Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-31-83 Lakeville, iinnesota Planning Commission `Meeting ~iay 31, 1933 Steve Grohoski, Chairman, called the special planning commission meeting to .order at 7:00 p.m, at the J.F.K. Elementary School Gym. Roll .call of members was taken. Present: Geisness, Heald, ,filler, Sizer, .Johnson, Grohoski, Rice. Also present: Patrick ilcGarvey, City Administrator; P.ich Rademacher, Police Chief; Roger Knutson, City Attorney; David Licht, City Planner; Frank Kriz, City Engineer; Keith Belson, City Engineer; Pat Harvey, Councilman; Shirley Sorensen, Recording. Secretary. Chairman Grohoski called for additions or corrections to-the minutes of the i~1ay 19, 1933 planning commission meeting. 83.71 Motion was made by Rice, seconded by Heald, to approve the minutes of the Play 19, 1983 planning commission meeting. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Unanimous Chairman_Grohoski op8ned the continued public hearing on the application of Rembrandt Enterprises, Inc. for amendment of the Comprehensive Plan, rezoning of their property to planned unit development., and for the platting of it. ~1r. Roger Knutson stated there are three things to be considered, amendments to the comprehensive plan, rezoning to Planned Unit Development, and approving the preliminary plat of the property. t1e need to either close or continue this public hearing and make recommendations to the City Council or postpone the decision. If we recommend approval, the City Council would send the compre- hensive plan to the t4etro Council and after it comes back, if the Council has. approved it, they can make final applications. The P.U.D, rezoning ordinance cannot be adopted until after the idetro Council. has approved the comprehensive plan changes . iir. Robert Hoffman,. Attorney for Rembrandt Enterprises, paraphrased a memoranduml" they had wri ten to the planning commission dated Say 26, 1983, answering dues- tions that had been raised at the ~•1ay 19, 1983 meeting. sir. Hoffman advised the planning commission that 40 acres in the phase three, northwest area of tale P.ti.D. proposal were being withdrawn,. as the developer has no concept plans for that area now. Regarding the no. 4 item, ar. Hoffman stated that there are no cities in the entire state that would have designated a racetrack when they made up their (:omprehensive Plan because racetracks Caere illegal until now. do. 5 item - sir. Hoffman stated that homes in Omaha have appreciated at approximately the same percentabe as the homes in other areas have and the length of time to sell them is actually less than in other areas of Omaha. A preliminary•Environ- mental Report has been filed with the City, copy of which is attached. .Ir. David Licht, City Planner, went over the 30 issues that he had addressed in his memorandum to the Lakeville Planning.. Commission, dated iiay 25, 1933.3' -1- Lakeville, ytinnesota Planning Commission :teeting Piay 31, 1983 i~Ir. rieith :lelson, City Engineer, stated that we were approaching the 1990 limits as far as sewage anticipated, but are scheduled for review in 1983, so will be addressed shortly. Chairman Grohoski called for public comments and/or questions. iir. Donald Sinner, 19736 Judicial iZoad, is still concerned about traffic, the environmental impact on the area, =.aildlife and noise pollution, feels the re- ports he heard present no further evidence on the facts to change his concerns and hopes the commission members have questions raised in their minds alto. ."ir. Sinner went on to say that rezoning for the P.U.D. is not consistentjwith the zoning ordinance and. the goals and policies set for Lakeville are noit being met by putting: a racetrack on this piece of land. L\Tothng has been said to make lzim believe that this is conforming with the Comprehensive Plan. Is one of the goals to make money? If so, it should be so stated. He feels it is dog.=ngrading to Uo to P . U .D . Chairman Grohoski reiterated that no city had made a provision fora racetrack at the time the Comprehensive Plans were set up. sir. Licht said that in the long. term this area Baas not intended to be agricultural, or it would have been zoned R-A. ~ir. Sinner feels it is our responsibility to make sure this is the • purpose for which we set up the Comprehensive Plan., for the City of Lakeville. Chairman Grohoski asked IIr. Sinner to give. specifics that. we need to address for the general health and welfare of the community. Ir. Sinner is concerned about the existing ordinances permitting natural hab- itat and feels the City should consider the fact that other developments could' come in here and the residents would support them, but not a racetrack. He feels an Environmental Assessment tdorksheet should be prepared prior to getting concept approval and still feels this is in a flood plain area. Also, i~Ir. Sinner does not feel that mooing over 30 issues has really answered the ques- tions that were raised, they are still concerns to him. The sewage discharges, transportation, getting rid of waste when the ponds fill up from the bottom ~•~ith sludge, the question of pesticides not being toxic,. he feels they may be detrimental, and the most important thin a, the ponding and the. irrigation on the area will allow it to go doom into Lake iIarion, ilr. Sinner states that you cannot get the soluble material out of water. I3e believes we need to treat that pond as if it were sewage. i•ir. Sinner has given us his figures for traffic studies he has done and really feels the figures-given us by traffic enbineers have been reduced so that they come within the scope of I-35 capacity. As far as agencies doing things for us, i~ietro Council has been unwilling to see things our way. in the past, why should they change now? Let's live with local control, maybe .ae can soave some of our own problems. and not have to have the ?•Ietro Council doing anything for us. He feels the small developer has to pay for everything up front, but the big _2_ Lakeville, :•linnesota Planning Commission :•ieeting aay 31, 1983 developer can take three years to pay for services. He is concerned about organized crime, with only 7 policemen in Lakeville. He doesn't buy the statement. that 'these things are going on anyway, so don't worry about it'. Since the. sewage capacity call be met before 1990 maybe the Metro Council will say no to the. racetrack before it gets very far. •ir. Hugo Johnson,. 11770 205th St id, commented that there are six families. living in the southeast corner, the direction of the sneakers. ~~is. Harnike Rgnonti, 2036C Judicial toad, is in favor of the racetrack. pis. Colleen Powell, 11774 205th St t~~, stated she had sent a letter to dir. Grohoski inviting any interested parties to her home to tour the site. S11e just wanted to make sure everyone had viewed the site before they voted on it. ir. Grohoski said he had received the 'letter.. 1•Ir. ~1ick Tinoelhoff, 19286 Judicial Road, stated that he is very much in favor of the racetrack, feels it will increase the value of homes in the area. if it does come in. The businessmen in Lakeville feel this caould he a shot-in-the- arm for Lakeville, for jobs, taxes, and other businesses that will be coming in because of it. Tde may need more policemen, but feels there are probably .many people looking for that type of work that are available - both needing and c-ranting jobs. iir. Tingelhoff has brought more signed cards from residents in favor of the racet-rack. 83.72 Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by 12ice, to receive these cards from citizens in favor of the racetrack in Lakeville. Roll call was taken on the motion. ryes: Unanimous sir. tlrohoski gave the figures that had been tabulated from the petition against and the cards. for the racetrack from tine last meeting, stating c•~e would urdate them after these nec,~ cards had beer. counted. is. Sharon Sinner, 19736 Judicial Road, is glad the 4~ acres in the northvrest corner has been withdrawn from the P.U.D. and will not be 'like a blank check. She wanted to thank tZe arcaitect for. coming out to her house .and brought us a map showing wet lands and fonds. ~p~-r-~Y~-Cl.}L ~1 Chair acknowlednes receipt of t'tris mal? into our records. as. Sinner is r:rore concerned. about the value of her. property while the con- struction is going on. It will affect property values in the interim, she feels this type of think needs to be addressed.. She also feels the 3 ft. berm limit would need to be changed, perhaps to 12 ft.! Also, fencing heiht may need to be changed. She wants people to know cahere her house is located - real close to the site. tdho would be called if there was a drunken brawl in her front yard? Tlie local police? She stated that they do not have tizat problem now, but it could be created by putting in something like this racetrack. -3- Lakeville , iLinnesota Planning Commission :•Ieeting Tray 31, 19 83 Pis. Laon Hamner, 11950 td. ISSth St, asked. when the EAW would be done? When would they be able to see it? Grohoski stated that we do have the Environ- mental ReporC from Barr Engineering. rir. Hoffman said they have no right to do anything until the governing bodies perceive that this piece of property can be used. as a racing facility, if the City Council says it is compatible then they still have a long way to go. The EAW is prepared when coe address a specific project, presented to the City, then public hearings held and the. EAW goes on to other agencies (40 or more) for their comments, etc. After the EAW report there may be an ETS study done if necessary. 1~1s. Hamner listed many of the rare and endangered wildlife that live in her .area, as well as those of her neighbors.: She is concerned also about Lake iiarion, the. drainage. to it, from this facility. Also, she's concerned about the noise from this facility, She doesn't believe that single family homes in the area would generate more traffic than the racetrack facility. She feels the length of the season could extend to the whole year, with different .sports activities. Regarding traffic, figures can be wrong. She feels. the car pools caill be affected as well as business, probably driven away, because of the traffic, f7i11 the emergency vehicles have trouble getting through tiie traffic that will be generated from this facility? `vJhen she mentioned Ritter Farm Park, she was talking about the access into the park, caill people go there if they have to do battle in traffic? rls. Hamner stated that many different areas will be affected by this additional traffic, even Scott County residents.. She doesn`t believe in monitoring of adverse impacts, it usually doesn't get done, at least not correctly. Also, she is concerned about crime, prostitution, etc., what does Lakeville want to be knouTn for? Her suggestion would be to build a large office park instead of this facility. ~Ir. Robert Z. Powell, 11774 205th St 4.1, asked about the staff doing a study of -the houses in the area being able to see the racing facility. 1?e also asked about the acreage of Lal.e clarion, what would the effect be on the water level, from the surface water run-off, from this facility. iir. 1~ixon from Barr Eng.. stated they figured there would be an additional tcoo inches of water to Lake I•tarion. If this site were to be put into residential homes .the level o.ould be raised three inches. :Sore impervious areas are created by residences. i°~r. Leonard Tuma, 11813 t~. 21~Jth St, feels this facility can be put on a commer- cial piece of property, much of which is available in Lakeville. ~-lr. Grohoski said that, unfortunately, we_do not have an applicant who owns property for .this type. development, and we have to base our opinion on what is before us now. '.ir. Tuma is asking that we deny this reques . Air. Tuma is speaking tonight on behalf of the Krawza's who couldn't. be here, asking. the residents of Lakeville to remember. all they have done for this city. Also, ar. Tuma is speaking on behalf of the Raplinger's wiio could not be-here. The KraaJZa's will be forced out of their house because o £ this facility. They _ Lakeville.,. Minnesota Planning Commission Zeeting iiay 31, 1983 live right by where Lire barns will be built. ~ir. Tuma feels we should accept bonding so that we have the power and the ability to act swiftly to correct a .situation that will, and he is almost sure it .will, create a safety or health hazard. i~ir. Knutson stated that it will be taken care of within the P.U.D., that you can't keep a bond on forever. A bond is a normal requirement during construc- tion, but after that stage the City would have the right to take action and it would be paid for by the developer.. He also stated that the costs could be assessed, or a judgment used, or revoke the permit. The City is protected and will be paid back. ir. Tuma said the legislature wrote up the racing law and it states that the racing commission does have the power to lift the license of the racing fac- ility for many reasons. On this same thing the Gity should require a bonding in the event of this happening. If it is shut down, what happens? r1r. Knutson feels this will not be shut down because of the large amount of dollars invested. There is a bonding requirement of $SQC,ODO for the operation of the track. rir. Tuma is concerned about the Co, tad. 70 interchange traffic. People will . come in from different. routes, 164, SZ, etc., and will take shortcuts, county roads for instance, to get to the track. He asked about the present owners of record giving a signed permit to do this rezoning.. He questioned the number of policemen Lakeville has, that at a Park & ~Zec meeting they were talking about the damage. done by 12 and 13 year olds, if we can`t stop them at that age Ievel, what happer_s at a racing facility, where there are many more people? ire feels that the noise problem was not addressed properly, particularly where the Krawza's live. He also asked where the wastes would be hauled to. sir. Dixon said it has not been determined yet, but could be land spread, compost, or energy source, but whatever method is used it will have to be permitted... P~Ir. Tuma is concerned about wildlife, but i•.r, Grohoski said the i~iinn. Dept. of :natural Resources has reviewed this and also the Preliminary F.eport had quite a few species listed. ~-lr. Tuma is concerned about mosquito control, what will they use to kill them? GJil1 it be toxic and a pollutant to Lake Marion? The commission members should address themselves to these problems. ~s far as sewage., all the communities are hooked up to the same plant, will they be hollering if *.