6. Zoning Ordinance to Amend Article V, Sect 3 to Permit Video Golf and Indoor Golf Course as Conditional use in Agricultural Estate Dist 62 ,
C.; IT`Y' 0 F C. DATE: Jan. 20 , 1988
I C.C. DATE: Feb. 8 1988
C11111111ASSEN CASE NO: 82-4 ZOA
Prepared by: Dacy/v
•
II
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Indoor Golf Driving
g
and Video Golf as Conditional Uses in the
IA-2 , Agricultural Estate District.
Poi�y! by city A:174.,!•t7.'c
LOCATION: , „
APPLICANT: John D. Pryzmus
• 7476 Saratoga Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
' PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
' DENSITY:
' ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N-
S-
I Q E_
I
o W-
�j..J WATER AND SEWER:
(J) PHYSICAL CHARAC. :
2000 LAND USE PLAN:
,
ZOA for Indoor and Video Golf
January 20 , 1988
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission, at its April 22 , 1987 , meeting, con- '
sidered a request by the applicant to amend the A-2 District to
allow golf driving ranges , miniature golf courses and an indoor
batting facility as conditional uses . The Planning Commission
recommended that the A-2 District should be amended to allow
driving ranges as a conditional use with four additional con-
ditions ( see attached minutes) . The City Council at the May 4 ,
1987, meeting, approved the zoning ordinance amendment request
for driving ranges as a conditional use with miniature golf cour-
ses as an accessory use to golf driving ranges. The Council also
established five additional conditions . The Council did not
approve the zoning ordinance amendment for an indoor batting
building. The City Council subsequently approved the conditional
use permit to install a golf driving range with the miniature
golf course subject to several conditions at the November 16 ,
1987 , meeting. Attachment #1 represents a synopsis of the acti-
vities prior to the applicant' s application in April.
ANALYSIS
Analyzing zoning ordinance amendments involve reviewing the rela-
tionship
of the proposed use to the zoning district' s intent and
its compatibility with the permitted and conditional uses
allowed in that district.
Intent
The intent of the A-2 , Agricultural Estate District is to
"preserve the rural charater while respecting development pat-
terns by allowing single family residential development" . In
analyzing the proposed request, it is necessary to divorce one-
self
from the applicant' s proposed location and evaluate the use
in relationship to the entire A-2 District.
Indoor driving range or video golf is a unique use. Typically, '
zoning ordinances generalize uses for ease of interpretation. In
evaluating this type of specific request, the Commission and
Council should consider not only the proposed indoor golf uses
but also the use of the building if it would cease operation.
A building can be converted into another recreational use or a
recreation club, including racket ball or handball courts, etc.
Commercial recreational uses are provided for in the BG,
General Business District ( this is located west of the downtown
area on the north side of TH 5 ) . A recreational use of the
nature proposed is not a seasonal use as the driving range and
the miniature golf use, but is rather a typical commercial use
that creates traffic, aesthetic, noise, and compatibility
conflicts with the intent of the A-2 District.
I
ZOA for Indoor and Video Golf
January 20 , 1988
' Page 3
Compatibility with Permitted and Conditional Uses
' In comparison to commercial riding stables, contractor' s yards ,
wholesale nurseries and electrical substations , a recreational
' use as proposed is clearly a commercial use. The amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance for contractor' s yards recognized the
existence of four or five establishments . All were required to
' go through the process to evaluate their impact. Wholesale nur-
series were added to the ordinance in 1985 , given the existence
of Halla Nursery as well as a new request for a nursery operation
which is now located on TH 101. The electrical substation amend-
ment was made in recognition of the need to provide power service
to persons in the southwest area. Commercial horse stables have
also traditionally been allowed in the rural area.
' Permitting the proposed use in the agricultural district would
establish a precedent for other commercial uses . The other con-
' ditional uses with the possible exception of contractor' s yards
are related to the use of agricultural land. It is a logical
extension to provide for a conditional use for commercial stables
if boarding of horses is permitted. It is a logical extension to
' provide for wholesale nurseries if agriculture is defined by the
Zoning Ordinance as the growing of nursery stock and tree farms .
However, it is not consistent to extend a seasonal/interim use
such as a golf driving range into promotion of a commercial
building or uses which are commercial in nature and already per-
mitted in another district in the city. The lands within the
General Business District are served with urban services (water
' and sewer service and appropriate transportation services) .
Summary
Inclusion of the proposed recreational building for indoor video
golf or driving range uses would conflict with the district' s
' intent and is incompatible with the permitted and conditional
uses in the district. Further, amending the ordinance for this
type of use will by itself broaden the intent of the district
beyond that which was originally intended.
RECOMMENDATION
' Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends denial of Zoning Ordinance
' Amendment Request 82-4 for indoor video golf and indoor golf
driving ranges as conditional uses in the A-2 District because
the proposal is inconsistent with the intent of the A-2 District
' and is incompatible with the permitted and conditional uses of
the district. "
11
ZOA for Indoor and Video Golf
January 20 , 1988
Page 4 ,
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the '
zoning ordinance amendment because the proposal is inconsistent
with the intent of the A-2 District and is incompatible with the
permitted and conditional uses of the district. ,
STAFF UPDATE
When the City Council previously considered Mr. Pryzmus' zoning ,
ordinance applications , discussion occurred regarding the
necessity to evaluate golf courses as well. Staff initiated a
zoning ordinance amendment application to be considered by the
Planning Commission the same evening as the Pryzmus application.
The Planning Commission felt that a golf course should be
included in the A-2 District but wanted to establish specific
standards for the size of a club house, hours of operation, etc.
to make sure the use would be compatible with rural residential
lots . The Planning Commission tabled the item for staff to
develop more specific recommendations . The minutes of Commission
discussion on this item is also attached.
To summarize, the Commission felt that Mr. Pryzmus' application
represented a commercial use in the A-2 District and is of a
different character than a golf course or outdoor driving range.
Staff has included the report on the golf course issue merely for
information purposes . No action is required.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council deny the zoning ordinance
amendment request as recommended by the Planning Commission.
ATTACHMENTS '
1 . Synopsis of previous cases.
2 . City Council minutes dated November 16 , 1987 .
3 . City Council minutes dated May 4 , 1987 .
4 . Planning Commission minutes dated April 22 , 1987 .
5 . Planning Commission minutes dated August 12 , 1982 .
6 . City Council minutes dated October 4 , 1982 .
7 . Planning Commission minutes dated October 28 , 1982 .
8 . City Council minutes dated December 20 , 1982 .
9 . City Council minutes dated November 4 , 1985 .
10 . City Council minutes dated February 23 , 1987 .
11. Letter from Art Partridge dated April 12 , 1987 .
12 . Resolution No. 85-62 , Revoking Conditional Use Permit.
13 . Application.
14. Excerpt from Zoning Ordinance, A-2 District.
15 . Application.
16 . Planning Commission minutes dated January 20 , 1988 .
r
On August 12 , 1982 , the Planning Commission recommended denial of
the Zoning Ordinance Amendment request to allow golf driving
ranges in the agricultural district.
On October 4 , 1982 , the City Council amended the ordinance to
allow golf driving ranges as a conditional use in the agri-
cultural district.
On October 28 , 1982 , the Planning Commission recommended that the
' City Council deny the request for the conditional use permit.
On December 20 , 1982 , the City Council approved the conditional
' use permit with several conditions .
On November 4 , 1985 , the City Council revoked the conditional use
permit based on violations to the permit. The basis of revoca-
tion was that the applicant had filled in the wetland area and
graded within ten feet of Bluff Creek.
' On February 23 , 1987, the applicant requested the Council
reinstate the conditional use permit. The City Council denied
the reinstatement request.
The new Zoning Ordinance was adopted by the City Council and
became effective on February 19 , 1987 .
On April 22 , 1987 , the Planning Commission reconsidered Mr.
Pryzmus ' request for a golf driving range and miniature golf
course in the A-2 District. The Planning Commission recommended
an ordinance modificiation with new conditions .
On May 4 , 1987 , the City Council approved the Planning
Commission' s recommendation.
On November 16 , 1987 , a new conditional use permit was approved
for Mr. Pryzmus to construct and operate a driving range and
miniature golf course subject to the new conditions established
through reconsideration.
11 d-rr140
i4r
. C
C
II
ity Council Meeting - November 16, 1987
I be willing to support a situation in which he would grant the city an U
I easement. If the City wants to build a trail on both sides of CR 17, I think
we should be willing to pay for it but I'd like to have that option available
to us. I think that saves Mr. Patton's feeling that it's costing the
II
development money because you're simply giving us an easement and yet it
protects the ability of the City to come back and build a trail later.
Councilman Johnson: I thought that was what the Park and Rec was asking for II
anyway.
Councilman Boyt: What we agreed to the other evening was that Mr. Patton would II
build the trail on both sides of CR 17 and I think Park and Rec said that if
he chose not to build it, there would be a reduction in the trails fees. I
think since then we have increase the amount of trails we've asked Mr. Patton ,
to build in this development and quite possibly it's reasonable to ask for an
easement.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded that the applicant provide an II
easement on one side of County Road 17 for the future development of a trail,
to be built by the City, if a trail on both sides of County Road 17 is deemed
necessary. All voted in favor and motion carried. I REVIEW SWINGS --RECREATION PROJECT, JOHN PRYZMUS, APPLICANT:
II
A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE GOLF DRIVING RANGES AS A
CONDITIONAL USE AND MINIATURE GOLF COURSE AS AN ACCESSORY USE, 2ND
AND FINAL READING. — — I
B. APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DOCUMENT.
Barbara Dacy: I do need a clarification on one of the proposed conditions of II
the conditional use permit but as to the zoning ordinance amendment, the
Council needs to act on the 2nd and final reading on the zoning ordinance
II
amendment to allow golf driving ranges as a conditional use with or without
miniature golf as an accessory use. The five conditions that the Council put
in their motion from May 4, 1987. The Council approved the conditional use
permit and also acted to deny the wetland alteration permit so the Council
II
needs to authorize execution of the conditional use permit which staff has
prepared in Attachment #2. If I could review briefly one of the conditions.
On the graphic here the big blob, if you will, is the wetland area in the
II
northwest corner of the site. The orange area is where the miniature golf
course is going to be located. The gray area is where the parking area is
proposed to be then there was a small clubhouse building located here. This II colored square is the proposed batting building at that time. The batting
building was not approved as part of the conditional use permit and this area
over here represents the septic system sites adjacent to Galpin Blvd.. This
site plan shown here was submitted in conjunction with the landscaping plan
II
and that landscaping plan is proposed to be the installation of a number of
deciduous trees and also proposed construction of berm areas which are
represented in green. The applicant also proposed fencing around the entire
perimeter of the site as well as a fence around the maxi-putt and mini-putt II
19
I
City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987
IIarea. So the conditional use permit has been designed to follow up on the
elements that was represented by the applicant on his site plan and
II 1
1
andscaping plan. In number 1 the first permit requires submission of a
revised grading plan showing the limits of grading, methods of erosion control
and indicating the revised location of the parking lot and clubhouse. As you
recall, the applicant had originally intended in altering the wetland area and
creating a pond back here and to lower the elevation of the hill over in this
I area for the construction of a batting building. Since the wetland alteration
permit was denied and since the batting building was not included in the
II approval, the applicant has changed his plans so that we would like to reduce
the size of the hill in this area and second of all, if you will recall,
Carver County had a condition that the setback area for the parking lot and
the clubhouse building be measured from 100 feet from the center line of
II Galpin Blvd.. I apologize to the applicant also and to the Council, but the
way that first condition should read is with the 50 foot structure setback in
the A-2 district, the first condition should read, indicating the revised
location of the parking lot and clubhouse 150 feet from the center line of CR
I 117. That would take into accomodation the additional right-of-way needed for
CR 117 as well as the 50 foot setback. I think that was discussed all along.
I made an error in the footage from the center line of Galpin Blvd.. The size
I of the parking lot was primarily based on the use of the batting building.
Provided on the plan here is construction of 92 spaces. The batting building
is not being included, there is no reason to have that size of a parking lot
II so what the first condition is. saying is that the plan should show the revised
location of the parking lot and I'd like to add the revised size and location
of the parking lot and clubhouse so that the applicant is proposing to reduce
this in size, that's fine. Finally, the plan indicated that the parking area
I was to be bituminous and again I apologize, that should have been specified in
the first condition there. Also, the ordinance does require that all parking
areas should be lined by concrete curb also so the Council may want to discuss
II that in more detail tonight but in order to match our ordinance, a sentence
should be added that the parking shall be paved and lined with concrete curb.
The second condition was commented on the previous staff report back in May
that in order to be consistent with our landscaping ordinance, 6 foot
I evergreens and 2 foot evergreens should be placed between the parking areas
and Galpin Blvd.. The proposed fencing of the site, the applicant indicated
II to me that it would be approximately 5 feet and it should not exceed our 6
feet in conformance with our ordinance. Number 4 and 5 really go together.
As you recall, the bathrooms were to be located in the batting building area.
The applicant has found a better location for mound systems over in this area.
II If the batting building is no longer there, the bathrooms are to be placed in
the clubhouse, the applicant's has a couple of options. He can either pump
the effluent to a septic system site to the north, install a holding tank or
install temporary Satellites on the property so what staff is recommending
IIthat if the septic system sites are not to be used, then we recommend
installation of a holding tank rather than installation of Satellites. In any
II case however, we want to insure that septic system sites are protected out in
the field and are not altered in case they are removed or needed by the
applicant. If the applicant is to install a holding tank, then the copy of
the contract with a licensed pumper should be provided. Six, the applicant
shall comply with all the requirements of the Watershed District, Fish and
II Wildlife and DNR. Because the applicant will be submitting a revised grading [E7
I20
II -
_ .2 4[r7
11
City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987
3— 1plan, the Watershed District approval will be necessary in that case. The
applicant will have to receive their authorization. Now, as to the wetland
alteration permit, Council action again was to deny that on May 4, 1987. The
applicant is proposing to plant grass seed in this area on a regular basis in
order to pick up the balls from the tee area. Because this area has been
farmed in the past on a consistent basis, staff did not feel that planting
grass seed periodically would be adverse to the wetland areas. We prepared a
permit to allow seeding of the site. If that is not consistent with what the
Council feels was their action on May 4, 1987, then that needs to be
corrected. Number 8, to insure completion of the grading improvements and the
parking lot improvements and so on, we ask that the applicant submit a letter
of credit in the amount of 110%. The Council discussed at the last meeting
and made a condition the zoning ordinance amendment to include the use that
the hours of operation would be from sunrise to sunset and therefore there
would be no lighting unless that was a specific condition of approval.
Finally, there is an outstanding bill incurred by Mr. Machmeier and Mr.
Anderson. We're requiring that be paid and if an additional review would be
necessary for the mound septic system sites beyond our current staff, that
would be necessary that a condition that those fees would be paid by the
applicant also and that is consistent with all of our applicants for any of
our subdivision or any type of applicant in the rural area.
Mayor Hamilton: I can think of one question offhand. You said we wanted to
have curb in there. I guess I don't recall that in the rural area for any
type of a use like this and I guess the only one I can think of that would be
4 fairly similar would be the mini-storage area. I don't believe that we
required curb and gutter in that area. '
Barbara Dacy: For Mr. Brown's there was I believe the main access drives,
ingress and egress points to the development. '
Mayor Hamilton: Right but not the whole, what you would consider the parking
area.
Barbara Dacy: Right. Tonight I was indicating that the curbing and the
paving and the bituminous issue was not even discussed at the May 4th
meeting. I was merely pointing out that our ordinance requires it. That
paved be lined with concrete curb so you're consistent with the ordinance.
Mayor Hamilton: Okay and I was just questioning that wondering if that's
consistent with what we do in the rural area. If that's what our ordinance
says, I guess that surprises me.
Barbara Dacy: Staff has been consistent in recommending that that be
installed.
Mayor Hamilton: I'm sure you have but my question is still the same. Is it
the ordinance that it would be installed in the rural areas?
Barbara Dacy: Your question, have you approved it in the past?
21 1
1
IICity Council Meeting - November 16, 1987
IIMayor Hamilton: No, does it say that in the ordinance? That rural areas put
in parking for whatever use you're going to use, you have to have curb and
gutter.
II
Barbara Dacy: The ordinance does not specify if it's urban or rural. It says
if you have a parking area, it has to be paved and you have to have concrete
I curb.
Mayor Hamilton: Alright, so that's something that the Council could decide
I whether or not we want to have that right? Staff is recommending that the
applicant do put that in. I'm also curious about the wetland now. The
drawing that you were showing us there and the portion in green is supposedly
the wetland. Who's definition of the wetland is that?
IBarbara Dacy: We asked the applicant at that time, what we use as the
definition of edge of the wetland is where the reed grass vegetation starts
I and stops. That was one factor because the reed grass was predominant in this
area. The other reference that we used was the official Chanhassen wetlands
map that was on file. This part of the area does reflect on the contour
that's located on the wetlands map.
IMayor Hamilton: What class wetland was that?
I Barbara Dacy: It was a Type II, Class B.
R
Mayor Hamilton: Is that the lowest grade you can get?
IBarbara Dacy: There's Type I which is the lowest.
II Mayor Hamilton: So it's next to the lowest and that area had been farmed for
years if I remember correctly. I still, in being consistent with what I've
said in the past, I don't believe that's a wetland and I would like to see
some evidence if it is. I think the applicant ought to be allowed use in that
I area. It may have been a wetland at one time and John filled it. Right or
wrong it's something that's been done. I think that he's said that at that
far north end of that there is a pond or he would construct a pond that could
II be used as a wetland or as a retention area for runoff to go into the creek.
I would prefer to see that done since he's filled the area already, allow him
to use it. I guess I have stated that previously and I still feel the same
way. I think anybody would have a hard time going out there and I don't care
I if it's Mrs. Rockwell or our staff and proving that that is in fact a wetland.
I don't think there's any evidence out there. Do council members have any
questions of the staff?
ICouncilman Horn: One of the things that we requested when we reviewed this
last time was to get a general policy on allowing this type of use from the
Planning Commission. I didn't see any record that they had given us a
Iguideline on this issue.
Barbara Dacy: As I interpretted the Minutes after reviewing them, that topic
[7
II was discussed but then I believe it was Councilman Geving saying you have to
decide on a particular issue at hand tonight and that two motions occurred.
I 22 _
I _..
•24
I (
City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 II
So that item has not been brought back to the Planning Commission for review II given Council's action.
Councilman Horn: If you read further in the Minutes it said that, yes we had
I
to act on this issue this evening but part of our problem with acting that
evening was that we didn't have the guideline and what we said is, that we
should go back and get a guideline as to what type of uses we should allow and
I
where we should allow them and what kind of criteria we should put on those
kinds of uses. Specifically the issue of the batting area had come up and
that is not addressed anywhere. We also described the fact that if you read
our ordinance it doesn't allow a golf course anyplace in the City without a II
conditional use permit. That was another one of the issues that we wanted to
address and brought back to us for us to act on. Now we come back to this
issue again and we don't have any further recommendations or any further
II
guidance on this thing and it seems like we've lost a lot of time where we
could have been making a policy on that so once again instead of proactive,
we're retroactive. I
Barbara Dacy: I guess I disagree because the five conditions that the Council
eventually approved were the specific recommendations of the Planning
Commission and they made a specific statement saying that the batting building
II
of the commercial recreational uses was not appropriate in the rural area.
But they did distinguish between driving ranges and miniature golf courses.
They declined to act on the golf course issue because that was not brought up
II
= to them at that point although I recall that the Planning Commission did say
i that they would all agree that a golf course should be allowed in the rural
area. Basically what the Council has approved was the Planning Commission
recommendation. II
Councilman Horn: That's true but what we also asked for was that the issue of
golf courses in general be addressed in terms of our overall ordinance and I
II
don't believe it has.
Barbara Dacy: Yes, they have not addressed that but I guess I still don't
II
understand how that issue would relate to Mr. Pryzmus' application because I
don't think the driving range and miniature golf course is clearly a distinct
use than a golf course.
Councilman Horn: What you're telling us is that there is no anomaly to the II
ordinance to date. That this is a very clear cut issue from our ordinance.
Barbara Dacy: The Council acted to approve the Planning Commission II
recommendation for the golf driving ranges and miniature golf courses. They
did not address a golf course issue at all.
Councilman Horn: I understand that. Based on the current ordinance? II
Barbara Dacy: Right. I
Councilman Johnson: As I said in May, I think we should allow at least the
seeding in that area to make the area useful. I do not think we should make
II
major grading changes to that area. It still, with the proper seeding, will
23 I
II
+J� Y
ICity Council Meeting - November 16, 1987
Ifunction as a nutrient drain the wetland area. This is another example of how
the TH 5 corridor there needs to be looked at. We are in that process, I
[-
guess looking at the entire downtown to TH 41 as part of our comprehensive
I plan.
John Pryzmus: As far as if I can have it, whatever you decide as far as the
II curbing we can go ahead and do that but what I worked with staff is after the
11 inches of rain, I went down there and mowed that area a week and a half
later and there wasn't even any water there so I'm not worried about filling
in the wet area at all. One thing that I would like to propose is the batting
I cage or our proposal there was a batting building. It was consistent with my
financing and that project was...to make it financially feasible. I needed
the batting cage or the indoor golf and batting. As far as the density of the
II area coincides with miniature golf and driving range. Also, when people are
using that, they won't really go off the site so if I could reconsider to add
that building as a utility building, that would be the only thing. Other than
II that, I won't be doing anything in the low land at all other than seeding it.
As far as the grading permit, that goes along with the miniature golf now and
we won't put any fill in the low area, we'll just knock down the one hill and
just push it to the back. There will be a very minimum amount of grading on
I the site. So if you would reconsider allowing having a utility building to
make it financially feasible...
I Mayor Hamilton: That's an entirely separate issue. I uess if
g you want that
to be reconsidered, you'll have to bring it back at another time. Do you have
any problems with the conditions 1 through 10 that were outlined by the
II conditional use permit? Were those conditions acceptable to you?
John Pryzmus: The curbing and?
I Mayor Hamilton: There are 10 conditions. Have you had a chance to review
them?
John Pryzmus: I didn't.
IICouncilman Boyt: Did you fill in the wetland?
IIJohn Pryzmus: Yes, I filled in part of it.
Councilman Boyt: Did you have a permit to do that?
IJohn Pryzmus: There isn't any wetland on the property. I have a letter from
the DNR stating that it's not a protected wetland.
I Councilman Boyt: Well the City considers it a wetlands and you filled it in
without a permit, is that correct? I just want to get a clear status on how
we lost the wetland. My understanding is we lost the wetland because you
Ifilled it in.
Mayor Hamilton: That's correct.
II24
IF
City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987
Councilman Boyt: What you're basically asking to do with the wetlands and
4 what the City proposes is a wetland, is to seed it, mow it, treat it like any
other piece of ground. I would like to ask the staff, is this going to impede
it's ability to do what it's doing now?
Barbara Dacy: When Dr. Rockwell visited the site last spring, she commented
that the area is really not acting as a good place for habitat which is one of
the criteria for a wetland. It's main function was serving as an area for
recharge and a storm water retention area before it gets to a creek along the
north side of the property. Staff felt that because there was going to be no
additional fill or alteration of the property, that it would continue to be
maintained the way it was in the last several years, that we felt that the
seeding would not affect that function at all.
Councilman Boyt: Now I heard something about an offer to build a pond on the
property as a holding pond. I think that's a reasonable offer and we should
take you up on that. '
Barbara Dacy: That was part of the original wetland alteration permit request
that was denied by the Council so if you're proposing to do that, he would
have to reapply for that.
Councilman Boyt: How are you proposing and how would you like to alter that
wetland any differently than what you propose to do now?
John Pryzmus: You means as far as building a pond?
Councilman Boyt: No, as far as the particular wetland. Is that where you are
proposing to build your pond?
John Pryzmus: Yes it would be down at the end of the road area. '
Councilman Boyt: Alright, so what other kinds of changes were you proposing
to make in the wetland?
John Pryzmus: All I want to do is just like I have there on the sewer.
Councilman Boyt: Do we have any difficulty with him improving the wetland?
We seem to have set a precedent indicating agreement to do that before. Well
Jay, maybe when it gets to be your turn you can comment on that. Then the
other situation I have is on the parking lot. As I read the ordinance, it's a
little different than staff is interpretting it. It says on page 1247, in
multiple family, business, office and industrial districts. We're not in any
of those so it does state that a person needs to have some sort of dust free,
all weather surface and concrete curbing. It's real specific as to where in
the city we can require that. I believe this is an agricultural district?
Mayor Hamilton: It's A-2.
Councilman Boyt: I think given the surface area, it probaby makes sense to
put a concrete curb around this but I don't think the city ordinance requires
it. I think it's kind of commen sense if you're going to put a hard surface
25 '
,
IICity Council Meeting - November 16, 1987
' on that much ground to have some means of controlling the runoff from that.
So to kind of summarize where I'm at right now, on the wetland, if you're
going to improve it, I can certainly be convinced that grading and seeding is
' appropriate since it doesn't seem to interfere with what it's doing now. On
the curbing, I'm okay with going on the curbing whichever way you want because
our ordinance doesn't require it as I read it. However, I would certainly
' look favorably upon putting concrete curbing around your parking area. My
biggest concern is that we're sitting in an agricultural area and we are
producing what I think is going to be a tremendous traffic generator. A
collector into this particular spot. Business Week in the last month had an
' article that indicated that miniature golf courses are doing quite well. I
think we see an example of that on TH 7 and TH 101 and I think we should view
this as a permanent structure and not as a temporary structure until something
' better comes along. I don't know that we've done a traffic study. Have we
done a traffic study?
' Barbara Dacy: No we have not for this.
Councilman Boyt: I gather that we're saying we're preparing to approve
something that I think will generate a great deal of traffic. Is a county
study done?
Barbara Dacy: The County has reviewed the site plan. Their recommendation
' was that the access be located 300 feet to the north of the intersection.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe people who are more familiar with that particular
intersection than I an can add to more that.
' Barbara Dacy: We do have books upstairs from the Institute of Traffic
Engineers that estimate the amount of traffic to be generated from miniature
golf courses and retail uses and so on. I think when we went to through the
process last spring the major concern was the batting building because that
would generate more traffic on a consistent basis. The miniature golf course
' traffic would be seasonal in nature. Peak periods would be on Saturday and
Sunday and evenings.
Councilman Boyt: You're saying when the traffic load would tend to be lighter
' on TH 5, this. ..
Barbara Dacy: It's considerably less than a retail use or commercial
recreational use.
Councilman Boyt: You don't consider this to be comparable with a retail use?
' Mayor Hamilton: I guess if we did a traffic study it would probably show us
what we already know and that's that TH 5 is overused and if we have another
use along the highway it's going to continue to overload it some more. I have
' no other comments on the two proposed items before us.
Councilman Boyt: Then we're saying we make this amendment that anyone in the
agricultural area can come in and apply for a miniature golf course and a golf
driving range?
26
5ei
City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987
II
IIMayor Hamilton: Right, as a conditional use.
3
Councilman Boyt: And basically we can only turn down a conditional use
request when there is some overriding concern. We can't do it because the II
neighbors don't want it there?
Mayor Hamilton: Conditional use has always given us a great deal of latitude. I
Roger Knutson: You have a good discretion on it. You can't turn it down
because the neighbors don't like it. They frown on that. You have to
exercise your own judgment. I
Mayor Hamilton: That's true Bill. Unfortunately that's the case.
Councilman Horn: I believe that one of the requirements we put on here is II
that it be located adjacent to a major road with an off street access.
Councilman Johnson: From a collector or an arterial. Not just an off-street II
access.
Councilman Horn: Which will limit it to some degree.
I
Councilman Johnson: There aren't that many sites who could develop this. We
specified TH 5 and TH 212. - We're not opening this up to the entire A-2
II
- district.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Zoning Ordinance
Amendment Request #82-4 to amend Article V, Section 3(4) to allow golf driving II
ranges with or without miniature gold courses as a conditional use in the A-2,
Agricultural Estate District and to amend Article V, Section 9(14) to allow
standards for golf driving ranges with or without miniature golf courses: II
1. The location of the driving range is limited to being adjacent to
TH 5 and TH 212 and access must be from a collector or arterial which
II
leads to TH 5 or TH 212.
2. Hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset.
3. Provision of adequate parking areas and submission of la I in conformance with Article VIII of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. No site shall be located within 500 feet of a single family I
residence.
5. The building to be constructed on any site would be a maximum of 800 II
square feet and shall be painted in earth tones.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
II
Mayor Hamilton: Item b is to approve the Conditional Use Permit document.
The applicant has said that he hasn't reviewed the 10 items. Is there
motion to handle item 6(b)? a
II
27 I
II
�,
City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987
Councilman Johnson: Did the applicant get this?
'-
Mayor Hamilton: I don't think so. You've been working with him rather
closely, it's hard to believe he hasn't.
Barbara Dacy: I know the packet was sent out to you on Friday. You have not
' received it?
John Pryzmus: I've been out working at the site so I haven't gotten my mail.
Barbara Dacy: It was sent to the Saratoga Drive address.
Councilman Johnson: While we have a slight break here, Bill was talking about
the wetlands down there. By improving the wetlands, I do have a slight
opinion on that. If we're not building the batting cage, which at this time
we aren't, our amount of impervious surface being added to the area are
' minimal. The amount of increase runoff that would require an increased
holding pond should be minimal. If we can keep that area as an infiltration
area versus a holding pond area, I personally believe it would be best served
' to keep it in the same use as what nature has it now. Not necessarily making
a holding pond in a wetland is an improvement to the wetland in my opinion.
Certain wetlands have certain purposes. This wetland and the area adjacent to
it appears to be a infiltration area. Unfortunately there's about a foot of
dirt in many areas on top of what used to be the wetlands but I think if we
dug deep enough we would find the wetland that was there. At this time, if we
had approved the other building there, then I would be insisting upon a
holding pond to slow down the runoff going into the creek there but at this
time I don't think there's a great need to try to improve that wetland. When
you try to improve something, you sometimes may screw it up.
Councilman Horn: It's already broken.
Mayor Hamilton: But it's broken like Clark says. It could be improved I
would think dramatically because if you walk back there there's nothing there
and it could be improved to be something.
' Councilman Johnson: Aesthetically yes but hydraulically I'm not sure if the
improvement will be any different. I haven't seen any facts or figures to say
it. As an area of infiltration and recharge of ground water, it will continue
function as such. You put it in as a pond and we have a better mosquito
' breeding area.
Councilman Boyt: The holding pond isn't in the condition in the condition as
' it stands. I would like to see it put in. I think it could help it improve .
Mr. Pryzmus seems be willing to put it in. Is it acceptable to amend the
wetland alteration permit?
the
Councilman Johnson: We denied it.
Barbara Dacy: If you wanted to provide for a conditional use permit, you
could include it in condition number 1 by saying, submission of a revised
28
I
r � a
Ad 5
City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 11
r-- grading plan b y December 1st indicati ng
l
II
ocation of a holding pond.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I was thinking of the same thing but I would like to
see John be encouraged to come back and request a wetland alteration permit II
again showing what he's going to do with the pond. I guess I'd kind of like
to see because you at one time agreed that you would do that. Just improve
the pond in the north end. Then we would have some idea of what it's going to II
look like and what he's going to do because I think you would still like to
have a permit.
John Pryzmus: I'm working with Bill Engelhardt right now and we're working on II
the changeover from the filled in areas to put a pond in there and have him
and the DNR decide how big and whether they think it should be there.
II
Mayor Hamilton: Okay, and then that could be a part art of
wetland alteration your request for a
permit coming back to us at another time.
John Pryzmus: It would be nice to have that as a condition if you'd let me II
have my batting building.
Mayor Hamilton: There's no reason, if you want you can ask for both of those II
again. I can't tell you to or not to but if that's something you want to do,
that's something you have to decide if you want to come back and request one
or either or both, that's up to you to make that request.
II
1
1
Councilman Johnson: John, do you want this pond?
John Pryzmus: I think as far as from the area, the pond isn't going to hurt II
me. g g
Councilman Johnson: What about the septic systems? You talked about the II
conversion there to a holding tank versus a septic system.
Barbara Dacy: No, there's no change proposed with that. Conditions 4 and S
I
remain the same.
Councilman Horn: We could include an asphalt curb. 1
Councilman Johnson: I prefer to get sheet flow off of the parking area.
Mayor Hamilton: I would too. I don't know that much about water runoff but II
it would seem that if you have water running off, don't you decrease the
amount of velocity coming off of an area by doing that. That's what we're
always trying to do. 1
Barbara Dacy: That be addressed and reviewed by staff.
Mayor Hamilton: It seems like we always talk about decreasing the velocity II
and that would seem like that might do that. Maybe it doesn't, I don't know.
Councilman Horn: Let's leave off everything with curbs.
II
29 . II
11
c
1 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987
IIGary Warren: We'll look at that with the plans that come in. f
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I'd be curious to know if it does or doesn't. I
IICouncilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Conditional Use
Permit Document as presented with the following amendment to the first
condition:
II
1. Submission of a revised grading plan by December 1, 1987 showing the
II proposed limits of grading, methods of erosion control where
necessary, indicating the revised size and location of the parking
lot and club house and 150 feet from the centerline of County Road
117, and proposed berm areas around the putting green and miniature
I golf course area. The parking lot shall be paved. City Staff shall
review and approve said plan prior to activity occurring on the site.
•
IIAll voted in favor and motion carried.
CONSIDERATION OF ALLOWING HUNTING NORTH OF TH 5, DNR CONTROLLED GOOSE HUNT.
IMayor Hamilton: We've had an opportunity to see one of these previously and
Jim has made some recommendations to us. Reading through Jim's
I recommendations saying the ultimate solution though may be the elimination of
hunting all together within the city limits of Chanhassen I couldn't agree
with less. I don't think that's the ultimate solution at all. There are
areas in the city where you can hunt especially around Rice Marsh Lake or
I swamp or whatever you call it. There are a number of areas south of TH 5 that f
are certainly acceptable for shotgun hunting of birds and fowl but perhaps not
any longer of deer. Although there is enough open space so I think slug
1 hunting is probably pretty safe also but to get to the real problem, these dog
gone geese. Personally I guess, unless everybody wants a report from Jim, I
would really like to see us just say no hunting north of TH 5 period. Whether
I it's a special hunt or non-special hunt so you don't run into the same
problems we did last time. That was a mess.
Councilman Boyt: I think that we have a tremendous problem with the geese in
I this city. As much as I like to see them fly, I understand that a good many
people don't like to see them on their yard and what they leave behind. I
would think that it is a difficult issue where we allow people to hunt north
II of TH 5. I agree with you by the way on hunting south of TH 5. I think that
there are still some areas where people should be able to hunt in Chanhassen
given the level of development as it is right now. I would like to see us
I look at some sort of reasonable guideline that Mr. Chaffee could use in doing
a preliminary screen on a request. Whether it's north or south. I would
think something in the neighborhood of 1,000 yards from any home.
IMayor Hamilton: Feet or yards?
Councilman Boyt: No, yards. The reason I say yards is because that's
II basically the maximum carrying distance of a shotgun. It's not going to carry
there with any ability to do anything. Gentlemen, I can assure that if you L7
1 30
r
296 - c
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
SWINGS RECREATION LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TH 5 AND CR 117, JOHN
PRYZMUS, APPLICANT:
A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REQUEST TO AMEND THE A-2, AGRICULTURAL
ESTATE DISTRICT TO ALLOW GOLF DRIVING RANGES, MINIATURE GOLF COURSES
AND INDOOR BATTING BUILDINGS AS A CONDITIONAL USE. '
B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT REQUEST TO FILL IN A CLASS A WETLAND.
