of the proposal of Ingle and Company for a municipal golf center
as an appropriate land use at the southeast corner of County Road #4 and
County Road #1; subject to the conditions and concerns contained in the
Staff Report dated October 4, 1991. Motion carried 6-0-0.
VH. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION:
Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to adjourn the meeting at 11:35 PM. Motion
carried 6-0-0.