The URL can be used to link to this page

5 RSS Golf Improvement Center - Z =:t :..> J l;' 1- ::( CITY 0 F CHAHHASSEH 5, P.C. DATE: July I, 1998 C.C. DATE: July 13, 1998 CASE: 98-8 SPR, 98-2 CUP, 98-2 WP, 98-1 V AR, 98-2 ZOA, 98-1 WET STAFF REPORT PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: Conditional Use Permit for Alteration of a Flood Plain Interim Use Permit for a Golf & Driving Range Site Plan Review for a Golf & Driving Range Variances to section 20-265 (2) hours of operation Code Amendment to Allow Resta~t and Pro Shop Wetland Alteration Permit for impact of.43 acres Just south of Trunk Highway 169/212 at Hwy. 101 RSS Jeff Helstrom and Chris Bixler c/o Perma Green, Inc. 8276 Scandia Road Waconia, MN 55387 7 PROPOSAL: 1) 2) 3). 4) 5) 6) LOCATION: APPLICANT: :( - ~ LJ - - ? A2, Agricultural Estate District 90 acres N - A2, northeast BF District W-A2 E-A2 S- A2 WATER AND SEWER: Not available. PHYSICAL CHARACTER: 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Wetland and flood plain on most of the property. A portion of the property is being farmed. House and barn on subject site, barn is in flood plain. Property is seasonally flooded. Parks and Open Space and Large Lot Residential Golf Improvement Center July I, IQ98 Page 2 PROPOSAL ISlMMARY 'The applicants,J.He~.IIld;dri.BiJder" aterequestiftJ~..,aOolf~ c.ter,which iDel1ldes.'goIHti~~-'.'chip aw;fJUtf'~;'~~iI!,kk*ted in. the southwest comer ofHwy. 169/212 and Hwy. 101. This area is zoned A-2 Agricultural Estate District and is guided for Parks, Open Space orlJ.arg'~9\'.atiS.tial.~golfsqu1Wldriving ranges is an interim use in the A-2 District. The subject site is loCated next to the ~mnesota Rivet Wildlife M~entArea (~AttactftJ;ltmts'))). 'IbC"DNR'atldFishand'Wildlife Service have commented on the proposal. . The Golf Improvement Center includes two driving ranges, a pitch and putt course a mini-putt course and a office/clubhouSe shop. The driving ranges are 100 yardswitie by 275 yards deep and 65 yards wide by 255 yards deep. The pitch and putt coursecornprises 9 holes. The hours of operation will be from 8:00a.m. to 9:00 p.m. daily. . There will be 34 full time employees and ultimately have 75-100 custome~s a day. All but the parking, mini-putt one of the pitch and putt holes and the existing home are in the Flood Plain. A portion of one of the driving ranges is in the wetland. A wetland alteration permit is being recommended for approval. The 'land SouthofHwy. 169/212 is never proposed to have sewer. The majority of the property is in the floOdplain ana good planning practices are to avoid or minimize impacts of development in the area. The site is adjacent to Assumption Creek which is a unique water resource. Future land use designation in this area has been guided as ,low density or open space specifically to protect the surrounding environmental resources. Staffhas struggled to review this development because the golfdIiving range use as currently described in the city code is a temporary use. It allowed on agiiculturallandUrttil such time that the a higher or better use is permitted generally at the time when urban services are provided. The only other golf driving range /miniature gold in the city is Swings. It is smaller in scale, is limited to day time use and has no nets along the perimeter. This application is seeking an office/clubhouse, restaurant with sale of alcohol, a year round driving range with 60 foot high nets and lights, a pitch and putt course aU' in' an environmentally sensitive area. In order to approve the use, the applicant is seeking a variance and a code amendment. Staff believes that a golfuse is a reasonable use of the property but wants to ensure that this use will be compatible with the surrounding area. This proposal is really more than a temporary use. It has the characteristic of a permanent commercial operation. The applicant has made modifications to the site plan in an attempt to address staffs concerns. Following are the applicable ordinances: . Section 20..31 Variances in conjunction with interim use permits . Section 20-41 - 20-20-45 Amendment to Zoning Ordinance . Section 20-1 1 o Standard for site Plan Review . Section 20-232 Conditional Use Permit - General Issuance Standards . Section 20-265 Standards for Golf Driving Ranges. ;....--. Golf Improvement Center July 1, 1998 Page 3 · Section 20-351 Conditional Use Permit for activity in the General Flood Plain. · Section 20-381-384 Interim Use Permits · Section 20-40720-418 Wetland Alteration and Permitting. · Section 20-576 Interim Use in the A-2 District - Golf driving ranges with or without miniature golf courses. UPDATE June 3, 1998 This item appeared before the Planning Commission on June 3, 1998. After discussion on numerous issues; ultimately the commission tabled action. The applicant and staff were directed by the commission to meet with the DNR and U.S. Fish and Wildlife to address the impact issues. On June 11 th the applicant as well as their engineer, Kevin Bigalke, and Ceil Strauss from the MnDNR, Terry Schreiner, Manager of the Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge, and Loyd Mitchell of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and city staff met to discuss the issues raised at the Planning Commission meeting. Much of the discussion centered around water quality and wetland impacts. There was consensus that the applicants should have a fertilizer and pesticide management plan to ensure minimal chemical impacts to the surrounding property. In addition, the applicant shall provide annual soil samples before chemicals are applied to demonstrate there is a need. The applicants have provided a fertilizer and pesticide management plan that staff supports. It was discussed that the proposed use is not a similar land use to the surrounding area. While it was noted that golf was an interim use in the A-2 zoning district, conditions to mitigate the impacts could be applied. A proposed recommendation was made that there be 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. The lights are still an issue. The applicant was to provide staff with views of the lights as seen from different perspectives including State Hwys. 101 and 212. The DNR is recommending that the lights be eliminated because they are not a part of the guidelines for the valley. Staff is still recommending against lights. Subsequent to the meeting, staff has modified the conditions of approval to mitigate the impacts of the proposal. Also see attached letter dated June 22, 1998 from the Minnesota DNR Forestry Division. July 1, 1998 At the July 1st Planning Commission meeting, there was discussion regarding the updates since their last meeting. Residents of the Hesse Farm Subdivision were also in attendance. Golf Improvement Center July 1, 1998 Page 4 The Planning Commission did recommend approval of the of the site plan, alteration of the flood plain, code amendment and variance as amended in the conditions of approval. BACKGROUND The subject site is approximately 90 acres and the vast majority of the property is in the flood plain of the Minnesota River. This means the site is subject to periodic flooding. This area is defined by the FEMA map as a Zone A, which means the flood elevation has not been established (see Attachment A). The applicant must apply to FEMA for a map amendment the establish the elevation. There is a creek (Assumption Seminary Creek) on site and a large wetland located on the eastern portion of the site which is under the jurisdiction of the DNR. While the creek is not adjacent to the GolfImprovement Center, branches of the creek are found throughout the subject site. The city's wetland inventory shows this area as a natural wetland which requires a 75' principal structure setback and a 40 foot buffer strip. The subject site is one of the few parcels not included in the Minnesota River "Raguet" Wildlife Management Area (see Attachment D). The subject site is in the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management primary zone. This entire property has been identified as an area whose development pattern needs to be sensitive to the watershed, including the wetland and the creek. The City Council has not adopted the Bluff Creek Overlay District but has approved the first reading. The management plan did an inventory of some of the natural resources in the area including vegetation and wildlife (see Attachment E). The site is a farmstead where a home and barn still remain on the property. A portion of the property has been farmed although the limits of the farming activity is limited to the water level. Last April (1997), the majority of the property was flooded when the Minnesota River flooded. The home on the site is proposed to be remodeled for an office/clubhouse and the barn is proposed to be removed to move the driving range out of the wetland. Both of these buildings , ; p~ed to meet building codes and the issues raised by the Building Official. Access to the site is via a new traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 101 and Hwy. 169/212. A drive access to the existing home was put in place by MnDOT during installation of the signal. WETLANDS Existing Conditions The proposed site is surrounded by natural wetlands and DNR protected wetlands 10-222w to the west and 10-221 w to the east. These wetlands are part of larger wetland basin which surround the site from the all sides excluding the north (Hwy 212). These wetlands have been classified ag/urban by the City of Chanhassen due to previous agricultural activities, but are connected to Golf Improvement Center July 1, 1998 Page 5 flood plain basins along the Minnesota River which have important natural features such as calcareous fens, trout streams and wildlife habitat. The site itself is currently used for agricultural activities and it is difficult to determine if the crop rows are within the wetland boundary. The applicant has provided the City with a delineation report which was completed in March, which is not the ideal time to determine wetland boundaries. Staffhas met with the applicant and a revised wetland delineation, conducted in May, has been submitted to the City and has been accepted by staff as a valid and accurate account of wetlands on the site. Wetland Impacts The proposed wetland impacts are 0.43 acres. While there is no filling of wetlands proposed, parts of the driving range and fences fall within wetland boundaries. Wetland impacts would be the disturbance of wetland caused by fence posts and by turf maintenance and ball retrieval within the wetland. The applicant has attempted to reduce the impacts by keeping the driving ranges north towards Hwy. 212, into the upland. Wetland mitigation The applicant has proposed a mitigation site of 0.86 acres, west of the summer driving range. This mitigation is proposed to be a seasonally flooded area and restored with native wetland plantings. In addition to meeting mitigation requirements, the applicant is also proposing to meet the City's wetland buffer requirements. The plan proposes a 20 foot wide wetland buffer across most of the site and 0 feet within the driving range area. This creates an area above the 10 foot wide average required on Ag\urban wetlands. GRADING. DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL The site, for the most part, has been employed in agricultural use in the past. There are areas of trees and vegetation which will be impacted by the grading. Minimal grading is proposed to develop the parking lot, golf tees and greens. A landscape earth berm approximately two feet high is proposed along Trunk Highway 212. The proposed grading activities include construction of berms, golf tees, greens, ponds and parking lot. Some of these activities are proposed within the flood plain which is typically flooded every other spring. The fill proposed within the flood plain to develop the golf greens and tees is proposed to be compensated on site by excavating equal volume from adjacent areas. The applicant needs to demonstrate on the plans specifically where the compensation will occur and how much. Importing or exporting material for site development is not anticipated except for construction of the parking lot. The site generally sheet drains from the north to the south into the backwaters of the Minnesota River valley. Approximately 75% of the site is subject to annual flooding. Given the use, a high amount of chemical fertilizers may be used on the greens and driving tees. From water quality standpoint, all the runoff will eventually be directed into the Minnesota River valley/wetland. A sediment pond is proposed to pretreat most of the storm water runoff from the parking lot. The other ponds are proposed within the flood plain. These ponds are more of an aesthetic value and Golf Improvement Center July 1, 1998 Page 6 for compensating the filling within the flood plain. Detailed drainage and ponding calculations are required to verify the pond sizes in accordance with NURP standards. The outlet control structure proposed in the sediment basin for the parking lot runoff (baffle weir structure) will need to be replaced with an outlet control structure in accordance with the City's detail plate number 3109. Drainage calculations for the ditch along the east property line are also needed to verify the ditch design. Erosion control measures such as rock filter dikes, temporary rock construction entrance and silt fence are being employed throughout the site. The rock construction entrance needs to be relocated further south along the driveway where the bituminous ends. Additional silt fence needs to be shown adjacent to the berm and practice green No.1 in the northwest comer of the site. Temporary and/or permanent erosion control measures should be incorporated such as wood fiber blankets and riprap to prevent erosion into the sediment pond in the northeast comer of the site. In conjunction with seasonal flooding the light poles, golf tees, greens, nets and ponds within the flood plain will be subject to damage or completely obliterated. The light pole foundations can be designed and constructed to withstand most floods. The question is raised how often will the site be impacted and how many times will it be rebuilt. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is not available to the site. According to the plans, the existing dwelling is on a septic system. The existing well on the site has not been identified on the plans and will need to be. The existing septic site should be evaluated to see if it is functioning properly. An alternative mound site will also need to be located and preserved prior to any construction activities commencing. STREETS Access to the site is from Trunk Highway 212 at a signalized intersection. Currently, there is a 24-foot wide bituminous driveway from Trunk Highway 212 servicing the existing dwelling. The plans propose a parking lot with future parking expansion capabilities. There are no landscape islands proposed to break up the sea of asphalt. Staff recommends adding some landscape islands. City Code 20-1118 typically requires establishments of this nature to have paved parking areas and drive aisles with concrete curb and gutter or bituminous curbs to direct runoff into a storm water drainage collection system. However, given the nature of the use, staff believes it would be appropriate to allow sheet drainage across the parking lot and only install curbing along the north side of the parking lot where appropriate to direct stormwater runoff into the pond. All of the storm water improvements will be private and not maintained by the City. Some assurances should be incorporated in the interim use permit requiring annual maintenance by the applicant. Should the maintenance not be performed, the City shall have the authority to hire out the work and bill the applicant. Golf Improvement Center July 1, 1998 Page 7 MISCELLANEOUS The site is bordered by a wildlife refuge. The proposed fencing along the driving range may adversely affect wildlife and waterfowl migration in the area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, DNR and other agencies should be consulted regarding this use and its impacts. SITE PLAN REVIEW The site plan review is limited to review of the office/clubhouse parking and permitted landscaping. The existing home is proposed to be remodeled and used for an office/clubhouse and the existing barn is proposed to be removed. The standards for golf ranges states that buildings shall not exceed 800 square feet and be painted an earth tone. The applicants are seeking a variance for the size of the office/clubhouse. The office/clubhouse will have hours of operation from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. daily. The house will remain as it is except to be upgraded to meet ADA requirements and a deck will be added. The applicants have shown two site plans. Plan #1 is 1,500 square feet. Staff believes that this is too large. Plan #2 is 986 square feet. This proposal still needs a variance because the maximum square foot for a building is 800 square feet. On interior of the office/clubhouse there will be an indoor putting green, a snack bar and a fireplace with tables. In the summer, there will be seating available on the deck. The standards for the district require that the building be earth tones. The staff is recommending the building be painted brown. Proposed parking is in two phases. The first phase will have parking for 56 cars in additional parking is needed there is room for 27 more stalls. There are no lights shown for the parking lot or on the building. All lighting must be submitted to the staff for review and approval. All lighting shall be downcast. Landscaping should be placed on the eastern side of the parking lot to screen the lot. The barns is now proposed to be tom down and any new maintenance building for the storage of equipment and chemical shall be located out of the flood plain. Building code requirements The occupancy classification of the existing building will be changed from an R-3 occupancy to a B or M occupancy. The building code requires a building be brought up to code when a change in its use occurs. Likely areas where code deficiencies may occur include, exiting, accessibility, access to other levels, and separations. Accessibility requirements may include site issues that should be addressed before site plans are finalized. Building issues can be resolved during the building code plan review process. Accessibility. The submitted plans do not indicate an accessible route from the parking lot to the accessible building entrance. Accessible parking is also shown incorrectly. An eight foot wide van access aisle and signage is required; two accessible parking stalls are required; accessible signage is required at the head of parking stalls and access aisles. Section 20-110, Standards for Site Plan Review, of the City Code states the Planning Commission and the City Council shall consider compliance with the following: 1. Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guidelines, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping and other plans that may be adopted; Golf Improvement Center July 1, 1998 Page 8 2. Consistency with this division; 3. Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed or developing area; 4. Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; 5. Creations of a functional and harmonious design for structures and site feature, with special attention to the following; . an internal sense of order for the buildings and uses on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; . the amount and location of open space and landscaping; . material, textures, colors and details of construction as a expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with the adjacent and neighboring structures and uses and; . vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, with of interior drives and access pints, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. 6. Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through the reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. 7. Within the HC districts, consistency with the purpose, intent and standards of the HC districts. Finding: The existing home should be remodeled consistent with Plan #2 for 986 square feet if the variance is granted to allow for the larger size otherwise the home shall be limited to the 800 square feet. The barn shall be tom down to allow for the driving range and any new maintenance building shall be located outside of the flood plain. The building shall be painted brown. A lighting plan shall be submitted to the city for approval. Outdoor music and lighting shall be minimal to protect the surrounding environment. SIGNAGE The applicant is proposing a 64' by 16' high sign. The ordinance only permits a monument sign 24 square feet in area and 5 feet high in the A-2 District. Anything larger requires a variance. The sign appears to be in the MnDOT right-of-way and should be relocated. Signage shall be as per city code, Section 20, Article XXVI. LANDSCAPING Minimum canopy coverage requirements for the proposed development is 10% , or 2.07 acres. Existing canopy coverage for the site is 8.5%, or 1.76 acres. According to plans, the applicant is proposing to remove .62 acres of existing canopy coverage, leaving 1.14 acres. Since the remaining canopy coverage is less than the required 2.07 acres, a multiplier of 1.2 is used to Golf Improvement Center July 1, 1998 Page 9 calculate the required replacement plantings. The difference (2.07 acres - 1.14 acres) times 1.2 equals 48,787 S.F., or 1.12 acres. One replacement tree provides 1,089 of canopy coverage, therefore the applicant will be required to plant 45 trees within the proposed development. A buffer yard planting will be required along T.H. 212. According to city ordinance, buffer yard 'B' will be required at a 30' standard. For every 100', one overstory tree, 2 understory trees, and 2 shrubs will be required. Frontage along T.H. 212 measures approximately 575 feet. Minimum required buffer yard planting totals are 6 overstory trees, 12 understory trees, and 12 shrubs. Applicant's landscape plan meets the minimum requirements for the bufferyard plantings. Parking lot landscaping requirements for the 18,000 square feet of parking area, not including the future expansion, include 1,440 square feet of landscape area, 1 island or peninsula for every 6,000 s.f. of parking area, and 6 overs tory trees. General Flood Plain Section 20-351 of the City Codes states that a conditional use permit shall be issued by the city council in conformity the with provisions of this chapter prior to the erection, addition or alteration on any building, structure or land, prior to the change of a nonconforming use and prior to the placement of fill or excavation of materials within the flood plain. 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. 2. Will be consistent with the objective of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained as to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing t existing or planed neighboring uses. 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the person or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. Will not involve activities, processes, material equipment and conditions of operations that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise smoke, fumes, glare, odors rodents, or trash. 8. Will nor result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic of historic features of major significance. 9. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. 10. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. 11. Will meet the standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article Golf Improvement Center July 1, 1998 Page 10 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. If the property is subject to regular flooding, staff may require the elimination of the driving range. Section 20-384 states that an interim use shall terminate on the happening: 1. The date stated in the permit; 2. Upon violation of conditions under which the permit was issued; 3. Upon a change in the city's zoning regulations which renders the use nonconforming. Staff is recommending annual review of the site to ensure compliance with conditions. Standards for golf driving ranges with or without a miniature golf course: 1. The location of the driving range is limited to being adjacent to TH 5 and TH 212 and access must be from a collector or arterial witch leads to TH 5 or TH 212. 2. Hours of operations shall be from sunrise to sunset. 3. Provision of adequate parking areas and submission of landscaping plan in conformance with article VIII of the zoning ordinance (section 20-1124). 