•~e use more than our share? Where will the water tower be built in this area? sir. Nelson said there is nothing planned right now, i~ir . Tuma asked about testing the caater from Freidlzeim's , is it being. done? L-Ir . . Grohoski stated it would have to 4o through the City Council if it were to be required. -5- Lakeville, Minnesota Planning Commission rleeting ;"ta.Y 31, 1983 by the applicant that clr. Tama asked about camping in the area and was told/there would be none. ~Ir. Licht indicated it would be regulated by the P.U.D. and fr. Tuma requests that it be done. His final statement was that there is plenty of commercial land available for this type facility and residents. should not be forced out of their homes. We should flatly refuse this facility being built in Lakeville. ~1r. F,ichard Storlie, 12393 205th St W, said most of his questions have been answered and it should be built primarily for the revenue it will generate. Iie really doesn't see anything he could object to. Ir, ci. L. Thompson, 3596 E. 204th St, is concerned about the solid waste dis- posal. ar. Emil Braun, Lakeville, is in favor of the track and the planning commission would be doing the residents a disfavor if they refuse to let it come in. .~ir. Jave Olson, 8930 E. .204th St, representing the Credit River Action Committee, is concerned about the manure problem. It is a serious problem that needs ser- ious study. He would violently oppose it. Pir. Grohoski asked the developers to check. with Brocaning-Ferris Industries in • Omaha to see what type facility they use to get rid of the waste, or what type landfill. Dr. Dwain garner was introduced by 1`ir. Hoffman as a caorldwde expert Biologist, gathering information 'for the developers. 33.73 i•iotion was made by Heald, seconded by Gesness, to extend our meeting, past the 10:00 p.m, deadline. 1Za11 call eras taken on the motion. Ayes: Heald, Geisness, Sizer, Johnson, Grohoski. :days:. Rice, ':filler r. Warner said the Er,W report is in preparat2on as soon as they hear something of a positive nature from the planning commission members here tonight.. He caill be accwnulating as much information as he can to get cahatever information is needed to prepare this report. They amass this information, regarding vegeta- tion, habitat, etc., they have systems to use to get this put together. Dr. Warner said he has not heard anyone say that we have-the opportunity to have the most up-to-date racing facility in the whole world right here in Lakeville. It will be the best scientifically designed facility,. human. beings taking part of a material environment and puttin it together for a beautiful facility.. You can just go there and enjoy the horses and think of it as the most scientifically advanced animal care facility. ar. Tim Silbernagel, 1b278 Florida Way, is opposed to this facility because of the moral degradinb affect it will have on this area. -Fi - Lakeville,. ?Minnesota Planning Commission i-ieeting • way 31, 1983 Frs. Silbernagel agreed with her husband and said there certainly must. be something else that we could put in our community. that ~•~ouldbenefit us in abetter way , 2~Ir. Lynn Tharaldson, President of the Chamber of Commerce in Lakeville, spol•.e in favor of the racetrack on behalf of the C of C, saying it is becoming more and more obvious that we need this type facility and it may as caell be Lake- ville that gets it, and its benefits. He feels that Lakeville is morally strong and that it should be put in a morally strong community, and it would be a good thing for Lakeville Fs. Jane Stock .feels there are many other ways Lakeville could benefit the community otherthan a racetrack. L`?rs. Sinner stated that land spreading, from the book 'llorses and Horseman- ship', says that you cannot spread more-than 20 tons on an acre`in a vear with- out it becoming toxic. At that rate it would take 1000 acres at least, for what is proposed. 83.74 i~iotion c•1as made by Rice, seconded by Sizer, to close tiie public hearing. Roll call was taken on the motion. ryes : Unanimous • Zice stated he is opposed to P.U.D.'s, would like to see a racetrack built, but P.U.D. is spot zoning, cahich he doesn't like. He likes the concept but not to change the R-1 to P.U.D. Heald said thanks to the public for their good nuestion and comments.. Geisness feels. we are correct in askin some financial nuestions. Ho~~~ can this be economically viable? t=]tiat is ttze profile of a typical customer at the race- track? Fie feels the public's questions have been really. good. Ls this a Qood .use of tie land here2 He feels it is. ueisness asks about tine economic feasi- bility and the type of customers., but feels it is rigr.t for Lakeville to pursue this project as aggressively as possible. Sizer is in favor of t~iis .concept and .feels tine developer will he forced to look into all aspects of this development. Miller said the concept isn't too bad, but can see. the concerns. of the citizens. The developers came to Laleville and he feels this is a start in the right din- ection and will improve tare euality of life en the .whole for Lakeville. Johnson ;could 1il<e to see the track more in the ICD , it is a little close to the residents. He inquired as to the possibility of a land transfer between the Freidheim property and existing site.. Fie feels the traffic problems can be worked out, the sewage can be caorked out and there. are answers to the animal waste disposal. • miller asked aoout moving the parking lot to the south. -7- Lakeville , Minnesota Planning Commission ~~leeting iiay 31, 1983 is . Cheryl Zitzlsperger said tine Kra~oza's don't ~>>ant to sell , but they don `t *.aant to live there if the track is built. ~ ~Ir. Clarke's one (1) acre is collateralized and a Pir. Peterson owns two (2) acres in that small area on the south. .she stated that getting in to the track facility would be highly regulated. She was asked what. will guarantee that we get quality horses in here .once the track is built and she stated that she has been told that. there are plenty of horses around, good horses, that caould 'oe available. It may take a few years to get the top horses, but crith a .good racing season tae can attract them eventually. Heald asked about other businesses coming in to the commercial area around the track and was .told it could be condos, offices, motels., or other retail busi-. nesses. Geisness asked if there is a difference betcaeen applicant and operator and in this case they are going to be the same. i~ir. lnutson stated that we are rezoning land and not people, so it won't make azy difference whether he is both ocmer and operator. Grohosk said if he were on the City Council and were asked to vote one way or the other he coould vote no at this stage. Is it a viable concept? Solid waste disposal, traffic - technology can probably deal with the problems that caill come up and to move the matter along and allow far the Environmental Assessment Worksheet to be completed, and also allow the applicant to proceed with more definite plans, noise abatement and all questions remain unanswered, he doesn't feel in fairness to the entire community of Lakeville that he cti~ould be comfor- table in precluding the possibility that a facility of this. nature would become a reality.. He caent on to say if they can get through all the criteria imposed on them. by the 40 or so agencies and all the laws, then more power to them, it is not an .easy task. To even attempt to do it, they are pouring a considerable amount. of money into the application and into their proposal, and he wishes them luck in answering all of the questions that caill be raised at all the other hear- inns that will be coming up. He feels he would be unfair to Lakeville as a whole as there is a large advantage, tax benefit, and as much as cae all like this quality of life out Here, he noticed there was a large crowd out to voice. their opinions about the evaluation of-our taxes, that cTe need to do something to prevent. them escalating beyond our reach. It would be nice to have a nice office park coming in but unfortunately we don't have that. A racetrack is what cae have and cae must move the matter along and let the City Council take action on it. notion was made by nice to recommend to the City Council denial of this applica- tion by P.embrandt Enterprises to build a racetrack in Lakeville. There was no second to this motion. • i~Ir. Rice is not in favor of this application because he does not believe is-1 zoning should be changed to P.U.D. Lakeville, riinnesota Planning. Commission Lieeting 2ia.y 31, 1983 83.75 Motion was made by Sizer, seconded by Geisness, to recommend to the City Council approval of the draft resolution4• written by '.ir. Patrick ~tcGarvey, dated '.•iay 27, 1933, recommending action on the applications of P.embrandt Enterprises, Inc. to develop and operate a horse racetrack in Lakeville on the. west side of I-35, north of Co. Rd. 64, with the changes that were recom- mended. Rice asked that i1r. Grohoski read the Resolution for all those in attendance. The following changes were recommended: 1. The first paragraph should read 370 acres instead of 410 acres.. 2. Last paragraph on page 1 would add 'balanced high quality development of the city etc.' 3. On page 2, ;r`? item should be 'Rezoning from ~-l, R-7 and B-4 to P.U.D. Sizer stated that based on the staff study done in Omaha, the track and R-1 residential would be compatible. `r. Tuma asked if the memorandum attached to the draft resolution said anything about denial and was told it did give the options if the commission wanted to recommend denial of the concept for the racetrackr.. loll call was taken on the motion. Ayes: Heald, Geisness, Sizer, Riiller, Johnson, Grohoski. Nays: Rice. Rice''s nay was because of the need for a change in zoning from R-l to P.U.D., however,-does not oppose the racetrack being in Lakeville. 83.76 notion was made by Geisness to adjourn the meeting. Voice vote was taken on the motion. Chairman Grohoski adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, r1TTEST: Dennis Miller, Secretary ~,teven G. Gr os i, Chairman 4 ~'~ttachments -o - ~l MEMORANDUM to LAKEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION for REMBRANDT - CLASS A HORSE RACING TRACK May 26 1983 The followingis submitted in response to questions presented at the- . Planning Commission hearing_on May 19. 1. What development is planned for the areas identified for future. commercial development as .Phases II and III in the PUD application? A 150-room hotel with a 100-seat restaurant and a 150-seat free- standng restaurant are the only uses proposed to be developed in the 45 acres of land delineated for future commercial development during Phase II of the proposal prior to 1990. Additional utilization of this land area subsequent to 1990 will be preceded by City authorization fora specific development proposal. No development authorization is requested for lands within Phase III. Development in this area is not planned.to occur until after 1990 and following the submission of a specific development application and the grant. of PUD deveiop~ent authorization by the City. ~2. What measures. will be utilized to provide security at the race track facility? There will be many organizations involved in various aspects.. of security at the race track. The Lakeville-Race Track will employ an experienced licensed private firm to provide 'on-site security and the City police will also have jurisdiction over activities at the Facility.: In addition, the Minnesota Racing Commission, by law,. will employ a Chief of Racing Security. The National Association of Race Tracks also provides high-level personnel and security services for all horse race tracks.. 3. Will flies inhabiting the race track pose a problem for adjacent land owners and others during the racing season or following the close of racing in the fall? Thorough cleaning and maintenance programs for-the entire site and: . the stable area in .particular will be utilized to prevent flies and other vectors from inhabiting and breeding at the Facility. Existing safe insecticides will also be, utilized to control flies during the season and. at its close. 4. What reasons are there to support the amendment of the City's comprehensive plan and zoning classification to enable the development of this facility? h No comprehensive plan. of any .city in the metropolitan area anticipates a pari-mutuel horse race track. The reason-is that such a facility was not legally permitted, by state law, when comprehensive. plans were adopted in 1981 and 1982. Comprehensive plans are primarily designed to achieve overall development goals of a community,.and it is intended that they may be changed to achieve such ends provided that a compatible development proposal is received:. The compatibility of the proposal with the goals and policies .set forth in the City's comprehensive plan is thoroughly documented in " the Brixius/Lcht Planning Report. of May 11, 1983.' 5. Will the facility have an adverse impact on the value'of adjacent_ properties? Information obtained relating to other horse..racetracks throughout the country indicates that race tracks either have no effect. or a positive effect on the value.. of adjacent properties. Specific information regarding the Aksarben Track in Omaha, Nebraska, will be provided to-the Commission. 6. What will it cost to provide public services to the facility following its construction and will those costs exceed. potential tax revenues? Property tax revenues generated by .the. Facility will considerably- . exceed the cost of providing public services to the Facility and .for activities associated-therewith. The capital cost of providing sewer. and transportation service: improvements for the. Facility will be paid directly. or by assessments and taxes on the Facility.. Many of the normal public services provided to other developments within the City will be provided and paid for directly by the owner/operator of the Facility including: security, water (in part), emergency medical, fire, and traffic management (on and off site). 