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A GOLF DRIVING RANGE, MINIATURE '
GOLF COURSE, AND AN INDOOR BATTING BUILDINGS.
Mayor Hamilton: This item has been before us before. I think Jay is probably
the only one that hasn't had quite as much input as the rest of us had.
Barbara, is there anything new that you might want to present that we wouldn't
be aware of or haven't seen in the past dealing with this item?
Barbara Dacy: No, not at this time. I guess if you're just going to consider
each item, we're available to answer questions and the applicant is here.
Mayor Hamilton: Let's begin with A, the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Request r
to amend the A-2, Agricultural Estate District to allow golf driving ranges,
miniature golf courses and indoor batting buildings as a conditional use and
it's my understanding John that you want all three of those to be considered
and not separately?
John Pryzmus: Yes.
Mayor Hamilton: Does the Council have any discussion on this item 6(a) ?
Councilman Geving: Yes. This is a major departure for a Zoning Ordinance
Amendment. To include not one of these particular items, the golf driving
range but also the miniature golf course and the indoor batting facility.
This issue has a long history and after a lot of deliberation and our Minutes
indicate that we still are looking at, in my view, a conditional use permit
process and the only thing that's acceptable to me as a councilman is a golf
driving range facility. I don't believe that the miniature golf course meets
the intent of our Zoning Ordinance. It is in fact a retail facility. A
commercial facility and it fits more appropriately in a commercial setting and
I can't for the life of me believe that we would even attempt to consider the
indoor batting facility in what I would call an agricultural district that is
intended for at some future point a rural residential area in the year 2000.
We're talking about an interim facility plan for this land use. I would say
that if anything should go on that land, and I believe it should be utilized.
There has been a substantial amount of development there in terms of trees
being placed there. There has been an alteration of the area including the
creek area. That a landowner does have some rights to develop a portion of
his property even in an interim use. I feel that the golf driving range for
my purposes at least, does meet an interim intent of our Ordinance. I think -
that could fit with the idea that there would be a small shed facility and I'm
thinking in the area of 500 square feet maximum to house a tractor and
whatever office facilities there are for the issuance of clubs and counting of
42 r
7feWiT
297
City Council Meetin g - May 4, 1987
Y .
balls and things like that. That there will be no commercial enterprise of
this property. No vending whatsoever of pop, ice cream or any other such
commercial ventures. That it be strictly for the recreation of golfing and
the driving range. So therefore, I'm saying that there would be no vending or
concessionaire type activities. We would fence it completely with a 6 foot
wire mesh fence. I think that would be appropriate. Show us a site plan with
' a landscaping plan John. We need that. I want to see where you're plantings
are and what they will look like in years to come and under no circumstances
will I think that we could even consider an alteration to the wetland that's
' existant on that property. Do not violate that wetland and I have in our
packet tonight from Dr. Rockwell whom I know and have worked with for a number
of years, an opinion from the Fish and Wildlife Service that says there should
' be no alteration to the wetland. Now if you can do your facility, you can
drive balls and collect the balls under those circumstances, I feel that you
could hold a facility out on that land and run a profitable business. That's
the end of my comments.
Councilman Johnson: I tend to agree with Dale on this. Especially on the
wetlands part. I believe that you can get the wide bodied tire or whatever
' vehicle that could navigate on the wetland more the tractors that are there
now would just fall into the wetland basically. There's no way you could pick
up the balls with those existing tractors. You would have to have the little
tire or whatever to be able to navigate within the area. I'm not terribly
opposed to, like some of the Planning Commission members said that they were
not opposed to having the putt-putt or mini-golf in-conjunction with the
driving range. The mini-golf by itself I'm totally against out there but in
'1- conjunction with a driving range as a smaller enterprise, I'm not terribly
opposed to but I would totally agree with Dale and the Planning Commission on
no further alteration, it's already been altered, to that wetlands.
Councilman Horn: Just a clarification. I believe the question was, we're
asking for a zoning ordinance amendment to include all three. If I heard Dale
and Jay right they said they would not go along with that.
Councilman Geving: That was the intent of my statement, yes.
Councilman Horn: It seems like that's all I heard.
Mayor Hamilton: From my standpoint I think what I've seen John on your plans
' is an overintensificaton of the use for the land. I don't think the batting
thing fits. I certainly think a driving range is very useable there along
with the miniature putt and if you were to put a mini-golf thing there that's
similar to the one on TH 101 and TH 7, which I think is a real nice facility
and does a good business, I could certainly see that as an asset to that area.
I think an indoor batting facility may be something that our town could use
but I don't think it fits on that piece of land so I agree with the other
' council members. You've asked for three things and I haven't heard anyone
agree that all three should be in that particular location. I guess a motion
is in order on item A.
4
Councilman Geving: I will move to approve a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to
amend the A-2, Agricultural Estate District to allow golf driving ranges as a
' 43
r •
298
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
conditional use. I think the other items that I hear would fall into the
Conditional Use Permit itself as a part of that and those conditions however
would also include the Planning Commission's recommendations because this is
an amendment to an Ordinance. There have to be some other things that we
would place in the ordinance to structure it and that is, (1) location is
limited to being adjacent to TH 5 and TH 212 and access must be from a
collector or arterial streets to TH 5 or TH 212. We're trying to look to the
future not just at this particular facility but to the amendment to the
Ordinance. Hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset and that
adequate parking and submission of a landscaping plan shall be in conformance
with Article VIII. No site shall be located within 500 feet of a single
family residence. We'll discuss that in a minute because there may be a
conflict but that should be one of the items. I would like to add another
item, that there would be no vending of concessions on the site. Any building
for the purpose of storing golf driving equipment such as the ball retriever,
the tractor and small office would be limited in size to 500 square feet, and
be painted in an earthtone.
There was no second and motion failed for lack of second.
Mayor Hamilton: John, did you want to say something?
John Pryzmus: I didn't know if you wanted to see a plan or anything like
that.
Mayor Hamilton: We were given copies of your plan unless it's changed since
we got it.
John Pryzmus: No. The only thing I would like to mention is that I spent a
lot of time today and the last couple days, I have 100% backing from the
business community, my peers, what they see is a need out there for the
community. I went through different areas in the community to find out the
residents and people who don't have businesses in town. Basically they were
90% for it. The 10% that didn't sign the petitions either didn't know enough
about the project to sign it or their husband or wife wasn't home so they
wanted to make a joint decision so I feel here that we have community support
of just about 100% for the project. Batting cages are a big part of it. My
-financial backers won't be involved if I don't have the total project so I
won't be able to go into a financial contract with you if you limit this it
just a driving range. Basically I have a driving range out there now so I
just wanted to let you know that I've done a lot of homework like you've asked
Dale. I hired the architects. I hired the engineers. I've done everything
that the City, we've moved things around to the west and north and south and
have done everything that I could possibly do with Staff basically to be told
that I don't have any more than I had 'before even though you took it away.
That was a matter for the courts to decide. Really it comes down to I've
spent about $10,000.00 with plans and what have you to get the same thing I
got three months ago. If you were going to tell me the same thing, why didn't
you just tell me that three months ago that no matter what you do. No matter
how many plans and architectural drawings you get because it isn't going
matter. It don't matter what the people of Chanhassen want. It's what you
personally want that matters.
44
1
299
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
Jack Roberts: We weren't here for this part of it but it's news to me that
somebody was going to be developing a driving range and mini-golf and batting
I . cage. I grew up in suburban Chicago and one of my favorite sports as a
teenager, going with my dad and later on in high school and college with my
brothers, there was ...which was a farm type of place with a double decker
driving range and mini-golf course and outdoor batting cages and we spent one
hell of a lot of time there doing all three at one time. We didn't go there
just to do baseball because if you put up a batting cage someone in this town
' who might need it for all the kids like my three sons who are 9 and 10 years
old, where are they going to go just to go batting and not be able to buy ice
cream or a can of pop and can only do it from sunrise to sunset. Well, that's
real good hours in April, May and September. It seems like when you're a
' teenager you may want to be out past 8:00 at night. If this business would
fly, I think something like 10:00, 11:00, 12:00 at night during certain times
of the weeks. I think at least a can of pop or nibble of chips or candy bar
' or gum something like that would be appropriate if you're going to run a
business and unless you don't have kids that play baseball and golf, this area
could use something other than just the nice mini-golf that's up on TH 7 and
TH 101. Where is there a driving range that you can go to and not have to be
' a member or feel that you have to play 18 holes. I heard George Prieditis on
my softball team tonight said we could go to a batting cage in St. Paul.
Where is the closest batting cage for the kids that are in baseball or for
dads, for a bunch of jocks who just want to go out and hit and not go down to
the metrodome for two days of the year and try and make the team down there.
There may be a need for something like this in the recreation area in not too
far away from downtown Chanhassen and what is that site doing right now? It's
vegetating. I don't know about wetlands and all of that... I just heard about
this in the last half hour but I spent hours at a place like that when I was a
kid and I still play baseball and I still play golf and I love it and I got
' kids that I would like to take to do that right now because they want to
practice and rather than in my backyard or at Chan Elementary where we pound
solfballs or golfballs. That's where people practice their golf in Chan right
now. I think maybe, maybe there is a need for this here and if you guys could
work something out.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't think anyone is saying there is not a need for it.
What we're saying is the location is not in the area that we think it should
be in and the use of that particular piece of land is probably not suited.
' Jack Roberts: Couldn't you use draintile or pipes or something to...
Mayor Hamilton: We deal with what we see presented to us. We don't talk to
' the applicant and tell them how to do his plan. We can't do his planning for
him. Any other comments.
Councilman Horn: The motion would be then if we decide we don't want to give
' all three of these, the motion would be to deny the zoning ordinance amendment
at this point. However, what I would like to see happen is to see this go
back and have a Zoning Ordinance amendment that would include golf courses as
well as driving ranges because I was just as appalled as the Planning
Commission to find out we don't have a place to put a golf course in
Chanhassen. I think it's ridiculous that Bluff Creek has to be a conditional
45
300
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
use permit. I would like to have this whole ordinance looked at.
Mayor Hamilton: I was surprised to see that also. We missed that somehow,
golf courses, and I have no problem with miniature golf courses either. I
don't have any problem with indoor batting buildings if they are put in the
right place.
Councilman Geving: Where else are you going to put them?
Councilman Johnson: I haven't looked at that question yet. Without looking 1
at the question and having the Planning Commission give me advice on that
question, I think it's a good idea for them to review that first.
Councilman Horn: That's why I think we're premature in suggesting a zoning
ordinance amendment tonight. This is a specific request for a zoning
ordinance amendment for this project. For those three uses. If we're saying
that we're not going to allow those three uses, our only option is to deny
this request. Now we could go beyond that and say we want the Planning
Commission to look at some type of a zoning ordinance recommendation to us for
allowing golf courses and driving ranges and mini-putts or whatever we want to
include in that but I don't think that's the form of a motion. The motion is
either to accept this or deny this as I see it.
Councilman Johnson: Dale's motion was to accept one-third of it. My motion
is to accept two-thirds of it.
Councilman Horn: But why make a zoning ordinance when you haven't studied the
issue? Why not come back with that unless it's tied to a specific proposal?
Councilman Johnson: The additional issue is the golf course.
Barbara Dacy: Yes, there was a specific request for driving ranges, miniature
golf course and then indoor batting buildings and therefore we processed a
request in light of that. We did not specifically advertise for golf courses.
I think the two though are vastly different. I think what's being proposed
tonight is a different intensity than a golf course is and a golf course would
require a separate and different review process than a driving range. That's
why Staff went ahead and process this request. We can go back and pick up
golf courses at a later point but we came from the standpoint that you didn't
have to have a golf course in with the amendment to go along with a driving
range.
Councilman Horn: I understand that. My point is that if we're not going to
amend all three of these uses this evening, it isn't necessary for us to amend
any of them this evening.
Mayor Hamilton: That's true. We have two options. We can either do it that ,
way or...
Barbara Dacy: So what you're saying is they are either appropriate in the A-2
or they're not.
46 ,
A P-
e
II F.
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
Councilman Johnson: And my motion says that two out of three of them are
appropriate if they are together.
11 Mayor Hamilton: I agree with Clark. I have no problem with indoor batting
buildings but I don't think that was allowed for in our ordinance revision
II either. Why don't we also take a look at that and see where they would be
allowed.
Councilman Johnson: General recreational facilities. Take the step beyond.
I It could be more than a batting cage. There are other sports recreational
facilities that could be commercially available.
I Barbara Dacy: Right. The indoor batting building term is very specific and
the Zoning Ordinance does generalize in the business general and business
highway. I think it says sports clubs and or commercial recreation so that
type of use could be allowed in our commercial district.
IMayor Hamilton: Maybe that needs to be specifically outlined so applicants
would know exactly where they could propose to put this thing.
ICouncilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve a Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to allow driving ranges with miniature golf courses as an
accessory to the driving range as a conditional use in the A-2 District with
Ill the following conditions:
IP 1. The location is limited to being adjacent to TH 5 and TH 212 and
access must be from a collector or arterial which leads to TH 5 or
II TH 212.
II2. Hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset.
3. Provision of adequate parking areas and submission of a landscaping
plan in conformance with Article VIII.
I4. No site shall be located within 500 feet of single family residences.
II 5. Any building be small and earthtone in color for dispensing of golf
balls.
I 6. That golf courses be taken back to the Planning Commission to review
what zoning district golf courses belong in.
Councilman Johnson and Councilman Geving voted in favor and Councilman Horn
IIand Mayor Hamilton opposed. There was a tie vote, 2-2.
Councilman Horn: My recommendation would be to deny the request that's before
I us and then put this subject back to the Planning Commission to clarify each
of those issues and give us a recommendation.
IlBarbara Dacy: To clarify each driving range, miniature golf course.
Councilman Horn: The golf course, the indoor batting, address all four of
II 47
II
4
C
•
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
those issues. Where they belong and make that part of the overall zoning
ordinance amendment.
Mayor Hamilton: And get a recommendation back from the Planning Commission as
to where they should be as an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance.
Councilman Geving: The problem though is you can't think of everything.
Let's say that the applicant would have asked for indoor archery for example
or some other recreational pursuit. He didn't. He just happened to go with
batting here and that could go in another whole area that we haven't even
discussed here at any time so there could be any number of other recreational
items that are going to be proposed to us as council members and we'll have to
handle them on a one per one basis and not everytime be brought to the '
council. Our ordinances are never going to be able to adequately answer all
the questions that people are going to pose as a proposal to us.
Mayor Hamilton: But they can do a better job than what we're doing now. We '
can go back and look at indoor batting facility. If that's in a general
recreational use than we better have a definition of a general recreational
use. What does that entail? Does it entail indoor golf? Indoor batting?
Indoor archery? Indoor shooting? Let's be more specific about indoor. You
can list 100 things and say those are things that are included.
Councilman Geving: Maybe I'm getting kind of where Clark's coming from. I
always like to look at the issue in front of us. The issue is a request for
indoor batting area, a miniature putt-putt area and also for a golf driving
range. That's really what we're talking about and we're being asked to amend
our Ordinance to include those as conditional uses for this particular piece
of land. Now we can either accept that or deny the request or we can accept
that with conditions and alter the request and not completely deny it but
approve the portions that we prefer as four council people here tonight and
let the applicant go about his way and start developing this.
Mayor Hamilton: But that was my reason for the question to the applicant when
we started this. He wants to have all three of them.
_Councilman Geving: Then he's taking a high risk. '
Mayor Hamilton: That's why I asked John that question when we started. He
wants to have all three of them or nothing. I guess that's the way I look at
it.
Councilman Geving: He might get nothing.
Pat Farrell: You ought to have that on record.
Councilman Geving: If that's what he wants then I agree with Clark.
Mayor Hamilton: Is that true John? Do you want all three to be considered?
Do you want all three or nothing? Basically that is what you're saying.
That's what I asked you at the beginning of the meeting. Do you want all
three of these to be considered and passed or none of them?
11 48
I
5
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
John Pryzmus: I ou uess if want you nt to make an amendment to include the driving
range and miniature golf as it's proposed without the batting cage, I will
' take that at this point.
Mayor Hamilton: Would you include golf courses in your motion?
' Councilman Geving: No and I think the reason why we don't have that in front
of us tonight, that's another issue.
' Councilman Johnson: Dale, are your miniature golf courses only associated
specifically with driving ranges or are they going to be an allowable use?
Councilman Geving: Yes. I'm putting this in as an auxilliary use with a
outdoor golf driving range.
Mayor Hamilton: Why?
Councilman Geving: Because I can't see putting up a miniature golf course in
an A-2 area as a separate commercial enterprise. I think it has to go along
' with the intent of what we're talking about here and that's a golf driving
range facility. I want to put them together. I don't want to see an
applicant come in for example with a miniature golf application for the Hesse
Farms or someplace in the A-2 District and here we carve out a one acre
miniature golf because it happens to fit our Zoning Ordinance and it would be
approved because it wouldn't come before the Council. It's an approved and
legitimate business and I want to see those.
John Pryzmus: Can I just mention one thing? On the square footage of the
building for the clubhouse. 500 square feet, I don't know if I can even get
' one tractor in there for storage in the winter and I would prefer to have all
my equipment stored inside in the winter. I dealt with Staff and I will be
taking the dome down and putting something different there and I could build a
nice looking building with windows all the way around it so the manager can
watch and make sure everything is running smoothly and also have a garage door
so I can park my equipment in in the winter but 500 square feet is about the
average size of a bedroom.
• Councilman Geving: No it's not.
' Councilman Johnson: That's 22 by 22 basically.
Councilman Geving: I figured it out because it's about 22 by 22, about the
' size of a normal garage or 20 by 25. I just picked the number John. Give me
a number.
John Pryzmus: The thing about it is, the slab out there is 30 by 40 that I
' already have poured and that would house both tractors, power mowers and what
have you. I could cut that down. I can always have part of it in a patio but
I'm just thinking that 500 square feet, I get a couple tractors in and then I
still have equipment sitting out and everybody's mad at me because I don't
have everything in house you know.
' 49
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
Councilman Geving: Okay, Staff recommended 800. Would you buy 800?
John Pryzmus: I guess if I can get it in.
Councilman Geving: I'll amend my motion to include an 800 square foot shed.
Councilman Horn: I'll amend my second.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Zoning
Ordinance Amendment request to amend the A-2 Agricultural Estate District to
include a golf driving range and miniature golf courses as an accessory use to
golf driving ranges as conditional uses in the A-2 District with the following
conditions: -'
1. The location is limited to being adjacent to TH 5 and TH 212 and
access must be from a collector or arterial which leads to TH 5 and
TH 212.
2. Hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset.
3. Provision of adequate parking areas and submission of a landscaping
plan in conformance with Article VIII.
4. No site shall be located within 500 feet of single family residences.
5. The building to be constructed on any site would be a maximum of 800
square feet, painted in earthtones to house the facility.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
B. WETLAND ALTERATION REQUEST TO FILL IN A CLASS A WETLAND.
Mayor Hamilton: I believe a good share of that wetland has been filled
through the years when there has been plowing and agricultural activities
occurring on that property. I believe that the applicant also may have filled
in part of that so I asked the Staff today if that in fact still is a Class A
wetland. If it does have the grasses and the standing water and everything
else that's required to be classified as a Class A wetland. I guess I'm not
convinced that it is any longer whether by the applicant's doing or somebody
elses so I'm not sure if we're really talking about a permit for a Class A
wetland. Is it really a Class A wetland? By whose definition also?
Barbara Dacy: It is a Class A wetland by definition of the City Wetland
Ordinance which was adopted in 1984.
Mayor Hamilton: There are marsh grasses and cattails and all that sort of
thing growing out there?
Barbara Dacy: There is a small amount of reed grass as Dr. Rockwell pointed
out. The area is not good for habitat however, the vegetation in the soils do
indicate a wetland. However, it is obvious that the site has been cultivated
for in excess of 50 years it was a site for tree farm. The quality of that
50 '
1
C
7
II
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
I portion of the wetland is really in question and the a
Y �N applicant submitted a
letter detailing the history of the use of that particular site. As was
I pointed out in the report, the portion of the wetland contained in the site is
approximately 4 acres and that's the remaining part of the original alottment
totals 78 acres and extends to the northern part of the property.
IICouncilman Johnson: I walked this wetlands several times now. There
definitely are peat grasses and your aquatic vegetation trying to sprout up
what was moved on top of it. We've got standing water in the pond that used
Ito be kind of the feed to the top of the wetlands from the appearances of it.
Going from his proposed tee line down 200 yards, it's not much of a wetland
anymore so on your prints, the top half of it has pretty well been filled by 6
I inches to a foot of soils. The lower, especially beyond the 250 yard range,
which is a pretty good golfer, personally I can't make the 200 yard range, is
still much peat soils without much filling going on. There has been some
II grading going on in there. As it exists, I'm not a soils expert to tell you
how much it can hold as far as tractors or anything. I think you could
probably operate fairly easity down to the 200 yard point. Between the 200
and 250 creates a problem and beyond 250 is peat that most anything is going
Ito drop into. With good grass down to the 200 that shouldn't be a lot of
problem. I wouldn't want to see any more alterations down to the wetlands as
it is. I believe there is some recommendations that said if we did allow
alterations, they wanted a permanent sedimentation basin at the bottom. If
this is all grass, you're not going to be getting much sediment coming out of
it. What would we be trying to settle in the sedimentation basin? Or are we
looking for a nutrient basin to take out the nutrients from the soil?
Gary Warren: I looked at it from that standpoint as a buffer zone between
what would be remaining as wetland versus the activity that would be conducted
I on the site. From fertilizers or anything else that would have to be
utilized out there.
II Councilman Johnson: This is pretty much the headwaters for what, Bluff Creek
I believe. At this point Bluff Creek is only a foot or two wide and that
feeds a lot of our chain of lakes so the headwaters must be protected and
that's where I'm coming from in protecting this wetlands.
Councilman Geving: The only comment I want to make, I'm not too concerned
about the wetlands as I am about staying away from the creek area. That was
Ithe problem we had before. I do respect Dr. Rockwell's recommendations.
Councilman Horn: I just think we should keep it as it is.
IMayor Hamilton: I guess I don't see any reason why it can't partially be
filled in at least up to the 954 elevation. That would still be enough area
II for some ponding near the creek for run-off into the creek and still be able
to filter water.
ill Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the Wetland Alteration Permit request to fill
in a Class A wetland up to the 954 contour and permit approval from the Army
Corps of Engineers. There was no second and motion died for lack of second.
I 51
II
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to deny the Wetland
Alteration Permit request to fill in a Class A wetland. All voted in favor
except Mayor Hamilton who opposed and motion carried.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A GOLF DRIVING RANGE, MINIATURE GOLF COURSE
AND AN INDOOR BATTING BUILDINGS.
Councilman Johnson: Because we're building something within 200 feet of a
wetlands, how does that affect this and if there is not going to be any
further work on the wetlands, does the Conditional Use have to have the Corps
of Army Engineer's approval also?
Barbara Dacy: I take the proposed Council action to mean approve the
Conditional Use permit for the driving range and basically the applicant can't
fill into the wetland area. He can not alter it so a specific condition
should read that the wetland area as identified on the plan should remain as
is.
Mayor Hamilton: That's what we just passed. '
Councilman Geving: No alteration of the area. I'm talking about alteration
in terms of excavation and replacement of soils in the wetland area.
Councilman Johnson: So planting grass seed in the wetland area, would that be
acceptable or would that be considered fill?
Mayor Hamilton: Are we going back to the last motion are we to clarify that
at this point?
Councilman Johnson: The last motion almost kicks out the conditional use
permit because this land would be useless within the wetlands that's in the
middle of the driving range unless he can smooth it out to plant grass. '
Mayor Hamilton: If he doesn't fill it to the 954 contour then it would be
more useable. We still have a drainage area and filtering area before it gets
to the creek.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve a Conditional Use
Permit request for a golf driving range and miniature golf course. All voted
in favor and motion carried.
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO INSTALL THE LAKE ANN INTERCEPTOR AND THE LAKE
VIRGINIA FORCEMAIN IN AND NEAR CLASS A AND CLASS B WETLANDS ALONG THE
ALIGNMENT RUNNING SOUTHEASTERLY FROM TH 41 TO TH 5, THROUGH THE CHANHASSEN
LAKES BUSINESS PARK, NORTH OF LAKE SUSAN AND INTO EDEN PRAIRIE, METROPOLITAN
WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION, APPLICANT.
Councilman Johnson: There was a point in here where Dr. Rockwell made a
recommendations. It wasn't within the conditions. I thought it would have
been good to have those recommendations for the areas alongside the wetlands
to be recompacted immediately to prevent, I'm trying to find it in here.
52 '
11 Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1987 - Page 27
' configuration of the roadways that that come before the Planning
Commission for review.
All voted in favor and motion carried .
I Siegel moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #87-6 with the following
conditions :
' 1. The Class A wetland shall be preserved by a conservation easement
established at 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark.
2. The applicant shall provide drainage easements over the ponding
areas throughout the site and not allow any alteration to the
areas .
IIAll voted in favor and motion carried .
IErhart: Can you explain what item number 2 in your recomnendation means.
Olsen: What they are providing, in what they call a storm water easement,
I'm just making sure that they definitely provide easements over that and
Ithat those are protected areas so they won' t be altered.
Erhart: Altered?
1 Olsen : Such as mowing the lawn.
1 SWINGS RECREATION, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND CO. RD.
117 , JOHN PRYZMUS , APPLICANT:
A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REQUEST TO AMEND THE A-2, AGRICULTURAL
ESTATE DISTRICT TO ALLOW GOLF DRIVING RANGES, MINIATURE GOLF
COURSES AND INDOOR BATTING BUILDINGS AS A CONDITIONAL USE.
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A GOLF DRIVING RANGE, MINIATURE
GOLF COURSE, AND AN INDOOR BATTING BUILDING.
C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT REQUEST TO FILL IN A CLASS A WETLAND.
Barbara Dacy presented the Staff report on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Irequest.
Conrad : Where else would a golf driving range be in the city?
Dacy: Currently a golf driving range is not listed in any other commercial
districts so basically a golf course or golf driving range is not a
permitted or conditional use within the City of Chanhassen.
.064411145G0
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1987 - Page 28
Conrad: Can you refresh my memory why that is? I'm looking at some notes
where we specifically said we did not want that in agricultural area and I
have a hard time recalling that .
Dacy: What happened was, during the Zoning Ordinance review process we met
several times in 1985 and 1986. The Bluff Creek golf course now is a non- '
conforming use as a golf course but we do recall discussion that the
Commission did have problems with a golf driving range in the rural area.
You didn't think it was appropriate. It created some traffic along those
roads so it wasn't approved as a part of the new Ordinance thus the
application.
Conrad: John, you are the applicant. Specifically John we're talking on
the zoning and before you tell us what your range and what your
configuration would look like. I don't know how I can limit you to just one
subject. You are asking for a zoning change or you are asking to amend the
Ordinance based on a project that you've got. I don't want to review the
project yet. I really do want to review the concept. Of the three things
that you've asked for, in general in the City of Chanhassen. Can you keep
us away from your project for a while? Do you have anything to tell us '
about driving ranges in Chanhassen? Persuade us that we should have driving
ranges in Chanhassen is what my challenge to you would be.
John Pryzmus: On page 8, basically my feelings in the Chaska Herald is an II
ad I developed. I spent a lot of time with the people planning the driving
range out there now. I've been in front of the City Council about two
months ago and at that time we didn't have the total plans and the layout of 11
the new facility. It had been approved originally five years ago for a
driving range and I never did open it. I worked on it gradually over the
last 5 years and being that the little one I had in town, there was no II development on it, I never had a reason to open the new one. I brought in
people from Chicago, John Jacobsford Golf and we went and looked at every
driving range in the Twin Cities area and there are a lot of driving ranges
that aren't kept up very well and a lot of them are just an intern use for a
piece of property until you put it into an industrial park or whatever. You
aren't going to buy an industrial park for driving ranges but you do buy a
driving range for industrial parks. With this project, I'm not proposing it '
to be used as an industrial park down the road. It's a half a million
dollar project that should enhance the recreational facilities for the
community. In all the response I've had, they are 100% for the project. I I
feel by getting community support, I feel that I want to show the Council
and the Planning Commission that not only do I want to make a business
venture out there, I've already spent a lot of money buying the land. I
bought it on a contingency that I could have a driving range then that was '
approved so I guess what I want to do now. I originally proposed a
miniature golf in my original proposal and that was turned down but what I
want to do is make it financially feasible for me to do it as an investment II
and also make it a good thing for the community. With the nature of TH 5
and there is not really a traffic problem. These numbers might not all be
right but you have approximately 20,000 cars going by there a day so there
won't be a traffic impact. They would be coming off of TH 5 and going down
I
IPlanning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1987 - Page 29
II100 yards on a major collector road which is tar .
1 Conrad: John, I think you are getting into the specifics of the project and
I'm really trying to focus on the Ordinance itself right now. We have to
look at the Ordinance and say does it make sense to allow driving ranges?
I Does it make sense to allow some buildings out there and you can come back
in a few seconds to talk on the specifics but anything else that you can
share with us in terms of, I know they are real closely tied together.
I John Pryzmus: I guess maybe if I could just answer any questions you have
because if I start rambling on and on I might get back into that. If there
are some questions as far as if it will be compatible. My neighbors out
I there, I have a group home to the west of me and contractor yards to the
north of me. Dale Green has a farm to the south of me. A guy named Larry
Van DeVeire has the land to the east of me and I talked to him and he feels
it's commercial. One of the gentlemen here, John Hennessey, he has the land
Ito the northeast corner of me so basically what I'm trying to do by getting
community support is not set a precedence in allowing any kind of commercial
project. Like Barb stated, a driving range needs a lot of land. It isn't
I like putting a gas station out there. The miniature golf and the batting
cages, the three of them blend together to make it financially feasible
first of all but they also make it a nice project for the people in
I Chanhassen. Like you just had on your map, each developer gives park space.
They put in baseball diamonds. The City is acquiring property to add three
more diamonds just a mile to the east of this project. They are putting
lights on the park because there is such a demand for a recreational
Ifacilities and as a private developer, there won't be any city money or
anything like that. This will be a private venture so I think it would just
be in asking too with what the City already is doing with their parks and
Iwith their recreational facilities.
Roger Schmidt: I live out in that area. I guess my thinking is that I
II haven't seen a driving range yet in the metropolitan area that I think is a
definite asset as far as aesthetics go on the community. They are usually
located in more of a business area or with a golf course and even a golf
course is stuck back in a corner someplace where they aren't that visible.
I Being a resident of that area, I'm somewhat concerned that we'll probably
end up with a very similar situation that you have with 90% of the other
driving ranges and I'm very much concerned from the standpoint that I don't
I see the City doing much policing in the area of taking care of what's out
there right now. That's been, for several years, right now it's nothing but
a junk pile and we've had comments from people out-of-town and in town
asking us what's going on over there and it's kind of embarrassing for us to
Ihave to admit that we're living in an area that looks like that. I think
that particular spot, as far as driving ranges within the City, I think
there probably are spots for them but that particular one , I would think you
I look at it as your western gateway into town and I think you should look at
that as something that you don't want to build up with things that probably
aren't going to be complimentary to the City. You have to decide whether
that is a complimentary activity or not and obviously the other thing that
1 I'm concerned about is the commercialization of the district. It's not
II
Planning Commission Meeting I
April 22, 1987 - Page 30
allowed as far as your zoning now and I think people kind of go by the
zoning issues when they decide to locate there and you don't arbitrarily
change them so I think you should give that serious consideration also . '
Headla moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing on the Zoning
Ordinance Amendment. All voted in favor and motion carried .
Headla: I don't understand why having a driving range, and the batting
thing and the miniature golf is different but I don't see why a driving
range would be of any benefit. I think there are several downside aspects
of it but I don't see any upside aspects except the person running the
range. I think the people surrounding that might suffer.
Conrad: You've got to consider them like a golf course. People use it. ,
Driving ranges are used.
Headla: Then if I look at the location, then I wonder about Galpin Blvd.. I
I'm on that road quite a bit. I ride a bike on that and right now, I don't
like the way the cars are on there. Do you have any idea how much traffic
comes and goes from one of those facilities? '
Pryzmus: I'm sure there will be some major amount of traffic. I don't know
what you consider major but most of it will be coming off of TH 5 so they II would be coming off TH 5 down 100 yards and turning in there. The traffic
study we do have a parking lot scheduled for 16 spaces. We overbuilt the
parking lot basically. I would say a full driving range wouldn't have more
than 3 or 4 cars at a time. That's comparing apples to oranges because that '
was a temporary thing and basically the people would want something to do
down on West 79th Street where this will be a business that will be
maintained .
Siegel: I can't recall discussing our reasons for excluding golf courses
from the A-2 district.
Dacy: I can't pinpoint the date. We did go back and look through the
files. It was a fairly short discussion.
Siegel: What was the justification or the reasoning behind us or staff '
recommending the exclusion from the A-2?
Dacy: The way it was proposed, it was listed because it was consistent with II
our prior Ordinance. However, it was the specific recommendation to have
golf courses and driving ranges removed.
Siegel: In essence what we're doing is removing any possibility of having all
golf course or driving range in the City of Chanhassen.
Dacy: That 's correct. The Bluff Creek golf course is now non-conforming . I
Siegel : Well , that doesn't make sense to me. It just doesn't make sense.
If somebody came in with a plan for a beautiful golf course in the rolling II
11
II Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1987 - Page 31
IIhills of Chanhassen, I'm sure the City Council and the city Planning
Commission would jump at the chance to invite them in with open arms to
I develop that as such. In lieu of that, I look at that piece of property and
I guess I'm new to the history of it and I guess the applicant has been
remiss in some respects in his follow through in what he has been planning
for that. In all due respects, I think we should approach this as a new
I application for such use and look at it in that light. I think it will be
an improvement on that corner and to me the location is marketable as a
driving range and as a miniature golf course. I tend to favor that. Unless
' there is more stronger objections to granting a conditional use permit in
the Zoning Ordinance , I would favor it.
Emmings : I agree with Bob 100% that I can't imagine why we wouldn't have
I golf courses and driving ranges as a conditional use in the A-2 district. I
don't have any problem with that. I agree with the Staff that miniature
golf courses and indoor batting buildings such as this don't belong out
I there and belong in a commercial district. Then having said that, I guess
putting a miniature golf course with the rest of the things that are here,
the driving range and whatever a maxi-putt and putting green business all
I seems to be pretty cohesive and make sense in this particular project so I'm
having some problems with this. I don't have any problem with the driving
range being a conditional use in the A-2. I don't think there ought to be,
in condition 1, I don't agree that they ought to be abutting collectors. I
' think they should only be on arterials. On major streets, I think we want
to lean that way towards major roadways. I think the second condition is
very important that they only be operated from sunrise to sunset. I think
' that's adequate in the summer time and I think the lights would be a real
problem for anyone who lived around it. I guess that's all I got.
Erhart: I disagree regarding the issue of whether we should allow golf
I courses and these things in the A-2 area. I agree with Bob. I think we
really overlooked something in golf courses and I don't know enough that we
can lump practice areas in that or not so I don't have a strong feeling
Iabout that. I do have a strong feeling about buildings in the A-1 and A-2
areas. These metal buildings and they tend to be the area that acts as a
transitional area from agricultural to the residental. In south Chanhassen
I where people have built these metal buildings out in the country and I don't
know for what reason, where they have not been part of a farm homestead ,
they are really an eyesore. Even though some of them are well kept up, they
don't fit so with respect to that, I would real against, that batting
I practice thing requires metal or any kind of a major industrial type, any
kind of a non-farm building or a non-house, I don't think it ought to be
part of the A-2 or A-1. I think it should not be part of the A-2 district.