4. Building on the site may not exceed eight (800) square feet and shall be painted in earth tones. The applicant is requesting a variance to two of the standards of this section. The location of the operation is adjacent the TH 212. The landscaping plan is in conformance with the zoning ordinance. If the two variances are approved, the plan would be approved, otherwise the building square footage will have to be reduced and the hours of operation will be limited to sunrise and sunset. Code Amendment The applicants are requesting a office/clubhouse as a part of the golf improvement center. As , 'currently defined in the city code, a golf driving range/miniature golf is a recreational use. The use does not allow for the clubhouse. The applicant's proposal calls for a retail store where golf related items can be purchased and a seating area where snacks and beer can be bought. Staff would support the pro shop retail portion of the request and the snack bar if the beverage is limited to soft drinks and no alcohol, and food is limited to prepackaged items. Staff would recommend the following amendment Section 20-265: 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. Golf Improvement Center July 1, 1998 Page 11 Variance The applicant is requesting two variances to Section 20-256, Standard for Golf Driving Ranges. The first request is for hours of operation and the other is for the area of the office/clubhouse. The hours of operation are from sunrise to sunset. The maximum square foot of the building site shall not exceed 800 square feet. The applicant is requesting a variance that would allow the driving range to be open year round. This means the area would have to have lights. The proposed building is 986 square feet. The proposed lighting system would be in operation approximately 3-4 hours per night. The applicants have stated the lighting would be downcast and shine toward the hitting area but to date there are no specifications to back this up. The proposed light standards are 40 and 50 feet high and are located on the perimeters of the driving range. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: The applicant has use of the property without the night time use. Because the house is existing and the deck appears a reasons use with the golf staff is recommending approve of the house to allow the 986 square feet. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: There is only one or two other golf operations in the city and neither of them have a night time use. Bluff Creek does have a pro shop/clubhouse. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The hours of operations request of the night time use is based on the desire to derive more income from the property. Staff is supporting the office/clubhouse variance because of the pre-existing condition. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The extension of hours is a self created hardship. The home is a pre-existing condition. Golf Improvement Center July 1, 1998 Page 12 e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: There is insufficient information on the impacts of the lights for the subject site and adjoining property. Again, the house is pre-existing. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: There is insufficient evidence on the impacts of the lights. The lights are part of the request for extended hours of operation. The house is pre-existing. Staff supports the variance for the office/clubhouse from 800 square feet to 986 square feet as shown on the site plan and sketch plan #2. Staff is recommending denial of the request for hours beyond sunrise to sunset. This is an environmental sensitive area. There is insufficient evidence to mitigate the impact of light standards 40 and 50 feet high. INTERIM USE PERMIT The purpose and intent of the Interim Use Permit is: 1. To allow a use for a brief period of time until a permanent location is obtained or while the permanent location is under construction, and 2. To allow a use that is presently acceptable but that with anticipated development will it be acceptable in the future. Section 20-382 of the city code states "an application for an IUP must include at a minimum a site plan that clearly illustrates the following: proposed land use, building and functions, circulation and parking areas, planting areas and treatment, sign locations and type, lighting, the relationship of the proposed project to neighboring uses, environment impacts and demand for municipal services." The planning commission shall recommend an interim use permit and the council shall issue interim permits only if it finds that such use at the proposed location: 1. Meets the standards of a conditional use permit set forth in section 20-232 of the City Code, which are: . Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. Finding: If the plans are modified to address staffs concerns, the standard can be met. Golf Improvement Center July 1, 1998 Page 13 . Will be consistent with the objective of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. Finding: The comprehensive plan designates this area as large lot residential or parks and open space. The property is zoned A-2. A golf course is an interim use in the A-2 District. Conditions can be attached to modify the impact. . Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained as to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. Finding. By adding the nets and lights to an environmentally sensitive area will change the character of the area. Staff is recommending that additional study be done on wildlife migration and the impacts of the lights and the nets be considered to be lowered as proposed by Fish and Wildlife. Wildlife gates should be left in place in the nets as proposed by the applicant. · Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. Finding: 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. . Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the person or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Finding: The site does have access from State Hwy. 212. MnDOT is recommending that the driveway be widened. A permit from MnDOT is required. · Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Finding: The use of the site is limited by the flood plain and the wetlands. This use should not be expanded so additional public facilities should not be needed. · Will not involve activities, processes, material equipment and conditions of operations that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise smoke, fumes, glare, odors rodents, or trash. Golf Improvement Center July 1, 1998 Page 14 Finding: The primary use of the site is recreational use and outdoor music and speaker system is prohibited. . Will nor result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenice of historic features of major significance. Finding: There is an old barn on the property but it is in poor condition and is in the flood plain. It is being removed to locate an additional driving range. . Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. Finding: The majority of this area is a wildlife refuge. As stated in the letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service dated May 13, 1998, "the Service considers the project area vicinity to contain extremely high-value natural resources, including lands owned and managed by two public natural resource agencies, high-quality wetlands and associated fish and wildlife habitat, the active flood plain of the Minnesota River (a high-priority conservation area), and high aesthetic qualities... The Service has concerns about siting the proposed facility in such an area with regards to potentially detrimental impacts to area wetlands." Staff is also concerned with the impacts of this use to the surrounding property. Fish and Wildlife is recommending the net for the driving range be 40 feet high and the applicant is proposing the height at 60 feet. The service is also recommending that the height of the fence be 4.5 foot above the ground. The applicant is proposing a wildlife gate. Light standards of 40 and 50 feet are proposed throughout the driving range area. (See Proposed Lighting Plan). The lights are necessary only if the applicant is given a variance for the extended hours of operation. . Will not depreciate surrounding property values. Finding: Same as previous finding. . Will meet the standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. 1. Conforms to the zoning regulations 2. The use is allowed as an interim use in the zoning district 3. The date of the event that will eliminate the use and can be identified with certainty. 4. The use will not impose additional costs on the public to take the property in the future; and 5. The use agrees to any conditions that the city council deems appropriate for permission of the use. Golf Improvement Center July 1, 1998 Page 15 Finding Staff is recommending approval of the interim use with conditions. The request for additional hours is not recommended for approval by the staff. The applicants may request a variance at a later date if they have additional information that could mitigate the impact. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Approval #98-8 for a golf improvement center, including Interim 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 June 22, 1998 and subject to the following conditions: 1. The building shall be painted brown. 2. Lighting for general area will be limited to four poles, 30 feet high with two lights per pole for a total of eight lights and 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. 4. 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. 5. Landscape plan shall be revised to include 3 landscaped islands or peninsulas and 6 overstory trees for the parking lot. 6. 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. 7. 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, modified to change the one fence from 50 to 20 feet. Wildlife gates should be left in place in the nets as proposed by the applicant 8. 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. 9. MnDOT is recommending that the driveway be widened. A permit from MnDOT is required. 10. 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. Golf Improvement Center July 1, 1998 Page 16 11. 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. 12. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e., 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. 13. No berming, drainage improvements or landscaping will be allowed within Trunk Highway 212 right-of-way. 14. 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. 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. 1. 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 Golf Improvement Center July 1, 1998 Page 1 7 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 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." Code Amendment "The Planning Commission recommends approval of 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 cooA7ng appliance allowed. Retail sales is limited to golf related items and the pro shop. " Variance "The Planning Commission recommends on Variance #98-1 denial on the request for extended hours of operation and approval of the square footage of the office/club house to 986 square feet as per the site plan and the findings in the staff report." Wetland Alteration Permit "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #98-1 per the site plan and the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide a buffer zone between wetlands the limits of the pitch and putt golf course. 2. Wetland Conservation Act and the City ofChanhassen Surface Water Management Plan requirements. 3. The applicant receive permits from the jurisdiction agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers and the DNR . 4. 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. Golf Improvement Center July 1, 1998 Page 18 5. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will provide wetland buffer 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. 6. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign." ATTACHMENTS 1. The subject site is located next to the Minnesota River Wildlife Management Area (see Attachments A & B). A. FEMA map as a Zone A B. Zoning map. C. Land use map. D. Wildlife Management area map. E. Bluff Creek Management Plan inventory F. Application G. Acorn Environmental Consultants, Wetland Delineation Report dated April 2, 1998. H. Memo from Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer dated May 28, 1998. I. Memo from Steve Kirchman, Building Official dated April 28, 1998. J. Letter from DNR dated May 4, 1998. K. Letter from Fish and Wildlife dated May 13, 1998, June 26, 1998 & July 2, 1998. L. Letter from MnDOT dated May 1, 1998. M. Letter to Hesse Farm property owners. N. Planning Commission minutes dated June 3, 1998. O. Letter from Friends of the Minnesota Valley dated June 26, 1998. g:\plan\ka\golf imp center!. pc.doc m~R Forestry Fax:612-772-7599 ]un 22 '98 14:07 F'. 02/04 Mi~nesota Departlnent of Nafilral Resources Metro - Waters, 1200 Warner Rd~ 81. Paul, rv.t:N 55106 Phone: (612)772-6152, Fax: (612)772-7977 ' June 11, 1998 Ms. Kathryn A. Aanenson City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Dr. P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Planning Case: 98-2 CUP and 98-8 Site Plan, RSS Golf Improvement Center~ Assumption Creek and Public Water Wetland 10-221 W~ City ofChanhassen, Carver County DeaiMs. Aanenson: Ceil Strauss and I have discussed the topics considered at the June 11, 1998 meeting about the development plans by RSS Golf Improvement Center. Following are specific comments on the changes made to the development plans: 1. We are concerned that the property is in close proximity to Assumption Creek, vvhich is officially designated by the DNR Commissioner as a trout stream. We feel that the proposed development is an adequate distance from the creek. Soil tests should be taken every year prior to fertilizer application. The organic fertilizer to be used is fine. The 2-4-D based herbicide is a concern. An alternative should be used. We recommend the developers to have a nutrientlpesticidelherbicide management plan for the facility with annual reports produced regarding the application rates, application periods, and methods. 2. We want to be assured that the no mow/ no impact huffer will be established. Tbis will aid in reducing runoff from the development. 3. Federal, state, and local floodplain regulations need to be addressed in the floodplain of the Minnesota River. The plan does show the 1 OO-year flood elevation, and most of the proposed grading is within the floodplain. No net change in the flood storage area within the flOOdplain is shown, however, the alterations within the floodway need to be analyzed to ensure the changes in the floodplain cross-section does not increase the flood stage upstream or downstream of the project area. 4. TIle stormwater treatment issues expressed earlier have been addressed. We are still concerned about nmoff, but feel that the storage pond near the parking lot addresses those concems. DNR InfoI1l)<llion: 612-296-6157. I-SOO-766-6000 . Try: 612.24i6-5484, H~OO-()57-3929 An Equal Or>N~wl1ity El"p"'l'~r ft Priri;c:J on Rcc\.\:J..:d P(J.:"l;:-r CDllL:il~il1~,;J. .. . .. ;, . \v\".., \'...1"...~ "';...._..;... DNR Forestrlj Fax:612-772-7599 Jun 22 '98 14:07 P.03/04 Ms. Kathryn A Aanens011 June 22, 1998 Page 2 5. The proposed changes to net height are satisfactory. The proposed net height of 4.5 feet off the ground is adequate for wildlife to pass under them. The divided sections of net also will enable wildlife to get out of the netted area. However, there are still concerns about the impacts of the vertical height of the nets on birds. If you have not already received COlmnents fi..om DNR Non-game Wildlife Manager Joan Galli, she should be contacted for input at 297-2277. 6- With the removal of the areas of futnre expansion, the need for additional se'wage treatment and stormwater treatment have been eliminated. 7. We feel that the areas not developed should be allowed to return to its natural condition with no further development allowed. We would recommend the developers consider an easement donation of the undeveloped areas to the Department of Natural Resources or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the future. 8. The proposed use of lights are a major concern. Tills does not follow the recreation plan guidelines for the valley. \Ve recommend that lights not be allowed at this time. 9. A final concern is the general compatibility of the proposed golf facility with the sun'()Ullding area and landuse. This proposed development is not of similar landuse to the surrounding area. 10. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Mhmesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan and Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year~ a DNR appropriations pennit is needed. You are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. This will NOT be a routine permit application when the site is near a calcareous fen. c. Construction activities which disturb five acres ofland, or more, are required to apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Dan Sullivan @ 296- 7219). m.1R Forestr!:j Fax:612-772-7599 ]un 22 '98 14:08 P.04/04 Ms. Kathryn A. Aanenson June 22, 1998 Page 3 d. Except as noted above, the comments in this letter address DNR -Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Please contact me at 772-6152, Ceil Strauss at 772-7914, Or Hannah Dlmevitz at 772-7570 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, ~~;t Kevin Bigalk:e MN D~TR Metro Trout Stream Watershed Coordinator cc: DNR Waters, Ceil Sirauss DNR Ecological Services, Wayne Barstad, Hannah DlUlevitz DNR Wildlife, Joan Galli DNR Fisheries, Mike Halverson, Jason Moeckel Lower Milmesota River Watershed District, Larry Samstad Roger i\.nderson, Project Consultant Golf Improvement Center April 29, 1998 Page 14 '\' II \,\\t,'r c,~ ~ .. ... v-y ~1~1(7A..1 ~n a,n1 P1 t;; .- irZZ..f" . Will meet the standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. 1. Confonns to the zoning regulations 2. The use is allowed as an interim use in the zoning district 3. The date of the event that will eliminate the use and can be identified with certainty. 4. The use will not impose additional costs on the public to take the property in the future; and 5. The use agrees to any conditions that the city council deems appropriate for permission of the use. Finding Staff is recommending approval of the interim use with conditions. The request for ~ a ditional hours is not recommended for approval by the staff. The applicants may request a. ~ . anee at a later date if they have additional information that could mitigate the impact. t/" f., \) '" RECOMr\1ENDATION The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Approval #98-8 for a golf improvement center, including Interim Use Permit #98~2 to allow golfand 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: .~ ~"\ ,,~o~ 1. 2. ..~ V") 'I'. ",'to ,frI' \,"J ~\ --0 j..~ 3 ~' ..,ot/" . ~~ 4 -~"..~ . oJ' ,-,0 , ; ,,'. The building shall be painted brown. There are no lights shown for the parking lot or on the building. All lighting must be submitted to the staff for review and approval. AU lighting shall be downcast. Landscaping should be placed on the eastem side of the parking lot to screen the lot The barns is now proposed to be tom down and any new maintenance building for the storage of equipment and chemical shall be located out of the flood plain, Signage shall be as per City Code section 20 Article XXVI. The applicant will be required to plant 4S 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. .~ }\S. ,J 0"" \. ~ ./ ..;f"~~~6 l~ rT . ~\{&1.1~~ .~.... ,]I .i:l" -14" ~ II" ~i'~ 7. Staff is recommending that additional study be done on wildlife migration and the "\ ~'>( (~~ . ,,'" 0 impacts of the lights and the nets be considered to be lowered as proposed by Fish and ;t' t.~),.~_..t, ,,"'...i ) Wildlife. Wildlife gates should be left in place in the nets as proposed by the applicant .r &,,," ~ t1'\ ~ ~ 0." ~" \JI' . ~ \.f The applicant will be responsible for applying for and obtaining changes to the FEMA flood plain roaps to reflect developed conditions. The applicant shall further define, graphically, the proposed flood plain boundary and provide justification for the changes. Golf Improvement Center April 29, 1998 _l..page 15 ~'\''''' "~t\ON'-g. The chemicals to be applied should be consistent with the program submitted by the ",>i' applicant. Storage of all maintenance equipment and chemicals shall be out of the flood plain. ,\ ((J... 9. :..' f\,\ o'fi' -.~ l 10. vl j.'btb 11. ,,,. .~ ~""l/' \\ O,f'" 12 ' "It, J . c-" lr \ )) -iT ...'" \ >/' { (~~ f\"\ o~ .\' ~ 13. J' 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 c.a1culations for the ponds and ditch during I O~year and 1 DO-year, 24-hour storm events in accordance with the City's Surface Watee 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 pennits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, 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 benning, drainage improvements or landscaping will be allowed within Tnmk Highway 212 right-of-way. P feSl1Dt d \ The proposed. stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10: 1 for the first ten feet at the :-r ~~-tt'\A t~~normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or .I1:~,!hroughout for safetypurposes.l. 'J ,) r - powJ':J in f'''n"e ~ ~;f i pvrt "ollvjf M< a e.' ,nn-ll f'o-nLls..#JWLS .",If ~ eI~~~.t\l 'f\--\ lAroV\ ul~h""'" ~ 't'-"v"'d""c<~ ~\-e..v^H..., At <..c.~ Iou. h...." ~)-~~ 15. The use of chemical fertilizers shall be prohibited within the flood plain. - ~- ~}.;1l~v"\ ,0"" 16. 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 fuling and excavating will occur within the flood 1\ \!\~ plain, i.e. quantities of each activity. o"'~~~ q-~' f o'tl!\jd. Show nonnal and high water elevation of each pond. u l.. of k~ ~.I' ~ C'~ ~ 'o1-!.,.JrI- / Add silt fence downstream of proposed berms and practice green No. 1 in the northwest ~Jf' comer of the site. JS- Golf Improvement Center April 29, 1998 Page 16 vi Provide temporary and/or permanent erosion control measures around sediment pond in northeast comer of the site. \... ~. t~\~ .\\ r..o'/V' i~ g. Incorporate MnDOT's comments regarding widening of the driveway at Trunk Highway -..'1 ,O-{. ~ 212 and right-of-way identification per letter dated May 21, 1998. ~' ~\~\~\-r / 1.0 al' d' d fro .. . . _11., . ~ h j)-' ~. cate temative moun slte an preserve m constIUction actiVIties. fi( ~\ o"..lJ \It ~- 1.;1' {f / Jd f)- '" vL Add landscape islands in parking lot~ y( Add curbs along north side of parking lot to direct nmoffto sediment pond* .,~~18. ~~~ " The applicant shall be responsible for maintenance of the storm drainage improvements (ponds and ditches). Failure to properly maintain the stonn drainage improvement shall give the City the right to hire out the work and bill the applicant and/or revoke the interim use permit." Code Amendment "The Planning Commission recommends approval of 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. " Variance "The Planning Commission recommends on Variance #98-1 denial on the request for extended hours of operation and approval of the square footage of the office/club house to 986 square feet as per the site plan and the findings in the staff report." Wetland Alteration Pennit "The Planning Commission reconunends approval of Wetland Alteration Pennit #98-1 per the site plan and the following conditions: ...;{. The applicant shall provide a buffer zone between wetlands the limits of the pitch and putt golf course. v'f. Wetland Conservation Act and the City of Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan requirements. Golf Improvement Center Apri129.1998 Page 17 v/3. The applicant receive permits from the jurisdiction agencies such as the Army COIpS of Engineers and the DNR . '-"""'4. The applicant shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in a~cordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Type m erosion control fencing will be required around the existing wetlands. .../ 5. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will provide wetland buffer 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 butTer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign." ATTACHMENTS 1. The subject site is located next to the Minnesota River Wildlife Management Area (see Attaclunents A & B). A. FEMA map as a ?:one A B. Zoning map. C. Land use map. D. Wildlife Management area map. E. Bluff Creek Management Plan inventory F. Application G. Acorn Environmental Consultants, WE;tliUld Delineation Report dated April 2, 1998. R Memo from Dave Hempel. Asst. City Engineer dated May 28, 1998. 1. Memo from Steve Kirchman, Building Official dated April 28, 1998. J. Letter from DNR dated May 4, 1998. K. Letter from Fish and Wildlife dated May 13, 1998. L. Letter from MnDOT dated May I. 1998. g:\phm\lca,&olf imp eemcrl. pc.doc , o 0 0 0 0 0 o 000 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CITY OF CHANHASSEN ZONING MAP RR Rural Residential District RSF Single Family Residential District R4 Mixed low Density Residential District R12 High Density Residential District PUDR Planned Unit Devel.lResidential District PUD Planned Unit Development District A2 Agricultural Preservation District CBD Central Business District BH Highway & Business District BF Fringe Business District BG General Business District BN Neighborhood Business District lOP Industrial Office Park District 01 Office & Institutional District . N E Natural Environment lake RD Recreational Development lake o HC-l - Hwy 5 Overlay District 1 o HC-2 - Hwy 5 Overlay District 2 ~ ~ J I ~~ ATTACHMENT B ~ 9000 i 9100 9200 9300 9400 , , - \ \ i 9500 9600 9700 9800 9900 100~0 -- 10100 10200 - 10300 10400 10500 10600 :0700 ~ 10800 10900 \ - I lilOO I moo~ I I \ i 11000 11300 11400 L 1..;1 ::J ---< ~ .......~~. ~if-j~._L,~:: ~-:--J:- ~ ,,' < ~.,,~ ~it~:~~:/ ::~--:---'-~" - ,- -r. \~ .... !:f{~",:"a;, .tI' . [, ~~.~~;i' 'Cot ::.., man Blvd (C.R. 1B) '~r- ,~-, I ~ -12:' RD Lakr: R ,;. ;,J'" ~ ~ " o .JJ ::l 't> ::l < A2 V.'..91S1h StNea ,~ .. I .e h.__.cw COlltr ....do,. ~ ..,t" ,I (Hwy 14) ~.,. - <tP -, ?-(~ ".:! .... I R1t~ Pi,....iew Court !h 1.""..... i"'"-,,, ~~+i It "",II' ~"-Il"O( ~ U 'h l---~ ~;~.. 0, ~! 11_ 1 J- .. ."1M>- ~".. hnrL-_. Rd___. !f .. --.\,/ RR " ~ L,a....-."'.. c') / '-> (.1_ C I i --.;a~e \-(\I\~OO uS '1\'1 f /~l1 Rice Lake A2 ~~: c.: )/ / /. ,~ //~"," , /' \\} I ./"- .;0 "~.",,,,.