7. Wild .the Facility increase the risk of traffic accidents at the County Road 70 .intersection :adjacent to the site? No, The race track. will contribute only 3~ (average day) to 8$ (peak day) of the vehicles using this intersection. Further, race track associated vehicles will utilze~the C.R. 70 `ramps and intersection primarily. between-1x30 to 3x30 p.m. and 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. which are periods when these facilities are used less b~ regular local traffic. In addition, accident statistics indicate .that only three right-angle. accidents involving a stopped vehicle and a vehicle crossing the bridge. have occurred during the last five years at the C.R. 70 intersection. • 2. ~8. What impact will the Facility. have oa I-35 traffic? • The: Facility will cause a'limited percentage increase in the total daily I-35 traffic and will not cause traffic on the Interstate to exceed designed capacity. Race track associated vehicles will use I-35 primarily during periods of nonpeak use of that roadway, e.g., 1:30 to ..3:30 p,m. (southbound) and 7:00 to 9200 p.m. (northbound). Vehicles coming to the Facility. from the north will use a variety of interstate segments north of T.H. SO. This factor, together. with. the completion of 35E, will mitigate potential impacts on traffic on 35W north of C.R. 42 attributable to the Facility. The .construction of the new-half diamond interchange under 195th Street. to serve the Facility will eliminate potential conflicts between race track associated .vehicles and normal vehicle use of the Minn Reg Road/T.H. 50 interchange. 9. What effect will the Facility have. on east-west traffic? i ;jDue to the limited population density of areas east and west of the Facility, it is not likely that significant numbers of race track associated vehicles will come to the Facility from these directions. Further, it is likely that vehicles coming to the race track will utilize T.H. 19 and the Elko interchange (from the West) and C.R. 70 (from the east), and then use the new traffic conveyance system to arrive at the site. It is likely that this` will occur because. of the northeast location of the race track parking area and its orientation to I-35 and because of the limited east-west. continuity and extent. of C.R. 64 and 70th. Street West. I0. What is the expected volume of traffic coming to the Facility from the south? It is .projected ..that only ten percent of the vehicles coming to the Facility. will arrive from the south via I-35. It is expected that other vehicles coming from southern portions of the state, principally the southwest, will ultimately utilize I-35 north of the site to arrive. at the Facility. Less than 15~ of the State's population resides in areas south of the site .where the. use of I-35 to come to the Facility would be logical and convenient. -If, however, more vehicles were to come to the Facility from the south via I-35, the C.R. 70 interchange and intersection as well as Renrick Avenue would be capable of accommodating additional use without adverse impact on normal traffic. Race track associated volume is low in relation to the total use of these facilities and. they have adequately designed reserve capacity. Further, race track associated vehicles will utilize these facilities during nonpeak periods of regular.. use. 11. What effects will :the .Facility. have on the noise environment in the area adjacent tothe site? 3. . .The race track spectators and sound system as well as vehicles coming. to and leaving the Facility will generate noise. A M definitive study of the potential noise.impact will be performed in connection with the environmental assessment. It is anticipated; however, that because of the interior orientation of the grandstand, the location of parking and traffic facilities .proximate to I-35, the track's internal location and-the. surrounding buffer area, the current noise environment at the site (I-35 masking) as well as the. normal attendance and cheerng- habbits of race track spectators that the Facility-will have a relatively limited off-site noise impact. Off-site noise impacts from the Facility, however, will be subject to control. by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and must: comply with established state standards for both. daytime and. nighttime emissions. 12. What effects will the traffic generated by the ..facility have on air quality in the. surrounding area? Vehicles utilizing I-35 and associated interchanges are the major source of .air pollution:. in the vicinity of the site. Approximately 15,000 to 25,000 vehicles utilize I-35 proximate to the site on a daily basis. Based on estimates for race track associated vehicles, it is assumed that the race track will result in a 10$ to 20$ increase in vehicle emissions at the site and in the surrounding area.: This increase will be of limited effect. • In addition, it is assumed that the vehicle-related air quality emissions will be significantly reduced within the next decade as a result of Clean Air Act requirements applicable to automobiles. A more detailed analysis of potential air quality impacts will be .developed in connection with the environmental assessment worksheet. 13. Is any part of the site in a designated floodplain area? None of the site is located within a designated floodplain area. A map presented at the Park and RecreationCommission public hearing was an early draft floodplain map which was prepared without. any engineering or field data. This map has since-been outdated by a detailed floodplain study indicating that no portion of the site is within a floodplain zone. 14. What effect will the. Facility have on the_qualty of surface waters on-site and immediately off-site? Because of surface water management practices, horse stabling requirements and site maintenance, and ponds proposed for all locations where the stormwater runoff water.leaves the site, the surface water quality of the stormwater leaving the site will be equal to or of higher quality than it is at present. See pp. 11-13, Environmental Report. d, 15. What effect will-the Facility have on thewaterquality of Lake Marion? Because of the management of the surface water runoff, there"will be no reduction in the water quality of Marion.-Lake caused by the Facility. A monitoring program will be .instituted prior to the start of any construction, monitoring both the surface waters on the site andthe..water quality in the Lake. This program will. be continued after the construction has-been completed to insure that the Facility. has. no adverse effects on the Lake. 16. Will .the substances used in the grooming and cleaning of hoxses have an adverse effect on surface water quality.? Substances used in grooming and cleaning horses are designed to provide the highest. quality .health care to the very valuable animals used in connection with horse racing. The animals are groomed and bathed with products that do not contain chemicals which would. cause pollution of the environment or be hazardous to horses or humans. Further, the water used for grooming and washing horses will go to the landlocked pond. located on the eastern edge of the back lot area to be used for irrigation on site. 17. Will the. liquid wastes emanating from the horses have an adverse effect on water quality? The average urine discharge per horse is 3,000 to 4,000 cubic centimeters per day (approximately l gallon). Examination of Horse and Man, by George Fish. Almost all horse urine generated at the Facility will, be absorbed by the bedding material and be hauled away daily with the other animal wastes. The small amount of urine that may be discharged from a horse when it is not in its stall will indirectly migrate to the landlocked pond. .Based on the amount of stormwater in the:. pond,-the maximum ratio of urine in the holding pond will be 1 gallon of urine to 1,000 gallons of stormwater {low water condition). The normal concentration will be l gallon of urine per 25,000 gallons of stormwater. With this dilution, liquid wastes will not pose a problem either in the holding pond or incident to theuse of water from the pond.. to irrigate the grassed areas. 18. Will the Facility have an effect on private wells located in the .area around the. site? The Facility will not affect the .private wells-located in the :area , around the site. See Item 21, paragraphsb-and c of the Environmental Report.• 19. What will happen to the holding pond serving the backlot area following. the close of the racing season? • At the close of the racing season, all of the water. will be pumped out of the holding pond to irrigate grassed areas. .Once the pond 5. has been emptied, surface-water will continue to flow into the pond and away from the site as it did prior to any construction in the area. The outlet would again be closed when horses are moved onto the site at the start of the next racing season.. 20. Will the facility adversely impact.aquatic vegetation including . wild rice in areas adjacent to the site? Due to the sedimentation. basins,-:skimming mechanisms, and the surface water .and land management programs that will be instituted, aquatic vegetation .off site will not be adversely. affected by the Facility,.. 21. What. is the size of the drainage pipes which will be utilized on- site to convey surface waters within the site to holding ponds? The pipes which will handle the stormwater runoff from the area located west of the track area will be sized to handle a 10-year. frequency storm... In addition, surface overflow routes will be provided on site for storms of greater magnitude. Because .the track site will be lowered below the existing level, stormwater .runoff from the area west of the track will have.. an improved drainage outlet over. the existing condition. 22. What amount of sewage will be generated by the facility and what effect will it have on sewage facilities within and utilized by the City? • Detailed estimates of sewage flow have been determined based on the best available information. It is anticipated that during the racing season approximately 83,000 gallons of sewage will be generated each day at the site (including commercial development). After 1990, sewage generation would increase due to increased commercial development along Interstate Highway 35. See Item 22 in the Environmental Report. 23. What are the wildlife resources present on the site? The wildlife resources present on the site are described at Item 26 at p. 17 of the Environmental Report. The race track site is primarly composed of agricultural fields, disturbed and scattered tree and shrub areas, a. large area devoted to an abandoned gravel pit and an area of approximately 26 acres of upland hardwood forest. Open fields and abandoned gravel pits support few species or numbers of wildlife and oak woodlands have relatively fewer species and numbers of wildlife than are found in other deciduous upland forests. 24. What effect will the facility have on Ritter Farm Park generally and on the wildlife resources within the park specifically? The Facility will not adversely impact wildlife resources present on Ritter Farm Park. The buffer zone ofvegetationalong the border of the race track site and the hilly nature of the land on 6. both the site and at the par k. will reduce both sound and visual contacts between the two sites-to very minimal levels. None of • the wildlife species inhabiting, these areas would be adversely affected by sounds from the track even on race days. There are numerous loud sound sources in the vicinity of the site at,present and wildlife is present. The wildlife resources present in the area. including .deer, herons, egrets and piliated woodpeckers currently live elsewhere in much more noisy and developed parts of the metropolitan area than the Ritter Farm Park/race track facility site. 25. Will emergency medical services be available to patrons of the facility? There will be two emergency medical service vehicles with trained attendants as well as a doctor at the race track at all times during its operation. 26. Will the facility be visible to residents adjacent to the site? Analysis of the visibility of the Facility from adjacent residences shows that the track facility will. be screened from view by existing topography or vegetation, or a combination of both. In addition, further screening will be provided in the 100-foot setback through use of earth berms and .additional landscaping.: 27. Will the Renaissance Festival move from Carver County to the. proposed site in Lakeville? Owners of the Renaissance Festival have recently executed a 25-year lease with the owners of the land on which the Festival is located in Carver County.. It is understood that though the lease. could be terminated, the Festival owners would have to pay rent for ten years regardless of whether they. use the land. As a result, it is highly .unlikely that the Festival will move to the City. 28. Is Rembrandt Enterprises, Inc., a Minnesota or foreign corporation? Rembrandt Enterprises, Inc., is organized under the `laws of the State of Delawarelikemany other-corporations doing business in the State of Minnesota. Its home office and major activities occur within Minnesota, and-its owners and employees are Minnesota residents. 7. ~i ~4. ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Prepared:.by Barr Engineering Co. 1. .Project Name:- Horse :Racing Facility .Planned. Unit Development, Lakeville, Minnesota 2. Proposers Rembrandt-Enterprises, Inc.'' - Contact Person:. Cheryl'Zitzlsperger Address: 3434 Heritage Drive,.-Edina,. Minnesota 55435 Phone: 6:12:/920-0655 3. Responsible:Governmental Unit (RGU): City of Lakeville Contact Person: James Robinette,. Director of Public Works Address: 8747 - 20$th S"trees West, F:0. Box M, Lakeville, Minnesota 55044' Phone.:: 612 /469-4431: 4. Project Location: portions of Sections 23, 24, and 26, Township I14N: Range 21W a) County Name: Dakota, City Name: Lakeville 'Location Maps: The. general location of the proposed site is pre- sented in Figure 1. The site- consists of approximately 41-0 acres of land. This: situ: is located within Lakevlle's Planning :Districts 2 and 13. It is bounded.. generally by 195th Street. om..the north;.. Interstate 35-on the east.? County Highway-64 (205th Street) on the south,: and.a line 1,300 .feet. east of'and paralleling Judicial. Road on. the west:. b) :The following site maps are attached: Figure 1 General Location Map (taken:. .from Orchard .Lake,: Minnesota 72 minute quadrangle) `Figura 2 Site. Boundaries and Existing Topography Figure 3 Site Plan Figure 4 Existing Land Use..: Figure 5 Existing, Zoning . 