Loading...
PC 1998 07 01CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 1, 1995 Vice Chairman Joyce called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: LuAnn Sidney, Alison Blackowiak, Matt Burton, Craig Peterson, Kevin Joyce, Ladd Conrad and Allyson Brooks MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: RSS/PREMA GREEN INC., RSS GOLF IMPROVEMENT CENTER--LOCATED SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF GREAT PLAINS BLVD. AND TH 212 ON PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALTERATION OF A FLOOD PLAIN. B. INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR A GOLF & DRIVING RANGE. C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A GOLF & DRIVING RANGE. D. E. VARIANCE TO SECTION 20-265(2) HOURS OF OPERATION. CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW RESTAURANT AND PRO SHOP. F. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR IMPACT OF .43 ACRES. Public Present: Name Address Bob Stet'es Betty O'Shaughnessy Kate & Daniel Smith Kathy Nelson Nancy Mancino Tom Braman Jeff Helstrom Chris Bixler Roger Anderson David E. Albright Jon W. Blancha Jim Bixler Linda Jansen 1350 Hesse Farm Road 1000 Hesse Farm Road 1020 Hesse Farm Road Eden Prairie 6620 Galpin Blvd. 8040 Stevens Avenue So. 8276 Scandia Road 3179 Devon Lane, Mound, MN 7415 Wayzata Blvd., St. Louis Park, MN 7814 131st Street West 25 Norman Ridge Drive, Bloomington, MN 354 Water Street, Excelsior Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Joyce: Are there any questions for Kate at this point? Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Peterson: A couple Kate, and it may be my naivet~ but why is Fish and Wildlife concerned about lighting? And why is Fish and Wildlife concerned about the height of the fence? Aanenson: What their vision of the refuge is that it's a passive area to experience for that area. And lighting is an element that's not found anywhere else in the district. It's not, it was never our intent to have an active lit area. So it's in conflict with their comprehensive plan goal. Conrad: The conditional use permit Kate has an expiration date of when? Aanenson: Those are reviewed annually and I think we would recommend that we would come back with inspected annually to make sure that it's following the conditions. It runs forever unless they're not meeting the conditions of it. Then you could revoke it for not meeting the conditions. Otherwise it would go in perpetuity. Conrad: I think my big point last week, or a couple weeks ago was to say what are those conditions and you. Aanenson: I think what we have in here, staff feels comfortable that these are enforceable. One that would be a conflict would be the height of the fence. And certainly if there's other things that you would like to happen. I also included in the packet, they put together a letter of the conditions that were imposed last time and it's right after the first DNR letter. After our report that they went through and said which ones they would agree to meet and not meet so I think... Conrad: So in terms of wildlife, I think we're managing... In your staff report, I've got to go back and I probably won't find it. You made mention of the fact that we should review it. In terms of wildlife migration, that was it. So is that gone now? Or based on the, keeping the fence up 4 feet, is that not an issue? Aanenson: We believe that if they keep it where the Fish and Wildlife is recommending, 40 feet in height, 4 1/2, that that would address that issue. And I didn't get this letter until the first part of this week. Conrad: So the wildlife issue is not a concern. What other? Aanenson: Well it is but I think that it can be addressed this way. If they meet the height and minimum openings. Conrad: So we're not monitoring... Aanenson: No. Conrad: In terms of water quality off the site. You're monitoring the fertilizing and pesticide but we're not monitoring the water quality? 2 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Aanenson: Right. There was a lot of discussion on the water quality issues because there's such a large drainage basin that flows into this area. It would be very difficult, and we did spend a lot of time with the technical people discussing this to be able to demonstrate that it would specifically coming from this property because it is a large drainage basin so we really spent a lot of time on that. So what we discussed was the buffering treatments to make sure that we've got adequate buff'er that we do with our wetland and that they are not putting in any fertilizer that is not demonstrated to be necessary. So that was kind of an agreement between all the agencies. Conrad: You're comfortable? Aanenson: Well I think you have to go with the experts saying you know because it is such a large basin, it would be hard for us to go back and say to demonstrate specifically your... I guess I'm comfortable with that. Conrad: To pull the conditional use permit would take a real obvious problem. Aanenson: Correct. Conrad: But it won't be dealing really with water quality or with the migration issues. It would be with, one of the things we ask them to do. Aanenson: That's correct. You're exactly right. So if those are still issues, then I would recommend that you add those as conditions. And they certainly could still be. Yes, but you're right. Burton: On page 14, your discussion about the fencing. And then at the bottom is where your recommendation starts for the proposed motion for this evening and I don't see in the conditions where it relates to fencing and I'm just wondering is that intentional or is that something that we should probably address? Aanenson: Right. I left it subject to as proposed on the site plan but what I'm saying is that Fish and Wildlife has modified that and if that's the direction you would want to go as proposed, as shown in the site plan which is higher then I would recommend you modify that condition to say as per Fish and Wildlife recommendation of 40 feet. Burton: Okay. Joyce: Anybody else have questions? Sidney: I have one question. Kate, in condition 7 you're recommending additional study be done on wildlife migration and lights. Have we received anything? Aanenson: That goes back to Ladd's question and that, we did not get any additional information on the lights. We're recommending that they not be put in. I think that you could probably strike that... Just so you're clear on the site plan. It does show an area of a 50 foot high fence and so Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 generally we referenced the site plan and that's where, so if you wanted to deviate from that and say only 40 feet, then you need to make that a condition. Otherwise it's 50, 40 and tapers down to the 30. Joyce: Kate I have a question. How much of the, do you know how much of the acreage is being fanned up now? Aanenson: It depends on the kind of year. If it's drier. It's pretty much where the south of the house. Well of course there's that area where the parking lot is too so that's... Joyce: Would you say the majority of... ? Aanenson: Yes, yes. Joyce: So we talked about this at the last meeting that our options is to leave it the way it is, agricultural. Aanenson: Right, and I think what that was part of the discussion that kind of goes back to the question that Ladd had. Is the application of fertilizers that were used in the past, this is probably less. I think that was kind of all up to that point but the question is still affecting water quality... Joyce: What I'm leading up to, they are, the plan here is to in essence make a third of it a golf driving range and then two-thirds of it will be put aside for an easement. Aanenson: That would be our recommendation. I'm not sure they would agree to that. That would be our recommendation. Joyce: Okay. Aanenson: Or a condition. Joyce: All right. Would the applicant like to step forward and make a presentation? Or continue your presentation. Or do you have a question Allyson? Brooks: Yeah I do. Joyce: One second. Do you have a question Allyson? Brooks: Yeah I do really quickly. On the recommendation, recommendation 20. The applicant should have a fertilizer and pesticide management plan. It doesn't say approved by the City. I'm just going to suggest that we add that. How do you feel about that? Aanenson: That's very appropriate. Brooks: Okay, good. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Aanenson: Because actually what came up also during discussion was mosquito control and application of treating. Brooks: Do you also think that we might want to add something, approved by the city and reviewed by Fish and Wildlife? Aanenson: Yeah, and I would say DNR too. I think that's good. Brooks: Thank you. Joyce: What condition was that Allyson? Brooks: 20. Joyce: Okay. Did you have a question Alison? Okay. Jeff Helstrom: We're on? Joyce: You're on. JeffHelstrom: Okay. Thanks for having us back. We appreciate the input from the last meeting. I, myself as one, and Chris feel a lot more comfortable where we're at today than we were a couple weeks ago to be able to answer these questions. I want to just talk briefly about that fertilizer and pesticide management program because there's a lot of questions about that and feel it's really important. What we did, we compiled some information on fertilizer and pesticide applications on golf courses in the Twin Cities area and I'm going to show you that in a minute but what we did is put together this management plan. Do you have copies of it in front of you at all? Aanenson: It should be part of the packet. Jeff Helstrom: If you could just refer to those. When we first took this plan I immediately took soil samples in four different areas and sent those into the University of Minnesota and basically they took those samples and told us what that soil was like today and what we're going to do is use those soil samples as basically a sample area that we can refer back to. So we can take another sample and say well phosphorous levels don't need to be raised or nitrogen levels do need to be raised and we can adjust those up and down. And then what we'll do is fill out this management plan every time we apply you know fertilizer and weed control and send it to the city. So we thought that was an excellent way of monitoring what we're applying. And you can refer to the program planner here. That kind of outlines the organic fertilizer that we're using and the eliminate weed control that we're using. Fish and Wildlife and DNR didn't like 24D and we have no problems using 1 lA which is not a 24D base weed control. So and all those things are part of this packet. A piece of information that we did find is, and I think that was in your packet too. It's a quantity and quality of runoff from four golf courses in the Twin Cities metro area. At Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 the last meeting there was questions to, you know are these sources that we have reliable. I mean it came from what like golf related industries so we had to go out and find some information that wasn't related to golf uses. This study was prepared for the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources by John Barton of the Hennepin Regional Park District. And if you look at the executive summary here, which is the third page in on the study. The whole page talks about this study. What they did is they studied all the areas around these golf courses which were Woodhill, Meadowbrook, Minnekada and Baker and they sampled the water and the runoff from all these golf courses and compiled this information. There's about 20 pages of data that I don't know how to read it but they did a lot of work and put a lot of work into this survey. And if you go down and circle the area on the third paragraph and it says here based on their data that the nutrient export from the four comers was very small. In order of magnitude less than the export rate reported for similar urban areas. Or residential areas. The nutrient export rate of the four golf courses was similar to the rates reported for undeveloped land. We think that's very significant because from these golf courses they monitor, which are country clubs that are putting a lot of fertilizer and weed control down, they really couldn't measure anything coming off of those and we're talking about an organic fertilizer program which has got, you know a lot less than what they're doing here. So we really feel this study's important and like to know if you have any questions about this right now. Joyce: Any questions? Conrad: Mr. Chairman. Page 18. The conclusions and recommendations in that study it said all of the quantities of fungicides leaving the golf course are smaller. The presence