- I tA'\ !I 11 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2000 LAND USE PLAN ~ Residential - Large Lot * * (2.5 acre minumum 1/10 acre outside of MUSA) ~ Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4 u/Acre) ~ II O""i . . . ~ . . . ~ un ~ 'II Residential - Medium Density (Net Density Range 4 - 8 u/Acre) Residential - High Density (Net Density Range 8 - 16 u8/Acre) Commerical ~ , Office/Industrial Office Parks/Open Space Public/Semi-Public Mixed Use IJ MUSA LINE AI Proposed T.H. 212 SCALE 1 :24000 1 000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 --- FEET REVISED, l!!Euary, 1998 ~ .ftOO ~ ATTACHMENT C ,::tuw 9400 9500 9600 "00 9800 I \ 9900 \ 10000 \ "". -I r: . . 10200 I I 10300 I I I I 10400 I I I 10500 ~ 10600 \ 10700 I I ,.... ~ 10900 I 11000 11100 11200 11300 11400 L-- Riley Jl / -'L....... ~ _./ I ! :--- I I--- I i ~,~r", :;;."- ' " , " , '\ i~ ~ ATTACHMENT 0 - o ~ U r_ _ ~.""(C.... \ ?'a~! / ~ ~ I r /', \ lO i K " r- , ,,' , '~~=t-'~':I-:/\T;"L ~,~, ~ ',1 ~ ' I I : ",1-;1 I I --.. I _J ..' ~ ~ I __, ' /" t"\k, (Hwy 14) . . -:- _ l -{- , ~~ ~ I . ~.,.'. "'. ~('." ? /' '1(;; " , , 't Lake l:: - ol .,:;j"h"""'"W,,,,""","',,.... \ i .\ " . ~ 6 < ) ?J. .:- /" . " ..-, '-' ~E_"U_. -, ~;~kr ~ ~, , f ~ -, I ~~~_.,,,,,,.,,.~"'~("'''''''''''.-=''''''''='''.,''''''.'r--'-T--' <Lf'"\L l~" "p.t "1J4U~. - - i ,. _~t.&re. ! . \...., I G-i",.-. . . ,"... .{'}.,,:' A ~1. , , . . ~ ([+.::- ,:S; ~ <t-......e " ,~.qi~~o. . '-----~ ~ ,,<(>.~ .s~C~=""IP_ City of $hallD..e ../' f' o o n PI .. .. PI PI .. .. .. PI .. .. '" .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. III .. .. ... .. .. PI .. .. n .. .. PI - 'UJeJOOJd a6el!J;'H leJll1eN 'SdJJnOS;'lI leJll1eN jO 1UdWUed;'Q elOS;'UU!V\I :Slel!QeH dI\!leN 01 ;'Pln!) V :u!e/dpues e~ouv pue ,(;,/Ie^ JiMllIlQOJ) '15 S.elOSdUU!V\I :;'JJnOSdll ..,,,unwwo~ ,...na"N '0 ..".dS aU"'d UOWWO~ ..op,....O~ ,.au.wuo"JAUS Jf....~ Hn'B _ ~ x,pu.ddy w ~ Z W ::E :I: U c::( ~ ~ c::( -. .i .::: s: ~{ ~ ~ }J s- ~a ..,'" .il g,~ "- c <~ If ~l ~ t. S~ ~ :II j~ .;'! .~ c _ ~.~ ~~ c '" ~ ~ "- , ~ ~ .., . ~ ~ I Q. lJ t:l i! \:l ~ i \:l1l & ~ . ~ - - - ...~ ~ =....v::w_~ , ~ { -.---:_, _ =:: '-'l ~ _ ...::::;.::; ~ .s ~ .~ .. ~ r~ ~ ~.~.~ ~ i'~ ~ ~ ;.;~ -~ ~>.i!.~ ~ t: ~- tiii lJ .~ j ~ .~ i~! ::: ~ e. [.~ ~ '":;) 'it, ~c:~ ~ .t: VI ~ .'$.,,,= ~f~ ~ - ~QI ~!1 !j~ fj.f .:..a...o.. ~ ~ ~ :; ',.. Huwi ;~~~~~~~ ~1jilfti vQ.<d:a:::Za:::~ g . ~ .~ - -$ lw::! ~ ~ mm iSi~:5g ~!""(-:.I>' .E i ';' ~:E ~ ;; ;!J.:il.,g = Co. 'E~j~~e ~ e~:g ~~ <o~uUa:: ~ a - .~ _ ~ _:S'~ mI11111 ~ ~ iii/iiil ~~~m:iC5C:i:C - - ~ it_ "" ~ ~~ UIfU E;,~;~-l ~~g~~E ~~~&~~ b 5 E ~ ! ~ ! ~ - ~ ~ J:r.i: ! "" " ~ .:: .. ~ , ~ "" ~ .:: ~ ~ t> ~ ~ l~t Hi -'" - ~-~ j~~ ~ ~:~ .[:~ ~ <~:i - ~ :~E ~~~ ~a ;; ~i~ i] a ~'n ~ ~ u ~~:S " .1 ~ ~.~ t: i ~. "" ~ ~ ~ ~ .. . .J ~ .~ , ..:: ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ::: Jii! ,~~" :i! I Ililliiilil :i~~~~~~~~~cii~ - ~ ~ ~j {~ ~~ ..,- :-. c 0 " - e...Si .., - .H .. . .W .. . . . . . . . ; " -~ ~ ." ~ ~ ~ .5 .~ ~-;.- ~t:- l.. :::s.~ ~~.~ - . ~~s ~- '", ~ ~ .g - ~ ~J:E j ~ ~ mUf 7~gC~: i~~"B~S ~;l!i~~ -; ~ ~.g] ~ ~~.~ ei.~ ~.l:<o",~ .~ ;; ~ -;:-~ ~ ~ ~g H ;~ ~~ :=~ ~ .~ "2~ ..w ~ "'''' ~ ~.:. -;: ~--~~:~.~ ~ .::~~ ;:;s~.~ midiW~! .= ~ ~ ~ ~:; ~ ,g ; ~ -5 ~ : ~"j ~: : rj! ~ H ~~a5a5cit~o>=~o~~ ~ ~ . . l~ ~ :5 ::: ~ ~ l l~ ... :::: oS ." - . :: oS II II II II . . . . . II II APPENDIX B CITY OF CHANHASSEN . BLUFF CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR WILDLIFE SPECIES LISTING FOR WETLAND COMMUNITIES SPECIES COMMONLY OBSE~Y~.!> OR LIKELY TO BE PRESENT Mammals: Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) Common raccoon (procyon lotor) Beaver (Castor canadensis) Mink (Mustela vison) Striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) Masked shrew (Sorex cinereus) Northern short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda) Meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) Meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius) Birds: Canada goose ( Branta canadensis) Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) Sora (Porzana carolina) American coot (Fulica americana) Marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris) Common yellow throat (Geothlypis trichas) American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) Swamp sparrow (Melospiza georgiana) Red winged blackbird (Agelaigus phoeniceus) Least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis) Virginia rail (Rallus limicola) Black tern (Chlidonias niger) Yellow headed blackbird (X. xanthocephalus) Amphibians/reptiles Tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) American toad (Bufo americanus) Spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer) Chorus frog (P. riseriata) Green frog (Rana c1amitans) Northern Lepard frog (Rana pipiens) Painted turtle (Chrysemys picta) Eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) ENDANGERED, THREATENED OR SPECIAL CONCERN SPECIES THAT MIGHT OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF BLUFF CREEK Mammals: (None listed) Birds: American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) Common moorhen (Gallinula chloropus) Amphibians/reptiles: Blanding's turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) Snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) 131~lff Cree(.Z watersVled Natural Reswrces MaVlClgemeVlt Plal1 .,.~-----~'. --~ - --- ----- --- APPENDIX A CITY OF CHANHASSEN - BLUFF CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR WILDLIFE SPECIES LISTING FOR UPLAND FORESTED NATURAL COMMUNITIES Mammals: SPECIES COMMONLY OBSERVED OR LIKELY TO BE PRESENT White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) Gray fox (Uricyon cineoargenteus) Red fox (Vulpes vulpes) Common raccoon (Procyon lotor) Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus florida/lus) Deer mouse (Odocoileus vlrgmulflul) Coyote (Canis latrans) Birds: Black capped chickadee (Parus utricapillus) White breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis) Blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata) Downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) Great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) Barred owl (Strix varia) Least flycatcher (Empidonax minimus) Wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) Amphibians/reptiles: Blue-spotted salamander (A. laterale) American toad (Bufo americanus) Spring peeper ( Pseudacris crucifer) Eastern chipmunk (Tamius striatus) S. flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans) Gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) Masked shrew (Sorex cinereus) Eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus) N. short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda) Eastern wood-pewee (Contopus virens) Grt crested flycatcher (Myairchu scrinitus) Yellow-throated vireo (Vireo flavifrons) Red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus) Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus) Scarlet tanager (Piranga olivacea) Veery (Catharusfuscescens) Wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) Yellow bellied sapsucker (S. varius) Eastern gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor) E. garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) Wood frog (Rana sylvatica) ENDANGERED, THREATENED OR SPECIAL CONCERN SPECIES THAT MIGHT OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF BLUFF CREEK Mammals: Eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putoris) Birds: Red-shouldered hawk (Buteu lineatus) Louisiana waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla) AmphibianslReptiles: Fox snake (Elaphe vulpina) Bullsnake (Pituophis melanoleucus) Milk snake (lAmpropeltis triangulum) Blue racer (Coluber constrictor) Bluff Cree~ Water5~ed Natl1ral Re50l,1rCe5 MaVlagemeVlt PlCAl1 ,__ ',~J - ~. B2,24/90 13:45:16 , 612-937-5739-> 612 546 B885 Cot:1lrrcna I USe t:efM'"t 8t'te. Plan Qevrew Page 2 AWllLa+f01 .far and CITY OF CHANHA8BI!N 880 COULTeR DRIVE CHANHA88EN, MN IIISS17 (812) 937-1100 DEveLOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Jeff HeJ.str0\-4 APPLlCANT:B55 ~ C.hrfS B,-x ler OWNER: .5al'J e.. ADDRES~~~~~ J~~ ADDRESS: lIJQ(CJr\Il1., ~ -= Il . TELEPHONE (Day lIme)~6lP- .JtFl- /4'12.' 8J3'101f1~ELEPHONE: __ Comprehenal\le Plan Amendment _ Temporary Bale8 PermIt L Conditional U.e Permit ~ 400. 00 _ Vacation of ROWlE1l8ltl1llntl --1- Interim U.e PermIt .- Vartance ~ Non~rlformlng Use Permit _ Wetland Alteration Permit .-:.- PI&nne4 UnIt Oovt>>lopmant. _ Zoning Appeal _ Rezoning _ Zoning OrdlnanC8 Amendment __ Sign Permits _ Sign Pllln Review _ Notification Sign , !. SIt9 plan Ravlevr $ lOO. OIJ .JL E8"W '= Fees/Attome)' Coat" ..i' .. SISO CUP PRNACNARNJAPlMotoa .~oundl. $0400 Minor SUB) -+- Subdlvlllon. TOTAL FEE' 5~(J~OO .' A lI.t of all property ownera withIn 1100 foot of the boundarl.s of tho propel't)f mutt be Included with the appllc:.t1on. . . . Building matol'lal samplea muat be submItted with alte plan revlewe. -Twenty..bc fullllz.e ~ oopl.. ofthl plans mu.t bo lubrnlttld,lnoludlng en 8%" X 11" reduced oopY of trantparenoy for eaoh plan shoot. .. Eacrow wlll bl required ror othor appllcatlona through tho dovolopment contract NOTE. When mulllple appllcallonB oro procclled. the appropriate feo 8~111 be charged for oach application. l . ..._.,__ ..... t..._. .. 4 ._.._........-..~.. 8L/21/98 13:15:35 612-937-5739-> 612 546 8885 Pa!je 3 WETLANDS PRESENT X YES _NO A.grf cot tU(Cl\ p(ese(\..O.tlCr1 PRESENT ZONING !\ . 2 REQUESTED ZONING saM e. PRSSENT LAND USE DESIGNATION p,gn '0) ItD('oJ REQUESTED LAND use DESIGNATION ~ c.o...r-6G REASON FOR THIS ReQUEST TO cc.nstruck (l g51 F (MP(M Met:) t. ~et\~t{ / (Jr(Vl'rg rarer., This epplloaUon mUllt be completed In full end be typewrltton or clear1y printed and must be accompanied by all Information end plena required by appllcablo City OrdInance provlalona. Before nllng thl, epplloaUon. you should contor with the Planning Dep/lltmenl to detennlne tho lpeclOc ordinance end prooadural rtqulremanla appllcablo to your application. A dEjtermlnlltlon of completene.. of the application shall be made withIn ten buslnea. daya of appllcatlon submIttal. A written noU~ of applicatIon doflelenoles shalf bo mailed to the appllctltlt within ten bUllno,a day. of appllC4t1on. This la to oertlty that I am making applleotlon for the dOlerlbed MUon by tho City and that I am responalble for complyIng with all Oily roqulrements with regard to thla roquest. This application ahould be procened In my namo .od I am the party whom the blty Ihould contact regarding any matter port8lnlng to this application. I have attached a oopy of proof of ownel"llhlp (elt~er copy of Owner'e Duplloate Certlncate of TlUe, Abltrect Of TIUe or PUrchllO 8gl'8emenU. or I am the authorized pel"llon to rTjal<e this application and tho fe$ owner has al80 Ilgned thll appllcatlon. I will keep mYlolf Informed of the deadlines for lubmlsalon of material and the progress of this epplloaUon. I further undpratand that addItional fees may be charged for con8ultlng feel, feasibility stUdies, Dtc. with an estimate prior to any lIut/iorlzatlpn to prooeed with the Itud)'. The documonts and Information I have submitted are true and 'correct to the bolt of my knowllSdge. . . . . . The oily hereby noUnes thll applleant that development review cannot be completed wlthln eo day. due to pUblic hOllrlng reqlllrementl ahd agency revlow. Therefore, tho city II notifying the applicant that tho city requIres an automatlo 60 day ext~nlllon for deve!opmant review. Devolopment revIew shall be completed within 120 days unleaa addltlona' revIew eld~n8Ion. are epproved by tho appllcaFlt. 3-/3.J1a Date. '6-/3 fie OalO Application Recellled on Fee PaId ReceIpt No. Tho applicant IIhould contactata" for I copy of the at.ff roport whloh will be available on Friday ptlor to the meeting. If not contacted, a oOPY of tho report will be mallod to the .ppllc.~'p ~ddl''''. .. .... ..-. ,....-... .. -.-........... .......... .... .... "EI~()""" NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, May 6, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 690 City Center Drive SUBJECT: Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for a Golf Improvement Center/Driving Ran e APPLICANT: RSS/Perma Green, Inc. LOCATION: South of Great Plains Blvd. and Hwy. 212 NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, RSS/Perma Green, Inc., is requesting a conditional use permit and site plan review to allow a golf improvement center/driving range to be located south of the intersection of Great Plains Blvd. and T.H. 212, on property zoned Al, Agricultural Estate District, RSS Golf Improvement Center. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate at 937-1900 ext. 118. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on April 23, 1998. ;}3lq~ ~ +I~ IP COOK 506 VILLAGE WOODS DR EN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 PATRICK BLOOD NANCY LEE P.O. BOX 94 SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 A PARTNERSHIP )1 OHMS LN #345 INA, MN 55439 ERALD PROPERTIES BOX 260 ASKA, MN 55318 -1N MALZAHN 51 GREAT PLAINS BLVD I\SKA, MN 55318 'DOT FIELD o COUNTY ROAD B2 WEST SEVILLE, MN 55113 ::RALD PROPERTIES 9 DAKOTA TRAIL NA, MN 55439 'ERIN PETERSON, JR 30 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE :N PRAIRIE, MN 55344 lOLD F HESSE 5 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE \SKA, MN 55318 '10 ZAMJAHN ) WEST 77TH STREET .SKA, MN 55318 ) COOK j L YNDALE AVE S iFIELD, MN 55423 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 Gmeral Fax 612.937.5739 Engineering Fax 612.937.9152 Public Safety Fax 612.934.2524 \\yb U'luw.ci.chanhassen. mn. /lj MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer ~ FROM: DATE: May 28, 1998 SUBJ: Review of Revised Site Plan for RSS Golf Improvement Center Trunk Highways 212 and 10 1 File No. 98-12 LUR Upon review of the plans prepared by Roger Anderson & Associates dated March 13, 1998, revised May 27, 1998, I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING. DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL The site, for the most part, has been employed in agricultural use in the past. There are areas of trees and vegetation which will be impacted by the grading. Minimal grading is proposed to develop the parking lot, golf tees and greens. A landscape earth berm approximately two feet high is proposed along Trunk Highway 212. The proposed grading activities include construction of berms, golf tees, greens, ponds and parking lot. Some of these activities are proposed within the flood plain which is typically flooded every other spring. The fill proposed within the flood plain to develop the golf greens and tees is proposed to be compensated on site by excavating equal volume from adjacent areas. The applicant needs to demonstrate on the plans specifically where the compensation will occur and how much. Importing or exporting material for site development is not anticipated except for construction of the parking lot. The site generally sheet drains from the north to the south into the backwaters of the Minnesota River valley. Approximately 75% of the site is subject to annual flooding. Given the use, a high amount of chemical fertilizers may be used on the greens and driving tees. From water quality standpoint, all the runoff will eventually be directed into the Minnesota River valley/wetland. A sediment pond is proposed to pretreat most of the storm water runoff from the parking lot. The other ponds are proposed within the flood plain. These ponds are more of an aesthetic value and for compensating the filling within the flood plain. Detailed The City of Chanhasse/l. A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a channing downtown, thriving businesses, and beautiful parks. A great place to lhie, work, ant Kate Aanenson RSS Golf Improvement Center Site Plan Review May 28, 1998 Page 2 drainage and ponding calculations are required to verify the pond sizes in accordance with NURP standards. The outlet control structure proposed in the sediment basin for the parking lot runoff (baffle weir structure) will need to be replaced with an outlet control structure in accordance with the City's detail plate number 3109. Drainage calculations for the ditch along the east property line are also needed to verify the ditch design. Erosion control measures such as rock filter dikes, temporary rock construction entrance and silt fence are being employed throughout the site. The rock construction entrance needs to be relocated further south along the driveway where the bituminous ends. Additional silt fence needs to be shown adjacent to the berm and practice green No.1 in the northwest corner of the site. Temporary and/or permanent erosion control measures should be incorporated such as wood fiber blankets and riprap to prevent erosion into the sediment pond in the northeast comer of the site. In conjunction with seasonal flooding the light poles, golf tees, greens, nets and ponds within the flood plain will be subject to damage or completely obliterated. The light pole foundations can be designed and constructed to withstand most floods. The question is raised how often will the site be impacted and how many times will it be rebuilt UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is not available to the site. According to the plans, the existing dwelling is on a septic system. The existing well on the site has not been identified on the plans and will need to be. The existing septic site should be evaluated to see if it is functioning properly. An alternative mound site will also need to be located and preserved prior to any construction activities commencing. STREETS Access to the site is from Trunk Highway 212 at a signalized intersection. Currently there is a 24-foot wide bituminous driveway from Trunk Highway 212 servicing the existing dwelling. The plans propose a parking lot with future parking expansion capabilities. There are no landscape islands proposed to break up the sea of asphalt. Staff recommends adding some landscape islands. City Code 20-1118 typically requires establishments of this nature to have paved parking areas and drive aisles with concrete curb and gutter or bituminous curbs to direct runoff into a storm water drainage collection system. However, given the nature of the use, staff believes it would be appropriate to allow sheet drainage Kate Aanenson RSS Golf Improvement Center Site Plan Review May 28, 1998 Page 3 across the parking lot and only install curbing along the north side of the parking lot where appropriate to direct stormwater runoff into the pond. All of the storm water improvements will be private and not maintained by the City. Some assurances should be incorporated in the interim use permit requiring annual maintenance by the applicant. Should the maintenance not be performed, the City shall have the authority to hire out the work and bill the applicant. MISCELLANEOUS The site is bordered by a wildlife refuge. The proposed fencing along the driving range may adversely affect wildlife and waterfowl migration in the area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, DNR and other agencies should be consulted regarding this use and it's impacts. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. 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. 2. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. Wetland buffer areas shall be sUIVeyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will provide wetland buffer 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. 3. The applicant shall provide detailed storm drainage calculations for the ponds and ditch during lO-year and lOa-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. 4. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, ie. Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Kate Aanenson RSS Golf Improvement Center Site Plan Review May 28, 1998 Page 4 Agency, Minnesota Departtrent of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Departtrent of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval 5. No berming, drainage improvetrents or landscaping will be allowed within Trunk Highway 212 right-of-way. 6. The proposed stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10: 1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3: 1 thereafter or 4: 1 throughout for safety purposes. 7. The use of chemical fertilizers shall be prohibited within the flood plain. 8. 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 treasures around sediment pond in northeast comer of the site. g. Design light pole foundations to withstand seasonal flooding. h. Incorporate MnDOTs comrrents regarding widening of the driveway at Trunk Highway 212 and right-of-way identification per letter dated May 21, 1998. 1. Locate alternative mound site and preserve from construction activities. Kate Aanenson RSS Golf Improvement Center Site Plan Review May 28, 1998 Page 5 J. Add landscape islands in parking lot. k. Add curbs along north side of parking lot to direct runoff to sed~nt pond. 9. 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. c: Anita Benson, City Engineer g:'eng\dave\pc,",ss golf.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN I City Center Drive, PO Box 147 hanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 General Fax 612.937.5739 Igineering Fax 612.937.9152 b1ic Safety Fax 612.934.2524 7eb wlUlU.ci.chanhassen. rnn.1IS MEMORANDUM TO: Kathryn Aanenson, Planning Director Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official ~ t I FROM: DATE: April 28, 1998 SUBJECT: 98-2 CUP and 98-8 SPR (RSS GolfImprovementCenter, RSSlPerma Green, Inc.) I was asked to review the site plan proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, APR 03 1998, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project. Back!!round: The building designated as the office on the proposed plans is currently a dwelling. We have no records of the date it was constructed. A new Individual Sewage Treatment System (lSTS) was installed in 1995. It is a mound system designed for a three bedroom house. Analvsis: ISTS sites. Chanhassen City Code, 18-40(2)g, requires two ISTS sites when property is subdivided. The intent is to have an alternate site for use in the event of the failure of the ISTS on the primary site. Although this property is not being subdivided, a change in use from residential to commercial is being proposed. It is important to have an alternate site for anum ber of reasons. I. Estimating sewage flow for a dwelling is straightforward; estimates for commercial enterprises are more difficult. Failure of the ISTS due to overloading may render the existing ISTS site unusable. 2. Should the existing ISTS be too small, and alternate site may provide room for expansion. 3. Should the primary site be damaged during initial construction the alternate site will be available with minimal disruption. 4. Should the primary site be damaged later, a new ISTS can be installed with less disruption of the business. Sewage flow. As noted earlier, sewage flow determination for commercial establishments is a more difficult process than that for residences. The applicant should have a licensed site evaluator and designer submit system sizing requirements for the anticipated flows based on the requirementsofIndividual Sewage Treatment System Standards, Chapter 7080. The evaluation and design will be necessary before establishing final site plans in order to assure the availability of the area necessary for the ISTS sites. Building code requirements The occupancy classification of the existing dwelling will be changed from an R-3 occupancy to a B or M occupancy. The building code requires a building be brought up to code when a change in its use occurs. Likely areas where code deficiencies may City of Chilllhassell. A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play Kathryn Aanenson, Planning Director April 28, 1998 Page 2 occur include, exiting, accessibility, access to other levels, and separations. Accessibility requirements may include site issues that should be addressed before site plans are finalized. Building issues can be resolved during the building code plan review process. The existing barn is proposed to be used as a maintenance building. Although the occupancy classification will not change, the character of the occupancy is changing. The building was built as an agricultural building and was not subject to any code requirements. As a maintenance building it is subject to code requirements. The building is dilapidated and in danger of failing. The building should be evaluated by a structural engineer who should determine repairs necessary to bring the building as close to code compliance as is feasible. Accessibility. The submitted plans do not indicate an accessible route from the parking lot to the accessible building entrance. Accessible parking is also shown incorrectly - An eight foot wide van access aisle and signage is required; Two accessible parking stalls are required; Accessible signage is required at the head of parking stalls and access aisles. Recommendations: The following conditions should be added to the conditions of approval: 1. Submit the location of an alternate ISTS site from a licensed evaluator for review by Inspections Division staff. 2. Submit an analysis of sewage flow for the proposed facility from a licensed evaluator for review by Inspections Division staff. 3. Revise the plans to provide and accessible route and parking. 4. Arrange a meeting with the developers and designers with the Inspections Division plan reviewer as early as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements. 5. Arrange for an evaluation of the existing barn by a structural engineer. The evaluation should include proposals for remediation if necessary. ^ <D ::0 -. -. ::J g.