1k. Minutes y ».
I_A,
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL ' - - . . .s.. :. , - - , -- . -
REGULAR MEETING
DUNE 8, 1998 -_
Acting Mayor Mason called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge
to the Flag.
7., COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Mayor Mason,Councilman Berquist,Councilman Senn
and Councilman Engel
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor Mancino
y' STAFF PRESENT: Roger Knutson,Don Ashworth,Kate Aanenson,Anita Benson, Jerry Ruegemer ,.;
and Todd Gerhardt
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved,Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the
,agenda with the following deletions: Item 1(m)on the Consent Agenda,the 1998 Budget Amendment to -
Include the Goose Removal Program,and item 3,Lake Lucy Estates were deleted from the agenda. All
`=s voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Berquist moved,Councilman Senn seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: -
a. Resolution#98-53A: Approve plans and specifications for the Lake Lucy Road Improvement
Project 98-1 dated May 28, 1998,and authorize advertisement for bids; and Resolution #98-53B:
approve the resolution prohibiting parking on both sides of the roadway.
b. Resolution #98-54: Approve Plans&Specifications for Coulter Boulevard Phase IV; Authorize
Advertising for Bids, Project 97-1D.
c. Resolution #98-55: Accept Utility Improvements in Lotus Lake Woods, Project 95-15.
d. Approve Ownership Transfer of Outlot B, Highover, Project 97-15.
f. Chanhassen East Business Center Phase III,CSM Investors: •
`° 1) Final Plat Approval
g. Approval of Bills.
h. City Council Minutes dated May 26, 1998
Planning Commission Minutes dated May 20, 1998
i. Approval of Summary Ordinance for Cable TV Franchise Renewal for Publication Purposes.
Li
k. Approve Temporary and Permanent Easement Payments, 1998 Trail Project.
4
47
L , 4. 3 'lam .'iS' 3 'F 7 ,,. - ..z
''^, ~ `i 3 }mow`� '..r� ,, •x;c's-Y.' 4 +-..--7 - 'h -.0.r-'P4 ._4. �' sue, '` ,t.'- , k -i 4yt.
City Council Meeting-June 8, 1998 R
1. Approval of Contract for Lifeguard Services at Lake Ann Beach,Minnetonka Community
Services.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
.. VISITOR PRESENTATION: None.
• AWARD OF BIDS: SEVERE WEATHER SIRENS AND INSTALLATION.
Don Ashworth: We did take bids this morning,or open bids. Unfortunately only one bid was received.
- The amount,and that was from Federal Siren. They did comply with our specifications. They will
install five sirens this year with four being installed next spring. Total cost over the two year period of
= time would be $127,196.00. They did provide an option whereby the City could take and carry the cost
of the sirens up to a five year period of time. At any point in time if we wanted to cancel that contract or
pay off a portion of the principle,we could use naturally the interest cost would be reduced. Staff is
recommending the award of the low bid from Federal Siren in the amount of$127,196.00.
; _ Councilman Senn: I'll move approval of the bid and the installation of five sirens this year and four
F sirens next year and of the five sirens going in this year,at the approximate cost of$70,000.00. That
$70,000.00 will come from a combination of the reserve and available TIF district funds on applicable
sirens.
Councilman Engel: I'll second that.
Acting Mayor Mason: Is there any further discussion by Council on that?
•
Councilman Senn: And I should add to that,the five for next year will simply become a funding. I'm
sorry, four sirens for next year would become a funding issue as it relates to the '99 budget.
- Councilman Engel: Second.
Resolution#98-56: Councilman Senn moved,Councilman Engel seconded approval of the bid and
the installation of five sirens this year and four sirens next year. Of the five sirens going in this
year at the approximate cost of$70,000.00,that $70,000.00 will come from a combination of the
# reserve and available TIF district funds on applicable sirens with the four sirens for next year
.3.: becoming a funding issue as it relates to the '99 budget. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
- REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 15,000 SQ.FT. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE/
MANUFACTURING BUILDING; LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LAKE
DRIVE WEST AND AUDUBON ROAD ON LOT 1,BLOCK 1,CHANHASSEN BUSINESS
CENTER 4TH ADDITION; QUANTUM CONTROLS,INC.,EDEN TRACE CORPORATION.
Kate Aanenson: As you indicated, Eden Trace,the applicant is requesting approval for Site Plan of a
15,000 square foot office building as part of the Chan Business Center. It's bordered by Audubon Road
and Lake Drive West. It does have,as part of the buffering requirements because it's close to Lake
s'r Susan Hills area,there is a buffer requirement,but the applicant has modified since the original Planning
Commission. The developer recently had site plan approval for the property to the south of this and
when we did the original PUD...more office component. This will have some... We think it
•
•
h -
City Council Meeting-June 8, 1998
compliments that building. The Planning Commission did unanimously recommend approval and we are
recommending approval of the site plan with the conditions in the staff report.
Acting Mayor Mason: Okay. Does the Council have any questions for staff? Would the developer,
Eden Trace,do you have anything further to add? I think we're all pretty familiar with, yeah. Is there
anyone else in the audience that would like to comment on this? And the applicant is back there.
Councilman Senn: I'll move approval.
Councilman Engel: Second.
Acting Mayor Mason: Any further discussion?
Councilman Senn moved,Councilman Engel seconded to approve Site Plan#98-9 for Eden Trace
Corporation-Quantum Controls as shown on the plans dated received April 24, 1998,and subject
to the following conditions:
1. All driveway access points onto Lake Drive West shall incorporate the City's industrial driveway
apron (Detail Plate No. 5207). The developer shall be responsible for relocating any conflicting
street lights along Lake Drive West.
2. Rock construction entrances shall be maintained by the applicant until all parking lots are paved
with a bituminous surface. In addition, all catch basins inlets shall be protected with silt fence,
rock filter dikes,or hay bales,as well.
3. All drive aisles shall be revised to meet the City Code requirements (20-1101 and 20-1118).
Driveway radiuses onto Lake Drive West shall be increased to 20 foot radii.
4. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges shall be applied to the building permit. Charges shall be
based upon the number of SAC units determined by the Metropolitan Council Environmental
Services.
5. The applicant shall provide the city with a financial guarantee in the amount of $2,500. To
guarantee boulevard restoration as a result of the driveway access point.
6. The contractor and/or developer shall contact the City's Engineering Department for inspection of
the driveway apron and curb/street restoration prior to pouring the concrete. A 24 hour notice is
required to schedule an inspection.
7. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest editions of the City's
Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and/or State Plumbing Codes. Detailed utility plans and
specifications shall be submitted in conjunction with the final plat approval for staff review and
approval. The private utilities will be inspected by the City's Building Department. The developer
and/or builder shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits from the City.
8. The final utility plans shall be revised to include an inside drop for the sewer service connection to
the existing manhole. One lane of traffic must be maintained at all times. The street (Lake Drive
West) shall be restored in kind within 7 days after work commences. The contractor shall be
responsible for providing and maintaining traffic control. The developer shall escrow with the City
3
City Council Meeting-June 8, 1998
in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of $2,500 to guarantee street
restoration.
9. All existing trees shall be protected during the construction of the berm and replaced by the
applicant if necessary.
10. Landscaping along Audubon Road shall be consistent with buffer yard B planting requirements of
the landscaping ordinance.
11. Overnight parking of motor vehicles will not be permitted unless applicable portions of the
building is designed to meet the code requirements for a parking garage.
12. Meet with the Inspections Division plan reviewer as soon as possible after approval to begin the
building code plan review process.
13. Fire marshal conditions:
a. Refer to Utility Plan. A post indicator valve must be added to the 8 inch water main running
into the building. NFPA 13 1991 Section 4-5.1.1.7.
b. The post indicator must have tamper protection which is connected to the sprinkler system
monitoring. Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy#40-1995.
c. Contact Fire Marshal for exact size and location for installation of a lock box on the side of the
building for fire department access. MN Uniform Fire Code 1991 Section 10.302.
14. The applicant shall enter into a site development contract with the city and provide the necessary
financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval.
15. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood
screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery,tanks, etc. are to be filly screened by
compatible materials. As an alternative, the applicant can use factory applied panels on the
exterior to the equipment that would blend in with the building materials.
16. All freestanding signs shall be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not exceed eighty (80)
square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight(8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an
element of the architecture and thus should reflect with the quality of the development. A common
theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout.
Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site.
The monument sign must maintain a ten foot setback from the property line. The signs should be
consistent in color, size, and material throughout the development. The applicant should submit a
sign package for staff review. A separate permit is required for all signage on site.
17. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. A
decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole
shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting. All light fixtures shall be
shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than %2 foot candle at the property line. This
does not apply to street lighting. Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street
4
City Council Meeting-June 8, 1998
right-of-ways shall be used in the private areas. Wall pack units may be used provided no direct
glare is directed off-site and no more than %2 foot candle of light is at the property line.
18. Park fees shall be paid in accordance with city ordinance requirements.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
OLIVEWOOD; LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF SANDPIPER TRAIL AND WEST OF PIPER
RIDGE LANE; COFFMAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES,INC:
A. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR 8 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACKS AND
WETLAND SETBACKS AND TWO OUTLOTS AND A WETLAND ALTERATION
PERMIT FOR WETLAND MITIGATION.
B. APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS& SPECIFICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT
CONTRACT,PROJECT 94-11.
Kate Aanenson: As you can see this application has a wetland alteration permit and... When it
originally came in there was 9 lots. There are two homes on the property. Mrs. Newman and the
Weimerskirch's home. When this first came before you in 1994 you did recommend to approve
the plat. It originally had 9. You had requested it down to 8. At that time they had to do wetland
replacement. Since that time there have been changes to the wetland...2,000 square feet so they're
not required to...so that's a modification. They are doing a recreational beachlot which the
DNR...recommended before, there are 7 of the 8 lots are riparian. We recommended that there be
one large dock which the DNR did permit before and they are recommending approval of that
again. ...One of the issues between this approval and the one that was done in 1994 was we had a
better handle on the wetland management plan. Some trees were missed as far as the Council. We
did ask the applicant to provide a woodland management plan which we think is better than what
was originally approved. So with that we are recommending approval of the subdivision. It's very
similar with some minor modification of what was done in 1994. With the conditions of the staff
report, the Planning Commission also recommended approval. I'd be happy to answer any
questions.
Acting Mayor Mason: Council have any questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward
and say anything?
Bill Coffman: Acting Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Bill Coffman. I'm the President of
Coffman Development Services. With me tonight I have Ann and Arne Weimerskirch, the owners and
developers of the property. We have no, I have no comments. I'm just available for any questions that
you may have.
Acting Mayor Mason: Does Council have any questions? Guess not. It's been on the books on and off
for a while so I think we're all pretty familiar with it. I have no comments. Is there anyone from the
audience that would care to have any questions or comments at this time?
Councilman Senn: I'll move approval.
5
City Council Meeting-June 8, 1998
Councilman Engel: Second.
Councilman Senn: I'll move approval of both preliminary and final. I guess do we need to do these
separate or just altogether?
Roger Knutson: One's fine.
Acting Mayor Mason: 4(a)and 4(b).
Councilman Senn: 4(a)and 4(b).
Acting Mayor Mason: And the second.
Councilman Engel: Second on a and b.
Councilman Senn moved,Councilman Engel seconded that the City Council approves the
preliminary and final plat(#94-3)of 25.95 acres into 8 single family lots with variances for
Olivewood,as shown on the plans stamped April 24, 1998 and subject to the following conditions:
1. A 20 foot front yard setback variance for Lot 1,Block 2.
2. The applicant shall provide the legal description for the vacation of Minnewashta Avenue.
3. Approval of the 50 foot right-of-way for street. The radius of the cul-de-sac shall be 60 feet.
4. A moving and demolition permit for the existing homes as per Building Official's memo dated
May 6, 1998.
5. Revise grading plan to include the following:]
a) Erosion control measures in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices
Handbook. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed along the wetlands and
stormwater pond
b) Provide boulevard per City's typical street detail along Lots 1 and 2,Block 2.
c) Denote temporary stockpile to be removed upon completion of the project.
d) The dike along the proposed pond shall be constructed with structural fill material.
e) The high point on Tanagers Point shall be relocated from Station 3+00 to Station 1+00 to
reduce drainage to Sandpiper Lane.
6. Replacement plantings for the development total 46 trees. The applicant shall submit a planting
plant to the city that includes location, species,and size.
7. The applicant shall submit sample tree preservation easement document to the city for review
8. Tree preservation fencing will be required around all trees to be saved. Fencing shall be
installed prior to grading and excavation for homes on each lot.
6
City Council Meeting-June 8, 1998
9. Lowest floor elevations of the homes adjacent to the wetland areas shall be two feet above the
wetland's ordinary high water level.
10. Individual detailed grading,drainage,tree removal and erosion control plans will be required for
all lots. The plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval at time of building
permit application.
11. The applicant shall pay the appropriate storm water quality and quantity fees or provide storm
water management improvements in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan.
12. Storm water calculations for ponding and piping shall be submitted to the City Engineer for
review and approval. All storm water ponds shall meet Walker standards. The storm sewer shall
be designed for a 10-year storm event.
13. All utility and street installation for public improvements shall be in accordance with the City's
latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. Detailed construction plans and
specifications shall be submitted to the City at least three weeks prior to final plat consideration
for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat approval.
14. The applicant shall be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions
of final platting.
15. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e. Watershed District,
DNR,MWCC,MPCA,Minnesota Dept.of Health,etc.
16. Submit street name to Public Safety Department for review prior to final plat approval.
17. Accept full park and trail dedication fees for the Olivewood Subdivision in lieu of parkland
dedication and/or trail construction. One-third of the park and trail cash contribution shall be
paid contemporaneously with the filing of the subdivision plat. The balance,calculated as
follows, shall be paid at the time building permits are issued: rate in effect for residential single
family property when a building permit is issued minus the amount previously paid.
18. The City shall establish a No Parking Zone in the cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac shall be posted and
signed as per the Fire Marshal for no parking.
19. Any existing or deferred assessments against the parcel shall be respread over the development
on a per lot basis.
20. The existing wells and septic system on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with City
and/or State codes.
21. The street construction plans shall include a traffic signage plan.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
7
City Council Meeting-June 8, 1998
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded that the City Council approve Conditional
Use Permit#94-2 for the recreational beachlot subject to the following conditions:
1. Receive DNR approval for dock with more than 4 slips and updated DNR permit.
2. Verify water depth and submit the appropriate configuration of dock.
3. The dock shall have a maximum of 8 boat slips.
4. The recreational beachlot shall meet all of the General Issuance Standards of Section 20-232,
conditional uses.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded that the City Council approve Wetland
Alteration Permit#94-2 for mitigation of a wetland subject to the following conditions:
1. As per WCA deminimis rules, 812 square feet of the wetland on Tanager Court may be filled in
without replacement.
2. The discharge of dredged or fill material into any wetland or water area requires authorization
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the Corps of Engineers.
3. The following wetland setbacks shall be maintained:
Natural wetland 10'-30'buffer strip and 40 foot structure setback
Ag/urban wetland 0-30' buffer strip and 40 foot structure setback
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Resolution #98-57: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve a resolution
for vacation of Minnewashta Avenue (Vacation #94-2) subject to final plat approval of Olivewood
Subdivision. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded that the City Council approve the
construction plans and specifications for Olivewood dated July 8, 1994, revised June 5, 1998,
prepared by Schoell & Madson, Inc. and the development contract dated June 8, 1998 conditioned
upon the following:
1. The applicant enter into the development contract and supply the City with a cash escrow or letter
of credit in the amount of$202,851.00 and pay an administration fee of$20,044.30.
2. The applicant's engineer shall revise the construction plans and specifications per staff's
recommendation and submit revised plans to the City on Friday,June 5, 1998.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPOINTMENTS TO THE PARK& RECREATION COMNIISSION.