1 i 7 ~ 5. Project Description • The project involves the development of a.Class A ari-mutuel horse P racetrack for the State of Minnesota. and the subsequent development: of 50 acres for commercial use. The facility will include the following components:-, 1. track area 2. grandstand 3°. parking and- access 4. backlot 5. commercial .development: A description of each of these components is presented below. The Track Area There will be two racetracks in the center of the faci ity occupying, approximately 65 acres; a one mile long track for thoroughbred racing and a. 518: mile long; track for-standard bred racing.- The 5/8 mile:. track will be inside the one mile track ('see site pan, Figure.: 3) . The one.-mile track. will have Carting chutes that will allow for: races of differing lengths and provide a track for quarter horse racing. The grass infields>• of: the tracks .will include- ponds, adding aesthetically pleasing water bodies-to the view from the grandstand. The ponds, .which will provide :duck and wi dlife habitat, will serve as`stormwater storage areas. .....The Grandstand The grandstand building .will be a.three story` structure with approxi- mately 90,04D square feet per floor,-;providing seating for 8,000 people and sufficient standing; roam for a total attendance of 18,000 people. The grandstand will, be oriented to the southeast,- protecting patrons from the afternoon sun and directing grandstand noise-awag from the closest residential properties. 2 ~ t The grandstand wi l include. a paddock area. for display of the horses to the public.. The area of the grandstand facility between he parking; lot and the grandstand building will be a 'park with-picnic grounds and walkwags. Parking. and Access The site will be'developed to provide parking in the area northwest of :.the track as shown on_Figure 3. Approximately~45 acres of surfaced area will contain 5,.:500 parking spaces. and 25 additional acres wilt be reserved fore. potential future parking needs. Vehicles wil .be parked under the. strict direction of a parking crew to ensure expeditious and efficient. utilization of the parking space. The parking:.: area: will:. be set up: to- permit two- Lines ' of vehicles to be Barked at the same time in each of the two parking areas. A11 vehicles will be parked facing the same direction-with vehc es .parking behind: previously parked vehicles-`and the pedestrians• walking away from the parking maneuvers. Pedestrians will be channeled towards ,the major-entrance gate via paved walkways leading to the grandstand area. Access to the parking area will be from the east only. Southbound traffic will:.. arrive at_ the parking area. through, a direct' ramp from the freeway; Northbound traffic will follow the east frontage ,road ,and a bridge over- the freeway to> the- track site. A map showing the major approaches to the>site is presented in Figure 6. Traffic will be routed along a lengthy road system within the site leading to a parking area. The schematic layout of the on-site 'roads and parking area is shown in Figure 7. Traffic exiting the site will be directed .from the parking lot to a road system feeding to Interstate 35`. Northbound traffic wi l be routed' across I35 via .'the new bridge and onto I-35 by a new=entrance ramp. 'Southbound traffic will cross over the same :bridge and follow the .east frontage road back to the. County :Highway 70 interchange. 3 t i There will also be limited access to the site from County Road 64 far grandstand..service vehicles- and the backlot area. The 'Backlot'-Area The backlot-will> contain structures for the housing;. and caring fore the.: horses that race: at the. track. The stables will be of fire proof:. construction and will be-capable of housing a maximum of'1,200 horses in the initial. phase and'a maximum of 2,000 horses-after 1990. .Some of the support personnel such as groomsmen,- trainers, and- stable maintenance' personnel will also be housed in rooms drectly.`above the horse stables. Rousing for 300 support personnel will be provided on site. Maintenance equipment:'for the track will be stored in the backlot: area: A fence will surround the backlot area,•.with security-personnel on patxol to prevent unauthorized access to the backlot. Commercial Development. The. associated.. commercial :development. which is prepared in the second phase of the project will include: a 150 unit hotel _with a; 100-.seat restaurant -and a I50-seat free standing :restaurant:: This development will be .located northeas of the. track along interstate 35. 6. -Reason..for Envrornnental Report.Preparaton: This report has .been ..prepared. for the 'City of'Lakeville which is the responsible- goveriunental unit for the preparatiotr of environmental documents ..for the project 6 MCAR S 3.024E. 7. E'stimated.Construction:.Cost; 40 million dollars 8. Total Project Area: 410 acres - 9. ,Total Recreational Building Square. Footage: Grandstand: 270,000:. square feet Backlots 200,000 square feet (lst Phase} 4 a t Total Commercial Building Square Footage'(2nd Phase)- Motel. w/Restaurant 40,000 square feet Restaurant 10,000 square feet 10. Number`of.Proposed Parking Spaces: Main Lot 5,500': Overflow Lot 1,500 Total 7,000 (exclusive of parking;spaees for maintenance and trainers.) 11. List ali known local, state, and federal permits/approvals/funding , required: Level of Government _ Type of Application Status Federal Interstate Interchange Con- Submission Prior struction Authorization to Construction- State Water Appropriation Submission recom- (Department. of Natural_ Resources) mended` at time of well construction. Work in Public.Waters.' Obtain prior to (Department: of Natural Resources) construction. Work in Rightrof-Way Obtain prior to (Department of Transportation) construction Feedlot: Permit Submission recom- (PoiTution Control Agency) `mended at early stages of site glanning Indirec Source-Permit' Obtain. prior to (Pollution Control. Agency) 'construction Direct°Source Permit Obtain: prior to' (Pollution Control Agency} construction Water Supply System Extension Obtain prior to Plan: Review construction (:Department of Health) .Regional Sanitary Sewer Service' Obtain.. prior to (Metropolitan Waste Control Comm.) construction Metropolitan Highways Interchange Obtain prior Procedure (Metropolitan Council) to construction Comprehensive Plan Amendment Obtain .prior to Review construction (Metropolitan Council)' 5 Plat Approval Obtain prior to construction City Planned Uni Development Zoning In progress Amendment Subdivision. Approval Obtain. prior to construction Water-and Sewer Linked to PUD ECity Improvement Project)' approval Building Permits Obtain prior to construction I2. Is thee-project nconsistent,with.-any: a.; Adopted-land use ordinances No X Yes b Adopted comprehensive>land use plans No X Yes c; Regional, resource..:. management plans R No Yes a.; The si a is currently zoned R-1. (residential,, low density- single- family)'`, R-T (residential, high. density), B-4 (business, general), and. Interstate Corridor District (see Figure 5). The proposed use would require rezoning the site to P armed Unit Development. A PUD application-has been submi ted to the City..of Lakeville.' b: The Lakeville comprehensive plan currently calls for low density- residential" development over much of the proposed'site, the plan allows industrial/commercial. development in the,Interstate Corridor District which includes parts of the'site and adjacent land to the east. 'A comprehensive: plan amendment,-must be approved bq`the City of Lakeville: before the project can be built. A request for an amendment to .plan has been submitted and is currently_ under consideration. The City will determine the consistency of the proposal with its comprehensive plan,- 13. Describe current and past land use and development on or near site. 6 ' : Current land use is presented in Figure 4. Tree.: and shrub cover. are shown in Figure 8. The primary-current uses of the-site include forest, cropland, pasture, and gravel- raining (concluded): There are `'also wetlands and two: residences located on the site. Development to the :east of the:.. site: includes Interstate 35, a- concrete. block manufac using plant, and farmland. Land use to thee-.south and west is agricultural and low density .residential.. The Ritter Farm Park, am active and. passive recreational...facility owned by the City, and ,agricultural land border the site on the north. 14. Approximately what percent`. of'`the site is in- each of the following.. categories:... Before After :forest/wooded Z6 5 'Shrub 2 1 Grassland ("af"ter" 30 58' includes racetrack infield) Cropland 20 Wet land (Types 3=8) 3 4. Impervious surface 0 22 (parking, roadways, grandstand~backlot, walkways,, etc.) Gravel pit:'. 1$ 0 Residences 1 T Racetrack. (track only) 0- 4 15. Show the type and location~of soils on the site 'map. Give-the'SCS soil classification types,, if°known. Soil .types are shown m Figure 9, an enlarged reproduction. from the Soil Survey of Dakota County, Minnesota, scheduled for publication in summer, 19$3 through the-United States Department of Agriculture SoiT'Conserva- tion Service. The ymbols and`SCS classification types for soils appear- ing on Figure 9 are as followsr 7 Ident. Number- Soil Series 41 Estherville series ....150 Spencer: series 189' Auburndale series ` -250 Kennebec series :342 Kingsley. aeries 344 Quam series 415 Ranaranzi series 539' Palms-series> 540 Seelyeville.series 611 Hawickiseries 888 Kingsley-Lester complex 895 Rnglsey-Mahtomedi-Spencer-complex 896 Kingsley-Mahtomedi complex 1029 Pits, gravel 1824 Quam, 'series The Quam series appears in two identification numbers:: 344, in whicb:_the water table is below ground surface, and 1824, in: which water is commonly found at or above the ground .surface.. On. Figure 9, many of the soil_ series identification numbers appear with a: capital letter. The letters are general indicators of slope; no letter or the letter "A" means nearly flat,:."B" means sloping, and le ters<"C" and .beyond. identify for slopes- of greater than 6 percent..` 16.' Does the site contain geat'soila, steep .slopes.,. nkholes, shal ow lime-- s one formations,; abandoned wells, or any geologic .hazards? Explain: No X Yes :The site is predominated by undisturbed glaciated soil` in a rolling`. terrain. The soils are suitable: for development and the site does not include geologic. hazards, 'The areas with slopes greater than 12 percent are shown in; Fgure.IO. - An .abandoned well may exist'at the farmer. residence: in the northeast part: of the ite, The-.Dakota Countq Soil Survey'shows two organic soils which may include peat: 539 and 540 (see Figure 9). These two soil series .cover 1 to 2 percent of the site. A_ 8 reconnaissance of the site. confirmed the presence of organic soils in the areas of the wetlands. Thee organic soil .deposits do not appear to be deep or extensive. 17. What is, the approximate depth (in feet) to: a) _Groundwater:. The general groundwater level in the Prairie. du Chien=aquifer at the si a is 910 to 920 MSL,based:on maps from the Geologic. Atlas, Scott County, Minnesota, published by the USGS and data from well logs in the area around the site. The minimum depth to the piezometric water surface of the Praire.du:Chien aquifer is about 80 feet.. The average. depth is .about 1.40 feet. The Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District listed the following soil classifications as having ahigh-water table condi- tion:. ISOB,: 189,- 250„` 344, '539,-- 540,.' and 1824 , (see Figure 9) . The . surficial water .table is logically .:attributed:- to existence° of underlying clay identified in drilling°Iogsfrom neighboring areas. This soil layer will aot create a major construction-problem. b) Bedrock: .According `to preliminary maps prepared:- for the unpublished "Geologic At as of Dakota £ountq, Minnesota","subcroppng bedrock at the site is part of Prairie du Chien formation. Information indicates that a bedrock valley .lies underneath: the-site, resulting in bedrock elevation variation of 800 to 850:MSL.' The minimum depth to bedrock .below the -site"is approximately 150 feet' and average depth to bedrock is approximately 230 feet. 18. Does any part of the project areainvolve: a) Shoreland zoning district? A' No Yes b) Delineated 100-year floodglain? R No Yes 9 c) State or federally designated river Land R No Yes use district? Identify water bodg and applicable state classification(s): The site is approximately 1,500 feet from Marion Lake, which is the only major water body close to the site. 19. Describe any physical. alteration (e,g. dikes, excavation, fill, s ream diversion of any drainage system, lake,`streams: and:/or wetland). Esti- mate quart y of material to be-dredged and indicate where spoil's will be_ deposited. Figure li illustrates the existing drainage .pattern on the site 'and identifies-the two wetland's on- the site-..which are classified by the Minnesota Department of `Natural Resources as protected waters. Wetland! 442W is a'2~S-acre Tppe III wetland and Wetland Type 401W is a 3- acre Type IV wetland.. All of the land located within the proposed development. area is tributary to Marion Lake. Because of the. rol-King terrain, grading will be necessarq to; facilitate the-cons ruction of the facility.. It is estimated: that more than 1',000,004 cubic yards of material will be excavated aad.redeposited`on the sate. Approximately 280 acres of the site- will be graded. As a part of than. grading operation, it wil be necessarg to place approximately 30 feet of fill in the:Iocation of 'existing Wetland_No. 402W.. To mitigate the loss. of this wetland; an existing. wetland located aiong,the:northern portion of the property will be upgraded from-Type II wetland to a Type-III or IV wetland. This replacement wetland is partially located within the proposed development `and. partially°n Ritter Farm Park. The exact location of the proposed outlet structure and.: the height of the dam .creating the wetland`.will. be. determined by agreement between the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the City',of Lakeville, and .the proposer-. Figure 12 shows the drainage pattern upon completion of .'the project. 14 20. Will the project'.: require an approp=ation`of ground or".surface water? Explain (indicate quantity and source.): No R Yes A well. will be installed on site to provide water `for fire protection.