$: s:p, :-> Q) ::"");:1. :u '::J" 4'< ?"S?o ......() J'>o ...... ~r- :00: ". :xl):> I -, :xl() ~'::J" :xl;:;: ,.) <D () ..- Ul .f::- .- ~ --7 ~~r; ~~J ~~l OI&J J r o ~ o , ) , )cn , '" :> <D :1....- ")g. :'"tl T- T Q) ) ::J : I , '"tl ) Q) -<0 3 <D ~I'V ~ 0 - - )w 3 ) , .. , 00000 .., " -, , I ~ - ~ iI ~ ~g] f ~~ t ~E } ~~ t ~ ~ en ~ ~ & ~ /\ ;c ~. c)" ::J :T~ ~(') (')(') (')0> 0> ::1 ::1:T :T'< ,<QO -(') ~o ",' _r <.0- ",P- O))> I .., 0)(') ~:T 0) -' WID U CJ) '"tl .., o -0 ;u 0 en en CJ) 7' en CD CD Glc..... 0(')(') :;;_:T _ c '"tl 30'- -o:TO> a 0 ::J < C I CD CJ) '"" 3 CD '" CD-O> :J3<O --0 CD 0'" W CD 0 :J < 0 it CD -.. .., 3 W CD ::J .... en . J ,. ~t ~ 4 . ... ,. I , 4 I .. J ... /d } " ( \ . ) ~ Minnesota Department of Natural Resources RECEIVED Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 MAY 06 7998 Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977 CiTY OF CHANHASSElV May 4, 1998 Ms. Kathryn A. Aanenson City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Planning Case: 98-2 CUP and 98-8 Site Plan. RSS GolfImprovement Center. Assumption Creek and Public Water Wetland 1O-221W, City ofChanhassen, Carver County Dear Ms. Aanenson: We have reviewed the site plans dated March 13, 1998 (received April 14, 1998) for the above- referenced proposal. Due to the location and nature of this proposal, I attempted to solicit input from staff of the DNR's Fish and Wildlife Division, and have incorporated some of their comments. However, this proposal did not go through a full Department review (i.e., as for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet). In general, the DNR has concerns about the potential impacts the proposed project could have on adjacent sensitive resources. Wayne Barstad, DNR Ecological Services, attended an on-site meeting with stafffrom the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff and representatives of the applicant on 3/24/98, and gave some input verbally at that time. Following are specific comments: 1. A portion of the subject property appears to include Assumption Creek, which is officially designated by the DNR Commissioner as a trout stream. Although the site plan does not show alterations immediately adjacent to the trout stream, the DNR is very concerned about any activity which would adversely affect the quality (including temperature), quantity, direction, and timing of flow in the subwatershed that feeds Assumption CreeK. 2. Public water wetland 10-221 W is also on the property. An ordinary high water (OHW) has not been determined for 10-221W. As long as no grading or alteration is proposed within the wetland boundary for the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991, an OHW determination should not be necessary. However, if there is any question whether proposed activities propose alterations within the wetland, an OHW must be determined. For example, based on the on-site meeting that Wayne Barstad (DNR Ecological Services) attended on 3/24/98, we understand that about five acres of the wetland is proposed to be mowed for ball retrieval. Depending on the type of vegetation affected, an Aquatic Plant Management Permit may be required from the DNR Fisheries Section (Mike Halverson @ 772-7950) if the area of cutting is within DNR Wetland 10-221 W. DNR Information: 612-296-6157. l-XOO-766-6000 . TTY: 612-2lJ6-5-lX-l. l-XOO-657-.N2lJ An Equal Opportunity Employer \\'ho Value'" Di\'t:rsit) ft Prilllt.'d on RI..'l...'ydl'd Paper COllliljllin~ <l f..I \lillimulll or lor.; PO,>I-COlhtJlllL'r W;l',ll' Ms. Kathryn A. Aanenson May 4, 1998 Page 2 3. Federal, state and local floodplain regulations need to be addressed in the floodplain of the Minnesota River. The plan does show the 100-year flood elevation, and most of the proposed grading is within the floodplain. No net change in the flood storage area within the floodplain is shown, however, the alterations within the floodway need to be analyzed to ensure the changes in the flood plain cross-section does not increase the flood stage upstream or downstream of the project area. 4. It appears that stormwater treatment is proposed on this site. However, the level oftreatment is not indicated in the information we reviewed. As Mr. Barstad and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife representative noted at the 3/24/98 on-site meeting, we are very concerned that the runoffbe treated to minimize the adverse impacts on Assumption Creek. 5. It is our understanding that the proposed nets and ball collection system are designed to be high enough off the ground so that deer can pass beneath them, if necessary. However, DNR staff have concerns about the impacts of the nets on birds. If you have not already received comments from DNR Non-Game Wildlife Manager Joan Galli, she should be contact for input at 297-2277. 6. This land is immediately adjacent to natural communities mapped by the Minnesota County Biological Survey, and is within the boundary of the proposed Assumption Creek and Seminary Fen Natural Area. This Natural Area includes some of the best quality calcareous fen and rare plant habitat in the metropolitan area, and its protection is considered a high priority by the DNR. The protection of the natural communities would best be accomplished by restoration of disturbed areas such as the land in question to native plant communities. Developments, including the proposed Golf Improvement Center, could have negative impacts on the natural communities, including pollution and exotic plant invasion. 7. An area adjacent to TH 212 is shown for future expansion. Any future additions or developments need to ensure that the plan allows adequate area for the individual sewage treatment system and stormwater treatment ponding that would be required for the project proposed. 8. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan and Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, a DNR appropriations permit is needed. You are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. This will NOT be a routine permit application when the site is near a calcareous fen. Ms. Kathryn A. Aanenson May 4, 1998 Page 3 c. Construction activities which disturb five acres of land, or more, are required to apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Dan Sullivan @ 296-7219). d. Except as noted above, the comments in this letter address DNR - Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Please contact me at 772-7914 or Hannah Dunevitz at 772-7570 should you have questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, '~ ~ " /~ ~J. ,) / 6- .<.../.r ":<...Y . . c1..-Cc/:)./:J /117--- Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist c: MN Valley Refuge - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Terry Schreiner Lower Minnesota River Watershed District, Larry Samstad DNR Waters, Annette Drewes DNR Ecological Services, Wayne Barstad/Hannah Dunevitz DNR Wildlife, Joan Galli/Kathy DonCarlos DNR Fisheries, Mike Halverson United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Twin Cities Field Office 4101 East 80th Street Bloomington, Minnesota 55425-1665 HAY 1 J 1998' REceIVED MAY 15 1998 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Ms. Kathryn A. Aanenson Planning Director City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Ms. Aanenson: This responds to your April 13, 1998, memo requesting comments regarding Perma Green Inc.'s request for a conditional use permit from the City of Chanhassen for the proposed RSS Golf Improvement Center, to be located in the SE~ of Section 35, Tl16N, R23W, Carver County, Minnesota. The proposed facility would consist of a golf driving range, a pitch and putt practice course, putting greens, and support buildings and facilities. According to maps, site plan drawings, and other documentation attached to your memo, the majority of the 96-acre site is comprised of wetlands associated with the Minnesota River floodplain. The entire parcel, with the exception of the extreme northeast comer, is within the lOa-year floodplain. The proposed buildings and parking areas are located in the upland area in the northeast comer of the parcel, for the most part above the lOa-year flood limits. A maintenance building, the two driving ranges, and practically all of the pitching and putting areas are located within the lOa-year flood limits. The project site is bounded on the east by property owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and managed as part of the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, and to the south by natural areas owned and managed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR). The Service considers the project area vicinity to contain extremely high-value natural resources, including lands owned and managed by two public natural resource agencies, high-quality wetlands and associated fish and wildlife habitat, the active floodplain of the Minnesota River (a high-priority conservation area), and high aesthetic qualities. According to the MnDNR, Assumption Creek, a designated trout stream, flows through the western limits of the project site. Accordingly, the Service has concerns about siting the proposed facility in such an area with regards to potentially detrimental impacts to area wetlands. The Service notes that golf courses and, presumably, golf practice facilities that feature putting greens and managed fairways/approach areas, are traditionally subject to relatively high rates of fertilizer, herbicide, and pesticide application. Due to the proximity of this site to the natural resource features listed above, we believe extraordinary measures would be called for to prevent or minimize the introduction of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides into the adjacent wetlands. Mr. Ben Wopat Page 2 The site drawings indicate two sediment ponds that would be constructed. Although the Service supports the incorporation ofthose ponds into the project design, such ponds are generally designed to only eliminate heavier sediments from surface runoff. Furthermore, due to the high water table expected to occur in the areas closest to the fringing wetlands, it is possible that excess fertilizer and other soluble contaminants will enter the soil water directly rather than be transported (and subsequently captured) in the proposed runoff control ponds. The southern one-third to one-half of the driving ranges are located in emergent wetlands. Although no grading or fill is proposed for those areas, there will presumably be regular mowing to facilitate recovery of golf balls, which will decrease the wildlife habitat value of that portion of the wetland. The Service recommends that the bottom edge of the proposed net fence be no closer than 4.5 feet to the ground to allow passage of deer and other terrestrial wildlife. The Service also has some concern about the possible impacts of the net fence to flying birds. We recommend that measures be taken to maximize visibility of the net, and its support poles and wires, to birds. Such measure would include marking isolated support wires, and other portions of the net structure, as needed, with bird flight diverters. We also recommend that the net extend no higher than 40 feet above the ground to minimize aesthetic impacts to the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge tract adjacent to the east side of the proposed facility. Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide our comments on this proposed project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact the Mr. Loyd Mitchell of my staff at 612-725-3548, ext. 202, or the address above. Sincerely, Iywn fn. ~. Lynn M. Lewis Field Office Supervisor cc: Terry Schreiner, Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Bloomington, MN Wayne Barstad, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN Steve Colvin, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN Larry Zdon, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge 3815 East 80th Street Bloomington, Minnesota 55425-1600 June 26, 1998 Ms. Kathryn Aanenson Planning Director City of Chanhassen PO Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 This letter is in response to the most recent proposal regarding Perma Green Inc.'s request for a conditional use permit from the City of Chanhassen for the proposed RSS Golf Improvement Center, to be located in the SE1/4 of Section 35, Tl16N, R23W, Carver County, Minnesota. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff from the Twin Cities Ecological Services office will be providing comments pertaining to wetland and wildlife habitat as they relate to the federal permitting process and Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge staff will comment on the refuge specific aspects relating to the most recent proposal. We continue to have major reservations concerning the permitting of this type of outdoor recreation within the Lower Minnesota River Valley because we believe it is inconsistent with the intent of the enabling legislation establishing the Minnesota Valley Wildlife Recreation Area and Minnesota National Wildlife Refuge. The intent of the legislation is to encourage recreation on these areas to wildlife dependent types and to preserve high quality experiences for users. . ;"Ifthe city chooses to issue a permit for the driving range, we recommend the following practices be a condition of the permit. . Limit the use of slow release organic fertilizer applied according to the recommendations of a soil test. . Only a1!ow the use of the least toxic and least persistent herbicides available on the market. . Establish grasses that require a minimal amount of mowing. . Limit the use of nets for golf ball control to a maximum of 40 feet above the ground on the top and maintain a minimum opening of 4.5 feet on the bottom. H. t.-.."'b1'""'t."iJ""., ....... ,....1_. ,_,. ~.t- ~ - ,~ "):,..1 ._': ~ "'.'1:' :', :'~ JUN 3 0 1998 GITY Or (;H,t\I\ttlF,SSEr~ · Prohibit the use of lighting. · The undeveloped land be perpetually protected in a natural state Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Please contact Terry Schreiner at 858-0705 ifneed clarification of would like to discuss the matter further. Sincerely, 10c't ~ Rick Schultz Refuge Manager Enclosure cc: Loyd Mitchell, Twin Cites Ecological Field Office Thomas Braman, Acorn Environmental Consultants, Inc. United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Twin Cities Field Office 4101 East 80th Street Bloomington. Minnesota 55425-1665 JUL 0 2 1998' RECEIVED JUL 081998 Ms. Kathryn A. Aanenson Planning Director City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ClTY OF CHANH^~;:,ch Dear Ms. Aanenson: This letter contains supplemental comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) Twin Cities Field Office (TCFO) regarding the proposed RSS Golflmprovement Center, to be located in the SE~ of Section 35, T116N, R23W, Carver County, Minnesota. Perma Green, Inc. is requesting a Conditional Use Permit from the City of Chanhassen (City) to construct the proposed facility, which would consist of a lighted golf driving range, a pitch and putt practice course, putting greens, and support buildings and facilities. The following comments pertain to this office; staff of the Service's Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge may provide comments under separate cover relating to any outstanding concerns they may have. TCFO has previously provided comments to you on the proposed project in a May 13, 1998, letter. In that letter, and during a June 11, 1998, meeting held at the Chanhassen City Hall, we noted the presence of high quality wetlands and natural habitats in the proposed project vicinity, and expressed concerns about potential impacts of the proj ect to fish and wildlife and surrounding wetlands from pesticide and fertilizer runoff, wetland vegetation alteration (primarily in the driving range), and the containment netting to be installed along the eastern edge of the driving range. At the June 11 meeting, representatives of Perm a Green, Inc., presented the latest proposal for the facility, as well as additional information on the proposed use of pesticides and fertilizers on the project site. The driving range and parking areas have been shifted northward so as to significantly avoid vegetative impacts to wetlands. The east perimeter containment net would be 60-feet high closest to the tee-box, and would be progressively lower in height farther away from the tee-box. Baffled gaps have been designed into the perimeter netting to allow passage of wildlife. Anti-glare lighting would be installed in the driving range to allow after-dark use of the facility. A 5-2-4 organic fertilizer (derived from turkey waste) would be applied as needed (rates would be based on soil testing; anticipated at approximately 56 50-pound bags); it is anticipated that approximately I-gallon of a 2,4-D based herbicide would be applied twice per year during turf establishment, and once per year afterwards; pesticides are anticipated to be used primarily on greens. Ms. Kathryn A. Aanenson Page 2 Based on information presented at the June 11 meeting, we offer the following supplementary comments and recommendations: 1. TCFO's concerns relating to vegetative impacts to surrounding wetlands have been sufficiently addressed via the northward shift ofthe driving range, as well other layout manipulations and a more thorough understanding ofthe overall site layout. 2. TCFO continues to have minor concerns about the long-term use of pesticides and fertilizers on the site. Ifthe proposed development is permitted, we encourage Perma Green to apply minimal amounts of fertilizers based on the results of soil tests and according to best management practices. We also encourage Perma Green to use the least toxic and persistent pesticides and herbicides available. We recommend that the City require, as a condition of the issued permit, that the applicant submit annual reports to the City on the types and amounts of fertilizers and pesticides applied during the previous year. 3. TCFO's concerns related to the possible hazards of the containment netting to birds and other wildlife have been sufficiently addressed. I reiterate that the above comments pertain only to this office's review of the proposed project in relation to potential impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitats in the project vicinity. Staff of the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge may have additional outstanding concerns and/or recommendations relating to impacts to adjacent refuge property. Thank you for the opportunity to provide supplementary comments on this proposed project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact the Mr. Loyd Mitchell of my staff at 612-725-3548, ext. 202, or the address above. Sincerely, ~r0~ Lynn M. Lewis Field Office Supervisor cc: Terry Schreiner, Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Bloomington, MN Wayne Barstad, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN Steve Colvin, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN Larry Zdon, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN ,f,.,tltlE1SoI:, ... .. 2 ~ a ~.. '#0/ O"T"" Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road 82 Roseville. MN 55113 May 21, 1998 Kathryn Aanenson City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RECF'lr~~ WI 1=\ '{ elT)' t, Dear Kathryn Aanenson: SUBJECT: RSS Golf Improvement Center Site Plan Review S98-035 South of Trunk Highway (TH) 212 at TH 101 (Great Plains Boulevard) Chanhassen, Carver County C.S. 1013 The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the RSS Golf Improvement Center site plan. We find the plan acceptable for further development with consideration of the following comments: . Storm water drainage from the proposed site does not appear to flow to TH 212 right of way. A Mn/DOT permit will be required if this condition changes or the development otherwise alters the pattern of runoff affecting TH 212. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, The Army Corps of Engineers, and The Lower Minnesota Watershed District should also review this plan. Questions about MnlDOT's storm water drainage concerns may be directed to Brian Kelly of our Water Resources Section at 797-3151. . An approved permit is required for the access to TH 212. Vve will allow only one access to TH 212. No future access points will be allowed. We recommend that the proposed driveway be widened to allow easier operation of the existing signal. For information regarding widening of the driveway, contact Lars Impola of our Traffic Management Section at 797-3126. For information regarding the permit process, contact Bill Warden of our Permits Section at 582-1443. . The final plat must identify the edge ofMN/DOT right of way. Any questions may be directed to JeffHoffstrom of our Surveys Section at 797-3108. . The site plan shows a sign near the access opening which is marked "Pylon Sign". This sign appears to be on Mn/DOT right of way. The sign must be relocated to a point where it does not encroach on MN/DOT right of way. An equal opportunity employer Kathryn Aanenson May 21, 1998 page two · Any use of or work within Mn/DOT right of way will require an approved MnlDOT permit. The permit required depends upon the nature of the proposed work. Bill Warden of our Permits Section may be contacted, as noted above, for further information regarding the permit process. Please contact me at 582-1383 with any questions regarding this review. Sincerely, ~~ Lisa Christianson Transportation Planner/Local Government Liaison c: Roger Gustafson, Carver County Engineer Ball Barrier Netting The # 1 netting used by practico ranges across the country, ~' The most effective way to stoR "off course" balls. ~ ~ WITI[K is oroud to introduce the I' lolesl in txmier lle1hnv I Hchnology. All new consiructior. makes Wittek's i Ball Barrier Netting fhe most odvanceqi barrier net O\.o'oi!utle lodoy. R 1\D Yes ~ CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chrmhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 Gmend Fax 612.937.5739 Engineering Fax 612.937.9152 Public Sa~t) Fax 6E 934. 2524 \\';'/1 u'II'II,ci,chilnh.ls,en,1Il11,li.i June 22, 1998 Dear Hesse Farm Resident: The Plamung Commission will be holding a public hearing on July 1, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 690 City Center Drive. The request is as follows: RSS/Perma Green, Inc., RSS Golf Improvement Center --located south of the intersection of Great Plains Blvd.rrH 101 and T.R. 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) Variances to section 20-265 (2) hours of operation e) Code Amendment to Allow Restaurant and Pro Shop f) Wetland Alteration Permit for impact of.43 acres The applicant is requesting a ye~ round golf center with lights (50 ft in height) including a retail pro shop/restaurant in the Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge. If you have questions about this application, please feel free to contact me at 937-1900, ext. 118. Sincerely, UJ.~ Kathryn R. Aanenson Planning Director KA:v Tbe City ofCballbasse11. A growing community with clealllakes, qu,dity schools, a channing downtowlI, thriving businesses, and beautiful parks. A great place to liz'e, work, allr. ~K A MACKENZIE 420 BLUFF CIRCLE lASKA, MN 55318 PAUL & A SYMANITZ 1505 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE CHASKA, MN 55318 JOHN E TRUSHEIM 10341 HEIDI LANE CHASKA, MN 55318 SEPH KANDlKO t21 BLUFF CIRCLE lASKA, MN 55318 ALBERT DORWEILER 1565 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE CHASKA, MN 55318 THOMAS NIEBELlNG 10360 HEIDI LANE CHASKA, MN 55318 VERL Y ZIMMER gO BLUFF CIRCLE ,ASKA, MN 55318 THOMAS/SANDRA CARAVELLI 6423 MERE DRIVE EDEN PRAIRE, MN 55346 RICHARD BUE 10361 HEIDI LANE CHASKA, MN 55318 E & EMILY ANDERSON ~41 BLUFF CIRCLE ASKA, MN 55318 HAROLD & MARY HESSE 1425 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE CHASKA, MN 55318 MARK & MARY BRIOL 10377 HEIDI LANE CHASKA, MN 55318 .wARD & MARY LAPIDES 160 BLUFF CIRCLE ASKA, MN 55318 MARY P HESSE 1425 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE CHASKA, MN 55318 KEVIN F & LAURA R MARINAN 10380 HEIDI LANE CHASKA, MN 55318 RY ANN ELMGREN !1 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE ASKA, MN 55318 HESSE FARM HOMEOWNER'S C/O JANET WINTER 1075 HESSE FARM ROAD CHASKA, MN 55318 JEFF PODERGOIS 1031 SADLEBROOD TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 :HOLAS WARITZ '1 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE ASKA, MN 55318 CURTIS BARDAL 10301 HEIDI LANE CHASKA, MN 55318 RICHARD DEE 1201 HESSE FARM CIRCLE CHASKA, MN 55318 TIPTON 11 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE ASKA, MN 55318 CHARLES, MAC BLANE 10320 HEIDI LANE CHASKA, MN 55318 JEFFREY MAY 1225 HESSE FARM CIRCLE CHASKA, MN 55318 :HARD MALONEY 5 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE ASKA, MN 55318 MUKUL & SHASHI SAKLANI 10321 HEIDI LANE CHASKA, MN 55318 EDWARD MUELLER 1251 HESSE FARM CIRCLE CHASKA, MN 55318 =tOLD HESSE ~5 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE I\SKA, MN 55318 HAROLD & MARY HESSE 1425 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE CHASKA, MN 55318 KEITH & STACY CARLSON 1301 HESSE FARM CIRCLE CHASKA, MN 55318 JOHN FORCE 1001 HESSE FARM ROAD CHASKA, MN 55318 ROGER BROWN 1200 HESSE FARM ROAD CHASKA, MN 55318 GINNY & CRAIG VLAANDIREN 1450 WEST FARM ROAD CHASKA, MN 55318 DANIEL SMITH 1020 HESSE FARM ROAD CHASKA, MN 55318 EUGENE JUNKER 1250 HESSE FARM ROAD CHASKA, MN 55318 KENNETH & JUDY EIDE 1500 W. FARM ROAD CHASKA, MN 55318 WM E HARDER 1025 HESSE FARM ROAD CHASKA, MN 55318 ROBERT STEFFES 1350 HESSE FARM ROAD CHASKA, MN 55318 LARRY & KAREN KOECHEL 19427 SILVER OAK DRIVE FORT MYERS, FL 33912-5511 MIKE LADD 1070 HESSE FARM ROAD CHASKA. MN 55318 MICHAEL & KATHY ARNOLD 1400 HESSE FARM ROAD CHASKA. MN 55318 CHAD & BARBARA SEIZERT 11332 CREEKRIDGE DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 KEVIN & JANET WINTER 1075 HESSE FARM ROAD CHASKA, MN 55318 NICK EVANOFF 1401 HESSE FARM ROAD CHASKA, MN 55318 MAXWELL TISCH 1600 WEST FARM ROAD CHASKA, MN 55318 FRAYNE & DEBORAH JOHNSEN 1100 HESSE FARM ROAD CHASKA, MN 55318 EMERALD PROPERTIES P.O. BOX 260 CHASKA, MN 55318 MARK CLINE 1650 WEST FARM ROAD CHASKA, MN 55318 TODD J ROGERS DAWN M DRILLING 1101 HESSE FARM ROAD CHASKA, MN 55318 HESSE FARM 2 HOMEOWNERS CAROL BARDAL 10301 HEIDI LANE CHASKA, MN 55318 WILLIAM MEYER 3660 INDEPENDENCE AVE SO, APT 73 ST LOUIS PARK, MN 55426 HOWARD NOZISKA 1120 HESSE FARM ROAD CHASKA, MN 55318 NICHOLAS & MARY WARITZ 1271 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE CHASKA, MN 55318 BRUCE RECH 1180 HESSE FARM ROAD CHASKA, MN 55318 ROGER O'SHAUGHNESSY 1000 HESSE FARM ROAD CHASKA, MN 55318 PETER TAUNTON 316-19TH AVE S.E. WILLMAR. MN 56201 JAMES & CARLA STRUBLE 1405 WEST FARM ROAD CHASKA, MN 55318 VIDSON,CHARLE HESSE,HAROLD F COOK,SKIP S ) FLYING CLOUD DR 1425 BLUFF CREEK DR 15506 VILLAGE WOODS DR ASKA, MN CHASKA,MN EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 118 55318 55347 BERTSON,DIAN MALZAHN,JOHN & EMERALD PROPERT 10 BLUFF CREEK DR 10551 GREAT PLAINS BLVD 6609 DAKOTA TRL A.SKA, MN CHASKA, MN EDINA, MN ,18 55318 55439 OK,SKIP S KARELS,ANNE E STATE OF MINNES 06 VILLAGE WOODS DR 1161 BLUFF CREEK DR 500 LAFAYETTE RD ::N PRAIRIE, MN CHASKA, MN ST PAUL, MN 47 55318 55155 ..1JAHN,LOUISE UBA PARTNERSHIP STATE OF MINNES 6 77TH ST 7301 OHMS LN #345 500 LAFAYETTE RD ~SKA, MN EDINA, MN ST PAUL, MN 18 55439 55155 FISH & WILD STATE OF MINNES EMERALD PROPERT ::DERAL DR 600 4TH ST E 6609 DAKOTA TRL PAUL, MN CHASKA,MN EDINA, MN 11 55318 55439 =RALD PROPERT STATE OF MINNES 9 DAKOTA TRL 500 LAFAYETTE RD NA,MN ST PAUL, MN 39 55155 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998 contractor will be responsible for obtaining the appropriate sewer, water, and plumbing permits from the City's building Department. Cross access easements for the utilities and driveways shall be dedicated over the lot. 9. The site plan shall be modified to incorporate sidewalks out to Coulter Boulevard at a location to be determined by the applicant and staff. 