8
City Council Meeting-June 8, 1998
Acting Mayor Mason: Before I offer up the motion, I would like everyone to know out in camera land,
because there aren't too many people here tonight. The group, the people, the applicants were many and
they were quite good. I've been on Council,well this is my seventh year and there was a point that it was
next to impossible to get people to apply for things and fortunately, lately, we've been getting a lot of
applications which certainly I think makes for a better city, and it's nice to see people wanting to
participate in the process. The unfortunately thing is when lots of people want to do something, not
everyone gets a chance at it. So I hope and I will direct staff, as we always do, to write letters to the
people that are accepted, not accepted as well as accepted, expressing our thanks and hoping that just
because they did not get appointed to the commission this time, that they will maintain an interest in the
city. That quite honestly is what makes a city,or a group better. With that I will move the reappointment
of incumbents Fred Berg and Jim Manders to Park and Rec Commission. There is a motion on the floor
and a second.
Acting Mayor Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded that the City Council reappoint Fred
Berg and Jim Manders to the Park and Recreation Commission. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Senn: Just one question if I could.
Acting Mayor Mason: Now wait a minute. Wait a minute.
Councilman Senn: Two minutes. We've got two minutes. Just a quick question to Don. There wasn't a
news alley this week.
Don Ashworth: That's correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay. I just wanted to make sure. That's all.
Don Ashworth: Generally if it's a packet week,we'll try to make sure that...
Councilman Senn: Well I just want to make sure I wasn't missing part of it, since I didn't get the whole
packet the week before. I thought I might be missing part. I'll move to adjourn just so Mason can set the
record.
Acting Mayor Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Acting Mayor Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. The meeting
was adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
9
•
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -JUNE 4, 1998
A special meeting of the City Council was called to order on Thursday, June 4, 1998, at - :,
4:30 p.m. The following members were present: Acting Mayor Mike Mason, Councilmen
Berquist and Senn. Mayor Mancino and Councilman Engel were absent. The special meeting
was held to discuss the situation with water supply Well No. 7.
EMERGENCY REPAIRS, WATER SUPPLY WELL NO. 7: Public Works Director,
Charles Folch, opened the meeting by briefmg the council on the current status of the water
supply of Well No. 7. On the morning of Tuesday, June 2, 1998, routine maintenance inspection
•
of the well found that there was an excessive concentration of chlorine gas in the pump and
control room. Once the problem was brought under control, it was discovered that the well pump
would not function. Further investigation discovered that the master controller unit for the pump
had failed as well as some ancillary automatic control devices which function in conjunction with
the city's telemetry system. The estimated cost of these repairs known at this date are expected
to exceed the twenty-five thousand dollar($25,000.00) limit, which would require formal
bidding for contracted repairs. Well No. 7 is currently the only well which functions in the high
pressure zone. With this well down, Well No. 3 is actually being used as a back up for the high
pressure zone. Should there be some sort of failure at Well No. 3 while Well No. 7 is down,
there would be no further ability to pump water into the high pressure zone. Since the automatic
controls for Well No. 7 and the Murray Hill water tower are not functioning, the Murray Hill
water tower needs to be monitored on an around the clock basis to ensure that the tower does not
lose water or overflows. Therefore, Charles Folch recommended that the city council declare this
situation an emergency situation, which would allow the city to bypass the statutory requirements
for bidding and expedite the repairs.
Resolution No. 98-52: A motion was made by Councilman Berquist and seconded by Acting
Mayor Mason to declare Well No. 7 an emergency situation and authorize the purchase of a new
variable frequency drive controller and PCL, as well as other materials, and contracted service
that is necessary to put Well No. 7 back into service in an expeditious manner. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
A motion was made by Councilman Senn and seconded by Councilman Berquist to adjourn the
special meeting at 4:40 p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Don Ashworth
City Manager
-
{'r
• •
} _ _
�ev � i
§ -'.
f
•
L
,i -
'i 2.2firr L `= _t ita
5 aLa TC 4
s _'.gvL
x
�� �
q-k s
•
a
�a+ c C-- cam'
r . _
•—:Y C
4,.
i
� �1
t"�j--4e
Fic. t
^E { 4 Y L 4
S�f� ?
1
9 ,, a` �i- ��$Q [-s .�c3 3 # 4- ti }S5{�"' v r'S�'3 il'`" a -c o L ;�
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 3, 1998
Vice Chairman Joyce called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Allyson Brooks, Alison Blackowiak, Ladd Conrad, Kevin Joyce, Matt
Burton and LuAnn Sidney -
MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Peterson
41111 STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II; Bob
Generous, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel,Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
CHAPEL HILL ACADEMY REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALL• '
A MODULAR CLASSROOM BUILDING ON AN OFFICE INDUSTRIAL SITE, A
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW TEMPORARY BUILDINGS IN
THE OFFICE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT,AND A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE
TO ALLOW A TEMPORARY BUILDING TO BE LOCATED 8.5 FEET FROM THE
SIDE LOT LINE, LOCATED SOUTH OF WEST 78TH STREET, EAST OF FRONTIER
TRAIL AND WEST OF GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, 7707 GREAT PLAINS
BOULEVARD.
Low"
is Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this issue.
Joyce: Are there any questions for staff at this time from any commissioners? -
•
Conrad: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Are we, is the applicant here and show us what it's going to loo
like? -
Al-Jaff: Yes. There should be.
Conrad: Is that what it looks like?
Al-Jaff: Yes.
Conrad: That is the building?
:•ti-: :_ Al-Jaff: Yes. It's currently in Eden Prairie.
Conrad: And the dimensions are what? 60 x 40 or something like that?
-• Al-Jaffa Correct.
^,3Y
__. _-
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
_,
Conrad: And that's the roof line that staff agreed with. There are all sorts of structures that put
roof lines in that work. Ugly structures, I deal with this and nicer structures. You're comfortable
that this is the right one. •
Al-Jaff: The fact that it is a temporary building. It is the reason why we said okay. They have
the building right now in Eden Prairie. They're moving it to Chanhassen. Ultimately this
building is, will disappear.
F
_` Conrad: But you like, again I just want to open up your vision. There are choices to temporary
structures so we're comfortable with this?
anenson: Well I guess I would say that this is what they're asking...because they're currently
using it. We didn't go out and look at a variety and recommend this one. They asked us to move ti
this one because they're currently using it. So I don't think it was a choice.
{,ram;
Brooks: And they didn't offer any other types of temporary structures for you to look at?
Conrad: But you're comfortable,that's all I'm trying.
•Aanenson: Well I think that was the reason why we said in one year they have to come back with ,
a complete site plan. We want to make sure that this stays on track. If this becomes, these are
temporary...moving forward to make a permanent building.
:'Conrad: Now the way the staff report was written, it doesn't tell me that the interim use permit
will not be renewed. It doesn't say that. It says we have a sequence to follow. In one year you _
have to do this. But is it the staffs recommendation that this interim use permit is for 5 years.
` At the end of 5 years there is no such,they can come back for it but is, you're not making the
--- € judgment on whether they come back for it or not. You're saying, what are you saying in the
- staff report? _
` Aanenson. That it expires in 5 years. If they want to come back and make an appeal to you, they _
have that opportunity but it is our recommendation that they're not there in 5 years.
Conrad. So they really have this for 5 years and the progress towards getting rid of it is really, •
there's only one milestone and that's year one with the overall facade. -_
Brooks: Why is it taking them so long? Why the 5 years? ___ ___
Aanenson: We'll let the applicant speak to that.
.� ,, Joyce: If the applicant's here, would you like to address the Planning Commission at this time?
'_ Please step forward. State your name and address.
T e
i _ . MTh { -
T -- 4t 4 .4 - f .
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
Dan Blake: Mr. Chairman, Planning Commissioners. My name is Dan Blake. I represent
Chapel Hill Academy. I think I'll first try to introduce Chapel Hill Academy to the City of
Chanhassen for those who are unfamiliar. Chapel Hill Academy is a K through 8 school. We've
been in existence for about 27 years. Most of that time located in Eden Prairie. This past year
we have leased a portion of the space at the old St. Hubert's School and we have worked out an
arrangement with St. Hubert's to purchase that property that we think will enable us to, it would
be our first permanent home really since, we've always been renting but we haven't moved
around a lot but this would be a current home that we could use as it sits now, and eventually
expand it to meet our ultimate objective or goal of two classes of K through 8, approximately 450
students. Currently we project about 260 students next year. To answer some of the questions
that I heard brought up by commission. The existing building that's proposed is a structure that
we currently own and are using in Eden Prairie. That's why we didn't look at other alternatives.
However, we believe that the location, as well as the design of the building fit in with the site. If
you can picture the back side or the church side of the St. Hubert's building, it's a light brown
color up to about a medium brown color up to about 8 or 9 feet and then it has another 3 foot
dark brown span with wood siding at the top. This modular building is similar in nature in that it
has one type of wood siding for the first about 9 feet and then approximately a 2 to 3 foot kind of
a mansard type roof. And we believe that that follows staff's condition to paint that building to
match the St. Hubert's building at the height and that band at the top will match extremely well.
Why 5 years? Our plan is to move in there 100%this fall for the beginning of the school year.
The current building has 8 classrooms. We need 11 this year and so that modular building has 4
classrooms in it so it's got us one extra to meet this year and next year. Assuming we add, our
goal is to add a class each year. So that will take care of the next two years. We anticipate over
that time we will do enough fund raising to commence an expansion program. We've done some
preliminary architecture to verify that the type of expansion, that there's room on the site within
the city ordinances to...very limited details of design work with that regard. So that's the last
two years we will have a need for an expansion and commence, we anticipate to commence the
construction project that takes between 1 and 2 years to complete and that gets us kind of a 3 or 4
year time frame. We asked for 5 years because things don't always go as planned and I'd rather
not ask for 3 and have to come back for an extension. If it was important to the Planning
Commission, I would certainly agree to a condition that says upon completion of the expansion,
that we're required to come back upon completion of that expansion, that we take that temporary
building out or that the temporary permit expires and that I'm not going to ask to keep it there
you know the full 5 years if we don't need it. We don't,our students don't really like that
building. It works but it's disconnected from the rest of the classrooms. We want to get it out of
there as soon as practical. But we're uncomfortable asking for a shorter time frame knowing that
there's a greater chance that we'd be back before you saying please, can we keep it there just one
more year because in 5 years we don't think that that will come up. Now could I guarantee that?
No. But it's certainly not our plan and we have had significant growth the past few years and we
think that our enrollment projections are very reasonable. They're more controlled by us not
wanting to grow too fast. The demand seems to be there for the type of education that we're
providing and the location is we think extremely appropriate and we're really excited to be a part
of the Chanhassen community and bring a school back to that location. Beyond that I guess if
you have any questions, I'd sure like to try to answer them.
3
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
Joyce: Thank you very much. Any questions for the applicant?
Brooks: Yeah, you're expecting 250?
Dan Blake: 260.
Brooks: No bus service?
Dan Blake: There currently is not a bus service. In the past we have had it and then haven't had
it. Currently there is not. It's a fairly organized carpool program.
Brooks: So how much traffic are you expecting in the morning and the evening?
Dan Blake: Boy, I suppose you could assume that they average 4 kids per trip. Per carpool. I
don't know if that's a fair average and that's 70 some, you know 60-70 trips.
Brooks: Does that facility and the traffic pattern there set up to handle that kind of traffic flow in
and out?
Dan Blake: I don't think that's significantly different,not to interrupt your question but I don't
think that's significantly different than the way St. Hubert's used it.
Brooks: Well maybe I wasn't familiar with that.
Hempel: I tend to agree with the applicant. I don't think that's much more significant than
previously...
Brooks: Okay. What's the contingency plan if you don't raise the funds to build the temporary
structure?
Dan Blake: You mean a permanent structure?
Brooks: Yeah. Sorry, yes the addition. Sorry about that.
Dan Blake: We go back, we would not, we'd either move and that's the same cost issue, or we
would not allow, we'd have to cut enrollment back to fit in the building that we have. We could
probably do some remodeling inside. We don't need the sanctuary part where...church. We'll
use that for an auditorium. There's some remodeling we could probably do to get up to about 12
classrooms inside instead of 8. But we don't want to tear that apart. We'd like to keep that
auditorium generally like it is and expand beyond that.
Blackowiak: Several years ago the St. Hubert's and Chan Elementary students, sixth graders
used the space in the Colonial Center. Have you investigated that option at all?
4
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
Dan Blake: Yes we have. At the time we investigated it, it seemed a very expensive. It was
kind of an all or nothing deal as I understood it for the space that was available. And that was
quite some time ago. I could not tell you if that space is currently available or not right now. I
heard some talk that it had been leased up. But more importantly last year we were on two
campuses. We were in Eden Prairie and had our 7th and 8th grade in Chanhassen. We found that
that to be quite a hardship for our staff and for our students to be split up like that and even if it's
just across the street, it's still split up. We really want to be in one building. We think that the
small nature of the school, we lose the benefits that we have if we start splitting people. It tends
to get smaller.
Blackowiak: But...is splitting people up?
Dan Blake: Well but they're physically connected. They would lunch together. Gym together.
They wouldn't have to go across the street, across the parking lot.
Blackowiak: Right. I believe that's what they did before too. They had gym class, I mean
basically it was the relocatable but just across the street. I mean effectively.
Dan Blake: Well I suppose it could be done. We looked into it because we had to decide, it's
pretty expensive to move that building over and it seems like that was a better cost effective
scenario than renting space. And to tell you, we had originally looked at putting the modular
building on the west side of, east side excuse me. Behind those two houses and we heard a lot
from the residents earlier on when the city was going through some of their, the planning seemed
better in this general area. That everybody wanted those houses there and so we decided well is
there a better place to put it and this little back corner seemed like it was as out of view and
minimal impact to the site as possible.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Conrad: Connections with the building is how?
Dan Blake: There will be a covered pedestrian way. Other than that there's not really a physical
connection.
Conrad: No need for sanitary hook-up?
Dan Blake: No. We have to have a pedestrian way to provide that within the building is the way
to go. The existing building lays out, there are restrooms right inside the door...where the old
church offices were.
Joyce: That was my question too. I assume that follows our code?
Dan Blake: Yeah,we have met with the building inspector and talked a little, a couple times,
met with him on site to decide exactly what needs to be. It's a juggling act. Whether this is one,
whether it's an expansion onto an existing building or it's a separate building that connects into,
5
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
we kind of laid out what we need to do to meet the code to get some fire protection and things we
have to do as well as the...
Burton: I'm not that familiar with your...parking lot is basically taking away the one back
there...
Dan Blake: We have about 5 times the need for our parking out there now. So there is...as we
look at future expansion we'll have to look seriously at ultimate parking needs and what land we
use but currently K through 8 we have 15 to 20 staff people. We have the drop off and parents in
and out. The only time we have a significant amount of parking would be an all school program
you know two nights a week, or two nights a year or something. Maybe a basketball game, but
that parking is more than double what we currently have and...
Sidney: One quick question. I couldn't tell from the photos if there were any roof assemblies on
this structure. I guess there was concern about that because that might be able to be viewed by
the residents to the north.
Dan Blake: There are no, there's no equipment on the roof. That equipment is actually is
mounted on the outside of the building and it will face, unfortunately yes. The more visible side
but it's quite set back from Great Plains. But that's the side it faces. You can see that in the
photo. But there's nothing, a slightly sloped roof on top enough for drainage.
Joyce: Okay. Thank you very much. Can I have a motion to open this up for a public hearing
please.
Burton moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Joyce: The matter is open for public hearing. Would anyone like to address the planning
commission regarding this item,please step forward. State your name... Seeing none, I'd like to
close the public hearing.
Brooks moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Joyce: LuAnn.
Sidney: Okay, a few comments. I guess to me it seems like a reasonable interim solution to the
classroom needs. I agree with the staff report. I would like to see us complete site plan
application in one year. I believe that's a very important point. And I'd also like to discuss the,
because of the closeness to the neighbors that no other use other than classroom would be... I
think it's a good location. It's well screened. It's stated in the staff report and I think it's a good
solution overall. I would like to comment about the proposed building alternatives. I like the
idea of the Alternative 2...78`h Street and I think that fits in to the area where we'd like to jazz up
the frontage on 78`h. So I'll put my vote in for that.