I I agree with Steve entirely as far as the driving range. I guess as long as
it's on TH 5 with the correct word is major arterial, I guess it's okay.
Certainly the one the John ran just west of the City here, as long as there
I wasn't any buildings and the grass was mowed, I didn't think it was an
eyesore at all. Regarding the building on the other hand, if we're going to
put a driving range in here, you probably have to have some small building
to keep the tractor and stuff out of the rain so I guess I wouldn't mind a
small wooden garage or something just to maintain that kind of thing but
I
II
C
Planning Commission Meeting '
April 22, 1987 - Page 32
certainly not a permanent industrial type building. I agree the hours ought,
to be sunrise to sunset. The second concern, I think in the A-2 area is to
emphasize that we do not want retail business in the A-2 area. For example,
I can't have a retail nursery on my nursery farm. I can have wholesale but
you can't have retail. Again, reflecting on that, we have to be real
careful if we're going to use it at all , I think it should be on TH 5. That
is the only appropriate place to have this in the City. So the rest of the II
commission can think about that retail issue and we've got to be real
careful about that. We consistently said we do not want retail business
activities down there. I like 4 that certainly it should not be within 500'
feet of a single family residence. Our wholesale nursery and contractor
yards basically have to fit with that rule.
Conrad: I have nothing more to add. I think golf courses and driving
ranges are appropriate in Chanhassen. I don't think that buildings out in
that area, specifically indoor batting buildings, is what I want to see but
to use the land that way, I think is appropriate. I would vote for that
type of a use in a A-2 district. My only comments other than that are we
should have, if we make a motion in favor , somebody might want to work the
word golf course in. We don't need to and maybe a golf course is a whole I
different set of circumstances. I don't know. The other part that I would
like to see is an intent statement in terms of why we're allowing this and I
guess one of the intents that I would see as a conditional use, is to
minimize impact on neighbors in terms of noise, traffic and lighting. I II think we need some kind of intent statement along with this if we do choose
to allow this as a conditional use.
Emmings: I wouldn't like to see golf courses included tonight for two
reasons. First of all, it's not in front of us and that always makes me
uncomfortable but secondly, Staff has obviously thought through the kinds of
conditions we should impose on a driving range, if we're going to allow that
as a conditional use and I don't see that they have had the opportunity to
think through conditions for golf courses as a conditional use and maybe
that ought to come back as a separate item. '
Conrad: That' s a good point.
*At this this point a motion was made and the following discussed occurred . I
Conrad: Steve, did you leave out miniature golf courses on purpose?
Emmings : Yes .
Siegel: Does the miniature golf course, in the eyes of us here, reflect as II
a retail establishment? Would that be the objection to including that
miniature golf course as a conditional use? It borders in the area of
retail establishment and service recreational type business.
Emmings : The way I think about a miniature golf thing fits into a
commercial area. It's compact. You can't put a driving range in just a
city lot. You need some room. Miniature golf courses don't bother me in
I
II Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1987 - Page 33
Ithe City, they bother me to think about them being out in the A-2. It just
doesn' t seem to fit at all .
ISiegel: I guess I tend to think of it as a similar type of use to a golf
driving range especially in conjunction with it. If we were to talk about
specifics, put a bunch of miniature golf courses 2 miles apart, maybe that
I would be a little bit different but we're talking about is a proposed
complex here. Not one being here and one being 1 mile down the road and
another one a mile down the road all in the A-2 district so I think it's a
I little bit different when you're looking at it as a package as just one
thing.
Emmings: Let me ask in that regard, let's say that we have passed this
I Zoning Amendment to allow it as a conditional use, if we were somehow
persuaded that a miniature golf place fit in with this particular driving
range project, could we allow it?
IDacy: What I hear you saying is that you feel that the driving range and
the miniature golf course really should act together and not a stand alone
I miniature golf situation so if you wanted to phrase your approval in the
framework that golf driving ranges subject to these conditions. Miniature
golf courses as an accessory use to the golf driving range, that would be an
option. You couldn't have a miniature golf course without a driving range
Ialong with it. If that's what you're saying.
Siegel : I guess to me it makes sense. The whole idea of having a miniature
I golf course, especially when you think about fathers and mothers going out
to a golf driving range and they've got a place for their kids to spend some
time. It's sort of a natural. I'm surprised there aren't more combinations
like that around.
I
Emmings: If we could, I guess what I would like to do since I made the
motion, is leave my motion out there the way it is and then maybe you can
I make a second motion to talk about miniature golf as an accessory use to the
driving range. Would that be alright?
I Dacy: Yes, and then you should look at what a miniature golf course is. It
does require more lights. You have the windmills and the people to hit the
ball through and so on so you have to consider those visual aspects also.
It is different than a driving range .
IErhart : I would like to see us go back and spend some more time on this one
and define it a little bit better. I'm really against putting anything in
I the A-2 area that visually is not consistent with either residential or
agriculture and I think you can make a driving range consistent with
agricultural but I think we ought to define what the landscaping is going to
I be. Buildings in some kind of terms. What buildings can be put on there?
I've seen driving ranges with 16 foot high fences and then in a couple years
they're falling down.
Emmings: Tim, don't we retain complete control over that when it's under
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1987 - Page 34
our conditional use? That to me is the whole reason that it should be in
there as a conditional use rather than a permitted use because we retain a
lot of control over the plan and the landscaping and what the buildings are '
going to be.
Headla: I doubt that you have that much control over a conditional use. It
has to get pretty bad. I
Emmings: No. When the plan comes in Dave, we look at it before anything
gets built and we say we only allow you to build it if you do the '
landscaping this way. If you show us the plan for the building you're going
to build and we approve it.
Headla : I 'm referring to Tim' s comments . '
Emmings: You're talking about maintaining it after it's built. That's
always a problem yes . '
Headla: I think Tim made the comment very well in that a conditional use
permit is very hard to police at times. I think a good example of that is I
the horse riding farm. Once they were in there and there was a dust
problem, and I was involved with that to some extent, it's hard to say you
people created 80% of the dust. It's pretty hard to shut them down because
there is nothing to enforce that. Once they were in there, they were in 11
there.
Dacy: The advantage to the Zoning Ordinance now is that, that original
conditional use permit was approved several years ago and we do a lot more
restrictions in our current ordinance and that's the purpose of this
amendment process is to establish those type of conditions. If you wanted
to add no metal buidlings on the golf driving ranges or a suggested
condition, just authorize a building to take tickets or whatever, can't
exceed 800 square feet. I don't know but you have that ability to establish
conditions through this process . 1
Emmings: There are two other things. A conditional use permit can be
revoked if they don't live up to the conditions. Mr. Pryzmus has already
found that out on one occasion. That's worked here. To say that a golf
driving range or golf course doesn't fit in the A-2, means that we're
banning all driving ranges and that doesn't make sense to me. They are a
conditional use, not as a permitted use just so anybody can put on anywhere
they want to , as a conditional use .
Conrad : Tim, you would like to see other conditions in that other than what ,
we've got. Is that true?
Siegel: We're talking about the Zoning Ordinance amendment now, not the
conditional use permit right?
Dacy: Yes .
I Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1987 - Page 35
IErhart : We could put it in the Zoning Ordinance so we have driving ranges
are permitted as long as the club house is kept to a 35-40, we can put that
in there if we want and one storage shed. You could add those as part of
Ithe Zoning Ordinance. On the other hand, I guess if all we're allowing is
that the driving range it wouldn't make any economic sense to put much more
than that on it. Just a small garage and small clubhouse. Maybe it would
I police itself. The other thing I would be more inclined to go along with is
if we actually restricted it to TH 5 or TH 212 but I will not vote for it if
this can be put on TH 101 or Lyman Blvd . . I just think that ' s dead wrong.
IHeadla : What are we really voting on now?
Conrad: We're voting on an Ordinance change and as Steve's motion said, he
I is recommending that golf driving ranges be a conditional use in the A-2
district. We're not talking about John's proposal now. We're talking
simply about, is it appropriate to allow driving ranges in Chanhassen
Ibecause right now you can' t have them.
Headla: So if we were to say no, we don't want any of this. We do what the
t Ordinance says as is. That does not prohibit anyone from coming in and
getting a conditional use?
Conrad: They can't get a conditional use because it's prohibited right now.
IThere is no way to apply for a driving range right now.
Headla : It is explicitedly prohibited?
IDacy: Yes. The use is not allowed in any district.
Conrad : But what we're saying in this request is , we will allow it as a
I conditional use but Dave, nobody can come into town right now and build one.
John wants to build one and he's got to have us effect the Zoning Ordinance
right now if he 's to build anything.
IDacy: If I can make one more comment before you take action on that motion.
On the collector and arterial condition, it concerns me if you do limit it
I to just two highways or to an arterial because to me that construes that you
can only get access from that arterial highway. We wouldn't want to create
a driveway situation off of TH 5 so the benefit of having a collector in
there, in this particular situation, is that you can have access of the
I major street. All the streets in the rural area are collectors or arterials
anyway but I think we should preserve the arterial to keep that flow through
traffic and not allow addition interruption .
IErhart: What about stating within 700 feet of TH 5 or TH 212. Have access
from. . .
Dacy: You are saying more of a location?
Erhart: Yes exactly. What you're talking about is putting a retail
Ibusiness out in the rural area and I think the only place you want to do
I
Planning Commission Meeting '
April 22, 1987 - Page 36
that is on TH 5 or TH 212.
Dacy: Then in that case I guess I would recommend that you look at amending
number 1 to location near an arterial street with access to a collector or '
arterial . Again , it all depends on it ' s location.
Erhart: It could be a collector but as long as it was on TH 5 or TH 212.
The access points can be on the collector .
Dacy: It is subjective because where do you draw the lines? At 500, 1,000 I
or 1, 500?
Emmings: What if we said location on an arterial with access to a collector
for ingress and egress? '
Siegel : Wouldn't that be part of the conditional use instead of the Zoning
Ordinance?
Dacy: Yes, the benefit of the conditional use will allow you to look at the
individual case.
Emmings : No. My motion is going to leave that in and I 'll tell ou why.
Y
Conrad: Leave what in? '
Emmings : It's going to leave in a condition that will state that it will be
located on an arterial with access to a collector for ingress and egress and
the reason is , if someone comes in and our ordinance already says they can
only look at places along arterials, we're going to have a lot less trouble
with those people than if they come in and say, okay I want it over here and
your Ordinance doesn' t say I can' t. '
Erhart: But you've got Pioneer Trail and TH 101 and Lyman Blvd. are all
arterials . '
Dacy: As the motion is on the floor now, item 1 is location on an arterial
street as identified in Article VI, Section 25.
Conrad : Steve, do you want to amend that?
Emmings: Yes. Again, I think it should be located on an arterial street
with access to a collector for ingress and egress. I guess what we're
saying is we don't want them just anywhere in the agricultural district. We
want them on major roadways but we don't want their driveway coming onto I
that major roadway. We want them like here, on a corner where they've got
access to a collector so the turn can be made off of TH 5 onto Galpin and
then get in and out on Galpin so they aren't actually turning off that
arterial. They don't have their driveway on the arterial but we want them II
located on major roadways rather than just scattered anywhere.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22 , 1987 - Page 37
Siegel: Now where are we Mr. Chairman. We've had a motion and a second and
we ' re in discussion stage and he wants to make an amendment to his motion?
IConrad: That's correct so I withdraw my original second and second your
motion on your change Steve just to get this going. Is there anymore
discussion?
1 Erhart moved, Headla seconded to amend the motion to limit the golf driving
ranges must be adjacent to either TH 5 or TH 212 and access must be from a
I collector or an arterial which leads to TH 5 or TH 212. Erhart, Emmings and
Headla voted in favor and Siegel and Conrad opposed the amendment, and
motion carried .
I Emmings moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow driving ranges in the A-2
district as a conditional use with the following conditions :
1. The location is limited to being adjacent to TH 5 and TH 212 and
access must be from a collector or an arterial which leads to TH 5
or TH 212.
2. Hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset.
3. Provision of adequate parking areas and submission of a landscaping
plan in conformance with Article VIII .
4. No site shall be located within 500 feet of single family
residences .
All voted in favor except Headla who opposed .
IHeadla: The reason being that I think there are far too many negatives
situations that can happened as compared to the upside advantages. In
1 respect to both the adjacent landowners and the City.
Conrad: John we'll bring you back on board. We're going to open up the
public hearing for the second stage of this which is where you are asking
for a conditional use permit. You are asking for a golf driving range.
Barbara, because we have turned down a miniature golf course and/or batting
building , should John continue to pursue and present his proposal in full?
IDacy: I think so.
Pryzmus: Basically, financially I can't even proceed, by taking out the
miniature golf and the indoor activities, financially for me, it makes it
impossible. What you basically did was take away the foundation and the
walls and you're giving me the roof so I can't enter into a contractual
agreement with the City to spend $300,000.00 to basically make a beautiful
driving range. I already have the driving range sprinkler systems already
in. The tee area is already built. The greens are already done. The
sandtrap is there. The classified parking lot that we originally was agreed
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting I
April 22, 1987 - Page 38
upon five years ago is in and I need to do some minimal grading to open it I
up. So when you mentioned that the miniature golf, this is a sports
complex. Not just a temporary use driving range. The miniature golf as you
see on I-494 on the strip where it's all concrete and also in Excelsior
where they have all rock, now on my developmental plan we are using
approximately, I haven't walked and measured it all off, but for the batting
cages and the miniature golf, we're using with parking somewhere around 6 '
acres. 5 to 6 acres in a commercially zoned area would make it financially
impossible, especially when you build a building that's going to conform
with all the buildings in the industrial park. But getting back to what is I
going to be nice for the community, as Roger said , it is part of the gateway
from the west. With the landscape architecture plans that we have submitted
and this will all be done through the City, we will be adding anywhere from
4 to 8 foot berms throughout the miniature golf. They will be maintained by'
a neighbor out there. I have a full time manager hired to run it. A full
time grounds keeper. He will be there 5 days a week, or 3 or whatever it
takes. The trees , we will basically have up lighting on all the berms with 1
the shurbs. There are, even though it hasn't been maintained as an
arboretum right now, most all the trees are planted. There will be another
additional 100 some trees planted. I appreciate your voting to allow
driving ranges but I don't know what you want me to sign in a contractual
agreement to do what when I can't have basically two-thirds of what I'm
proposing. The building itself and where it's situated, this plan was drawn
up before we decided where the on-site septic system would go and with the II
additional setbacks, the building can be set back 100 feet. With the bank
being taken down 10 feet and the berm coming up 4 feet so this building
would absolutely, that's 14 feet in itself and the building is only 15 feet II
high. No it goes from 14 feet to 15.8 basically with a flat roof. The
building would be all cedar on the outside. The roof is metal but when I
insulate it, it would be like a compco roof. There is a neighbor that lives
south on TH 101 that is getting a price together for me now so the building '
would not be a tin shed. In this area there is permitted use. In fact, I
have to get financing on the building so I would have to come to the City to
get a building permit to build a contractor's yard, a nursery, a hog farm or 1
whatever. I'm going to have to do something with the property and the
building is already there so I do have to do something with it and I just
felt that for the community and the neighbors, with all the landscaping. It
used to be a tree farm so there are already 300 some trees, I think the two,
the miniature golf and the driving range are just a natural. People are
going to come out. If you have any children, how many people say, what can
we do mommy or what can we do? There's nothing to do in Chanhassen. That's
the biggest thing ever since I've been here for 13 years, there's nothing to
do in this town. Here we have no booze. We have basically no noise. Golf
balls don't make any noise. We have no dust problem. We really have no I
problems other than something that should be nice for the community. The
cost of the building in the central business district, I just sold a piece
of land that this would basically be the only place in Chanhassen that it
could go right now and that land with the building that it would take, would I
cost a couple million dollars. Financially you could never do that project
here so the citizens of Chanhassen won't have this project. The location
out there, being that it is on a major highway. It is not conducive to
I
11
I Planning Commission Meeting
April 22 , 1987 - Page 39
IIestate homes. When you have 20,000 cars driving by every day, everyone
knows what the land, I paid $4,000.00 per acre for 5 years ago when the land
I was going for a lot more because people aren't buying it for farmland. I
did buy it on a contingency that I could have the driving range so by not
being able to show you what—we're using pictures and dimensions from
courses in California and Florida and I want this to be the nicest and well
I thought out miniature golf course. If you've ever played mini-putt over in
Minnetonka, we measured that out and wanted to at least have the trees and
shurbs and greenery that they have. We aren't proposing any elephants or
I ducks or geese or anything that's going to look bad. I want it to be fun.
We're going to do a lot of underground things with PVC. Little kids like
when the ball disappears and then it comes up. The mini-putt, to get back
to what mini-putt and maxi-putt is, a mini-putt for kids anywhere from 4 or
I 5 years old up to 9 or 10. You take them to a real tought miniature golf
course and they get very discouraged. Everybody likes to do good so it
would be a real interesting little course but their ball always winds up in
I a good spot so they can score good but it won't be interesting enough for
your 11, 12, 13 and your adults so the maxi-putt would be that. I'm trying
to get something for the whole family. The batting cages, I don't know if
I any of you have ever had children in Little League but the worse thing that
can happen is when your little guy strikes out twice in a row and he comes
back crying. When I was in the Jaycees we bought one batting machine for
the CAA but there just isn't enough time for all the little kids to use that
I one batting machine. The building itself would be basically not seen from
the highway. Right now, in a farm zoned area, you can build basically
whatever you want for a hog farm , dairy farm, whatever. I want to have a
' lot nicer building than that. It's going to be totally screened but by
taking away, like I say, the foundation. I appreciate your motion to allow
the driving range.
IDacy: Given their action, the next item on the agenda is literally a
conditional use permit for a driving range. You have a couple of options.
You can withdraw that application right now so they would not carry out the
I review of the driving range and the matter would just go on to Council to
determine the Ordinance amendment but if they do allow the driving range and
everything else, it will have to come back and go through the plan review.
So, do you want them to carry out the review just for the driving range or
are you withdrawing your application at this point?
Pryzmus : I want the driving range but what I'm saying is I can't really
I enter into any contracts if I only have the driving range. I appreciate
your motion for the driving range.
I Conrad: John, I think there was some sensitivity to the miniature golf
here. It wasn't voted that way but there was discussion. City Council may
entertain that thought. I don' t know just because we voted one way. I
I think they will be consistent in some of the things that we're saying. I
think some philosophical things will carry out based on what we're saying
but I'm sure that miniature golf is totally out but I don't know if you want
to carry it forth . It ' s really up to you.
I
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting 1
April 22 , 1987 - Page 40
Pryzmus : I want to carry it forward.
Dacy: What we could do is, this is going to the Council on May 4th, you
could come back to the Planning Commission on May 13th for permit review if I
it ' s approved . I know you have some timing restrictions .
Pryzmus: That is to enter into another agreement so they have the site plan'
and other additional uses . Okay.
Dacy: I would have to come back and you probably wouldn't get approval
before June 1st. It would be more time if they don' t review it.
Pryzmus: But they can't review it if you are going to leave the motion
standing just for driving range. Let's just take the driving range and I'll,
have to spend another month. I don't know what else to do because you've
made the motion and that' s your feelings so I don' t have an option.
Conrad: Well, you probably do. I guess Barb is just giving you some
advice. What did you two decide?
Dacy: I think you are asking us to go ahead and review just the golf 1
driving range.
Siegel : You still want it to go before Council in total?
Pryzmus : I want it to go before Council in total because if I don' t . . .
Dacy: Okay, then the Conditional Use Permit and the Wetland Alteration 1
Permit, they will make a motion to table that pending Council final action
on the Ordinance amendment . '
Pryzmus: Let's do the wetland. We can do the wetlands now because that's
part of the driving range. That has nothing to do with the miniature golf.
Dacy: So you are saying to go ahead with the driving range? in
Pryzmus: Yes. ,
Conrad : Okay, this is a public hearing . Any comments?
Siegel moved, Erhart seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor II
and motion carried .
Emmings: One thing that I notice that there is in the landscaping it says I
existing ash , 2 to 2 1/2 inches in diameter and points to that whole long
row of trees . When I drove by there tonight , I didn ' t see any trees at all .
Dacy: There are trees out there. There are a number of trees out there as
John has mentioned . They are small .
Emmings: 2 1/2 inches in diameter? 1
I
II Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1987 - Page 41
IIDacy: Some are but not all .
I Emmings : And does it go across the whole property the way it's portrayed on
this?
Dacy: It's along TH 5, yes. Some, I think may be dead. A lot of them
didn' t have leaves on them as of yesterday.
Emmings : Put in a condition that they have to be living trees?
IDacy: They are identifying existing conditions. The specific thing that
the Commission should address is the appropriateness of the lighting and the
fencing proposals. Those are some of the things that Staff kind of flagged
I out. With just the driving range, there was a taller lighting standard in
the southwest corner. Your previous motion was for the operation of the
driving range from sunrise to sunset so in my mind that lighting scheme
Ifalls out and you need to address that one way or the other.
Headla: What does he need the lighting for? If you don't give him lights,
II that kind of insures that it doesn' t go past sunset.
Dacy: I realize that. I was just saying that I wanted to make sure that
the Commission was comfortable with that.
IIEmmings: Is there any reason they have the lights? That you would want the
lights?
IIPryzmus: As you know, there is a group home west of me. I'm not saying
anything bad about group homes but the contractor's yard, the residents over
II here, everyone in the farm community has security lights and a person could
get in and raise all kinds of heck with the putting green or whatever and I
feel that I need some security maintenance out there. With the putting
green being in the southwest corner, that will give me the security down
1 there. I also had security on the front of the indoor activity building but
I wouldn' t propose any more lighting than the average farm has .
IEmmings: How tall is that light? How high above the ground is that light
itself?
Pryzmus : I don ' t know what NSP puts in .
Emmings : It ' s just one of those standard lights?
Pryzmus: It's a standard light that would be on a farm. The other thing, I
guess I cut it short when the public hearing was closed but as far as the
fencing , there will be the fencing around the perimeter of it will be the
I same as Prince's fencing down the street. It will be the black fencing and
the fencing on the west and across the north border will be the fencing
that's out there. It is a silver fence but it will all be 6 feet high.
There won't be any need to protect any roads or anything. The driving will
1 be hitting to the north.
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting I
April 22, 1987 - Page 42
Emmings: Barbara , I see one light . Are there more?
Dacy: Yes, the light in the southwest corner is the only one that you had I
shown on the plan outside of the putting area. The miniature golf course
lights but if the miniature golf course is not there, then those lights fall
out . Other than those, that was the only light , correct?
Pryzmus: We have lighting on the path underneath the trees .
Dacy: For the tee area . '
Pryzmus : This is a path in back of the tee area.
Dacy: You' re saying these are 10 feet in height?
Pryzmus: Yes, those are 10 feet in height. They would be a down light. It
was to light the path but if we ' re not going to be open. . . I
Dacy: Along the tee area they are proposing a series of 10 foot lights
there. '
Pryzmus: In back of the tee area there is a path. I put trees every 30
feet and then they are diagonally across from one another and the lights
would be in the tree area .
Dacy: But again, if they condition from sunrise to sunset and they are not
there for security reasons. 1
Headla : Where would that 6 foot fence be?
Pryzmus: A 6 foot fence would surround the whole property. ,
Headla : Everytime you drive by TH 5 you see a big black fence .
Pryzmus: Yes, it would be about the same as the arboretum fence only it
would be black. It would be the same as Prince ' s fence down half a mile.
Headla: Have you people seen that fence? Go take a look at it .
Pryzmus: If you don't like black fence, I don't have to put it. I thought
maybe you would like it because it was the same as Prince' s.
Conrad: In trying to understand Staff's analysis of the wetland. In Gary's
report, are those conditions bundled in to the Staff recommendations? I
Dacy: Yes .
Conrad: And Gary, basically you have a lot of concerns with the area from all
wetlands standpoint and some other things. Were your conditions as stated,
were they worded so that if we decided to allow filling in the wetlands,
these things have to be done? I didn't see a statement that said that. I '
1
11
II Planning Commission Meeting
April 22 , 1987 - Page 43
IIsaw Rockwell's comments saying that the wetlands shouldn't be filled in.
That there are some senstive areas and whatever. How do I interpret your
comments at the end on the attachment?
I
Warren: I admit it got a little confusing as we got into it. In trying to
interpret our Wetlands Ordinance, that was part of the thrust that I was
I responding to some of the deficiencies that the submittal has in relation to
the Wetlands Ordinance. I guess the final bottom line of my comments would
be that if you go ahead that the recommendations that I have shown should be
I enforced as far as sedimentation basin and then some of these things. I
guess in general that ' s where I was coming from.
Conrad: In brief, I'm not sure that I've seen a hardship or a real reason
I to allow the filling in of the wetlands. I would have a tough time going
along with. I don't think the measures pointed out are necessary. I prefer
to keep the wetlands operating. It appears from Rockwell's comments, I
I wasn't sure about the trade-offs that she was mentioning. I was having a
tough time interpretting that.
IDacy: When we went out to inspect the site , as you know, the area has been
cultivated. What she came back and said was that it's not good for habitat
purposes. However, it is performing some type of function for storm water
run-off to Bluff Creek. All that's out there now are the regrasses and so
I on. It is not protected by the DNR because of their particular restrictions
on vegetation and so on. What she said was that they have looked at the
situation where, as in the Centex case, if you alter one part of the
I wetland, if you improve another part of it, they will accept that. In this
case, the applicant has no access to other property. He doesn't own any
other property that contains additional wetlands area. He would have to
gain that easement right over to do that. If you deny the wetlands
I alteration permit, you would in effect deny use of the property as a driving
range.
I Conrad: There are two issues here. As a conditional use permit for the
golf driving range. There is also a wetlands alteration permit that we have
to respond to also. As I said, based on the Ordinance for the wetlands
I alteration permit, we haven't solved the problem. There hasn't been a
trade. It's almost impossible to solve the problem with the wetland and
therefore, I guess I would have a tough time. I don't see how he can
maintain the ordinance and the intent of the ordinance with the current
Iproposal . Is there a motion?
Siegel : Barbara, don't your recommendations make the wetlands permit
Iapplicable to the wetland ordinance?
Dacy: Yes. That's true. However, because we are unsure about what would
I happen to the ordinance amendment in the first case, we really didn't
specify a motion as we do in other cases but Gary correct me, your
conditions are directed toward gaining additional information and
recommending a permit sedimentation basin there if alteration was allowed.
I
I
11
k
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1987 - Page 44
Warren: Right.
Siegel : And some of Gary's recommendations were contingent on the total
project. Not just the golf driving range right?
Warren : My recommendations are based on the total project.
Siegel : You had something about run-off from the building .
Warren : That ' s correct .
Siegel: In lieu of that, does that make any change in your recommendations
set by Staff?
Dacy: As far as the drainage issue, it eliminates additional hard roof
area, that calculation from the drainage but I think the overall drainage
plan and so on still remains intact. All of these conditions could be I
applied for a recommendation of approval except for number 1. If you have
some type of preference for the lighting scheme and you should probably
identify the hours of operation if you are going to recommend approval . '
Siegel : I thought we already did that with the previous motion?
Dacy: Yes, you did but I guess I would prefer that you clarify it in this II
application.
Emmings: If someone were to vote to deny the wetland alteration permit
would it make the conditional use permit moot?
Dacy: Yes .
Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial
of the application for the Wetland Alteration Permit. All voted in favor
except Siegel and motion carried . '
Siegel: I thought I was assured that Staff would ensure with their
recommendations to satisfy the alteration permit. ,
Conrad : You can minimize the impact on the wetland but the Ordinance says .
Siegel : In essence, we are denying the property owner any use of his land.
Conrad: No. For a golf driving range because he apparently needs more
property. ,
Siegel: I fail to see the effect of a golf driving range on a piece of bare
land to me is less impact on it than any other type of use.
Emmings : He has to fill in the wetlands to use it as a olf driving
g g range.
I
(7 _.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1987 - Page 45
II
Siegel : I still disagree. I think Staff came up with recommendations that
Ithe applicant could adhere to and meet the use of the land for his purpose.
Pryzmus: That piece of land has been farmed for 100 years. It was
homesteaded and last year with the wettest year we ever had, it was down
I twice in the spring and in the fall. There has never been any water
standing there and so, when you reach your Ordinance about what is a Class A
wetland or what is a protected wetland, it's anything that is going to have
I any water if there is a 100 year rain. Basically, most of your communities
are built to Class A wetlands according to that Ordinance so I don't want
you to get real carried away with thinking that I'm filling in a lake. It's
a piece of farmland. It's low and it's advantageous to me to put in a
Icouple feet of fill so my ballpicker, when it's raining, won't squeeze the
balls into the ground. There isn't going to be any change. There isn't
going to be any buildings close to the creek. The water will still flow
I very smoothly. It's going to be nothing but mowed grass and so I think
sometimes you're getting a little carried away with what I'm doing in there.
The wetlands seems to throw the trigger so address that. It is a farm. It
I always has been a farm. There are no cattails. There has never been
standing water there ever. I drove through there the other day with my
pick-up. Now, it's been a dry spring. Last spring it was the wettest
spring we've had for years so it's not wetlands so I want people to realize
' that.
I WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO INSTALL THE LAKE ANN INTERCEPTOR AND LAKE
VIRGINIA FORCEMAIN IN AND NEAR CLASS A AND CLASS B WETLANDS ALONG THE
ALIGNMENT RUNNING SOUTHEASTERLY FROM TH 41 TO TH 5, THROUGH CHANHASSEN LAKES
BUSINESS PARK, NORTH OF LAKE SUSAN AND INTO EDEN PRAIRIE, METROPOLITAN WASTE
ICONTROL COMMISSION, APPLICANT.
Public Present :
ILeander Kerber 1620 Arboretum Blvd .
IBarbara Dacy presented the staff report on this item.
Leander Kerber: I have concern with it because it's going to go right
I across the south end of my property on TH 5. I have the property between
the City park and the nursery. My question is, as long as it's zig-zagging
around, why don't they cross the highway down the road 500 feet to 1,000
I feet and stay off of my property. Another question is, am I going to be
assessed for that now or when am I supposed to pay for it or am I going to
have to pay? If so , why?
IDacy: The interceptor at this time is not proposed to be assessed during
this year and in 1987. The Metropolitan Council will not allow us or allow
property owners in that owner to hook up into that interceptor until after
Ithe year 2000 so there are no assessments at this time.
I
U
Planning Commission Minutes II
August 12, 1982
Page 7
Noziska moved, seconded by Conrad, to recommend approval of the II
Conditional Use Permit changes as proposed in Section 1. 02, 1. 03 ,
3 . 01 , and 5 . 01 as follows :
II
1. 02 - Adds the word development in recognition that the new
Master Plan replaces the previous concept plan and specifys more
I
clearly facility development objectives .
1 . 03 - the language has been changed to refer this section of the
permit to the adopted Master Plan . I
3 . 01 - this section is to be amended to include the new design
capacities setforth in the new Master Plan .
I
5 . 01 - this section is amended to reference that the parks and
recreation open space element of the Carver County Comprehensive
Plan includes a committement by the County that it is their '
responsibility to provide regional parks of metropolitan signifi-
cance which are to serve the county population and residence of
the region as well.
II
The following voted in favor : Partridge, J. Thompson, M.
Thompson, Noziska , Conrad . Watson - opposed. Motion carried. I
Watson explained that she voted against the motion because the
regional park is located in an unsewered area and should not have
any form of development in that -area, also she felt that the City
II
does not have the police power to watch 450 group campers .
Subdivision Variance and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request, 7300
I
Galpin Lake Road, Public Hearing , Frank Stefonic:
Present John & Diane Hennessy, 7305 Galpin Blvd..
Dean Eilen , 6142 Ridgewood Drive I
Patricia Walberg, St. Bonifacius
Frank Stefonoc , Mound
Jim Lito I
John Pryzmus , 7476 Saratoga Drive
Partridge opened the public hearing at 10 : 30 p.m. I
Waibel explained to the Planning Commission that the applicant is
requesting to subdivide an 18 acre parcel in the unsewered area
of the City , and requesting a zoning ordinance amendment to
II
locate a driving range in a residential district .
Waibel explained that this is a variance request from Ordinance II 45 and is different from other such requests because the appli-
cant is not requesting any building permits .
II
II
. , 4-
� r
A rev o'°
II GGO,
Planning Commission Minutes o,J
August 12 , 1982
I Page 8
Waibel explained that the request for a driving range in an
Agricultural/Residential district would require an amendment to
I the Zoning Ordinance . He further explained that golf courses are
permitted uses in an agricultural district and that driving
ranges are very similar in use . He also stated that the appli-
' cant is requesting to construct a miniature golf course.
An adjacent property owner stated that they could not subdivide
I their property and were wondering how the applicants would be __
able to do so . They also expressed concern regarding the inter-
section becoming dangerous with more traffic .
I Watson asked if the applicants could subdivide if there is no
sewer . Partridge stated that the intent of Ordinance 45 is to
preserve agricultural property. J. Thompson asked what the -
I applicant is going to do without buildings and what type of sewer
system they are proposing .
Pryzmus stated that they are planning on using satillite systems - -
' for the sewer, and are planning on digging a well .
The adjacent property owner stated that everyone in the area -
' wants to subdivide their property, but cannot because of
Ordinance 45 .
1 Watson made a motion , seconded by Noziska , to close the public
hearing . All voted in favor and-the motion carried.
,V-61- Watson moved , seconded by J. Thompson , to recommend to the City
I Council to deny the request for subdivision approval and to deny
the amendment to the zoning ordinance in an R-1A, Agricultural
Residential District based on Ordinance 45 which states there
I shall be no subdivision on unsewered land . All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
Street Vacation Request , Lot 4, Block 1, and Lot 4, Block 2,
IMoline Addition :
Present: Don Kelly, 2081 West 65th Street I
IRichard Atherton , 2082 West 65th Street
Waibel presented the staff report to the Planning Commission . He
stated that the applicants are requesting to vacate a portion of
Ithe right-of-way of West 65th Street.
Waibel explained that staff recommends approval with the con-
' dition that the applicants dedicate a pedestrian easement along
the watermain, and that the right-of-way for the West 65th Street
cul-de-sac be dedicated when the street vacation is filed .
I -
I
ir- .
Council Meeting October , 1982
-3- 1
Councilman Neveaux moved to approve the September 7 , 1982 , Council minutes
as amended . Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson . The following voted
I
in favor : Mayor Hamilton , Councilwoman Swenson , Councilmen Neveaux and
Horn . Councilman Geving abstained . Motion carried .
Councilman Geving moved to approve the September 20 , 1982 , Council I
minutes . Motion seconded by Councilman Horn . The following voted in
favor : Mayor Hamilton , Councilwoman Swenson , Councilmen Neveaux , Geving ,
and Horn . No negative votes . Motion carried .
I
Councilman Neveaux moved to note the September 22 , 1982 , Public Safety
Liaison Commission minutes . Motion seconded by Councilman Geving . The
I
following voted in favor : Mayor Hamilton , Councilwoman Swenson ,
Councilmen Neveaux, Geving , and Horn . No negative votes . Motion carried .
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, ALLOW DRIVING RANGES/MINIATURE GOLF COURSES
I
IN R-1A DISTRICT: John Przymus, Frank Stefanoc , petitioners , and several
area residents were present . The petitioners requested that the Council
reconsider their action of August 23 , 1982 , in which the Council acted to
I
amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow as a conditional use in an R-lA
District golf driving ranges but not miniature golf courses . Two
petitions were presented , one in opposition to the request and one
supporting the request . John Przymus gave a brief presentation of the 'f
proposal . Dick Lyman and Merle Volk spoke in favor of the proposal .
