Loading...
PC Minutes 2-7-06Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 19.The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement. 20.The building shall comply with the Planned Unit Development building setback requirements.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: HALLA GREENS (AKA CHANHASSEN SHORT COURSE): REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT (2003-07), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT (2003-04), AND VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GOLF COURSE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD (HIGHWAY 101) AND PIONEER TRAIL. APPLICANT: JOHN KOSMAS – PLANNING CASE NO. 05-39: Public Present: Name Address John Kosmas KKE Design, 6112 Excelsior Blvd., St. Louis Park Don Halla 6601 Mohawk Trail, Edina Sandy Halla 6601 Mohawk Trail, Edina Erik Olson 9855 Delphinium Lane Dennis & Nancy Mills 9510 Foxford Road Tom Jessen 9570 Foxford Road Tom Anderson 9371 Foxford Road Elizabeth Smith Mikkelsen 9591 Foxford Road David & Sharon Gatto 9631 Foxford Road Steve McMeen 9391 Foxford Road Kathy Asplin 541 Pineview Court Magdy & June Ebrahim 521 Pineview Court Tom Gertz 10001 Great Plains Blvd. Gaye Guyton 10083 Great Plains Blvd. Judy Walstad 10071 Great Plains Blvd. Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Okay. Dan? Keefe: Let me start with the lighting. How many light standards are we talking about in the parking lot, do we know? How many light standards? I presume they are on poles and would be cast downward, correct? Al-Jaff: Correct. If you turn to the last page of your staff report… 41 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 Keefe: Is it just the six? Oh, there’s over here, too and along the road. Al-Jaff: Correct. There will be three fixtures, now these are the double-headed ones, the shoebox. There are two fixtures along the driveway and then there is another fixture lighting the way into the storage building. Keefe: Can you orient me just a little bit on what I’m looking at here? Is Pioneer Trail to the top of the page and then 101 is on the left side? Al-Jaff: Way on the left. If you would look at this…here is Highway 101, here is Pioneer, this is the parking lot right here and the light fixtures will be right here. Keefe: So the property line to the east is approximately how far from that parking lot? Al-Jaff: 388 feet. Keefe: And the topography of the land, do we have berms or do we have golf course topography? Often golf courses have some topography to them. Al-Jaff: There isn’t substantial topography. Keefe: Okay. So to the east we are not seeing any. How about then to the south? Is there more to the south? Al-Jaff: There is a substantial distance to the south. Again, these are the questions related to the lighting fixtures? Keefe: Yes, more to the lighting and I’m just concerned, I’m particularly thinking of the surrounding neighborhoods and kind of what they would see when the lights are on and if limiting the hours of operation to sunrise to sunset, if we agree to that, would the lighting be allowed beyond that? After that, is there a requirement to turn them off or how would that…? Al-Jaff: We could make it a requirement of the conditional use permit that they be motion lights if they are for safety reasons. That would definitely be an option so they would be turned off but if there was movement in the area then... Keefe: …they would come on. …to know that that’s lighting for safety reasons. I don’t have any problem with that. The question is, are we going to have a beacon of lights sitting out there when nobody’s there or, that really… Al-Jaff: It has to meet ordinance requirements which is the downcast, shielded and not-to- exceed ½-foot candle. Based upon the photometrics that we have received, they meet that requirement. Keefe: It’s one thing of the light casting out rather than sort of looking at it and seeing if we can require just the motion after dark. 42 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 Al-Jaff: That’s definitely a requirement. Keefe: So to the east we probably have a view. To the south it’s a much greater distance. Al-Jaff: It’s a substantial distance. And there is landscaping on this side. Keefe: And north is… Al-Jaff: North, we have a 50-foot setback from the edge of the parking lot and then you have the right-of-way for Pioneer Trail, which I believe is 80 feet. Fauske: The plan shows 73, but they may not be current. Al-Jaff: 73? So 73 plus 50, over 120. Keefe: Do they have berming along the north in this plan? Al-Jaff: There is some berming but it’s not 15 feet. It will not be 15 feet. Keefe: Any landscaping? Al-Jaff: There is landscaping proposed around the entire site. Keefe: I’m just trying to get a feel for the site as we look at it. Thanks. McDonald: Mark? Undestad: While you’re on the lighting. The parking lot, there’s some berming on there for these cars that should be out of there at sunset and the employees or whatever that might be around there as they are coming and going, are the headlights going to be shooting off on everybody or is that bermed up enough on Pioneer Trail, all these stalls that face the north? Al-Jaff: There will be berming along Pioneer Trail. There will also be some landscaping along that area. Undestad: Nothing will shine up onto Pioneer Trail or over the hill into the neighborhood? Al-Jaff: No. McDonald: Debbie? Larson: So we’re dropping the lights 10 feet from what they proposed? Al-Jaff: That’s what staff is recommending. May I go back to this? What I will do is just focus on this area here. This plan proposes a berm and the berm is approximately 10 feet at the highest 43 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 point and it gradually goes down. Here is the parking lot immediately behind it. You will also notice that there is landscaping along the entire perimeter of the site. There are no