6
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
Joyce: Thank you. Matt.
Burton: I think it's a proper use of the interim use permit. I think that it's a good location. And
I think my concern was that perhaps the neighbors would not be happy with it and...so I'm just
assuming that that is not a problem. Based on...
Joyce: Thank you. Ladd.
Conrad: I think it's great that Chapel Hill's is in town. I think that's terrific. Interim use permits
bother me a little bit because I keep thinking, okay. So when we did this one for that, what's the
rationale and I can justify it but it's one of those ones that it still makes me nervous a little bit but
that's on an aside I think. Just to communicate, I don't know that we need to do it in our motion
but I don't think I'll be here in 5 years. I'd really want to make, I want to make this an interim
use. Period. Because I'm not comfortable with it. If we don't let other people do it, so you've
just got to make this happen in 5 and if I am here,I just don't think I'd extend it. So I think
you've got, you know and again our ordinance allows you to let you ask for that extension. It
does so you can't but boy I'd sure, I'd really be, unless there was a great case made,that would
be permanent. You know extending it beyond 5 years is a permanent structure and this is not so
other than that, no other questions.
Blackowiak: Yeah, when you're talking about permanent versus temporary, I read temporary and
then I read 5 years and I kind of went, hum. It didn't quite mesh in my mind. I mean I think
temporary is maybe under a year or something but 5 years seems like an awful long time. One of
my only notes to myself on this was,can we put some sort of drop dead date on this? In other
words, if it expires at the end of 5 years, can we say that under no condition can they reapply or
something. I guess we can't do that according to Ladd. Which is a worry of mine too because 5
years is not temporary and if they ask for another years in 5 years, and they're just kind of totally
avoiding the intent of the ordinance. And as long as we all understand that temporary means
temporary and don't come back in 5 years because I don't think you'll find a sympathetic ear.
That's okay. I would like to say that there is, as far as I know, there is space over in that Colonial
Center and I think that would be a nice option too...relocatable and move over there because you
do have a distinct building but a relocationable is a distinct building. I mean regardless if you
have a colored walkway, they're still distinct. There are no pedestrian facilities,running water
that type of thing. You've got to make the change anyway, so whether you cross the street or
cross a parking lot is, I don't see much difference. So I would actually kind of push for that
option but I guess you already own it so there are certain costs associated with that so I totally
understand. Again,please no more than 5 years.
Joyce: Thank you. Allyson.
Brooks: I have the same reaction as Ladd and Alison. When I say temporary and then I saw 5
years. I would feel more comfortable if I knew we were granting the permit and they had funding
in place and this could all be, the addition could happen within 1 or 2 years. I'm sort of
uncomfortable the way it stands now. However, it is nice to see the school come alive. To have
7
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
the children in town and to have something going on so maybe it's the best solution under the
circumstances. But again I feel like Ladd and Alison. To me 5 years is absolutely maximum and
for me it's actually too much but you know I hope you get your funds as soon as possible so you
can build your addition as soon as possible. And that's about it.
Joyce: Good. Not much more to add. Happy that you're in town and using the facility. I've
always, I've had my kids go to school over there and it's kind of an eyesore so hopefully you will
get your funds...incorporate everything into the site. I think Mr. Blake had a good point and
maybe we can add onto the third item of our motion here that the interim use permit will expire
in 5 years or until expansion of the school is completed. I mean if the school is expanded, we'd
like to see that out of there. So if it only takes 3 years for that expansion, we expect that the
temporary modular classroom is gone. Otherwise, you know that actually fits in there so...use
and use it for something like that, I think it makes sense. That's my comments. I guess we could
go to making a motion here...
Blackowiak: Well I'll recommend the planning commission approve interim use permit 98-1
with a variance to locate the structure 8.5 feet from the northern property line with the following
conditions, 1 through 8 and on condition 3. Adding the phrase, or until expansion of the school
is completed.
Burton: I'd second that.
Blackowiak moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of Interim Use Permit#98-1 with a variance to locate the structure 8.5 feet from the
northern property line,with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit a complete site plan application no later than one year after
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
2. The wood siding on the temporary building shall be painted the same color"brown" as the
existing building.
3. The Interim Use Permit shall expire in 5 years from the date approved by the City Council,
or until the expansion of the school is completed.
4. The temporary structure shall be used as classroom space only.
5. The City shall not be held liable for any damage to the proposed temporary building as a
result of performing repairs to the existing sanitary sewer line.
6. Provision to maintain the existing neighborhood drainage shall be incorporated into the
plan for staff review and approval.
7. Building Official conditions:
8
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
a) The portable classroom and the existing church/school must be altered to comply with
building code provisions for wall and opening protection at property lines with the
exception of the north wall of the portable classroom.
b) Existing exiting for the church/school must be maintained.
c) New accessible parking stalls must be provided in compliance with the current building
code.
d) New construction must meet all current building code requirements.
e) Plans must be submitted to the Inspections Division for review and building permit
approval prior to the building being moved to the site.
8. Meet with Fire Prevention Division for Fire Code requirements.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Joyce: Then we need a motion on the zoning ordinance amendment.
Conrad: I'd make the motion planning commission recommends approval of a zoning ordinance
amendment to the office and institutional district by adding Section 20-796 to read as follows, as
in the staff report. Number 1. Temporary classroom structures for use by public or private
schools needed for temporary use.
Joyce: Thank you. And a second please.
Brooks: Second.
Conrad moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the Office Institutional District by adding Section 20-796
to read as follows:
Section 20-796 Interim Uses:
1. Temporary Classroom structures for use by public or private schools needs for temporary
use.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
DESIGN 1 OF EDINA,LTD. REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 55,911
SQ. FT. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON LOT 1,BLOCK 2,ARBORETUM
BUSINESS PARK 2ND ADDITION ON PROEPRTY ZONED PUD AND LOCATED
9
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
EAST OF HWY 41 JUST NORTH OF COULTER BOULEVARD,ALL ABOUT
LIGHTS.
AND DESIGN 1 OF EDINA, LETD. REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A
52,956 SQ. FT. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1,
ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 2ND ADDITION,ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND
LOCATED EAST OF HWY. 41 JUST NORTH OF COULTER BOULEVARD,ON THE
LEVEL, INC.
Public Present:
Name Address
Carrie & Torn Christensen 8681 Alisa Lane
Chris Thompson 110 Choctaw Circle
Robert Davis 9973 Valley View Road
Thomas Bothun 9973 Valley View Road
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Joyce: Any questions from fellow commissioners?
Brooks: I have one. Actually it's kind of a request. In the future can you tell us what these
businesses do because that would help me understand if I'm just looking at offices or if they're
storing lights. Are they making lights? I mean it would just give me a little more background.
In this case do we know, I didn't, All About Lights, and maybe the applicant can tell me or you
can tell me or somebody.
Generous: I can tell you. They, what is it wholesale lights.
Tom Christensen: We sell lights to builders.
Generous: They're only a portion of it. They have approximately 11,000 square feet of the
55,000 square foot building so there will be additional tenants in that and that's why it's office
warehouse showroom space. The limitation on the building site precludes a lot of distribution in
there so you won't have any large warehouse terminal type of congestion. And On the Level is a
building company. Contractors.
Brooks: All right.
Conrad: Mr. Chairman. Tell me what you said about the architectural treatment of the corner.
The 16 x 16 whatever you said didn't make sense.
Generous: Maybe on the elevations. On each of the corners,this...shown an area where they've
used the larger block to help define that corner area. And I just wanted to make sure that they
10
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
continue it on the rest of the corners of the building. On this elevation for the All About Lights,
you don't see the treatment on the northwest corner of the building and that was, I'm
recommending that that be continued around that to give some...to the design.
Joyce: Any other questions?
Burton: A couple questions Bob. These two buildings seem virtually the same and they're right
next to each other and I'm looking at the conditions,the recommendations that you have and
which recommendations that has an item that the other one doesn't have. I'm just wondering on
the first one, number 3 where you talk about the architectural treatment. It's not... Is that
intentional?
Generous: Well they don't have one of the,they don't have the entrance on the north elevation.
Because the second building is L shaped,they have two fronts and so I didn't have to continue
mimicking the entrance treatments. And then of course they don't have the additional windows
on the non frontage elevation so I dropped those two requirements.
Burton: And then the other one was number 6 on the second. Site plan approval contingent
upon the city authorizing and awarding public improvement project and in the first one isn't tied
into that?
Generous: I thought I had it in both.
Hempel: It's number 7.
Burton: Oh, you're right. I'm sorry. I missed it. I've got to read it more carefully.
Aanenson: No, that's good. You're reading it.
Burton: I don't have any other questions or anything.
Joyce: I have a question Bob,just a general question. Now the Gateway is the developer,
correct? Who's the overall developer of this?
Generous: Gateway Partners.
Joyce: Gateway Partners. So this is separate company that's come in to develop this site?
Generous: Yeah, they purchased this lot and they're going to develop the parcel. Or the parcels I
should say.
Joyce: Is that how we're going to do this whole PUD or Gateway is going to parcel this off...
Aanenson: They may. But they still have to meet the same design standards.
11
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
Joyce: I was...and I'm not understanding where the sidewalks are here and I'm trying to get the
vision of what's going to be behind these buildings and how we're going to incorporate these
buildings into whatever kind I'm using for pedestrian access... Do you have anything you can
help me out with, that'd be great. Otherwise I'm going to ask the applicant.
Generous: Why don't I have Dave.
Hempel: This site plan is the All About Lights located on Lot 1, Block 2. Just south of Coulter
Boulevard in the cul-de-sac. In conjunction with the city project, we're installing a 6 foot wide
concrete sidewalk on the south side of Coulter Boulevard. The terminus at the cul-de-sac.
That's will tie in further to the east with the north/south street of Coulter Boulevard... Staff has
put in a condition or remark in the staff report about the extension of a sidewalk from the
building down to the future sidewalk... The other site.
Joyce: Dave, wait a second. Now, since we're on this All About Lights. They have the loading
areas here. Is that going to be, is that a street back here? Part of the street or what is that?
Hempel: I can expand on that Mr. Chairman. The intention is for a shared parking and truck
loading facilities in the future with the adjacent parcel. The common curb access swale off of
Coulter Boulevard here. The driveway will also be utilized by the city for maintenance on the
water tower which is proposed directly south of this site.
Joyce: Is this a through street then or...? Does it go through?
Hempel: The drive aisle will go all the way to the south property line... Coulter Boulevard to the
north of the building will be a temporary cul-de-sac...lower trunk highway 41... So essentially
the parcel we have east of here will be the mirror type building.
Joyce: ...docks pointing this way.
Hempel: Correct.
Joyce: Okay.
Hempel: Elevation approximately the same within a couple of feet.
Joyce: Okay. Thanks Dave.
Hempel: The other building that's On the Level, on the north side of Coulter. Coulter Boulevard
is to the south. Again, this is directly across the...from All About Lights. This parcel is...will
have it's own...facilities, driveway. There's a pretty good elevation change as you continue to
the north...10 feet lower than this driveway.
Joyce: How do we connect this site with the rest of the development?
12
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
Hempel: From a pedestrian standpoint?
Joyce: Right.
Hempel: I guess at this point you're going to be crossing Coulter Boulevard in this cul-de-sac.
There's also grade challenges there as well. The east end of the drive aisle...Coulter Boulevard
and continuing to the west towards the cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac will actually be 6 to 8 feet
higher than the building...see how pedestrian moves with...
Joyce: I kind of envisioned this project as really being...some campus affect and that kind of
thing. I don't know, it's a concern... Okay, thanks Dave very much. Any other questions for
staff? No? Okay. Would the applicant like to address the Planning Commission please?
Tom Christensen: Good evening. My name is Tom Christensen and I reside at 8681 Alisa Lane
in Chanhassen. My business is at 7801 Park Drive in Chanhassen and we have, my wife and I,
Carrie, own All About Lights and we've been in the business for three years here in Chanhassen.
We want to stay here. Before when we first came up with this project, we basically were
thinking of actually leaving because we couldn't find anything. That's why we decided to build
the building and because there weren't any other places that we could go and that's why we came
up with this project. We did a lot of work on designing the project. We wanted to make it look
like a showcase which I think we've done very well at doing so. What I'd like to do is have,
there is a couple of things in here that we would like to have Bob Davis, who is our architect,
address if we could.
Bob Davis: Good evening. My name is Bob Davis. I'm the architect on actually both of the
projects that you're combining this evening. I think we want to back up and take each building a
little bit separate and go through some of the features of it so that, I hear a little bit of confusion I
think from the staff here. Let's take a look at the board that's...can we get the map up on the,
can we focus in on... Okay. This is Coulter Boulevard. Possibly a water tower planned here...
We're talking about the lot here and the lot here. They're across from each other,north and
south. This road, Coulter Boulevard has a cul-de-sac proposed and a future connection of
Highway 41. The comment was made about the back here of this lot is a drive to a southern
point, city access to a water main. Let's go down to this floor plan, the site plan. Okay.
Joyce: This is All About Lights we're talking about?
Bob Davis: All About Lights. Southern property. So Highway 41 will be on the bottom.
Coulter Boulevard is here. Temporary cul-de-sac. This will be the future connection. Highway
41 is proposed to be lowered about 14 feet from where it is now. The building is 55,000 square
feet. This is your Highway 41 frontage. Coulter Boulevard frontage. We're recessing the
building back at two points. There is loading docks at these points. There is a drive in door at
these points. So we're screening to some extent a truck parked in here at the loading dock by the
building extension from Coulter Boulevard. We're then also providing landscaping on the end
here. This is the street connection. This is the common driveway between this property and
future development to the east. And this will be used by the city as a street to get to the water
13
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
tank location over here. Take a look at the elevation. This is the elevation. We've got quite a
long elevation. There are five entrances shown here. We're projecting the entrances out 4 feet on
the side and across them and recessing back in 4 feet and then recessing back in another 4 feet...
These will be quite prominent. 24 foot high height here. 26 foot here. This is higher for a
number of features. It accents where the business is located. This will be the sign band. This
will help screen the, it will screen the roof top air conditioning. The proposed roof top air
conditioning will be behind the parapet... In order to not have a very repetitive pattern, I think
your site plan will show that these window sections that are 12 feet wide are not all the same.
Some are higher than others and where they're lower down, they're filled in with burnish block
so that the pattern of the window shape carries through. The size of the window is different. The
size of the windows also are subtly changed in that the end two panels of these windows are
narrower than the rest of them. So that we have a rhythm, a pattern going here with the windows.
As you go down the row they're not all the same. They change in height and they change in
width. When we get onto the next building you'll see that we come with a different arrangement
and window styles and we think we'll get this variety. The two buildings do have the same color.
They have the same materials. They have a little different patterning with those materials. Let
me go through. We're talking about rough block. What's commonly referred to as rock face
masonry block. And this material also comes in a burnish pattern, which is a brown finish,
which gives you some different color textures again. You can pass these around. And let me
show you some photographs of a building we found that used these colors and these are ones that
are being specified as the color. Can we pick these up? I need to apologize. The color
reproduction that you got...really didn't, they actually may not, they didn't carry through very
well. Hopefully these color photographs will. This will hopefully help you understand the
collection of material. We have two colors of material, a light and a dark which you have in the
sample. We have the standard masonry unit and then we have the larger, 16 x 16 unit which is
referred to in the report. We have rock face and we have burnished. And we have there in the
pattern I'm using a fair amount of dark versus a fair amount of light. And we found a building
that uses the identical colors that we're talking about. We've used quite a different patterning of
this. We're not using the burnish here. We're using the rock face. I think your elevation will
show our selection. Bob, I guess I'd like to clarify what you're asking for on the corners. We're
talking about this large block now. I'm quite comfortable that we've shown two colors, rock face
and burnished in two sizes. And I think we've got a good pattern and...with variation and I'm
comfortable with the way it is. Let's go to your elevation to make sure we understand what
you're asking for.
Generous: Where you have these larger showroom windows, you show that you're using...and
all I said is, is suggesting that you continue it around where you have the window treatments.