Bill Soth , Dani and John Hennessy, Bob Larsen , Roger Hennessy, Roger
Schmidt , Mary Welter , Jerry Gustafson , and Leo Welter spoke in opposition .
I
Councilman Neveaux - Obviously there are two points of view and depending
on which side of the table or which side of the issue
II
you sit at both of them are right and that ' s what
makes these decisions up here very difficult . That ' s
why we have zoning ordinances . That ' s why within the
ordinances themselves there are opportunities to I
modify and change them . Because it was adopted in
1972 does not mean that that stamps it paid in full
s no changes ever allowed , that we have absolutely
r< looked at every possible situation and every possible II.
4 land use that will ever occur . If we did you would ;
have to elect one City Council and then adopt an
ordinance and then get rid of them because you don ' t I
need them any more . What I am trying to get at is
I think the issue here is land use . We should
attempt to divorce ourselves from the personalities
I
t , involved . I really feel uncomfortable with these
things when you get neighbor against neighbor,
businessman against private citizen , farmer versus
the non-farmers , polarize the whole community . It ' s I
extremely unfortunate . Something that I don ' t think
really in our hearts none of us want . I think we I
need to look at this as somewhere down the line
there has got to be a compatible use for that
property . If it were to be R-lA, which is what it
i is , then it ' s agricultural residence , you can ' t put a
I
building on it because we have Ordinance 45 and we
17.. want to control building so the land sits fallow.
It probably is too small to be an agriculturally
II
economic piece of property as agricultural , so what
I
•
_ s
Council Meeting October 4 , 1982 -4-
do you do , just let it sit and the weeds grow and
I some kind of interim use , I think , is appropriate.
My opinion has not changed from several weeks ago
that I think the use on that property would be
compatible with everybody concerned and that would
I be the driving range . I still believe the miniature
golf is an intensification beyond the quasi -
agricultural usage that the driving range would
I give to it . My position has not changed . I believe
that a driving range could be adequately handled so
that it would be a compliment to the area and would
be not that different from the approved agricultural
I uses . I personally do not believe that we could go
any further , I could go any further , as far as
commercialization .
I Councilman Horn - My view has not changed strictly from a point of land
use . I think as was pointed out , commercial area
is justified for the use that was outlined and for things
I like driving ranges , golf courses which take a large
amount of land , require that in an area that is zoned
less costly that a commercial area .
Councilwoman Swenson - I guess in essence I guess I tend to agree with
I Councilman Neveaux and Councilman Horn . I have
other concerns , however , about the miniature golf
and that ' s a matter of sanitation . I am concerned
I about , without water , how this can be handled and
since this is in an R-lA area I am assuming other •
applications would be similarly without sewer .
Councilman Geving - I think I realize that if I were to own that piece of 1
I property that to do something other than pay taxes
to get something back out of the land would concern
me as a property owner . I think that that property,
I much of which is unsewered , is in a transition stage
and that some day something will develop there either
in an industrial manner or at some point we might
I consider running a pipe out from Chanhassen all the
way to 41 , who knows . At the present time I
personally don ' t see anything wrong with the golf
driving range . I have conducted my own private survey
I of about 20 people in Chanhassen . I guess the vote
was something like 18 to two' very much in favor of
the golf driving range but about evenly split 10 and
I 10 opposed to the miniature golf . My own personal
view is that I would be in favor of the driving range
only from a sanitary sewer standpoint and what to do
with water , satellites and I guess eventually, what
Icould happen to another Council if this should go
in .
Mayor Hamilton - I think for the benefit of all of you folks who may not
I have had an opportunity to read our ordinance and what
the R-1A Agricultural Residence District , the purpose
is , I would like to read it to you . " The R-1A
I Agricultural Residence District is intended to provide a
district which will allow extensive areas of the village
to be retained in a lower population density in advance
of the need for these lands for extensive urban purposes
and to prevent the occurance of premature scattered urban
_a&
Council Meeting Octdr 4, 1982 <7 -S-
and development . " The purpose of the ordinance , I t
ate . think , was
not to keep the lands from developing . It was to help
ago us develop in a well organized manner over a period of II
years . I think interestingly enough , if I were a
Auld resident out there and someone were to come in who owned
iature that land and proposed to install a pig farm on that
corner , they would not have to come to this Council for
1 a
permit and you would have that across the street from
ieve you . That ' s a permitted use . I agree , also that the
d so land is probably one of the best locations in the City I
ould for this type of use for a driving range and possibly
tural for a mini problem , Y
d putt . I do have a however , with the
go intensification as the other Council members have said . I
I really would not care to see lighting out there and I
guess to my way of thinking if you don ' t have lights
and you don ' t survive in that type of business but that ' s
not my decision to make . I would not want to have any I
things kind of electricity on that piece of property . I
1e wouldn ' t want flood lights out there . That would
'ed certainly, in my opinion , be a terrible distraction to I
the neighbors . I agree that I think probably the best
h use for the property is for a driving range and it would
e fit nicely on that property and mini putt , although it ' s I
olf a good idea , perhaps right now is not the time to do
rued that .
and
ier Councilman Geving moved to deny the request for an amendment to Ordinance I
47-AD to allow miniature golf as a conditional use in the R-lA District .
of Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux . The following voted in favor :
Councilwoman Swenson , Councilmen Neveaux , Geving , and Horn . Mayor
n Hamilton voted no . Motion carried .
Y,
ge Councilman Neveaux moved the adoption of Ordinance 47-AD amending Section
her 6 .04 of Ordinance 47 at points 4 and 10 . Motion seconded by Councilman I
Horn . The following voted in favor : Mayor Hamilton , Councilwoman
Swenson , Councilmen Neveaux , Geving , and Horn . No negative votes . Motion
carried . '
'vey COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING FROM R-1A TO INDUSTRIAL , 8470
GALPIN BLVD . Merle Volk and Al Michaels were present. Mr. Michaels '
suggested that Ordinance 47 , Section 6 . 04 be amended which would encompass
d a conditional use permitted under the I -1 zoning , namely 12 . 04 , sub . 3 ,
where it provides that contractor ' s yards , when conducted entirely
ge within a fully enclosed structures or within a completely fenced area 1
o could be included in the R-lA area . That would take into consideration
both the agricultural use and the contractor ' s use . It would solve two
purposes , one that Mr . Volk would not be in violation of any of the
I
ordinances and two it gives everyone some time to think about the
I possibility of changing the entire area to an industrial zoning .
Council members discussed expanding the definition of a contractor ' s I
Yard to be included as a conditional use in an R-1A District . Standards
a discussed were : percentage of tillable acres , minimum number of acres ,
e screening of buildings , road classification , berming , fully enclosed I
structure , and building setback . Councilman Horn asked for a survey
s of these existing kinds of businesses so that the Council would know
an how many would be included in the definition and how many would be
excluded .
1111111111L.—_— — — ___
liMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CHANHASSEN y_____,,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APPRO`JEO 0�+1 J I -i - f='-
HELD OCTOBER 28 , 1982 AT 7: 30 P.M.
I COUNCIL CHAMBERS , 690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
IMembers Present: Ladd Conrad, Bill Swearengin, Mike Thompson, Jim
Thompson, and Carol Watson.
IIMembers Absent: Howard Noziska
Staff Present: Bob Waibel and Becky Foreman
I
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ladd Conrad at 7: 30 p.m.
IConditional Use Permit for Establishment of a Golf Driving Range, 7300
Galpin Road , Frank Stefonac , Public Hearing :
I Present: Frank Stefanoc , Mound
John B . Przymus , 7476 Saratoga Drive
Leo Welter, Eden Prairie
I Dean P. Eiler, Mound
Mary Welter, Chanhassen
Bernie Schmidt, Shakopee
I( John and Dani Hennessy, 7305 Galpin Blvd.
Conrad called the public hearing to order at 7: 35 p.m. Waibel pre-
sented the staff report to the Planning Commission and explained
I that the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a golf
driving range with 45 tees and 38 parking spaces to be located at the
northwest corner of the intersection of Galpin Road and Highway 5.
I Waibel said that the property is 18.1 acres in size, and that it is
presently zoned R-1A, Agricultural Residence.
Waibel explained that the applicant has indicated that he intends to
I groom the wetland area in order that mechanized ball pick up may be
used. Waibel further explained that the grooming would consist of
cutting down wetland vegetation and seeding with grasses similar to
I that which will be planted on the rest of the site. Waibel read
a letter from Mr . David Leuthe, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources , dated October 25 , 1982. Mr . Leuthe indicated in the letter
' that the wetland on the property has not been identified as a pro-
tected wetland of the state, that Bluff Creek is a protected water-
course of the state on the northern boundary, and that any work which
would change the course, current, or cross-section of Bluff Creek
Iwould require a permit from the DNR.
Conrad explained to the public that the City Council has amended
Ir- the zoning ordinance to provide for golf driving ranges in an
agricultural residence district.
Waibel said the applicant has indicated that they intend to have
lighting installed for night operation. Waibel suggested that the
lighting should only be used for grounds protection and not for
night time operation . Stefonac stated that the lighting will be
I
-1-..,e27
II
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28 , 1982 I
Page 2
Stefonac stated that the lighting will be shielded from the neighbors
and the roads . Hennessey, an adjoining neighbor, expressed his con-
cern regarding the proposed lighting. Hennessey indicated that he had
done some checking on other driving ranges in the area, and that they
do not operate past sunset. Hennessey stated that he is not in favor
of this request, he feels that the City will be setting a precedent
for other commercial developments . Pryzmus stated that the lighting
will only be around the tee area and that the lights will be shielded
from the road by willow trees .
M. Thompson asked how many tees the applicant is planning on putting
in . Waibel said that according to the standards set up for driving
ranges , 45-50 tees are acceptable for this size lot.
M. Thompson asked what the proposed hours of operation would be. ,
Waibel said that the present Chanhassen Driving Range operated from
sunrise to sunset; the applicant is proposing to operate until 10 p.m.
M. Thompson asked how large the proposed utility shed will be.
Waibel said that the utility shed will be a dome shape approxima-
Ctely 12 feet high and be located 50 feet from the road.
-
M. Thompson asked how large the trees being proposed will be.
Waibel said that the applicant indicated that the trees will be
3-5 inches in diameter in the northeast corner of the property.
Pryzmus said that the application indicates that he was planning
to plant trees to screen the Hennessey 's home, but now he does
not feel that their home will be affected by the driving range. ,
M. Thompson asked about parking. Waibel said that the applicant
will have to receive an access permit from the County. Waibel 11 explained that the County will recommend where the access should
be located for best sight and stacking distance. Pryzmus said
that they are planning on 38 parking spaces .
M. Thompson asked the applicant if they are planning on using satelli-
tes for sanitary facilities . Waibel indicated that satellites are
shown on the plan .
M. Thompson asked if they are planning on having vending machines on
the property. Waibel said that vending machines are not shown on the
plan . '
Watson asked how many parking spaces the present Chanhassen Driving
Range has . Pryzmus indicated that it has 15 parking spaces and that
maximum cars they have ever had at one time was seven . M. Thompson
asked if the Chanhassen Driving Range was successful. Pryzmus indi-
cated that financially, the driving range was not successful, but they
had limited space and could not expand.
1
I
C
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28 , 1982
r Page 3
C Mary Welter , an adjacent property owner , expressed her concerns
regarding the satellite sewer system. She felt that they are unsani-
tary and usually not well kept. Waibel stated that the owner of the
property has to keep them maintained.
' Swearengin asked Waibel to read the conditions which have to be pre-
sent in order for the Planning Commission to recommend approval of a
conditional use permit.
iWaibel said that the first condition is that the establishment,
maintenance or operation of the conditional use will not be detri-
mental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort,
or general welfare. Swearengin stated that he feels this request,
because there are so many neighbors against it , is infringing on
their comfort.
' Waibel said that the second condition is that the conditional use will
not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the
• immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substani-
tially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood.
Swearengin stated that this request will effect the neighbors -
enjoyment of their property as can be seen by their objections .
Waibel said that the third condition is that the establishment of the
conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and
I(1 '- improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the
district . Swearengin indicated that the surrounding property is
farmland and that the requested driving range will affect the develop-
ment of this land as farmland.
' Waibel said that the fourth condition is that the conditional use
shall , in all other respects , conform to the applicable regulations of
the district in which it is located. Swearengin stated that according
to Ordinance 45 , commercial development cannot be located in an
sewered area, and that the Planning Commission in the past has denied
' requests for other commercial development because they were in
unsewered areas .
Swearengin stated that he intends to resign if this request is passed
' by the City Council . Swearengin further stated that this is a commer-
cial venture on a corner that is not a commercial corner and also is a
bad corner trafficwise.
D. Hennessey indicated that they are totally against this proposal and
were very surprised at the City Council ' s approval of amending the
zoning ordinance to permit driving ranges in an agricultural residence
' district . D. Hennessey indicated that at the City Council meeting ,
Pryzmus stated that he had no intentions of putting lighting on the
property, she then asked Pryzmus why he is now requesting it.
Pryzmus indicated that they would not need to operate in the evenings
if they could have had a miniature golf course along with the driving
range , but now without the miniature golf , financially he will have to
stay open in the evenings . Pryzmus indicated that they would like to
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28 , 1982
Q.
Page 4 1
C . stay open until approximately 10 p.m. D. Hennessey indicated that she
objects to people driving in and out of the proposed driving range
past their home that late at night; she also objected to the proposed
lighting.
Leo Welter , Eden Prairie, indicated that if the City would allow a
commercial use on one corner, they will have to allow another commer-
cial use on the other corner . Bernie Schmidt indicated that she
should put up a go-cart *track on her corner . I
Watson moved, seconded by J. Thompson, to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
J. Thompson indicated that he feels this request is an inappropriate
use of the land, and that the City has set a precedent in the past
that no commercial use shall be located in an unsewered area.
J. Thompson also stated that he was very surprised at the City
Council 's decision to amend the zoning ordinance to allow driving
ranges in an R-1A District and feels that the City Council made a
wrong decision.
Swearengin stated that he is totally opposed to this commercial ven-
ture in a noncommercial , nonsewered area and that this request is II inappropriate, wrong to the neighbors , who are all in objection to the
request, and also was very surprised at the City Council ' s approval of
the zoning ordinance amendment. Swearengin also indicated surprise at
the staff for apparent push for this request.
Waibel indicated that the people of the City have indicated that they
would like a recreational service such as this request in the town.
Waibel indicated that golf driving ranges are generally not intensive
sewage generators . Conrad indicated that the staff gives their opi-
nion based on a development standard. '
Swearengin said that the City has set a precedent that no commercial
development shall be permitted outside of the MUSA line, he stated he
feels that the City is now contradicting itself , for one person , and not I
for the benefit of the community. Swearengin indicated that this type of
development is not in the Comprehensive Plan .
Watson stated that she agrees with Swearengin in that the City has
always followed Ordinance 45 in the past by not allowing development
in an unsewered area. She felt that this is a commercial development
and should not be allowed in an unsewered area.
Waibel indicated that commercial requests outside of the MUSA line
were denied in the past for the reason that they would require a
building permit. J. Thompson indicated that the City has turned
down a black dirt operation because it was a commercial outside of
the MUSA Line , and they did not need building permits or sewer and
C- water .
I
C
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28 , 1982
Page 5
M. Thompson stated the that City Council has passed a usage for
Cdriving ranges in R-1A Districts , and possibly there is a place in
' Chanhassen for driving ranges , but he feels that this property is not
the proper location . He further stated that according to Section
23 . 06 , the proposed location for this driving range is detrimental to
the area, injurious to other property, doesn ' t have anything to do
with the normal and orderly development of the area, and that the
plan submitted does not show the development as proposed.
Conrad indicated that the plan as shown is not accurate and that it
still has the miniature golf course shown on it along with other
dicrepancies . Conrad indicated that the DNR has asked that
' the City protect the wetlands on this property.
M. Thompson moved, seconded by Swearengin, to recommend that the City
Council deny the proposed request for a conditional use permit based
' on the provisions of Section 23 . 06 . Specifically, this proposal is
detrimental to this specific area, is injurious to other property
around this specific area, is not a normal or orderly development for
' this specific area, and the specific plan proposed for this develop-
ment is inaccurate, hard to interpret and objectionable based on the
fact that the applicant is proposing to have 45 tees with 38 parking
spaces , which does not correlate to each other, that the proposed
utility shed will be located only 50 feet from Highway 117. Also, the
DNR has recommended that the wetlands be left in their natural state.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Minutes
M. Thompson moved, seconded by Watson , to approve the minutes as
presented. The following voted in favor: Conrad, M. Thompson,
Swearengin , and Watson. J. Thompson abstained .
Meeting was adjourned at 9: 30 p.m.
1
• ,ur,ci l Meeting D, 4)ber 20 , 1982 (-)
-25-
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, ESTABLISHMENT OF A GOLF II STATE HIGHWAY 5 : Frank Stetonac was present . Several neighborsViBL',
the area were present . The Planning Commission recommended a-ppr:-.-va -
subject to eight conditions . These conditions were discussed and
I modified .
1 . That the applicant receive an access permit from Carver County
Public Works Department for access onto County Road 117 . II
2 . That the applicant submit plans demonstrating the manner in which
the parking area is to be constructed so as to drain well and prevent r
face material from washing or eroding the parking area . Said plans shed
include the type of surface material to be used and the placement of
erosion control devices such as landscaping timbers around the perimete
of the parking area .
3 . That the premises shall be free of litter at all times .
4 . That sanitary facilities be maintained in the form of satellites as
shown on the proposed plan on the premises during hours of operation .
5 . That grounds security lighting , as approved by the City Engineer,'
be shielded so as not to interfere with traffic on Highways 5 and 117 .
6 . That the City Council may revoke the permit upon making a finding
with any provisions of the permit having been materially violated . '
7 . That the applicant comply with all applicable City ordinances and
regulations .
8. That the applicant compny with all applicable referral agency rull
and regulations .
9 . That no change or alteration be allowed within ten feet from the
edge of the ravine . The wetland basin will not be altered in any way .
The applicant is subject to the provisions of the Shoreland Regulations ll
10. The hours of operation are from sunrise to sunset .
11 . Vending machines , snack bars or electronic games are prohibited .
12 . A revised plan shall be submitted to reflect all allowed conditio
Councilwoman Swenson _ - It should �•
- also be understood that this is an
interim use . We are not intending to establish
a precedent by permitting a commercial use here '
other than an interim usage since the property
will eventually be utilized in some other manner .
Councilman Geving moved that the Council approve the conditional use
permit request for the golf driving range with conditions as stated
above . The conditional use permit will appear as a consent agenda item
on a future Council agenda . Motion seconded by Councilman Horn . The I
following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton , Councilwoman Swenson ,
Councilmen Neveaux , Geving and Horn . No negative votes . Motion carried
BILLS : Councilman Neveaux moved to approve the bills as presented : '
checks #14123 through #14231 in the amount of $805 , 391 . 44 , and checks
# 18455 through #18535 in the amount of $535 , 942 .03 . Motion seconded loy
Councilman Horn . The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton , II
Councilwoman Swenson , Councilmen Neveaux , Geving and Horn . No negative
votes . Motion carried .
HOPKINS JAYCEES , BEER LICENSE : Members of the Hopkins I r y
present seeking approval or a beer license for a regionalJayceesrawards
and meeting banquet to be held January 22 , 1983 , at St . Hubert ' s .
•
r
II
: -
r
REGULAR CHANHASSEN COUNCIL MEETING
i t�� November 4, 1985
f a
ith:`' Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order . The meeting was opened with the Pledge
t y to the Flag .
t�sy
`""'`' Members Present
-T is
n
--4,12,--,-,
i Councilman Horn , Councilwoman Watson ,
; Councilwoman Swenson and Councilman
" Geving
Members Absent
f;f_
' None
1
is Staff Present
Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy ,
-h ~r and Bill Monk
len be
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the agenda as presented . Motion
ra was seconded by Councilman Geving . The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton ,
:;g 5 Councilwomen Watson and Swenson , Councilmen Horn and Geving . No negative votes .
Motion carried .
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the following consent agenda
oes item pursuant to the City Manager 's recommendations:
- . RESOLUTION #85-62: Approve Resolution Revoking Conditional Use
Permit for Tri-Properties , Northwest Corner of Highway 5 and
ell- ' County Road 117 .
Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton .
' r Councilman Geving: Prior to the time that the attorney ' s final report is finalized
II
,if and ready to be turned over the Carver County District Court , I would like t
r to request
ars , that the item be placed before the City Council so that we can see the results of his
lir f review ..-1-- ..-
-se The following voted in favor : Mayor Hamilton , Councilwomen Watson and Swenson ,
Councilmen Horn and Geving . No negative votes . Motion carried .
lit...: MINUTES:
?3` Amend City Council minutes dated October 7 , 1985 under Consider Adoption of the 1986
U: -''.. Budget, page 8, paragraph 2 , Councilwoman Swenson : Two part-time employees would be
less effective than one permanent employee .
.;!,!.4 -
' 1 Amend City Council minutes dated October 7 , 1985 , under Consider Adoption of the 1986
Budget, page 7, paragraph 7, first sentence , Don Ashworth : On the park and
recreation improvements , it was brought up by Councilman Geving that we needed to
look to a shelter building at Lake Ann Park .
n'
e Councilman Horn moved to approve the City Council minutes dated October 7, 1985 as
II
IIeended . Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton . The following voted in favor:
Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson , Councilmen Horn and Geving . No
negative votes . Motion carried .
. T
.,
City Council Meeting - February 23, 1987 II
Councilman Geving: Yes, I'm going to stay with my motion. II
Councilman Horn: I think if we saw some kind of an ROI calculation on this we
might feel dispensed to do something about it but we don't see anything. '
Don Ashworth: Let me do that.
Councilman Geving: Okay, give us some facts. II
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to move the purchase of a CSO
vehicle to a 1988 budget item and that the Council get statistics on repairs II
that have been made and are needed to the present CSO vehicle. Also, to
proceed with hiring part-time police services from Carver County with the
understanding that only after the City hires a new Public Safety Director and
II
he makes his own program choices and the selection of his own personnel. All
voted in favor and motion carried.
l I PUBLIC HEARING: II
-_ - REQUEST TO REINSTATE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DRIVING RANGE, CR 117 AND
TH 5, JOHN PRYZMUS. — II
Barbara Dacy: Attachment #1 reflects the applicant's application to have the
Conditional Use Permit for a Golf Driving Range reinstated at the northwest
corner of Galpin Blvd. and TH 5. Council recalls that the Conditional Use
Permit was revoked for violation of the conditions of the original permit in
November, 1985. Later, within the past year, the Council directed the
Attorney to file suit regarding violations of the Nuisance and Zoning
Ordinance regarding the junk, litter and debris on the property. We have
included in your packets a checklist of items regarding your original Permit
approval. The Council has basically two options this evening. One, is to
II
reinstate the permit. If that is the action the Council is to take, it is
recommended that the conditions in the applicant's letter be implemented as
well as any other condition the Council deems appropriate including additional
site plan review and submittal of a revised site plan for Staff's review. The II
second option is for the Council to deny the reinstatement request. If that
is the Council's action then the Court action regarding the violations to the
Nuisance and the Zoning Ordinance will proceed to trial. A date has not been
II
set pending action this evening.
Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. Councilman Geving moved,
II
Councilman Johnson seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and
motion carried.
John Pryzmus: I would like you to refer to the letter that I wrote to you. II
Basically, we can go through that we can kind of stay with what I'm proposing
now and then you can go ahead. If you read through that letter, basically
everything on the first page has been completed. What was on the second page
II
is what I've proposed to do with the new site plan and a new grading plan.
Schoell and Madsen have already done the grading plan and the site plan has
l[.
already been drawn up and I have a copy of them if you would like to look at
them. If you have any questions about that, you can ask me questions or,
10
II
1O
275
IICity Council Meeting - February 23, 1987
IF whatever. If you don't we can go to the condition that you I had done wrong.
The condition that you had revoked it for and that was that the structure was
II not sound. Basically, when I came here a couple years ago, the structure of a
geodesic dome is designed so it can't fall down like a lot of your tin or wood
buildings that are out on farms that are falling down after aging. This is a
fiberglass building that is bolted together with steel and the way it is
I designed, it can't fall down. There was never a problem for any accident or
anything like that to happen because of the building. As far as making it
secure, the three glass sliding doors that go in it, being that I wasn't in
I business at the time, if you put the three sliding glass doors in, you would
wind up having somebody turn around, throw a rock or throw something through
the windows and then I would have smashed out windows and then there would be
a problem of somebody getting cut if they did go in there. As far as the
II earth moving and the stumps, when I came here 2 years ago, I told the people
that moved all the earth and moved the stumps and the trees in the lowland,
not to put them closer than 10 feet to the creek. In fact, I told them to stay
I at least 30 feet away. When I found out when I came here that they were too
close, I hired Jeff Swedlund to go out with his backhoe so he wouldn't get
close with the big machine so he could reach in and make sure and all of that
I was pulled 30 or 40 feet away from the creek and it is still there and it's
just stumps. As far as number 4, the removal of chemicals and to refrain from
using chemicals, I never had chemicals out there. The stock pile of silica
sand that the Council thought was chemicals, was not. The canister I got from
I Stodola Well Company when they set up the pump and Stodola Well Company has
been giving us water for 50 years so there were never any chemicals that would
ever have been a problem. As far as the electrical, the only time there was
I �._ any electrical on out there is if I'm on the site and that is just a temporary
pump. That electrical will not be there other than when I am pumping water
for the tee area. That's the first 5 things in the original certified letter
that I got that revoked my permit. Then you go on to ask for $500.00 escrow
1 and $15,000.00 bond. If we go back to my original letter, I was running my
driving range here for 6 years in Chanhassen. Never was there a problem. The
City never had to come down there and tell me to mow my grass. When the fence
I started deteriorating, I removed it. The building eventually deteriorated so
I just removed it and got rid of it, buried it. From my first driving range,
which a lot of the Council members had apprehension in letting me run, never
I once did we have a lawsuit or problem. Never was anybody hurt. Going back to
my letter, I employed numerous young people in the community. My new driving
range I won't be doing that. There will still be maybe 4 or 5 young people but
they will be either high school or college and then I will have a full time
II manager running it. If we go back to the original 12 things that my permit
said I had to do, if you go through them, never once did I do anything. You
say there was litter on the premises. Okay, in a letter from Art Partridge,
I somebody dumped a cooler. When the City told me that it was out there, I went
and got it. When I bought the land, people had dumped. They could back in
there because there were two driveways. Now I proceeded to put a berm so
nobody can back in there anymore. I did pile dead elm trees that the neighbor
I Ted Benson and I pulled out of the creek. We've been cleaning up the creek.
His side and my side. We've been spending a lot of time and money cleaning up
the creek. We don't want to block the creek. We want to keep it flowing so
people put leaves and grass what have you there and it was referred to "God
only know what is out there" yet the City Inspector went out there before I
I11
II
J
4L
City Council Meeting - February 23, 1987
got a burning permit and there was no garbage. Somebody did dump a mattress
and that smoldered when I lit it so then I put it back out. Even though some
of the statements about different things, I guess I haven't seen where the
Conditional Use Permit should have even been revoked because I never once did
anything that was really bad against it. Now, finally I got the financing. I
closed up my other driving range and I'm ready to open up there and give it my
full attention. Not only would I like to get the driving range reinstated but
then I'll be going back to the Planning Commission for, I have a building out
there for some things, indoor batting and things like that which I'll show the,
whole grading plan and the berming and the trees and it will be totally 'II
screened I think from CR 117. Especially the neighbors to the north won't
even know it once I move all of it. I have about 100 trees left on my old
driving range to move out there yet and I have 6 dead willow trees that I will
be moving into that corner so it should be a beautiful thing for the whole
community and I want to come back next month but if you reinstate this, this
would be the first process fof me to go on.
Councilman Johnson: You covered one of my questions is what are you going to
use with that building? I was led to believe that under this permit you can
only have a driving range. You can't have practice batting and whether that
is an allowable conditional use or any kind of use within that district, it II
sounds to me like the only way to do it would be to petition to change our
Zoning Ordinance to allow you batting there. Barb, help me there.
Barbara Dacy: Yes, that's correct. In fact, we made that known to the
applicant that currently golf driving range is not included or a Conditional
Use and if reinstatement is granted tonight, it's only for the original uses
that were approved in the 1982 permit. If the applicant wishes to build !-
additional buildings, yes, we would have to initiate a Zoning Ordinance
Amendment and go through the process.
Councilman Johnson: Without that, the building laying out there would become
a contractor's yard?
Barbara Dacy: The building parts would have to be removed unless the
amendment was approved.
Councilman Johnson: Can you remove those building parts someplace else? '
John Pryzmus: Most likely. To answer your question, what it could be is
everyone got an Ordinance thing in the mail and I guess in that Zone, I could
build a building and have a farm. I could have a contractor's yard. I could
have any number of the things that are a permitted use without a Conditional
Use but I would prefer to not have a farm or not have a contractor's yard but
to have a recreational thing out there and use the building which would be all
cedar. The whole side and front would be cedar. The grading plan that I had
Schoell and Madsen do, will have a berm 6 feet high to the east so the
building is a low profile building and you wouldn't hardly, you would see the
roof for the first couple years until the trees. -
Mayor Hamilton: That's really not even an issue here. If you want to pursue
12 ,
277
City Council Meeting February- y 2 3, 1987
I I that, that's going to back to the Planning Commission. That will be something
omething
' Councilman Johnson: So, don't get your hopes up. There is a lot of mention
of a wetlands. I walked the area this weekend and where is this wetlands?
Mayor Hamilton: It was on the northwest corner.
• John Pryzmus: That was a lot of problem and a lot of controversy with the
' City Council and if you go back to the letter where Bill Monk and I went out
there and we addressed this two years ago. The first thing on it is that it's
not a wetlands. It was a farm when I bought it. It was a tree farm but Mr.
Lyman, who had originally owned it, had farmed that 18 acres all of his life.
There was never a cattail so I wish the City wouldn't refer to it as wetlands
because it's not. It never was.
' Mayor Hamilton: It sure isn't now because it's filled in.
Councilman Johnson: Barb, was that in our Comprehensive Plan as a wetland?
Barbara Dacy: It's not a designated wetlands on your map but during Council
review of the site in 1982, there was discussion about keeping all activities
1 out of that wet area, which is in the northwest corner of the site. Last
April of 1985, Council members conducted a field visit out to the site with
the City Engineer at that time and that was the major reason.why the
Conditional Use Permit was revoked. If you refer to the resolution, filling
II --- in a wetlands and conducting grading operations within 10 feet of the creek.
Councilman Johnson: As I understand this, this wetlands would aid in
' filtering out any contaminants caused within your property. Your run-off and
stuff from your property. Does it generally go back towards that corner?
What I'm eventually going at John is, would you be willing to reinstate that
wetland?
John Pryzmus: Yes, Schoell and Madsen Engineering has already done this and
it's in front of the DNR now waiting for tonight and this would all be done,
' it would filter just the way it's suppose to with an overflow so nothing ever
would run into the creek. That has been through, I don't know the gentleman's
name at the DNR but the site plan, he had no problems with it the way Schoell
and Madsen had designed it.
Barbara Dacy: Staff did not carry out a review et of that
Y particular grading
plan but would and could report back to the Council if reinstatement is
' approved.
Mayor Hamilton: I think that's the only way to go. We're not going to sit
' here and look at this tonight.
Councilman Johnson: No, we can't look at it right here. It does indicate
future development of the place that you're saying you want to do it now. It
Idoes show you are looking to reinstate that and that is something very
important that we build that wetland back. Those are my basic comments. '
13
L.! o V
•
- e,
City Council Meeting`- February 23, 1987 II
Councilman Horn: I don't really think I have any questions. I guess I'm a
little concerned that this all started in 1982 and here it is 1987.
Councilman Geving: I'll tell you John, I'm very disappointed. I was the one II
person who made the motion to approve this Conditional Use Permit for you in
1982 or 1983. Over four years ago, we started this process. You have
continued to frustrate this Council to the point where we had to take legal
II
action against you. You did not appear when you were called. You were non-
communicative when you were called. We asked you on a number of occasions to
come before the Council and speak to us. We tried to treat you in a
II
gentlemanly manner and you avoided us and you ignored us. I can't see how
your past performance is going to improve by granting you a Conditional Use
Permit under a reinstatement at this time. You have caused the taxpayers of
Chanhassen a lot of money. We have chased you for the last four years. We II
have attempted to get you in front of us to talk to you. You have avoided us
and I would be very, very anxious to hear from our Attorney whether or not, if
we did reinstate this Conditional Use Permit to you, whether or not we could
I
collect those damages that we have paid for, the attorney fees and court costs
to date. Secondly, would you be willing to pay those costs?
John Pryzmus: As far as the problems that the City has had with me, a lot of II
the times they were unfounded problems like the chemicals and the electrical
so, send an Attorney down. I would pay his fee for something I've done wrong.
I have no problem with that. I always pay my debts or try to. I feel where
comments from the Council, where we're going to have transients living in the
building and things like that, when I'm putting every dime I got into it over
the last 5 years, did you ever once say, oh, I see it's coming along? In the
original Conditional Use I had a day to day agreement with the landowners down
here and at any day that somebody sold the land, I would be gone. I would
have to sell. I would have to move the driving range. As everybody knows,
Chanhassen didn't grow as fast as I had hoped and I wound up having to sell my II
land. Now, is when I have to move out. I would have rather moved out there
and had everything going 4 years ago. It would have been a lot better for and
obviously for this City. Although I did build the whole tee area the first
II
year. I seeded it all. I mowed the ditched out there. I've done a lot of
things that nobody has ever given me any credit for so some of the things that
the City has hounded me on, and I come in front of you and rather than say
it's not a wetlands. You have hounded me that it was. I guess, I would be II
willing to share my part of the debt that the City has incurred so far but
let's sit down and talk about our feelings.
Councilman Geving: Do you think it's fair on your part to force the City of I
Chanhassen taxpayers to pay for your ignoring our laws and our attempts to do
the right thing with that development out there?
II
John Pryzmus: No, absolutely not. I just said that. I would be willing to
share the burden that I've caused.
Councilman Geving: I want that in the record please. Secondl II
as inner use. There were a number of conditions on the Conditional
Use Permit when we gave it to you. I have never yet seen your completed plan.