of the chemicals in 60% of the samples may be a concern. So how do you resolve that? If that's the study you're using, what have we done to resolve that issue based on that study? Jeff Helstrom: Well that was DNR and they, in their report here they indicated in line item 1 that we feel that the proposed development is an adequate distance from the creek. So based on runoff and all those kinds of things, even without looking at this study they thought we were far enough away regardless of what program we're using. So I feel really confident about this. We're not going to have any problems with any runoff of any kind.., program we're using and the results that came out of this study. And it talks about you know times like I talked about before. Timing your application and the amount of rainfall that we receive. There was a 6% over the normal rainfall the year that this study was done so there was you know a significant amount of rain and it just, you know it didn't measure hardly any chemicals coming off of these hills so. Any other questions on that part of it? Sidney: One comment I guess on that same page of the study. It mentions aeration done regularly to promote rain water infiltration. I assume you'll be doing that. That would really help. Jeff Helstrom: Oh absolutely. I mean you have to aerate your greens and fairways and that will be part of what we do. Definitely. Okay, nets. We talked with both Fish and Wildlife and DNR. Initially when we met with Fish and Wildlife and DNR, we asked them the question, you know do you want a net along your properly or do you not want a net along your properly? And their 6 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 comment was that they wanted a net there because they didn't want golf balls you know flying into the refuge. That made sense and the fact, all we want is 50 feet and that makes a huge difference if you know an extra 10 feet in ball flight makes a huge difference. A lot more balls can go over that extra 10 feet pretty easily. And I really don't feel it makes any difference as far as the wildlife migration or anything like that, that extra 10 feet. But it's really important to us and by what I read from DNR, it seems that they didn't have any problem here with the 50 feet height. It said we were at 60 and we went down to 50 and it says the proposed changes to the net height are satisfactory. And they want it 4 1/2 foot off the ground for the wildlife to pass under. Joyce: Where's that? JeffHelstrom: That's onthe DNRreport. Joyce: The June 26th letter? JeffHelstrom: In the letter. It was after our meeting. Aanenson: We're taking it also from the Fish and Wildlife... Joyce: ... Fish and Wildlife says they want a maximum of 40 feet. Jeff Helstrom: Fish and Wildlife but DNR is fine with it. Aanenson: Well I think they were assuming after our meeting that the consensus was to go with the 40 feet. Jeff Helstrom: We had never, we were at 60 and so I told them, I said we don't need 60. We just need 50 and that's what I remember about that meeting. Joyce: My question then is, if we're dealing with Fish and Wildlife, the problem with the nets is the wildlife. That's what we're talking about here. Sidney: No, aesthetics too. Jeff Helstrom: There really hasn't, I mean they didn't see any problem as long as we did the right net with the nets affecting the wildlife and we have the wildlife gates and the height on the bottom so it was mainly aesthetics. So what we did is we put together, we modified our landscape plan and created some berming and some trees. If you refer to your maps here, maybe I can even put it on my the screen up there. The landscape plan... Up here is an area where they were concerned about these trees, or this net that came out here so what we did is lower the height of the net. It stepped down basically from a 50 foot height to a 40 to a 30 and then down to basically nothing at the end. Now what we proposed doing is planting an additional screen around here where this tree line stops. We keep going with quite a few native trees to screen off that net down there. And then we added the movement of these large pine trees. There's about, well there's even more than they showed here. There's quite a few large pine trees, about 20 feet in height that we're 7 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 going to spade and we're going to move them right beyond the dug out area. And it's really going to, you're not really going to be able to see in there with a combination of that and the berm that we had out here. There's a 4 foot berm with a whole bunch of spruce trees on it. You're just not going to have the visibility of those nets so from an aesthetic point of view I really feel we've got our bases covered on that. Are there any questions on that? Joyce: Kate, I have a question. I'm trying to follow. I'm just a little confused. What condition was in here with where we were considering.., on the fence height? Aanenson: Condition number 7. It talks about the gates and lights. That would be one I would modify to talk about the height that you want. Joyce: So right now as this thing sits before us there's no discussion of height... Aanenson: We left it as shown on the site plan. Fish and Wildlife, the issue was aesthetics. What it does aesthetically to have it that high. We were concerned, as the applicant is, if they're only 40 feet we may be retrieving a lot of balls which we have concern about. They have tapered it down as they indicated. But just to be clear that Friends of the Minnesota Valley is also recommending 40 and Fish and Wildlife is still recommending 40. We left it as shown on the plan. Joyce: The way I read this, the City's okay with their suggestion of 50 feet. Peterson: We're okay with 60 is what you're saying? Aanenson: No. No. Their plan shows it tapering from 50, 40, 30. Jeff Helstrom: Yeah, page 5 and 6. Where the net drops down right on top of the. Joyce: But all I'm asking is the city okay with that... ? Aanenson: I guess our concern was, we understand the aesthetics. You know you wanted to make sure that the Fish and Wildlife had an opportunity.., their first choice. They would like to see it at 40. Our concern is that balls are going to take flight over the fence and then you know, impacting in other areas trying to retrieve those balls. Certainly their impact is what visually happens when it's 10 feet higher. So there is a... Jeff Helstrom: Another point that I wanted to make is, just to remember that this one here is the only net that would stay up year round. This net around here would come down other than in the winter. So you wouldn't even have that there during the summer. Blackowiak: I thought there was a net on the, what would be the west side as well. JeffHelstrom: Over here? Oh, I'm sorry, that's a shorter net to protect a couple of the tee boxes over here. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Blackowiak: But it's still 50 feet, correct? JeffHelstrom: No. No. That is more like 20 feet. Blackowiak: It says 50 feet on your plans. Page 5. Aanenson: If you look atthe monitor... Jeff Helstrom: Yeah, that should be modified. We don't need a 50 foot net there. Roger Anderson: The proposal was for 50 but they... Jeff Helstrom: Basically it's designed so that an errant tee shop from the tee doesn't fly over and hit somebody over here. You notice our tee boxes point this way but we just wanted to put some added protection over there. Brooks: Kate, you said you were worried about people retrieving the golf balls. I don't play a lot of golf. I don't play any golf. Do, will people actually retrieve them like tennis balls all the time or will like one person go out at the end of the day and just retrieve. Aanenson: That's part of what they will do is the operation of retrieving them. But what they're looking at for the 50 feet is in an area that's already being manicured so it may be a moot point. If you look at, this is the area that there's conflict where there's 50 feet in height. So they're going 50 and it's tapering down to 40, 30. So what I'm saying is that area of 50 is here.., one thing if they do become errant to go this way, you're already into a manicured area so... except during the wintertime. That's their issue is control because that's up only in the wintertime so if they're losing all the balls, it becomes an operational problem for them. Jeff Helstrom: ... I misspoke. That would be up in the summer. That smaller net because it's more of a liability thing than it is the fact that, very few golf balls are going to go out there because we're going to have the tee boxes pointed this way and it's going to be way over there. In case somebody pulled.., ball very right, we'd want something to be there to guard those tee boxes from people getting hit over there. And believe me, we're going to have it tweaked out so that that net should hardly ever get used. But we don't need 50 feet. Because you're not going to get a high ball that comes over that way. It's going to be a shank that just goes straight right and we don't need that king of net height over there. 20 feet is more than enough. Blackowiak: I'm still confused Kate. Aanenson: I think I'm getting there too. Blackowiak: The other 50 foot net, the one that DNR wants to be 40 feet. JeffHelstrom: On the east side of the property. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Blackowiak: Right. Where, was that the side you're worried about them receiving the golf balls? Chris Bixler: Here's where the DNR wanted us to, when we first saw them they wanted a high net here. This is DNR properly on this side. When we first met with them they liked the high fence to keep us and any other golfer off their properly. After we got into this discussion with them, they wanted us to drop our nets down. Well we did. But we want our nets higher, up to this area and then right here it drops down to 40 and then from there to there it gets down to 30. The projectory of a ball shows that it goes up and comes down. So we don't need a 50 foot high fence from this area down. We just need it here. That's going to eliminate almost all the golf balls going over. This net and this net come down in the summer time. And same with the bottom net so it's more of the creatures that it's not going to be a problem in the summer time at all. Peterson: Where are you at relative to the recommendation of gates versus the fence being 4 1/2 feet high? Jeff Helstrom: Well we've got wildlife gates that are built into this plan in a few different areas. I believe there's another over on this side also. They were fine with those. It's really important to have those wildlife gates as opposed to a 4 1/2 foot gap in that.., because balls can just be flying under that net all the time if you don't have anything to stop them. So we designed those gates to, they can still be open but they'll be open on the back side so the balls can't fly through them. Does that make sense? Chris Bixler: This is the netting right here. Peterson: Have you talked about the color of the nets themselves? The width of the holes and the. Chris Bixler: Yeah, we've already talked about those issues and they were issues but we showed them netting that they were comfortable with. They were comfortable with the size and the color. Peterson: Talk to us about that if you would. Chris Bixler: Basically they wanted a net that was dark and we've got a black net proposed. And the size of the hole was I think 1/2 an inch. JeffHelstrom: The smaller the hole the better. They want something to hit it and bounce ofl~ I mean that's important to Fish and Wildlife. And that's not a problem at all. Whatever works and we're willing to work with them on that. Chris Bixler: And we have, they basically didn't have any problems with the stuff that we showed them. Jeff Helstrom: ... putting too big of holes. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Chris Bixler: In all reality we can't because of the winter climate so the net we're buying is very expensive. There is cheaper nets but they didn't like us using that cheaper stufl~ Peterson: So aesthetically you think black is the most appropriate color? Jeff Helstrom: Definitely Peterson: Camouflage or whatever? Jeff Helstrom: Definitely, unless we're having some problems we can always, if they suggest we could always install some flags maybe on the top or something. But aesthetically you know with this plan you're really not going to see those nets. So if we need to put some flags in, we want to make sure... Sidney: Could you clarify about, are you in favor of the restriction of having the 4 1/2 foot gap at the bottom? Jeff Helstrom: I'm not in favor of that. We'd rather have the wildlife gates because you know, we're trying to keep balls out of that refuge and we've got a 4 1/2 foot gap under the net. Sidney: You're going to get more underneath than probably over. JeffHelstrom: Yeah. We could make more wildlife gates. That's not a problem. If that's an issue if they're concerned about that, we'll put in more wildlife gates but just leaving that 4 1/2 feet on the bottom also would be kind of self defeating having the net. Okay. Any other questions on the net? Sidney: Well I guess one rhetorical question about you started at 60 feet and does that mean that you have 0 errant balls that would fly over that and... ? Jeff Helstrom: Well higher's better. But you know, by guiding the tee boxes, by pointing the tee boxes the right way and by having 50 feet... Sidney: But 50 isn't going to guarantee that zero. JeffHelstrom: No, it's not. Sidney: Okay. 40? Jeff Helstrom: 40's going to guarantee that a lot are going to, a lot more are going to go over that net. It's just a, if you golf you kind of know how high you normally hit a golf ball and a golf ball can get up pretty high. Definitely higher than 40 feet when it's going in it's projectory and it's out 150 yards. A lot of balls are higher than 40 feet. Once you get up to the 50 foot height, that's where a lot of the driving ranges... They have them between 50 and 60. I think every range would like to have 60 but if it doesn't work, you know 50 will. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Sidney: Okay. JeffHelstrom: So any other questions on the nets? Okay. Lighting. What I talked to you about before was that landscape plan also applies to this lighting plan we have and lighting is really vital to this operation. I just kind of... some rough numbers together and just based on like Bramaer prices or some of the other golf domes around, they typically it's an hourly rate of about $18.00 an hour per stall and if you were to fill half of these stalls on those evening hours, like from 5:00 to 9:00, you're looking at about $306.00 an hour for 4 hours. It's $1,224.00 a day. $8,568.00 a week and about $34,000.00 a month for just those probably being half full during those hours of 5:00 to 9:00 which is when most people would be out there.., during the week. You know unless they don't have to work, it's a lot easier for them to shoot down there at 6:00 to hit a few balls and then take ofl~ So it's really important to this project to really have something that's nice for the community that they can do. I just think that it'd be a shame to not put those lights in and to not let those people be able to come down after work and hit some balls when I feel that we've addressed the issues of aesthetics and the light coming out with the plan we've put together. I set up that demo and Matt, or Craig got to come out and see it. The lights from behind, you can really can hardly see them. The only thing you can see was this light shining on the tree. And so by putting those trees behind the dugout area, that's going to block out a lot of that light, or any light that would come backward and then the trees that we install down along the end are just going to cover that whole side and these lights really focus on one area. And I did a video of that that I can show you that shows how these lights focus. (A video prepared by the applicant was shown at this point in the discussion.) Jeff Helstrom: ... after looking at this light, we don't need as many and we don't need the height either. We could get away with a 30 foot light.., and all we'd need is two lights per pole in the back.., and in back and in the range also. So we've really cut it down and I feel that after using this one light and hitting, I actually hit some balls out there, this was one light and I could see the ball for about 130 yards. So I really feel that we can, that we cut it down and that aesthetically it's not going to be a problem. Aanenson: Could I just get clarification on that? So what you're showing for lights, which is up here, this lighting plan here, which is on page 6 of 6. Al, A2, A3, A4, where you're showing three light standards, you're now saying two? JeffHelstrom: Yes. We're saying we can go with two. Aanenson: And three of those are showing 50 feet in height and you're saying 30 now? Jeff Helstrom: 30. Peterson: What page are you on Kate? 12 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Aanenson: It's sheet 5 of 6. It's this one that's up here. What he's saying is that, on these poles right here, this is the landscaping berm. That there's 1, 2, 3, 4 standards and there's three lights proposed on those. They're showing them to be 50 feet in height. What he's saying now is that based on what he did last night that he thinks that 30 feet and lwo on a pole would work. Peterson: On the four poles? Aanenson: Right. So there's less on a pole and lower in height, correct. Peterson: Eight total lights. Jeff Helstrom: ... repeat myself but a 30 foot pole with a light and all those evergreen trees behind the poles too to shield that. So really, really have cut this thing down and I'm confident that when we keep that light inside here, you're hardly going to see it from 212 or 101 and it's really going to be a good thing to be able to come out there with the family and be able to hit some balls in the evening when they can get together. Peterson: The only time you'd be using the lights is after the summer solstice, right? From October to April. Jeff Helstrom: Exactly. And then we don't need it in the fall. I mean we were out there at night and you wouldn't want to be there after 9:00 or after 8:00 even because of the mosquitoes. So it's not something we'd be proposing to do. Joyce: I just want to clarify. You've got, I'm looking at the lighting plan now and it looks like you have 24 lights proposed initially and now you're saying you're only going to have 8 lights. Jeff Helstrom: Yeah, eight up on the poles and then the ground level lights that light but those are. Aanenson: Six feet in height. Jeff Helstrom: Well, they're bermed up...just light the ground area. Aanenson: I have a question then, I'm still confused, ifI may. On the Al, A2 right here you also have a light standard that's going toward the putting green. What was the height of that? It shows 50 feet. Jeff Helstrom: That would be 30... You can ax that light. Aanenson: Okay. On the putting green too? JeffHelstrom: Yes. Just leave the lights on the range. That's not important. Aanenson: And then Gl, which was G1 and 2 were 6 feet, okay. Thank you. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Joyce: Are there any other questions on the lighting? Roger Anderson: We have more information on the lights, just briefly because it's hard for people to get a vision of what the lights are going to look like. We've all been to soccer games and baseball games and you know how light that is. And this isn't that type of a facility. I've got the architectural standards design for baseball fields to do that type of thing. A major league baseball field is 100 foot candles in the infield and 70 to 50 foot candles out in the outfield. Very bright as you're aware. If you go down to soccer for example, that's about 30 foot candles... This was recommended for golf as 5 foot candles so it's a twentieth of what you'd see on a baseball field. Typically what they recommend on an unsupervised or a non-recommended playground for example. So it isn't a high light value that's there. Just enough so you can see that golf ball flight and see it hit off the tee to put it a little into perspective. We aren't going to have a large field with it all lit up in lights. Jeff Helstrom: These lights probably are just spot lights too. They don't have glare control so. Roger Anderson: Generally at the ballfields of course they use focus lights that are all aimed in very specific patterns and here we need general lighting so you can see to hit the golf ball and watch it's flight and that's it. They won't be targeted specifically with those types. Sidney: One question. How does that compare to lighting say on 2127 What would the foot candles be there? Roger Anderson: Well parking lots that are, generally they're in the 2 foot candle range. I'm not sure if the city has minimums on those. Aanenson: Just at the spill line. That's all. Roger Anderson: The spill line outside.., one foot candle. Aanenson: Yeah, ours is a half foot. Roger Anderson: Halfa foot? And we're going to be very close to that. We're only going to 5 foot candles in the main field. I think you'll find that it's... Another issue I think that we may want to look at and this way helps control the balls is, it's not really a light issue but we'll give some thought to where we place these target greens, especially in the lighting and the fact that they're nets would come down a little bit from what we originally suggested. I think if we concentrate the ones during the winter use, a little more centrally so people aren't tending to shoot at the nets, that will go hand in hand with how we set up the tees and we could help keep those golf balls inside the range. People love to shoot at a target and that's part of our, the value of this arrangement like this. It will allow people to look at where those greens are located and where the targets are located at to help keep... Jeff Helstrom: Any more questions on lights? I'd just like to take a couple minutes to talk about something that we probably haven't talked enough about is how great this project would be for 14 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 this community. You've got you know a couple of small driving ranges now. They really aren't teaming centers. You know they're just driving ranges and I don't know what's going to happen with Swings with the road and those kind of things. It may not be around but it's a whole different thing than what we're doing. We're putting together a place that people can bring their families. They can team how to play gotf and they can have a great time and I think it's going to be nice enough that people would say hey, this is great. I live by this place you know. And we spent a lot of time talking about some of the negative aspects but I think for the type of location that it is and the possible uses for this location, I think this is the best one and I feel strongly about that. Joyce: Okay, great. Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. One of the conditions, it talked about either conservation easements or some sort of a dedication. What are your feelings on that? Jeff Helstrom: Well we'd like to be able to talk with those agencies about that. I feel that it'd be just fine but the tax implications and those kinds of things, maybe we want to donate it or do something like that. I can't just outright say right now. Yeah, I'm going to give it as an easement without you know talking to them and figuring something out but we really don't have any problem with it because we're never going to use this for anything. We'd like to see it stay in it's natural state. Are we going to have an opportunity if any other questions come up during the public hearing to answer those? If something comes up. Joyce: We'll have you come up... JeffHelstrom: Okay, thanks for your time. Joyce: Thank you. Could I have a motion to open this for a public hearing and a second please? Blackowiak moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Joyce: This is a public hearing. If you'd like to address the Planning Commission, please step forward and state your name and address. Betty O'Shaughnessy: I'm Betty O'Shaughnessy. I live on Hesse Farms. You have four of us tonight. None of us are golfers. We probably need to plead ignorance to really knowing what's going to happen so I think it would help us if you would tell us what's going to be there. How it's going to be used. How it's going to be used in different seasons. JeffHelstrom: I can do that, yeah. Okay. What we proposed, can we get one of those up there again? Okay, this is our driving range and chip and putt area. Basically what we have over here is short holes. They're typically. Peterson: Why don't you orient us to where they are regarding 169. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Betty O'Shaughnessy: Start with 212 and lay it out. JeffHelstrom: Pitch and putt. 212 would be right here. That's right. And here's the little house that you see. And then all this land right here is basically being fanned right now so you know you can kind of see what they're doing out there. So what we did is, we want to use the house. Renovate it. Turn it into you know basically a little pro shop area and snack bar for people and we want to put some couches in there and a fireplace and have the golf channel on and people will be able to come and you know talk about golf and hit some balls. But we also want these people to be able to get balls, full shots year round. That's just something that nobody does. Now if you want to hit balls in the winter you go to a golf dome. Well I had a different idea about that, and Chris and I well both had an idea about this. Why not hit out of the dugout area where the front face is open and you hit out to an area outside and you just heat the area inside with like some ultra violet heaters like they have in hockey rinks. And we talked, both of us just loved that idea and we're like why isn't anybody doing this? You've got to go into a golf dome. You've got to hit a shot 50 yards. You don't know if it's going to hook or slice or what it's going to do. So we talked about it and talked about it and we're like well how do we retrieve these balls because there's going to be snow on the ground. Well that was a real problem. You know install some turf and all those kind of things. Not cost effective and I'm sure the turf wouldn't go over well here, artificial turf... So I was driving down the road one day and I thought well, you know why not hit a golf ball to a net. A net that's going to catch the golf ball and roll it down into a collection area. And you know I thought about it and thought about it and I talked to Chris about it and I said I think this is going to work great. We're going to put these nets up. Chris Bixler: What's going to make it unique.., you can't do it anywhere in the country right now. Now with a snowy climate. Betty O'Shaughnessy: Are you going to plow the snow... Chris Bixler: No. The snow's going to fall right through the netting. Jeff Helstrom: I'll show you how that works here. This is a little diagram of the tee box so that is what, that is this area right here, okay. Looking from the back of 212. Hitting out this way. And along the ground here we've just got a series of nets that are suspended off the ground about 4 feet, they're sloped back towards the golfer and then under, at the end of each one of these nets and under it is basically just a cage that collects the golf balls as it hits the net and they roll down. They roll into this collection area and we've installed a net like this and put it up all last winter and it worked great. Most snow goes right through it. The balls roll ofl~ They roll back down and you're able to access it from the back because the nets, you know from the bottom up to the top with the elevation there of about 6 to 8 feet off the ground.., so a guy walks back here. He collects the ball. Collects the balls and people just keep hitting. It's just a great, great deal I mean and it works. It worked great. And it gives people an opportunity to hit a full shot which they can't do that in a golf dome. And then all of these nets on the base level and the nets along the side, which are this one here and along the..., they come down in the summer. We just pull them all in and store them and then in the summer this tums into a golf, basically a golf academy where 16 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 we've got an area that's going to be sectioned off where people can come in and pay an hourly fee for instruction. Any time they want. Rather than you know call up your pro. Set up a time, you know and go through that, we're going to have an academy all the time where we can just hire pros to stay there and give people lessons and help people out with their game and I think it'd be more cost effective too. And then we also have, we're going to have all sorts of stuff like sand traps for them to hit out onto the driving range out of. Target greens for where they can take a yard marker on a tee box and they can take a yard marker where that flag is and they can hit a shot 135 yards. See how they do. There's just very few places that have all these things. We want to put some down in this area, down in the academy area, we want to put some mounds of grass so they can hit off some different lies. Hit out of some rough and things like that. We don't, what we don't want is just a driving range where people just go and hit a bunch of balls and go home... Chris Bixler: ... driving range industry and that's what we're changing. We're adding the pitch and putt course is a course designed to improve your short game. It's not, we're not calling it a par 30 because we don't know if it's going to be a par 24 or something like that but the holes are going to be set up in certain ways where you're hitting shots that are going to help you improve and that's what our goal is to do for the people that come to our place. We give them a real nice place to come and practice and the chance to actually learn something because in the domes you can't, you don't learn nothing in the dome. I know that from experience and from being a good golfer. IfI want to see if I'm hitting a drop or a fade, which is you know hooking the ball or slicing the ball, you can't tell in the dome because your ball is only traveling 65 yards. And any shot when you're hitting with a 5 iron or a 3, 4 or 5 or a driver or a 3 wood, it won't start moving until it hits 120 yards for most people. So with this idea you're going to be able to see your whole ball play and you'll be able to cure it. Fix your problem because you go on the course. Betty O'Shaughnessy: Are those winter nets out 120 feet? Jeff Helstrom: The end of that net is about 185 to 200 yards. End of the winter nets and then they just come down in the summer. Chris Bixler: Yeah, from the front of the dugout to the end of the range it's I believe what, 200 and. JeffHelstrom: 280 I think... Chris Bixler: 275. Our nets aren't going to go out that far. I mean it's, the average drive for a person is like 175 yards. Betty O'Shaughnessy: Has anybody done this in the wintertime? Jeff Helstrom: No. Chris Bixler: No. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Betty O'Shaughnessy: ... JeffHelstrom: Oh, that's the nets. Betty O'Shaughnessy: The concept with the public, you know. Chris Bixler: No. This is our baby. Betty O'Shaughnessy: ... short pitch and putt course with special training academy experiences. Chris Bixler: Right, exactly. Betty O'Shaughnessy: And then.., become a driving range for a few hours in the evening. JeffHelstrom: And also have golf instruction and that... Chris Bixler: Yeah, video swing analysis equipment you know so someone could come and get a video of their swing. All that stuff is going to be there. It's top notch is what we're interested in doing. And it will be a very popular spot. Jeff Helstrom: We hope. Audience: You're proposing what kind of hours in the winter? JeffHelstrom: Until 9:00. From like, I think it was 8:00 to 9:00. 7:00 to 9:00. So we're proposing somewhere between 7:00 and 8:00 until 9:00. And the same in the summer you know, but we'd have lights then. Chris Bixler: Also this area right here is just a green that we're going to build with some sand traps around it and the other side's going to be grass bunkers to give you a real live situation, you know like you'd see on the golf course. Over here you've got a putting green that people can come and practice their putting on. And that will be a USGA type green which is as good as you can get. And then also a miniature, a mini-putt golf course on natural grass. So it's all really unique and it's, and we're keeping it natural We don't want any fake greens or fake tees to hit off of. Of course in the dugout area there is going to be artificial greens, or tees but we can only get as close to real in the winter time as you can only imagine. There's some new stuff that comes out every year but it's going to be as real as possible to us. Jeff Helstrom: Does that answer your question? Betty O'Shaughnessy: Answered my question. Thank you. We happen to live up on the bluff looking at it so it sounds like it will be reasonably good. Joyce: Thank you. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? 18 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Kate Smith: Hi. My name is Kate Smith. I also live up in Bluff Creek. There's a couple things. Excuse me, Hesse Farm. I knew that. A couple things I'd like to say. First of all your concept, I've got to give you credit. It's novel. It's neat. I think you've got a winning plan here. I do have two serious concerns about the position of this. First of all I'll comment on the lighting. This area is obviously in a wetland. Except for the month of perhaps January through March, this area is damp. That means there's a lot of moisture in the air. No matter how you direct those lights, you will have a lot of diffusive lighting going up. If the water base will simply direct the lights in a very diffuse manner. That's the nature of the area. That's a concern to me because we already have a lot of light that has been added to this area and it has been historically a wildlife area. That area hasn't had light added to it but across the river certainly has had light and we see that light significantly. We don't necessarily need to have it closer to us. Secondly, I'd like to comment on these nets or I have a question about these nets. I see these nets as being a significant barrier to birds. That is definitely an area of a lot of bird migration. We watch birds year round but especially in the migration periods in the fall and the spring. It's a very active area through the entire valley. It's not clear to me that these nets would not then trap birds. That's a concern to me. And third, I had a comment about the parking area and access to that parking area. It seems to me like it would be a reasonable. I haven't heard anything said about the lighting in that area. It would seem, from a safety perspective that you'd want lighting in that area. I would be interested in understanding what the intent was for safety aspects of that. And fourth, I haven't heard anything mentioned here about the liquor license that was proposed. I don't know if that's still in the plan or still going to be recommended. If this is to be a family orientation, I would suggest that's inappropriate for the use of this property. Finally I'll just close by saying this is a wildlife refuge. At least all of the property around it is and I take exception to the fact that this is, golfers are not wildlife and I take exception to the use of the land in this manner. Joyce: Thanks. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? Daniel Smith: I'll comment too. I'm Daniel Smith. Also from the Hesse Farm area. I've heard several comments today about how great this will be for the community. Well I can say I live in the area and I don't think it will be great. Quite honestly I hope that we keep in mind that one of the real beauties of the Chanhassen area is it's wildness, especially on the south and the Minnesota River valley. It's always disturbing to see more and more development move in there and more and more great improvements for something that I think is pretty great as it exists. So from, I echo my wife's comments about bird migration. There's a concern about netting. I certainly am not wild about looking at lights. And especially I'm not.., about changing the wild nature of that area. We have a real resource there which we should be preserving. Not... so I really hope you'll say no. Thank you. Joyce: Anyone else? Linda Jansen: Hi. Linda Jansen. I'm from up around Lake Riley area. My question is in regards to the, we're all talking about the birds and the migration and the concern and I heard the Fish and Wildlife people mentioned as far as them being contacted and the DNR, and the Friends of the Minnesota River Valley. Has anybody called the Aubudon Society yet to really get some input as to the actual impacts on the migratory birds? And I guess my concern is more so those nets as 19 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 well as the lights. And the effect on the wildlife but I'd like to hear maybe more from the perspective of those experts and is there a way to do those nets safely. Is there a way to not impact that particular you know part of the natural resource down there that this obviously will have an impact on. I mean I hear that they're going to put the trees up for the aesthetics and I guess I'm less concerned about the aesthetics as the fact that you now have trees behind nets and the birds are going for the trees. And you've got their heads going through a 1 1/2 inch hole in a net. They're not going to bounce. They're going to get caught. So I guess I would like to hear their perspective if anyone has contacted them. Joyce: We'll do that at the end. Is there anybody else? David Albright: Just briefly. My name is David Albright and I spoke oh, 3 or 4 weeks ago. Briefly and