10. Revise the parking on the Site Plan to comply with the building code. 11. Meet with the Inspections Division plan reviewer as soon as possible after approval to begin the building code plan review process. 12. Refer to the Utility plan. A post indicator valve must be added to the 8 inch water main going into the building. NFPA 13 1991 Section 4-5.1.1.7. 13. The post indicator must have tamper protection which is connected to the sprinkler system monitoring. Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #40-1995. 14. The developer shall incorporate the following architectural details: 1) each outside corner of the building shall use rock face 16 x 16 inch CMU-I. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: RSS/PERMA GREEN. INC. REOUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALTERATION OF A FLOOD PLAIN. AN INTERIM USE PERMIT SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW A GOLF IMPROVEMENT CENTERlDRIVING RANGE/OFFICE/CLUB HOUSE AND VARIANCES TO THE SIZE OF BUILDING AND HOURS OF OPERATION AND A CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AN OFFICE/ CLUBHOUSE TO BE LOCATED SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD AND TH 212 ON PROPERTY ZONED A2. AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT. RSS GOLF IMPROVEMENT CENTER. Public Present: Name Address Tom Braman Chris Bixler Jeff Helstrom David Albright 8040 Stevens, Bloomington, MN 3179 Devon Lane, Mound, MN 8276 Scandia Road, Waconia, MN 7814 1315t Street West, Apple Valley, MN Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998 Joyce: Are there any questions for staff? Blackowiak: Is this going to have a course on it? Aanenson: No. It did when it originally came in. Blackowiak: I was questioning about the Corps permit. Aanenson: Originally it had over 3 acres. We've got that reduced down and that was the... driving range. Conrad: It's currently being farmed? Aanenson: Correct. Conrad: And the property to the northeast is what? Is that being farmed too? Right next to 169 or whatever that. Aanenson: To 101? Right immediately to the east where the DNR wetland is, is part of the wildlife.. . Conrad: To the east is what, did you say? Aanenson: Oh, I'm sorry to the east. That's also...the existing home on the other side... Conrad: And our vision of this land Kate, could be farmed? Our vision it could be farmed? Aanenson: Well, it can remain an agricultural use. Our comprehensive plan originally left it only as open space. But if someone were to come in and try to do something...it could just be farmed in A2 which is a use of the property. It also, the A2 district as I indicated does allow a couple of other things. Either conditional or interim use and the golf and driving range... Conrad: So our vision is open space but to be open means somebody, we'd have to buy it then? Aanenson: Correct. Conrad: Our vision could be agricultural and a golf range could be included in that? Aanenson: Right. Conrad: And our vision could be large lot, which is I house per 2 Y2 acres. Aanenson: Correct. Conrad: So this. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998 Aanenson: Actually outside the MUSA that would be 1 per 10. Conrad: 1 per 10. So this vision on this site, huh. There could be one house. Aanenson: Under the Bluff Creek overlay district that's coming in, what impact would that have on this site? Aanenson: The reason why this wasn't included in the Bluff Creek is because this is upland and the Assumption Creek and that wetland are a high value wetland. Unique as far as overall aquatic diversity and so what happens on this property, the drainage would affect the water quality. Joyce: So this is not on the overlay? Aanenson: It is, but it's all in the primary, a lot of it is in the primary zone. But again if you do a density transfer out, you'd have to fmd it somewhere else to replace it. Joyce: I guess I'm tagging along with your question Ladd. Is this in the primary zone of the overlay? This project right here? Aanenson: Yes. But if it's entirely within the primary zone, then again it went back to either we acquire it or we have to give a variance. That was the attorney's opinion because it'd be...a taking. Blackowiak: Unless it remains agricultural. Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: I mean that is an option too. Acquire for, or leave it agricultural. I mean couldn't we have three options? Acquire, interim use, agricultural. Aanenson: Well, the interim use is like a conditional use. You can only attach conditions to mitigate the impact. So you'd have to allow.. . and attach whatever conditions or allow the...if you feel like you need to do that to mitigate the impact. There was a lot happening when we first saw this. We confirmed that there was a lot ofactivity...what we've seen in the past in Chanhassen. I'm not saying those sort of activities don't happen throughout the metro area but we were concerned about that and I think we.. . applicant to try to resolve some ofthose. Conrad: So every year Kate, this land will be flooded more than likely? Aanenson: You know that, it has flooded twice. Conrad: So not every year? 30 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998 Aanenson: It would be seasonally and that's what we're saying, if it's a regular occurrence then we're saying it doesn't make any sense. I guess part of that is up to the applicant for them to decide what's the replacement but we are concerned if it's continually washing into environmentally sensitive areas, then I think we need to.. .adding extra sand and some of the other sediments that would be. . . fixtures as Dave indicated in his, or poles or some of the other equipment that's washing out, that would be a concern too. Conrad: And what is the permit that they would have to get from the DNR? Is that just a permit? Aanenson: Well what they need to do is define the flood plain line. Establish that. We have a different elevation. It's actually a Zone A which means undefmed. They've come back with the numbers that they believe that.. .and we believe it's probably somewhere pretty close but legally right now the FEMA map says it's a Zone A which means it has not been delineated. Officially registered with.. . elevation but we believe it's probably pretty close. We're... to go through that process. Conrad: How do I get a handle on whether this is good for the Bluff Creek corridor and the downstream or river or not? How do I, it's probably a better use than farming. Aanenson: We struggled with that exact issue. Our first wish was to buy it. Yeah, that would be nice. To leave it the way it is. Conrad: But how do I, how do I review it Kate so that it doesn't get worse than it currently is. Is there a standard? Is there a, I think as we have drainage issues we're improving everything. In every area we have in Chanhassen, I have a real good feeling, even though we're developing... improve things when we're developing. I think we have a handle on how we do that. I don't have a handle on this application right now to know that the water quality, especially into Assumption Creek, is going to be maintained. So I guess if you don't have a way to give me to review that... Aanenson: We don't. All we can say is that we will monitor the creek annually. .. drainage that would wash some of the, that's where it's going to be draining... Conrad: And who's telling me this is a net benefit? Is somebody on staff telling me this is a net benefit to the environment? Aanenson: No. Conrad: Okay. But you haven't, on the flip side you haven't said it's a detriment to it either. Wildlife... wildlife from water quality. Different issues here right now. Aanenson: We're saying we need to monitor it and that's one of the conditions that we need to monitor. If they're not meeting it, then we need to bring it back before you and add additional conditions. That's our reason for revoking an interim use permit. If they're degradating water quality. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998 Brooks: Ladd, can I ask you a question? Do you think this, are you saying that you think this is better than agricultural for water quality? Conrad: yeah, it could be. Brooks: What about natural resources? Conrad: Could be a problem, yeah. Well for sure it's a problem. For wildlife. It could be a problem. Brooks: More of a problem than agricultural scenarios? Conrad: Say it a different way? Brooks: Well... think the golf course is going to have a worse affect on wildlife than keeping it agricultural. Conrad: Yes. Brooks: Okay, because when you said you thought it was better than keeping it agricultural. You just meant water quality? Conrad: Yeah. Brooks: Okay. Conrad: I'm talking about chemicals and fertilizer and what have you. .. If you think this site can have agricultural on it and they can farm it and they can put the chemicals on it that they want, and the challenge for this group would be to say, can we improve it over what has been the use. Brooks: Or are you just putting different chemicals on? Conrad: You know it will resolve some issues in my mind if we, if! can get a handle on that but I don't think anybody's going to be able to reassure me... Burton: How do you define.. .herbicides or organic fertilizer and it looks to me like they would be able to use.. . herbicide and pesticides... Aanenson: Yeah, and so what they're saying is once they get their turf established, they're going to.. . Burton: Because there's chemical fertilizers... 32 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998 Aanenson: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm talking about the storage. Burton: I'm talking about the application. Right now your recommendation 15 is that chemical fertilizers are prohibited in the flood plain. Aanenson: Oh, I'm sorry. That should say the storage of. Burton: But that's in number 8. Storage is 8. It says the storage and maintenance equipment and chemicals shall be out of the flood plain. And 15 it just says the chemical can't be used in the flood plain. . . Aanenson: ... pulling it all together so I'm not sure. Burton: Yeah, and I was trying to figure out. . . Aanenson: Well I think chemicals and fertilization is an issue. .. Joyce: .. . Kate, is the applicant also the owner of the property? Aanenson: No. They may be buying it but they're not. Joyce: They have an option for it or? Aanenson: You can ask them that, but somebody else owns it. Joyce: Okay. Where is, what is, I mean where is golf and driving ranges a permitted use? Aanenson: It's a conditional use, golf course in A2. Driving range an interim use in A2. Joyce: So it's just an interim use, it's always an interim use? Aanenson: Yeah. Or it could be a conditional use and golf course. Could be a conditional use and a driving range is an interim use. Joyce: .. .in town it's got to be an interim use, correct? Aanenson: That's how we envision it. It would be a short term, until we brought urban services out similar to like Swings. That was the original thought. Joyce: On the code amendment. .. Aanenson: Well again, what they wanted to do is a pro shop. You know a place where you can sell beer. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998 Joyce: I understand that part of it but like now, what are we doing up at Bluff Creek? What do they have? Do they. . .? Aanenson: Yes. Joyce: So we're allowing Bluff Creek to. Aanenson: But that's again a full fledged golf course... That was a long time ago. I'm sure before a lot of the standards... Joyce: I guess I'm trying to, there's a code amendment... So another golf course pops up somewhere.. . Aanenson: I golf course doesn't have the interim use standards. Joyce: Okay, so this code amendment's for the interim use then? Aanenson: Correct. Joyce: Thank you. Now I'm on tract. Aanenson: Okay. Now we're on the same.. . Yes, this is for the interim use.. . for golf driving range. Joyce: Okay. Why don't we have the applicant present to us at this time. Please step forward and state your name. Chris Bixler: I'm Chris Bixler. I'm one of the owners of the RSS GolfImprovement Center. Jeff Helstrom: And I'm Jeff Helstrom. Chris and I are going to be partners. We have purchased the land on a contract from this gentleman over here. We do have a vision for the property and our vision is definitely environmental. I mean we've thought about that. We've thought about what this property looks like now and what the use is now and what we can do to this property with the uses that we're going to outline to you. Are any of you golfers? Okay. So I mean you've played golf courses and I think if you've played some of the nicer golf courses you've seen that they can really do some good things with the land that does have some wetlands and they can preserve those areas and we feel with the plans we've put together does just that and we've also outlined a fertilizer and a weed control program that's strictly organic fertilizers. It would be, you know somehow it would be applied in the flood plain. However, at times of year that they'd be applied typically would be after any flooding had occurred because there's normally you put that first application down at the end of April or beginning of May. So it's just something to consider that we can time our application to prevent runoff. You know we don't want to spray weeds when it's going to rain. The time of application, you wait until a time when it's going to be dry for a couple days and you spray the weeds selectively. And that's, you know those are just things that we can do as a smaller operation that a farmer may not do. They're just 34 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998 going to go out and they're going to spray whatever they're going to spray normally whenever they're going to spray it. So there is the possibility that you could get some runoff there but we feel that we can prevent that. You know Chris and I are here because we both love golf. I'm not in the golf industry now and neither is Chris. I own my own landscape company. We have a office warehouse in Corcoran and so I've been playing golf, and Chris and I have known each other for quite a while and we golf together and we love golf and always talked about getting into the golf industry. And our vision for what we wanted to do wasn't to openjust a driving range where you just go and hit balls. We really wanted to open a golf learning center where people can hit balls. Play some shorter holes. Work on their sand game. Their chipping game. All the different things you wouldn't necessarily get at every driving range. In fact it's really hard to find where you can do all of those things at one place. So you know our vision together was, you know we want to do something different. We want to do something really nice and we want to be able to put our money into the facility and to do that, you know we needed to find a property that didn't cost a million bucks. And one thing that came to mind was well, let's get something that's going to flood. Because you know...flooding but in the spring when we're not really going to be hitting balls so if it floods, you know we can pull everything up and sit back and wait and the actual structure, the home and that is not in the flood plain so we feel that that wouldn't be as much of a problem. So we talked about that and we looked at this land and we really thought that we put together a plan that you know utilizes the space. It lets us buy a piece of property that financially we can afford, and let's us put the money back into the learning thing and creates an area that you know people can bring their families and have some fun and not just go you know bang a bucket of balls. We talked a little bit about the winter part of it. This is a really integral part of the plan that we also want an area that people can hit full shots and in the winter. And the only way to do that is to have you know a range that's long enough, say 185 yards probably to hit a reasonably full... and that really has to be outside. You can't hit a...185 yards long feasible so we thought about it and thought it and we started testing some things and we've got this, a net system that literally both covers the ground and we'll talk about that a little bit more later. But it collects the balls and then we retrieve them and then people hit from a small dugout area that's heated. The face of the dugout area is open. So you're hitting out to this area that's covered with our sloped net collecting balls and you can literally hit full shots year round and not. .. from any other range in the Twin Cities, or really any other range in the country that we know about, and that's the reason that we said we need the net and that we need the lights because I don't know if you've gone to any golf... but a good percentage of their business is done in the evening. And if we can't be open in the evening in the winter, it's tough to get just people who want to come there in the day. So what we're really looking at is just, we put together a lighting plan that we just completed a couple of days ago that would light just the area and we can talk about that a little bit more later. But you know we 'lllight that area. .., the balls and people can come out there year round and have a great time and you know hit balls and come out in the winter and the summer and do it too. And we just feel it's really a, it's a great plan and we want to talk to you and put together a plan that you can monitor and we can you know keep this property, or make this property better really than the use that it has now. Chris Bixler: Also I guess a couple other things. I've lived in the area my entire life. This area, in my mind, in my knowledge of the golf business. I've been.. . golfer for probably 20 plus years. Essentially over 25 years, if you can believe it. This area needs something like that. A good 35 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998 quality practice facility. .. golfers. Weare a family oriented center. We're focusing on service for every customer. Not just the good golfers. We want kids, beginners to come to our place. Enjoy themselves and... Owning and operating a range has been a dream of mine for about the last 10 years. I've been trying to figure out a way how to get a full shot in the winter time and how to collect that ball in the snow, rain and sleet. The elements. Our net system takes those elements out of the picture. As far as snow, the snow will fall right through it. One other thing about the net. The nets are above the ground. So if you're worried about small animals running into the net, I think we've handled that issue. As far as raising them and having the gates on the range so that if some animal does get stuck. . . physically go take it out and release it. We've put in gates and stufflike that to manage that. If there is any birds that fly into it, we will be able to get them out... Also, like Jeff said, there is no other place in the country like this. As far as we know there's no place in the world. It's going to make it very unique.. .customer. Something that's needed. If you go to a dome nowadays in the winter time, the distance between, from the tee box to the end of the dome is 65 yards. When you go there and hit a long driver, you have no idea if you hook the ball or slice the ball. With this you'll be able to teach a person and give them good lessons, which you really don't get in domes because you don't see your ball flight. And that's one of the most important things to us. Now as far as the netting, the netting would be up from the month, do you remember? November to April or May? Jeff Helstrom: We've got a plan of the netting system so we can go over it with you. Joyce: So we're discussing winter netting and summer netting. Jeff Helstrom: There's only one net which stays up in the summer and that's just to guard the DNR property next door. The other netting is only up basically from November until maybe the first of April. And then it all comes down. Joyce: And that's the device with the. Jeff Helstrom: Yep, yep. But basically what happens here, I don't know if you can see this but here's our tee box here. Here's where we hit out into the range from that and here's a series of ; .R.ets that are about 40 feet deep and then cover the width of the range. And then there will just be some ball retrieval like wire mesh retrieval systems where the ball literally will hit the net and then they roll back into that ball retrieval system at the base of each one of these nets. And then you can walk behind them because the back of the net is about, I think about 8 feet off the ground. We can literally have somebody go back behind them when people are hitting them and take the balls out of the retrieval area. Now once again I just wanted to emphasize that this whole netting system is only in the winter. The only net that exists in the summer is the one that borders the DNR property here and then everything comes down. .. .and that would just be a shorter net just to guard people... So as you can see we've turned the driving range out this way so we want people hitting out to this area and but occasionally somebody's out collecting the balls.. . Joyce: Are there any questions on the netting? 