The City has never yet seen your lighting plan. We have not seen your parking
14 1
II
ICity Council Meetin g - February 23,
1987
1 f plan. I have not seen a grading plan or reforestation plan. I know Y ou've
done a lot of planting out there. I have not seen any of those plans. I have
II no idea what you really intend to build and the 3 or 4 times that I personally
have stopped, looked at the site, we went out there in 1985 as a Council and
walked over nearly every inch of that property. We saw the debris. We saw
II the electrical lines in the water and on the ground. We saw the old ice box
or whatever it was, the cooler. The geodesic dome, which we advised you to
tear down and get rid of. You still haven't done that. We advised you not to
do anything until you got further go ahead from the City Council and yet I was
I out there on at least two occasions where you were mounding up dirt. You were
having rubbish hauled in. You got a fire permit from the City. I don't know
how that happened but it did. I saw you make a trench the entire length of
II the property along Galpin Blvd.. You inserted some kind of a plastic pipe and
now recently, yesterday I drove by there and I see all kinds of metal. What
is that steel going to be used for and why is that there? You were advised
not to put anything on that property. Then, when I saw the condition of the
I wetlands and what you had attempted to do by moving all of that rubbish down
into the bottom land on the north side and destroying that wetland and the
creekbed, that really hurt. I saw a bobcat out there and someone actively
I working the land to move that rubbish into the wetland area. Don't tell my
I'm wrong because I saw it. That has got to be cleaned up. We've got to
restore the wetland area. We've got to see your plans. We would like to know
what your longrange plan for that development is. Tonight I hear something
I 7 about a batting cage. That's the first time that has ever come up. I have
seen chicken wire out there. I don't have any idea what you're going to do
with that for fencing. John, I don't know what you're planning on doing in
I -- that acreage but I can tell you, I'm not in favor of reinstating your
Conditional Use Permit. This item should back to the Planning Commission and
it should go through the entire process all over again because the day we
II closed the gates on you and took you to court, the ballgame started all over
again. Your Conditional Use Permit was pulled. You no longer had a
Conditional Use Permit. As far as I'm concerned, you have to start the entire
process all over again by going back to the Planning Commission and letting us
I take a look at it from an entirely new view and see what you're really
intending to do with that property. I know you've spent money out there.
That's not my concern. I want something that's good for the city of Chanhassen
I and your past performance tells me that you're going to put a lot of tacky
stuff up there. Your lighting standards are not going to be up to our
standards. Your parking area is not going to be what we consider to be a nice
Ion.entrance to the community and until I see an array of plans and specifications
what you intend to do, I don't think we ought to let you do anything on
that property. You can do anything you want. It's your property but legally,
you're not allowed as a permitted use to put a golf driving range there now
II and that's what you want to do. My position is that it should go back to the
Planning Commission and start this entire process all over again and when you
can start working with the City and our Staff and not frustrate our Staff and
Iour Council people, then we'll work with you. That's all I have to say.
Mayor Hamilton: I'm not going to repeat everything Dale just said. Probably
most of that is true John but I guess some of your comments that if you had
Ijust come to the City Council and said this is what I'm doing. Whether you're
having problems getting equipment or financial or whatever, just if you would
I15
I
X.
City Council Meeting - February 23, 1987 II
have let us know what the heck you're doing. But you kept us in the dark and
IF
we've asked to meet with you, as Dale said, we asked to meet with you out on
the site and you didn't show up. If you had shown up and told us what was
going on. If you had told us what the chemical cans were that we found out
II
there. All we can do is take a guess. We find them there and obviously he's
using chemicals for something and you weren't there to present your case after
having been invited so it's been a frustrating experience for us as I'm sure II it has been for you. I truly believe that you want to make it a nice facility
for the community and for yourself for everyone here to use and I would like
to see you complete the project but I'm not so sure that Dale isn't right that
it should probably go back to the Planning Commission so we can take a look at
I
your grading plans. Take a look at your whole plan. I think when you first
came to us with your plan, you had kind of a hand sketched plan that we went
along with and that was probably our mistake. We should have required that I
you had more specific drawings with more specifications on it. I think now
that that is probably the best thing for yourself and for us to do. I do
believe that you are going to make a nice facility out there but I think you
need to go back and look at more planning. II
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to deny the request to
reinstate the Conditional Use Permit for the Driving Range at the corner of
II
CR 117 and TH 5. All voted in favor of denial and motion carried.
AWARD OF BIDS:
CHANHASSEN HILLS WATERMAIN EXTENSION.
Gary Warren: Chanhassen Hills trunk watermain extension is basically the
third part of our planned expansions of the watermain for the water system for
the City. This was before the Council in late January where we approved plans
and specs. We received bids on the 17th and we had good response again with
II
12 bidders. The three low bidders were within 2% of each other so we feel we
have some very competitive bids. The low bid is for $343,962.00 which is
about 2% over the engineer's estimate. We feel that based on the uncertainy
of the wetland construction and such that the bid is very responsive. Civil II
Structures is the firm, the low bidder. They are the same firm that we
awarded our Powers and Kerber Blvd. watermain extension to recently and in
checking their references personally and from the consulting engineer, we find
II
again, very favorable response for it. I would therefore recommend that we
award the contract to Civil Structures in the amount of $343,962.00.
Resolution #87-13: Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded approval of the I
award of the bid for the Chanhassen Hills Trunk Watermain extension to Civil
Structure, Inc. in the amount of $343,962.00. All voted in favor and motion
carried.
I
1987 BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, GENERAL DISCUSSION, SCOTT WINTER.
Mayor Hamilton: Hopefully things will move along as well this year as they II
have in the previous y
P years and I think working with yourself and Frank, it has
IIE
been our experience that it's been much better than it has been in the
previous 4 or 5 years so I hope we can continue that type of experience.
16
II
1
1
ARTHUR W. PARTRIDGE
6280 HUMMINGBIRD ROAD
EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 12 April 1987
Planning Commission
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Re: Recuest for Zoning Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, & Wet-
land Alteration Permit; John Pryzmus et al. 22 April 1987
' I will be out of town on the night of this Public Hearing, and
would appreciate my views considered in your reccommendation to
the City Council.
As some of you may know, it was over this issue that I resigned
as Chairman of the Planning Commission several years ago. Our
unanimous rejection of this proposal then was over-ridden by the
1 City Council, which, without a Public Hearing, amended the City
Zoning Code on the spot and issued a Conditional Use Permit. The
grounds for this unprecedented action, as expressed by our Mayor,
were "the small businessman deserves a break too, " or words to
that effect.
The proposal before you now has no more merit than in its origi-
nal form. If anything, with the addition of an "indoor batting
building, " it is even more bizarre, tackier, and less desireable.
This City has always paid at least lip service to the concept of
' attractive entrances to our town. Be aware that we are seen from
the West as well as East. This proposal is pushed as a recreational
facility, but in fact is planned as a simple co mercial venture.
' There is no real difference between a golf driving range/miniature
olf course/indoor batting building and a drive-in theatre, a
water slide, a petting zoo, or a _ro-kart track. There is no need
for this facility anywhere in this City. There is no pressing need
' to amend our new zoning code simply because the applicant wants
;omethi r: properly not allowed.
County 117, or Galpin Lake Road at its northern end, is totally
' residential and agricultural north of Highway 5, both in fact and
in the Comprehensive Plan. The land between the HUSA line and
Highway 5 is steadily being split into expensive residential sites.
' I don't believe you would find any support for this venture from
any residents anywhere on County 117.
Hr. Pryzmus has had three years to do something with his land and
with the permit originally issued him. He has had the same time to
present his desires during the gestation of thenew Zoning Code. It
is not his right to demand or your obligation to provide spot
zoning changes at this late date.
Does the applicant deserve a "break" now? His past actions demonstrably
suggest that he lacks respect for his property, his neighbors,
' and the letter and spirit of our City rules. I would expect nothing
more than an entrenched eyesore and public nuisance of this
proposal comes to fruition.
APR 14 37 -f(
' CITY OF CHANHASSEN
' 12 April (- 7
2
In the course of your hearing, you might determine answers to some
of the following questions, which cast light on how much support
the applicant deserves;
1) Was a permit issued before the shabby little second-hand dome
was moved in? Were permits sought before pouring the slab it
rests on, or installing the electric service entrance?
2) Were any City permissions sought before using the site as a
temporary dump for materials removed from Highway 5?
3) After allowing the site to be used for several years as an
un-authorized sanitary landfill ("sanitary" is used loosely),
did the applicant have any permits or even notify the City
before setting fire to his rubbish?
4) Has he already altered designated wetlands without a permit?
5) In addition to the piles of second-hand building materials and
old machinery stored on the site, there are at least two large
tires stored in violation of Ordinances. Why?
6) Has the applicant the resources to resolve his plan promptly
if it is allowed, or would this drag on another three years?
If you are satisfied with the applicant, you should examine the
application itself. Would you allow this in a residential neigh-
borhood ? Now and for the immediate future, this A-2 land is just
that, and deserves as much protection from commercial encroachment
as any other residential area. Are you prepared to spell out
limits on hours of operation, site lighting and traffic control,
standards by which the operation can be terminated if the permits
aren't renewed or are revoked for cause? Would you personally like
to live next door to this operation, or be trying to sell land for
residences across the street from it?
The fact that a businessman is net v:ellthy is not in itself a
reason for support, nor is the City in any way responsible for
guaranteeing a man a profit from land bought speculatively. There
was no reason to allow this proposal three years ago, and there is
less reason now, given the sorry history of the site and the
hizh quality of recent developments along the road.
I urge you to reject this proposal in all its parts. (Remember
that 'eater levels are rou;:'_hly three feet lower than last year,
should you be tempted to give the grading permit.)
Respectfully,
Arthur a. Partridge ,
7Z /i'/ ,/t1 /1 ,See_
C/ L/,;17/V /1/ , 20,AI 7 '4-64— /1i4)7 /3?Z
I
' CITY OF CHANHA
41c-
SSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES , MINNESOTA
I
DATE: November 4, 1985 RESOLUTION NO: 85-62
MOTION BY: Watson SECONDED BY: Hamilton
A RESOLUTION REVOKING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ISSUED TO
TRI PROPERTIES , INC. FOR A DRIVING RANGE AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF CR 117 AND TH 5
IWHEREAS , a conditional use permit was issued on December 19 ,
1983 to TRI Properties , Inc . for a golf driving range at the
I northwest corner of CR 117 and TH 5, on 18 .1 Acres in the SW}
of Section 10 , Twp. 116, Range 23 , West of CR 117. Parcel
I.D. # 25-0101800 .
I WHEREAS , on May 20 , 1985 the City Council held a public
hearing to review the compliance of the uncompleted facility with
conditions of permit approval.
WHEREAS , it was found that the permit holder had graded
within ten feet of Bluff Creek and had filled in a wetland on the
I site; both in violation of the approved permit .
WHEREAS , the permit holder was notified of these violations
and other safety related concerns by letter dated May 21 , 1985 in
Ian effort to secure compliance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that since no effort has been
I shown towards complying with the approved permit , the City
Council hereby revokes said conditional use permit issued to TRI
Properties .
IPassed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this
I4th day of November , 1985.
ATTEST:
I
IDon Ashworth, Ci • Clerk/Manager Thoma 3Hamil r 4(:).-- . ,
IYES NO ABSENT
Hamilton None None
I Horn
Watson
Geving
I Swenson fL:,._�
e
II
C (_..._ • .
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION II
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
II
Chanhassen, MN 553
(61 ii, 937-1900 1
APPLICANT: , A OWNER: Im U Vk,Y�% �Z- F14 ti
ADDRESS $ . "A , ta(i} t ADDRESS _ •
�/r 40 f ., i
ciA46„. , w l A A A '/v �/�1
Zip Code Zip Code
TELEPHONE (Daytime) 9 347-S(QO TELEPHONE 93q:',:: ` .---�3/-7
REQUEST: I
Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development
I
Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan
Preliminary Plan
I
Zoning Variance Final Plan
Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision
Land Use Plan Amendment Platting II
Metes and Bounds
J}( Conditional Use Permit II Street/Easement Vacation
Site Plan Review
XWetlands Permit •
II
PROJECT NAME _____a\j„..,,u1;_c V),,C.__ _____
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION II
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
PRESENT ZONING -_ I
REQUESTED ZONING
�` USES PROPOSED 1 _ice / / %/
� � ir � _,. _
SIZE OF PROPERTY ) /4;4 & .1,;1411i
-'` LOCATION A !� _ _
1
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST
I
I
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) i
' 13 I
I
SECTION 3: DISTRICT BOUNDARIES " - " • S. Setbacks: 't,.•+
Except where referenced on the zoning map,a strMt or alley line or other A. Front yard:50 feet. 6. Home oc
designated line by dimensions shown on the mar district boundary lines B. Rear yard:50 fey a 7 One dock
of all districts except the flood fringe and floodw rict,shoreland manage- C. Side yard: 10 fee 5-8 4 The rouowin.
1 ment district and wetland overlay district shall follow lot lines or the centerlines 6. Maximum Height: l• Health
of streets or alleys.Where interpretation is needed as to the exact location of A. Principal Structure three stories/40 feet. 2. Day care
the boundaries of any district,the Board of Adjustment and Appeals shall make B. Accessory Structure:three stories/40 feet. 3. Boarding
the necessary interpretation. 7. Minimum Driveway Separation: 4. Group h,
y P 5. Recreatic
ARTICLE V. DISTRICT REGULATIONS A. Collector:400 feet 6. Tempos
SECTION 1. SCHECDULE OF USES PERMITTED BY DISTRICT B. Arterial: 1,250 feet 7. Churches
accessory or conditional are prohibited.District regulations as set forth below SECTION 5. "RSF" SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
shall also be subject to the provisions of Articles II,III,VI,VII,VIII,IX and X. 5-5-1 INTENT.Single-family residential subdivisions. shall u ementsb c
5-5-2 The following uses are permitted in an "RSF"district: q
SECTION 2. "A-I"AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT g � 1. Lot area:
1 5-2-1 INTENT.Preservation of agricultural lands and allowing single-family 1. Single-family dwellings
residential development with 40 acre minimum lot sizes to preserve rural 2. Public and private open space
dwellings 0su
3. State licensed day care center for twelve or fewer children
character in large areas of the community. 2. Lot From
5-2-2 The following uses are permitted in an "A-1"district: 4. State licensed group home serving six or fewer persons
5. Utility services •
cent that
.
I. Agriculture the builch
1 6. Temporary real estate office and model home
2. Public and private parks and open space 150 feet
5-5-3 The following are permitted accessory uses in an"RSF"district:
3. Single-family dwellings 3. Lot Dept
4. Utility services 1. Garage
5. State licensed day care center for twelve or fewer children 2. Storage building 4. Maximun
y 5. Setbacks:
6. State licensed group home serving six or fewer persons 3. Swimming pool A. Fror
1 5-2-3 The following are permitted accessory uses in an "A-I"district: 4. Tennis court B. Rear
1. Accessory agricultural buildings 5. Signs
2. Garage,private stables and swimming pools 6. Home occupations C. Side
7. One dock 6. Maximun
.
3. Tennis court A. Prin
4. Signs 8. Private kennel B. Acre
I 5. Home occupations 5-5-4 The following are conditional uses in an"RSF"district:
6. One dock 1. Churches SECTION 9. STA1
7. Roadside stand 2. Private stables,subject to provisions of the horse ordinance AGR
8. Private kennel 3. Recreational beach lots 5-9-1 In addition it-
5-2-4 The following are conditional uses in an "A-1"district: 4. Commercial stable with a minimum lot size of five acres. shall apply tc
I. Bed and breakfast establishment 5-5-5 Lot Requirements and Setbacks.The following minimum requirements 1. Bed and
2. Public buildings shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject to additional re- A. Twc
3. Temporary mobile home(compliance with Article VI,Section 6 is quirements,exceptions and modifications set forth in this Ordinance. per
not required) 1. Lot area: 15,000 square feet. B. Ther
4. Group homes for 7-16 persons 2. Lot Frontage:90 feet(except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall resit
1 5-2-5 Lot Requirements and Setbacks.The following minimum requirements be 90 feet in width at the building setback line). C. Esta
shall be observed in an"A-I"District subject to additional requirements, 3. Lot Depth: 150 feet. D. Ther
exceptions and modifications set forth in this Ordinance 4. Maximum Lot Coverage for all structures and paved surfaces:25%. E. The
1. Lot area: Forty acres. 5. Setbacks: to tt
2. Lot Frontage:350 feet. A. Front yard:30 feet. 2. Group H
1 3. Lot Depth: 250 feet. B. Rear yard:30 feet. A. The
4. Maximum Lot Coverage: 3%. C. Side yard: 10 feet. requ
5. Setbacks 6. Maximum Height: B. The
A. Front yards: 100 feet. A. Principal Structure:three stories/40 feet. fire
B. Rear yards: 100 feet. • B. Accessory Structure:three stories/40 feet. C. The
C. Side yards:50 feet. SECTION 6. "R-4"MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT cess:
1 6. Maximum Height: 5-6-1 INTENT.Single-family and attached residential development at a max-
5-6-2 D. Sept
A. Principal Structure:three stories/40 feet. imam net density of four dwelling units per acre. Indi•
B. Accessory Structure:three stories/40 feet. The following uses are permitted in an"R-4"district: 3. Commerc
5-2-6 Properties designated under Agricultural Preserve status as provided for 1. Single-family dwellings A. The
by Minnesota Statute 473,shall be zoned A-1 Agricultural Preserves until 2. Two-family dwellings 56;
such designation is requested by the landowner to be removed.No ap- 3. Public and private parks and open space B. The
II.7.\r-: •plication fee is required for rezoning the property from A-1 to another 4. Group home serving six or fewer persons C. The
�.-. 5. State licensed day care center for twelve or fewer children area
dtNtt3.' 6. Utility services 4. Contract(
SECTION 3.?"A-2"AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT
�_1 tNTBNT.Preservation of rural character while respecting development 7. Temorary real estate office and model home A. Five
patterns by allowing single family residential development. 5-6-3 The following are permitted accessory uses in an"R-4"district: B. All s
. 5-3-2 The following uses are permitted in an"A-2"district: 1. Garage 100 I
I. Agriculture 2. Storage building from
2. Public and private parks and open space 3. Swimming pool C. The
3. Single-family dwellings 4. Tennis court iden■
4. State licensed day care center for twelve or fewer children 5. Signs D. All o
5. Utility services 6. Home occupations opaq
6. State licensed group home for six or fewer persons 7. One dock E. No r
4,:;141:','
p 5-6-4 The following are conditional uses in an"R-4"district: each
--r,-" 7. Temporary real estate office and model home
�. .,`.. 1: Churches - F. Hou
- 8. Arboretums
5-3-3 The following are permitted accessory uses in an"A-2"district:
Y : 2. Boarding houses p.m.
I. Accessory agricultural building 3. Recreational beach lots holic
` 2. Garage 4. Private kennel G. Ligh
='=:?"e--- 3. Private stables 5-6-5 Lot Requirements and Setbacks.The following minimum requirements H. No c
`-,'- :c- 4. Swimming pool shall be observed in an"R-4"District subject to additional requirements, 5. Commerc
exceptions and modifications set forth in this Ordinance. A. Tian
Fx S. Tennis court p 1. Lot area: 15,000 sq.ft.per detached single-family dwelling unit; be se
r.-�. 6. Signs 10,000 sq. ft.per dwelling unit for two-family dwellings. to th
iy{'= 7. Home occupations
8. One dock 2. Lot Frontage:80 feet for single-family dwelling;50 feet per dwell- 6. Wholesal,
' " 9. Roadside stand ing unit for two-family dwellings(except that lots fronting on a cut- A. The
i.s- .:r 10.Private kennels do-sac shall be 80 feet in width at the building setback lines forsingle- tifiec
S-34 The following are conditional uses in an"A-2"district: family dwellings and 50 feet for two-family dwellings. B. Five
t" 1. Bed and breakfast establishment 3. Lot Depth: ISO feet. C. All s
;Y:' 2. Temporary mobile home(compliance with Article VI,Section 6 is 4. Maximum Lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces:30%. 100 1
kt
,rC.• 5. Setbacks: freer
4ti"- not required)
V∎tt ".i> A. Front yard:30 feet. D. The
3. Mineral extraction
4. Cemetery B. Rear yard: 30 feet. ident
=.tL 5. Commercial kennels,stables and riding academies C. Side yard: 10 feet. E. All o
X' `,; 6. Contractor's yard 6. Maximum Height: opaq
>_• .0 7. Commercial Communication transmission towers A. Principal Structure:three stories/40 feet. F. Houi
., 8. Wholesale nursery B. Accessory Structure:one story/15 feet. p.m.
9. Electrical sub-station SECTION 7. "R-8"MIXED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL / holid
Yr:Yr
I
1
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
• (612) 937-1900
APPLICANT: p/ -'-,[/ba�OWNER: � / I C,
ADDRESS 7L/7( 4q ;4 &L ADDRESS
c c3I7
Zip Code Zip Code
TELEPHONE (Daytime) ej-S'CcP TELEPHONE � � - ,;5-3 5.7
REQUEST:
Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development '
Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan
Preliminary Plan
Zoning Variance Final Plan
,>4 Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision
Land Use Plan Amendment Platting
Metes and Bounds
Conditional Use Permit
Street/Easement Vacation
Site Plan Review
Wetlands Permit
PROJECT NAME k A \ v\
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION '
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
PRESENT ZONING A `Q� i 4 HFCA.A--IA/C �
REQUESTED ZONING Cj
USES PROPOSED \ �`(50K G F O E: 0v\ ca
SIZE OF PROPERTY / f 1 r4
LOCATION '�
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST '
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary)
City of Chanhassen J '
)
' Land Development Application
Page 2
FILING INSTRUCTIONS -
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or
clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and
plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions . Before
' filing this application , you should confer with the City Planner
to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements
applicable to your application .
FILING CERTIFICATION:
The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies
that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all
applicable City Ordinances .
1 ,
Signed By
Date %
111 I . - .")O -
Applican
The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been
authorized to make this application for the property herein
described .
Signed By
Date
Fee Owner
1
Date Application Received
1 Application Fee Paid 0104?
City Receipt No. �J
* This Application will be considered by the Plannin
Boa • . . dustmen o: . s at their -- y� Co kSion/
meeting .
1
1
r "
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1988 - Page 34
r
driveway with the cold storage or whatever? I just hate that TH 101
too.
II
Dacy: No , because it was found that there 's a second property owner
between that cold storage warehouse and the subject property. No,
II
that property owner has not been contacted to see if they would grant
an easement.
Conrad: Tim, can your I
you summarize our negative vote?
Erhart: I don ' t think I need to add to my speech but I would like to
I
see, because I do agree we're essentially forced to pretty much let
this thing go through, I do believe the score here is on the Planning
Commisison to have us look at this contractor' s yard as it relates to
our zoning ordinance. I 'd like to see us do that at a near future
meeting. Whatever it takes to do that.
Headla: I ' ve got two reasons . One is the number of vehicles entering I
and exiting at that particular point on TH 101. I think it 's very
poor planning and I have an environmental concern . The environmental
concern I think could be resolved, particularly if they could come out
I
to TH 212 rather than TH 101 . I think they did an excellent job in
planning their application .
I
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT.
Headla : As I understand it , they aren ' t actually affecting the 1
wetland itself, right?
Dacy: Right, there 's no direct alteration . I
Headla moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #87-14 to locate a contractor ' s I
yard within the watershed of a Class A wetland be approved subject to
the site plan stamped "Received December 29 , 1987" and subject to the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with the standards of Article V, Section 24 (a) (4) . '
2 . Compliance with the conditions of approval of Conditional Use
I
Permit Request #87-18 .
All voted in favor except Erhart who opposed and motion carried .
IConrad : Tim, your reasons.
Erhart : The same reasons as before.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARTICLE V, SECTION 3 , TO PERMIT
VIDEO GOLF AND INDOOR GOLF COURSE AS CONDITIONAL USES IN THE A-2 ,
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT, JOHN PRYZMUS .
Public Present:
1
1
, Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1988 - Page 35
II
John Pryzmus Applicant
IIArt Partridge 6280 Hummingbird
John Pryzmus : I 'd like to show you as far as the site goes . The
I building that 's proposed for the site, the grading has already been
done on the site and the lines come from 974 , which was the high spot
and it ' s been taken down to 968 . So you have taken it down about 6
' feet 4 inches. This site right here is for the proposed mound system
for the septic and that will be raised about 3 to 4 feet . So the
whole building will be totally screened from CR 117 by about 9 feet.
This building , the walls are 12 feet high and it goes at a pitch up to
II18 feet so it ' s a very low profile building . The City Council and
staff, we've already got the berming and all the trees and the
landscaping plans have already been approved for the whole site which
IIincluded the trees that will go around this building. What it does
for the project is , it won ' t intensify the use of the land because
obviously when you ' re involved with basically the miniature golf and
' the driving range, is an outdoor use so when it ' s nice weather you ' ll
be out here. The indoor use would be when it ' s inclemant and it gives
me the extra month in the spring and an extra month in the fall so to
make the project financially feasible, the indoor facility is a must
IIas far as my financial package goes . I feel that staff and the
Planning Commission and the City Council have been very involved in
getting some recreational facilities in the city of Chanhassen . I
Ithink right now they are proposing that the taxpayers spend 2 .4
million for a recreational site in Chanhassen . What I need is
approval from the Planning Commission and City Council to make this
financially feasible for me so I need the building to make it a Class
I
A project . I think Mr . Partridge ' s here and will say that it ' s been
run like a ma and pa operation and it ' s been an eyesore for a long
time so with the money that ' s been approved by the SBA, it will be a
I first class operation for everyone in the City of Chanhassen can enjoy
it . The building is a must .
I Art Partridge: . . . in recognition of the Planning Commission when the
initial proposal for this as a golf driving range . It was a unanimous
denial . It wasn ' t a question . The City Council. . . The property in
my mind has been treated . . . There has been rubbish dumped on the
I property. It' s been burned off without a permit . . . I feel what Barb
is recommending , this is a commercial use . You can talk about
recreation all you want but it is not a recommendation . . . It ' s a
' commercial use of the land and any other use on this property. . .
Erhart moved , Batzli seconded to close the public hearing . All voted
in favor and motion carried .
Conrad : Tim, you ' re our resident expert on the rural areas , we' ll
start with you.
Erhart: My first question , should that be a rural area? What exactly
Ihas been approved so far?
Dacy: The golf driving range and the miniature golf course.
Erhart: And the building?
1
n1 --- 1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1988 - Page 38
comment that people on the city staff had said earlier , when City
Council made the motions to approve this project, they made a
stipulation that it had to be on a major highway, state highway
trunkline , a major collector , which limits the city of Chanhassen to
one set would be TH 41 and TH 5 and obviously somebody isn ' t going to
put one next to me . The other one would be down on TH 212 and TH 101
so basically when someone says that this project could be built
anywhere in the agricultural area , the ordinance specifically limits
it to major collector and major highway.
Art Partridge: At that time the City rewrote the ordinances to allow
this in the first place , they put that stipulation in . As far as I
was concerned , that was a condition based on . . .
Headla : You made your proposal , I don 't remember the building. The
final proposal . I thought it was just the driving range and the
miniature golf course. Is that true?
John Pryzmus : No . In 1987 , since I bought the building , the steel
was all out there on the site. I did , at the recommendation of the
City Council and staff, I removed the geodesic dome . I built a new
building . I ' ve done everything . I ' ve done all the berming was done
to the south of the parking lot . Berming still has to be done to the
north of the parking lot. Basically , the City Council did deny the
wetland alteration but they did make me put in a pond for any future
runoff or whatever . The grading plans were revised by the City.
Headla: But was your indoor driving range proposed in your final
plan? '
John Pryzmus: Yes it was .
Headla: I remember it was being talked about at one time but then I
thought it was dropped . I have a hard time with this inside driving
range. We've had a hard time , we' ve really worked to keep retailing
out of the TH 5 where it isn ' t served by sewer . We have an indoor
driving range and people dropping in like that , I think that ' s
bordering on retail so I can' t support this building .
Conrad: I agree that this is a commercial use or that it ' s in
conflict with the intent of the agricultural area . It ' s not in sync
with the district ' s intent . I think that was how I postured it before
with the indoor batting . Maybe even the miniature golf . I think a
golf range is pretty in sync with the agricultural area . Not
necessarily the big buildings . It ' s green grass looks agricultural to
me. A building is not and I think it ' s real clear. I agree with the
staff' s comments and their summary and don ' t feel that it' s
appropriate to have buildings like this in the agricultural area .
Headla moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
denial of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #82-4 for indoor video
golf and indoor golf driving range as conditional uses in the A-2
district because the proposal is inconsistent with the intent of the
A-2 District and is imcompatible with the permitted and conditional
uses of the district . All voted in favor and motion carried.
1
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1988 - Page 39
II
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARTICLE V, SECTION 3 , TO PERMIT
IGOLF COURSES AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE A-2 , AGRICULTURAL ESTATE
DISTRICT , CITY OF CHANHASSEN.
IIPublic Present:
Art Partridge 6280 Hummingbird
I
Art Partridge: Is this in anticipation of. . .
IDacy: No , that 's not the case. Obviously we have one in the City but
because of a large land area requirements , I think the consensus of
opinion was that we didn ' t want to exclude that type of use any
Ifurther if, right now the Bluff Creek Golf Course is non-conforming.
If they did want to alter their course or add additional holes , they
would have to come in for a variance. However , that ' s not to say that
II there are disadvantages for the site planning of Bluff Creek Golf
Creek especially to access . . . You ' ve seen the Commission and the
Council stated that a golf course should be included somewhere in the
I city.
Conrad: It was pretty much our direction that we think we should
allow them. It ' s a case Art where if we ' re going to allow them, maybe
Iwe should have standards before they come in there and ask us for the
permit.
IErhart moved , Ellson seconded to close public hearing . All voted in
favor and motion carried.
IHeadla: A golf course, I don ' t have a hard time with that but when
you mentioned golf courses those people use it and pretty soon you
have like an office building and I 'm kind of thinking of like
Island View out at Waconia . You have a blacktop driveway and you' ve
Igot a building and you ' re going to serve pop or food or something and
pretty soon you' ve got several restrooms and now we' re taking a lot of
water and we' ve got to have a major sewer system. It ' s that sewer
Isystem, I have a hard time . If it ' s where we could hook it up to
public sewer and water, I ' d feel a lot different but that ' s the only
problem I had with it.
IBatzli : I have the same problem. I don ' t necessarily agree with the
staff ' s summary that a golf course doesn ' t have a lot of noise. In
fact, I think at many courses who rent their facilities out for
receptions and such, the kind of noise you get is late at night and
it ' s probably more offensive than a different type of use.
IDacy: The size of the clubhouse is a good point . One that was not
addressed but maybe one that we could research further because, how
big of a clubhouse do you have before it ' s getting into almost a
conference center and being rented out for meetings and gets beyond
1 just a golf course.
Conrad: I guess maybe you should go through the rest , but I agree. I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1988 - Page 40
think this issue should be tabled because I don ' t thin k we thought
tho
that out . That gets back into a very commercial intent and I think we
should look a little bit more at the size of clubhouse. Would we
permit a big clubhouse if they came in? I think there are a lot of
other things that we should take a look at simply besides access .
Emmings: We have to define golf course too I think. Are we talking
about a 3 hole course, a 9 hole course, a standard size? I don ' t
know. There must be standards for golf courses but I think we' re
going to need a definition of what we' re allowing as a permitted use
in terms of the course itself also.
Erhart: I had that down in my notes too . I think we want to make
sure, if we' re going to entertain a new golf course in this city that
it ' s a real golf course. Also , one other comment , I bet half the golf
courses in the Twin Cities operate on septic systems so I don ' t know
if that ' s a real problem but if it 's worthwhile, Barb I 'm sure would
love to find out . I thought this was a rather interesting thing.
When you go through Barb ' s logic, or if it was Jo Ann that went
through this , in trying to develop a philosophy of what we allow in
the agricultural area , getting back to contractor' s yards as you
probably anticipated, is that the philosophy tends to run is that the
A-2 and RR area seems to be well suited for , obviously agricultural
use and transitioning to residential . There seems to be another use
that runs through here and that is , it seems to be acceptable and
logical to allow recreational uses , those types of uses that require
large pieces of land . Those have all seemed to be non-conflicting.
We don ' t seem to get into terrible arguments about that. Just to give
you some examples on what I mean by recreational use that requires
large pieces of land would be the horse stables, golfing and in some
areas probably, not that we have enough room but it would be typical
to be like hunting clubs . We probably don ' t have enough area to do
that here. If we did have enough area , it probably would be
considered in Chanhassen . That seems to be acceptable and I think it
leads us once again here, it helps us in philosophising and accepting
some philosophy and guidelines . It helps us look at these and say,
yes , I think a golf course does make sense. I think we all agreed the
last time we talked about this . If someone came in with a nice
proposal we certainly wouldn ' t want to slow them down or give them any
kind of feeling that they weren ' t wanted. Yet at the same time, this
contractor ' s yard is , every time you mention contractor ' s yard , you
essentially say it ' s inconsistent in your report . So , that ' s all I
have to say about that one. '
Emmings : If we table this item, the other thing we ought to think
about is having it as a conditional use . If we can ' t really come up
with a solid definition of a golf course or a solid definition of
what size clubhouse is appropriate , we may want to make it a
conditional use rather than a permitted use.
Dacy: That ' s what I had proposed .
Emmings: I 'm sorry, I thought you were proposing it as a permitted
use.
Dacy: But it doesn' t hurt to add a further definition .
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1988 - Page 41
Conrad: What signals are we sending you right now? In fact , I don ' t
' know what signals we all are sending on golf courses . If Hazeltine
wanted to build in Chanhassen in the A-2 district , would we allow
them? We 'd say no.
Dacy: Right now, they couldn ' t.
Conrad: So if Staff could go back and draft some kind of guidelines
for us for an ordinance amendment. What do we want them to show us?
Are we looking for prohibiting a major golf course?
Erhart: That ' s not what I had . I had limiting a tiny golf course,
substandard golf course. That 's what I had in mind.
Conrad : That ' s more in line with agricultural though. A less
intensive use.
Erhart : No , what I 'm saying is , the rural area is a good use for
' recreational use that ' s involved with use of the land . If it ' s an 18
hole golf course, it ' s consistent with proper use of the land without
requiring a big septic problem. It ' s an okay golf course. What we
don ' t want to do is allow in a substandard golf course. And if he
' does , then they' ve got to sell us that . That ' s what I was thinking in
terms of trying to define what should come in . And maybe also define
it, they can ' t have a great big conference center either as long as
' it ' s a septic area . There ' s obviously limitations .
Conrad : Chanhassen is discouraging recreation activities . We really
' are. Water slides come in here and we don ' t want water slides .
I don ' t know what the recreation activities are but I always worry
that somebody has a good idea that requires land , the only place they
can do it is in the agricultural area but we really don ' t have
' locations for major activities like that .
Erhart: I think we encourage horse stables . It ' s a permitted use in
' both the A-2 and A-2 and RR district .
Dacy: I guess it depends on the recreation . The community center,
that 's aimed at specific types of recreation and the overall trail
plan is aimed at walking , cross country skiing and so on . I don 't
know that we' re saying no but I think maybe we' re more concerned about
a large amusement type of recreation . Water slides , to me that means
' ValleyFairs and amusement parks and so on .
Erhart: I differeniate in my mind the difference between some kind of
' a created amusement type recreation , which I think a mini-course is .
I would be against the mini-course because I think ' s a created thing
and it only requires a small area . You don ' t need the A-2 district to
put in a mini-course.
Batzli : By mini-course, are you talking a par 3 course?
' Erhart: No , I 'm talking about a mini-putt . Sort of the natural ,
outdoors , large land use recreational uses . I think this community is
a perfect place to put those kinds of things . Golfing , horse riding ,
1
1
: 1 FOR INFORMATIONAL! PURPOSES ONLY
FOR ITEM # 6
1 -
. 1 .
•
. a
11
1
1
1
i
1
111
1
1
•
•
•
•
1
1 :
1
i
111
`i .C. DATE: Jan. 20 , 1988
C ITY OF
\ I ' \( ,- - MAN T:' 1 C.C. DATE: Feb. 8 , 1988
,,,,.