- irrigation, pond augments ion, stock watering and washing, and stable- .area washing. The well will have a 504 gpm capacity which will not have a,measurable; impact. on the groundwater resource. below the site. Z1. W;ll the project affect: a: surface water quality (on or aff the site)`? % No ? Yes (.Potentially):. b. groundwater quality (on or off the site)? No Yes' c.: groundwater levels in; any wells (om or off the site)? No A 'Yes (Potentially) Explain both during and after construction, including. any discharges expeeted. a. On-Site... Surface Waterz The project could. potentially affect the quality of surface water on: site due to the relatively unaffected quality of this water at present and the nature and size o£. the project. Numerous. storage, diversion, retention, protection and maintenance measures` will be instituted to eliminate potential adverse effects...... Nine surface water drainage.: ponds. located as depicted. on Figure 12' will be developed to receive! runoff waters` from the site. :.These ponds wil temporarily store storm runoff water and a low sediment to settle out and settle surface runoff. Skimming devices will.:.: be utilized to remove oil" and floating debris. A maintenance program will be instituted to, remove sediment and debris from these.,ponds. Stormwater runoff from the horse stable area wi l be co ectedin a separate ponding'area.. When the track. is in operation and the stable is in use, there will be no discharge from the stable pond. 11 This pond is designed to accommodate..,the 100-year.. frequency precipitation event and the bottom. will be sealed. Water from the. pond. will be used.for irrigation of grasses on the site.. In the fall at the conclusion of the .racing season, the pond will. be emptied by contnued:_use of the water for irrigation. After the- pond is emptied,, it will be allowed:.. to refill and discharge feely until horses are stabled at the start of the next. racing season in :the spring.: The solid° animal wastes and` most of the liquid wastes will be absorbed in the bedding,. collected on-site and disposed of off-site: Any residue of the animal wastes in the backlot area will' be collected` in the surface water runoff pond adjacent to the stab la area which- will supply water to as irrigation system for grassed- areas, By preventing. the interacton.•of precipitation with on-sate solid ada liquid waste.,: the; institution of skimming,. ponding, storage, se dement,:.drainage devices, it is-anticpated.:.that`the quality of surface water migrating. from the site will be similar to the quality- of the waters currently leaving this site under its undeveloped condition. To; ensure this-situation,. a monitoring program will be instituted prior to construction and continued afte the facility is completed to ensure maintenance. of the surface water: quality: b. The urface water drainage control; and monitoring system will- .mitigate potential adverse effects,.. on the ground water resource from discharge waters emnating from the impervious surfaces -and :from animal and `human'actvity- on site. Due to the significant.. vertical separation between the surface waters-and the Prairie du Ghen aquifer together wi h the.. presence of layers of relatively. impervious-subsurface soils, the°proposal will not adversely`,affect the ground..water resource underneath or approximate to the site. c, Ground water-levels in the vicinity will not be affected by the on- site well. The 'well will be `finished in the Prairie:' du Chien I Z° aquifer which is a significant water resource. Potential adverse effects wi l also be prevented by designing the we 11 with consider.- ation for aquifer usage and capabilities of-neighboring wells. 22. What type'of waste water:. treatment. wild be used? % municipal X individual (on-site) other During thee:: racing season, the facility will. produce an estimated 83,000. gpd wastewater flow to the. municipal. treatment: system. This flow rate is :based on a ave=age of $,000, a restaurant `in the grandstand with a capacity of 500, a backlot dormitory. housing 200 people, 1,Q00 part-time employees, a 150-uni motel and two additional restaurants.wth a otal of 250 seats. After 1990, it is anticipated that the average discharges: will. increase to 166,000 gpd. The on-site treatmen consists of collecting the storm water xuaoff from° the stable area and using this water to irrigate the grassed areas'. 23 Describe and indicate on a site..map the provisions to control erosion and stormwater runoff. Include size and location of any retention basins,:- and discharge point(s). :Prior to any construction, a detailed erosion controi plan will be pre- paredfor the site which wi l indicate in detail the methods that wi l be used. during the construction phase to minimize the amount of sail erosion and to prevent 'sedimentfromleaving the construction area. After all the construction has been completed on the site, all areas willether be hard surfaced or vegetated. The flatter slopes on bettier 'established vegetation will; reduce the:-erosion after consruction than it was prior to construction. Figure 12 shows how the stormwater runoff is to be handled. There: is a total of nine stormwater detention ponds located on site. All. of these ponds: will act as settling ponds and skimmingmechanisms will be installed to prevent floating debris from leaving the site. Before any. 13 storm: water runoff leaves the site, it will first, have to flow through ` one of the proposed storage pond'. Starting in the 'southeast portion of the site,. there is a drainage area. of approximately 30 acres,. It is proposed to create a storage. pond (Pond A) with a,stoan water storage volume of approximately 4 acre-feet and a maximum discharge of"20 cfs. This pond :will.. serve part•.of County' Road 64, the properties located'. in the exception as well as some of the parking lot. and-track maintenance. area adjacent: to the stable` area.- Pond B stores the storm water runoff from;: the,. stable area which has a drainage area of approximately 25 acres. This ponding site would have a sealed bottom and would not have any discharge during; the racing season. There would be. 11 acre:.-feet:. of stormwater storage available within this pond `.and it is proposed that water from.. this pond will be used to irrigate approximately 8S acres of grassed area at the maximum rate of 1 inch per week. During drought periods,-water will, be pumped into.:: this pond from the proposed well to provide the water for irrigating the grassed. areas. The. track and g=andstand area has atotal-.drainage area of-approximately 150 acres. .This includes approximately 80 acres on the site and 70 acres located: west. of the site. It is proposed that ponding {Ponds C' and D) be provided within the intieid,of the trackwith atotal stormwater storage volume of I8°acre-feet with a maximumdischarge, of 10 cfs. Pond E; will, provide- stormwater retention for the drainage area that .includes the-existing;creek;which enters .the property in`the southwest corner of the site~and leaves the property: near the northwest corner of the Friedheim property..:: This areahas a directdrainage area of approxi- mately 310 acres `and an indirect drainage area of approximately 320 acres. One: hundred and fiftq acres of the indirect area: is previously described in the track area. It is proposed that 12 acre-feet. of stormwater storage be provided :for this area witha maximum discharge... of appraximately 80 cfs. 14 For that part of'the northeast portion of the property where the parking lots will be located, it is proposed, that a ltl acre-foot. storage pond (Pond F) be provided with a. maximum discharge of 35 efs. For the eastern half of the northeast area, it is proposed that a 6. acre-foot storage .pond :(Pond G) be provided with a maximum discharge of fi5 cfs. The two. remaining ponding sites are located along the northern portion of the property in the area that will not ba developed until,Phase,Ill. The exact .details of the wetland (Pond H) than.. will: be :used to mitigate the removal of the wetland located in the middi,e of_the site will be mutually decided by the Minnesota Department -of .Natural. Resources., the Gitq of Lakevil e, and the proposer'. Thee existing wetland (Pond J) located in the north central portion of the .site will.... not: be altered in any manner by the proposed cons ruction and no revisions in the natural: overflow outlet is proposed. 24. Will the project generate.: • a.; air pol ution? No X Yes b. dust? No A Yes c.., noise? No- R Yes d.. odors? X No Yes Explain both during and after construction, identify distances to .noise sensitive land uses, and quantitg and'. type of'ar pollunants. a.- The .exhaust:-from vehicles 'coming' o the facility. will contain pollutants. An .indirect source permit will.'be required for the parking lot-area; b. Dust wll'be generaned during the grading operations. After construction, the surface-area of the site will.be vegetated. or hard surfaced. 15 c. Noise is'not expected to be a problem:.as all existing noise sensi- tive receptors are located well `outside the activity areas or are - buffered by earth berms.: Only Interstate 35 will receive signifi- cant traffic increases and this traffic. will' be confined to a- separate interchange- to be built at the northwest corner of the development.- There are no receptor sites near the interchange, access-.roads, or parking area. This project_wil require a drect'source permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.. d".. The manure and used bedding from the stable area will be removed daily,, effective y .controlling- potential offensive odors from- decaying manure.- 25. Describe the type and '.amount of-solid waste and/or hazardous waste that will be generated'and.,the method and':-locaton`of disposal.; Solid waste disposal. is st lunder-review, During the racing season, • 300 cubic yards of animal. waste. and' bedding will be generated in'the` stable area each. day. This material is suitable for culturing mushrooms, composting _for soil enrichment, landspreading as soil amendment,. or- ncineration.: for heat recoverq.. The available- options need further 4 study before one disposal method can be selected. The waste from the grandstand and picnic area, probably 50 to 100 cubic yards per week, will be taken to a sanitary landfill. 25. Will the project involve; a., fish or wildlife habitat? No X Yes b. a rare,.endangered, threatened or special concern species? (animals' and/or .plants) X No Yes c. movement. of any-resident or_mgratory animal?' -X No Yes Explain (identify. species and describe impact): 16 a. Approxmately:100'acres of wooded:. area will be elwinated:in addi- ton to the prairie/pasture and wetlands. that.. will be altered. Gammon animals in these types. of habitat are: shown in the: following table, taken from the Baseline Environmental Inventory,: Twin Cities Metropolitan--Area prepared for- the Metropolitan Waste.: Control Commission, pub fished in December, 1977. The.: forested area. is Listed as an overgrown oak savanna<with the Naturai `Heritage Pro- gram of'the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Tt may also have some of the species shown under Upland-Hardwoods. Habitat TYPe' Common Species Dry Oak; Savanna and Dry Uplands' Pheasant, deer,.: ruffed, grouse, striped. skunk,- wood- chuck,, red fox, and snakes. Upland.. Hardwoods Gray fox, red' fox, flying squirrel, raccoon,, whi e- tai ed deer.,.. salamanders,: wood,, frogs, ruffed grouse, snakes---- including; Dekay's- snake, red-bellied`snake.. Prairie Grassland Thirteen-tined ground squirrel :and franklin ground ..:squirrel, upland plover,.... badger, white-tailed jack rabbit,-Savannah sparrow= Shallow Marshes Ducks-,: pheasant, muskrat, mink, deer, grebes., coot,. frogs, toads, 'snakes, and other"amphibians and, reptiles .Wet Meadows _Deer, red `fox, ducks, _song- birds, herons, pheasant, snakes,"Leopard frogs, sala- wanders,.and other reptiles and amphibians b. No rare:, endangered, threatened, or special concern.. species have been identified at thsste, as-explained.. in the attached letter (Exhibit 1) from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Natural- Heritage-'Program. 17 27. Do any historical, archaeo ogical, or archi- tectural resources exist on or near the project site? R No Yes Explain (show resources on a site map and.: describe impact): No known sites of historical,:. archaeological, or architectural signifi- cance' at the project location have..been identified at this site., as- explaned in the attached. letter' (Exhibit 2) from the Minnesota Historical Society. 28. Will the project cause the-.impairment: or destruction of: a designated, park or recreation areas? R No Yes b , prime: -or unique farmlands:? No X Yes. c.. ecologically sensitive areas? R No Yes - -.-d; scenic: views and vistas? R No Yes e: other.-uniquerresources-(specify)? X Nor Yes Explain: According to SCS soil: capability classifications, the follow- ng soil types=mapped,in Figure 9 are prime farmlands; 150B,.250', 342B, and 895B. While these areas may be prime farmland..from a nation-wide point of view, they are much less desirable for-cultivaton than neigh- ~ri~- areas: in Dakota-~nd Scott Counties. At this sites classification of somerof the soil as grime-farmland may not indicate .the presence of an important:"°farmland.resource. Soil Types ISOBa-nd 250 were of concern in Question 17'as high water table soils, implyingtheyare unsuitable fore farming unless drained, The patches of 342E are small and. scattered and consequently do not represent a significant 'farmland resource. The piece of 895B in the northwest corner of the site is very stony and has been withdrawn from cultivationfor some years.- 29. What roads .will receive increased traffic? (For each road indicate the currentraverage daily traffic {ADT) and ncreaserin ADT contributed by the project.) The following roads will receive increases in traffic.. due to the proposed development: Current average daily traffic (ADT) and the increase in ADT resulting-.from :.thee development are listed below: l8 a.. Interstate: 35 south of_Minnreg'Road: 17,300, 4,$00 b. Interstate 35 south of Trunk Highway S0: 25,500, 4,800 c. Interstate 35 south of County Road 70': 1.4,500,,•.:25A d. County. Road:: 70 between I-35 and Remick Avenue: 5,500, 250 e. -County Road' 70 east of Remick Avenue: 2,550, 30 f._ Remick Avenue-north of County Road 70: 1,090, 280 g. _Kenrick`Avenue north of County Road 64: 900, 260 h. Remick Avenue south of Minnreg Road: 900,. 10 i. County Raad 64 west of Remick: l_, 800. 25: j;. County Road 64 east of Judicial Road: 850, 5. NOTE: All development volumes are based on average daily attendance during the racing: season.