PC Minutes 06-15-21Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021
6
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A FENCE VARIANCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT
931 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DRIVE
Senio r Planner Generous noted this property is a corner lot and the applicant , Alec McKinley, is
requesting a variance to put up a privacy fence in what the City Code defines as his front yard.
On corner lots the front yard is designated by where the garage is located for access purposes.
The property is part of the Lake Susan Hills PUD and is a typical lot of .34 acres with 30-foot
front and rear setbacks and 10-foot side setbacks. Staff suggested line of sight triangles so those
on the sidewalk can be clearly seen. Staff is recommending approval of the variance request for
the six-foot fence and what is designated as the front property subject to the conditions in the
staff report which are the site triangles being preserved.
Alec and Amy McKinley live at 931 Lake Susan Hills Drive, and said the privacy fence purpose
is two-fold for security for their children and for privacy. He noted there is no intention of
creating a security threat by rolling their cars out the driveway and injuring anyone, so they
understand the site lines and adamantly support that.
Commissioner Noyes asked the McKinley’s if the staff suggestions are acceptable to them.
Mr. McKinley noted they did not have intention of running the fence right down the property
line to the sidewalk but pushing it back a bit. He said 30 feet is pretty big for a site view next to
his driveway and he understands that goes with City Code, but if that is what it will take for them
to get their fence, they would go for it.
Vice Chair von Oven opened the public hearing.
Vice Chair von Oven closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Skistad moved, Commissioner Noyes seconded, that the Chanhassen Board
of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance to construct a six-foot fence along West
Lake Drive, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached findings of facts
and decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERIM USE PERMIT
TO REMOVE THE CONDITION REQUIRING THE INSTALLATION OF DRIVING
RANGE NETS
Associate Planner Young-Walters stated this is a continuation of Planning Case 2021-02, the
resumption of the golf zone use at 825 Flying Cloud Drive. The applicant s, Brian and Keri
Colvin, are requesting that Condition 9 from the Interim Use Permit (IUP) be removed, which is
the condition requiring the installation of driving range nets, particularly the nets across the back
of the golf zone driving range. Mr. Young-Walters refreshed the Commissioners on the location,
noting it is zoned A2 – Agricultural Estate and is guided in the 2040 land use plan for office and
Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021
7
agricultural use. The site is just under 100 acres in size and is currently operating as a golf
driving range under IUP 2021-02. Mr. Young-Walters gave a short background on the driving
range including amendments, noting it closed down in 2018 and per City Code after 6 months of
inactivity the original IUP permit expired. In January 2021, the City Council approved the
resumption of use under a new IUP and had a condition that nets be installed by June 14, 2021.
This is what the applicant is asking relief from and has stated they want to be allowed to operate
the driving range without installing the rear nets as the wetlands are approximately 400 yards
away and golfers cannot hit balls further than 300 yards. They also machine and hand-pick balls
daily and the previous driving range had not utilized rear nets for 10 years of its operation, a
2020 site visit did not find stray balls, and the applicant has stated if they observe balls in the
wetlands, they will voluntarily install the nets. He believes the applicant is still intending to have
the side nets present. Staff’s position is that wetland boundaries are not always obvious. The
most recent wetland delineation in 1998 expired (wetland delineations are good for three years),
showed that the wetland boundary at the time was 275 yards rather than 400 yards from the
concrete bunkers where the driving occurs. In the staff report, the Water Resources Coordinator
noted that there is significant concern with equipment being operated regularly near and within
the wetland and within the wetland buffer. One of the big reasons staff did not require the
applicant to get a new delineation when this IUP came through to be resumed is because staff
had been under the understanding that the nets would be installed at 230 yards which provides 45
yards of cushion between the last known edge of the wetland and where they would reasonably
expect balls to travel. Without the nets, staff is very concerned about ball-picking equipment
being used within wetland buffer areas and near the wetland. Staff is recommending denial and
that the condition of nets being installed be retained.
The applicant is a little confused. He understood that his nets were required to be put in the back;
he did not realize that they were talking about side nets and all. From their hitting area, using
multiple GPS units off of mats in the hitting stalls within the facility, it is 375 yards right to the
edge of the weed line. The wetlands start roughly about 400 feet in. They have two ball picking
machines that drive in the center of the driving range to pick the balls. On the outside where the
poles would be at the 230-yard mark, they have 5-6 employees every day that do a clean pick by
hand; every ball is picked off that property before they go home at night . Mr. Colvin clarified the
machine is not driving anywhere near the wetlands. He did not know they were also talking
about putting nets up on the sides and stated on the west side; he has not measured the wetlands
as they never planned on putting nets on that side because the land goes so far over before hitting
the woods – Tiger Woods could not even hit a ball into the wetlands over on that side. He
showed an overhead map and explained the distances and wetlands.
Commissioner Skistad asked where they hit the balls in looking at the map.
Mr. Colvin replied they hit from the building and within the blue boundary marked on screen.