Y II : ZOA�
Prepared byc` Dacy/v
I •
1 STAFF REPORT
i
PROPOSAL: To Amend the Zoning Ordinance To Permit Golf
ICourses as a Conditional Use in the A-2 ,
F- Agricultural Estate District
1Q
LOCATION:
El
CL. APPLICANT: City of Chanhassen
IQ
111 `
IPRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
IDENSITY:
I ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N-
1 � S_
.... E-
I
0 W-
11.1 WATER AND SEWER:
IHi
PHYSICAL CHARAC. :
I
2000 LAND USE PLAN:
II
I
C
ZOA for Golf Courses i
January 20 , 1988
Page 2
BACKGROUND
This application was initiated by the city during the discussion 1
of Mr. Pryzmus' application for a golf driving range, miniature
golf course and indoor batting facility. Upon reviewing the
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 22 , 1987 , the
City Council minutes of May 4 , 1987 , and November 16 , 1987 , the
issue of whether or not golf courses should be permitted in the
A-2 District was discussed at length. The Commission generally
agreed that golf courses are an appropriate use in the rural
area. Therefore, this application is to finalize discussion on
whether or not golf courses should be permitted in the A-2
District.
ANALYSIS
Analyzing zoning ordinance amendments involve reviewing the rela-
tionship of the proposed use to the zoning district' s intent and
its compatibility with the permitted and conditional uses
included in that district.
Intent
The intent of the A-2 , Agricultural District is to "preserve the
rural character while respecting development patterns by allowing
single family residential development" . During the recent Zoning 1
Ordinance review process, conditional uses were included in the
A-2 District which were logical extensions of agricultural acti-
vities or in the case of contractor' s yards recognized existing
uses in Chanhassen. The former 1972 Zoning Ordinance permitted
golf courses as a conditional use in that ordinance. The
existing Bluff Creek Golf Course was processed under that ordi-
nance
provision. Bluff Creek Golf Course is indicated on the
City' s Land Use Plan as Public/Semi-Public. While obviously not
an agricultural activity, a golf course requires large land areas
with access to collector streets or minor arterials . Because
of its seasonal operation, the club house facilities are typi-
cally limited in nature and smaller size septic systems and wells
can service club house facilities. Because of the golf course' s
seasonal use and larger acreage requirements , it is consistent
with the intent of the district by preserving a "rural character"
and not posing as a negative impact on residential properties .
Compatibility with Permitted and Conditional Uses
In terms of compatibility, a golf course can be evaluated as less
intensive than a contractor' s yard, wholesale nursery or a com-
mercial stable in terms of noise, odors and aesthetic impacts .
However, a golf course' s location can be quite important as to
traffic impacts on surrounding development.
1
I
IIZOA for Golf Courses
January 20 , 1988
' Page 3
The Bluff Creek Golf Course receives access through a residential
neighborhood on Creekwood Drive. The golf course was at the
' center of the road improvement issue on Creekwood Drive as to how
much the golf course should be responsible for paying for
Creekwood Drive' s improvement. The location of the golf course
was also a major factor in the review of the Bluff Creek Greens
subdivision request which was approved by the Council in March,
1986. This request consisted of the creation of thirteen 22 acre
lots along the golf course property as well as the creation of
six 2i acre lots adjacent to Pioneer Trail . There is no question
that if the Bluff Creek Golf Course submitted an application
today, the city would require direct access to a collector road-
' way instead of gaining access through a residential development.
Summary
' The City Council requested the Planning Commission to evalute the
appropriateness of golf courses in the A-2 District and to pro-
vide some guidelines as to their location. Given the current
' state of the ordinance, the Bluff Creek Greens Golf Course is
non-conforming. If expansion were to be proposed or improvement
modifications to be proposed, a variance application would have
to be processed to allow a non-conforming use to expand. The
Council adopted the Planning Commission' s recommendations for
standards for driving ranges. Some of these conditions are just
' as appropriate. Therefore, it is recommended that the Planning
Commission consider amending the A-2 District to permit golf
courses subject to the following conditions :
' 1 . Access must be obtained from a collector or arterial street
as identified in Article VI, Section 25 .
' 2 . Hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset.
3 . Adequate septic system and well facilities shall be provided
in conformance with Ordinance No. 10-B.
The Zoning Ordinance already provides for parking requirements
for a golf course use.
' Because of the land requirements, golf courses exist in rural
areas in other communities . The Cedar Hills golf course in Eden
Prairie is an example.
RECOMMENDATION
' Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance
Amendment Request 88-2 to amend the A-2 , Agricultural Estate
District to add golf courses as a conditional use subject to the
1
ZOA for Golf Courses
January 20 , 1988
Page 4 I
following standards :
1 . Access must be obtained from a collector or arterial street
as identified in Article VI, Section 25 .
2 . Hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset. '
, 3 . Adequate septic system and well facilities shall be provided
in conformance with Ordinance No. 10-B .
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Planning Commission minutes dated April 22 , 1987.
2 . City Council minutes dated May 4 , 1987.
3 . City Council minutes dated November 16, 1987.
4 . Copy of 1972 Ordinance.
5 . Copy of Ordinance 80-E.
6 . Copy of Land Use Plan.
I
r
I
I
11
11
. Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1987 - Page 27
' configuration of the roadways that that come before the Planning
Commission for review.
IAll voted in favor and motion carried .
I Siegel moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #87-6 with the following
conditions:
1. The Class A wetland shall be preserved by a conservation easement
established at 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark.
' 2. The applicant shall provide drainage easements over the ponding
areas throughout the site and not allow any alteration to the
areas .
IAll voted in favor and motion carried .
IErhart: Can you explain what item number 2 in your recomnendation means.
Olsen: What they are providing, in what they call a storm water easement,I just making sure that they definitely provide easements over that and
that those are protected areas so they won ' t be altered .
Erhart: Altered?
IOlsen : Such as mowing the lawn.
I SWINGS RECREATION, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND CO. RD.
117 , JOHN PRYZMUS , APPLICANT:
' A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REQUEST TO AMEND THE A-2, AGRICULTURAL
ESTATE DISTRICT TO ALLOW GOLF DRIVING RANGES, MINIATURE GOLF
COURSES AND INDOOR BATTING BUILDINGS AS A CONDITIONAL USE.
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A GOLF DRIVING RANGE, MINIATURE
GOLF COURSE, AND AN INDOOR BATTING BUILDING.
C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT REQUEST TO FILL IN A CLASS A WETLAND.
Barbara Dacy presented the Staff report on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Irequest.
Conrad : Where else would a golf driving range be in the city?
1 Dacy: Currently a golf driving range is not listed in any other commercial
districts so basically a golf course or golf driving range is not a
permitted or conditional use within the City of Chanhassen.
A7A110774t/
1
.. Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1987 - Page 28
Conrad: Can you refresh my memory why that is? I'm looking at some notes
where we specifically said we did not want that in agricultural area and I
have a hard time recalling that.
Dacy: What happened was, during the Zoning Ordinance review process we met
several times in 1985 and 1986. The Bluff Creek golf course now is a non-
conforming use as a golf course but we do recall discussion that the
Commission did have problems with a golf driving range in the rural area.
You didn't think it was appropriate. it created some traffic along those
roads so it wasn't approved as a part of the new Ordinance thus the
application.
Conrad: John, you are the applicant. Specifically John we're talking on
the zoning and before you tell us what your range and what your
configuration would look like. I don't know how I can limit you to just one
subject. You are asking for a zoning change or you are asking to amend the
Ordinance based on a project that you've got. I don't want to review the
project yet. I really do want to review the concept. Of the three things
that you've asked for, in general in the City of Chanhassen. Can you keep
us away from your project for a while? Do you have anything to tell us
about driving ranges in Chanhassen? Persuade us that we should have drivin in Chanhassen is what my challenge to you would be.
John Pryzmus: On page 8, basically my feelings in the Chaska Herald is an II
ad I developed. I spent a lot of time with the people planning the driving
range out there now. I've been in front of the City Council about two
months ago and at that time we didn't have the total plans and the layout of"
the new facility. It had been approved originally five years ago for a
driving range and I never did open it. I worked on it gradually over the
last 5 years and being that the little one I had in town, there was no
development on it, I never had a reason to open the new one. I brought in
people from Chicago, John Jacobsford Golf and we went and looked at every
driving range in the Twin Cities area and there are a lot of driving ranges
that aren't kept up very well and a lot of them are just an intern use for all
piece of property until you put it into an industrial park or whatever. You
aren't going to buy an industrial park for driving ranges but you do buy a
driving range for industrial parks. With this project, I'm not proposing it
to be used as an industrial park down the road. It's a half a million
dollar project that should enhance the recreational facilities for the
community. In all the response I've had, they are 100% for the project. I
feel by getting community support, I feel that I want to show the Council
and the Planning Commission that not only do I want to make a business
venture out there, I've already spent a lot of money buying the land. I
bought it on a contingency that I could have a driving range then that was r
approved so I guess what I want to do now. I originally proposed a
miniature golf in my original proposal and that was turned down but what I
want to do is make it financially feasible for me to do it as an investment
and also make it a good thing for the community. With the nature of TH 5
and there is not really a traffic problem. These numbers might not all be
right but you have approximately 20,000 cars going by there a day so there
won't be a traffic impact. They would be coming off of TH 5 and going down
r
11
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1987 - Page 29
100 yards on a major collector road which is tar .
' Conrad: John, I think you are getting into the specifics of the project and
I'm really trying to focus on the Ordinance itself right now. We have to
look at the Ordinance and say does it make sense to allow driving ranges?
Does it make sense to allow some buildings out there and you can come back
in a few seconds to talk on the specifics but anything else that you can
share with us in terms of, I know they are real closely tied together.
John Pryzmus: I guess maybe if I could just answer any questions you have
because if I start rambling on and on I might get back into that. If there
are some questions as far as if it will be compatible. My neighbors out
there, I have a group home to the west of me and contractor yards to the
I north of me. Dale Green has a farm to the south of me. A guy named Larry
Van DeVeire has the land to the east of me and I talked to him and he feels
it's commercial. One of the gentlemen here, John Hennessey, he has the land
' to the northeast corner of me so basically what I 'm trying to do by getting
community support is not set a precedence in allowing any kind of commercial
project. Like Barb stated, a driving range needs a lot of land. It isn't
II like putting a gas station out there. The miniature golf and the batting
cages, the three of them blend together to make it financially feasible
first of all but they also make it a nice project for the people in
Chanhassen. Like you just had on your map, each developer gives park space.
I They put in baseball diamonds. The City is acquiring property to add three
more diamonds just a mile to the east of this project. They are putting
lights on the park because there is such a demand for a recreational
I facilities and as a private developer, there won't be any city money or
anything like that. This will be a private venture so I think it would just
be in asking too with what the City already is doing with their parks and
with their recreational facilities.
Roger Schmidt: I live out in that area. I guess my thinking is that t I
haven't seen a driving range yet in the metropolitan area that I think is a
definite asset as far as aesthetics go on the community. They are usually
II located in more of a business area or with a golf course and even a golf
course is stuck back in a corner someplace where they aren't that visible.
Being a resident of that area, I'm somewhat concerned that we'll probably
end up with a very similar situation that you have with 900 of the other
driving ranges and I'm very much concerned from the standpoint that I don't
see the City doing much policing in the area of taking care of what's out
II there right now. That's been, for several years, right now it's nothing but
a junk pile and we've had comments from people out-of-town and in town
asking us what's going on over there and it's kind of embarrassing for us to
' have to admit that we're living in an area that looks like that. I think
that particular spot, as far as driving ranges within the City, I think
there probably are spots for them but that particular one , I would think you
' look at it as your western gateway into town and I think you should look at
that as something that you don't want to build up with things that probably
aren't going to be complimentary to the City. You have to decide whether
II that is a complimentary activity or not and obviously the other thing that
I'm concerned about is the commercialization of the district. It's not
1
11
r
Planning Commission Meeting
• April 22, 1987 - Page 30
allowed as far as your zoning now and I think people kind of go by the
zoning issues when they decide to locate there and you don't arbitrarily
change them so I think you should give that serious consideration also. u
Headla moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing on the Zoning
Ordinance Amendment . All voted in favor and motion carried.
Headla: I don't understand why having a driving range, and the batting
thing and the miniature golf is different but I don't see why a driving
range would be of any benefit. I think there are several downside aspects II
of it but I don't see any upside aspects except the person running the
range. I think the people surrounding that might suffer.
Conrad: You've got to consider them like a golf course. People use it. '
Driving ranges are used.
Headla: Then if I look at the location, then I wonder about Galpin Blvd..
I'm on that road quite a bit. I ride a bike on that and right now, I don't '
like the way the cars are on there. Do you have any idea how much traffic
comes and goes from one of those facilities? '
Pryzmus: I'm sure there will be some major amount of traffic. I don't know
what you consider major but most of it will be coming off of TH 5 so they
would be coming off TH 5 down 100 yards and turning in there. The traffic I
study we do have a parking lot scheduled for 16 spaces. We overbuilt the
parking lot basically. I would say a full driving range wouldn't have more
than 3 or 4 cars at a time. That's comparing apples to oranges because that
was a temporary thing and basically the people would want something to do
down on West 79th Street where this will be a business that will be
maintained .
Siegel: I can't recall discussing our reasons for excluding olf courses
from the A-2 district. g
Dacy: I can't pinpoint the date. We did go back and look through the
files. It was a fairly short discussion.
Siegel: What was the justification or the reasoning behind us or staff '
recommending the exclusion from the A-2?
Dacy: The way it was proposed, it was listed because it was consistent with II
our prior Ordinance. However, it was the specific recommendation to have
golf courses and driving ranges removed.
Siegel: In essence what we're doing is removing any possibility of having al
golf course or driving range in the City of Chanhassen.
Dacy: That 's correct. The Bluff Creek golf course is now non-conforming . I
Siegel : Well, that doesn't make sense to me. It just doesn't make sense.
If somebody came in with a plan for a beautiful golf course in the rolling II
1
1
' - Planning Commission Meeting
• April 22, 1987 - Page 31
hills of Chanhassen, I'm sure the City Council and the cit y Planning
Commission would jump at the chance to invite them in with open arms to
' develop that as such. In lieu of that, I look at that piece of property and
I guess I'm new to the history of it and I guess the applicant has been
remiss in some respects in his follow through in what he has been planning
for that. In all due respects, I think we should approach this as a new
I application for such use and look at it in that light. I think it will be
an improvement on that corner and to me the location is marketable as a
driving range and as a miniature golf course. I tend to favor that. Unless
' there is more stronger objections to granting a conditional use permit in
the Zoning Ordinance , I would favor it.
' Emmings: I agree with Bob 100% that I can't imagine why we wouldn't have
golf courses and driving ranges as a conditional use in the A-2 district. I
don't have any problem with that. I agree with the Staff that miniature
golf courses and indoor batting buildings such as this don't belong out
there and belong in a commercial district. Then having said that, I guess
putting a miniature golf course with the rest of the things that are here,
the driving range and whatever a maxi-putt and putting green business all
seems to be pretty cohesive and make sense in this particular project so I 'm
having some problems with this. I don't have any problem with the driving
range being a conditional use in the A-2. I don't think there ought to be,
in condition 1, I don't agree that they ought to be abutting collectors. I
' think they should only be on arterials. On major streets, I think we want
to lean that way towards major roadways. I think the second condition is
very important that they only be operated from sunrise to sunset. I think
II that's adequate in the summer time and I think the lights would be a real
problem for anyone who lived around it. I guess that's all I got.
Erhart: I disagree regarding the issue of whether we should allow golf
courses and these things in the A-2 area. I agree with Bob. I think we
really overlooked something in golf courses and I don't know enough that we
can lump practice areas in that or not so I don't have a strong feeling
I about that. I do have a strong feeling about buildings in the A-1 and A-2
areas. These metal buildings and they tend to be the area that acts as a
transitional area from agricultural to the residental. In south Chanhassen
I where people have built these metal buildings out in the country and I don't
know for what reason, where they have not been part of a farm homestead ,
they are really an eyesore. Even though some of them are well kept up, they
don't fit so with respect to that, I would real against, that batting
Ipractice thing requires metal or any kind of a major industrial type, any
kind of a non-farm building or a non-house, I don't think it ought to be
part of the A-2 or A-1. I think it should not be part of the A-2 district.
I agree with Steve entirely as far as the driving range. I guess as long as
it's on TH 5 with the correct word is major arterial, I guess it's okay.
Certainly the one the John ran just west of the City here, as long as there
I wasn't any buildings and the grass was mowed, I didn't think it was an
eyesore at all. Regarding the building on the other hand, if we're going to
put a driving range in here, you probably have to have some small building
I to keep the tractor and stuff out of the rain so I guess I wouldn't mind a
small wooden garage or something just to maintain that kind of thing but
I
C
Planning Commission Meeting I
• April 22, 1987 - Page 32
certainly not a permanent industrial type building. I agree the hours oughJI
to be sunrise to sunset. The second concern, I think in the A-2 area is to
emphasize that we do not want retail business in the A-2 area. For example'
I can't have a retail nursery on my nursery farm. I can have wholesale but
you can't have retail. Again, reflecting on that, we have to be real
careful if we're going to use it at all, I think it should be on TH 5. Tha
is the only appropriate , place to have this in the City. So the rest of the
commission can think about that retail issue and we've got to be real
careful about that. We consistently said we do not want retail business
activities down there. I like 4 that certainly it should not be within 5011
feet of a single family residence. Our wholesale nursery and contractor
yards basically have to fit with that rule.
Conrad: I have nothing more to add. I think golf courses and driving I
ranges are appropriate in Chanhassen. I don't think that buildings out in
that area, specifically indoor batting buildings, is what I want to see but
to use the land that way, I think is appropriate. I would vote for that '
type of a use in a A-2 district. My only comments other than that are we
should have, if we make a motion in favor, somebody might want to work the
word golf course in. We don't need to and maybe a golf course is a whole
different set of circumstances. I don't know. The other part that I would '
like to see is an intent statement in terms of why we're allowing this and I
guess one of the intents that I would see as a conditional use, is to
minimize impact on neighbors in terms of noise, traffic and lighting. I
II
think we need some kind of intent statement along with this if we do choose
to allow this as a conditional use.
Emmings: I wouldn't like to see golf courses included tonight for two II
reasons. First of all, it's not in front of us and that always makes me
uncomfortable but secondly, Staff has obviously thought through the kinds of
conditions we should impose on a driving range, if we're going to allow that
as a conditional use and I don't see that they have had the opportunity to
think through conditions for golf courses as a conditional use and maybe
that ought to come back as a separate item. I
Conrad: That ' s a good point.
*At this this point a motion was made and the following discussed occurred . II
Conrad: Steve, did you leave out miniature golf courses on purpose?
IIEmmings : Yes .
Siegel : Does the miniature golf course, in the eyes of us here, reflect as II
a retail establishment? Would that be the objection to including that
miniature golf course as a conditional use? It borders in the area of
retail establishment and service recreational type business.
I
Emmings : The way I think about a miniature golf thing fits into a
commercial area. It's compact. You can't put a driving range in just a
city lot. You need some room. Miniature golf courses don't bother me in
II
II
II
' -
1 • Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1987 - Page 33
Ithe City, they bother me to think about them being out in the A-2. It just
doesn ' t seem to fit at all .
ISiegel : I guess I tend to think of it as a similar type of use to a golf
driving range especially in conjunction with it. If we were to talk about
I specifics, put a bunch of miniature golf courses 2 miles apart, maybe that
would be a little bit different but we're talking about is a proposed
complex here. Not one being here and one being 1 mile down the road and
another one a mile down the road all in the A-2 district so I think it's a
I little bit different when you're looking at it as a package as just one
thing.
II Emmings: Let me ask in that regard, let's say that we have passed this
Zoning Amendment to allow it as a conditional use, if we were somehow
persuaded that a miniature golf place fit in with this particular driving
range project, could we allow it?
IDacy: What I hear you saying is that you feel that the driving range and
the miniature golf course really should act together and not a stand alone
I miniature golf situation so if you wanted to phrase your approval in the
framework that golf driving ranges subject to these conditions. Miniature
golf courses as an accessory use to the golf driving range, that would be an
II option. You couldn't have a miniature golf course without a driving range
along with it. If that's what you're saying.
Siegel : I guess to me it makes sense. The whole idea of having a miniature
I golf course, especially when you think about fathers and mothers going out
to a golf driving range and they've got a place for their kids to spend some
time. It's sort of a natural. I'm surprised there aren't more combinations
like that around.
I
Emmings: If we could , I guess what I would like to do since I made the
motion, is leave my motion out there the way it is and then maybe you can
I make a second motion to talk about miniature golf as an accessory use to the
driving range. Would that be alright?
I Dacy: Yes, and then you should look at what a miniature golf course is. It
does require more lights. You have the windmills and the people to hit the
ball through and so on so you have to consider those visual aspects also.
It is different than a driving range.
IIErhart : I would like to see us go back and spend some more time on this one
and define it a little bit better. I'm really against putting anything in
I the A-2 area that visually is not consistent with either residential or
agriculture and I think you can make a driving range consistent with
agricultural but I think we ought to define what the landscaping is going to
I be. Buildings in some kind of terms. What buildings can be put on there?
I've seen driving ranges with 16 foot high fences and then in a couple years
they're falling down.
' Emmings: Tim, don't we retain complete control over that when it's under
I
41_ .
. Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1987 - Page 34
our conditional use? That to me is the whole reason that it should be in '
there as a conditional use rather than a permitted use because we retain a
lot of control over the plan and the landscaping and what the buildings are '
going to be.
Headla: I doubt that you have that much control over a conditional use. I
has to get pretty bad. -
Emmings: No. When the plan comes in Dave, we look at it before anything
gets built and we say we only allow you to build it if you do the
landscaping this way. If you show us the plan for the building you're going'
to build and we approve it.
Headla : I 'm referring to Tim's comments . '
Emmings: You're talking about maintaining it after it's built. That's
always a problem yes . '
Headla: I think Tim made the comment very well in that a conditional use
permit is very hard to police at times. I think a good example of that is II
the horse riding farm. Once they were in there and there was a dust
problem, and I was involved with that to some extent, it's hard to say you
people created 80% of the dust. It's pretty hard to shut them down because
there is nothing to enforce that. Once they were in there, they were in 11
there.
Dacy: The advantage to the Zoning Ordinance now is that, that original
conditional use permit was approved several years ago and we do a lot more
restrictions in our current ordinance and that's the purpose of this
amendment process is to establish those type of conditions. If you wanted
to add no metal buidlings on the golf driving ranges or a suggested II
condition, just authorize a building to take tickets or whatever, can't
exceed 800 square feet. I don't know but you have that ability to establish
conditions through this process. 1
Emmings: There are two other things. A conditional use permit can be
revoked if they don't live up to the conditions. Mr. Pryzmus has already
found that out on one occasion. That's worked here. To say that a golf
driving range or golf course doesn't fit in the A-2, means that we're
banning all driving ranges and that doesn't make sense to me. They are a
conditional use, not as a permitted use just so anybody can put on anywhere
they want to, as a conditional use.
Conrad : Tim, you would like to see other conditions in that other than what '
we ' ve got. Is that true?
Siegel: We're talking about the Zoning Ordinance amendment now, not the
conditional use permit right?
Dacy: Yes .
r
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1987 - Page 35
IErhart : We could put it in the Zoning Ordinance so we have driving ranges
are permitted as long as the club house is kept to a 35-40, we can put that
I in there if we want and one storage shed. You could add those as part of
the Zoning Ordinance. On the other hand, I guess if all we're allowing is
that the driving range it wouldn't make any economic sense to put much more
than that on it. Just a small garage and small clubhouse. Maybe it would
I police itself. The other thing I would be more inclined to go along with is
if we actually restricted it to TH 5 or TH 212 but I will not vote for it if
this can be put on TH 101 or Lyman Blvd. . I just think that ' s dead wrong .
1 Headla: What are we really voting on now?
Conrad: We're voting on an Ordinance change and as Steve's motion said, he
I is recommending that golf driving ranges be a conditional use in the A-2
district. We're not talking about John's proposal now. We're talking
simply about, is it appropriate to allow driving ranges in Chanhassen
Ibecause right now you can ' t have them.
Headla: So if we were to say no, we don't want any of this. We do what the
I Ordinance says as is. That does not prohibit anyone from coming in and
getting a conditional use?
Conrad: They can't get a conditional use because it's prohibited right now.
1 There is no way to apply for a driving range right now.
Headla : It is explicitedly prohibited?
1 Dacy: Yes. The use is not allowed in any district.
Conrad : But what we're saying in this request is , we will allow it as a
I conditional use but Dave, nobody can come into town right now and build one.
John wants to build one and he's got to have us effect the Zoning Ordinance
right now if he ' s to build anything.
1 Dacy: If I can make one more comment before you take action on that motion.
On the collector and arterial condition, it concerns me if you do limit it
I to just two highways or to an arterial because to me that construes that you
can only get access from that arterial highway. We wouldn't want to create
a driveway situation off of TH 5 so the benefit of having a collector in
there, in this particular situation, is that you can have access of the
I major street. All the streets in the rural area are collectors or arterials
anyway but I think we should preserve the arterial to keep that flow through
traffic and not allow addition interruption.
1 Erhart: What about stating within 700 feet of TH 5 or TH 212. Have access
from. . .
1 Dacy: You are saying more of a location?
Erhart: Yes exactly. What you're talking about is putting a retail
1 business out in the rural area and I think the only place you want to do
I
11
. Planning Commission Meeting '
April 22 , 1987 - Page 36
that is on TH 5 or TH 212.
Dacy: Then in that case I guess I would recommend that you look at amendin
number 1 to location near an arterial street with access to a collector or II
arterial . Again , it all depends on it ' s location.
Erhart: It could be a collector but as long as it was on TH 5 or TH 212. II
The access points can be on the collector .
Dacy: It is subjective because where do you draw the lines? At 500, 1,00011
or 1,500?
Emmings: What if we said location on an arterial with access to a collector
for ingress and egress? '
Siegel: Wouldn't that be part of the conditional use instead of the Zoning
Ordinance? '
Dacy: Yes, the benefit of the conditional use will allow you to look at the
individual case.
Emmings : No . My motion is going to leave that in and I ' 1
1 tell you why.
Conrad: Leave what in? '
Emmings : It's going to leave in a condition that will state that it will be
located on an arterial with access to a collector for ingress and egress and,
the reason is , if someone comes in and our ordinance already says they can
only look at places along arterials, we're going to have a lot less trouble
with those people than if they come in and say, okay I want it over here and
your Ordinance doesn 't say I can ' t.
Erhart: But you've got Pioneer Trail and TH 101 and Lyman Blvd. are all
arterials . 1
Dacy: As the motion is on the floor now, item 1 is location on an arterial
street as identified in Article VI , Section 25.
Conrad : Steve, do you want to amend that?
Emmings: Yes. Again, I think it should be located on an arterial street
with access to a collector for ingress and egress. I guess what we're
saying is we don't want them just anywhere in the agricultural district. We
want them on major roadways but we don't want their driveway coming onto II that major roadway. We want them like here, on a corner where they've got
access to a collector so the turn can be made off of TH 5 onto Galpin and
then get in and out on Galpin so they aren't actually turning off that
arterial. They don't have their driveway on the arterial but we want them II
located on major roadways rather than just scattered anywhere.
1
I
c
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1987 - Page 37
Siegel: Now where are we Mr. Chairman. We've had a motion and a second and
we' re in discussion stage and he wants to make an amendment to his motion?
Conrad: That's correct so I withdraw my original second and second your
motion on your change Steve just to get this going. Is there anymore
discussion?
Erhart moved, Headla seconded to amend the motion to limit the golf driving
ranges must be adjacent to either TH 5 or TH 212 and access must be from a
collector or an arterial which leads to TH 5 or TH 212. Erhart, Emmings and
Headla voted in favor and Siegel and Conrad opposed the amendment, and
motion carried .
Emmings moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow driving ranges in the A-2
district as a conditional use with the following conditions :
1. The location is limited to being adjacent to TH 5 and TH 212 and
access must be from a collector or an arterial which leads to TH 5
or TH 212.
2. Hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset .
3. Provision of adequate parking areas and submission of a landscaping
plan in conformance with Article VIII .
4. No site shall be located within 500 feet of single family
residences .
All voted in favor except Headla who opposed .
Headla: The reason being that I think there are far too many negatives
situations that can happened as compared to the upside advantages. In
respect to both the adjacent landowners and the City.
Conrad: John we'll bring you back on board. We're going to open up the
I public hearing for the second stage of this which is where you are asking
for a conditional use permit. You are askin for a
g golf driving range.
Barbara, because we have turned down a miniature golf course and/or batting
building , should John continue to pursue and present his proposal in full?
IDacy: I think so.
I Pryzmus: Basically, financially I can't even proceed, by taking out the
miniature golf and the indoor activities, financially for me, it makes it
impossible. What you basically did was take away the foundation and the
walls and you're giving me the roof so I can't enter into a contractual
agreement with the City to spend $300,000.00 to basically make a beautiful
driving range. I already have the driving range sprinkler systems already
in. The tee area is already built. The greens are already done. The
Isandtrap is there. The classified parking lot that we originally was agreed
I
300
•
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
use permit. I would like to have this whole ordinance looked at.
Mayor Hamilton: I was surprised to see that also. We missed that somehow,
golf courses, and I have no problem with miniature golf courses either. I
don't have any problem with indoor batting buildings if they are put in the
right place. _1
Councilman Geving: Where else are you going to put them?
Councilman Johnson: I haven't looked at that question '
qu yet. Without looking
at the question and having the Planning Commission give me advice on that
question, I think it's a good idea for than to review that first.
1,1
Councilman Horn: That's why I think we're premature in suggesting a zoning
ordinance amendment tonight. This is a specific request for a zoning
ordinance amendment for this project. For those three uses. If we're saying iI
that we're not going to allow those three uses, our only option is to deny
this request. Now we could go beyond that and say we want the Planning
Commission to look at some type of a zoning ordinance recommendation to us for
allowing golf courses and driving ranges and mini-putts or whatever we want to
include in that but I don't think that's the form of a motion. The motion is
either to accept this or deny this as I see it.
Councilman Johnson: Dale's motion was to accept one-third of it. My motion
is to accept two-thirds of it.
Councilman Horn: But why make a zoning ordinance when you haven't studied the
issue? Why not come back with that unless it's tied to a specific proposal?
Councilman Johnson: The additional issue is the golf course. sl
Barbara Dacy: Yes, there was a specific request for driving ranges, miniature
golf course and then indoor batting buildings and therefore we processed a l
request in light of that. We did not specifically advertise for r
p y golf courses.
I think the two though are vastly different. I think what's being proposed
tonight is a different intensity than a golf course is and a golf course would
require a separate and different review process than a driving range. That's t�
why Staff went ahead and process this request. We can go back and pick up
golf courses at a later point but we came from the standpoint that you didn't
have to have a golf course in with the amendment to go along with a driving s f
range.
Councilman Horn: I understand that. My point is that if we're not going to
amend all three of these uses this evening, it isn't necessary for us to amend
any of them this evening.
Mayor Hamilton: That's true. We have two options. We can either do it that 31
way or...
Barbara Dacy: So what you're saying is they are either appropriate in the A-2
or they're not.
46
I
Il
City Council Meeting - May 4,
• 987
11 I appropriate Johnson: And mgye o tion says that two out of three of t
pp opriate if they are t r, them are
IMayor Hamilton: I agree with
buildings but I don't think thaClark. I have no problem with indoor
either. Why don't we think
take- was allowed for in our ordinance revision
Iallowed. a look at that and see where they would be
Councilman Johnson: General r
It could
Councilman
more than a eral batting- creational facilities. Take the step
facilities that could be comme cage. There are other sports recreational
beyond.
dally available.
Barbara Dacy: Right. The indooz batting
the Zoning Day: Right does h in c) building term is very
highway. I think it says sports line in the business general and specific bbinessa
g y' ys p clubs and or commercial recreation so that
type of use could be allowed in our commercial district.
II Mayor Hamilton: Maybe that new s to be
would know exactly where they could propose specificaly outlined so applicants
to put t this thing.
I Councilman Johnson moved, Counc '
?
Ordinance Amendment to allow dr lman Geving seconded to approve a Zoning
accessory to the driving range as inn ranges with miniature golf courses as an
Iril
the following conditions: a conditional use in the A-2 District with
1. The location is limited
Oil access must be from a c to being adjacent to TH 5 and TH 212 and
TH 212. °llector or arterial which leads to TH 5 or
I2. Hours of operation shall. be from sunrise to sunset.
3. Provision of adequate par king areas and submission of a landscaping
plan in conformance with p g
ICI Article VIII.
4. No site shall be located within 509 feet of single family
5. Any building be small and residences.
balls. earthtone in color for dispensing of golf
1 6. That golf courses be taken back to the Planning
what zoning district golf courses belong in. Commission to review
Councilman Johnson and Councilman Geving voted in favor and Councilman Horn
and Mayor Hamilton opposed. There was a tie vote, 2-2.
I n
Councilman Horn: My recommendation would
us Councilman
then put this subject back to be to deny the request that's
of those issues and give us a recd the Planning Commission to clarify before
emendation. Y each
Barbara Dacy: To clarify each driving range, miniature golf course.
Councilman Horn: The golf course, the indoor batting, address all four of
, i
47
J T
IL .
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
Councilman Geving: Okay, Staff recommended 800. Would you buy 800?
John Pryzmus: I guess if I can get it in.
Councilman Geving: I'll amend my motion to include an 800 square foot shed.
Councilman Horn: I'll amend my second. 1
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Zoning
Ordinance Amendment request to amend the A-2 Agricultural Estate District to
include a golf driving range and miniature golf courses as an accessory use to
golf driving ranges as conditional uses in the A-2 District with the following
conditions:
1. The location is limited to being adjacent to TH 5 and TH 212 and
access must be from a collector or arterial which leads to TH 5 and
TH 212.
2. Hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset.
3. Provision of adequate parking areas and submission of a landscaping
plan in conformance with Article VIII.
4. No site shall be located within 500 feet of single family residences.
5. The building to be constructed on any site would be a maximum of 800
square feet, painted in earthtones to house the facility.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
B. WETLAND ALTERATION REQUEST TO FILL IN A CLASS A WETLAND.
Mayor Hamilton: I believe a good share of that wetland has been filled
through the years when there has been plowing and agricultural activities
occurring on that property. I believe that the applicant also may have filled
in part of that so I asked the Staff today if that in fact still is a Class A
wetland. If it does have the grasses and the standing water and everything
else that's required to be classified as a Class A wetland. I guess I'm not
convinced that it is any longer whether by the applicant's doing or somebody
elses so I'm not sure if we're really talking about a permit for a Class A
wetland. Is it really a Class A wetland? By whose definition also?
Barbara Dacy: It is a Class A wetland by definition of the City Wetland
Ordinance which was adopted in 1984.
Mayor Hamilton: There are marsh grasses and cattails and all that sort of
thing growing out there?
Barbara Dacy: There is a small amount of reed grass as Dr. Rockwell pointed
out. The area is not good for habitat however, the vegetation in the soils do
indicate a wetland. However, it is obvious that the site has been cultivated El
for in excess of 50 years it was a site for tree farm. The quality of that
50
7
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
portion of the wetland is really in question and the applicant submitted a
letter detailing the history of the use of that particular site. As was
IIpointed out in the report, the portion of the wetland contained in the site is
approximately 4 acres and that's the remaining part of the original alottment
totals 78 acres and extends to the northern part of the property.
ICouncilman Johnson: I walked this wetlands several times now. There
definitely are peat grasses and your aquatic vegetation trying to sprout up
Ito what was moved on top of it. We've got standing water in the pond that used be kind of the feed to the top of the wetlands from the appearances of it.