` Volumes on daps: when. the track is note open: for racing will be reduced to about:3 percent-of added traffic:: on the Inter state System and on Renrick_Avenue.; Volumes during the non-racing season w%11 be Iess-than IOO.added:vehicles on any egment. A complete analysis of the impact-of'traffc has been made.:, Improvements to the Interstate System are anticipated, including a new interchange. .The Metropolitan° Council. wiLi: be reques ed to _approve the changes - through::.criteria;in the Highway>Interchanges Amendment to the Transpor- tation.Policy Plan. Apermt from the. Minnesota Department of'Transpor- tation will-also be required. 30. -Are adequate energy-sources and utilities now avai able to service the project? If not, what additional utilities: will be required? R Na Yes The project' requires additional. utilities to meet the facility's demand:.. for electric: power, water, sewer, and: telephone- service. 19 ` , ' . EXHIBIT 1 ~n ~SnT2ATE OF DEPARTMENT OF' NATURAL RESOURCES BOX 6 CENTENNIAL OFFICE BUILDING. ~ ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA + SST55 DNR INFORMATION {6I2) 296-6157;. Aprl1 22 19$3 FILE NO. Mr. Jamey R.' Langseth - Barr-Engineering Co. 6800 France Ave. South Minneapolis, MN 55435` Dear Mr. Langseth: As per your request of April 19,-1983, .thee Natural Heritage Program has reviewed the area just. south of the Ritter Farm Park.. in Lakeville, Mnnesota_ for the occurence-of rare andlar sensitive species or natural features. A search of our data-base- indicates that there are no occurences: of sensitive ecological features within the boundaries of the project. Our data base: containsinformation on the forested areas (NW'!e Sec. 23', TY14N., R21W)'you.:show `in Figure 7 of your letter. This area<inventoried in 1969 was an overgrown oak savanna: in a relatively natural state and: contained native vegetation. However, the Natural Heritage Program did not consider thus forested tract to be an exemplary natural c©mmunity of statewide sgni-~ ficance. The Natural Heritage Program, a unit within the Section of Wildlife, De- partment of Natural Resources, has compiled: the most complete single; source of; existing data on Minnesota's rare, endangered, or otherwise significant plant and animal speciesT.plant communities, and-other natural features. While th information is,comprehensive, it-.cannot. be considered-a substitute for an on-site-survey. .Because there has:. not been a complete on-site survey of`the biological resources of'this project area, is possible that ecoiogica ly significant features-.exist .for-which we have: no record. An invoice for thecost of the work completed is enclosed. Please make the, check payable to the Minnesota Natural_Heritage Program. '-Sincerely, r < Y(~~~~ KEITH WENDT, Plant Ecologist Natural Heritage Program. KW:djb Enc AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER z EXHIBIT 2 F O U N D E © ! N 18.5 9' 590 Cedar Street, Si. Paul, .Minnesota 55101 (612):2%-b1 2 May T983 . Mr._James R. 'Langseth BARR'ENGINEERING COMPANY 6800'France Avenue South Minneapolis, Mnnesota:.55435-2062 .Dear::. Mr. Langseth: 'RE: Proposed horse; racing facility south of Rit er Farm.: Park. Lakeville,: MN MHS Referral File Number: R-63 (PLEASE'REFER TO THIS NUMBER IN ALL;FUTURE..CORRESPONDENCE) Thank you-for the opportunity to review and comment on the above pro- ject. It has been reviewed pursuant to responsibilities given the State Historic Preservation. Officer by the.Nationai Historic Preservation-Act of 1966 and the Procedures of the National Advisory Council of Historic Preservation (36CFR800). This review reveals the location of noknawn sites of historic,; archi- tectural, cultural, archaeological, or engineering significance within the area of the proposed project. There:. are., no sites in the project- - area which are: on the: National Register or :eligible for incluson..on'the National. Register,., .and,.:. therefore, none which may be affected by your: proposal....... Again, .thank you for your participation in.~this important effort to preserve. Minnesota"s heritage::.. Sincerely, .Russell W. Fridley - State Historic Preservation Officer NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. MEMORANDUM T0: Lakeville Planning Commission FROM: David Licht DATE: 25 May 1983 Race Track Facility Requests FILE N0: 336.17 - 83.05 At the Planning Commission meeting on 19 May, the public raised a number of questions and concerns on the proposed race' track facility. The City staff has analyzed these comments and questions and has concluded that there were a total of thirty issues raised. These issues are cited below.. In a number of cases a response to a given concern is clearly the jurisdiction of the applicant. In other instances, both an applicant and City staff reponse is seen as appropriate. Finally, there are cases which are seen as requiring only a City response. The issues which were raised are all listed. Additionally, a response in one form or another is noted. Where technics l information has been provided it is through the combined effort of the City Administrator, City Attorney, City Community Development Director, City Police Chief, Consulting Engineers Diversified and. our office. Where possible, we have also attempted to draw upon technical data supplied by the applicant. Based upon a staff meeting on 24 Play with the applicant and their represents- tives, it is our understanding that they also wifil be making direct comment on the issues raised by the public. Their response will be provided to you prior to the meeting on 31 May a ISSUE 1 2'he proposed use is in conflict with the adopted Comprehensive-Plan. die City is too willing to change the Comprehensive Plan which establishes development patterns for the. long term future. T?ze _ Interstate Corridor District is only one-fourth mile wide and the race track extension would result in the district being almost one mile. As cited in .the Policy Plan portion of the Development Framework (page 27), the Comprehensive Plan is not to be viewed as a static and fixed in concrete "map". The plan must be flexible within the context of overall goals and objectives to accommodate unanticipated change and development potential. In this regard, at the'time of plan adoption, the City nor any other community in the state could foresee the possibility of a race track as the constitutional amend- ment and related enabling legislation for paramutual betting had not been established. 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612!925-9420 Lakeville Planning Commission 25 May 1983 Page Two As noted in our prior staff report, the Comprehensive Plan has two means whereby activities are judged. The basis of determining acceptability is through a comparison of the proposed development and use- to the policies which form the basis of the plan. As we .have .previously documented, it is our conclusion that the race track in the concept site plan currently under .review conforms to and is acceptable. The second basis which the plan provides for judging the proposed race track is on the basis of geographic location. Again, it is our conclusion that the race track is in line with the anticipated development which would occur in .proximity to the interstate highway. The size of the interstate corridor as stated in the plan was purposely left open to change as the extent of possible development was unknown at the time of-plan adoption. In summary, the Comprehensive Plan recognizes that changes will occur and amendment procedures have. been legally established for such action. Additionally, the plan based upon specified criteria .upon which to evaluate unanticipated development suggests that a race track facility is an acceptable use and its geographic placement is in a proper location. ISSUE 2 People have moved to Lakeville to get away from the City and not to have urban development intrude upon their living environment. While this is a philosophic issue, note should be made that due to a number of policy decisions, as well as mandated directives issued by the State of Minnesota, urban services have been installed in the community. Commitments, notably in paying for such improvements require continued urbanization. While the City has expressly stated growth and development will be managed and regulated., urbanization is seen as a fact of life for the community. ISSUE 3 The City is taking on too marry .changes to accommodate the race track. Revisions to the Sign Ordinance and park dedication fee payment procedures are an example. From a basic and fundamental perspective, no changes in City ordinances or in fact the Comprehensive Plan are being undertaken in order to accommodate the proposed race track... The Sign Ordinance revisions which are being considered are a response to concern by Council, Planning Commission and. staff that the present regulation is outdated or unrealistic in several critical areas. This concern and .need for change surfaced at least two years ago, long before a race track was legally feasible. Likewise, the procedure on park dedication fees was a response to concerns other than the race. track.. Recognition. of the economic recession and problem of small developers was the basis of procedural change. Lakeville.Planning Commission 25 May 1983 Page Three i Under present operation procedures, any development, whether it be residential, commercial or industrial which was planned but not platted prior to the plan adoption. requires a Comprehensive Plan amendment. As such, this procedure is not unique to the proposed race track. As noted earlier, the standards of the plan-are also not being altered. ISSUE 4 The value of existing homes in and around. the proposed race. track will be reduced. This is a broad and general assertion. It is suggested that the presence of I-35 has long indicated the potential of intense development in the area and that such a consideration has as a con- sequence already figured into property values. The City staff has also presented documentation on the Ak-Sar-Ben Track in Omaha where single family homes are immediately adjacent to the racing facility. Such would suggest that compatibility, given proper protection is feasible and as a result home values are maintained. A final consideration is that the race track is a source. of employ- ment and as such an increased demand for housing in close proximity to one's place of employment will. result if the track is'in fact . developed. The Commission should be aware that the applicant is undertaking specific research on this question and will provide an additional response. ISSUE 5 The PUD zoning is a dozen-grading of the residential (assumed R-1) zoning in the area. Industrial, commercial and intense residential-.already exists in the area. The present portion of land zoned R-1 is partially a design and development character consideration.. It is, however, also a response to the lack of public sewer and water in the area at present. In those areas of the City where no urban development is anticipated, the zoning designation of R-A was assigned. The only area west of the freeway in this classification is in the very northwest corner of the City. How it can be interpreted as a zoning down-grading is therefore difficult to justify. .Lakeville Planning Commission.. 25 May. 1983. Page Four ISSUE 6 Costs u~iZZ to be assumed by the City. In terms of development, the applicant is clearly responsible for the evident costs associated with the processing and construction of the facility. As standard City policy, the applicant must pay for any and all legal, engineering and planning work undertaken by City advisors. In terms of construction, road, utility, drainage and other such improvements which are required as part of the proposed project, they are specifically assigned to and payment guarantee posted by the developer. The standard procedure through which this is accomplished is a development contract. In the case of the. proposed race track, the situation is reinforced through a PUD zoning contract. From an operational perspective, it is recognized that the racing facility will require extra police effort, as well as fire protection. The race facility will pay property tax (presently estimated to equal twenty percent of the entire city), As such, the racing facility is entitled to services which are expected by any other development. Additionally, state legislation, with the approval of the Racing Com- mission, allows the City to collect ten cents on each admission. If it can be literally demonstrated that unusual costs are being generated, this extra revenue is seen as a counte rbalance to extra and specialized service .demands which might be anticipated in the track's operation. ISSUE 7 The City has insufficient police service to control and regulate the racing facility. It is not claimed or assumed that the City of Lakeville will take on the policing responsibility of the race track. Based upon the - example provided by the City of .Omaha, it is expected that officers will be assigned specifically to race track responsibilities. This wild, however, be limited. The City's position is that he racing facility in and for itself must maintain a security force which will regulate internal policing and criminal concerns, as well as traffic contro] functions.' From a broader base, the State Racing Commission is charged with monitoring and policing racing and betting activities. This responsibility will bring to bear a number of state level policing sources which liar exceed and supplement policing by the City... ISSUE 8 Organized crime zviZZ be generated and attracted by the race track. The potential for undesirable and criminal activities is acknowledged. A point to be made is that such elements already exist in 'the metro- politan area. The control and policing of such operations has also been recognized. Precautions have been taken through legislation, . primarily through severe p;lties assigned for taking, as well as making off-track. bets. Through the policing resources of both the .state, county, city and track, the potential for organized crime is greatly minimized. Lakeville Planning Commission 25 May 1983 Page Five ISSUE 9 EmergeneU protection facilities and services, primariZzy in the form of fire and. medical,. are inadequate to meet the needs of the proposed race track. As previously noted, taxes to be generated by the race track are seen as a means whereby the City .can enhance its fire fighting capabilities. Additionally, the applicant has stated that fire .fighting. equipment and trained personnel will be provided on-site as part of .the development. Building code measures will also be imposed which minimize the threat of fire, as well as reducing the. extent of a possible fire. hazard. The applicant has also stated. that medical emergency facilities will be provided on-site. Beyond addressing this .basic provision, the matter becomes a regional responsibility as well as one of the Racing Commission. In this regard.,. it is suggested that this aspect of the operation requires more attention and clarification. As part of subsequent, more detailed planning, an emergency medical plan should be devised. ISSUE 10 the development of a race track ruiZZ have a negative social and moral impact on the eommunitzU. Staff views a response to this question beyond its jurisdiction of comment other than to say general aspects of policing are being addressed. ISSUE 11 Pollution of state waters will result from the ,'race track development. The potential of water pollution has been recognized.. In this regard, .the applicant has proposed extensive measures to prevent such problems from occurring. Storm water runoff roads which will act as sedimentation basins have been designed in a concept stage. 