Commissioner Alto asked if Mr. Colvin ever intended to put up any nets, whether on the back or
the side.
Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021
8
Mr. Colvin said after owning, maintaining, and watching for 60 days, he realized that nobody
can hit into these wetlands. The previous owner did not have nets, as they had deteriorated, for
the last 10 years.
Commissioner Alto said wouldn’t the nets also prevent wildlife and birds from crossing the path
of the balls if the nets were there.
Mr. Colvin replied yes.
Commissioner Noyes stated they probably could have issues both ways that the nets would cause
issues with the birds.
Associate Planner Young-Walters clarified that Condition 9 requires that the nets be installed in
compliance with DNR guidelines in 1998. The DNR specified a minimum of a 4.5-foot clearance
for the nets as well as maximum heights so that they would not interfere with migrating birds or
any animals passing through.
Mr. Colvin said having the nets start 4.5-5 feet above the ground and go up actually defeats the
whole purpose of having nets. Most balls, about 80-90% that are coming out at 230 yards are
already dropping and rolling underneath that 4.5-foot net.
Commissioner Reeder asked why Mr. Colvin does not want to put the net up.
Mr. Colvin replied he does not feel there is any need for it as none of the balls are entering the
wetlands from t he hitting area and it is an expense that as a new business owner he does not want
to cover if there is no need for it. As far as everything else, he was given a maintenance list by
the City and took care of that, they did the landscaping, put in a rain garden and he felt that was
all necessary and was taken care of within 30 days. Mr. Colvin feels like the nets are unnecessary
and very costly.
Vice Chair von Oven asked how costly the nets are.
Mr. Colvin was under the assumption they were putting the nets just in the back. He had one bid
just for the back and that was $32,000. He had two other bids for the back and one came in at
28,000 and another at $30,000; out of curiosity he asked for a bid on what it would cost for the
nets to go around the who le perimeter and one came in at $89,000 and the other came in at
97,000.
Vice Chair von Oven opened the public hearing.
Vice Chair von Oven closed the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021
9
Commissioner Skistad said 4.5 feet off the ground does not make sense to her either. It seems
that the regulation does not make logical sense and perhaps they should review it.
Commissio ner Johnson asked if the 4.5 feet is a regulation or if that is just how they install the
nets.
Commissioner Skistad noted it is the DNR because they want to let animals through. She said if
they let animals through, they also let golf balls through.
Mr. Young-Walters said from going through the meeting minutes in the 1990’s, the original net
discussion was a balancing act. There was concern about balls traveling into the wetlands, and
they have a wetland alteration permit because part of the driving range that is no longer in use
went into the wetland at 255 yards. He noted a portion of about 18,000 square feet on screen that
was filled in order to allow for the driving range. Staff had been very concerned about long shots
going deep into that buffer area and into the wetlands and the compromise was with the nets
there a person who hits a high and far ball would be caught by the nets. He noted some will roll
further but the goal is to keep them from hitting the wetland. In regards to the location of the
wetland, Mr. Young-Walters understands what the applicant is saying, however, one cannot
identify a wetland just based on surface vegetatio n. A certified delineator must come out, take
soil samples, look at type of soils, hydrology, etc., to know where that boundary is. The last
delineation done at this site showed it at 275 feet out from the bunker. He noted wetlands move
and without a new delineation there is no way to know if it has moved closer, further back, or
zig -zagged around.
Mr. Colvin commented regarding a high shot near the 255, to reach that would actually be a 255-
yard carry. For those who do not golf, the average PGA Tour player has a 255–275-yard carry,
which is impossible for anybody to come to his facility make that let alone total that out. He took
all those facts from TrackMan Technology, a database that takes information in from every Tour
player.
Keri Colvin stated the last City inspection was in 2014 and the nets were not up then. The
previous owner closed it in 2018 and Mr. Young-Walters did a complete walkthrough of the
property prior to the IUP. Looking back at the previous City Council and Planning Commission
minutes, they could not find a single golf ball out in the wetlands or in the woods. The facility
had not had nets up for over 10 years at that point.
Mr. Young -Walters clarified that inspection was done by himself, a Water Resource
Coordinator, and the City Arborist. They did not do an intensive search, they walked out maybe
20-30 yards beyond the end of the poles which is the 230-yard point. In looking at the aerials in
2019, waters were up to the 230-yard pole so anything that would have been there from 2018,
beyond that point would not have been there when they conducted that walk through.
Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021
10
Commissioner Reeder clarified this requirement for the fence was put in the last time they
approved it.
Mr. Young-Walters replied this was one of the conditions on the 1998 IUP and was one of the
conditions they informed the applicant they would be keeping for the reissued permit and was
upheld at City Council when they reissued the permit.
Commissioner Reeder asked if the applicant knew that.
Mr. Young -Walters said the applicant was given the initial IUP and was told they would be
maintaining all conditions and was advised to familiarize himself with it. There was extensive
discussion on this condition when he asked for an extension on implementing it before the City
Council meeting where this was approved.