Going from his proposed tee line down 200 yards, it's not much of a wetland
anymore so on your prints, the top half of it has pretty well been filled by 6
I inches to a foot of soils. The lower, especially beyond the 250 yard range,
which is a pretty good golfer, personally I can't make the 200 yard range, is
still much peat soils without much filling going on. There has been some
II grading going on in there. As it exists, I'm not a soils expert to tell you
how much it can hold as far as tractors or anything. I think you could
probably operate fairly easity down to the 200 yard point. Between the 200
and 250 creates a problem and beyond 250 is peat that most anything is going
Ito drop into. With good grass down to the 200 that shouldn't be a lot of
problem. I wouldn't want to see any more alterations down to the wetlands as
it is. I believe there is some recommendations that said if we did allow
III alterations, they wanted a permanent sedimentation basin at the bottom. If
this is all grass, you're not going to be getting much sediment coming out of
it. What would we be trying to settle in the sedimentation basin? Or are we
IIlooking for a nutrient basin to take out the nutrients from the soil?
Gary Warren: I looked at it from that standpoint as a buffer uffer zone between
II what would be remaining as wetland versus the activity that would be conducted
on the site. From fertilizers or anything else that would have to be
utilized out there.
II Councilman Johnson: This is pretty much the headwaters for what, Bluff Creek
I believe. At this point Bluff Creek is only a foot or two wide and that
feeds a lot of our chain of lakes so the headwaters must be protected and
that's where I'm coming from in protecting this wetlands.
1 ' Councilman Geving: The only comment I want to make, I'm not too concerned
about the wetlands as I am about staying away from the creek area. That was
Ithe problem we had before. I do respect Dr. Rockwell's recommendations.
Councilman Horn: I just think we should keep it as it is.
IIMayor Hamilton: I guess I don't see any reason why it can't partially be
filled in at least up to the 954 elevation. That would still be enough area
for some ponding near the creek for run-off into the creek and still be able
Ito filter water.
lill Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the Wetland Alteration Permit request to fill
in a Class A wetland up to the 954 contour and permit approval from the Army
Corps of Engineers. There was no second and motion died for lack of second.
M
II 51
r
- r
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to deny the Wetland
Alteration Permit request to fill in a Class A wetland. All voted in favor
except Mayor Hamilton who opposed and motion carried.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A GOLF DRIVING RANGE, MINIATURE GOLF COURSE
AND AN INDOOR BATTING BUILDINGS.
Councilman Johnson: Because we're building something within 200 feet of a
wetlands, how does that affect this and if there is not going to be any
further work on the wetlands, does the Conditional Use have to have the Corps
of Army Engineer's approval also?
•
Barbara Dacy: I take the proposed Council action to mean approve the
Conditional Use permit for the driving range and basically the applicant can't
fill into the wetland area. He can not alter it so a specific condition
should read that the wetland area as identified on the plan should remain as
is.
Mayor Hamilton: That's what we just passed. r
Councilman Geving: No alteration of the area. I'm talking about alteration
in terms of excavation and replacement of soils in the wetland area.
Councilman Johnson: So planting grass seed in the wetland area, would that be
acceptable or would that be considered fill?
Mayor Hamilton: Are we going back to the last motion are we to clarify that
at this point?
Councilman Johnson: The last motion almost kicks out the conditional use
permit because this land would be useless within the wetlands that's in the
middle of the driving range unless he can smooth it out to plant grass. r
Mayor Hamilton: If he doesn't fill it to the 954 contour then it would be
more useable. We still have a drainage area and filtering area before it gets
to the creek.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve a Conditional Use
Permit request for a golf driving range and miniature golf course. All voted
in favor and motion carried.
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO INSTALL THE LAKE ANN INTERCEPTOR AND THE LAKE
VIRGINIA FORCEMAIN IN AND NEAR CLASS A AND CLASS B WETLANDS ALONG THE
ALIGNMENT RUNNING SOUTHEASTERLY FROM TH 41 TO TH 5, THROUGH THE CHANHASSEN
LAKES BUSINESS PARK, NORTH OF LAKE SUSAN AND INTO EDEN PRAIRIE, METROPOLITAN
WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION, APPLICANT. r
Councilman Johnson: There was a point in here where Dr. Rockwell made a
recommendations. It wasn't within the conditions. I thought it would have
been good to have those recommendations for the areas alongside the wetlands
to be recompacted immediately to prevent, I'm trying to find it in here.
52
45
It
• City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987
II be willing to support a situation in which he would grant the city an
1 easement. If the City wants to build a trail on both sides of CR 17, I think
II we should be willing to pay for it but I'd like to have that option available
to us. I think that saves Mr. Patton's feeling that it's costing the
development money because you're simply giving us an easement and yet it
protects the ability of the City to come back and build a trail later.
IICouncilman Johnson: I thought that was what the Park and Rec was asking for
anyway.
ICouncilman Boyt: What we agreed to the other evening was that Mr. Patton would
build the trail on both sides of CR 17 and I think Park and Rec said that if
II he chose not to build it, there would be a reduction in the trails fees. I
think since then we have increase the amount of trails we've asked Mr. Patton
to build in this development and quite possibly it's reasonable to ask for an
easement.
ICouncilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded that the applicant provide an
easement on one side of County Road 17 for the future development of a trail,
to be built by the City, if a trail on both sides of County Road 17 is deemed
IInecessary. All voted in favor and motion carried.
I -REVIEW -SWINGS RECREATION PROJECT, JOHN PRYZMUS, APPLICANT:
A.- ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE GOLF DRIVING RANGES AS A
CONDITIONAL USE AND MINIATURE GOLF COURSE AS AN ACCESSORY USE, 2ND
I AND FINAL READING.
B. APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DOCUMENT.
IBarbara Dacy: I do need a clarification on one of the proposed conditions of
the conditional use permit but as to the zoning ordinance amendment, the
Council needs to act on the 2nd and final reading the zoning I g on ng ordinance
amendment to allow golf driving ranges as a conditional use with or without
miniature golf as an accessory use. The five conditions that the Council put
II in their motion from May 4, 1987. The Council approved the conditional use
permit and also acted to deny the wetland alteration permit so the Council
needs to authorize execution of the conditional use permit which staff has
prepared in Attachment #2. If I could review briefly one of the conditions.
I On the graphic here the big blob, if you will, is the wetland area in the
northwest corner of the site. The orange area is where the miniature golf
course is going to be located. The gray area is where the parking area is
I proposed to be then there was a small clubhouse building located here. This
colored square is the proposed batting building at that time. The batting
building was not approved as part of the conditional use permit and this area
over here represents the septic system sites adjacent to Galpin Blvd.. This
I site plan shown here was submitted in conjunction with the landscaping plan
and that landscaping plan is proposed to be the installation of a number of
` deciduous trees and also proposed construction of berm areas which are
represented in green. The applicant also proposed fencing around the entire
1— perimeter of the site as well as a fence around the maxi-putt and mini-putt
I19
City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 II
area. So the conditional use permit has been designed to follow up on the
elements that was represented by the applicant on his site plan and
landscaping plan. In number 1 the first permit requires submission of a
revised grading plan showing the limits of grading, methods of erosion control
II
and indicating the revised location of the parking lot and clubhouse. As you
recall, the applicant had originally intended in altering the wetland area and
creating a pond back here and to lower the elevation of the hill over in this
II
area for the construction of a batting building. Since the wetland alteration
permit was denied and since the batting building was not included in the
approval, the applicant has changed his plans so that we would like to reduce
the size of the hill in this area and second of all, if you will recall,
II
Carver County had a condition that the setback area for the parking lot and
the clubhouse building be measured from 100 feet from the center line of
Galpin Blvd.. I apologize to the applicant also and to the Council, but the
II
way that first condition should read is with the 50 foot structure setback in
the A-2 district, the first condition should read, indicating the revised
location of the parking lot and clubhouse 150 feet from the center line of CR
117. That would take into accomodation the additional right-of-way needed for II
CR 117 as well as the 50 foot setback. I think that was discussed all along.
I made an error in the footage from the center line of Galpin Blvd.. The size
of the parking lot was primarily based on the use of the batting building.
II
Provided on the plan here is construction of 92 spaces. The batting building
is not being included, there is no reason to have that size of a parking lot
so what the first condition is. saying is that the plan should show the revised
location of the parking lot and I'd like to add the revised size and location
of the parking lot and clubhouse so that the applicant is proposing to reduce
this in size, that's fine. Finally, the plan indicated that the parking area
was to be bituminous and again I apologize, that should have been specified in
the first condition there. Also, the ordinance does require that all parking
areas should be lined by concrete curb also so the Council may want to discuss
that in more detail tonight but in order to match our ordinance, a sentence
II
should be added that the parking shall be paved and lined with concrete curb.
The second condition was commented on the previous staff report back in May
that in order to be consistent with our landscaping ordinance, 6 foot
evergreens and 2 foot evergreens should be placed between the parking areas II
and Galpin Blvd.. The proposed fencing of the site, the applicant indicated
to me that it would be approximately 5 feet and it should not exceed our 6
feet in conformance with our ordinance. Number 4 and 5 really go together.
II
As you recall, the bathrooms were to be located in the batting building area.
The applicant has found a better location for mound systems over in this area.
If the batting building is no longer there, the bathrooms are to be placed in
II
the clubhouse, the applicant's has a couple of options. He can either pump
the effluent to a septic system site to the north, install a holding tank or
install temporary Satellites on the property so what staff is recommending
that if the septic system sites are not to be used, then we recommend II
installation of a holding tank rather than installation of Satellites. In any
case however, we want to insure that septic system sites are protected out in
the field and are not altered in case they are removed or needed by the
II
applicant. If the applicant is to install a holding tank, then the copy of
the contract with a licensed pumper should be provided. Six, the applicant
shall comply with all the requirements of the Watershed District, Fish and
ill
Wildlife and DNR. Because the applicant will be submitting a revised grading
20 _ II
1
42417
City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987
plan, the Watershed District approval will be necessary in that case. The
applicant will have to receive their authorization. Now, as to the wetland
II alteration permit, Council action again was to deny that on May 4, 1987. The
applicant is proposing to plant grass seed in this area on a regular basis in
order to pick up the balls from the tee area. Because this area has been
II farmed in the past on a consistent basis, staff did not feel that planting
grass seed periodically would be adverse to the wetland areas. We prepared a
permit to allow seeding of the site. If that is not consistent with what the
Council feels was their action on May 4, 1987, then that needs to be
I corrected. Number 8, to insure completion of the grading improvements and the
parking lot improvements and so on, we ask that the applicant submit a letter
of credit in the amount of 110%. The Council discussed at the last meeting
I and made a condition the zoning ordinance amendment to include the use that
the hours of operation would be from sunrise to sunset and therefore there
would be no lighting unless that was a specific condition of approval.
Finally, there is an outstanding bill incurred by Mr. Machmeier and Mr.
I Anderson. We're requiring that be paid and if an additional review would be
necessary for the mound septic system sites beyond our current staff, that
would be necessary that a condition that those fees would be paid by the
II applicant also and that is consistent with all of our applicants for any of
our subdivision or any type of applicant in the rural area.
Mayor Hamilton: I can think of one question offhand. You said we wanted to
II have curb in there. I guess I don't recall that in the rural area for any
I type of a use like this and I guess the only one I can think of that would be
I fairly similar would be the mini-storage area. I don't believe that we
Ili - required curb and gutter in that area.
II
Barbara
Dacy: For Mr. Brown's there was I believe the main access drives,
ingress and egress points to the development.
I Mayor Hamilton: Right but not the who
area. le, what you would consider the parking
1 Barbara Dacy: Right. Tonight I was indicating that the curbing and the
paving and the bituminous issue was not even discussed at the May 4th
II meeting. I was merely pointing out that our ordinance requires it. That
paved be lined with concrete curb so you're consistent with the ordinance.
II Mayor Hamilton: Okay and I was just questioning that wondering if that's
consistent with what we do in the rural area. If that's what our ordinance
says, I guess that surprises me.
II Barbara Dacy: Staff has been consistent in recommending that that be
installed.
Mayor Hamilton: I'm sure you have but my question is still the same. Is it
II the ordinance that it would be installed in the rural areas?
Barbara Dacy: Your question, have you approved it in the past?
I-
• 21
1
k
City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987
Mayor Hamilton: No, does it say that in the ordinance? That rural areas put
in parking for whatever use you're going to use, you have to have curb and
gutter.
Barbara Dacy: The ordinance does not specify if it's urban or rural. '
It says
if you have a parking area, it has to be paved and you have to have concrete
curb. '
Mayor Hamilton: Alright, so that's something that the Council could decide
whether or not we want to have that right? Staff is recommending that the
applicant do put that in. I'm also curious about the wetland now. The
drawing that you were showing us there and the portion in green is supposedly
the wetland. Who's definition of the wetland is that?
Barbara Dacy: We asked the applicant at that time, what we use as the
definition of edge of the wetland is where the reed grass vegetation starts
and stops. That was one factor because the reed grass was predominant in this
area. The other reference that we used was the official Chanhassen wetlands
map that was on file. This part of the area does reflect on the contour
that's located on the wetlands map.
Mayor Hamilton: What class wetland was that?
Barbara Dacy: It was a Type II, Class B. I
Mayor Hamilton: Is that the lowest grade you can get?
Barbara Dacy: There's Type I which is the lowest.
Mayor Hamilton: So it's next to the lowest and that area had been farmed for
years if I remember correctly. I still, in being consistent with what I've
said in the past, I don't believe that's a wetland and I would like to see
some evidence if it is. I think the applicant ought to be allowed use in that
area. It may have been a wetland at one time and John filled it. Right or 1
wrong it's something that's been done. I think that he's said that at that
far north end of that there is a pond or he would construct a pond that could
be used as a wetland or as a retention area for runoff to go into the creek.
I would prefer to see that done since he's filled the area already, allow him
to use it. I guess I have stated that previously and I still feel the same
way. I think anybody would have a hard time going out there and I don't care
if it's Mrs. Rockwell or our staff and proving that that is in fact a wetland.
I don't think there's any evidence out there. Do council members have any
questions of the staff?
Councilman Horn: One of the things that we requested when we reviewed this
last time was to get a general policy on allowing this type of use from the
Planning Commission. I didn't see any record that they had given us a
guideline on this issue.
Barbara Dacy: As I interpretted the Minutes after reviewing them, that topic
was discussed but then I believe it was Councilman Geving saying you have to
decide on a particular issue at hand tonight and that two motions occurred.
22 ,
249
City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987
1 I So that item has not been brought back to the Planning Commission for review
given Council's action.
II Councilman Horn: If you read further in the Minutes it said that, yes we had
to act on this issue this evening but part of our problem with acting that
evening was that we didn't have the guideline and what we said is, that we
II should go back and get a guideline as to what type of uses we should allow and
where we should allow them and what kind of criteria we should put on those
kinds of uses. Specifically the issue of the batting area had come up and
that is not addressed anywhere. We also described the fact that if you read
I our ordinance it doesn't allow a golf course anyplace in the City without a
conditional use permit. That was another one of the issues that we wanted to
II address and brought back to us for us to act on. Now we come back to this
issue again and we don't have any further recommendations or any further
guidance on this thing and it seems like we've lost a lot of time where we
could have been making a policy on that so once again instead of proactive,
we're retroactive.
IBarbara Dacy: I guess I disagree because
g the five conditions that the Council
eventually approved were the specific recommendations of the Planning
I Commission and they made a specific statement saying that the batting building
of the commercial recreational uses was not appropriate in the rural area.
But they did distinguish between driving ranges and miniature golf courses.
They declined to act on the golf course issue because that was not brought up
to them at that point although I recall that the Planning Commission did say
1 that they would all agree that a golf course should be allowed in the rural
IIarea. Basically what the Council has approved was the Planning Commission
° recommendation.
Councilman Horn: That's true but what we also asked for was that the issue of
I golf courses in general be addressed in terms of our overall ordinance and I
don't believe it has.
Barbara Dacy: Yes, they have not addressed that but I guess I still don't
I understand how that issue would relate to Mr. Pryzmus' application because I
don't think the driving range and miniature golf course is clearly a distinct
use than a golf course.
tCouncilman Horn: What you're telling us is that there is no anomaly to th
ordinance to date. That this is a very clear cut issue from our ordinance.
IBarbara Dacy: The Council acted to approve the Planning Commission
recommendation for the golf driving ranges and miniature golf courses. They
did not address a golf course issue at all.
ICouncilman Horn: I understand that. Based on the current ordinance?
znance?
IIBarbara Dacy: Right.
Councilman Johnson: As I said in May, I think we should allow at least the
seeding in that area to make the area useful. I do not think we should make
-- major grading changes to that area. It still, with the proper seeding, will
I 23
II
25
4.
lk
II
City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987
function as a nutrient drain the wetland area. This is another example of how
the TH 5 corridor there needs to be looked at. We are in that process, I
guess looking at the entire downtown to TH 41 as part of our comprehensive
plan.
John Pryzmus: As far as if I can have it, whatever you decide as far as the
curbing we can go ahead and do that but what I worked with staff is after the
11 inches of rain, I went down there and mowed that area a week and a half
later and there wasn't even any water there so I'm not worried about filling
in the wet area at all. One thing that I would like to propose is the batting
cage or our proposal there was a batting building. It was consistent with my
financing and that project was.-to make it financially feasible. I needed
the batting cage or the indoor golf and batting. As far as the density of the
area coincides with miniature golf and driving range. Also, when people are
using that, they won't really go off the site so if I could reconsider to add
that building as a utility building, that would be the only thing. Other than
that, I won't be doing anything in the low land at all other than seeding it.
As far as the grading permit, that goes along with the miniature golf now and
we won't put any fill in the low area, we'll just knock down the one hill and
just push it to the back. There will be a very minimum amount of grading on
the site. So if you would reconsider allowing having a utility building to
make it financially feasible...
Mayor Hamilton: That's an entirely separate issue. I guess if you want that '
to be reconsidered, you'll have to bring it back at another time. Do you have
any problems with the conditions 1 through 10 that were outlined by the '
conditional use permit? Were those conditions acceptable to you?
it
John Pryzmus: The curbing and?
Mayor Hamilton: There are 10 conditions. Have you had a chance to review '
them?
John Pryzmus: I didn't.
Councilman Boyt: Did you fill in the wetland?
John Pryzmus: Yes, I filled in part of it. '
Councilman Boyt: Did you have a permit to do that?
John Pryzmus: There isn't any wetland on the property. I have a letter from
the DNR stating that it's not a protected wetland.
Councilman Boyt: Well the City considers it a wetlands and you filled it in '
without a permit, is that correct? I just want to get a clear status on how
we lost the wetland. My understanding is we lost the wetland because you
filled it in.
Mayor Hamilton: That's correct.
24 ,
X
- 51
IICity Council Meeting - November 16, 1987
IIi Councilman Boyt: What you're basically asking to do with the wetlands and
4 what the City proposes is a wetland, is to seed it, mow it, treat it like any
II other piece of ground. I would like to ask the staff, is this going to impede
it's ability to do what it's doing now?
I Barbara Dacy: When Dr. Rockwell visited the site last spring, she commented
that the area is really not acting as a good place for habitat which is one of
the criteria for a wetland. It's main function was serving as an area for
recharge and a storm water retention area before it gets to a creek along the
I north side of the property. Staff felt that because there was going to be no
additional fill or alteration of the property, that it would continue to be
maintained the way it was in the last several years, that we felt that the
IIseeding would not affect that function at all.
Councilman Boyt: Now I heard something about an offer to build a pond on the
property as a holding pond. I think that's a reasonable offer and we should
Itake you up on that.
Barbara Dacy: That was part of the original wetland alteration permit request
I that was denied by the Council so if you're proposing to do that, he would
have to reapply for that.
III Councilman Boyt: How are you proposing and how would you like to alter that
wetland any differently than what you propose to do now?
John Pryzmus: You means as far as building a pond?
' Councilman Boyt: No, as far as the particular wetland. Is that where you are
proposing to build your pond?
IIJohn Pryzmus: Yes it would be down at the end of the road area.
II Councilman Boyt: Alright, so what other kinds of changes were you proposing
to make in the wetland?
John Pryzmus: All I want to do is just like I have there on the sewer.
ICouncilman Boyt: Do we have any difficulty with him improving the wetland?
We seem to have set a precedent indicating agreement to do that before. Well
II Jay, maybe when it gets to be your turn you can comment on that. Then the
other situation I have is on the parking lot. As I read the ordinance, it's a
little different than staff is interpretting it. It says on page 1247, in
multiple family, business, office and industrial districts. We're not in any
II of those so it does state that a person needs to have some sort of dust free,
all weather surface and concrete curbing. It's real specific as to where in
the city we can require that. I believe this is an agricultural district?
IIMayor Hamilton: It's A-2.
Councilman Boyt: I think given the surface area, it probaby makes sense to
1— put a concrete curb around this but I don't think the city ordinance requires
it. I think it's kind of commen sense if you're going to put a hard surface
II25
:J•Zyfsd __
4k
City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987
on that much ground to have some means of controlling the runoff from that.
So to kind of summarize where I'm at right now, on the wetland, if you're
going to improve it, I can certainly be convinced that grading and seeding is
:-
appropriate since it doesn't seem to interfere with what it's doing now. On
the curbing, I'm okay with going on the curbing whichever way you want because
our ordinance doesn't require it as I read it. However, I would certainly
look favorably upon putting concrete curbing around your parking area. My
biggest concern is that we're sitting in an agricultural area and we are
producing what I think is going to be a tremendous traffic generator. A
collector into this particular spot. Business Week in the last month had an
article that indicated that miniature golf courses are doing quite well. I
think we see an example of that on TH 7 and TH 101 and I think we should view
this as a permanent structure and not as a temporary structure until something
better comes along. I don't know that we've done a traffic study. Have we
done a traffic study?
Barbara Dacy: No we have not for this. '
Councilman Boyt: I gather that we're saying we're preparing to approve
something that I think will generate a great deal of traffic. Is a county
study done? '
Barbara Dacy: The County has reviewed the site plan. Their recommendation
was that the access be located 300 feet to the north of the intersection. ,
Councilman Boyt: Maybe people who are more familiar with that particular
intersection than I am can add to more that.
Barbara Dacy: We do
y have books upstairs from the Institute of Traffic
Engineers that estimate the amount of traffic to be generated from miniature
golf courses and retail uses and so on. I think when we went to througn the
process last spring the major concern was the batting building because that
would generate more traffic on a consistent basis. The miniature golf course
traffic would be seasonal in nature. Peak periods would be on Saturday and
Sunday and evenings.
Councilman Boyt: You're saying when the traffic load would tend to be lighter
on TH 5, this. .. '
Barbara Dacy: It's considerably less than a retail use or commercial
recreational use. '
Councilman Boyt: You don't consider this to be comparable with a retail use?
Mayor Hamilton: I guess if we did a traffic study it would probably show us '
what we already know and that's that TH 5 is overused and if we have another
use along the highway it's going to continue to overload it some more. I have
no other comments on the two proposed items before us. ,
Councilman Boyt: Then we're saying we make this amendment that anyone in the
agricultural area can come in and apply for a miniature golf course and a golf
driving range?
26 1
1 • City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987
I r
Mayor Hamilton: Right, as a conditional use.
3
Councilman Boyt: And basically we can only turn down a conditional use
I request when there is some overriding concern. We can't do it because the
neighbors don't want it there?
IMayor Hamilton: Conditional use has always given us a great deal of latitude.
Roger Knutson: You have a good discretion on it. You can't turn it down
II because the neighbors don't like it. They frown on that. You have to
exercise your own judgment.
Mayor Hamilton: That's true Bill. Unfortunately that's the case.
1 Councilman Horn: I believe that one of the requirements we put on h
that it be located adjacent to a major road with an off street access. is
IICouncilman Johnson: From a collector or an arterial. Not just an off-street
access.
IICouncilman Horn: Which will limit it to some degree.
Councilman Johnson: There aren't that many sites who could develop this. We
specified TH 5 and TH 212. We're not opening this up to the entire A-2
I ' district.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Zoning Ordinance
Amendment Request #82-4 to amend Article V, Section 3(4) to allow golf driving
ranges with or without miniature gold courses as a conditional use in the A-2,
II Agricultural Estate District and to amend Article V, Section 9(14) to allow
standards for golf driving ranges with or without miniature golf courses:
1. The location of the driving range is limited to being adjacent to
II TH 5 and TH 212 and access must be from a collector or arterial which
leads to TH 5 or TH 212.
2. Hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset.
I3. Provision of adequate parking areas and submission
of landscaping
plan in conformance with Article VIII of the Zoning Ordinance.
I4. No site shall be located within 500 feet of a single family
residence.
II5. The building to be constructed on any site would be a maximum of 800
square feet and shall be painted in earth tones.
IIAll voted in favor and motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: Item b is to approve the Conditional Use Permit document.
applicant has said that he hasn't reviewed the 10 items. Is there a
I _ The
motion to handle item 6(b)?
I27
Z.Z LX
•
City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 II
Councilman Johnson: Did the applicant get this?
Mayor Hamilton: I don't think so. You've been working with him rather
closely, it's hard to believe he hasn't.
Barbara Dacy: I know the packet was sent out to you on Friday. You have not
received it? I
John Pryzmus: I've been out working at the site so I haven't gotten my mail.
Barbara Dacy: It was sent to the Saratoga Drive address. II
Councilman Johnson: While we have a slight break here, Bill was talking about
the wetlands down there. By improving the wetlands, I do have a slight r
opinion on that. If we're not building the batting cage, which at this time
we aren't, our amount of impervious surface being added to the area are
minimal. The amount of increase runoff that would require an increased
I
holding pond should be minimal. If we can keep that area as an infiltration
area versus a holding pond area, I personally believe it would be best served
to keep it in the same use as what nature has it now. Not necessarily making
II
a holding pond in a wetland is an improvement to the wetland in my opinion.
Certain wetlands have certain purposes. This wetland and the area adjacent to
it appears to be a infiltration area. Unfortunately there's about a foot of
dirt in many areas on top of what used to be the wetlands but I think if we
II
dug deep enough we would find the wetland that was there. At this time, if we
had approved the other building there, then I would be insisting upon a
holding pond to slow down the runoff going into the creek there but at this
time I don't think there's a great need to try to improve that wetland. When
you try to improve something, you sometimes may screw it up.
Councilman Horn: It's already broken.
II
Mayor Hamilton: But it's broken like Clark says. It could be improved I
would think dramatically because if you walk back there there's nothing there
II
and it could be improved to be something.
Councilman Johnson: Aesthetically yes but hydraulically I'm not sure if the
II
improvement will be any different. I haven't seen any facts or figures to say
it. As an area of infiltration and recharge of ground water, it will continue
function as such. You put it in as a pond and we have a better mosquito
breeding area. II
Councilman Boyt: The holding pond isn't in the condition in the condition as
it stands. I would like to see it put in. I think it could help it improve .
II
Mr. Pryzmus seems be willing to put it in. Is it acceptable to amend the
wetland alteration permit?
the
Councilman Johnson: We denied it. II
Barbara Dacy: If you wanted to provide for a conditional use permit, you
g_.
could include it in condition number 1 by saying, submission of a revised
28 II
II
^a
_ r.
9i 0
City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987
II I
r--- grading plan b y December 1st indicating
location of a holding pond.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I was thinking of the same thing but I would like to
see John be encouraged to come back and request a wetland alteration permit
again showing what he's going to do with the pond. I guess I'd kind of like
to see because you at one time agreed that you would do that. Just improve
the pond in the north end. Then we would have some idea of what it's going to
look like and what he's going to do because I think you would still like to
have a permit.
' John Pryzmus: I'm working with Bill Engelhardt right now and we're working on
the changeover from the filled in areas to put a pond in there and have him
and the DNR decide how big and whether they think it should be there.
Mayor Hamilton: Okay, and then that could be a
part of your request for a
wetland alteration permit coming back to us at another time.
' John Pryzmus: It would be nice to have that as a condition if you'd let me
have my batting building.
' Mayor Hamilton: There's no reason, if you want you can ask for both of those
again. I can't tell you to or not to but if that's something you want to do,
that's something you have to decide if you want to come back and request one
or either or both, that's up to you to make that request.
Councilman Johnson: John, do you want this pond?
' + John Pryzmus: I think as far as from the area, the pond isn't going ng to hurt
me.
g
' Councilman Johnson: What about the septic systems? You talked about the
conversion there to a holding tank versus a septic system.
' Barbara Dacy: No, there's no change proposed with that. Conditions 4 and 5
remain the same.
' Councilman Horn: We could include an asphalt curb.
Councilman Johnson: I prefer to get sheet flow off of the parking area.
' Mayor Hamilton: I would too. I don't know that much about water runoff but
it would seem that if you have water running off, don't you decrease the
amount of velocity coming off of an area by doing that. That's what we're
' always• trying to do.
Barbara Dacy: That be addressed and reviewed by staff.
Mayor Hamilton: It seems like we always talk about decreasing the velocity
and that would seem like that might do that. Maybe it doesn't, I don't know.
Councilman Horn: Let's leave off everything with curbs.
29
•
City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987
Gary Warren: We'll look at that with the plans that come in.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I'd be curious to know if it does or doesn't.
Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Conditional Use
Permit Document as presented with the following amendment to the first
condition: '
1. Submission of a revised grading plan by December 1, 1987 showing the
proposed limits of grading, methods of erosion control where
necessary, indicating the revised size and location of the parking
lot and club house and 150 feet from the centerline of County Road
117, and proposed berm areas around the putting green and miniature
golf course area. The parking lot shall be paved. City Staff shall
review and approve said plan prior to activity occurring on the site.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
CONSIDERATION OF ALLOWING HUNTING NORTH OF TH 5, DNR CONTROLLED GOOSE HUNT.
Mayor Hamilton: We've had an opportunity to see one of these previously and
Jim has made some recommendations to us. Reading through Jim's
recommendations saying the ultimate solution though may be the elimination of
hunting all together within the city limits of Chanhassen I couldn't agree
with less. I don't think that's the ultimate solution at all. There are
areas in the city where you can hunt especially around Rice Marsh Lake or
swamp or whatever you call it. There are a number of areas south of TH 5 that
are certainly acceptable for shotgun hunting of birds and fowl but perhaps not
any longer of deer. Although there is enough open space so I think slug
hunting is probably pretty safe also but to get to the real problem, these dog
gone geese. Personally I guess, unless everybody wants a report from Jim, I
would really like to see us just say no hunting north of TH 5 period. Whether
it's a special hunt or non-special hunt so you don't run into the same
problems we did last time. That was a mess.
Councilman Boyt: I think that we have a tremendous problem with the geese in
this city. As much as I like to see them fly, I understand that a good many
people don't like to see them on their yard and what they leave behind. I
would think that it is a difficult issue where we allow people to hunt north
of TH 5. I agree with you by the way on hunting south of TH 5. I think that
there are still some areas where people should be able to hunt in Chanhassen
given the level of development as it is right now. I would like to see us
look at some sort of reasonable guideline that Mr. Chaffee could use in doing
a preliminary screen on a request. Whether it's north or south. I would
think something in the neighborhood of 1,000 yards from any home.
Mayor Hamilton: Feet or yards? '
Councilman Boyt: No, yards. The reason I say yards is because that's
basically the maximum carrying distance of a shotgun. It's not going to carry
there with any ability to do anything. Gentlemen, I can assure that if you
30 '
portion of such lot shall extend beyond operated for commercial purpose. ence of the residents of the permitted
the fifty t50i foot limitation. the dis- 5 Cemeteries use.
trict boundary line shall prevail. Ap- 6. Commercial radio and television trans- 3. Rental of rooms for occupancy by not
peals from the Zoning Administrators mission stations. more than two persons per dwelling
I determination and questions of doubt 7 Living quarters for persons employed unit, except that no separate dwelling
concerning the exact location of dis- on the premises of the permitted use. unit shall be allowed and that one off-
trict boundary lines shall be heard by 8. Greenhouses, tool houses and similar street parking space per tenant shall be
the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. structures accessory to a private resi- provided.
5.04 Compliance. Except as may oth- dential use. (2(7.04 Uses by Conditional Use Permit.
I erwise be provided in Section 20. Non 6.05 Height, Yard, Area, and Lot//•Within an R-1 Residence District, the fol-
Conforming Uses, all buildings.or struc-
tures Width and Depth Regulations. Glowing uses may be allowed but only upon
lures erected hereafter. all uses of land. 1 Height Regulations: 1A4he securing of a Conditional Use Permit:
buildings or structures established here- a. No single family dwelling shall 1. Parks and recreational areas owned
I after, all structural alteration or reloca- exceed two and one-half 42-1 2)stories. and operated by governmental units
tion of existing buildings or structures b All other structures shall not ex- and recreational areas operated by res-
occurring hereafter, and all enlarge- ceed twenty-five 1251 feet in height, idential neighborhoodassociations.
ments of or additions to existing build- except when accessory to an agricul- 2. Non-profit schools having a regular
ings. structures or uses occurring hereaf- tural principal use course of study accredited by the State
I ter shall comply with all regulations of 2. Front Yard Regulations: of Minnesota.
this ordinance which are applicable to the a. There shall be a front yard having 3. Government owned and operated civic
Zoning district in which such building, a depth of not less than fifty t50 i feet. and cultural institutions including, but
structure,use or land shall be located 3. Side Yard Regulations: not limited to. administrative offices,
SECTION 6. R-lA AGRICULTURAL a. There shall be a side yard on ones libraries, public safety buildings, and
I RESIDENCE DISTRICT. side having a depth of not less than one places of assembly.
6.01 Purpose. The R lA Agricultural hundred (100 i feet, and a side yard on ¢ Golf courses, but not including driving
Residence District is intended to provide the other side having a depth of not less ''tees, ranges, or miniature golf courses
a distric .vhich will allow extensive than ten t l0 i feet. operated for commercial purposes.
I areas of the Village to be retained in a 4. Rear Yard Regulations: Churches.
lower population density in advance of the a. There shall be a rear yard having, 6. Living quarters for persons employed
need for these lands for extensive urban a depth of not less than fifty(50)feet. \ on the premises of the permitted use.
purposes and to prevent the occurrence of 5. Lot Area Regulations: 07 Greenhouses, tool houses and similar
premature scattered urban development, a. Every lot or tract of land on which structures accessory to a private resi-
' which would be uneconomical from the a single family dwelling is erected shall dential use.
standpoint of municipal services, utilities contain an area of not less than two and 8. Amateur radio transmission antennas.
and schools. one-half t2-1 2 i acres, which shall ad- 7.05 Height, Yard, Area and Lot Width
6.02 Permitted Uses. Within an R-lA join a public road or a village street. and Depth Regulations.
-\gricultural District, no building or land 6. Lot Width and Depth Regulations: 1. Height Regulations:
1 f shall be used except for one or more of a. No single family dwelling shall
the following uses a. Every lot or tract of land on which exceed two and one-half t2-1 2 i stories.
1 Single family dwellings. a single family dwelling is erected shall 2. Front Yard Regulations:
2. Agriculture Any enclosure. stable, or have a depth not greater than two times a. There shall be a front yard having
I other building in which farm animals, the width. a depth of not less than thirty(30)feet.
et bees, are kept shall be a dis- 6.06 Parking. 3. Side Yard Regulations:
O tance of not less than 100 feet from any 1. Not less than two t2 i automobile park a: There shall be a side yard having a
other lot in a Residential District. ing spaces shall be provided on the site depth of not less than ten (10 i feet.