'Skimmers and other suc h devices are also proposed to maintain water quality. In areas where animal waste will exist, self contained runoff facilities are proposed for construction to insure that the system in fact accomplishes what it is intended to do. Independent monitoring of Lake Marion has been recommended. At the concept stage, staff has found the proposed water pollution" protection system acceptable. In this regard, it is felt that a solution. to potential water pollution problems is technically feasible. The need-and extent of such measures will become more evident and precise as part of the pending environmental assessment worksheet which is required to be submitted by the applicant. Lakeville Planning Commission 25 May 1983 Page Six A final point to be made is that the race track is but one facility or source of potential state water pollution. Agricultural uses as well. as urban development contribute to existing or potential po11u- tion problems. As such, the racing facility should be expected to take care of its responsibilities and potential problems. Other ..contributions should, however, be expected to do the same. ISSUE 12 Hazards from groundwater pollution generated bz~ the race track will be created for private wells in the area. While this issue requires thorough evaluation as part of the EAW which is being prepared, several factors viewed at the concept stage of approval would suggest that there is limited potential for groundwater pollution problems. First, all human waste are proposed to be handled through the public sewer system and treatment facilities. A large share of the. animal waste, notably the urine, will be absorbed by the straw bedding which is removed daily from the site. Minimal ground absorption of animal waste is therefore expected. Pollutants that do ex st w thin the back lot area where the animals are s abled will be ~aste ~ into a closed holding pond system. If necessary, treatment can occur in one fashion or another. The City. Engineer also suggests that the general soil conditions plus the distance to the Jordan acquifer groundwater source of private. wells poses almost no chance, at least from the data currently available, that groundwater pollution hazard wi11 exist for private wells in the -area. As stated previously, however, the applicant will be expected to address this issue in detail as part of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet which they are currently .,preparing. ISSUE 13 Flooding in the area and higher water ZeveZs in Lake Marion uriZZ be experienced due to the racing facility development. In terms of the rate of runoff from the site, the development will have to adhere to the established City policy that the speed of flow cannot exceed what was produced by the land in its natural state. To this end, the applicant has already given a good deal of attention to a panding system which will adequately control the' rate at which surface water will leave the site. In regard to the volume of runoff, the applicant has calculated that the race track is equal to a 240 unit single family detached resi- dential development. Additionally, the closed ponding system will prevent some water from ever leaving the site.. The other portion of the ponding system can be so designed also to control not only the rate, but the volume departing the .site. Lakeville Planning Commission 25 May 19.83 Page Seven Through the internal drainage system, as well as implementation of the City's Comprehensive Storm .Drainage Plan, the techno]ogy exists to handle flooding and high lake level problems. Beyond the concept stage, engineering and- EAW studies will have to analyze this concern in detail and produce workable solutions to control and prevent problems from occurring. ISSUE 14 Air pollution problems z~iZZ result from the housing of animals and the traffic generated by the proposed development. The City staff's tour of the Omaha horse racing facility indicated no adverse odors from the animals stabled in the back lot area of Ak-Sar-Ben. The presence and close proximity of single family detached. residential units within several hundred feet of the stable area at Ak-Sar-Ben would also indicate that air pollution is not a concern. To a significant degree, the animal odor problem relates to sanitation in the back lat area and the removal of waste and bedding from the. site.- The applicant has indicated a concern for this potential problem and has stated that the animal wastes will be removed from the site on a daily basis. In regard to traffic generated air pollution, state and federal standards i are imposed and will have to be complied with. The function of .the pending EAW is to thoroughly and critically address. this concern and determine what if any problems may be created. If potential problems are foreseen, corrective measures will be required prior to permits and approvals being given for construction. Again, at the concept level, technical measures and. operation procedures are seen as highly possible which would prevent 'air pollution problems •-~rom occurring. ISSUE 1~ Excessive and intoZorabZe noise zuiZZ be generated by the track, Sources will include traffic, public address systems and croz~ds. City staff .specifically looked into this question at the Omaha. Race track. At a location ten feet from the boundary line fence a C. scale pulsar decible reading of 72 to 74 was measured at the con- clusion of a racing event. While crowd and public address... system noise was present, the maximum decible reading was considered rela- tively minor. At the same location, a car idling at a stop sign 100 feet away registered a 78 reading. A passing city bus registered $5. The noise problem within this measured context was therefore not viewed as major. or unreasonable. Lakeville Planning Commission 25 May 1983 Page Eight The applicant has also taken .noise concerns into account in site design. The grandstand facility for example is oriented toward the southeast and I-35. The high natural topography which exists and which will also be created on the periphery of the site will also serve to contain, as well as direct noise impact outside the racing complex. The EAW which is yet to be submitted must objectively and thoroughly evaluate noise pollution potentials.. Again, there are established state and federal standards which-must be adhered to. Violations or the potential of staying within the acceptable standards will` mandate corrective action prior to or following development. ISSUE 16 An Environmental Impact Statement should be required. The need or a requirement for an EIS can come from many sources. As part of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet process, the City and 14 regional and state agencies are involved in a detailed.. environmental review . It is through this highly technical and objectiveanalysis that a determination will be made on whether an EIS is necessary. At the present stage of the review process, the applicant is-pre- paring an EAW. Extra time and attention is being devoted to this effort in order to hopefully resolve any and all environmental issues which may emerge. ISSUE 17 The race track will create excessive traffic and block the smooth - fZo~ of vehicle: movement on I-35. ._The applicant has retained a professional traffic engineer to design the road system and address any movement problems which might result from the race track. At the concept lever, the City's specialists have reviewed plans to date and stated that the race track's access system is adequate and would result in no anticipated problems on I-35. Similar feelings have been expressed on a preliminary basis by the Pletropolitan Council Transportation Engineer. More detailed and thorough analysis .will be demanded concerning this issue. MnDOT, as well as the Federal Highway Administration will ultimately become involved in the review and approval process'. Experience has suggested that these agencies will not tolerate creation of interstate traffic flow movements. Lakeville Planning Commission 25 Maya. 1983 Page Nine ISSUE 18 The applicant's suggested traffic volumes coming from the south, as well as east and west are questionable. Staff analysis suggest that this is an issue which must be more thoroughly studied. The volumes anticipated by the applicant do appear low and there is concern that a higher movement will be experienced. The applicant has been advised of the staff's position and has agreed to look further into this aspect of the proposed circulation system. The City staff analysis does, however, indicate that improvements can be made to the present street system which wi11 adequately respond to the traffic demand which will be generated. The extent of this demand needs to be clarified in order to identify street system improvements which are required. ISSUE 19 The present design on the County Road 70 interchange with I-35 is hazardous and the proposed race track facility will compound the situation further. The City Police and Engineering staff concur that a problem with County Road 70 at I-35 does exist. The County .who has jurisdiction over this portion of the street ..system has been approached in the past to reduce speed limits in the area as at least an initial measure to minimize the traffic accident potential. To date, they have been reluctant to take any action as they point to the road design being the responsibility of MnDOT. As part of the planning for the racing facility, correction of the County Road 70 interchange with I-35 must be addressed. The . applicant has been advised of this requirement and has agreed to work with the City in resolving the problem. ISSUE 20 It is expected that the proposed race track will adversely affect the City card regional public sewer system. Within the context of City facilities, the interceptors which carry sewage from point of origin to the regional treatment facilities far exceed the capacity needs which are required by the race track or any and all other development which is anticipated by the year X000 and beyond. There is, however, a limiting facl:or in the system. .This is the empire Treatment Plan. At'present, the Empire Plant is experiencing a great fluctuation in volumes on a seasonal basis due to infiltration of stormwater runoff. It has been clearly established that Lakeville is not the source of this problem. Regardless of whether the race .track is built or not, this subregional problem will have to be .addressed by he Metropolitan l~Jaste Control Commission. Lakeville Planning Commission 25 May 1983- Page Ten Even with proper system. operation, there is a limitation in design on the present Empire Treatment Plant. As a result, discharge limitations have been assigned to all local units which contribute to -the system. As part of the Comprehensive Plan adoption, the level of discharge assigned to Lakeville was a major point of disagreement between the City. and the_Metropolitan Council. The compromise which .was reached is that Lakeville would initially acknowledge the limitations imposed by Metro, but simultaneously would note its anticipated needs through the year 1990 and would formally petition the Metropolitan Council to review demands and if necessary program ..required improvements. A detailed discussion of this issue is found on pages 70 through 74L of the Development Framework. The City staff has requested the.. applicant to more fully and precisely define the .number of persons utilizing the proposed facility,, as well as the staging of development. This information will facilitate an evaluation of whether the development can be accommodated within the present limits which have been assigned to the City. From general information which has been available, an initial analysis of dis- charge was made and contained in the Planning Report dated 11 May 1983. This preliminary calculation suggests that the race track sewer flows can be handled by the present system and system limitaions • but that it will put the City at the point of its flow limitation maximums. Viewed from another perspective, the sewer discharge of the race track development is .approximately equal to one year's anticipated growth in the City which includes residential, commercial and industrial activities. It can be therefore concluded that even without the race track development occurring, the City of Lakeville will be'con- .f~onting the sewer limitation issuein the near future simply as a result of common growth demands. As previously stated, the applicant has been requested and agreed to furnish detailed use information from which sewer discharge can be estimated. It is fully anticipated moreover that this. issue will result in considerable discussions with the concerned metropolitan agencies. The point to be made, however, is that this issue was fully recognized in the late 1970°s and early 1980's and is simply coming to a head at this point. If the racing facility had not forced the issue, other more typical development .would have resulted in "the same situation likely in 1984 or 1985. In view of the fact that the race track is a metropolitan and state concern, it is expected that the City will be in a better