Commissioner Reeder asked Mr. Colvin if he did not understand that he had to do this or if he
did not cost it out.
Mr. Colvin understood, he knew the list of things that he had to do. Ever ything else from the
City that was requested he completely agrees with, however, once they had the facility open for
60 days, he realized that it just does not make sense to put these nets up because nobody can hit
balls anywhere into these wetlands. As a new business owner this is a very costly addition and if
it does not have to be put in, he simply does not want to. It is a lot of money to put these nets in
to stop pretty much zero balls that would go into the wetlands. Also, to start them 4.5 feet seems
like he is really wasting everyone’s time and money.
Commissioner Reeder noted it was not in Mr. Colvin’s original business plan to put the nets up.
Mr. Colvin replied when he purchased the facility, he never planned on putting nets up as there
had not been nets up there in the last 10 years.
Commissioner Reeder stated it said in the permit Mr. Colvin received that he had to.
Mr. Colvin understands that part. After owning the facility for 60 days he decided to go back to
the Planning Commission and City Council and ask them to amend the request of the netting
because no one can reach the wetlands.
Commissioner Noyes asked Mr. Young-Walters if the DNR is driving the requirement for the
netting in t he original permit. If the DNR was sitting here right now, would they say they are not
really concerned about this.
Mr. Young -Walters replied unfortunately the DNR did not respond to either of the
interjurisdictional requests which puts him in an awkward position in trying to speak for them. In
reviewing the letter, the DNR sent to the City in 1998, his understanding is that the City was
Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021
11
primarily concerned about balls moving into the flood plain and wetland and the DNR was
primarily concerned with the animal migrations and wildlife not being impacted.
Commissioner Noyes would love to go back and say there have not been nets in the previous 10
years of operation but he does not think that holds a lot of water; just because they were non-
compliant does not mean they can be non-compliant going forward. He thinks it is valuable to
understand why they would be requesting the fencing, whether it is the City or the DNR.
Commissioner Alto noted they also do not have proof that the 10 years without nets did not have
an impact, there is just no physical evidence that they can see right now. She said 60 days of
being open and not having an impact – the wetlands are not able to speak for themselves in this
matter – and if the DNR and the City also thinks it is best, she has to side with them.
Vice Chair von Oven asked from a historical perspective, what was the order? Did Mr. Colvin
purchase the property and then come to the City for the IUP renewal? Or did he obtain the
renewal and then make the decision to purchase the property?
Mr. Colvin replied they purchased the property and then came for the renewal of the IUP.
Mr. Young-Walters clarified he believes they met before Mr. Colvin finalized the purchase to go
over the 1998 IUP and to discuss whether or not the City would be amenable to reissuing it.
Vice Chair von Oven said Mr. Colvin had a good feeling that by purchasing the property that he
would have a path through the City.
Mr. Colvin replied yes.
Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Reeder seconded, that the Chanhassen Planning
Commission recommends that the City Council deny the Applicant’s request to remove
Condition 9 from the IUP 2021-02.
Commissioner Noyes has a hard time voting to deny because he does not know why it is required
to have the nets, yet. He really wants to know if the DNR is the one pushing this because of the
wetland issue. At this point in time, he would vote against the motion to deny and perhaps
recommend they get more information related to the origin of the netting requirement.
Vice Chair von Oven has gone back-and-forth on this one and he stated this is clearly not a
surprise for the owners. He does not think one purchases a driving range anywhere around a City
and think s that they may not have to get some nets. He also agrees and he is not sure these nets
are serving the purpose that was intended. At the end of the day taking the facts and saying if the
right thing to do is eliminate the need for these nets, it is not through a variance but is through
amending the need for a net next to a wetland within 275 feet. Mr. von Oven said if it had been a
surprise to the owners, he would try to find a way to ease that burden. However, if this was not in
Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021
12
the business plan, then it wasn’t a very good business plan, or it was a hopeful business plan that
the previous owner did not have nets for 10 years so they could perhaps not have nets. He has to
be on the side of denying the variance.
Commissioner Alto said as they spoke earlier in terms of setting precedence, doesn’t it set the
precedent that one can buy a business that is out of compliance and hope that the City will allow
them to continue to be out of compliance.
Commissioner Skistad is all for supporting and protecting wetlands but she does not feel that this
does either. It would have been better if it was addressed before it got to this point, but perhaps
one cannot know that until they have had the business and been hitting golf balls for 60 days.
She will vote against this motion for those reasons.
The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Ayes 4, Nays 2 (Noyes, Skistad)
Mr. Generous stated this is a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City
Council on July 12, 2021.
Mr. Young-Walters noted staff will do their best to reach out to the DNR and try to clarify their
feelings on this condition. He said Staff did reach out to the DNR when the discussion on
delaying the condition came up and were not able to get a response, but he promises they will
try.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Approve Planning Commission Minutes dated June 1, 2021.
Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the Planning Commission Minutes from June 1,
2021.
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Skistad moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 8:29 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director