6.03 Accessory Uses. Within an R-1A occupied by the permitted use. Ade- 4. Rear Yard Regulations:
1 1./V Agricultural District. the following uses quate space shall be reserved on the a There shall be a rear yard having
shall be allowed as accessory to the per- site to allow for the construction of a a depth of not less than thirty t30! feet
mitted use two car garage. from the dwelling to the rear property
1 Private garages. 6.07 General Regulations. line.
2. Privately owned swimming pools and 1. Additional regulations in the R-1A Ag- b There shall be a rear yard having
I tennis courts for the use and conveni- ricultural District are set forth in Sec a depth of not less than ten (10) feet
ence of the residents of the permitted tion 19 from any detached accessory use struc-
use �. 6.08 Boundaries of the R-1A Agricultur- ture to the rear property line.
3. Structures accessory to an agricultural a1 District. 5. Lot Area Regulations:
permitted use 1. The boundaries of the R-1A Agricultur- a In areas served by public water
I
4 Stands for agricultural products pro- $, al District shall include the following and sanitary sewer systems every lot
duced on the premises by the owner described tracts and parcels of land or tract of land on which a single family
9„. 6.04 Uses by Conditional Use Permit. i/ SECTION 7. R-1 SINGLE FAMILY dwelling is erected shall contain an
r- Within an R-1A Agricultural District, the RESIDENCE DISTRICT. area of not less than 15,000 square feet.
I 'I' following uses may be allowed but only 7.01 Purpose. They R-1 Single Family exc as served by
p upon the securing of a Conditional Use Residence District is`intended to provide ry sewer systems
Permit a district which will allow residential the-min41
the -sliiall be-gaver-
J.�' 1 Parks and recreational areas owned development in those areas where such enned--b-w--the -provisions of Section
66 and operated by governmental units development fits the Village land use lion Ordi a e
!s ' and residential neighborhood associa- plan. hassen.
�(p� lions. tO' 7.02 Permitted Uses. W.i'thin an R-1 6 Lot Width and Depth Regulations:
0, 2. Non-profit schools, including colleges. tt Residence District, no building or land a Every lot or tract of land on which
t`6• having a regular course of study ac- shall be used except for the following use a single family dwelling is erected shah
1 credited by the State of Minnesota 1 Single family dwellings. , 140 have a width of not less than 90 feet at
3 Government owned and operated civic 7.03 Accessory Uses. Within an R-1 the building set back line
and cultural institutions including, but Residence District, the following uses 7.06 Parking.
not limited to, administrative offices, shall be allowed as accessory to the Per- 1 Not less than two (2) automobile Park
libraries, public safety buildings, and mitted Use ing spaces shall be provided on the sit!
places of assembly 1. Private garages. occupied by the permitted use. Ade
Golf courses, but not including driving 2. Privately owned swimming pools and quate space shall be reserved on tht
tees, ranges, or miniature golf courses tennis courts for the use and conveni- to allow for the 1 construction of
1, • 4mended'4/-g 4. Add,ect (,R,(17 - 7,,9nendut� .we '
a R,�en.t v7-�, F S •1Imt:rlar,'' $•N �.Sec.b.s/- b, �!)�4f=)
3, / ,nz•�de�l• `f /-Y !o, m.e.nd,ecl,. 47 fie) /0./ ,/,,�,n,/e,,,// y7. - of /3 /1 F
1 i4,ic+, arv.,..f..,l .A1-6rk t7. rinmtndctt 17-88 Y �/�nkytgdG� r7/�
/6.44.,��ae447 BR 4 W ., . y74Y f>•
• � $3f�
. • CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 80-E I
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE V, SECTION 3 ( 4 ) OF THE CHANHASSEN
ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 80 , ADOPTED FEBRUARY 19 , 1987 1
THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Article V, Section 3, ( 4 ) Conditional Uses in the '
A-2, Agricultural Estate District, of Zoning Ordinance No. 80, as
adopted and amended heretofore, is hereby amended to read as
follows :
10. Golf Driving Ranges with or without miniature golf
courses I
SECTION 2. Article V, Section 9 (14) Standards for Conditional
Uses is hereby amended to read as follows :
14 . Golf driving ranges with or without a miniature golf
courses:
A. The location of the driving range is limited to being '
adjacent to TH 5 and TH 212 and access must be from a
collector or arterial which leads to TH 5 or TH 212.
B. Hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset.
C. Provision of adequate parking areas and submission of
landscaping plan in conformance with Article VIII of
the Zoning Ordinance.
D. No site shall be located within 500 feet of a single 1
family residence.
E. Buildings on the site may not exceed 800 square feet
and shall be painted in earth tones .
SECTION 3 . This ordinance shall become effective from and
after the date of its passage and official publication.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 16th
day of November, 1987 .
ATTEST:
)(7c:=6,1 \ \ Z-/e;74
Don Ashworth, City Manager Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor
Published in the South Shore Weekly News on December 17, 1987
1
- Isr
Mal
IIIII *t.10111‘\ii, AP /NM MI 1111111 ellrak•Jill In MI EMI 111111 ME NM --'1111111 MI .,
...
• • 1
1
C • • I
0...41
.. 4 -•*e ,
\ ••••._ •
N., .
••• •• \ • ,
4
keD•• 11° \ .0 tilD•.400w. i...
1
••••• .... ..
• .011
.... 41,0 1 • • 1
, -
...
• • 1 • •
\ • • 0 • •
i i 1%' N , • • • • ,. ...
.3 ..-, • • • • _.--'
t -T•
_...
'<-,,-
'7, t
\.;' ' wee.... • „...—. . . _ -----
', 4, • ,
li ..
-'-' *-. '.• %.- --' - ' ."'..) .• 0
• • \°-- -\• ..1 ,. q v/ ,,„....-
.. .„,,
..-i, .-,)- . , ?-j. .,'; - ,-,--. • '\-, •,' / , i
1 !
;,f.'-••::- -.;...-," 5.).,-,- '410-40 1 S--fi.:-2-4)/ \
•
/1/4e-%,..;-,"0,/('..‘1,7.2-3-!,1.,.\-/i.)i.-l-:•..-.'..-,')'•".::Y'...-:,...I_,--''-.'-;.■:•,
-;„:7....:1,.),--;...-.:...,..,47-5v i-?-.-,i..)_.:?...';..2-.-.i..,.s,.•'..:r;.1i'-;'--•,„'.,:;73-'.‘.i 1,J.'4-).",.-.---,.;f.4.'?,;i-.:-.:.•-1,.).1...-:0j-..t-.,.•4!..),,2-r./.•j.-0%-,:,-.:.>..._)■,..-.,..;i.:,.?r.3_:.-.":.N•:'';,.•.4.':,'•,.,-,•J,-'...;.-,,_.',.-,-f--”'L.1:..:,•.).„i.:;7''.i.,•.,„4,`',.'4_,'•-')j.j:'_.1..".....)-.)),".,,1':"i--.),!.,';';""•,,.y-:.:':/4);,.:.,.-.:,--:..J--4..:,"•.'..;-.1.,.•,?:'...-:-.-,:-,r'C'r-.,'.....
,.;..,7.,..;-.•."g.:''-."".,a-
'.
.‘_'•--',..'\.)\'J_.,J).\.,,.\,'-''\(..7//\*\.',x m:I'A.•,
.
'"..3:.'.:-•'?-/..:0-'1.:..,„,P
>''\''l'',s1'O,.'o,•./,I,•".-4•41:17.'..•
'I 1,
I'11rI ii1(L;i11,1:11,i‘11 t l I,:1 1T 1i;I:i14 11 11 I II!11'1:11 1 1,1 1,1 i1,,1,111i,1 11 1l ii-111i11 1 1,l i,:11Y1i1 11 1111i i 1 1 4'1.11:1i1/,i 1."1 1 11 I II i 1 1,t L 1 1,i 11-111?11.II,tI11,I iliI:i 1,'Iit11:.1.1Il r,1 i1 N 1.'I i1,i'
l,c•'
,
. ` -' -,
(-
-
•.a • 4..0 i
•••0 7; . : ' ,
1/ - 4
l,5
.....‘k.'..\,(,:..,(•l'.—'•
''‘,--•_--r
•.r,0,.,,.r■..4•,.,
•••'r'
,A'V.a.•s-
. •-•_':.*,t N,•I•.•„I_."'Se',••M1•1s I.■•.6•S-1••8••.1•-E•••-.:•••I••,•,r r.t•,°•!i;
:•r 1'••.u\S4..■
•.•-t 1•1'1'S•'.•'.r'a.I-••.1l
i-,i.8R.ir.0 IS„•,4....,-1
.1 i 6,%•..,;
//:7_•.31..4 i,•r...,).,.,4,
„
./1
-1.-).„ ,..),... ,,....,-•:
.., •'11 'c c 1• it 1” 1 1 1 z c • .:
l'i .,
iii iiii 1 Iiiiiiiiiiiii r,,
. ” • 0,
. _., , „,,. ,...., );..)- ..) _I J•-.), „.;.o--'^1 J.) ., '','J.,-...'' i i .: . 1.1!11111,1.1,1,111,1 ,,, i , ,
.'.-.1..:,r4. • '1.1..i.. . ..1.:....;:i. , . - ...I, •r.
' .: ;3 -'-'-,', ••," •••-• •`..; -.). ...-•''' r• ''' ', .C.C.1'.1:1 I■1'.1.1;111!,
''' '''' -: '-':').. ..:. /..'. ' j') --')' i:'i4. ' '-jj'-- -:22.": ' 1 . 1 1 .. 111111:1111 I N111111 il 1 '.••': •:;:1.' .•.?55,-7.4"-' '• ,? ;
‘• '../ •-•' •r: -, ••1 ..,- , - ..)-...• ''''.-i'. .. -'.)- • •-•,.:' ,The" 1.: • , :: _;■ 111111 •
' ' ' ; ";" - - ...• -r 1 : :':j• .- .. ... -: e-. ,, !-••• .-
..• .. • •.:
5.,.•.-/..-'"':..,-1;....::"1,-'.,.;;-.i r.',1, i_-'%r,,..-X,{4:.'_';..,-.-%' '.„,...22,1,'1c:,-.;:,,-'.,,;,-,3-,j),..7'A.- I'L,•{'•. •'1 P..)g,,„ .. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-
I - - -
) : %5) V), j- - -
.,.---,'• ..3..'...,k,
r" -
•• •,A,..•- co 1 - ;
--- - - -■
-- --- . ei --r
C.,..!_k_*?I ;. ,.... i , - i • or,
..• - "- -' -='-..".:'_;-','..1.'
.,..
,. 4R
i ,,,„------__,____________________ ..110 1 • . k (d) 1
a , /
. ... 2
•
.:-.1:....•; ,..„ _: .....„...,• . . - / ' . ----' at
it
/ j••• .-: \ '`.
i> /4:! ...2f" ....,j:. • -
-
• , .„ = .,..x... ) ,,,,,,,.//
'-•".._.; .?:''''' ,-% --,'.':;-..-,-I; ..=-'_: . . 0. .. ""i7'.'.11•111, ' Ni 110.101 .-. - •
, . A t.
. .,,....... _)_._.... -.,),,,J,...:•,..;,_ 0 I{ '0;•;.• `---4,116--.. .„-0., '.'' '.
US./-'• , '1 /
'1 '''''..i ' ... •'
.;....,__,
• .00414""'' 411,,'' 0 r
{ : •. .--,),.,- :'-1 .i,;"" ...?;;-r .`- 1,1
'., ---; .; • --'..-• . - ''.'. •, V ' it.''',...; 0 i •. all=Lair
. ....,,
.. .
.it .......... ,...: a
, . •..,
,
.:-....,..,
-,•••:.. . ,,,,.
,
.. , f--- , ..
4.18/4 • ....
,•,,,,„ ....,• • . ••• ,•..,,
•
......, ,.: ie,-..„. .
. .._.4......... . %j- __,0 ,--...5_,' ii•?co.?o!..,i'•
111 111' • II 11 • ril a •
n 4,1_.-",7:•1:::_.; _71,\_..,:c.,...,',1,,,v,,,,.:„....j..,::,..4::::3,.•,::).71_,......:;;;,,1\\
..-2 ••, ,f.■:/',/-'
::i "(or ."og.1 ....;"..o'": ,...,Zj'-<•••''''.*,..oi j.:....7.,'..), '.'' (.-' ,, , *41,1j, ..'; •41..: :... ' :::
‘`,...,.,......,_.-.:....4 1-',..".,.. ■., \C I t4-
' .
• • • • •1 N .-4, cl sr.,•.;
.....;,,,. v.. ;
n a -,..:,,2.--.,.../,i )c 43 __. ..;■ • 1. ""C ak 401,4...„.. . . •„,
. . • •
0 0 ,-,_:..? ..... • ri•,\
•6:8:.:11:16:8:"
"•1 --
-,.,nf-/-....)_.....,....• it, c-)
of-4\ t
ni 1\s‘
. CO, T Y „
.. at WWI"
GAR V•,;,
=--r- --
- ,
-----• ',H E N N ,'. C OJNi-Y ____ --
_• rn 6 4/1./4,707,4•,...$.444100,„.44,,,. , ;:a111111111111111111111WIEZER
I
..
3:21i
■ N 1 -
.o'' ,.:' 8 E: 0 ,.,.• •-',•
c t"
6 '_`.•5:, ',', E g .t,
cr,
0 ri t
5
a
e-or mIt eft
—• w.s.
............---1
I < 0 •
-.. ,77, ....■ .p.‘
•
...1.• „....
Planning Commission Meeting '
April 22, 1987 - Page 40
Pryzmus: I want to carry it forward.
Dacy: What we could do is, this is going to the Council on May 4th, you
could come back to the Planning Commission on May 13th for permit review if
it ' s approved . I know you have some timing restrictions .
Pryzmus: That is to enter into another agreement so they have the site plan'
and other additional uses . Okay.
Dacy: I would have to come back and you probably wouldn't get approval
before June 1st. It would be more time if they don' t review it.
Pryzmus: But they can't review it if you are going to leave the motion
standing just for driving range. Let's just take the driving range and
have to spend another month. I don't know what else to do because you've
made the motion and that's your feelings so I don' t have an option.
Conrad: Well, you probably do. I guess Barb is just giving you some
advice. What did you two decide?
Dacy: I think you are asking us to go ahead and review just the golf
driving range.
Siegel : You still want it to go before Council in total? '
Pryzmus: I want it to go before Council in total because if I don ' t. . .
Dacy: Okay, then the Conditional Use Permit and the Wetland Alteration
Permit, they will make a motion to table that pending Council final action
on the Ordinance amendment . 1
Pryzmus: Let's do the wetland. We can do the wetlands now because that's
part of the driving range. That has nothing to do with the miniature golf .
Dacy: So you are saying to go ahead with the driving range?
Pryzmus: Yes . '
Conrad : Okay, this is a public hearing . Any comments?
Siegel moved, Erhart seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor II
and motion carried .
Emmings: One thing that I notice that there is in the landscaping it says II
existing ash , 2 to 2 1/2 inches in diameter and points to that whole long
row of trees . When I drove by there tonight , I didn ' t see any trees at all .
Dacy: There are trees out there. There are a number of trees out there as
John has mentioned . They are small .
Emmings: 2 1/2 inches in diameter? ,
I
k wi -
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1987 - Page 41
Dacy: Some are but not all .
Emmings : And does it go across the whole property the way it's portrayed on
this?
Dacy: It's along TH 5, yes. Some, I think may be dead. A lot of them
didn' t have leaves on them as of yesterday.
Emmings : Put in a condition that they have to be living trees?
Dacy: They are identifying existing conditions. The specific thing that
the Commission should address is the appropriateness of the lighting and the
fencing proposals. Those are some of the things that Staff kind of flagged
' out. With just the driving range, there was a taller lighting standard in
the southwest corner. Your previous motion was for the operation of the
driving range from sunrise to sunset so in my mind that lighting scheme
falls out and you need to address that one way or the other.
Headla: What does he need the lighting for? If you don't give him lights,
that kind of insures that it doesn ' t go past sunset.
Dacy: I realize that. I was just saying that I wanted to make sure that
the Commission was comfortable with that.
' Emmings: Is there any reason they have the lights? That you would want the
lights?
' Pryzmus: As you know, there is a group home west of me. I'm not saying
anything bad about group homes but the contractor's yard, the residents over
I here, everyone in the farm community has security lights and a person could
get in and raise all kinds of heck with the putting green or whatever and I
feel that I need some security maintenance out there. With the putting
green being in the southwest corner, that will give me the security down
there. I also had security on the front of the indoor activity building but
I wouldn' t propose any more lighting than the average farm has.
I Emmings: How tall is that light? How high above the ground is that light
itself?
Pryzmus : I don ' t know what NSP puts in.
IEmmings : It ' s just one of those standard lights?
Pryzmus: It's a standard light that would be on a farm. The other thing, I
guess I cut it short when the public hearing was closed but as far as the
fencing , there will be the fencing around the perimeter of it will be the
same as Prince's fencing down the street. It will be the black fencing and
the fencing on the west and across the north border will be the fencing
that's out there. It is a silver fence but it will all be 6 feet high.
There won't be any need to protect any roads or anything. The driving will
Ibe hitting to the north.
r
. Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1987 - Page 42
Emmings : Barbara , I see one light . Are there more?
Dacy: Yes, the light in the southwest corner is the only one that you had I
shown on the plan outside of the putting area. The miniature golf course
lights but if the miniature golf course is not there, then those lights fall
out . Other than those, that was the only light , correct?
Pryzmus: We have lighting on the path underneath the trees.
Dacy: For the tee area . '
Pryzmus : This is a path in back of the tee area.
Dacy: You' re saying these are 10 feet in height? 1
Pryzmus: Yes, those are 10 feet in height. They would be a down light. I
was to light the path but if we' re not going to be open. . .
Dacy: Along the tee area they are proposing a series of 10 foot lights
there. '
Pryzmus: In back of the tee area there is a path. I put trees every 30
feet and then they are diagonally across from one another and the lights
would be in the tree area .
Dacy: But again, if they condition from sunrise to sunset and they are not
there for security reasons. •
Headla : Where would that 6 foot fence be?
Pryzmus: A 6 foot fence would surround the whole property. '
Headla : Everytime you drive by TH 5 you see a big black fence.
Pryzmus: Yes, it would be about the same as the arboretum fence only it
would be black. It would be the same as Prince ' s fence down half a mile.
Headla: Have you people seen that fence? Go take a look at it. '
Pryzmus: If you don't like black fence, I don't have to put it. I thought
maybe you would like it because it was the same as Prince' s.
Conrad: In trying to understand Staff's analysis of the wetland. In Gary's
report, are those conditions bundled in to the Staff recommendations? I
Dacy: Yes .
Conrad: And Gary, basically you have a lot of concerns with the area from all
wetlands standpoint and some other things. Were your conditions as stated,
were they worded so that if we decided to allow filling in the wetlands,
these things have to be done? I didn't see a statement that said that. I
�_ p
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1987 - Page 43
IIsaw Rockwell's comments saying that the wetlands shouldn't be filled in.
That there are some senstive areas and whatever. How do I interpret your
Icomments at the end on the attachment?
Warren: I admit it got a little confusing as we got into it. In trying to
interpret our Wetlands Ordinance, that was part of the thrust that I was
Iresponding to some of the deficiencies that the submittal has in relation to
the Wetlands Ordinance. I guess the final bottom line of my comments would
II be that if you go ahead that the recommendations that I have shown should be
enforced as far as sedimentation basin and then some of these things. I
guess in general that ' s where I was coming from.
Conrad: In brief, I'm not sure that I've seen a hardship or a real reason
to allow the filling in of the wetlands. I would have a tough time going
along with. I don't think the measures pointed out are necessary. I prefer
to keep the wetlands operating. It appears from Rockwell's comments, I
I wasn't sure about the trade-offs that she was mentioning. I was having a
tough time interpretting that.
I Dacy: When we went out to inspect the site, as you know, the area has been
cultivated. What she came back and said was that it's not good for habitat
purposes. However, it is performing some type of function for storm water
I run-off to Bluff Creek. All that's out there now are the regrasses and so
on. It is not protected by the DNR because of their particular restrictions
on vegetation and so on. What she said was that they have looked at the
situation where, as in the Centex case, if you alter one part of the
I wetland, if you improve another part of it, they will accept that. In this
case, the applicant has no access to other property. He doesn't own any
other property that contains additional wetlands area. He would have to
gain that easement right over to do that. If you deny the wetlands
I alteration permit, you would in effect deny use of the property as a driving
range.
I Conrad: There are two issues here. As a conditional use permit for the
golf driving range. There is also a wetlands alteration permit that we have
to respond to also. As I said, based on the Ordinance for the wetlands
I alteration permit, we haven't solved the problem. There hasn't been a
trade. It's almost impossible to solve the problem with the wetland and
therefore, I guess I would have a tough time. I don't see how he can
maintain the ordinance and the intent of the ordinance with the current
Iproposal . Is there a motion?
Siegel: Barbara, don't your recommendations make the wetlands permit
Iapplicable to the wetland ordinance?
Dacy: Yes. That's true. However, because we are unsure about what would
happen to the ordinance amendment in the first case, we really didn't
I specify a motion as we do in other cases but Gary correct me, your
conditions are directed toward gaining additional information and
Irecommending a permit sedimentation basin there if alteration was allowed.
I
_ r
. C _
Planning Commission Meeting
II
April 22, 1987 - Page 44
Warren: Right. II
Siegel: And some of Gary's recommendations were contingent on the total
project. Not just the golf driving range right? I
Warren : My recommendations are based on the total project.
Siegel : You had something about run-off from the building. I
Warren : That 's correct . I
Siegel: In lieu of that, does that make any change in your recommendations
set by Staff?
Dacy: As far as the drainage issue, it eliminates additional hard roof II
area, that calculation from the drainage but I think the overall drainage
plan and so on still remains intact. All of these conditions could be
I
applied for a recommendation of approval except for number 1. If you have
some type of preference for the lighting scheme and you should probably
identify the hours of operation if you are going to recommend approval .
Siegel : I thought we already did that with the previous ?
I
P motion.
Dacy: Yes, you did but I guess I would prefer that you clarify it in this II
application.
Emmings: If someone were to vote to deny the wetland alteration permit
II
would it make the conditional use permit moot?
Dacy: Yes .
Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial'
of the application for the Wetland Alteration Permit. All voted in favor
except Siegel and motion carried . I
Siegel: I thought I was assured that Staff would ensure with their
recommendations to satisfy the alteration permit.
I
Conrad : You can minimize the impact on the wetland but the Ordinance says .
Siegel : In essence, we are denying the property owner any use of his land. I
Conrad: No. For a golf driving range because he apparently needs more
property. I
Siegel: I fail to see the effect of a golf driving range on a piece of bare
land to me is less impact on it than any other type of use.
Emmings : He has to fill in the wetlands to use it as a golf driving olf drivi range II.
II
II
II
. +T Y _
I " Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1987 - Page 45
II
Siegel: I still disagree. I think Staff came up with recommendations that
Ithe applicant could adhere to and meet the use of the land for his purpose.
Pryzmus: That piece of land has been farmed for 100 years. It was
II homesteaded and last year with the wettest year we ever had, it was down
twice in the spring and in the fall. There has never been any water
standing there and so, when you reach your Ordinance about what is a Class A
wetland or what is a protected wetland, it's anything that is going to have
I any water if there is a 100 year rain. Basically, most of your communities
are built to Class A wetlands according to that Ordinance so I don't want
you to get real carried away with thinking that I'm filling in a lake. It's
a piece of farmland. It's low and it's advantageous to me to put in a
I couple feet of fill so my ballpicker, when it's raining, won't squeeze the
balls into the ground. There isn't going to be any change. There isn't
going to be any buildings close to the creek. The water will still flow
II very smoothly. It's going to be nothing but mowed 9 mo grass and so I think
sometimes you're getting a little carried away with what I'm doing in there.
The wetlands seems to throw the trigger so address that. It is a farm. It
I always has been a farm. There are no cattails. There has never been
standing water there ever. I drove through there the other day with my
pick-up. Now, it's been a dry spring. Last spring it was the wettest
spring we've had for years so it's not wetlands so I want people to realize
I that.
I WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO INSTALL THE LAKE ANN INTERCEPTOR AND LAKE
VIRGINIA FORCEMAIN IN AND NEAR CLASS A AND CLASS B WETLANDS ALONG THE
ALIGNMENT RUNNING SOUTHEASTERLY FROM TH 41 TO TH 5, THROUGH CHANHASSEN LAKES
I BUSINESS PARK, NORTH OF LAKE SUSAN AND INTO EDEN PRAIRIE, METROPOLITAN WASTE
CONTROL COMMISSION, APPLICANT.
Public Present :
ILeander Kerber 1620 Arboretum Blvd .
IBarbara Dacy presented the staff report on this item.
Leander Kerber: I have concern with it because it's going to go right
I across the south end of my property on TH 5. I have the property between
the City park and the nursery. My question is, as long as it's zig-zagging
around, why don't they cross the highway down the road 500 feet to 1,000
Ifeet and stay off of my property. Another question is, am I going to be
assessed for that now or when am I supposed to pay for it or am I going to
have to pay? If so, why?
IDacy: The interceptor at this time is not proposed to be assessed during
this year and in 1987. The Metropolitan Council will not allow us or allow
property owners in that owner to hook up into that interceptor until after
IIthe year 2000 so there are no assessments at this time.
I
II
296
II.
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
SWINGS RECREATION LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TH 5 AND CR 117, JOHN
III
PRYZMUS, APPLICANT:
A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REQUEST TO AMEND THE A-2, AGRICULTURAL II
ESTATE DISTRICT TO ALLOW GOLF DRIVING RANGES, MINIATURE GOLF COURSES
AND INDOOR BATTING BUILDINGS AS A CONDITIONAL USE.
II
B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT REQUEST TO FILL IN A CLASS A WETLAND.
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A GOLF DRIVING RANGE, MINIATURE I
GOLF COURSE, AND AN INDOOR BATTING BUILDINGS.
Mayor Hamilton: This item has been before us before. I think Jay is probably _
II
the only one that hasn't had quite as much input as the rest of us had.
Barbara, is there anything new that you might want to present that we wouldn't
be aware of or haven't seen in the past dealing with this item?
Barbara Dacy: No, not at this time. I guess if you're just going to consider II
each item, we're available to answer questions and the applicant is here.
Mayor Hamilton: Let's begin with A, the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Request II
to amend the A-2, Agricultural Estate District to allow golf driving ranges,
miniature golf courses and indoor batting buildings as a conditional use and
it's my understanding John that you want all three of those to be considered
II
and not separately?
E
John Pryzmus: Yes. f
Mayor Hamilton: Does the Council have any discussion on this item 6(a) ?
Councilman Geving: Yes. This is a major departure for a Zoning Ordinance I
Amendment. To include not one of these particular items, the golf driving
range but also the miniature golf course and the indoor batting facility.
This issue has a long history and after a lot of deliberation and our Minutes
II
indicate that we still are looking at, in my view, a conditional use permit
process and the only thing that's acceptable to me as a councilman is a golf
driving range facility. I don't believe that the miniature golf course meets I
the intent of our Zoning Ordinance. It is in fact a retail facility. A
commercial facility and it fits more appropriately in a commercial setting and
I can't for the life of me believe that we would even attempt to consider the II indoor batting facility in what I would call an agricultural district that is
intended for at some future point a rural residential area in the year 2000.
We're talking about an interim facility plan for this land use. I would say
that if anything should go on that land, and I believe it should be utilized.
I
There has been a substantial amount of development there in terms of trees
` being placed there. There has been an alteration of the area including the
creek area. That a landowner does have some rights to develop a portion of
I
his property even in an interim use. I feel that the golf driving range for
my purposes at least, does meet an interim intent of our Ordinance. I think -
that could fit with the idea that there would be a small shed facility and I'm
thinking in the area of 500 square feet maximum to house a tractor and
whatever office. facilities there are for the issuance of clubs and counting of
42 II
,tip err
k AL _ 297
City Council Meetin g - May 4, 1987
Y
balls and things like that. That there will be no commercial enterprise of
this property. No vending whatsoever of pop, ice cream or any other such
' commercial ventures. That it be strictly for the recreation of golfing and
the driving range. So therefore, I'm saying that there would be no vending or
concessionaire type activities. We would fence it completely with a 6 foot
wire mesh fence. I think that would be appropriate. Show us a site plan with
a landscaping plan John. We need that. I want to see where you're plantings
are and what they will look like in years to come and under no circumstances
will I think that we could even consider an alteration to the wetland that's
' existant on that property. Do not violate that wetland and I have in our
packet tonight from Dr. Rockwell whom I know and have worked with for a number
of years, an opinion from the Fish and Wildlife Service that says there should
' be no alteration to the wetland. Now if you can do your facility, you can
drive balls and collect the balls under those circumstances, I feel that you
could hold a facility out on that land and run a profitable business. That's
the end of my comments.
Councilman Johnson: I tend to agree with Dale on this. Especially on the
wetlands part. I believe that you can get the wide bodied tire or whatever
' vehicle that could navigate on the wetland more the tractors that are there
now would just fall into the wetland basically. There's no way you could pick
up the balls with those existing tractors. You would have to have the little
I tire or whatever to be able to navigate within the area. I'm not terribly
opposed to, like some of the Planning Commission members said that they were
not opposed to having the putt-putt or mini-golf in-conjunction with the
driving range. The mini-golf by itself I'm totally against out there but in
I 1- conjunction with a driving range as a smaller enterprise, I'm not terribly
opposed to but I would totally agree with Dale and the Planning Commission on
no further alteration, it's already been altered, to that wetlands.
Councilman Horn: Just a clarification. I believe the question was, we're
asking for a zoning ordinance amendment to include all three. If I heard Dale
and Jay right they said they would not go along with that.
Councilman Geving: That was the intent of my statement, yes.
' Councilman Horn: It seems like that's all I heard.
Mayor Hamilton: From my standpoint I think what I've seen John on your plans
' is an overintensificaton of the use for the land. I don't think the batting
thing fits. I certainly think a driving range is very useable there along
with the miniature putt and if you were to put a mini-golf thing there that's
similar to the one on TH 101 and TH 7, which I think is a real nice facility
' and does a good business, I could certainly see that as an asset to that area.
I think an indoor batting facility may be something that our town could use
but I don't think it fits on that piece of land so I agree with the other
council members. You've asked for three things and I haven't heard anyone
agree that all three should be in that particular location. I guess a motion
is in order on item A.
I _ Councilman Geving: I will move to approve a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to
amend the A-2, Agricultural Estate District to allow golf driving ranges as a
I43
298
r 4., a (`
C
II
ity Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
conditional use. I think the other items that I hear would fall into the
II
Conditional Use Permit itself as a part of that and those conditions however
would also include the Planning Commission's recommendations because this is
an amendment to an Ordinance. There have to be some other things that we
would place in the ordinance to structure it and that is, (1) location is
limited to being adjacent to TH 5 and TH 212 and access must be from a
I
collector or arterial streets to TH 5 or TH 212. We're trying to look to the
future not just at this particular facility but to the amendment to the
Ordinance. Hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset and that
adequate parking and submission of a landscaping plan shall be in conformance I
with Article VIII. No site shall be located within 500 feet of a single
family residence. We'll discuss that in a minute because there may be a _
conflict but that should be one of the items. I would like to add another
II
item, that there would be no vending of concessions on the site. Any building
for the purpose of storing golf driving equipment such as the ball retriever,
the tractor and small office would be limited in size to 500 square feet, and
be painted in an earthtone. II
There was no second and motion failed for lack of second.
Mayor Hamilton: John, did you want to say something? II
John Pryzmus: I didn't know if you wanted to see a plan or anything like
that.
II
Mayor Hamilton: We were given copies of your plan unless it's changed since
we got -it.
John Pryzmus: No. The only thing I would like to mention is that I spent a
lot of time today and the last couple days, I have 100% backing from the
II
business community, my peers, what they see is a need out there for the
community. I went through different areas in the community to find out the
residents and people who don't have businesses in town. Basically they were
90% for it. The 10% that didn't sign the petitions either didn't know enough II
about the project to sign it or their husband or wife wasn't home so they
wanted to make a joint decision so I feel here that we have community support
of just about 100% for the project. Batting cages are a big part of it. My
II
financial backers won't be involved if I don't have the total project so I
won't be able to go into a financial contract with you if you limit this it
just a driving range. Basically I have a driving range out there now so I
II
just wanted to let you know that I've done a lot of homework like you've asked
Dale. I hired the architects. I hired the engineers. I've done everything
that the City, we've moved things around to the west and north and south and
have done everything that I could possibly do with Staff basically to be told II
that I don't have any more than I had "before even though you took it away.
That was a matter for the courts to decide. Really it comes down to I've
spent about $10,000.00 with plans and what have you to get the same thing I
II
got three months ago. If you were going to tell me the same thing, why didn't
you just tell me that three months ago that no matter what you do. No matter
how many plans and architectural drawings you get because it isn't going
matter. It don't matter what the people of Chanhassen want. It's what you
III
personally want that matters.
44 II
"--,_ 6) �
1
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
IllJack Roberts: We weren't here for this rt of it but it's pa it news to me that
somebody was going to be developing a driving range and mini-golf and batting
1 . cage. I grew up in suburban Chicago and one of my favorite sports as a
teenager, going with my dad and later on in high school and college with my
brothers, there was ...which was a farm type of place with a double decker
I driving range and mini-golf course and outdoor batting cages and we spent one
hell of a lot of time there doing all three at one time. We didn't go there
just to do baseball because if you put up a batting cage someone in this town
I who might need it for all the kids like my three sons who are 9 and 10 years
old, where are they going to go just to go batting and not be able to buy ice
cream or a can of pop and can only do it from sunrise to sunset. Well, that's
real good hours in April, May and September. It seems like when you're a
I teenager you may want to be out past 8:00 at night. If this business would
fly, I think something like 10:00, 11:00, 12:00 at night during certain times
of the weeks. I think at least a can of pop or nibble of chips or candy bar
I or gum something like that would be appropriate if you're going to run a
business and unless you don't have kids that play baseball and golf, this area
could use something other than just the nice mini-golf that's up on TH 7 and
TH 101. Where is there a driving range that you can go to and not have to be
I a member or feel that you have to play 18 holes. I heard George Prieditis on
my softball team tonight said we could go to a batting cage in St. Paul.
Where is the closest batting cage for the kids that are in baseball or for
1 dads, for a bunch of jocks who just want to go out and hit and not go down to
the metrodome for two days of the year and try and make the team down there.
There may be a need for something like this in the recreation area in not too
II
far away from downtown Chanhassen and what is that site doing right now? It's
vegetating. I don't know about wetlands and all of that... I just heard about
this in the last half hour but I spent hours at a place like that when I was a
kid and I still play baseball and I still play golf and I love it and I got
I kids that I would like to take to do that right now because they want to
practice and rather than in my backyard or at Chan Elementary where we pound
solfballs or golfballs. That's where people practice their golf in Chan right
I now. I think maybe, maybe there is a need for this here and if you guys could
work something out.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't think anyone is saying there is not a need for it.
1 What we're saying is the location is not in the area that we think it should
be in and the use of that particular piece of land is probably not suited.
IJack Roberts: Couldn't you use draintile or pipes or something to...
Mayor Hamilton: We deal with what we see presented to us. We don't talk to
I the applicant and tell them how to do his plan. We can't do his planning for
him. Any other comments.
Councilman Horn: The motion would be then if we decide we don't want to give
I all three of these, the motion would be to deny the zoning ordinance amendment
at this point. However, what I would like to see happen is to see this go
ill back and have a Zoning Ordinance amendment that would include golf courses as
well as driving ranges because I was just as appalled as the Planning
Commission to find out we don't have a place to put a golf course in
Chanhassen. I think it's ridiculous that Bluff Creek has to be a conditional
I 45
t
II