36 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998 Blackowiak: Excuse me. I just have a question on this map. I'm sorry. It says north, is that correct? Aanenson: He was going the wrong way when he said driving. He was pointing the wrong way. Blackowiak: Okay. So is north at the top of this map or is north really on the right? Okay. So the north up here shows me that north is at the top. Joyce: North is actually pointing west, correct? Is that how I'm understanding? Blackowiak: That's what I'm, it's actually what says north is really west. Okay. I was turned around. I just want to make sure I'm looking the right way here. Jeff Helstrom: Tom Braman would like to say something. He did our wetland delineation. He'd like to say something about the nets. Tom Braman: My name's Tom Braman. I'm a biologist with Acorn Environmental Consultants. I worked on the wetland delineation portion and some of the other issues regarding natural resources and environmental impacts. I just wanted to say a couple things that we looked at in regards to comments from the Fish and Wildlife Service about the nets. They wanted a 40 foot net and we went back and looked at the projectory of the ball and we looked at the size of the.. . to put a 40 foot over the entire area. .. The Wildlife Service is telling us, it appeared to be related to. ., so we did step that down. Chris just mentioned the wildlife gates. Basically what those are, and they're just small gates in the lower part of this netting here, they're just open all the time. So an animal over time. .. find their way out, we can help them with that. There is gates all along the side of the. .. Sidney: I had a question, is that okay? Joyce: Sure, go ahead. Sidney: Okay. I guess I was concerned, well maybe to back up to fertilizing and pesticides, herbicide issue compared to farming practices which I think could be improved in your situation. I think. . . What really concerns me are the nets however. Especially given the environmentally sensitive area, potentially a lot of wildlife there. That's one thing that I didn't see enough information being presented that showed me that you had an understanding of the impact of the nets. Now you've obviously searched the web for information about the fertilizer impacts and USGA had some information available. But I have to believe there is information about how to design nets that might be more friendly to, especially deer. . . pheasants. Woodchucks. I don't know if I care for woodchucks too much but I think if you would have a deer caught in those nets, it would be a really big catastrophe so I'd like you to consider you know doing some more research on that. Jeff Helstrom: What we've done is, we did meet with the DNR and Fish and Wildlife and they're going to work with us on putting this together and they want us to work with them. And I 37 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998 think that's...in the staff report also that they want to be involved in this project. They have certain net sizes. . . feel important to have some tensions on the net and net height along that border. Sidney: And I have to believe there is more technology out there... where you might raise the lower power ofthe net at night for example when you don't have customers there and lower it, something that would be more friendly to some of the larger animals. Jeff Helstrom: Yeah, there's no reason at all that we can't do that. Chris Bixler: I think what we can do, as far as raising the side nets which are facing.. . stay up all the time... Sidney: I guess 1'd really encourage you to do that and the other thought I have is that, well if this property's been farmed probably animals know to stay away but I guess I don't really know. We don't have enough information about what. Jeff Helstrom: Well we definitely will work with Fish and Wildlife. I mean they really, as far as we know.. .it's somewhat unique. And that's why they want to work with us and we plan on doing it. Especially if we're going to reviewed every year... Sidney: And I did look on the web for netting things and golf netting and stuff and didn't find too much in terms of, well anything really on environmental impacts of nets. But I did see a lot of net vendors. You know fishing nets and golf nets and... they have custom design so they might be able to... Chris Bixler: They have... The nets that we're looking at are friendly for animals, ifthere is any type of friendlier. Just in the way they are with. . . Jeff Helstrom: Yeah, taut. This is the higher net. Sidney: The birds would... Jeff Helstrom: They won't get hung up in there and that's the issue. If they can bounce off the net. It's not a hard surface where it's going to injure them.. .and we're really talking about mainly you know smaller birds and things. The nets aren't going to be up in the summer or really during the migration of the geese and ducks and everything... We'll have that one net that will always stay there along there but DNR also suggested that we flag them and put some reflective flagging on that net also to make it more visible. The DNR actually told us that they would, once they heard or saw our plan they said they would prefer a net up there all the time. Sidney: Well so that they know that it's there. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998 Jeff Helstrom: Well, so they know it's there plus golf balls aren't being hit onto their property... people running over there to retrieve them all the time. So when they told us that, we thought well we'll keep it up. Aanenson: Can we get confirmation of that information? Jeff Helstrom: What's that? Aanenson: Can we get that in writing? Jeff Helstrom: Oh sure. Aanenson: That's not what we've heard. Jeff Helstrom: All four of us were there when we met with them and they really were in favor for it. Aanenson: Okay. Unfortunately we weren't. Sidney: That's information that City Council definitely... Joyce: We're kind of chopping this up but is there any other information on nets, since we're on that subject right now? Okay. We'll move along then. Chris Bixler: The other thing I'd like to say is, we want to keep this as environmentally friendly as possible. One of our, with Jeffbeing in the landscaping business and myself in the design of this, we want to keep nature the way it is. We're not asking for a lot of changes outside of our area at all. To keep the area and surrounding wetland the same way, that's our intention. We don't want to impact all areas.. .try to move our facility back to handle those issues. As far as keeping the property. . . all the trees that are there, except for some because we had to back up our range, we do have to take down a couple trees but we'll leave most of them up and just keep it natural. If you're a golfer you know that the prettier the course, the more you like it and it's going to be a very attractive course as far as the chip and putt and the range. So we just wanted you to know that. As part of the plans is to keep it environmentally. .. Jeff Helstrom: And myself being in the lawn business, I mow and maintain condominiums and townhomes and apartments and work extremely meticulous as far as the way we manage our property and this would be the same. I mean I can't stand to come in, if the curbs aren't etched off or the trees aren't trimmed around on a weekly basis or weeds. I mean we just want that to look really nice but keeping in mind that you can spot...You don't have to just blanket. If you put a good organic fertilizer down 2 or 3 times a year and strengthen the turf, you don't have a lot of weeks. And we can go through and spray an area this size for weeds with very little herbicide. And we did get some information in regards to the herbicides that were being applied previously and they're applying hatrazine, and they're applying that at a rate of 1 pound per acre. Well what hatrazine is, it's a carryover herbicide so that hatrazine is you know basically in the soil for a 39 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998 couple of years. Whereas the broad leaf weed control you spray on the plant. The plant absorbs it. . . very short carry over time. Less than a week and like I mentioned before, if you go out and spray when it's not going to rain, which is what you want to do, because we don't want to have to respray. You're not going to get the runoff of... What we have proposed for the club house. What's existing now is a 800 square foot house. All of the plans. . .I guess the zoning ordinance for that area.. . and what we had planned for that is basically renovating that house and putting some TV's up and a fireplace and a little snack bar and maybe to sell some golf clubs and gloves and balls and those kind of things. And have the golf channel on and some nice couches and just having a place that people can come to and sit around and talk golf. You know not just come in and hitting balls and leaving. You know we're not looking to open a restaurant. We're not looking to open a bar. Just something nice for people to hang out a little bit. And we would like to.. . snacks and be able.. .talk about some pre-packaged items. We appreciate that. Although we would like to just offer 3.2 beer. We aren't looking for a liquor license but it'd be nice.. .if they want to have a beer. But basically that house would stay the same other than the interior renovations and get it up to code and...shutters and those kind of things to get it looking good. Roger Anderson: Yeah there should be in your report, there should be a little outline of a floor plan. Aanenson: Yeah, it has one. Jeff Helstrom: Do you want me to go through this and kind of point out what we're going to do in the house? Joyce: Yeah, you can go through it real quickly I guess. Jeff Helstrom: You know here's our entrance. We've got a little step... We've got a little indoor putting green to handle just basically some small retaining wall to walk around there... And then a nice area around a fireplace. After the storm there's plenty of wood down there. And some tables and then just a little snack bar area. Out here we're proposing putting a deck on with some chairs and tables... Joyce: Do you have a question Allyson? Brooks: Yeah, when was this house built? Jeff Helstrom: I'm not sure. Brooks: Why do you want that house a dark color? Aanenson: That's what it said in the, that's what the standards are for it. Brooks: What was the original color of the house though? Aanenson: It's white. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998 Brooks: .. . keep it white though because that way, you're going to go to all the trouble to keep a 1930's house, you ought to keep it in it's original color instead of turning it dark brown. Aanenson: Well, they're modifying the entrance. They're adding a deck to it so they're not keeping it. It's completely changed. Architecturally, I'm not sure the use or the entrance or the decking around it is going to make it...what it is today. That's what the standards in this district say so. And if you look at the entrance ofit, it shows you that it's modified quite a bit. Jeff Helstrom: I think that's, Roger did you have... Roger Anderson: My name's Roger Anderson and I'm the civil engineer on this project and Jeff and Chris have done such a good job of explaining things and they're so enthusiastic about it that I don't have a lot to add. But there is a couple of things that we wanted to talk about briefly. One ofthem I'd like to point out is an aerial photo that we have. Perhaps we have addressed the question of whether farming is a worse condition or the golf use is. .. Coming in to the north. The limits of the... there is periodically that this is a photo from the city... the golf course area is right up in here. It's 400 yards long roughly, but at that time the agricultural use went almost twice as far as it was in a Type II wetland according to Tom so the ag use slopes around and at times there's significantly more ago . . and weather conditions. The year round use of that property is really one of the keys to making this work and part of that is the, just to let the golfer get out there and hit balls except for.. .winter it's too cold. Maybe it's 0 degrees for example when they can't hit. The shed system will protect them and there will be little direct heaters that can keep the golfer warm which they have at the domes for example. The lighting system is the key I think to making that happen on a year round basis. And in order to make that work, to make year round use work, we need the lights out there. It would be roughly from daylight savings time to daylight savings time that those lights would be in use. Obviously now you don't need the lights. At golf courses and driving ranges that are out there right now, function from sunrise to sunset and that's the traditional way to do it. And up through the fall, gradually the days get shorter and we want to add a couple hours to that time. And the same things through the winter months and the daylight savings get, people can't get away during the day to get out on the golf course. That's why we're asking that this happen. I've got a couple of photos that show what typical conditions are. Let's see in can get this on the screen right here. This is a range out in Florida. Chris has gotten pictures and it shows a typical range. You've got the tee boxes and then you've got the grass hitting area and a target area. So this is a little different than your typical ones because it's actually got a little... You can hit the target greens and the hills and the trees out there to aim so you really practice your game and improve. Not just have a big, flat field. This particular one also has.. .lighting and this is a picture when they're out at night. That's not snow on the ground by the way. It's Florida sand... So you can see the impact of the lighting. Now it doesn't light it up like a football field. The uniform light everywhere. It needs some lights and it needs some light in here so you can see your ball flight and see what's going on. Those lights would be in use, we're asking until 9:00 at night so we can extend our hours so people can use the facility and at that time they get shut off. It isn't a 24 hour lighted area and it's just a parcel part of the year that it gets used. This is a typical what you see if you look down the tee box part of it, the grass hitting tees. You see these lights up above you and they'd be shining of course 41 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998 and focused out onto the landing areas so you can watch you ball in flight. So we didn't ask for the lighting for example to unreasonably extend the hours. We asked for that because we needed to make this winter portion of the facility work for us. So that those people will be there. We think we can control the right, the timing will be right on and that's why we're asking that the light portion be looked at a little bit harder. Again, we modified the lights to minimize the light that goes outside the limits. Our lighting engineers assured us we can cut it down to the half a foot candle that is typical for lighting plans. Half a foot candle at the edge of the driving range so there are ways I think we can make this a good neighbor to make it work and not impact the wildlife and still make it a good year round facility that we're asking to provide here. Chris Bixler: Can I just add something here? Roger Anderson: Sure, go ahead. Chris Bixler: I just spoke to the company that's doing our lighting for us. Giving us all the information on it. They deal with a lot of issues like this every day. When they build golf courses, there's wetlands everywhere. He assured me that we can keep our lights focused on our range only. And that's what we wanted. It's not that we want to light outside of our area. There's no need for it. Jeff Helstrom: Basically what we need to light, and if you look at this picture right here, is our green, which are right out here and here. And our tee box. So if a professional is giving a lesson... that's the main importance for the lighting. And that would be very minimal because the actual hours.. . summer extend it out probably only be a month and a half... but in the winter we'd be using the same exact same lighting. It just filters up. .. people will be able to see their ball, and they have assured us that they can focus that light strictly on. . . Chris Bixler: Also if you notice in the back of this picture, that's the end of the driving range... tree line. Now if you look in this picture again, you cannot see the tree line. It basically eliminated that. That's how they.. .they've got anti-glare equipment that will be attached... ; Roger Anderson: We're available to answer any other questions. Joyce: Okay. Commissioners, do you have any questions for the applicants? LuAnn. Sidney: I'm wondering you're talking about the supplier of the lights. Do you have that in writing? Do you have a description prepared? Jeff Helstrom: Oh yeah. Sidney: Did we have that in our packet? Chris Bixler: We just got this. Actually it was supposed to arrive last week and it didn't. . .lost in the mail and he Fed Ex' d us a copy yesterday. .. Roger, did you bring any copies of that? 42 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998 Roger Anderson: We did bring copies but. . . part of the package and that puts staff and you folks at a bit of a disadvantage but we did get 5 copies of their revised plan and a letter stating what Chris had said and we'll be glad to pass them around and submit it with additional information for the Council. Sidney: That's what... Burton: Actually one quick one. Can you describe the dugout part? Jeff Helstrom: Basically what the dugouts are...a three sided dugout with the back facing north. It's really important because typically your cold winds in the winter come from the north. It's open on one side. It's high enough to swing a club in and it's deep enough that somebody can stand back here and watch you hit some balls. So it's just a hard surface floor for hitting off of and ultra violet, it's not like a.. .it's the kind you see in a hockey rink. They do really well and they're pretty intense. We feel that, well we're sure that we can under semi-normal weather conditions... We're not looking for 75 degrees.. . for someone to come out and hit a driver in February, they'd be happy ifit was 55 or 60 degrees. It's not an indoor playing... Joyce: I'm a little confused on the lighting. You have this lighting plan. You have 10 poles down on each end. . . Jeff Helstrom: I did want to mention one other thing. You mentioned poles. We originally had a 50 foot height that we wanted to go up with and DNR and Fish and Wildlife said 40 was a better number. I mean we really can get away with 50 just fine. We don't have to have 60 and then basically our lights are just focused.. . need the lights in back of the range will be on the poles. Most of the other lighting is on... Joyce: DNR suggested 40? Is that what you said? Jeff Helstrom: Yeah. Joyce: And you're going.. .60 is better? Jeff Helstrom: We originally wanted 60 and 50 is... Joyce: You've got, it looks to me like about eight lights on the winter driving area. Is that how you would describe that? Chris Bixler: No, we've got some low lights that shine on the, out of the ground on the greens... Joyce: What are the other two lights over there? Are they used in the winter time? Jeff Helstrom: These? 43 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998 Joyce: No. Keep going to the north... Those won't be used in the winter time? Jeff Helstrom: No. Joyce: So what we're talking about in the winter time are 4,8, 10. Okay, 10 lights in this area right here, correct? Jeff Helstrom: Actually we don't even need.. .lighting. I'm not sure why that's even way out there. This is the only area that we need to light because we only need to go out 185 yards. So you're looking at 1,2,3,4,5,6, 7, 8 and we've got a couple behind the dugout that are shining out and down. Joyce: How tall are those A3? Those are 50 feet as well? Aanenson: Yeah. That's what it calls on in the plan. Joyce: So N 1 0 and 9 are not even going to be there in these plans, correct? Jeff Helstrom: Right. We don't need... Joyce: What about N5? The two N5's. Are they going to be there? Roger Anderson: These two will not be there. That was my error actually. These two are the ground lights. I think if you look back at the photo you can see it. It highlights the putting greens for example.. . small mound and a light behind it and the light will shine at that target green... visible from the tee box without raising the entire light across the whole site. Joyce: So you'd be lighting an area about the size of an average large size parking lot? Jeff Helstrom: Right. Joyce: Now, you mentioned that in February you'd love to have 50 degree weather. What if it's, like it normally is, is zero. Then you shut down? Jeff Helstrom: Well our plan is to, under put a sign out there and under inclement weather conditions or severely cold temperatures, please call first before you come out because we don't feel that if we're to have a southwest wind coming in it's 5 or 10 below, we're not going to be able to keep the area. . . Chris Bixler: I spoke with a company that makes the heaters and they said at zero degrees outside, they can heat it to 55 degrees.. .if it's uncomfortable and it gets under, you know below zero, of course we're going to have to close... Joyce: So you're planning on this to be... 44 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998 Jeff Helstrom: And we may do something like this.. . golf balls when it gets under a certain temperature in the dugout. We just want to... Chris Bixler: We're all Minnesotans here. You know we're used to snow and that's kind ofa positive thing about this. I think it's... Joyce: And your hours of operation will be Sunday through Sunday then? Jeff Helstrom: Yes. Joyce: All right. I think that's about all I have to ask. Thank you very much for your presentation. This is open for a public hearing. Can I get a motion please to open it up. Brooks moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Joyce: Anyone like to address the Planning Commission? Please step forward. David Albright: Good evening. My name is David Albright and I'm one of the owners and hopefully sellers of the property to those gentlemen and I've got a very brief couple of comments to make to you. I remember earlier Commissioner Conrad had voiced the concern that is this a break even situation ecologically? Is it a losing situation ecologically or is this a gain? And I'm here to tell you that I think it's a gain and here's why. There has been about 35 acres on this parcel farmed for as long as anybody can remember. Some years it's 40-45. Some years it's 25 but for the most part it's 35 acres. And that has had broad application of not only fertilizers but herbicides for all of those. Hatrazine. For a guy who made his living spraying that stuff during summers when I was in college, that's terrible stuff for living things. It really is. So I think that you really do have a net gain ecologically by having one spot spraying of herbicides during the dry times with a no carry over situation as opposed to a blanket spraying them. Sometimes in the wet times, but certainly with the one year hatrazine does carry over for at least 1 year and some things you can't grow for 2 years with hatrazine. So you know it's going to be there ifit floods and you know it's going to be there in the springtime when snow is melting and presumably draining into the creek. So I think from a purely ecological perspective, this is a winlwin situation. And there's another thing I would like to point out and that is, a lot of people are familiar with the saying that gee, some people look at a glass as half full and others look at it as half empty. I think that this body can look at this particular glass as not half full or half empty but about 2/3 full because the amount of ground that these folks are going to be using is only the high ground and in not the particularly sensitive areas. It's adjacent to or next to some sensitive areas. But those sensitive areas are being left absolutely intact to.. . about 50 acres. And I know one of the commissioners, I believe. . . are we better off acquiring this and maintaining it as a park or natural space or green space. I think you can have the best of both worlds. The part that is not particularly sensitive to the.. .by these folks and it's going to be something that's going to be pretty. It's not going to be an eyesore. It's not going to be something that would also be allowed by your zoning ordinance as a conditional use or an interim use. It could be a communications tower or that type of thing. But the 50 acres of sensitive stuff is being left absolutely pristine, 45 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998 unaffected. In fact enhanced by the lack of broad range, significant herbicides or fertilizers that would be, and have been for the last 50 years. Been I suppose leaching into the creek area. This is a chance to dramatically minimize it. Make it applied at the time that it's most environmentally safe. And two, to apply an organic type of fertilizer which you folks have the right to demand. So and I think these folks are sitting here today saying, you know. I'm going to ask you to trust me a little bit but they are trusting you a lot. They're going to go spend several hundred thousand dollars to do this project and give you folks a chance to negatively impact them every year if they are found to be negatively impacting the ecology of the environment. So I suppose they are asking for a little bit of trust but they in turn are virtually placing their economic well being in your hands too and trusting that you will be good stewards of that trust. Finally with respect to the lighting issue. I used to know a lot of about deer and wildlife because I used to be a hunter and as I get older, I've stopped hunting because basically I don't like killing things. But animals are not dumb. They really aren't. Deer are going to figure out that there's a net there early on in their life and they are going to adapt to it and they are going to avoid it. And I have seen a number of driving ranges, the one up in Bloomington. It's either in or next to. . . Scott Park. They have huge nets and I don't drive by there every day but I drive by there several times a week and I've never seen a bird stuck in there. So I don't know that that's, I mean I guess I never even thought that that birds would do that because the birds that I know have always been a lot more wily than perhaps I wanted them to be at the specific time I was dealing with them. So I guess what I'm saying is, I think that this situation probably needs the lights to work. But in return for that small intrusion, there's nobody living next to it. There really isn't. There's not anybody. There's no houses. There's the Shakopee skyline lights to the rear of the site. But I really do think that the city of Chanhassen could benefit significantly over what's there, and certainly benefit significantly for this proposal over what could be there by looking through the conditional uses there and uses that are allowed which would be a lot more onerous and much more of an impact than this would be ecologically and socially. Does anybody have any questions? Joyce: Thank you for your comments. Appreciate that. Anyone else like to address the Planning Commission? Seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing. Brooks moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Joyce: Ladd. Conrad: Interesting issues. It's amazing here. I need a couple... Dave, septic systems check out or we're going to look at it? Aanenson: It's a newer system. The Building Official... Conrad: Okay. But, because it now has to handle more than that. Aanenson: Correct. Yeah, there's some other issues. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998 Conrad: And we require, what do we require Kate? Don't we require two different locations to build. Aanenson: An alternate.. . correct. Conrad: And do we have different standards for a use such as this? Aanenson: Yeah, and they'll have to meet all those. Correct and that's in the Building Official's. . . Conrad: Has the DNR, Fish and Wildlife, have they seen the most current plans? Aanenson: No. They had an original meeting with them and we've spoken to different parties so we're hearing different things. That's why we want somebody... Conrad: I bet you I've got 12 pages of comments here and it's really hard. That's why I'm not talking very quickly because it's really hard to net it out. It's an interesting use. There's probably, there could be a better use down there. But I do need some help from, the problem as we. . . we could force all sorts of things to happen that cost a lot of money in terms of the evaluation and that's a good way to kill a project if you want to do that. Yet on the other hand I guess I do need, it is in a sensitive area and I am not novice on some of these things. But I do need some, to review, I do need to have some outside governmental experts talk about the plan as is before I can do anything to it. I just need expert, some expert saying this is how I see it. I've read the reports in here but it's not the most current report. It's not reviewing the most current plan. Dave, you can correct me. Aanenson: Well what they did is they modified their plan based on Fish and Wildlife. There are some areas that there is not concurrence. As I indicated, Fish and Wildlife says 40 feet and we concur. You can't have 40 feet because your ball's going to go over. Conrad: They also said make it colorful. Aanenson: Well the people that yes. Tag the top of the netting so that it acts as a barrier. Conrad: I read it differently. I read it as make the netting visible is what I heard, is what I read... Joyce: I heard flags. . . Aanenson: Yes. There's markers. .. The other issue is, they felt there is a lot of literature on bird migration and nets. That's not a concern of the DNR. What it is is the terrestrial animals. Ifit's taut enough the birds will bounce off and what they're concerned about is if they get hooked in the net. And if they use the right type of system, that shouldn't be a problem. It's the other migration and stuff and the concern is. . . and we discussed is if that netting at some point, the permanent one which is on the eastern border at some point is moved down. That's why we're 47 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998 saying, we don't have enough information on what's migrating through there right now. We've got our own... Conrad: So what you're telling me is that we don't need to send the current plan. I need somebody to tell me whether that creek is being impacted. I do fish trout. And you're right next to something that I don't have a clue what you're doing to it but it's one of the few trout streams in the seven county area. I just need somebody to say, hey. It looks like it's going to be better, and I think based on what you said it's going to be better. But I can't trust you. I need somebody that you don't have to pay a lot of money to, and probably somebody from government to take risk to say hey. It looks like it's going to be, you know it's not going to be farmed. It's going to be better and I think if you put your money where you mouth is, it should be better. But I need somebody to tell me that. Aanenson: And I believe we can work that... Conrad: I also need staff to tell me what the conditions for review are before I can move on this. Because it's only fair to you folks because I'd be real tempted to pull the permits, the conditional use permits if things go wrong. Right away and you're going to put some money into this so what staff is saying is that we want to review this every year and that review costs you a whole lot of money in terms of what we could do to you. So I think you'd better make sure you know what we're going to, how we're going to review you. It's not going, if this passes. Ifit gets out of here and the City Council goes with it. But I need to see what those review criteria are because for my own, and now you've got to deal with.. .and the trout stream happens to be mine. That water quality can't deteriorate a bit. Not a bit. And I don't think it will. But somebody's got to tell me that but ifit does, a year from now, there's a good chance that the money you put in is bad money. Because that'd be forcing you to do something about it. That's my little issue and I'll bet you, everybody else here has something that might be precious to them or of concern. So anyway, that's what I need and I'm not sure, I guess what we have to do here is see where everybody else is netting out. Maybe my direction, and my direction generally would be to table this to do a couple of these things. I want DNR and Fish and Wildlife to review the plan again. I want them to tell me that this is better, that the water quality and some of these other things are 'probably going to be a little bit better. Not perfect. You know it's not going to be like it was pristine, but I want them to tell me that. I want staff to develop a list of what we're going to measure so that the applicant knows what we're going to measure and what the standards are going to be held to because you may not want to do this deal if we have some standards that you really don't like. I also need to plan, and maybe the plan is in there for, but I didn't see it. The plan for fertilizing and for, I just have to see the hard, concrete plan because that's really part of what we're going to manage. Staffs going to manage. It seems like a lot of work but again, it's the applicant's right to do this. There are some real benefits to doing it. But I'll say a couple other things and then I'll just shut up and listen to everybody else. I'm not persuaded on the lights yet. It seems out of character and as we look at our city's standards and codes and whatever, I do agree with the staff report. It seems out of character. Somebody's got to tell me more than. It is out of character with the area. There's just no doubt about it and therefore I agree with the staff report that the lights should not be there. 48 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998 Joyce: Thanks Ladd. Alison Blackowiak. Blackowiak: Okay. I agree with what Ladd has said generally. I do have a few other issues that I would like to raise. One of my overriding thoughts was, I think this is going to be, should this go in, it will be a final use. I cannot see anything else coming afterwards because it is not planned for sewer and water. It is not, I mean the zoning is such that this is the existing flood plain. There might be a house on there. Maybe two. I just, I don't see a lot of potential for this property other than agricultural. Other than open space or park. Or other than possibly this. It's just not going to happen I don't think. So I think this is a final use should it come to that and we'd better be really comfortable with what goes in there because I think it's going to be in there a long time. So building on what Ladd said about the trout stream, I certainly agree. I read the pesticide information and noted that it all seemed from the US Golf Association or some, I don't have the official name. USGA. US Golf Association. I would say consider the source. I mean I'm sure they're going to be biased in favor of whatever fmdings happen to help. There may be some other findings out there that we as a Planning Commission should be looking at or the City Council should be looking at. Maybe the Environmental Commission of Chanhassen has some information of some sort or access to something because I'm not convinced that what I'm being told is the entire story. It's maybe the story that they want to be heard but I'm not sure that I'm getting all the information that I need to make a good decision. I am concerned about the Bluff Creek management plan and how this fits in with the use envisioned by that plan. What, is this in the primary corridor? What does that mean for it? I'm not quite sure yet and I'd like to know what that has to do with this plan as it is right now. I also had comments about the over... mechanism for pesticide usage, etc. and Ladd said it much better than I ever could I think that you know the applicant also needs to know what's being measured. I mean the city has to develop some standards. I mean what are we looking at? Are we looking at pesticide levels? Are we going to measure them in terms of runoff? How do you do it? I mean number of golf balls lost? Who knows? I mean what are we concerned about? You know what does the City need to be concerned about? What does the applicant need to be concerned about? How do we measure it? Because I think that once an applicant is in, or a use is established, it's hard to stop that use. I mean I know that we've got conditional use permits that are broken constantly and I don't think I've ever heard of anybody being fined or stopped from keeping their business because conditions of the permit were broken. It hasn't happened. So I think that we have to make sure that we know what we're going to go into and really get some serious conditions written down. Both sides agree to it and make sure that everybody understands what's happening going in. And finally, to me this plan seems out of character with Fish and Wildlife and DNR as neighbor's but as long as they are a party to negotiations and to just sort of the general comments about what's going on, I'd feel more comfortable. But until everyone sits down together, that's the applicant, the city, DNR, Fish and Wildlife, I wouldn't be comfortable going ahead until I get the consensus. I get the feeling that everybody is on the same page here and we're not getting little bits and pieces from here and there. I want kind of a plan that everyone can buy into and then come back and tell me, this is the plan we've all agreed to it and let's move forward. So I agree with Ladd, I'd like to see it back after you get some more information and I would feel much more comfortable in had that feeling that all the players and all the interested parties were being heard. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998 Joyce: Alison, another one of the key points here I think...is the lighting. Do you want to touch on that at all? Blackowiak: My note, totally disruptive. That was what I've got written down. Ijust don't think they fit in at all. I mean as the neighbors, I mean if you're talking about Fish and Wildlife and DNR and trout stream and then it's like lights. It just kind of seems out of character with the neighborhood. Out of character with what's happening in the area and not consistent with the comprehensive plan. What we had envisioned for that area so I do not feel that lights would be appropriate. Joyce: Thank you. Allyson. Brooks: I agree with a lot of the previous comments. I actually like the project. Ijust don't like the project where it is. I think it's a really nice idea. I'd really like to see it happen in Chanhassen. The location is the problem. We've got a natural landscape down there and you've got farming going on, it still seems like you have that rural landscape. You don't get rural landscape anymore once they put the golf course in. It's suburbia. So we're changing the nature of the landscape. Ifwe talk about you know, it's agricultural or open space, a golf course doesn't, you know you talk about vision. What is the vision that we want to put down there. What do we want it to look like? Conrad: We have none... Brooks: Right, so. Okay. The nets. I mean figure out what the nets are going to look like. There's one of those driving ranges on, in Eden Prairie on Crosstown. I mean they're obtrusive looking and I can't imagine that they're not detrimental to wildlife at all. They can't not be detrimental to wildlife. The lighting, I have to agree with everyone else. I don't want to see the lighting there. I don't think it fits in with the area one bit. But it would be nice to see the project happen so I guess I sort of feel like Ladd and Alison is that maybe it should be tabled until we have a little more information. I'm very concerned about what the impacts are to the natural resources. Joyce: Matt. Burton: Well I have no doubt that if you guys get turned loose on the project it will be a success but I do agree that there are hurdles that you have to clear and they happen to be big hurdles. . . (The rest of Mr. Burton's comments were not clear on the tape.) Joyce: Thank you. LuAnn. Sidney: I was thinking, when I went down and looked at the property and that was the previous time when we thought it was going to be on the agenda, I thought oh. That seems like a good use for the property and I still think it is a good use for the property and I hope you don't feel discouraged about continuing on and building this... I agree with staff recommendations and I think the, what staff has recommended now is based on the information that we have right now 50 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998 and for example the pro shop would be okay. However the snack bar, I guess I do agree that I don't think the need for alcohol is there, especially if you're talking about bringing a family and making it a more family friendly area. Just the information we have now, limiting the hours and not relying on lighting makes sense. And also the remodeling of the house according to staff report seems that... What I'm trying to get at is, we just don't have enough information to really give you all that you need to make this project successful. And I think. . . wildlife impacts studied. A lighting study that would convince us that you know what they're doing and everything's going to be okay with.. .pesticide program in much more detail. So I guess I agree with.. .I'm kind of flexible. I was thinking that maybe this could go forward when I sat down this evening but I think at this point I would like to see it tabled for more information. I think that'd make a much stronger case for you to get everything in order here before it went to City Council. Joyce: Thanks. Very interesting project. I appreciate your entrepreneurial spirit. I think it's wonderful and I'm on the side in favor of trying to push this along but I have to agree with all the other commissioners. There are definitely some hurdles here. The Highway 5 corridor... we're going to turn it into something manicured. I might like it more manicured than natural. Some people might want it more natural than manicured. I mean that's kind of personal opinion. My concerns on this whole thing, whether you want to proceed forward or not, I think lights sound to be like a deal killer. If the lights don't go in, I think you've got a problem. Now that might not be the case. I think that's a major issue. I personally could live with the lights. The only question or concern I have is that when we notified the neighbors.. .500 feet or something like that, you know you do have neighbors up in the bluff that wouldn't be notified. And I think they might need to be notified because I think this is going to impact them. And give them a chance to come in and speak their piece. I don't want to put this up and then someday somebody you know, the grand opening and somebody's looking at their back yard and said what the heck is that, which they probably would. So I think I could, I'm. .. That kind of gets back to the vision of 212 and where are we going out there? BluffCreek...still confused by that and I think if it's a primary portion of Bluff Creek... I really don't have much more to say on this. I just hope it's worth while for you to proceed forward so I think you've got a lot of direction from us. I'm in favor of tabling it. I think it's our job here as a commission to kind of clean the proposal up so you have a fighting chance of presenting it to City Council. And I think there's some valid points here. I don't think it's insurmountable some of these things. I think we do need some more information but you've got kind of a job to do here and I hope you can proceed forward with this. So my recommendation is, I'd like to see it again... If you can't do without the lights, boy I'd like to find out if the neighbors, what their feelings were. Things like that before I'd be in favor of going forward. So with that said, could I have a motion? Conrad: Mr. Chairman I'll make the motion but can I ask staff a question? Have we said things that make sense? Aanenson: Absolutely. I think you're right on as far as putting in so they know what we're going to measure and hold them to. I agree.. . but what does that mean. Is it a few balls that we have to go retrieve out of the wetland? I guess that's some good issues. .. I think those are all legitimate and I think that we can work with the DNR, Fish and Wildlife to come up with the standards that we can mutually agree to. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998 Conrad: I'm going to make the motion but you know, as you sell us on one issue, you can see how we can move on other issues. Ifwe get the feeling that that water quality. I'll speak for myself. . . water quality is improving. That can be persuasive for other issues that I'm not. .. so I'm going to make the motion right now to table this item, Planning Case 98-8, an Interim Use Permit and the zoning ordinance amendment. Joyce: Can I have a second to that please? Brooks: Second. Conrad moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the request from RSS/Perma Green, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit for alteration of a flood plain, an Interim Use Permit site plan review to allow a golf improvement center/driving range/office club house and variances to the size of building and hours of operation and a code amendment to allow an office/clubhouse to be located south of the intersection of Great Plains Boulevard and TH 212. All voted in favor of tabling and the motion carried. Conrad: What I'd like to do is recover the issues that I think are important. And man, this list could be big and I'm not trying to create a huge research project on this. But the most important thing is for staff in doing the standards. We've got to know what we're going to hold you to. You shouldn't do this deal until we tell you how we're going to measure because a year from now somebody will be there and will be, and you don't want miscellaneous standards. This is, I don't know where we go. There are a few people here that say the lights are out of character. And a few people that say it doesn't matter. I don't know how you deal with that one, but you're going to have to. It's split and you're going to have to deal with it. I need the DNR and Fish and Wildlife to see the current plan and staff comments saying 60 feet is okay. I want them to see what you're saying is okay. And for them to see it back and Kate if you can just guide them... I don't even know if there's a trout in that stream Kate so when I say this. Aanenson: No, there is. Conrad: You know if there's no trout, tell me. Aanenson: No there is... Conrad: If there is, I'll go down and fish...we'll be reasonable on this stuffbut on the other hand, if there are trout in there you know and then I care. . .lot better places to go trout fishing than right here but the point is to improve it and that's what you've got to do. You've got a business proposition but we've got to improve it there because there's some things that aren't quite right. They're not a perfect fit. And so therefore if you're not a perfect fit, you've got variances and all these things, you've got to solve some of the harder problems. I guess I need, in your application a commitment to refurbish after the floods. And Kate, maybe you've got some standards and maybe that's in what we're monitoring but it will flood and I'm not going to sit there and wait for 2 years until you financially can come back with the money to fix it up. I made 52 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998 that commitment so ifit doesn't happen, this is an interim use permit without an expiration date Kate. So I need to know what you're telling me about that. Is that forever? I need to know what the standards for fertilizing and treatment are. I need to know the plan and I need to know, yeah. I need to know what the plan is and somebody to tell me it. Or whatever. I believe we need broader notification. I think that's a valid point. We're not only impacting just the DNR on each side but the folks up on the bluff. That's a real valid point. I need to know back from you Kate what the Bluff Creek overlay impact is. I still don't understand it. It seems like we ignored it here so...I can't track everything... That's what I'm looking for. Joyce: I hope you can work with staff on this. I hope it comes back. I hope this will work out. Jeff Helstrom: We'll be back. Joyce: This is the best way to handle this because we need to tighten this up before it moves on. Thank you very much for coming. .. OLD BUSINESS: Joyce: Any old business? Aanenson: We had talked about not having. . . first meeting. Depending on this application we may need you to... we may have to have that meeting. I'm not sure we can turn everything around in the next meeting. We have the comprehensive plan set. Blackowiak: I'm sorry, can you clarify that please. The clock starts, doesn't the clock stop if we request further information or if we don't have all the information we have to make the decision? Aanenson: Correct, and you can recommend denial and forward it if you want to. Well, I'm just saying that pushes them out a month. Blackowiak: So what are you telling me then? I'm sorry. Aanenson: ..we were not going to have a meeting on the first. I'm saying if they get their information in, we may have to meet. Blackowiak: Oh, July you mean? Aanenson: Right. Blackowiak: I missed that first part. Aanenson: I'm sorry, because June 17th we blocked out for the comp plan. .. I've already noticed for public hearing. That's probably going to take a couple hours.. .if you want to meet at 9:00 or 10:00 or 11 :00 on that item... So anyway, for your next meeting that's been blocked out as the 53 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 1, 1998 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 AL TERA TION OF A FLOOD PLAIN. B. INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR A GOLF & DRIVING RANGE. C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A GOLF & DRIVING RANGE. D. VARIANCE TO SECTION 20-265(2) HOURS OF OPERATION. E. CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW RESTAURANT AND PRO SHOP. F. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR IMPACT OF.43 ACRES. Public Present: Name Address Bob Steffes 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 13151 Street West 25 Norman Ridge Drive, Bloomington, MN 354 Water Street, Excelsior Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Joyce: Are there any questions for Kate at this point? Peterson: A couple Kate, and it may be my naivete 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 Yz, 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 . . . mlmmum opemngs. 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 buffer 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 3 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 that. .. Just so you're clear on the site plan. It does show an area of a 50 foot high fence and so 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 farmed up now? Aanenson: It depends on the kind of year. If it's drier. It's pretty much where the south ofthe 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. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Brooks: Okay, good. 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. Jeff Helstrom: 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 llA 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 5 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 packet too. It's a quantity and quality of runoff from four golf courses in the Twin Cities metro area. At 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 W oodhill, 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 6 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 do you want a net along your property or do you not want a net along your property? And their comment was that they wanted a net there because they didn't want golfballs 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 Yz foot off the ground for the wildlife to pass under. Joyce: Where's that? Jeff Helstrom: That's on the DNR report. Joyce: The June 26th letter? Jeff Helstrom: 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, 7 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 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 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. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Jeff Helstrom: Over here? Oh, I'm sorry. that's a shorter net to protect a couple of the tee boxes over here. Blackowiak: But it's still 50 feet, correct? Jeff Helstrom: No. No. That is more like 20 feet. Blackowiak: It says 50 feet on your plans. Page 5. Aanenson: If you look at the 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 playa 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: ...1 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. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Jeff Helstrom: On the east side of the property. 