Bob Davis: We intend to do that. The burnish block will be continued between all windows. So
the windows read visually, architecturally as a continuous stripe, even though there's a lot of
things going on...
Generous: So this...comes out and the other thing was, to create some type of treatment using
the larger block around the window and I'll let you work out some patterning to that that mimics
this but on a smaller scale.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
Bob Davis: Okay. I'd like to suggest an alternate idea but, and then the last one was in reference
to the corner, 16 x 16 large block.
Generous: ...in this corner,I'd just continue it around the building so you have it there,there,
there and there and there...
Bob Davis: Can I offer a compromise? It's intended to be on the corner here on the side of the
windows because we have that modular to work with. I'd like to offer using it on the four
outside corners of the building. It is a fairly expensive system to mesh in with the other block.
You saw...saw and then go back to your pattern. I didn't feel it necessary on the back loading
dock to go through that kind of an expensive detailing from the...and that's kind of where we.
Joyce: Okay, so let's straighten this out then. We're talking about recommendation number 3.
The first item is the outside corners of the building. Is that what we're talking about right now?
Bob Davis: Yes.
Joyce: Okay. The outside corner of the building should be rock face 16 x 16. You're agreeing
with that?
Bob Davis: The four corners of the building.
Joyce: Each outside corner. Isn't there four corners?
Bob Davis: Well there's a lot more because we're talking about...by the loading dock too.
Joyce: Oh, I see what you're saying. So what you're saying,what you would propose is the four
corners, the four major corners of the building. 1, 2, 3,4. North, east, south, west or however
you want to explain it. And then you're saying you want as much architectural emphasis put on
out by the loading dock. Is that how I'm understanding this?
Bob Davis: Right. I guess it'd be a matter to some extent of where the economics of this go. I
think we've got some real good things going with color and block and texture and in fact if you
look at these, we're using two colors, rock face and burnish and two sizes. We're using 16 x 16,
the standard to make the module and then the 8 x 8 pattern. We've got a lot going. I'm
comfortable that we're doing well. I think you'll be very pleased with the color. I think there's
some good earth tones here.
Joyce: I guess I need to remind you that part of the PUD agreement was that we treat each facade
equally, if I remember correctly as part of the agreement that was reached,performance PUD.
I'm just making that note. Do you have any, are those the only concerns you have is that item
number 3?
15
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
Bob Davis: Right. I know the report asks for I think...and the owner is comfortable with that
request. That would be these...
Joyce: Well, on item number 3,just so I'm clear and the rest of my commissioners are clear.
The only issue you have is with those corners. You're okay with the north roadway being
enhanced by the 16 x 16 inch?
Bob Davis: I would rather do that. That is not an entrance. That's a patio area off from the
inside which there's no sidewalk to it. There's no drive in front of it. There's no, there's no
intention that the public would come into that side wall. I prefer to go another way and let the
owner develop that as an outdoor patio showroom for light fixtures. To be accessed from the
inside of the building. And when you go out and there would be a patio.
Joyce: Talking about an outside area?
Bob Davis: Sure.
Tom Christensen: Basically what we're going to do is on the outside of that area,people will be
able to walk out onto the patio and...there is a patio here. What we're going to do is we're going
to have plants, bushes, going all the way around that so there will be landscape...
Joyce: ...come in front of us to do something like that, is that correct or not? ...discussing, it's
not in part of our.
Aanenson: I guess we weren't aware of that so.
Joyce: Yeah. I'm not comfortable in discussing that issue right now.
Aanenson: I guess we would like clarification on exactly what the intent of that. Is it retail
wholesale space. How much is going to be lit up...
Joyce: We're not concerned with that right now.
Bob Davis: I'd like to propose we delete item 3 and let the architectural character be developed
or modified within the guidelines of what we presented. I think we've...
Joyce: Okay, that's something for the commission to consider is item number 3. Is there
anything else that we need to look at?
Burton: On number 3 of item 3, didn't you say though that that's already doing that?
Bob Davis: Well the one item, I think...maybe I didn't clarify my plans... The burnished
block...all the window patterns and the request was and our intention was to carry the burnished
block around the side. This side between the windows. So the face would read the same
16
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
between windows on both elevations. The intent was,the burnished block would fill in the
window section pattern.
Burton: I'm maybe not getting it. So you are doing item 3 of number 3 then?
Bob Davis: ...
Burton: Recommendation 3 has three items in there and the third item, you're doing it?
Bob Davis: Right.
Burton: So it's not an issue.
Bob Davis: We just wanted to elaborate...
Joyce: Are there any other conditions that you feel uncomfortable with?
Aanenson: ...maybe the best way is to correct it in the plan. Then we know we've got it right.
When you do the final site plan make sure the site plan has that detail on there...
Joyce: ...got lost a little bit there. Do you want to present anything else on this particular site?
Bob Davis: No. I think we're...answer questions on this project.
Joyce: Okay. Does anyone have any questions on All About Lights?
Sidney: Just one question. I was looking on the PUD plan and it looks like there is a spot where
they show a development sign for Arboretum Business Park being placed on the corner of this
particular lot. Is this true? Do you anticipate having a sign on your property? Because if that's
the case, then I think...
Bob Davis: On the development plan?
Sidney: Yes, on the PUD plan.
Bob Davis: My feeling is that probably wouldn't go in until Highway 41 is connected to Coulter.
Sidney: Well I'm still saying, in that case it would interfere with your landscaping. The
landscaping you have...I'm not sure where the placement might be.
Bob Davis: Well I think we can coordinate that with staff and if that's a reality that's going to
happen fairly soon,then some of this landscaping should be moved to some other location.
Sidney: Yes. And I want to see about adding that to condition 4. That to revise the landscaping
plan for the trees and placement of the development sign.
17
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
Bob Davis: Okay.
Aanenson: What we can do is check with the underlying developer and see if that's still their
intent. That's a good point but we can resolve that and see if the developer plans on putting a
sign there or not. If they are, then we'll modify the landscaping.
Joyce: Any other questions about All About Lights?
Blackowiak: I have one question. Currently what type of area for floor space do you have for
retail sales over on Park Drive?
Tom Christensen: We really don't do retail sales. We are wholesale only. We don't do retail
sales.
Blackowiak: I've been over there and gone into the showroom and talked about ordering lights
and.
Tom Christensen: Are you remodeling your home?
Blackowiak: Actually it was my mother. She was just looking for a light. So we went into your
showroom. I was just curious...
Tom Christensen: ...we don't cater to retail. We don't advertise to retail. Our business is to
supply to builders. So basically when a person is building a new home they come to us...buy
fixtures for lighting for their home.
Blackowiak: Right. So I as a retail customer could come in and buy fixtures?
Tom Christensen: If you want to, yes. We don't turn them away.
Blackowiak: Okay. So what type of a retail or what type of a showroom floor do you have right
now space wise?
Tom Christensen: 1,800 square feet.
Blackowiak: 1,800, okay. So then, and I guess I might be getting ahead of myself a little bit too
Kate because right now I look at development standards talk about 20%and if this is 11,000,
that's 2,200 square feet of retail, or I don't know. Maybe you don't want to say retail. I don't
know why but.
Generous: Showroom.
Blackowiak: Showroom space. So you're going from 1,800 to 2,200. Would outdoor
showroom space be considered in that too?
18
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
Tom Christensen: The outdoor is not, that is not going to be a showroom outside. That is going
to be an area where people can go outside...and at night we can have just basically they can see
what outdoor lights, landscape lighting can do for their landscape.
Blackowiak: Well I'm just kind of worried because you know you've got the 20%restriction and
I'm just wondering how that's divided up. You know if you're going to, if you're considering
outdoor,which it sounds like you are,that that is part of it and again,maybe I'm getting ahead of
myself so.
Joyce: I don't even know how to handle it because...I'm not interested in looking at the outdoor
portion and I guess...what you see is what you get.
Aanenson: But there is still a condition on the showroom part.
Generous: They would be able, as part of this building approximately 11,000 of the total
building can be showroom.
Blackowiak: Okay, so does that limit any one tenant or could one tenant be totally showroom?
Yeah, exactly.
Generous: Conceivably yes.
Blackowiak: Okay. So he could, okay. That's what I was curious about. It was like 20%per
tenant or total.
Generous: The design standards are written for the entire building.
Blackowiak: Okay. And the intent was.
Aanenson: To be not retail. It was supposed to be an industrial park. There were specific
conditions that the Planning Commission and the Council put in that you would be limiting retail
type uses and it was a short list but...
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Joyce: Allyson.
Brooks: I guess now I'm confused. We're not supposed to have retail but we have retail, is that
what you're telling me?
Generous: Not their primary use. They're a wholesaler. Direct to the builder if you will.
Brooks: So we consider that different? Because they're selling to different people.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
Generous: Yes.
Brooks: This is why it would be good to have this in the beginning. I guess that's my only
question.
Joyce: Okay, thank you. We can move on to the second...that's On the Level.
Chris Thompson: I'm Chris Thompson from On the Level. I live at 110 Choctaw Circle in
Chanhassen. I've been in business for 13 years. Single family homes. I'll be doing some office
out of this and storage area for my business and be leasing the majority of the space to other
tenants. I think the only question we have is the item regarding the berm on the northeast corner
of the building. We're already, I believe and Dave you might, I think you said 8 feet drop to the
other property. If we add another 6 feet to that, that might be a possible erosion problem and I
don't feel the berm is necessary...trees.
Joyce: Dave, do you want to discuss that item.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I can address that. The area of the berm that I was recommending was
back in this triangular section. To try to break up the mass of the building and also some
screening from potentially Highway 5 which will actually be about the same elevation as
Highway 5. It is quite a ways away but if you drive down Highway 5 now,you can see quite a
distance... The area was right back in here...
Joyce: Is there any question about erosion?
Hempel: As the grading plan has it all flat. The slopes are...the property line here. 3:1 slopes
are out here. This whole area is basically flat as proposed in the grading plan. You also bring the
grading back up to lessen the slope... It's just an idea to try and help break up the view from
Trunk Highway 5.
Chris Thompson: It isn't a big issue. The other thing too is, the office complex that would be
• going on the adjacent lot would also be blocking that view from Highway 5.
Hempel: They'll be quite a bit lower. ...grading plan for the adjacent site but it is quite a bit
lower. With a large building, 24 feet, it may help screen some of that. We won't know until we
actually see what comes in.
Joyce: Okay?
Chris Thompson: Okay.
Bob Davis: In case you're forgotten, I'm Bob Davis. If you look at it, it's across...Coulter, TH
41 and Highway 5. All About Lights is on this lot. We've now gone across the street to this lot
here. The subject question was berming back here in the corner. It was our understanding that
this lot in the corner was saved for a major client, a large size and that property we anticipated to
20
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
screen this loading dock and we had oriented the loading dock...corner away from TH 41 and
away from Coulter. Let's go then to the floor plan here. To pick up the orientation again.
Coulter, cul-de-sac, Highway 41 and this is the adjacent property to the north. We have...we
have an L shaped building. The loading dock ends back in here so we are protecting it from the
street here...the screening of the loading dock. Here again we're bringing out the building...part
back here. Half of it's screened already from the building side. We're using the same colors.
We're using the same materials. There are some differences in these buildings. We pick up the
elevation... If you look at A3,the building on the... You can see the window pattern is different
than the other building,particularly the corner window has a decorative pattern to it and the, if
you go back to the southern length,you see the end window on each end of the building has a
decorative pattern. You see this window here on the corner has quite a different pattern. These
windows then are the same width but they're a different pattern than the other building. These
windows are lower the backs at the other end of the building on the south elevation. We pick up
a decorative window on each end of the building. The entrances are quite similar in both
buildings. We again use the 8 x 8 and 8 x 16 and 16 x 16 pattern of block. Any other things we
need to pick up? I think some of the elevations were carried over, subject to carry over from the
other building presentation so I think I'll go onto questions then at this point.
Joyce: Okay. Any questions regarding On The Level?
Burton: I have a question for staff actually. It's sort of the same question I asked earlier. Why,
to me, to my untrained eye these two buildings are virtually identical and the one building has
this corner treatment and you suggested...corner treatment on this one you don't. I think that
would be noticeable... I don't know if the intent is to make them look different or if you'd like
them to look the same or why...why you want it on one but not the other.
Joyce: Your intention is to?
Generous: To continue that same condition.
Joyce: Can you help us out here Bob?
Bob Davis: Well our intention is that that pattern would be on this corner,this corner and this
corner. The three street corners. Maybe you can clarify. Are you asking for the other three
corners?
Generous: Yes.
Bob Davis: I have not shown that...intended to put it there.
Generous: That was the, on both of them would be the same idea that you continue every outside
corner.
Bob Davis: Okay. That may be the only difference we have. This is about...area back here but
there's, I think there's about a 14 foot drop in grade from this somewhat flat area down here.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
That was...didn't think he wanted to grade the grade, actually this is on an adjacent property, the
14 feet. Another 6 feet higher adjacent...
Hempel: ...recommending an isolated berm. Undulating berm out in this area in here. A spot
berm. Undulating with landscaping on top of it to try and break up... landscaping here on top of
the berm. Not a continual berm along the whole back corner.
Bob Davis: I think you're saying you're comfortable with that.
Chris Thompson: Correct.
Bob Davis: Now we'll just ask for any questions.
Joyce: Okay. Anything else from anyone? I'll get back to my original question. Have we
decided how we're going to pull a sidewalk out to the boulevard here?
Bob Davis: I don't think we have but I don't think, the condition is we need to do it. The
sidewalk appears to go on the south side of the road. I think we're talking about crossing over
the grass, what would be the boulevard between the curb and the parking with a length to get
across to the sidewalk to the south.
Joyce: Excuse me, are we going to have a sidewalk on both sides of Coulter Boulevard?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman,just one on the south side.
Bob Davis: There's a sidewalk on the west and south side of the building so my suggestion
would be, I think we can agree and accept the language that we need somewhere a link for the
person walking along the sidewalk to cross over the grass area and get to the sidewalk proposed
on the other side of the street. Where that goes I think staff and engineering will work out.
Joyce: Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate it, thank you. This is open for a
public hearing. Can I get a motion please to do that please? Items 3 and 4 are open for a public
hearing. Would anyone like to address the Planning Commission at this time on either of the, All
About Lights or On The Level, please step forward. Seeing none,may I have a motion to close
the public hearing.
Conrad moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Joyce: Thank you. Allyson Brooks.
Brooks: Well, I want to say that even though we're sort of debating the retail or retail issue, I do
like the idea of keeping the business in Chanhassen. You know I think we really need to promote
that and respect that. The buildings are okay. In terms of corner treatment where the loading
docks are, I guess I don't, I mean it would be nice but I don't have a big issue with that because
22
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
this is a loading dock area. Other than you know in the future if I could just get the information
on what the businesses are again because of the All About Lights, that would be great. Other
than that, oh the other thing I also was going to say was,Kevin I don't think you're going to get
your campus feel. I don't see it coming your way.
Joyce: I've had a problem with this development...
Brooks: I think it's a pretty straight forward office industrial park. But however, other than the
comments I just made, I don't have any other problems with the project.
Joyce: Thank you. Alison Blackowiak.
Blackowiak: I guess I really don't have much to say. No, nothing I guess.
Joyce: Do you have any problems with, ...contention with All About Lights as far as, well both
of them because... The rock face situation.
Blackowiak: I think that.
Joyce: The suggestion is to have it on the four corners.
Blackowiak: Yeah. I would say, at a minimum on the four corners, and even each outside corner
I don't think would be that much more expensive. You're talking about an 8 x 8 inch block
versus a 16 x 16. I mean the multiples are there. It's not that big a deal to take two 8's on and
put a 16 in so I don't buy the saw in argument really. So I really don't think it would be that
much of a difference. Again, at least at a minimum four corners. Preferably each outside corner.
And the berming. I guess we have to do both don't we. Are we talking about both of these right
away?
Joyce: Yes, we're talking about both. We'll have two motions but yeah.
Blackowiak: Okay. Then I do want to say on the On the Level.