I'm one of the owners of the properly that is seeking to sell to these gentlemen. A couple of just factual items I'd like to bring to the attention of the body. One, and I think Kate will back me up on this, is there's not one square inch of this project that's going in a wetland. It might be going next to a wetland but not one square inch of this properly, or of this project is going to be in a wetland. Not even hitting golf balls over it. No wetlands. That's important. The idea behind a conditional use permit is that as you are allowed to own properly in this country, the governmental entities that affect your body, or your properly, are able to exert reasonable limitations for the public good. The idea of a conditional use permit is that these are the things that in this kind of a district you can do with "reasonable conditions". The golf course is a reasonable condition with or without driving ranges. It's a conditional use in this particular zoning district. There's a number. I believe that this is a wonderful deal for Chanhassen to, and whether Mr. and Mrs. Smith or anybody else understands or believes it. Daniel Smith: Go with believes, not understands. David Albright: I will. This is the, the properly's not going to just remain a natural preserve for everybody to use but not have to pay for. It's something's going to happen there. Some of the other conditional uses that you have that are permitted with reasonable conditions would be a hog farm, a turkey ranch, microwave towers, cellular phone towers. I believe either a 12 or 24 member group home. This is, if you accept the, what I believe to be the law which is that we are allowed to make reasonable use of our properly. This is the best deal that is ever, every going to come down the pike. For this particular piece of properly. So I would prefer that Counly Road 38 didn't go behind my house in Apple Valley, but everybody else did and I live there and I guess I have to deal with the fact that I'm not the only person on the earth but so are the good citizens of Chanhassen, I think from what I've been able to discern from you folks, you understand it but please don't be distracted by that particular argument that we should take somebody else's private properly and turn it into a nature preserve because that's kind of what I've heard. And I think that would be a real mistake. Turning down the best use and then getting stuck somewhere down the line with a lesser, more onerous use. Thank you. Joyce: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the Planning Commission? Yes sir. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Tom Braman: I'm Tom Braman. I'm a biologist with Acorn Environmental and I'm working with the client on this project regarding ecological impacts. With regard to the net issue, we've met with both the Fish and Wildlife Service and the DNR on two occasions and have asked them specifically if they have concerns regarding wildlife impacts and the design of the nets. They have stressed that nets that catch birds are a real fine net and that this design that we're proposing on this project is not that type of a net. Birds may hit this net but will not be caught in this net. You've got to remember that the mesh is fine enough to, or small enough so that golf balls do not go through it. And it's visible enough so that birds can see it and generally that is the reason that birds get caught in these fine drift nets. When you do wildlife banding of birds, you find nets that are nearly invisible. That's what I wanted to say about the net issue. Joyce: Okay. There were a couple questions for Chris and Jeff2 Aanenson: I think I could answer those. Joyce: As far as the lights and... Aanenson: Oh, regarding the birds issue. We did speak to Joan Galli. She's the non-game wildlife person at DNR and her specialty is birds. In review of the literature of birds, it is better to have nets that they are proposing. Birds would bounce ofl} especially if they're.., for a golf ball. They felt that would be sufficient. Again the net issue really comes back to aesthetics as opposed to the endangerment, except for the animals that are terrestrial. There's not a lot of literature on the impacts. That's why they are recommending that they be left higher as opposed to what these gentlemen would like to do because there isn't enough review and that's why we had left that question in there still because we can't find any information and DNR did not have that information so they said let's take the more conservative and leave them up higher. But as far as the birds hitting the net based on the type that they are proposing, they felt that was. And I just want to make one point too just to make sure everybody's clear on what we're doing tonight. There are six proposals here tonight. There is impacts to a wetland. We are requiring a wetland alteration permit. There is a conditional use permit. Yes, you can attach reasonable conditions but you're not obligated to grant the variances or the code amendments or the wetland alteration permit. We did respond to all of those but that's again, it goes beyond what the conditional use. They are asking for other, relief from other regulations. Just to be clear on that. Audience: ... beyond the wetland, is that right? Aanenson: There is wetland impacts. Here's the impacts here. That's being replaced at 2 to 1, which does meet our ordinance. Chris Bixler: Right here on the comer of our range. That's an impact. But we're replacing it with wetlands over here 2 to 1. Aanenson: When this proposal first came in there was significantly more wetland impacts. As you recall it was over the 4 acres which required a nation wide permit and we worked with the applicant and tried to find a way that we felt resolved, there is an anomaly in the topography. If 21 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 you look at how this lays out, there's kind of a weird line in the contours. If you can see from that drawing where it's shaded across that, you can see there's a weird anomaly in it. To get the length that they needed for the driving range and in good faith, when this first came in it had other uses on the front end of the project. Adjacent to where the parking lot is, that was held out in advance of future development. We said that the site had, and they were asking for variances and the code amendment. We said that the site was too intensely developed for this piece of property. So they agreed and in good faith we worked to pull it up. We agreed because of that anomaly in the topography there that we would allow the wetland alteration permit so we are recommending but that is something that you have the right to approve or not approve. But we did recommend because we thought we worked in good faith to get that out of what was originally about 4 acres of wetland impact. I think those are the main questions that were asked. Joyce: Mrs. Smith, did you have all your questions answered? Kate Smith: I didn't hear any response.., the lights. Joyce: Yeah, that was the other point. Do you have a response to the diffusion of lights? Jeff Helstrom: You're talking about light in the summer time? Joyce: No, the winter time. Jeff Helstrom: Right, that's what I was going to say. It's not in the summer .... Well, going to focus those lights with glare control and minimize the amount of lights. We don't need as much lights in the winter because there is going to be some reflection from the snow and we'll just you know minimize that as much as possible and screen it. And we put berms in and we screened all the areas around the range. If there were any other suggestions of things we can do, we'll do it. I mean we're going to move these big trees in behind the area and I really think that that's, those are going, that those items are going to take care of it. Kate Smith: The question would be... after dark. Joyce: Thank you. Chris Bixler: Anything else? Kate Smith: Apparently not. Joyce: I think that's, okay. Let's have a motion to close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission then. Brooks moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Joyce: Okay, lots of discussion here. I'm going to start, LuAnn what's your feelings on this? 22 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Sidney: Well I have to commend everyone here. Excellent discussion. One of the best I've been involved in. I have some ideas about some of the aspects of the discussion that I'd like to share with you. I think overall, as I said in the last Planning Commission meeting when we had looked at this proposal. When I had looked at the site in the beginning I thought well this makes, well it seems like a very good location for this type of application. A golf course, driving range application. The land is currently being fanned. It doesn't, I think the change that it will undergo in becoming a driving range is not going to be as great as maybe we're anticipating. For one other things we're talking about is the fertilizer and pesticides that might be used. I think actually as the golf course application might be an improvement over the current pesticides and fertilizers that are used in fanning and we discussed that at the last Planning Commission meeting. In regards to the nets. I guess I was kind of going back and forth. I'm not a golfer and I guess I was trying to visualize what a hook and a shank is but I will never remember that. But I was thinking in one regard we should you know go with the advice of the people who are golfers. But then again I guess I don't really know the impacts that these nets would have on the wildlife and I guess we're talking that we really don't know, especially the terrestrial wildlife so I guess I do have to agree with Fish and Wildlife recommendations for the netting. To have a 4.5 foot gap at the bottom. I'm a little ambivalent about the height. I do think the height, as they talked about the graduated height up to 50 feet, might be appropriate just to keep balls from traveling a far distance. Also, I am somewhat ambivalent and a bit undecided about the lighting. I do think we don't need to add any additional lights to the valley. That really detracts from the aesthetics of the whole area. And the wildlife preserves that are there. I do think if the lighting plan could be adjusted as proposed, that it might be more acceptable but right now I guess I don't think it's finn enough or we don't have enough infonnation to really suggest that we should change the recommendations in the staff report. And then going back for the benefit of those who weren't at the last meeting, I guess I agree with stafl's recommendation that we should not, well we should approve a code amendment and it reads that the retail pro shop is pennitted. That is if no alcoholic beverages are sold and food is pre-packaged and so on and so on. Also, we're also saying that we would deny a request for extended hours of operation. That means that lighting would not be recommended and also we're saying that we'd approve however the change to the office clubhouse. And also recommending approval for the wetland alteration pennit so I do agree with those items stated in the staff report. Joyce: Craig. Peterson: Generally I've just got a few comments regarding the major issue. The first being the lights. I think now that they have limited it to four poles with 8 lights, 30 feet, I'm much more agreeable. I think it is, for this to be, from a retail perspective profitable, I think they do need the lights. So I would be in favor of supporting lights as noted and the discussion with the eight lights be... And in the same realm I'm also in favor of 50 foot fence and also going from, not going with the Fish and Wildlife recommendation and going with them all the way to the ground for the same reason that more errant balls are probably going to be going towards the bottom of the net than they are going to the top of the net. I would go with the wildlife gates. I think it's a matter of, we're not going to get, we're going to get five different experts saying five different things and from a practical perspective I can just see the balls going under more than I can over it in most 23 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 cases. I think from an issue standpoint, for this to be from a retail perspective, practical I think we need to make those accommodations and I think they're reasonable. I think this is a unique and very distinctive use of this space for the city of Chanhassen and based upon that would... Joyce: Thank you. Matt. Burton: Well, I think the applicant has shown a lot of creativity. I think I said that last time. They essentially have created a new use which may have been contemplated