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 property on this side. When we first met with them they liked the high fence to keep us and any other golfer off their property. 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 ofa 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 Y2 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 Y2 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 Y2 an inch. Jeff Helstrom: The smaller the hole the better. They want something to hit it and bounce off. 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. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 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. 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 stuff. 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 Yz 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 Yz foot gap under the net. Sidney: You're going to get more underneath than probably over. Jeff Helstrom: 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 Yz feet on the bottom also would be kind of self defeating having the net. Okay. Any other questions on the net? Sidney: W ell 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. Jeff Helstrom: No, it's not. Sidney: Okay. 40? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - July l, 1998 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 golfball and a golfball 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 ifit doesn't work, you know 50 will. Sidney: Okay. Jeff Helstrom: 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 off. 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. AI, A2, A3, A4, where you're showing three light standards, you're now saying two? Jeff Helstrom: 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? 12 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Jeff Helstrom: 30. Peterson: What page are you on Kate? 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 two 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, if! may. On the AI, 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... Y ou can ax that light. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Aanenson: Okay. On the putting green too? Jeff Helstrom: Yes. Just leave the lights on the range. That's not important. Aanenson: And then Gl, which was Gl and 2 were 6 feet, okay. Thank you. 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 golfas 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 ball fields 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 golfball 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 212? 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: HaIfa 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 14 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 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'djust 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 this community. You've got you know a couple of small driving ranges now. They really aren't learning 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 learn how to play golf 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... Jeff Helstrom: 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. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Jeff Helstrom: 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. Betty O'Shaughnessy: Start with 212 and lay it out. Jeff Helstrom: 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 farmed 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 ifit'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 golfball 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 0' 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 of212. 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 off. They roll back down 16 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 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 turns into a golf, basically a golf academy where 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 ifI'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. Jeff Helstrom: 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. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Betty O'Shaughnessy: Has anybody done this in the wintertime? Jeff Helstrom: No. Chris Bixler: No. Betty O'Shaughnessy: Jeff Helstrom: 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. Jeff Helstrom: 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? Jeff Helstrom: 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. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 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? 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 1'11 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 oflight 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 1'11 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: 1'11 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. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 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 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 Y2 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 property 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 property, 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 property in this country, the governmental entities that affect your body, or your property, 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 property'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 property. This is the best deal that is ever, every going to come down the pike. For this particular piece of property. So I would prefer that County 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 20 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 please don't be distracted by that particular argument that we should take somebody else's private property 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. 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 Jeff. 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 off, 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. Weare 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. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Chris Bixler: Right here on the corner 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 you look at how this lays out, there's kind ofa 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. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 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? 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 farmed. 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 farming 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 firm enough or we don't have enough information 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 staffs recommendation that we should not, well we should approve a code amendment and it reads that the retail pro shop is permitted. That is ifno 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 permit 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 23 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 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 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 of, 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 halfbut 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 staffs proposal. I think that based on their comments and the applicant hasn't really seemed to express much concern over the staffs recommendation there, that I think I'm persuaded that I can go along with the staffs recommendation with respect to the no alcohol beverages and the 24 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 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 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 property, 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 staffs condition number 19 that either a dedication or some sort or conservation easement be placed on the balance of the property. 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. If a 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 25 Planning Commission Meeting - July I, 1998 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 Ijust again, it's not the project, it's the area. As for the alcohol. In a funny 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 Ijust have mixed feelings all around. I love the proj ect. 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 two 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 oflight 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. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 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 ofth€ 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 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 oflimitations 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 farming that property. I think that's a heavy utilization of any kind of property and I think this, in the long run 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. Ifwe 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? 27 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 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 I through 20 with condition. Blackowiak: Wait, wait. We need to amend 20 first. 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. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 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 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. Peterson: Accepted. Joyce: So that would be condition 21 ? 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 improvement center, including Interim 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. 2. 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. 4. 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. 5. Landscape plan shall be revised to include 3 landscaped islands or peninsulas and 6 overstory trees for the parking lot. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 6. 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. 7. 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, 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 8. 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. 9. MnDOT is recommending that the driveway be widened. A permit from MnDOT is required. 10. 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. 11. The applicant shall provide detailed storm drainage calculations for the ponds and ditch during 10-year and 1 DO-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. 12. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. ',Vatershed Distriet, 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. 13. No berming, drainage improvements or landscaping will be allowed within Trunk Highway 212 right-of-way. 14. 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. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 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. 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. 1. 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. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 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. 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? 32 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 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 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? 33 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 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. 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 run 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 151 to April 151 so other golf ranges don't come in and want lighting as well. That's probably October 1 sl to April 1 51 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...Y ou'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. Ifwe'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. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 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... 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 between 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 pretty closely two 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 1 st through April 1 st 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. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Brooks: We move with Ladd's stuff. Joyce: Okay, that will run. Do we have a second? Burton: Second. 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 run from October 1 st through April 1 st 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 findings 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 Blackowiak 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, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #98-1 per the site plan and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide a buffer zone between wetlands the limits of the pitch and putt golf course. 2. Wetland Conservation Act and the City ofChanhassen Surface Water Management Plan requirements. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 3. The applicant receive permits from the jurisdiction agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers and the DNR . 4. 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. 5. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will provide wetland buffer 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. 6. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer 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 oflooking 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. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 1998 Aanenson: Okay. Brooks: I can't make the 20th but I can make the 3rd. Conrad: I can't make the 3rd. 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 offplanning. Ifwe 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 Frlends of the ~ ~ LetuJenhip in Stewardship. BOARD OF DIRECI'ORS Ed Crozier, President Bumsville Steve Fischer, Vice President ' Minneapolis . .John M. Kley, Treasurer Bloomington Paige Winebarger. Secretary Bloomington Shirley Hunt Alexander Edina Manin V. Chorzempa Bloomingron Pat Crag"" JoTdan Tony Erickson St. Paul Sara Greeninger . Chaslca Teri Haugland Excelsior JOhn Hickman Bloomington Duane Johnson Bloomingron \ Jean Johnson Eden Prairie Pat Judge . St. Paul Jodell S. Rahr Bloomington Melissa Salter Minneapolis 'Joe White Bloomington Kate Winsor Richfield Nelson T. French Executive Director . FRIENDS OF THE MINNESOTA VALLEY 3815 East 80th Street Bloomi'nglon, MN 55425 Phone 612/854.5900 . Fax 612/725.3279 'alley Jriends@email.fws.gov '. 26 June 1998 , . Ms. Kathryn Aanenson Planning Director, City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 . I Ch~aSsen, Minnesota 55317 . -' . . -; Dear Ms. Aanenson: This letter is being Written in response to the most recent proposal regarding Perma Green Inc.'s request for a conditi~nal use permit from the City of Chanhassen for the proposed RSS Golf Improvement Center, to be located in the SE 1/4 of Section 35, Tll6N, R23W, Carver County. '\ First; we believe that this type of outdoor recreation is inconsistent with the intent of the enabling legislation establishing the Minnesota Valley Wildlife Recreation Area, the Minnesota National Wildlife Refuge and the Minnesota I -. . Valley Trail. We believe the intent of the legislation ~as to restrict recreation'on these areas to wildlife dependent. types. This type of proposal, if approved, will .lower the quality of outdoor experiences for all users.: . . Secondly, if a permit is issued"we recomInend the following:, Fertilizers: Before application, test the soil to determine f~rtility requirements.lf necessary, use'slow release fertilizers applied at low rates or only as needed. Use natural organic fertilizers whenever possible. Pesticides: Apply only when needed. Use products that are most effective, target . specific, and present the least hazards to people, wildlife and the environment. . ' . # Turf gr~sses: ~se' species that require minimal mowing and irrigation. . . ] Lighting: Night lights will negatively impact the experiences of visitors seeking a natural environment in the Refuge and surrounding lailds- in the valley. Nets: Screen to full height with native tree species or lower ~eight to 40 feet. Other wildlife concerns: Consider the use of native plant" species whenever. possible and consider the use of nest boxes for birds. REceIVED JUN 30.1998 . I . CITY Ut- l.;HANrlASSEN Enclosed ple~se find an article on .the Minnesota Valley Country Club and th~ir commitment to an environmentally friendly program. In 1994 they were dedicated as a "Certified Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary" by the Audubon Cooperative sarictuary System, a program of the Audubon Society of New York State. I'm sure they would be happy to share their experiences withyou or:the project proposer pr you could contact ,Audubon directly. They are als~ a member of our H~ritage Registry for the~r commitment to mai,ntaining environmental quality. Please feel free to contact ~s to dIscuss or clarify our' comments or for inforlnation on our " Heritage Registry. . Sincerely, -111a;(tu({2u,1' e ~ti{;-. Nancy Alltkcht - Heritage Registry Coordinator Friends of the Minnesota Valley 858,-0720 . ' enc: article from Minnesota GOLF magazine Heritage Registrybrochures,- Friends of the Minnesota Valley _ . _ ._.__---. _._..___ ~_._ ._.....__.__......4..__._____.. Minnesota Valley Country Club Recognized for Environmental Excellence The Minnesota Valley Country Club, Bloomington, Minn. has been dedicated as a "Certified Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary" by the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary System, a program of the Audubon Society of New York State, and endorsed by the United States Golf Association. Minnesota Valley Country Club joined the program in 1992. and is the first golf course in Minnesota to achieve the "Certified" designation. "Minnesota Valley Country Club has shown a strong commitment to its environmental program. They are to be commended for their efforts to provide a sanctuary for wildlife on the golf course property:' said Jean Mackay. Staff Ecologist for the Audubon Society of New York. "To reach certification. a course must demonstrate that they are main- taining a high degree of environmen- tal quality in a number of areas," explained Mackay. These categories include: Environmental Planning. Public Involvement, Integrated Pest Management. Wildlife Food Enhancement, Wildlife Cover Enhancement, Water Conservation, and Water Enhancement. To attract and sustain a diversity of wildlife species, Minnesota Valley maintains two native wildflower areas, ten acres of tall grassland, a variety of fruit bearing trees for birds, and 31 songbird nest boxes. Their efforts are proving to be quite a suc- cess. Thus far, they've recorded 50 species of birds on the property including meadowlarks, myrtle war- blers, egrets, and wood ducks. In addition, 25 bluebirds were fledged in 1993 from the nest boxes that have been placed throughout the course. According to Superintendent Larry Mueller, "Enhancing wildlife and nature in general makes my job even more rewarding and it certainly enriches everyone's round of golf. The membership at Minnesota Valley is quite excited about becoming a Certified Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary and is extremely pleased and proud of this accomplishment." To demonstrate their commitment to conservation, the Club recently became the first corporate member of the Friends of the Minnesota Valley Heritage Registry. This non-profit citizens group works to preserve the Minnesota River Valley and deserved much of the credit for the establish- ment of the Minnesota Valley ~ational Wildlife Refuge and recre- ation area. By pledging to protect wildlife habitat on the course, the Club will contribute to the long-term viability of plant and animal species in the Minnesota Valley. "Through working with the Audubon Society of New York, we have been able to provide a quality golf course for our members as well as an attractive wildlife habitat for numerous species of birds and ani- mals," Mueller said. "We will contin- ue to keep environmental concerns in the forefront of all our management decisions." In addition to golf courses, the Minnesota GOLF Magazine 18 Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary System also includes programs for schools, individuals and businesses. For more information. contact the Audubon Society of New York State, 46 Rarick Rd., Selkirk, NY 12158, (518) 767-9051.. Notes Lee Janzen, U. S. Open champ- ion may be missing from the inau- gural Presidents Cup matches in September, if he qualifies, because of possible surgery for a hernia dis- covered during a routine physical in Feb. He was to have had surgery immediately, but it was postponed until after the Masters and again postponed so he didn't miss a play- ing commitment in Japan. Janzen said, "Although the condi- tion doesn't really bother him while playing or affect his play. I've already postponed the operation twice and I have to have it done sometime." "It\ not an easy choice," he said. .. .. Bob Tway made two holes-in- one at the Memorial. a feat that hasn't been accomplished in a PGA Tour event since the tour began keeping records in 1968. The 35 year-old Oklahoman has 16 hole-in- one in his career. "I don't know if this means I'm swinging better or not. but I know I hit two pretty good shots on those holes," said Tway. Media members and PGA Tour officials could not remember any- one scoring two aces in the same golf tournament. .. . Arnold Palmer made a hole-in- one on the same hole on consecu- tive days at the TPC at Avenel dur- ing the 1986 Chrysler Cup, but the first came in a practice round and the second in the pro-am. . n~ <ref This one year old "No-Mow" lounging zone was planted on Labor Day and has never seen a lawn mower. .. No Mow Lawn Mi~ Lawn! It's a part of the American landscape. Whe else can you play ball or sun yourself on a beaut summer day? But why waste your precious free tirn mowing the yard? Well, waste your time No Mowe Now there's Prairi~ Nursery's NO MOW LAWN Iv. This specially designed blend of low-growing Fil1 Fescue turf grasses will: Grow to form a dense turf Thrive in both sun or partial shade Biologically reduce weed growth, once establishe Require little if any watering or fertilizing Reduce your lawn maintenance dramatically Here's How You Do It! The "No Mow" Lawn Mix is recommended for the cooler, medium rainfall areas of the Upper Midwest and North- eastern United States, and Southern Canada. This turf mix grows well on loamy soils, clay soils, and even on dry, sandy soils. Not recommended for wet soils or deep shade. The best time to plant your "No Mow" Lawn is late August through mid September. Cool evening temperatures and gentle rains create ideal conditions for germination of the cool season grasses. Seeding in April through mid-May is a good second choice, though irrigation may be necessary, and weed competi- tion may be greater. Planted in fall, your new lawn will gro~ with less weed competition, and by the following spring it should be well established. By summer, you'll be well on your way to a Low Maintenance Lawn Lounging Zone! As with any seeding, proper soil preparation is central to success. The area to be planted must be completely free of weeds prior to seeding. Please refer to the Site Preparation guidelines on page 12 for details on how to prepare your soil. Fertilizer should be applied sparingly, if at all, in early spring or late summer only. Slow-release, balanced fertilizers with nearly equal portions of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium are best. This encourages strong root development to keep your turf healthy without excessive top growth that requires mowing. Water only during dry periods. Occasional, thorough soakings are better than frequent light sprinklings. This encourages deep root growth, and makes your turf more drought-tolerant. ~'No Mow" Seed Mix Prices With minimal fertilizing and watering, you'll reap the benE reduced maintenance, lower costs: and a healthier environ If you require a more "cropped lawn look," occasional mo' will be necessary, but far less frequently than with other la mixtures. Mow once a month to a height of 3 to 4 inches fo results. Never remove more than one third of tile top grow Mowing too short will damage the fescue grasses in your' Mow" Lawn Mix. Left unmowed, your "No Mow" lawn will form a soft, 4 t< tall, flowing carpet of grass. Leaves should be removed fr( "No Mow" lawn in the fall. Mowing with a mulching m01 the easiest method. The nutrients from the mulched leave the fertilizer your "No Mow" lawn should need. On erosion prone sites and steep slopes, we recommend ~ "No Mow" grass seed with an annual rye nurse crop for] stabilization. Prices for "No Mow" with annual rye are bE Recommended Seeding Rates We recommend using SIbs. of "No Mow" seed per 1,00 of area, which is equivalent to 220 pounds per acre. Amount (lbs.) "No Mow" "No Mow" with Shipping & Item #55001 Annual Rye Item# 55011 Handling 5 to 20 $4.50 per lb. $4.75 per lb. $1.00 per lb. 21 to 50 $3.75 per lb. $3.95 per lb. $0.75 per lb. 51 to 200 $2.95 per lb. $3.15 per lb. $0.50 per lb. 201 to 500 $2.75 per lb. $2.95 per lb. Call for quote 501 to 1,000 $2.45 per lb. $2.55 per lb. Call for quote Contractor Discounts: Call for Pricing on Quantities Over 1,000 pounds ZONE A ~\ /' tv'::'- 0Q:;; / '-\ il. ,,~~:::-:-:-:-=-=--=---=_-:=:-:::~=~-:-_":~ ';'~ ~, "~ ~' ATTACHMENT A ~. ~\ \'-.. L-r---\ ~ 'I t" (' ZONI: C \ / ~ c-~. / -:\~'/< ,t-I~,3./ r//,/-:l ",,\0{. / / t\9.<;'/ ... /,/ 1/ ,/ II .,~/ Ii ~/-y- t-------7f- -;;/' 11 I :i / ,/\ I / ;/ -:. __.--............-9_- .",_ ...-;---...- CI'~ H,FC':::'~, ,'E L;;\/11IS