Joyce: I'm sorry. Allyson, did you want to make a comment on the second one at all? Should I
come back to you?
Brooks: Oh, on the berm. I think we should go with the berming idea.
Joyce: I apologize for that.
Brooks: That's fine. I should have...
Joyce: Thank you.
23
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
Blackowiak: Yes, I agree. And if we're going to talk about On the Level too, then I agree that
we do need some type of berm undulating from, I realize there might be a difference in elevation
but we don't know when that corporate person will come in so I think in the interim we have to
have a berm there and fully support that.
Joyce: Thank you Alison. Ladd.
Conrad: I have nothing else to add. I do like, for big buildings these are, I like the design. I
think staff report's fine. I think the berming on the second issue makes some sense to me. I like
it. When you take a look at the elevation, the other, the two other street and south elevations are
quite nice andthen take a look at the other elevation from the loading dock and I think it's done
nice inside. I think Bob commented on the corners. I have to go with Bob's recommendation on
this unless the applicant can come in and give us a specific reason cost wise why it shouldn't
happen. I think it's a nice touch. I think it will help in some areas that possibly need some help
but other than that, I think it's fine. Both of them...
Joyce: Thank you. Matt.
Burton: On the All About Lights project, I guess the only real issue here that recommendation 3.
And on the first question, I think they've agreed it'd be the treatment on the four corners on the
first item so that doesn't seem to be an issue. The only one that's really an issue is the second
one above the doorway and on the third one they said they're already doing it. On the doorway, I
don't really have a problem if you left it the way it was. Then the only other comment on that
one was I suspect the retail in your showroom issue, I don't really believe is before us so I think,
it seems to me it's more of a showroom but I guess it's not really an issue here. Then on the
second building, the On The Level building. As long as we have the condition about the corners,
and I would limit it to just the three. And on the first one, it mentions the four corners...not the
loading dock corners. And I guess with those items, I was fine with it.
Joyce: And...on both All About Lights and On the Level. You're talking about both buildings
on four corners?
Burton: I think that the On the Level building really needs to have the three.
Joyce: Oh, the three corners. Okay.
Burton: Yeah. And then on the berm issue, I would agree with the staff recommendation of the
berm.
Joyce: LuAnn.
Sidney: Well I like the design of the building. I think that architecturally it is very pleasing for
that type of building. I think it was well designed. I agree with Ladd's comments that I'd like to
have a condition to include all corners in the treatments that Bob is suggesting. The reason I say
that is because for the PUD we have design standards. We're looking for a higher design
24
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
standard for these buildings and I think you should at least,as a commission, I'd like to keep the
four corners in this condition to City Council. They might tear it down or might agree with it.
But I do think that it does add more interest to the building and as Bob has recommended in the
staff report. I guess other than that,berming is fme. I agree with the comments about that. I'll
just point out then concern about that sign and then the impact of Highway 41 on any
landscaping that might be coming on the development. I'm not sure when that's going to
happen. It may never happen in my lifetime but it might wipe out all your trees if they start
grading so you might put that into consideration.
Joyce: My comments basically echo most of what the commissioners have said. I don't have a
problem with either project. I will probably suggest that you leave in the condition number 3 and
if you feel strongly against that I'd definitely bring it up to City Council. I agree with Ladd that if
there are some economic factors that you can show that makes sense as to why you shouldn't
have the entire building have the same architectural design...please bring it up to the Council but
I'm comfortable leaving it as a staff recommendation on that. I also agree with Dave. I think we
need a berm in there. I know the view shed. You can see right through almost to Highway 41.
Who knows when the rest of it will be developed. So I'd have to agree with the staff in that
regard too. The only issue that I do have and it's a general issue is, I had a higher expectation for
this development to be perfectly honest with you. I really did. And it's not, I don't see it coming
along. I thought we'd have more sidewalks. It's be more integrated and I just, I don't like the
way it's kind of being piece mealed put together. As a planning commissioner I think we should
have a vision of what this is going to be and I hate to use the term campus feel but I think we're
losing it here. I think we're getting just a bunch of businesses. It's going to be a business park
and that isn't what I bought in on as far as the PUD. I'm just making that statement. That's the
way I feel about it and I'm hoping that other project will come in and we can try to integrate this
development into something that is integrated rather than just pieces of businesses all over and
they're just a business park treatment. So we need two motions here to send this up to City
Council. We'll start with the All About Lights. Please make a motion.
Conrad: I make the motion that Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan 98-10,
All About Lights prepared by Design 1 dated 4/30/98 subject to the 14 conditions of the staff
report.
Joyce: Thank you. And a second please.
Blackowiak: I'll second that.
Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval
of Site Plan #98-10, All About Lights,prepared by Design 1,dated 4/30/98, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The development must comply with the Development Design Standards for Arboretum
Business Park.
25
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
2. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
3. The developer shall incorporate the following architectural details: 1) each outside corner of
the building shall use rock face 16 x 16 inch CMU-1, 2) the north doorway shall be enhanced
through the use of rock face 16 x 16 inch CMU-1 in proportion to the other building
entrances, and 3)burnished 8 x 8 inch CMU-1 shall be used between the showroom windows
on the north end of the building.
4. The applicant shall revise the landscaping plan to include two overstory trees in each of the
three sodded areas in the rear of the building.
5. All driveway access points shall be constructed in accordance with the City's industrial
driveway detail plate no. 5207.
6. The city's boulevards must be restored with sod.
7. Site plan approval is contingent upon the City authorizing and awarding of public
improvement project no. 97-1D for Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition and recording of
the final plat for Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition.
8. Detailed storm drainage calculations including drainage area maps for a 10-year, 24-hour
storm event shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance
of a building permit.
9. Connection to the City's utility system shall be prohibited until the city's utility lines have
been tested and accepted by the City. The sanitary sewer and water lines and storm sewer on
the site will be privately owned and maintained by the property owner and not the City. The
contractor will be responsible for obtaining the appropriate sewer, water, and plumbing
permits from the City's building Department. Cross access easements for the utilities and
driveways shall be dedicated over the lot.
10. The site plan shall be modified to incorporate sidewalks out to Coulter Boulevard at a
location to be determined by the applicant and staff.
11. Refer to Utility plan. A post indicator valve must be added to the 8 inch water main going
into the building. NFPA 13 1991 Section 4-5.1.1.7.
12. The post indicator must have tamper protection which is connected to the sprinkler system
monitoring. Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy#40-1995.
13. Revise the parking on the Site Plan to comply with the building code.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
26
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
Joyce: That has been passed and will go to City Council on June 22"d. The second motion is for
the On the Level.
Brooks: I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan 98-11, On the Level,
Inc.,plans prepared by Design 1 dated 4/30/98 subject to conditions 1 through 13.
Joyce: Thank you. Is there a second?
Blackowiak: Go ahead LuAnn.
Sidney: Okay. I'd like to include condition 3 from the previous motion.
Joyce: Why don't you just add that down as,add the language and put it down as condition 14.
Make it condition 14. And we'll add that language.
Brooks moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Site Plan#98-11, On the Level, Inc., plans prepared by Design 1, dated 4/30/98, subject to
the following conditions:
1. The development must comply with the Development Design Standards for Arboretum
Business Park.
2. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
3. All driveway access points shall be constructed in accordance with the City's industrial
driveway detail plate no. 5207.
4. The applicant shall incorporate an earth berm in the northeast corner of the site adjacent to
the truck loading dock area. The berming area shall be up to six feet in height with
landscaping of additional conifers to help to break up the building mass.
5. The City's boulevards must be restored with sod.
6. Site plan approval is contingent upon the City authorizing and awarding of public
improvement project no. 97-ID for Arboretum Business Park 2"d Addition and recording of
the final plat for Arboretum Business Park 2"d Addition.
7. Detailed storm drainage calculations including drainage area maps for a 10-year, 24-hour
storm event shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance
of a building permit.
8. Connection to the City's utility system shall be prohibited until the city's utility lines have
been tested and accepted by the City. The sanitary sewer and water lines and storm sewer on
the site will be privately owned and maintained by the property owner and not the City. The
27
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
contractor will be responsible for obtaining the appropriate sewer, water, and plumbing
permits from the City's building Department. Cross access easements for the utilities and
driveways shall be dedicated over the lot.
9. The site plan shall be modified to incorporate sidewalks out to Coulter Boulevard at a
location to be determined by the applicant and staff.
10. Revise the parking on the Site Plan to comply with the building code.
11. Meet with the Inspections Division plan reviewer as soon as possible after approval to begin the
building code plan review process.
12. Refer to the Utility plan. A post indicator valve must be added to the 8 inch water main
going into the building. NFPA 13 1991 Section 4-5.1.1.7.
13. The post indicator must have tamper protection which is connected to the sprinkler system
monitoring. Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy#40-1995.
14. The developer shall incorporate the following architectural details: 1) each outside
corner of the building shall use rock face 16 x 16 inch CMU-1.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
RSS/PERMA GREEN, INC. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
ALTERATION OF A FLOOD PLAIN,AN INTERIM USE PERMIT SITE PLAN
REVIEW TO ALLOW A GOLF IMPROVEMENT CENTER/DRIVING
RANGE/OFFICE/CLUB HOUSE AND VARIANCES TO THE SIZE OF BUILDING AND
HOURS OF OPERATION AND A CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AN OFFICE/
CLUBHOUSE TO BE LOCATED SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF GREAT
PLAINS BOULEVARD AND TH 212 ON PROPERTY ZONED A2,AGRICULTURAL
ESTATE DISTRICT, RSS GOLF IMPROVEMENT CENTER.
Public Present:
Name Address
Tom Braman 8040 Stevens, Bloomington, MN
Chris Bixler 3179 Devon Lane, Mound, MN
Jeff Helstrom 8276 Scandia Road, Waconia, MN
David Albright 7814 130 Street West, Apple Valley, MN
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
28
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
Joyce: Are there any questions for staff?
Blackowiak: Is this going to have a course on it?
Aanenson: No. It did when it originally came in.
Blackowiak: I was questioning about the Corps permit.
Aanenson: Originally it had over 3 acres. We've got that reduced down and that was the...
driving range.
Conrad: It's currently being farmed?
Aanenson: Correct.
Conrad: And the property to the northeast is what? Is that being farmed too? Right next to 169
or whatever that.
Aanenson: To 101? Right immediately to the east where the DNR wetland is, is part of the
wildlife...
Conrad: To the east is what, did you say?
Aanenson: Oh, I'm sorry to the east. That's also...the existing home on the other side...
Conrad: And our vision of this land Kate, could be farmed? Our vision it could be farmed?
Aanenson: Well, it can remain an agricultural use. Our comprehensive plan originally left it
only as open space. But if someone were to come in and try to do something..it could just be
farmed in A2 which is a use of the property. It also, the A2 district as I indicated does allow a
couple of other things. Either conditional or interim use and the golf and driving range...
Conrad: So our vision is open space but to be open means somebody, we'd have to buy it then?
Aanenson: Correct.
Conrad: Our vision could be agricultural and a golf range could be included in that?
Aanenson: Right.
Conrad: And our vision could be large lot,which is 1 house per 2 %s acres.
Aanenson: Correct.
Conrad: So this.
29
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
Aanenson: Actually outside the MUSA that would be 1 per 10.
Conrad: 1 per 10. So this vision on this site,huh. There could be one house.
Aanenson: Under the Bluff Creek overlay district that's coming in, what impact would that have
on this site?
Aanenson: The reason why this wasn't included in the Bluff Creek is because this is upland and
the Assumption Creek and that wetland are a high value wetland. Unique as far as overall
aquatic diversity and so what happens on this property,the drainage would affect the water
quality.
Joyce: So this is not on the overlay?
Aanenson: It is, but it's all in the primary, a lot of it is in the primary zone. But again if you do a
density transfer out, you'd have to find it somewhere else to replace it.
Joyce: I guess I'm tagging along with your question Ladd. Is this in the primary zone of the
overlay? This project right here?
Aanenson: Yes. But if it's entirely within the primary zone, then again it went back to either we
acquire it or we have to give a variance. That was the attorney's opinion because it'd be...a
taking.
Blackowiak: Unless it remains agricultural.
Aanenson: Correct.
Blackowiak: I mean that is an option too. Acquire for, or leave it agricultural. I mean couldn't
we have three options? Acquire, interim use,agricultural.
Aanenson: Well, the interim use is like a conditional use. You can only attach conditions to
mitigate the impact. So you'd have to allow...and attach whatever conditions or allow the...if
you feel like you need to do that to mitigate the impact. There was a lot happening when we first
saw this. We confirmed that there was a lot of activity...what we've seen in the past in
Chanhassen. I'm not saying those sort of activities don't happen throughout the metro area but
we were concerned about that and I think we...applicant to try to resolve some of those.
Conrad: So every year Kate, this land will be flooded more than likely?
Aanenson: You know that, it has flooded twice.
Conrad: So not every year?
30
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
Aanenson: It would be seasonally and that's what we're saying, if it's a regular occurrence then
we're saying it doesn't make any sense. I guess part of that is up to the applicant for them to
decide what's the replacement but we are concerned if it's continually washing into
environmentally sensitive areas, then I think we need to...adding extra sand and some of the
other sediments that would be...fixtures as Dave indicated in his, or poles or some of the other
equipment that's washing out,that would be a concern too.
Conrad: And what is the permit that they would have to get from the DNR? Is that just a permit?
Aanenson: Well what they need to do is define the flood plain line. Establish that. We have a
different elevation. It's actually a Zone A which means undefined. They've come back with the
numbers that they believe that...and we believe it's probably somewhere pretty close but legally
right now the FEMA map says it's a Zone A which means it has not been delineated. Officially
registered with...elevation but we believe it's probably pretty close. We're...to go through that
process.
Conrad: How do I get a handle on whether this is good for the Bluff Creek corridor and the
downstream or river or not? How do I, it's probably a better use than farming.
Aanenson: We struggled with that exact issue. Our first wish was to buy it. Yeah, that would be
nice. To leave it the way it is.
Conrad: But how do I, how do I review it Kate so that it doesn't get worse than it currently is. Is
there a standard? Is there a, I think as we have drainage issues we're improving everything. In
every area we have in Chanhassen, I have a real good feeling, even though we're developing...
improve things when we're developing. I think we have a handle on how we do that. I don't
have a handle on this application right now to know that the water quality, especially into
Assumption Creek, is going to be maintained. So I guess if you don't have a way to give me to
review that...
Aanenson: We don't. All we can say is that we will monitor the creek annually... drainage that
would wash some of the, that's where it's going to be draining...
Conrad: And who's telling me this is a net benefit? Is somebody on staff telling me this is a net
benefit to the environment?
Aanenson: No.
Conrad: Okay. But you haven't, on the flip side you haven't said it's a detriment to it either.
Wildlife...wildlife from water quality. Different issues here right now.
Aanenson: We're saying we need to monitor it and that's one of the conditions that we need to
monitor. If they're not meeting it,then we need to bring it back before you and add additional
conditions. That's our reason for revoking an interim use permit. If they're degradating water
quality.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
Brooks: Ladd, can I ask you a question? Do you think this, are you saying that you think this is
better than agricultural for water quality?
Conrad: yeah, it could be.
Brooks: What about natural resources?
Conrad: Could be a problem, yeah. Well for sure it's a problem. For wildlife. It could be a
problem.
Brooks: More of a problem than agricultural scenarios?
Conrad: Say it a different way?
Brooks: Well...think the golf course is going to have a worse affect on wildlife than keeping it
agricultural.
Conrad: Yes.
Brooks: Okay,because when you said you thought it was better than keeping it agricultural.
You just meant water quality?
Conrad: Yeah.
Brooks: Okay.
Conrad: I'm talking about chemicals and fertilizer and what have you... If you think this site
can have agricultural on it and they can farm it and they can put the chemicals on it that they
want, and the challenge for this group would be to say, can we improve it over what has been the
use.
Brooks: Or are you just putting different chemicals on?
Conrad: You know it will resolve some issues in my mind if we, if I can get a handle on that but
I don't think anybody's going to be able to reassure me...