in the past but people couldn't figure it out, how to do it and they've done that and it really boils down now to the issue of the site. On the issue of the nets, I agree with Craig's comments. I think that the 50 feet makes more sense than dropping it down. I think the whole objective is to stop balls from going through and I also agree that keeping the, down to the ground makes sense because balls will just kind of go through there anyway. And I think the applicant is conscience of these issues and is, they're making the right changes. The Department of Natural Resources said that they found it to be satisfactory and Fish and Wildlife wanted to drop it down but they didn't really give any reasons so I think that based on that, I think that the nets as proposed are fine. I had a concern with the chemicals at the last round. I think that those have been adequately addressed. Another issue, obviously one of the big issues is lighting. I've given that one quite a bit of thought and a permitted, I think one of the standards for this area is that you can operate a driving range from sunrise to sunset and I think.., driving ranges in this area anyway in the winter time, so I think that the hours we're contemplating going to the evening, and I think that the lighting plan is very conscientious of not spilling light out into the surrounding areas and trying to keep it onto the course and I like the idea off I like the way they've tailored it back to limit it even further. A thought I had is, since I think the idea was that driving ranges could operate from sunrise to sunset as it set as times, in the winter that would be more comparable to say a springtime, the lights could go off maybe at 9:00 is too late. Maybe turning it back to 7:30 or 8:00 in that range, you'd lose an hour, hour and a half but I think that the people that are going to come there after work can still get there in time to have to hit and be done in time to, for them to still make some money in the weekend because obviously in the winter time that's the only chance of making money is after work because people aren't going to get there during the day. So I think that's something to keep in consideration as we pass tailor the hour back a bit, even though I don't like doing that to the applicant because I feel if we're going to let them go forward, I'd like to give them every chance to succeed. I guess all and all I like the project. With respect to code amendment, I had stated the last time that I wasn't very much in favor of the stafl~s proposal. I think that based on their comments and the applicant hasn't really seemed to express much concern over the stafl~s recommendation there, that I think I'm persuaded that I can go along with the stafl~s recommendation with respect to the no alcohol beverages and the food at this point. And the applicants then could come to the City Council and make those issues all over again so basically I guess it boils down to I'm in favor of what the staff is recommending and I think the applicant's done a good job addressing the issues. Joyce: Okay. Alison. Blackowiak: Thanks. We've heard several comments tonight about various issues and I'd like to just go down one by one. First of all nets. I understand the need to keep the balls out of the DNR 24 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 land and also to keep people safe. I would concur that a 50 foot net on the east side and a 20 foot net on the west side, which is what the applicant said would be sufficient, would be okay by me. In terms of the 4.5 foot height off the ground versus the wildlife gates, I am really, that's not my field. I really don't know much about it and I could actually be persuaded either way. I think that we need to think about what is going to be best for the wildlife and I'm curious as to actually how much migration occurs on this part of the properly, since it is very close to the highway. I'm wondering if more of it may occur, I guess maybe towards the southern portion a little bit more. I don't know. But so I could go either way I guess on the net height versus the gates. Secondly, lights. Last time I commented I didn't like lights and I still don't like them. The city has the option and maybe sometimes the mandate to apply reasonable conditions and I think that saying no lights is a reasonable condition. Sunrise to sunset should be sufficient. I think the lights are incompatible with the neighborhood. I feel that it would probably, they're incompatible with the neighbors. I think they'll probably be able to be seen by the residents up at Hesse Farm and I just don't feel that the lights are going to, they don't fit with the neighborhood. Liquor. No liquor. Pre-packaged food only. Pesticides. Herbicides. I would concur with, I think it was Fish and Wildlife said no 240 based herbicides. I'd also concur with Fish and Wildlife and the stafl's condition number 19 that either a dedication or some sort or conservation easement be placed on the balance of the properly. And finally, I would hope that the applicant, should this move forward, would look into the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary System that was referenced in the letter or the article from the Minnesota Valley Country Club, or about the Minnesota Valley Country Club. That Nancy Albrecht from the Friends of Minnesota River Valley sent along and I think that that might be a way that everybody would get involved and maybe get a good results to this and not have an adversarial relationship. So that's where I stand on those issues. And at this point I don't like the lights. I guess that's my bottom line. Joyce: Allyson. Brooks: I like the project. I always thought this project is very innovative. I think it's good for Chanhassen. It will provide an interesting and unique recreation opportunity. I think a lot of thought has gone into it. But once again my problem is I just don't like where the project is and that's where the quandary comes in. I would like to see this project in Chanhassen but not necessarily in the middle of the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. As for the fence, I guess I feel that the Fish and Wildlife Service has a point in keeping the fence to 40 feet. Even if it means that somebody has to go out there and retrieve golf balls every once in a while. If, aesthetics are important. Ifa Federal Judge can come in and say that we can't have the Stillwater bridge because we're impacting a wild, scenic river. Then how come we can just go ahead and impact a wildlife recreation area and a wildlife refuge. I mean either we have these refuges and we have these sanctuaries and we have these scenic rivers or why do we bother? Therefore I think the Fish and Wildlife Service has come in with a compromise of 40 feet and I feel we should respect that. As for the openings on the bottom, I do feel it's a compromise of having the gates at the bottom instead of just a 4.5 foot opening is there and I would go with the gates. As for the lighting, I'm in a bit of quandary with the lighting too because while I think it's a wonderful project and the lighting is important to make it economically viable, I also feel it is not good for the refuge area. Therefore reluctantly, very reluctantly I would probably go with Alison and say no lighting. Because I just again, it's not the project, it's the area. As for the alcohol. In a funny 25 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 way, I know it's supposed to be family and we're against alcohol but hell you can go to Applebee's and have dinner and we'll give you a beer so I mean that's the way America is kind of set up these days. That's kind of my view on the project. I have, I guess I just have mixed feelings all around. I love the project. I just wish it wasn't in the middle of a national wildlife refuge. Joyce: Ladd. Conrad: I'm okay with the project. I wasn't last time. I think I've been satisfied. I think with condition 19 and 20, if they can do those lwo things, I think we're getting something out of it. My preference would be to make it a wildlife refuge but I think this is probably a pretty good alternative use at this point in time. A lot of issues. The only one that's really floating around in my mind is lights. I'm going to attach some conditions to the conditional use permit when it comes through. I think it's open right now. I'm not going to talk about those but I'll vote in favor of it. I guess I'd be tempted to, the lighting issue is the only one that's up in the air with me. I think it's, it's a real conflict. We want to make, if we allow a business in here, this is not an interim business. It's not transition. You want to make them successful. Give them a chance to really be a good company. Be an asset and you don't want to take things away so they won't be. So overall that makes this a tougher project to look at. I'm not sure if we're giving them the full chance to make it. But I'm willing to let them go with it. Again I think the staff conditions that they've added give Chanhassen something back. I'd probably be going to test a low light usage on site. So the city is making the conditions and the conditional use permit is, it's open right now and basically the conditions that I'd be attaching to whoever makes this, I wish you good luck whoever makes the motion. You know the, I don't want, if we know it's unreasonable or detrimental impact on wildlife or water quality, pull the permit. Pull it period and I don't have, because I haven't been given the standards, it's going to be that loose. Period. I'm not comfortable doing that but I don't have any standards to monitor it by so I think there has to be a restoration after a flood and if there's not a restoration after the flood, the permit could be pulled. I think we should, it depends on who makes this motion, what it reads like and how many nays and yeas I see but I would like a light review, if there are lights in here, that carries after one year and we'd pull it if we see some things. I think the folks that showed up are bringing up some really good points. They're good points but the applicant also took the intensity out of it. When I see the traffic on 212/169, there's a terrific amount of light pollution already. Yeah, we're adding to it a little bit it's a, it's not this remote wilderness area. And then I'd pull it if it didn't follow the fertilizer plan. Those are the four points. But those are, you know just to be real clear, those are important to me. That's all. Joyce: ... we'll make a motion here in a second and I'm going to pull it back for any further discussion... I've been in favor of the project all along. I think it's an aggressive, neat project. I want to thank the neighbors for coming. We, I think the standards for.., project you usually announce to people 500 feet away. Well there's nothing 500 feet away so one of the things I said, I want to make sure that everybody knew what was going on. Anyone that was either mildly impacted by this particular project, so I appreciate your comments. I'm in favor of the project and I think the applicant has really gone the full distance to try to make this thing work within the scope of what we expected of them. It's not easy. I think there's a lot of open-endedness in this 26 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 because it's a new concept. So you can't, you have nothing to draw from. I think we have, if we're going to buy into this, we have to give them a chance to be successful at it. I can't see putting a lot of limitations on this and then hoping that it's going to fly because I know what they're trying to do. They're trying to make it successful.., entity here and a couple of these items are going to need lights. I understand that that's part of the uniqueness of the project. So we either buy into these lights, which they have reduced dramatically. I was concerned about the lights originally. Now I'm not nearly as concerned. They've reduced the height of the lights. They've reduced the impact of the lights so I'm comfortable with the lights and I think it's, we have to make a decision on whether those lights are going to be part of it or not because I think that's the only way this thing can be successful. This is not in a wildlife refuge. It's private property. I mean they're right now fanning that property. I think that's a heavy utilization of any kind of property and I think this, in the long mn is going to be better for that piece of property. I would suggest before the City Council with this conservation easement is resolved and settled because I think that's a big part of this. We're looking at developing a third of this property and you're donating the other two-thirds and I think that's important. I think that's something that, you know they're giving a lot here. And from a neighbors standpoint, yeah. There might be a little more lights down there and traffic but then you're always assured that that other two-thirds will never be touched. If we let this project, if we deny this project then we go back to square one. At least you know what's happening. But I appreciate where you're coming from. I understand fully what you're talking about so it's a touchy issue. I think there's opinions there. I think people have opinions and it certainly could go either way. So I would like, whoever makes the motion, make a decision on the lights. And I would like the applicant, if it does go through to City Council, to make sure that that conservation easement is prominent in your discussion with them and what you plan on doing with the rest of that land. What it will have in store for... So with that I ask somebody to make an attempt at a motion here. Aanenson: Kevin, can I just make. Joyce: Do you want to make the motion? Aanenson: I want to make, I'd like to make a clarification though on the record dates. We did receive a change to date on the plans. We stamp those plans. June 22nd. So those are the most recent plans just to make sure that that is the plan... Excuse me, that's on page 14 of the staff report. That first recommendation. It should say plans dated June 22nd. Joyce: Can we get a motion? Peterson: Mr. Chairman, I'd make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Approval #98-8 for a golf improvement center, Interim Use Permit #98-2 to allow a golf and driving range in A2 district and a conditional use permit #98-2 for alteration of a flood plain as shown on plans dated June 22, 1998 subject to the following conditions 1 through 20 with condition. Blackowiak: Wait, wait. We need to amend 20 first. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Peterson: I'm going to get to that. Subject to changing condition number 2. That lighting for the general area be limited to four poles with a total of eight lights with towers being no higher than 30 feet in height. Condition 20 be amended that it'd be reviewed by the City, the Fish and Wildlife Division and the Department of Natural Resources. And I'm trying to figure out where the fence is relative to the conditions. Kate, can you help me out with that? Aanenson: We talked about probably putting it in at 7. Peterson: I would propose that the gates be recommended as 50 foot height with the wildlife gates be left in place as proposed. Aanenson: Or you could just say as proposed on the site plan dated, which is referenced unless you wanted to modify that one area that didn't need to be 50 feet and which they agreed to. Peterson: Yeah, let's do that. Modify the one area where it's currently 50 feet and going down to 20. Joyce: Before we get a second on it Kate, we're going to have four motions here, is that how we're going to do it? Aanenson: That's what I would recommend. Brooks: Craig, could I modify your amendment just a little bit on 20? I'd like to amend 20 to say, the applicant should have a fertilizer and pesticide management plan approved by the City and reviewed by DNR and Fish and Wildlife. Joyce: Friendly amendment to review and approval by City, Fish and Wildlife and DNR. Brooks: Well no. I think the city has to approve it. I think we need to have a review by the DNR and Fish and Wildlife Service. I don't think we need approval by all three. Peterson: Fine. So noted. Joyce: Okay. Can I get a second for that motion? Burton: Second. Joyce: All those in favor say aye. Conrad: Discussion? Joyce: I apologize, discussion. Conrad: I'd like to make a friendly amendment to that for, as far as the conditional use permit would be concerned, that on an annual basis staff would review the following. Any unreasonable 28 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 impacts to the wildlife or the water quality. The restoration or lack thereof after floods. The applicant's ability or performance to implement accurately the fertilizer/pesticide plan as approved by the City stafl~ Peterson: Accepted. Joyce: So that would be condition 217 Conrad: It's not a really, I'm not sure it'd be. Joyce: No, so we're just adding it as a friendly amendment. Conrad: It's an amendment that would go into the conditional use permit. Aanenson: Sure, you can make it 21. That'd be appropriate. Joyce: Is there any other discussion on this motion? Okay, we'll take a vote then. Peterson moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Approval #98-8 for a golf hnprovement center, including Interhn Use Permit #98- 2 to allow golf and driving range in an A2 District and a conditional use #98-2 for alteration of a flood plain as shown on plans dated May 26, 1998 and subject to the following conditions: 1. The building shall be painted brown. Lighting for general area will be limited to four poles, 30 feet in height with two lights per pole for a total of eight lights and must be submitted to the staff for review and approval Landscaping should be placed on the eastern side of the parking lot to screen the lot. 3. Signage shall be as per City Code section 20 Article XXVI. The applicant will be required to plant 45 trees as replacement plantings within the proposed development. A landscape plan must be submitted to the city for approval. Landscape plan shall be revised to include 3 landscaped islands or peninsulas and 6 overstory trees for the parking lot. The applicant will be responsible for applying for and obtaining changes to the FEMA flood plain maps to reflect developed conditions. The applicant shall further define, graphically, the proposed flood plain boundary and provide justification for the changes. Staff is recommending that additional study be done on wildlife migration and the impacts of the lights and the nets shall be as proposed on the site plan dated June 22, 1998, 29 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. modified to change the one fence from 50 feet to 20 feet. Wildlife gates should be left in place in the nets as proposed by the applicant The chemicals to be applied should be consistent with the program submitted by the applicant. Storage of all maintenance equipment and chemicals shall be out of the flood plain. MnDOT is recommending that the driveway be widened. A permit from MnDOT is required. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The applicant shall provide detailed storm drainage calculations for the ponds and ditch during 10-year and 100-year, 24-hour storm events in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall also provide normal water level and high water level elevations of the created ponds and/or ditches. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. urn*~,~v, ~,v,o,,v,~ ~.o,~v,,r~;'~*~;~* Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. No berming, drainage improvements or landscaping will be allowed within Trunk Highway 212 right-of-way. The plans shall be modified as follows: a. The existing well shall be located and shown on the plans. b. Relocate rock construction entrance south at a point where the existing driveway will be altered/reconstructed. c. Demonstrate where and how much filling and excavating will occur within the flood plain, i.e. quantities of each activity. d. Show normal and high water elevation of each pond. e. Add silt fence downstream of proposed berms and practice green No. 1 in the northwest comer of the site. f. Provide temporary and/or permanent erosion control measures around sediment pond in northeast comer of the site. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 g. Incorporate MnDOT's comments regarding widening of the driveway at Trunk Highway 212 and right-of-way identification per letter dated May 21, 1998. h. Locate alternative mound site and preserve from construction activities. i. Add landscape islands in parking lot. j. Add curbs along north side of parking lot to direct runoff to sediment pond. 18. The applicant shall be responsible for maintenance of the storm drainage improvements (ponds and ditches). Failure to properly maintain the storm drainage improvement shall give the City the right to hire out the work and bill the applicant and/or revoke the interim use permit." 19. No additional development outside the current proposal and either a conservation easement be granted on the remaining property or the remaining property be dedicated to the Wildlife Refuge. 20. The applicant should have a fertilizer and pesticide management plan, approved by the City staff and reviewed by Fish and Wildlife and DNR to ensure minimal chemical impacts to the surrounding property. In addition the applicant shall provide annual soil samples before chemical are applied to demonstrate there is a need." 21. The conditional use permit shall be reviewed on an annual basis to on the following items: impacts to the wildlife or the water quality. The restoration or lack thereof after floods. The applicant's ability or performance to implement accurately the fertilizer/pesticide plan as approved by the City staff. All voted in favor, except Alison Blackowiak who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Blackowiak: And it's just because of the lights. That's the only thing I'm opposed to. Everything else I like, but I don't like the lights. Joyce: Thank you. So that carries. The next one would be the code amendment. Peterson: I'd recommend the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Code Amendment 98-1 to amend Section 20-265, Standards for the Golf Driving Ranges as follows. Point number 5. Joyce: Is there a second to that? Blackowiak: Second. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Joyce: Thank you. Any discussion about that? Peterson moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Code Amendment 98-1 to amend Section 20-265, Standards for Golf Driving Ranges as follows: 5. A retail pro shop is permitted if no alcoholic beverages are sold and food is prepackaged. There is no commercial cooking appliance allowed. Retail sales is limited to golf related items and the pro shop. All voted in favor, except Allyson Brooks who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Brooks: I really don't care if they want to serve beer or not. That's fine. Joyce: So noted. That motion carries. The third motion we need to make is on the variance. Peterson: I recommend the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Variance #98-1 denial on the request for extended hours of operation and approval of the square footage of the office/club warehouse to 986 square feet as per the site plan and findings in the staff report. Aanenson: Those hours of operation then would be sunrise to sunset. Peterson: ... I tie this back to as, well is that even necessary then? Aanenson: Well except in the winter time. My understanding is the night time, the lights wouldn't be as necessary in the summer as they would be in the fall and winter and spring. Peterson: So we could add to that, with the exception of the lighting as specified in the. Joyce: Wouldn't we just say approval of extended hours? Aanenson: You'd have to give it some qualifiers because we didn't address that in the staff report. You're going to have to give some hours. Conrad: Would you reword this? Joyce: We're working on it. We've got to redo it. Aanenson: Correct. Peterson: What's the best way to do it? Aanenson: Well what you need to say is you request, you recommend a variance for extended hours of operation. So you'd take out the word denial. And then you need to spell out what those 32 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 hours would be because currently the ordinance says sunrise to sunset, which will work for them in the daylight hours but it would not work in those months when they wanted. Peterson: All right. Let me rephrase that. The Planning Commission recommends approval on the request for extended hours of operation and approval of the square footage of the office and warehouse to 986 square feet as per the site plan defined in the report. The specific hours would be 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven days a week. Joyce: Okay, do I have a second to that? Burton: Second. Joyce: Is there any discussion on that? Brooks: Do you want to make it as late as 9:00? Peterson: I mean I think that's reasonable. Brooks: Seven days a week? I mean most places aren't open until 9:00 on Sundays. Peterson: Again, I'm motivated not towards limiting their viability.., is my concern. I mean they are going to decide, if they're not being used on Sunday nights, they're not going to be open. So I'm open to whatever amendments. Conrad: You're just simply granting, how are you tying the hours to the lights Craig? Peterson: Realistically they're not going to, again I'm making an assumption, they're not going to want to turn on those lights for cost reasons when they don't need to be. In the summer time they wouldn't need to be so it really is, I don't want to discern what day of the year they flip them on or can't flip them on. I'm just assuming they're going to turn them on when it's practical from a dollars and cents standpoint. Conrad: Usually when a variance is granted you'd really like to know why. At least I do. It's like one of those, you're breaking the rules. You're setting a precedent. The next one in is going to read it and say, and every golf course will be back based on what we just did. Does this variance Kate affect what we've done to Swings? And will they be back? Aanenson: Yes and no. MnDOT's working with acquisition on that for the new frontage road but Ladd is right. You really, I mean my conditions in the staff report are for the adversarial position of why not to grant those lights. So I think if you are going to grant the lights, I think Ladd's right. It would be good to put in a condition in there why you want to tie it back to their operation or whatever. But I think he's right, you should put some reasons in there why. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Peterson: Then I'd certainly accept a friendly amendment to limit those hours to the winter, definition of winter time, as winter season. For the rationale of not presenting the functionality past the defined usage hours. Which would be after work. Brooks: Maybe you could mn it from, say something about the unique nature of the golfing activity. Therefore, I don't know where I'm going with this but you only allow the extended lights from October 1st to April 1st so other golf ranges don't come in and want lighting as well. That's probably October 1st to April 1st would probably work. With a line saying due to the poor, I'm not certainly not a golfer. I'm trying to find the terms here of what we're doing. For the practice activities during the winter months. I don't know, what do you call this driving... You're the lawyer Matt, come up with some terms. Burton: I was thinking that one of the items that we would consider for the variance is the self created hardship. I don't think that this was a self created hardship. I think it's just a fact that it gets dark in the winter and they didn't create that hardship so that's, I think that's, staff says, the report says they think it's a self created hardship and I disagree with that one. I don't, I guess technically this probably wouldn't meet every single criteria but I think that of items A through F... they meet enough of them. I don't think it's injurious to the public welfare or of the neighborhood. It doesn't impair the adjoining properties substantially. I don't think that the variations would increase or decrease the value income potential for the land .... farming as it's present use is. I don't think there's no evidence it might. My sense is that it wouldn't. I guess that's all. Peterson: Well, what do we have? Aanenson: I think what's Ladd point is, and would just concur. If you're going to give these people lights in the A2 district, anybody else with a driving range is going to ask for the same thing for night time use. In the past, even Bluff Creek, you go to most golf courses, they're not lit at night. So what we're saying is we're changing that. If we're giving it here, what I hear Ladd saying is that, you're now saying that that's okay and you're going to have the same requests for another one because they wanted to be treated the same way and is that what you're saying Ladd? Conrad: Yeah, absolutely. Aanenson: So you need to have some concrete reasons why in this circumstance it's different. Brooks: That was sort of a car lot discussion a few months back. Peterson: I'm still back to, I think if we limit it to the winter hours and relate it back to the site being not dramatically, I don't think that this area that the site is located at is not easily.., impact. It isn't majorly impacted by lighting.., to grant a variance. During the winter time only. Sidney: I wanted to say something about the unique characteristics of their operation. They're operating in the winter, necessitating a need for lighting. Then also I was wondering, are we still sticking to 8:00 a.m. because I think sunrise to 9:00 p.m. is a better window... 34 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Peterson: Again, we're splitting hairs now so I'm open to any friendly amendment to get through this one. Conrad: I don't know that we need an amendment. We need a rationale and you know, that's so we can, the next time it comes in that we have a reason to say no. You can't do this. Then again the only reason I'm doing this is because I'm perceiving there's going to be some conservation easements. I'm looking for some, the rationale. If the next one can't, probably do the same stuff} okay. So bear with me and somebody's going to have to make sense out of this. I read the Minutes and I can't make sense out of what I said. The rationale for the variance Craig, as I understand it, is because the applicant. The extended hours of operation. The more I think it through it's less solid. I tie that to lights and noise so because of the great distance belween residential and this site, as separated by a highway, I find that there is rationale to allow lights and extended hours of operation. And also because of the use itself does not necessarily allow offensive type of commercial enterprise. Also the fact that, and as I said, it is surrounded by pretw closely lwo highways that have already a great deal of light pollution. And also because the applicant is considering and should actually do, restrict through either a conservation easement or a dedication of the land not being used, to the wildlife refuge as a reason to grant this. And also because this is really not an interim use permit as we typically see it. It is a longer range permit and because of that I can see granting the club house to be more of a going concern rather than an interim project. Peterson: Well said. Brooks: Okay, I have one we could try and try to explain the golf thing. This is the best I can do. I move the Planning Commission recommends variance 98-1 for extended hours of operation from October 1st through April 1st from sunrise to 9:00 p.m. for the purposes of teaching and practicing golf from interior dugouts. The point is to prevent other golf courses, and approval of the square footage of the office/clubhouse to 986 square feet as per the site plan and the findings in the staff report. Aanenson: So you're going to use the pitch and putt, you're using the driving ranges? Brooks: I'm trying to find something unique about this that would prevent, and that's the only thing I could think of is they're coming in with these little dugouts and hitting. Peterson: I would withdraw my motion and caveat your motion with the narrative that Ladd presented. His rationale for that site. Brooks: We move with Ladd's stuff2 Joyce: Okay, that will mn. Do we have a second? Burton: Second. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Brooks moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approve of Variance 98-1 for extended hours of operation from sunrise to 9:00 p.m. to nm from October 1st through April 1st for the purposes of teaching and practicing golf from interior dugouts, and approval of the square footage of the office/clubhouse to 986 square feet as per the site plan and the fmdings in the staff report based on the rationale to allow lights and extended hours of operation is because the use itself does not necessarily allow offensive type of commercial enterprise. The fact that it is surrounded by pretty closely by two highways that have already a great deal of light pollution. Because the applicant is considering and should actually do, restrict through either a conservation easement or a dedication of the land not being used, to the wildlife refuge as a reason to grant this. And because it is really not an interim use permit as typically seen but a longer range permit. All voted in favor, except Biackowiak who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Blackowiak: The lights. Joyce: Not a light person. Okay, that passes somehow. Last item on our list here, the wetland alteration permit. Peterson: i'll be daring and try it again, i move recommending the Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #98-1 per the site plan and the following conditions, 1 through 6. Blackowiak: i'll second that. Joyce: Okay. Is there any discussion on that? Peterson moved, Biackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #98-1 per the site plan and subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall provide a buff'er zone between wetlands the limits of the pitch and putt golf course. Wetland Conservation Act and the City of Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan requirements. The applicant receive permits from the jurisdiction agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers and the DNR. The applicant shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Type iii erosion control fencing will be required around the existing wetlands. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Wetland buff'er areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will provide wetland buff'er edge signs and charge the applicant $20 per sign. The applicant shall verify the location of these signs with the City's Water Resources Coordinator and shall install these signs before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Wetland buff'er areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buff'er edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Joyce: Those motions have all carried. This will be up in front of the City Council on July 13th, is that correct Kate? Aanenson: That's correct. Joyce: Okay. Thank you all for coming. Good luck. Is there anything else we need to do Kate? NEW BUSINESS AND OLD BUSINESS: Aanenson: Yeah, I just had a couple things under new business and old business. Under new business, I did hand out the strategic plan for the City Council. Just for your edification, we're still working and it's an evolving document but I wanted to give you a chance to read it. I think this would be appropriate.., put this in the comprehensive plan. Segway for my next item. Old business. Thanks for attending the work session. I think it was very productive. We'll be working on some issues to address. We did meet with the school district and they are looking at the possibility of two other elementary schools and a high school in the area so we're looking at that. If they consume all of the acreage that they want for those schools, that kind of solves the residential problem. So we're kind of looking at their numbers and making sure they're realistic as far as their projections. And they did have a professional.., so we'll just make sure we're... I'm looking for a follow-up meeting with the City Council either July 20th, or August 3rd. If you want to pencil those two dates in. The good news is we will not have a City Council meeting on the 15th. Excuse me, a Planning Commission meeting on July 15th. Normally we don't have this one so our applications fell such that we will not have a meeting on July 15th, so the 20th of July or August 3rd we'll have another follow-up of the work session of the comp plan. Blackowiak: Kate, excuse me Kate. The July 29th then is out for, that wasn't going to work? Because I can't make either the 20th or the 3rd. Aanenson: Okay. Brooks: I can't make the 20th but I can make the 3rd. Conrad: I can't make the 3rd. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Joyce: You're talking about City Council meeting now? Aanenson: Oh, we did talk about possibly making it on the 29th, a planning commission meeting. That's an option too. It would be an off planning. If we didn't meet the 15th, we would meet on the 29th. And then the next regular one would be on August 5th so that's a possibility too. If that works. We'll try to keep you informed. I guess that's all I had. Oh, just going back to the draft. So when we meet again, that might be an opportunity to discuss the strategic plan and the comprehensive plan and how we can use those two together. So we will not be together again until either the comp plan or that August meeting. That's all I had. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Peterson noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 17, 1998 as presented. Vice Chairman Joyce adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 38