position to accomplish system`expar~sions which are necessary to accommodate its needs. Lakeville Planning Commission 25 May 1983 Page Eleven ISSUE 21 Disposal of animal solid and liquid wastes zviZZ be a ma~7or problem. Detailed plans for the removal of animal waste are presently being formulated. It has, however, been clearly stated that the wastes will be removed from the site daily by trucks and disposed of in a safe and sanitary fashion. Staff research of other racing facilities in the country indicates that this process can be easily accomplished. As of yet, the site for disposal has not been identified. Several alternatives are possible and. being evaluated. The final system. for disposal will also be subject to permits anal approvals of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Liquid animal waste at this stage of planning is not seen as a major problem. Again with thorough research of other racing facilities, it has been demonstrated that the liquid waste is primarily absorbed by the straw and bedding material which is removed in solid form. 4Jastes which are not disposed of in thus fashion will be contained. on site and treated through the closed ponding .facility which has been designed for the stabling area. ISSUE 22 Flies and other insects zaiZZ be a major problem on-site, as ~,~eZZ as • for neighboring uses. Staff research has identified this as a real concern. Acceptable measures can be imposed relative to sanitation and spraying which minimizes this negative aspect of the racing operation. It is recognized, however, that this will be a problem... The applicant has looked deeply into this matter and has retained a specialist to propose measures.. which will control the extent of the • problem. The suggestions made by the applicant wi11 have to be evaluated and it is expected that state agencies will be highly involved in a determination on the effectiveness and acceptability of the plans. ISSUE 23 The. proposed race track zvZZ disturb arcd eliminate unique ~,riZdZife species ~ahieh presently exist on the site and in the immediateZg ad~jaeent areas. City staff lacks specialized expertise in this area of concern. The applicant as a consequence has retained a specialized consultant to look into this matter. The analysis and conclusions reached by the applicant's staff will be subject to thorough Department of Natural Resources review. The EAW is the formal process whereby this aspect of the development will be evaluated. r Lakeville Planning Commission 25 May .1983 page Twelve ISSUE 24 fihe race track development rriZZ adverseZz~ affect Ritter Park. The City's Park and Recreation Committee and Park and Recreation Director have looked into and discussed this matter. Problems are in fact foreseen if appropriate corrective and preventive measures are not taken.. Physical buffers and fencing has been stated as being required to regulate. movement from the track to the park. It .has also been stated that security people from the race track will be expected to assist in policing. It is also acknowledged that park use will likely increase. The park's purpose is, however, to provide .for recreation needs and as a consequence this situation is not viewed as a negative or un- expected event. Park usage even without the race track can be anticipated as the City continues significant population growth in the long term future. ISSUE Z5 What development is proposed for the northwest portion of the track site? The applicant has indicated that use of this portion of the site is not as yet determined. Procedurally,. they will not be asking for.- . development approval of this area as part of the present PUD application process. While part of the project area is to be included in the requested zoning,development plans eventually formulated for the area in question will require City review and approvals, including public hearings and notice. For these portions of the site which are to be included in the initial development, concept plans have and will be prepared. . Should concept approval be given, detailed plans will have to be drafted and approval required from City, Regional, State and. Federal agencies. ISSUE 26 Existing residences in the area require. buffering from the track.. Site. plans which are in concept form today suggest that a minmum- 100 foot buffer will exist at the periphery of the site where non- related development exists or will occur. This area will be .supplemented with berms and vegetation which will reduce noise and eliminate visual contact. The elevation of the grandstand in comparison to surrounding topography which is high on the edge Qf the site which adjoins much of the unrelated area will further buffer and screen. the pnoposed facility. Staff's exposure to the Omaha race track indicates that smaller areas designed in a fashion similar to what is being proposed do in fact . provide an effective buffer to adjoining uses. Lakeville Planning Commission 25 May 1983 Page Thirteen ISSUE 27 Some existing residences will be exposed to a full view of the race track. The Sinner property was cited as an example. The applicant has stated they will re-evaluate this specific situation plus other possible points of visual exposure. If problems do in fact. exist, means to rectify the situation will be prepared if a n al] possible. ISSUE 28 What elements of the race track wZZZ be subject to property. tax arcd result in income for the City, SehooZ District and County? Contact with the County Assessor's office indicates that a precise answer to this question cannot be made until detailed plans are available. In general, however, it can be stated that :any and all facilities which are not publicly dedicated will be figured into the .property valuation and wi11 result in income to the public bodies. ISSUE 29 What happens should the developer become insolvent? The agency responsible for the financial credibility of the developer will be the Racing Commission. It is foreseen as highly unlikely that they would give approval to any developer not having sufficient finance resources to accomplish the one major racing facility which will be allowed in the metropolitan area.. From a local perspective, developer insolvency relates to use or re- use of the race track site. The planned unit development zoning contract which is to be imposed on the site runs with the land and not the land ownership. Should ownership change, the requirements remain established and in effect. Should the race track facility not materialize following rezoning or after development, should the proposed use or operation change, thorough public review and hearings, plus City approval will be required prior to modification in use. The PUD zoning offers this extensive and far reaching control which is not available through conventional zoning. ISSUE 30 What is the ZegaZ standing of Rembrandt-Enterprises, Inc.? Property purchase options indicate it is a DeZau~are Corporation. The applicant's corporate status and organization will be commented on by their legal counsel. Lakeville Planning Commission 25 May 1983 Page Fourteen SUMMARY AND C~VCLUSIONS: The current point of planning for the proposed race track .facility is at the concept stage of consideration. This is a beginning stage of decision-making and one where general, rather than detailed acceptability of the proposed use must be determined. From the information prepared for this leve] of review, it is the staff's conclusion that the use and location are acceptable within the context of the parameters established by the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, the technical aspects and site plans of the facility, as well as anticipated operations are viewed as acceptable and feasible as regulated through the local PUD process and required regional, state and federal reviews and permits approval procedures. While final acceptability will be contingent upon preparation and review of more detailed plans, it is the staff's finding that concept plans are satisfactory and the applicant should be given approval and authorized and directed to proceed into the more davanced planning stages. cc: Mayor and City Council Patrick McGarvey Jim Robinette • Keith Nelson Darrell Schneider Richard Radermacher Roger Knutson Steve Michaud Cheryl Zitz]sperge Wayne Field Bob Hoffman John Dickson Glen VanWormer Greg duPlonceaux i T0: PLANNING COMMISSION i FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR DATE: MAY 27, 1983 .SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE THREE APPLICATIONS OF REMBRANDT ENTERPRISES, INC. You may wish to consider, and. act upon, recommendations to the City Council at the conclusion of the public hearing on May 31st. If you feel you. have sufficient information, and wish to recommend approvals, I have enclosed a draft of a resolution that begins to make recommenda- tions on the. comprehensive plan:. amendments, rezoning to P:U.D, and. the preliminary plat. Dave.-Licht has prepared a draft. of the. actual pages. of amendments to the various components of the comprehensive plan which would be an exhibit of this resolution. If you. wish to recommend denial of the applications,-then`a resolution. should be adopted stating you do- not. feel the. comprehensive plain should -be amended and stating your reasons, By not amending the comprehensive plan, the proposed rezoning cannot be approved, and_the platting would also have to be denied: Assuming we have a large crowd on Tuesday, May 31st, you will have to judge when and where to conduct a future meeting on these applcat-ions if you do not act on them on May 31st. The June 2nd regular meeting already has several public hearings set for 8:30 or later, and the council chamber is too small for the recent public .attendance. on this matter. If you have any questions ,on the latest staff reports, please call me at the office on Tuesday, or feel..free to call me at my home, 472-2305.. Resp ctfully y rs, atrick E. McGarvey City Administrator/Clerk PEM/cp cc: Roger Knutson. Dave. Licht Keith Nelson Jim Robinette i Ff CITY OF LAKEVILLE PLANNING. COMMISSION RESOLUTION Date Resolution No. Motion by: Seconded by RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE FOLLOWING ACTION ON THE APPLICATIONS OF REMBRANDT ENTERPRISES, INC. TO DEVELOP AND OPERATE A HORSE RACE TRACK IN LAKEVILLE ON THE WEST SIDE OF I-35~ NORTH OF CO. RD. 64 WHEREAS, Rembrandt Enterprises, Inc. has filed applications to amend the comprehensive-plan, rezone approximately 370; acres of land to Planned Unit Development., and to plat the land;. and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing an the applications, studied the applications, staff reports, and comments .from the public;. and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission believes that the information submitted by the applicant, city staff and public are. sufficient at .this time to provide the Planning Commission the opportunity to recommend to the City Council certain actions that should be considered and taken by the City Council on the three applications of Rembrandt Enterprises, Inc. NOW, THEREFORE, B.E IT RESOLVED .that. the Planning .Commission recommends as follows: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendments. a. The City Council should approve the amendments to tihe comprehensive plan as per the attached exhibit and forward the amendments to-the Metropolitan .Council for their. review and approval. b. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan are in the bbps int gists of ..the City, as they. promote the orderly, balanc~vo~'ment of the city in the vicinity of Interstate-35,as envisioned by the 19$0 Comprehensive Plan, and will provide for thebusiness, commercial and .related economic development of the city. t .r c. The Planning Commission finds that the proposals receitred and reviewed to date indicate that the horse race facility can be developed in a manner that will comply with city, state and federal laws and regulations for the protection of the environ- ment, including the water quality of wetlands, ponds and Take Marion. 2. Rezoning from R-1,R-7'&~B=4 to P.U.D. a. The Planning Commission finds that the property should be. granted concept approval and then be rezoned to Planned Unit Development after final approval of_the.comprehensive plan amendments by the City Council and Metropolitan Council. b. The development of a horse race track facility in 'the phase one area and of commercial facilities in the phase-two area df the P.U.D. should be granted concept approval in accordance with the concept plans submitted subject to~:conditions to be included _in a planned unit development agreement. c. The property in the phase three area of the P.U.D.. should not be granted concept approval until a concept plan is submitted, public hearing held and recommendations made by the Planning Commission at that time to the City Council. d. Development stage plans should be submitted to .the City for review and approval simultaneous to the submittal: process of an agplication for a class A race track license to the Minnesota State Racing Commission. e. The Planning Conunission recommends that approval of development stage plans should be subject to recommendations and conditions to be set forth when the city, county, state and federal agencies have reviewed an E.A.W, and acted upon it. 3. Platting of .the Property. a. The Planning Commission recommends that the preliminary plat. of the. property be approved. APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Lakeville, Minnesota, this ~ day of ` , 1983. eve roho airman Denn s Miller, Secretary -2- TU : PLANNTiQG CUrpi1ISSI0i1 i1EMBERS & CITY COUi~1CIL FROP-1: Shirley Sorensen, Recording Secretary RE: TABULATION OF PETITIONS FUR APID AGAINST RACETRACi~ DATE: June 24, 1983 Following is an update of figures for residents for and against proposed racetrack in Dakota County. FUR the racetrack AGAINST the racetrack 474 Residents 429 Residents 352 T3on-residents 33~ Non-residents 826 Total 759 Total • TO: PLANNING COc~1PffSSION ~°iE`iE3EBS & CITY COU:ICI FROri: Shirley Sorensen, P.ecording Secretary P,E: TABULATION OF PETITIONS FOR & AGAINST RACETRACK DATE: June 2, 1983 Petitions were accepted by the Planning Commission on t4ay 19, 1983 and iiay 31, 1983 by residents for and against the proposed racetrack in Dakota County. Following are the updated figures: FOR the. racetrack AGAI~dST the racetrack. 411 Residents 429 Residents 319 Trion-residents 33~ Non-residents • 7302 Total 759 Total