Burton: How do you define...herbicides or organic fertilizer and it looks to me like they would
be able to use...herbicide and pesticides...
Aanenson: Yeah, and so what they're saying is once they get their turf established, they're going
to...
Burton: Because there's chemical fertilizers...
32
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
Aanenson: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm talking about the storage.
Burton: I'm talking about the application. Right now your recommendation 15 is that chemical
fertilizers are prohibited in the flood plain.
Aanenson: Oh, I'm sorry. That should say the storage of.
Burton: But that's in number 8. Storage is 8. It says the storage and maintenance equipment
and chemicals shall be out of the flood plain. And 15 it just says the chemical can't be used in
the flood plain...
Aanenson: ...pulling it all together so I'm not sure.
Burton: Yeah, and I was trying to figure out...
Aanenson: Well I think chemicals and fertilization is an issue...
Joyce: ...Kate, is the applicant also the owner of the property?
Aanenson: No. They may be buying it but they're not.
Joyce: They have an option for it or?
Aanenson: You can ask them that,but somebody else owns it.
Joyce: Okay. Where is, what is, I mean where is golf and driving ranges a permitted use?
Aanenson: It's a conditional use, golf course in A2. Driving range an interim use in A2.
Joyce: So it's just an interim use, it's always an interim use?
Aanenson: Yeah. Or it could be a conditional use and golf course. Could be a conditional use
and a driving range is an interim use.
Joyce: ...in town it's got to be an interim use, correct?
Aanenson: That's how we envision it. It would be a short term, until we brought urban services
out similar to like Swings. That was the original thought.
Joyce: On the code amendment...
Aanenson: Well again, what they wanted to do is a pro shop. You know a place where you can
sell beer.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
Joyce: I understand that part of it but like now,what are we doing up at Bluff Creek? What do
they have? Do they...?
Aanenson: Yes.
Joyce: So we're allowing Bluff Creek to.
Aanenson: But that's again a full fledged golf course... That was a long time ago. I'm sure
before a lot of the standards...
Joyce: I guess I'm trying to, there's a code amendment... So another golf course pops up
somewhere...
Aanenson: I golf course doesn't have the interim use standards.
Joyce: Okay, so this code amendment's for the interim use then?
Aanenson: Correct.
Joyce: Thank you. Now I'm on tract.
Aanenson: Okay. Now we're on the same... Yes, this is for the interim use...for golf driving
range.
Joyce: Okay. Why don't we have the applicant present to us at this time. Please step forward
and state your name.
Chris Bixler: I'm Chris Bixler. I'm one of the owners of the RSS Golf Improvement Center.
Jeff Helstrom: And I'm Jeff Helstrom. Chris and I are going to be partners. We have purchased
the land on a contract from this gentleman over here. We do have a vision for the property and
our vision is definitely environmental. I mean we've thought about that. We've thought about
what this property looks like now and what the use is now and what we can do to this property
with the uses that we're going to outline to you. Are any of you golfers? Okay. So I mean
you've played golf courses and I think if you've played some of the nicer golf courses you've
seen that they can really do some good things with the land that does have some wetlands and
they can preserve those areas and we feel with the plans we've put together does just that and
we've also outlined a fertilizer and a weed control program that's strictly organic fertilizers. It
would be, you know somehow it would be applied in the flood plain. However, at times of year
that they'd be applied typically would be after any flooding had occurred because there's
normally you put that first application down at the end of April or beginning of May. So it's just
something to consider that we can time our application to prevent runoff. You know we don't
want to spray weeds when it's going to rain. The time of application,you wait until a time when
it's going to be dry for a couple days and you spray the weeds selectively. And that's, you know
those are just things that we can do as a smaller operation that a farmer may not do. They're just
34
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
going to go out and they're going to spray whatever they're going to spray normally whenever
they're going to spray it. So there is the possibility that you could get some runoff there but we
feel that we can prevent that. You know Chris and I are here because we both love golf. I'm not
in the golf industry now and neither is Chris. I own my own landscape company. We have a
office warehouse in Corcoran and so I've been playing golf, and Chris and I have known each
other for quite a while and we golf together and we love golf and always talked about getting into
the golf industry. And our vision for what we wanted to do wasn't to open just a driving range
where you just go and hit balls. We really wanted to open a golf learning center where people
can hit balls. Play some shorter holes. Work on their sand game. Their chipping game. All the
different things you wouldn't necessarily get at every driving range. In fact it's really hard to
find where you can do all of those things at one place. So you know our vision together was, you
know we want to do something different. We want to do something really nice and we want to
be able to put our money into the facility and to do that,you know we needed to find a property
that didn't cost a million bucks. And one thing that came to mind was well, let's get something
that's going to flood. Because you know...flooding but in the spring when we're not really going
to be hitting balls so if it floods, you know we can pull everything up and sit back and wait and
the actual structure, the home and that is not in the flood plain so we feel that that wouldn't be as
much of a problem. So we talked about that and we looked at this land and we really thought
that we put together a plan that you know utilizes the space. It lets us buy a piece of property that
financially we can afford, and let's us put the money back into the learning thing and creates an
area that you know people can bring their families and have some fun and not just go you know
bang a bucket of balls. We talked a little bit about the winter part of it. This is a really integral
part of the plan that we also want an area that people can hit full shots and in the winter. And the
only way to do that is to have you know a range that's long enough, say 185 yards probably to hit
a reasonably full... and that really has to be outside. You can't hit a...185 yards long feasible so
we thought about it and thought it and we started testing some things and we've got this, a net
system that literally both covers the ground and we'll talk about that a little bit more later. But it
collects the balls and then we retrieve them and then people hit from a small dugout area that's
heated. The face of the dugout area is open. So you're hitting out to this area that's covered with
our sloped net collecting balls and you can literally hit full shots year round and not...from any
other range in the Twin Cities, or really any other range in the country that we know about, and
that's the reason that we said we need the net and that we need the lights because I don't know if
you've gone to any golf...but a good percentage of their business is done in the evening. And if
we can't be open in the evening in the winter, it's tough to get just people who want to come
there in the day. So what we're really looking at is just, we put together a lighting plan that we
just completed a couple of days ago that would light just the area and we can talk about that a
little bit more later. But you know we'll light that area. ...the balls and people can come out
there year round and have a great time and you know hit balls and come out in the winter and the
summer and do it too. And we just feel it's really a, it's a great plan and we want to talk to you
and put together a plan that you can monitor and we can you know keep this property, or make
this property better really than the use that it has now.
Chris Bixler: Also I guess a couple other things. I've lived in the area my entire life. This area,
in my mind, in my knowledge of the golf business. I've been...golfer for probably 20 plus years.
Essentially over 25 years, if you can believe it. This area needs something like that. A good
35
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
quality practice facility...golfers. We are a family oriented center. We're focusing on service for
every customer. Not just the good golfers. We want kids,beginners to come to our place. Enjoy
themselves and... Owning and operating a range has been a dream of mine for about the last 10
years. I've been trying to figure out a way how to get a full shot in the winter time and how to
collect that ball in the snow, rain and sleet. The elements. Our net system takes those elements
out of the picture. As far as snow, the snow will fall right through it. One other thing about the
net. The nets are above the ground. So if you're worried about small animals running into the
net, I think we've handled that issue. As far as raising them and having the gates on the range so
that if some animal does get stuck...physically go take it out and release it. We've put in gates
and stuff like that to manage that. If there is any birds that fly into it, we will be able to get them
out... Also, like Jeff said,there is no other place in the country like this. As far as we know
there's no place in the world. It's going to make it very unique...customer. Something that's
needed. If you go to a dome nowadays in the winter time, the distance between, from the tee box
to the end of the dome is 65 yards. When you go there and hit a long driver, you have no idea if
you hook the ball or slice the ball. With this you'll be able to teach a person and give them good
lessons, which you really don't get in domes because you don't see your ball flight. And that's
one of the most important things to us. Now as far as the netting, the netting would be up from
the month, do you remember? November to April or May?
Jeff Helstrom: We've got a plan of the netting system so we can go over it with you.
Joyce: So we're discussing winter netting and summer netting.
Jeff Helstrom: There's only one net which stays up in the summer and that's just to guard the
DNR property next door. The other netting is only up basically from November until maybe the
first of April. And then it all comes down.
Joyce: And that's the device with the.
Jeff Helstrom: Yep, yep. But basically what happens here, I don't know if you can see this but
here's our tee box here. Here's where we hit out into the range from that and here's a series of
nets that are about 40 feet deep and then cover the width of the range. And then there will just be
some ball retrieval like wire mesh retrieval systems where the ball literally will hit the net and
then they roll back into that ball retrieval system at the base of each one of these nets. And then
you can walk behind them because the back of the net is about, I think about 8 feet off the
ground. We can literally have somebody go back behind them when people are hitting them and
take the balls out of the retrieval area. Now once again I just wanted to emphasize that this
whole netting system is only in the winter. The only net that exists in the summer is the one that
borders the DNR property here and then everything comes down. ...and that would just be a
shorter net just to guard people... So as you can see we've turned the driving range out this way
so we want people hitting out to this area and but occasionally somebody's out collecting the
balls...
Joyce: Are there any questions on the netting?
36
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
Blackowiak: Excuse me. I just have a question on this map. I'm sorry. It says north, is that
correct?
Aanenson: He was going the wrong way when he said driving. He was pointing the wrong way.
Blackowiak: Okay. So is north at the top of this map or is north really on the right? Okay. So
the north up here shows me that north is at the top.
Joyce: North is actually pointing west, correct? Is that how I'm understanding?
Blackowiak: That's what I'm, it's actually what says north is really west. Okay. I was turned
around. I just want to make sure I'm looking the right way here.
Jeff Helstrom: Tom Braman would like to say something. He did our wetland delineation. He'd
like to say something about the nets.
Tom Braman: My name's Tom Braman. I'm a biologist with Acorn Environmental Consultants.
I worked on the wetland delineation portion and some of the other issues regarding natural
resources and environmental impacts. I just wanted to say a couple things that we looked at in
regards to comments from the Fish and Wildlife Service about the nets. They wanted a 40 foot
net and we went back and looked at the projectory of the ball and we looked at the size of the...
to put a 40 foot over the entire area... The Wildlife Service is telling us, it appeared to be related
to... so we did step that down. Chris just mentioned the wildlife gates. Basically what those are,
and they're just small gates in the lower part of this netting here, they're just open all the time.
So an animal over time...find their way out, we can help them with that. There is gates all along
the side of the...
Sidney: I had a question, is that okay?
Joyce: Sure, go ahead.
Sidney: Okay. I guess I was concerned, well maybe to back up to fertilizing and pesticides,
herbicide issue compared to farming practices which I think could be improved in your situation.
I think...What really concerns me are the nets however. Especially given the environmentally
sensitive area,potentially a lot of wildlife there. That's one thing that I didn't see enough
information being presented that showed me that you had an understanding of the impact of the
nets. Now you've obviously searched the web for information about the fertilizer impacts and
USGA had some information available. But I have to believe there is information about how to
design nets that might be more friendly to, especially deer...pheasants. Woodchucks. I don't
know if I care for woodchucks too much but I think if you would have a deer caught in those
nets, it would be a really big catastrophe so I'd like you to consider you know doing some more
research on that.
Jeff Helstrom: What we've done is, we did meet with the DNR and Fish and Wildlife and
they're going to work with us on putting this together and they want us to work with them. And I
37
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
think that's...in the staff report also that they want to be involved in this project. They have
certain net sizes...feel important to have some tensions on the net and net height along that
border.
Sidney: And I have to believe there is more technology out there...where you might raise the
lower power of the net at night for example when you don't have customers there and lower it,
something that would be more friendly to some of the larger animals.
Jeff Helstrom: Yeah, there's no reason at all that we can't do that.
Chris Bixler: I think what we can do, as far as raising the side nets which are facing...stay up all
the time...
Sidney: I guess I'd really encourage you to do that and the other thought I have is that, well if
this property's been farmed probably animals know to stay away but I guess I don't really know.
We don't have enough information about what.
Jeff Helstrom: Well we definitely will work with Fish and Wildlife. I mean they really, as far as
we know...it's somewhat unique. And that's why they want to work with us and we plan on
doing it. Especially if we're going to reviewed every year...
Sidney: And I did look on the web for netting things and golf netting and stuff and didn't find
too much in terms of,well anything really on environmental impacts of nets. But I did see a lot
of net vendors. You know fishing nets and golf nets and...they have custom design so they
might be able to...
Chris Bixler: They have... The nets that we're looking at are friendly for animals, if there is any
type of friendlier. Just in the way they are with...
Jeff Helstrom: Yeah, taut. This is the higher net.
Sidney: The birds would...
Jeff Helstrom: They won't get hung up in there and that's the issue. If they can bounce off the
net. It's not a hard surface where it's going to injure them...and we're really talking about
mainly you know smaller birds and things. The nets aren't going to be up in the summer or
really during the migration of the geese and ducks and everything... We'll have that one net that
will always stay there along there but DNR also suggested that we flag them and put some
reflective flagging on that net also to make it more visible. The DNR actually told us that they
would, once they heard or saw our plan they said they would prefer a net up there all the time.
Sidney: Well so that they know that it's there.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
Jeff Helstrom: Well, so they know it's there plus golf balls aren't being hit onto their property...
people running over there to retrieve them all the time. So when they told us that, we thought
well we'll keep it up.
Aanenson: Can we get confirmation of that information?
Jeff Helstrom: What's that?
Aanenson: Can we get that in writing?
Jeff Helstrom: Oh sure.
Aanenson: That's not what we've heard.
Jeff Helstrom: All four of us were there when we met with them and they really were in favor
for it.
Aanenson: Okay. Unfortunately we weren't.
Sidney: That's information that City Council definitely...
Joyce: We're kind of chopping this up but is there any other information on nets, since we're on
that subject right now? Okay. We'll move along then.
Chris Bixler: The other thing I'd like to say is,we want to keep this as environmentally friendly
as possible. One of our, with Jeff being in the landscaping business and myself in the design of
this, we want to keep nature the way it is. We're not asking for a lot of changes outside of our
area at all. To keep the area and surrounding wetland the same way, that's our intention. We
don't want to impact all areas...try to move our facility back to handle those issues. As far as
keeping the property...all the trees that are there, except for some because we had to back up our
range, we do have to take down a couple trees but we'll leave most of them up and just keep it
natural. If you're a golfer you know that the prettier the course,the more you like it and it's
going to be a very attractive course as far as the chip and putt and the range. So we just wanted
you to know that. As part of the plans is to keep it environmentally...
Jeff Helstrom: And myself being in the lawn business, I mow and maintain condominiums and
townhomes and apartments and work extremely meticulous as far as the way we manage our
property and this would be the same. I mean I can't stand to come in, if the curbs aren't etched
off or the trees aren't trimmed around on a weekly basis or weeds. I mean we just want that to
look really nice but keeping in mind that you can spot...You don't have to just blanket. If you
put a good organic fertilizer down 2 or 3 times a year and strengthen the turf, you don't have a lot
of weeks. And we can go through and spray an area this size for weeds with very little herbicide.
And we did get some information in regards to the herbicides that were being applied previously
and they're applying hatrazine, and they're applying that at a rate of 1 pound per acre. Well what
hatrazine is, it's a carryover herbicide so that hatrazine is you know basically in the soil for a
39
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
couple of years. Whereas the broad leaf weed control you spray on the plant. The plant absorbs
it...very short carry over time. Less than a week and like I mentioned before, if you go out and
spray when it's not going to rain, which is what you want to do, because we don't want to have to
respray. You're not going to get the runoff of... What we have proposed for the club house.
What's existing now is a 800 square foot house. All of the plans...I guess the zoning ordinance
for that area...and what we had planned for that is basically renovating that house and putting
some TV's up and a fireplace and a little snack bar and maybe to sell some golf clubs and gloves
and balls and those kind of things. And have the golf channel on and some nice couches and just
having a place that people can come to and sit around and talk golf. You know not just come in
and hitting balls and leaving. You know we're not looking to open a restaurant. We're not
looking to open a bar. Just something nice for people to hang out a little bit. And we would like
to...snacks and be able...talk about some pre-packaged items. We appreciate that. Although we
would like to just offer 3.2 beer. We aren't looking for a liquor license but it'd be nice...if they
want to have a beer. But basically that house would stay the same other than the interior
renovations and get it up to code and...shutters and those kind of things to get it looking good.
Roger Anderson: Yeah there should be in your report, there should be a little outline of a floor
plan.
Aanenson: Yeah, it has one.
Jeff Helstrom: Do you want me to go through this and kind of point out what we're going to do
in the house?
Joyce: Yeah, you can go through it real quickly I guess.
Jeff Helstrom: You know here's our entrance. We've got a little step... We've got a little
indoor putting green to handle just basically some small retaining wall to walk around there...
And then a nice area around a fireplace. After the storm there's plenty of wood down there. And
some tables and then just a little snack bar area. Out here we're proposing putting a deck on with
some chairs and tables...
Joyce: Do you have a question Allyson?
Brooks: Yeah, when was this house built?
Jeff Helstrom: I'm not sure.
Brooks: Why do you want that house a dark color?
Aanenson: That's what it said in the, that's what the standards are for it.
Brooks: What was the original color of the house though?
Aanenson: It's white.
40
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
Brooks: ...keep it white though because that way, you're going to go to all the trouble to keep a
1930's house, you ought to keep it in it's original color instead of turning it dark brown.
Aanenson: Well,they're modifying the entrance. They're adding a deck to it so they're not
keeping it. It's completely changed. Architecturally,I'm not sure the use or the entrance or the
decking around it is going to make it...what it is today. That's what the standards in this district
say so. And if you look at the entrance of it, it shows you that it's modified quite a bit.
Jeff Helstrom: I think that's, Roger did you have...
Roger Anderson: My name's Roger Anderson and I'm the civil engineer on this project and Jeff
and Chris have done such a good job of explaining things and they're so enthusiastic about it that
I don't have a lot to add. But there is a couple of things that we wanted to talk about briefly.
One of them I'd like to point out is an aerial photo that we have. Perhaps we have addressed the
question of whether farming is a worse condition or the golf use is... Coming in to the north.
The limits of the...there is periodically that this is a photo from the city...the golf course area is
right up in here. It's 400 yards long roughly,but at that time the agricultural use went almost
twice as far as it was in a Type II wetland according to Tom so the ag use slopes around and at
times there's significantly more ag...and weather conditions. The year round use of that property
is really one of the keys to making this work and part of that is the,just to let the golfer get out
there and hit balls except for...winter it's too cold. Maybe it's 0 degrees for example when they
can't hit. The shed system will protect them and there will be little direct heaters that can keep
the golfer warm which they have at the domes for example. The lighting system is the key I
think to making that happen on a year round basis. And in order to make that work, to make year
round use work, we need the lights out there. It would be roughly from daylight savings time to
daylight savings time that those lights would be in use. Obviously now you don't need the lights.
At golf courses and driving ranges that are out there right now, function from sunrise to sunset
and that's the traditional way to do it. And up through the fall, gradually the days get shorter and
we want to add a couple hours to that time. And the same things through the winter months and
the daylight savings get,people can't get away during the day to get out on the golf course.
That's why we're asking that this happen. I've got a couple of photos that show what typical
conditions are. Let's see if I can get this on the screen right here. This is a range out in Florida.
Chris has gotten pictures and it shows a typical range. You've got the tee boxes and then you've
got the grass hitting area and a target area. So this is a little different than your typical ones
because it's actually got a little... You can hit the target greens and the hills and the trees out
there to aim so you really practice your game and improve. Not just have a big, flat field. This
particular one also has...lighting and this is a picture when they're out at night. That's not snow
on the ground by the way. It's Florida sand... So you can see the impact of the lighting. Now it
doesn't light it up like a football field. The uniform light everywhere. It needs some lights and it
needs some light in here so you can see your ball flight and see what's going on. Those lights
would be in use, we're asking until 9:00 at night so we can extend our hours so people can use
the facility and at that time they get shut off. It isn't a 24 hour lighted area and it's just a parcel
part of the year that it gets used. This is a typical what you see if you look down the tee box part
of it, the grass hitting tees. You see these lights up above you and they'd be shining of course
41
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
and focused out onto the landing areas so you can watch you ball in flight. So we didn't ask for
the lighting for example to unreasonably extend the hours. We asked for that because we needed
to make this winter portion of the facility work for us. So that those people will be there. We
think we can control the right, the timing will be right on and that's why we're asking that the
light portion be looked at a little bit harder. Again, we modified the lights to minimize the light
that goes outside the limits. Our lighting engineers assured us we can cut it down to the half a
foot candle that is typical for lighting plans. Half a foot candle at the edge of the driving range so
there are ways I think we can make this a good neighbor to make it work and not impact the
wildlife and still make it a good year round facility that we're asking to provide here.
Chris Bixler: Can I just add something here?
Roger Anderson: Sure, go ahead.
Chris Bixler: I just spoke to the company that's doing our lighting for us. Giving us all the
information on it. They deal with a lot of issues like this every day. When they build golf
courses, there's wetlands everywhere. He assured me that we can keep our lights focused on our
range only. And that's what we wanted. It's not that we want to light outside of our area.
There's no need for it.
Jeff Helstrom: Basically what we need to light, and if you look at this picture right here, is our
green, which are right out here and here. And our tee box. So if a professional is giving a
lesson... that's the main importance for the lighting. And that would be very minimal because
the actual hours...summer extend it out probably only be a month and a half... but in the winter
we'd be using the same exact same lighting. It just filters up... people will be able to see their
ball, and they have assured us that they can focus that light strictly on...
Chris Bixler: Also if you notice in the back of this picture,that's the end of the driving range...
tree line. Now if you look in this picture again,you cannot see the tree line. It basically
eliminated that. That's how they...they've got anti-glare equipment that will be attached...
Roger Anderson: We're available to answer any other questions.
Joyce: Okay. Commissioners, do you have any questions for the applicants? LuAnn.
Sidney: I'm wondering you're talking about the supplier of the lights. Do you have that in
writing? Do you have a description prepared?
Jeff Helstrom: Oh yeah.
Sidney: Did we have that in our packet?
Chris Bixler: We just got this. Actually it was supposed to arrive last week and it didn't...lost in
the mail and he Fed Ex'd us a copy yesterday... Roger, did you bring any copies of that?
42
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
Roger Anderson: We did bring copies but...part of the package and that puts staff and you folks
at a bit of a disadvantage but we did get 5 copies of their revised plan and a letter stating what
Chris had said and we'll be glad to pass them around and submit it with additional information
for the Council.
Sidney: That's what...
Burton: Actually one quick one. Can you describe the dugout part?
Jeff Helstrom: Basically what the dugouts are...a three sided dugout with the back facing north.
It's really important because typically your cold winds in the winter come from the north. It's
open on one side. It's high enough to swing a club in and it's deep enough that somebody can
stand back here and watch you hit some balls. So it's just a hard surface floor for hitting off of
and ultra violet, it's not like a...it's the kind you see in a hockey rink. They do really well and
they're pretty intense. We feel that, well we're sure that we can under semi-normal weather
conditions... We're not looking for 75 degrees...for someone to come out and hit a driver in
February, they'd be happy if it was 55 or 60 degrees. It's not an indoor playing...
Joyce: I'm a little confused on the lighting. You have this lighting plan. You have 10 poles
down on each end...
Jeff Helstrom: I did want to mention one other thing. You mentioned poles. We originally had
a 50 foot height that we wanted to go up with and DNR and Fish and Wildlife said 40 was a
better number. I mean we really can get away with 50 just fine. We don't have to have 60 and
then basically our lights are just focused...need the lights in back of the range will be on the
poles. Most of the other lighting is on...
Joyce: DNR suggested 40? Is that what you said?
Jeff Helstrom: Yeah.
Joyce: And you're going...60 is better?
Jeff Helstrom: We originally wanted 60 and 50 is...
Joyce: You've got, it looks to me like about eight lights on the winter driving area. Is that how
you would describe that?
Chris Bixler: No, we've got some low lights that shine on the, out of the ground on the greens...
Joyce: What are the other two lights over there? Are they used in the winter time?
Jeff Helstrom: These?
43
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
Joyce: No. Keep going to the north...Those won't be used in the winter time?
Jeff Helstrom: No.
Joyce: So what we're talking about in the winter time are 4, 8, 10. Okay, 10 lights in this area
right here, correct?
Jeff Helstrom: Actually we don't even need...lighting. I'm not sure why that's even way out
there. This is the only area that we need to light because we only need to go out 185 yards. So
you're looking at 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and we've got a couple behind the dugout that are shining
out and down.
Joyce: How tall are those A3? Those are 50 feet as well?
Aanenson: Yeah. That's what it calls on in the plan.
Joyce: So N 10 and 9 are not even going to be there in these plans, correct?
Jeff Helstrom: Right. We don't need...
Joyce: What about N5? The two N5's. Are they going to be there?
Roger Anderson: These two will not be there. That was my error actually. These two are the
ground lights. I think if you look back at the photo you can see it. It highlights the putting
greens for example...small mound and a light behind it and the light will shine at that target
green... visible from the tee box without raising the entire light across the whole site.
Joyce: So you'd be lighting an area about the size of an average large size parking lot?
Jeff Helstrom: Right.
Joyce: Now, you mentioned that in February you'd love to have 50 degree weather. What if it's,
like it normally is, is zero. Then you shut down?
Jeff Helstrom: Well our plan is to, under put a sign out there and under inclement weather
conditions or severely cold temperatures,please call first before you come out because we don't
feel that if we're to have a southwest wind coming in it's 5 or 10 below, we're not going to be
able to keep the area...
Chris Bixler: I spoke with a company that makes the heaters and they said at zero degrees
outside, they can heat it to 55 degrees...if it's uncomfortable and it gets under, you know below
zero, of course we're going to have to close...
Joyce: So you're planning on this to be...
44
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
Jeff Helstrom: And we may do something like this...golf balls when it gets under a certain
temperature in the dugout. We just want to...
Chris Bixler: We're all Minnesotans here. You know we're used to snow and that's kind of a
positive thing about this. I think it's...
Joyce: And your hours of operation will be Sunday through Sunday then?
Jeff Helstrom: Yes.
Joyce: All right. I think that's about all I have to ask. Thank you very much for your
presentation. This is open for a public hearing. Can I get a motion please to open it up.
Brooks moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Joyce: Anyone like to address the Planning Commission? Please step forward.
David Albright: Good evening. My name is David Albright and I'm one of the owners and
hopefully sellers of the property to those gentlemen and I've got a very brief couple of comments
to make to you. I remember earlier Commissioner Conrad had voiced the concern that is this a
break even situation ecologically? Is it a losing situation ecologically or is this a gain? And I'm
here to tell you that I think it's a gain and here's why. There has been about 35 acres on this
parcel farmed for as long as anybody can remember. Some years it's 40-45. Some years it's 25
but for the most part it's 35 acres. And that has had broad application of not only fertilizers but
herbicides for all of those. Hatrazine. For a guy who made his living spraying that stuff during
summers when I was in college, that's terrible stuff for living things. It really is. So I think that
you really do have a net gain ecologically by having one spot spraying of herbicides during the
dry times with a no carry over situation as opposed to a blanket spraying them. Sometimes in the
wet times, but certainly with the one year hatrazine does carry over for at least 1 year and some
things you can't grow for 2 years with hatrazine. So you know it's going to be there if it floods
and you know it's going to be there in the springtime when snow is melting and presumably
draining into the creek. So I think from a purely ecological perspective,this is a win/win
situation. And there's another thing I would like to point out and that is, a lot of people are
familiar with the saying that gee, some people look at a glass as half full and others look at it as
half empty. I think that this body can look at this particular glass as not half full or half empty
but about 2/3 full because the amount of ground that these folks are going to be using is only the
high ground and in not the particularly sensitive areas. It's adjacent to or next to some sensitive
areas. But those sensitive areas are being left absolutely intact to...about 50 acres. And I know
one of the commissioners, I believe...are we better off acquiring this and maintaining it as a park
or natural space or green space. I think you can have the best of both worlds. The part that is not
particularly sensitive to the...by these folks and it's going to be something that's going to be
pretty. It's not going to be an eyesore. It's not going to be something that would also be allowed
by your zoning ordinance as a conditional use or an interim use. It could be a communications
tower or that type of thing. But the 50 acres of sensitive stuff is being left absolutely pristine,
45
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
unaffected. In fact enhanced by the lack of broad range, significant herbicides or fertilizers that
would be, and have been for the last 50 years. Been I suppose leaching into the creek area. This
is a chance to dramatically minimize it. Make it applied at the time that it's most
environmentally safe. And two,to apply an organic type of fertilizer which you folks have the
right to demand. So and I think these folks are sitting here today saying, you know. I'm going to
ask you to trust me a little bit but they are trusting you a lot. They're going to go spend several
hundred thousand dollars to do this project and give you folks a chance to negatively impact
them every year if they are found to be negatively impacting the ecology of the environment. So
I suppose they are asking for a little bit of trust but they in turn are virtually placing their
economic well being in your hands too and trusting that you will be good stewards of that trust.
Finally with respect to the lighting issue. I used to know a lot of about deer and wildlife because
I used to be a hunter and as I get older, I've stopped hunting because basically I don't like killing
things. But animals are not dumb. They really aren't. Deer are going to figure out that there's a
net there early on in their life and they are going to adapt to it and they are going to avoid it. And
I have seen a number of driving ranges, the one up in Bloomington. It's either in or next
to...Scott Park. They have huge nets and I don't drive by there every day but I drive by there
several times a week and I've never seen a bird stuck in there. So I don't know that that's, I
mean I guess I never even thought that that birds would do that because the birds that I know
have always been a lot more wily than perhaps I wanted them to be at the specific time I was
dealing with them. So I guess what I'm saying is, I think that this situation probably needs the
lights to work. But in return for that small intrusion, there's nobody living next to it. There
really isn't. There's not anybody. There's no houses. There's the Shakopee skyline lights to the
rear of the site. But I really do think that the city of Chanhassen could benefit significantly over
what's there, and certainly benefit significantly for this proposal over what could be there by
looking through the conditional uses there and uses that are allowed which would be a lot more
onerous and much more of an impact than this would be ecologically and socially. Does
anybody have any questions?
Joyce: Thank you for your comments. Appreciate that. Anyone else like to address the Planning
Commission? Seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing.
Brooks moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Joyce: Ladd.
Conrad: Interesting issues. It's amazing here. I need a couple... Dave, septic systems check out
or we're going to look at it?
Aanenson: It's a newer system. The Building Official...
Conrad: Okay. But, because it now has to handle more than that.
Aanenson: Correct. Yeah, there's some other issues.
46
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
Conrad: And we require, what do we require Kate? Don't we require two different locations to
build.
Aanenson: An alternate...correct.
Conrad: And do we have different standards for a use such as this?
Aanenson: Yeah, and they'll have to meet all those. Correct and that's in the Building
Official's...
Conrad: Has the DNR, Fish and Wildlife,have they seen the most current plans?
Aanenson: No. They had an original meeting with them and we've spoken to different parties so
we're hearing different things. That's why we want somebody...
Conrad: I bet you I've got 12 pages of comments here and it's really hard. That's why I'm not
talking very quickly because it's really hard to net it out. It's an interesting use. There's
probably, there could be a better use down there. But I do need some help from, the problem as
we...we could force all sorts of things to happen that cost a lot of money in terms of the
evaluation and that's a good way to kill a project if you want to do that. Yet on the other hand I
guess I do need, it is in a sensitive area and I am not novice on some of these things. But I do
need some, to review, I do need to have some outside governmental experts talk about the plan as
is before I can do anything to it. I just need expert, some expert saying this is how I see it. I've
read the reports in here but it's not the most current report. It's not reviewing the most current
plan. Dave, you can correct me.
Aanenson: Well what they did is they modified their plan based on Fish and Wildlife. There are
some areas that there is not concurrence. As I indicated, Fish and Wildlife says 40 feet and we
concur. You can't have 40 feet because your ball's going to go over.
Conrad: They also said make it colorful.
Aanenson: Well the people that yes. Tag the top of the netting so that it acts as a barrier.
Conrad: I read it differently. I read it as make the netting visible is what I heard, is what I read...
Joyce: I heard flags...
Aanenson: Yes. There's markers... The other issue is,they felt there is a lot of literature on bird
migration and nets. That's not a concern of the DNR. What it is is the terrestrial animals. If it's
taut enough the birds will bounce off and what they're concerned about is if they get hooked in
the net. And if they use the right type of system,that shouldn't be a problem. It's the other
migration and stuff and the concern is...and we discussed is if that netting at some point, the
permanent one which is on the eastern border at some point is moved down. That's why we're
47
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
saying, we don't have enough information on what's migrating through there right now. We've
got our own...
Conrad: So what you're telling me is that we don't need to send the current plan. I need
somebody to tell me whether that creek is being impacted. I do fish trout. And you're right next
to something that I don't have a clue what you're doing to it but it's one of the few trout streams
in the seven county area. I just need somebody to say, hey. It looks like it's going to be better,
and I think based on what you said it's going to be better. But I can't trust you. I need somebody
that you don't have to pay a lot of money to, and probably somebody from government to take
risk to say hey. It looks like it's going to be, you know it's not going to be farmed. It's going to
be better and I think if you put your money where you mouth is, it should be better. But I need
somebody to tell me that.
Aanenson: And I believe we can work that...
Conrad: I also need staff to tell me what the conditions for review are before I can move on this.
Because it's only fair to you folks because I'd be real tempted to pull the permits, the conditional
use permits if things go wrong. Right away and you're going to put some money into this so
what staff is saying is that we want to review this every year and that review costs you a whole
lot of money in terms of what we could do to you. So I think you'd better make sure you know
what we're going to, how we're going to review you. It's not going, if this passes. If it gets out
of here and the City Council goes with it. But I need to see what those review criteria are
because for my own, and now you've got to deal with...and the trout stream happens to be mine.
That water quality can't deteriorate a bit. Not a bit. And I don't think it will. But somebody's
got to tell me that but if it does, a year from now, there's a good chance that the money you put in
is bad money. Because that'd be forcing you to do something about it. That's my little issue and
I'll bet you, everybody else here has something that might be precious to them or of concern. So
anyway, that's what I need and I'm not sure, I guess what we have to do here is see where
everybody else is netting out. Maybe my direction,and my direction generally would be to table
this to do a couple of these things. I want DNR and Fish and Wildlife to review the plan again. I
want them to tell me that this is better, that the water quality and some of these other things are
probably going to be a little bit better. Not perfect. You know it's not going to be like it was
pristine, but I want them to tell me that. I want staff to develop a list of what we're going to
measure so that the applicant knows what we're going to measure and what the standards are
going to be held to because you may not want to do this deal if we have some standards that you
really don't like. I also need to plan, and maybe the plan is in there for, but I didn't see it. The
plan for fertilizing and for, I just have to see the hard, concrete plan because that's really part of
what we're going to manage. Staffs going to manage. It seems like a lot of work but again, it's
the applicant's right to do this. There are some real benefits to doing it. But I'll say a couple
other things and then I'll just shut up and listen to everybody else. I'm not persuaded on the
lights yet. It seems out of character and as we look at our city's standards and codes and
whatever, I do agree with the staff report. It seems out of character. Somebody's got to tell me
more than. It is out of character with the area. There's just no doubt about it and therefore I
agree with the staff report that the lights should not be there.
48
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
Joyce: Thanks Ladd. Alison Blackowiak.
Blackowiak: Okay. I agree with what Ladd has said generally. I do have a few other issues that
I would like to raise. One of my overriding thoughts was, I think this is going to be, should this
go in, it will be a final use. I cannot see anything else coming afterwards because it is not
planned for sewer and water. It is not, I mean the zoning is such that this is the existing flood
plain. There might be a house on there. Maybe two. I just, I don't see a lot of potential for this
property other than agricultural. Other than open space or park. Or other than possibly this. It's
just not going to happen I don't think. So I think this is a final use should it come to that and
we'd better be really comfortable with what goes in there because I think it's going to be in there
a long time. So building on what Ladd said about the trout stream, I certainly agree. I read the
pesticide information and noted that it all seemed from the US Golf Association or some, I don't
have the official name. USGA. US Golf Association. I would say consider the source. I mean
I'm sure they're going to be biased in favor of whatever findings happen to help. There may be
some other findings out there that we as a Planning Commission should be looking at or the City
Council should be looking at. Maybe the Environmental Commission of Chanhassen has some
information of some sort or access to something because I'm not convinced that what I'm being
told is the entire story. It's maybe the story that they want to be heard but I'm not sure that I'm
getting all the information that I need to make a good decision. I am concerned about the Bluff
Creek management plan and how this fits in with the use envisioned by that plan. What, is this
in the primary corridor? What does that mean for it? I'm not quite sure yet and I'd like to know
what that has to do with this plan as it is right now. I also had comments about the over...
mechanism for pesticide usage, etc. and Ladd said it much better than I ever could I think that
you know the applicant also needs to know what's being measured. I mean the city has to
develop some standards. I mean what are we looking at? Are we looking at pesticide levels?
Are we going to measure them in terms of runoff? How do you do it? I mean number of golf
balls lost? Who knows? I mean what are we concerned about? You know what does the City
need to be concerned about? What does the applicant need to be concerned about? How do we
measure it? Because I think that once an applicant is in, or a use is established, it's hard to stop
that use. I mean I know that we've got conditional use permits that are broken constantly and I
don't think I've ever heard of anybody being fined or stopped from keeping their business
because conditions of the permit were broken. It hasn't happened. So I think that we have to
make sure that we know what we're going to go into and really get some serious conditions
written down. Both sides agree to it and make sure that everybody understands what's happening
going in. And finally, to me this plan seems out of character with Fish and Wildlife and DNR as
neighbor's but as long as they are a party to negotiations and to just sort of the general comments
about what's going on, I'd feel more comfortable. But until everyone sits down together, that's
the applicant, the city, DNR, Fish and Wildlife, I wouldn't be comfortable going ahead until I get
the consensus. I get the feeling that everybody is on the same page here and we're not getting
little bits and pieces from here and there. I want kind of a plan that everyone can buy into and
then come back and tell me,this is the plan we've all agreed to it and let's move forward. So I
agree with Ladd, I'd like to see it back after you get some more information and I would feel
much more comfortable if I had that feeling that all the players and all the interested parties were
being heard.
49
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
Joyce: Alison, another one of the key points here I think...is the lighting. Do you want to touch
on that at all?
Blackowiak: My note, totally disruptive. That was what I've got written down. I just don't
think they fit in at all. I mean as the neighbors, I mean if you're talking about Fish and Wildlife
and DNR and trout stream and then it's like lights. It just kind of seems out of character with the
neighborhood. Out of character with what's happening in the area and not consistent with the
comprehensive plan. What we had envisioned for that area so I do not feel that lights would be
appropriate.
Joyce: Thank you. Allyson.
Brooks: I agree with a lot of the previous comments. I actually like the project. I just don't like
the project where it is. I think it's a really nice idea. I'd really like to see it happen in
Chanhassen. The location is the problem. We've got a natural landscape down there and you've
got farming going on, it still seems like you have that rural landscape. You don't get rural
landscape anymore once they put the golf course in. It's suburbia. So we're changing the nature
of the landscape. If we talk about you know, it's agricultural or open space, a golf course
doesn't, you know you talk about vision. What is the vision that we want to put down there.
What do we want it to look like?
Conrad: We have none...
Brooks: Right, so. Okay. The nets. I mean figure out what the nets are going to look like.
There's one of those driving ranges on, in Eden Prairie on Crosstown. I mean they're obtrusive
looking and I can't imagine that they're not detrimental to wildlife at all. They can't not be
detrimental to wildlife. The lighting, I have to agree with everyone else. I don't want to see the
lighting there. I don't think it fits in with the area one bit. But it would be nice to see the project
happen so I guess I sort of feel like Ladd and Alison is that maybe it should be tabled until we
have a little more information. I'm very concerned about what the impacts are to the natural
resources.
Joyce: Matt.
Burton: Well I have no doubt that if you guys get turned loose on the project it will be a success
but I do agree that there are hurdles that you have to clear and they happen to be big hurdles...
(The rest of Mr. Burton's comments were not clear on the tape.)
Joyce: Thank you. LuAnn.
Sidney: I was thinking, when I went down and looked at the property and that was the previous
time when we thought it was going to be on the agenda, I thought oh. That seems like a good use
for the property and I still think it is a good use for the property and I hope you don't feel
discouraged about continuing on and building this... I agree with staff recommendations and I
think the, what staff has recommended now is based on the information that we have right now
50
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
and for example the pro shop would be okay. However the snack bar, I guess I do agree that I
don't think the need for alcohol is there, especially if you're talking about bringing a family and
making it a more family friendly area. Just the information we have now, limiting the hours and
not relying on lighting makes sense. And also the remodeling of the house according to staff
report seems that... What I'm trying to get at is,we just don't have enough information to really
give you all that you need to make this project successful. And I think...wildlife impacts studied.
A lighting study that would convince us that you know what they're doing and everything's
going to be okay with...pesticide program in much more detail. So I guess I agree with...I'm
kind of flexible. I was thinking that maybe this could go forward when I sat down this evening
but I think at this point I would like to see it tabled for more information. I think that'd make a
much stronger case for you to get everything in order here before it went to City Council.
Joyce: Thanks. Very interesting project. I appreciate your entrepreneurial spirit. I think it's
wonderful and I'm on the side in favor of trying to push this along but I have to agree with all the
other commissioners. There are definitely some hurdles here. The Highway 5 corridor...we're
going to turn it into something manicured. I might like it more manicured than natural. Some
people might want it more natural than manicured. I mean that's kind of personal opinion. My
concerns on this whole thing, whether you want to proceed forward or not, I think lights sound to
be like a deal killer. If the lights don't go in, I think you've got a problem. Now that might not
be the case. I think that's a major issue. I personally could live with the lights. The only
question or concern I have is that when we notified the neighbors...500 feet or something like
that, you know you do have neighbors up in the bluff that wouldn't be notified. And I think they
might need to be notified because I think this is going to impact them. And give them a chance
to come in and speak their piece. I don't want to put this up and then someday somebody you
know, the grand opening and somebody's looking at their back yard and said what the heck is
that, which they probably would. So I think I could, I'm...That kind of gets back to the vision of
212 and where are we going out there?Bluff Creek...still confused by that and I think if it's a
primary portion of Bluff Creek... I really don't have much more to say on this. I just hope it's
worth while for you to proceed forward so I think you've got a lot of direction from us. I'm in
favor of tabling it. I think it's our job here as a commission to kind of clean the proposal up so
you have a fighting chance of presenting it to City Council. And I think there's some valid points
here. I don't think it's insurmountable some of these things. I think we do need some more
information but you've got kind of a job to do here and I hope you can proceed forward with this.
So my recommendation is, I'd like to see it again... If you can't do without the lights, boy I'd
like to find out if the neighbors,what their feelings were. Things like that before I'd be in favor
of going forward. So with that said, could I have a motion?
Conrad: Mr. Chairman I'll make the motion but can I ask staff a question? Have we said things
that make sense?
Aanenson: Absolutely. I think you're right on as far as putting in so they know what we're
going to measure and hold them to. I agree...but what does that mean. Is it a few balls that we
have to go retrieve out of the wetland? I guess that's some good issues... I think those are all
legitimate and I think that we can work with the DNR, Fish and Wildlife to come up with the
standards that we can mutually agree to.
51
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
Conrad: I'm going to make the motion but you know, as you sell us on one issue, you can see
how we can move on other issues. If we get the feeling that that water quality. I'll speak for
myself...water quality is improving. That can be persuasive for other issues that I'm not...so I'm
going to make the motion right now to table this item, Planning Case 98-8, an Interim Use Permit
and the zoning ordinance amendment.
Joyce: Can I have a second to that please?
Brooks: Second.
Conrad moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the request
from RSS/Perma Green, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit for alteration of a flood plain,
an Interim Use Permit site plan review to allow a golf improvement center/driving
range/office club house and variances to the size of building and hours of operation and a
code amendment to allow an office/clubhouse to be located south of the intersection of
Great Plains Boulevard and TH 212. All voted in favor of tabling and the motion carried.
Conrad: What I'd like to do is recover the issues that I think are important. And man, this list
could be big and I'm not trying to create a huge research project on this. But the most important
thing is for staff in doing the standards. We've got to know what we're going to hold you to.
You shouldn't do this deal until we tell you how we're going to measure because a year from
now somebody will be there and will be, and you don't want miscellaneous standards. This is, I
don't know where we go. There are a few people here that say the lights are out of character.
And a few people that say it doesn't matter. I don't know how you deal with that one, but you're
going to have to. It's split and you're going to have to deal with it. I need the DNR and Fish and
Wildlife to see the current plan and staff comments saying 60 feet is okay. I want them to see
what you're saying is okay. And for them to see it back and Kate if you can just guide them... I
don't even know if there's a trout in that stream Kate so when I say this.
Aanenson: No, there is.
Conrad: You know if there's no trout, tell me.
Aanenson: No there is...
Conrad: If there is, I'll go down and fish...we'll be reasonable on this stuff but on the other
hand, if there are trout in there you know and then I care...lot better places to go trout fishing
than right here but the point is to improve it and that's what you've got to do. You've got a
business proposition but we've got to improve it there because there's some things that aren't
quite right. They're not a perfect fit. And so therefore if you're not a perfect fit, you've got
variances and all these things, you've got to solve some of the harder problems. I guess I need, in
your application a commitment to refurbish after the floods. And Kate, maybe you've got some
standards and maybe that's in what we're monitoring but it will flood and I'm not going to sit
there and wait for 2 years until you financially can come back with the money to fix it up. I made
52
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
that commitment so if it doesn't happen, this is an interim use permit without an expiration date
Kate. So I need to know what you're telling me about that. Is that forever? I need to know what
the standards for fertilizing and treatment are. I need to know the plan and I need to know, yeah.
I need to know what the plan is and somebody to tell me it. Or whatever. I believe we need
broader notification. I think that's a valid point. We're not only impacting just the DNR on each
side but the folks up on the bluff. That's a real valid point. I need to know back from you Kate
what the Bluff Creek overlay impact is. I still don't understand it. It seems like we ignored it
here so...I can't track everything... That's what I'm looking for.
Joyce: I hope you can work with staff on this. I hope it comes back. I hope this will work out.
Jeff Helstrom: We'll be back.
Joyce: This is the best way to handle this because we need to tighten this up before it moves on.
Thank you very much for coming...
OLD BUSINESS:
Joyce: Any old business?
Aanenson: We had talked about not having...first meeting. Depending on this application we
may need you to...we may have to have that meeting. I'm not sure we can turn everything
around in the next meeting. We have the comprehensive plan set.
Blackowiak: I'm sorry, can you clarify that please. The clock starts, doesn't the clock stop if we
request further information or if we don't have all the information we have to make the decision?
Aanenson: Correct, and you can recommend denial and forward it if you want to. Well, I'm just
saying that pushes them out a month.
Blackowiak: So what are you telling me then? I'm sorry.
Aanenson: ..we were not going to have a meeting on the first. I'm saying if they get their
information in, we may have to meet.
Blackowiak: Oh, July you mean?
Aanenson: Right.
Blackowiak: I missed that first part.
Aanenson: I'm sorry,because June 17`h we blocked out for the comp plan... I've already noticed
for public hearing. That's probably going to take a couple hours...if you want to meet at 9:00 or
10:00 or 11:00 on that item... So anyway, for your next meeting that's been blocked out as the
53
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
comprehensive plan. So we put an article in for the Chamber and we'll be sending it out to the
builders association. They're aware of it. The date...
APPROVA OF MINUTES: Burton noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
dated May 20, 1998 as presented.
Vice Chairman Joyce adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
54