changes proposed to the landscaping plan. There are no changes proposed to the grading plan either. (male voice)???: Is that berm in now? Al-Jaff: No. Larson: So the trees are going to be immature for many years yet? Al-Jaff: They have to meet ordinance, 2-1/2 inch caliper but yes, to answer your question, the answer is yes. Larson: Is there any possibility that it could be set to where they would have to put in a fuller- type tree like an evergreen versus a deciduous tree? Just for the sake of the headlights, the shielding of the lights. Al-Jaff: I don’t believe that with the berm here you will have an issue with the headlights. That will be a substantial berm out here. Larson: Okay. That’s all I have. McDonald: Debbie? Zorn: I’m sure this will come out in some of the public comments but out of the emails that you shared with us, there seems to be this gravel road that I know it’s not part of this. Can you just make a comment on that? Al-Jaff: Absolutely. This is Highway 101. This is the curve in Highway 101. I’m sure you’re all familiar with it. There is a private street that continues back here. The nursery uses this private street. This is a private street. There are private agreements. The City cannot get involved in enforcing who uses this private street. I have explained that to the neighbors and explained that because it’s a private street governed by private agreements, we can’t get involved. Zorn: Okay. Thanks. McDonald: Kurt? Papke: Is there anything in City Code or ordinance that would prevent us from looking at a different kind of lighting design? I’ve been in parking lots that have been very tastefully lit with very low lighting posts, four feet or less tall, where it provides you with sufficient light to get to your car without tripping and falling and finding the lock to put your key in and so on. Would there be anything that would prevent the applicant from taking that kind of approach here? 44 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 Al-Jaff: I think that they could definitely work with the neighbors. Obviously, this is a great desire the neighbors that they… Papke: But from a City Code perspective is there anything that would prevent that kind of design? Would that go against any of our rules, regulations, guidelines, anything of that sort so the applicant has complete freedom to design something that would be much less intrusive into the surrounding area. Al-Jaff: As long as the fixtures are shielded, they are fine. Papke: Okay. Are there any issues with the increase in the size of the maintenance building? This is four times the size it was before. Al-Jaff: That is something that we talked about in house at length. The materials used to maintain the golf course would be stored in that building. There is no size limit in our ordinance. Papke: Okay. There is mention in the applicant text concerning eventual application for lighting of the driving range, if I read this correctly. What we’re approving tonight, would that in any way impact, allow, deny, whatever. Is there any consideration to be taken for that aspect of the… Al-Jaff: The only lights that you are approving are the ones that are in the parking lot and then you have two along the driveway, and then the other two. Papke: Okay. If the applicant were to desire to light the driving range, would they come back to the Planning Commission again or what is the process. Al-Jaff: Yes, especially knowing the nature of the situation and how we want to be sensitive to the neighborhood. Papke: Okay. This is more of a rhetorical question. Is there any consideration taken in City Code or guidelines for lighting in this situation that take into account the ambient lighting conditions in the area? Let me explain myself a little bit. We looked at things, for instance, when the movie theatre in downtown Chanhassen wanted to put a few uplights on the movie theatre. In that case, those sorts of things seem reasonably harmless just because it’s in a well- lighted area. There are tons of lights surrounding those structures. This particular application is in an extremely dark area. There are almost no street lights. You can see the lights from the casino at night, it’s so dark. Am I correct in assuming there is no allowance in City Code for light pollution in an area like this? Al-Jaff: The way light pollution is addressed in the City Code is requiring the fixtures to be shielded, downcast, not to exceed ½-foot candle. Papke: So your answer is that there is no consideration for surrounding conditions? Al-Jaff: Correct. 45 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 Papke: Okay. How about winter hours? Is there any consideration in this application for year round use? I’m particularly concerned about the driving range. This application is starting to look more and more like the setup down at the base of 101 and 212 where you have a driving range and a golf course and it’s lit up at night and yadda, yadda, yadda. Al-Jaff: The hours of operation are sunrise to sunset. This application will be different than what you see down along 212 and 101. They are two different applications. There are specific requirements and things that are permitted on property that abuts Highway 212 or Highway 5 that is not permitted along Highway 101. Miniature golf is not permitted on this site. Papke: Was there mention of miniature golf in the application? Al-Jaff: There was some talk about at some point in the future. There were numerous requests with this application. Papke: So there are no limits to winter hours? Al-Jaff: Sunrise to sunset. Papke: Sunrise to sunset. The only concern I have there is if the lights are on at night and you have snow on the ground, it reflects off the snow so you are going to get more of an issue during the winter as we all know than you do during the summer. I’m assuming then that with a driving range there would be a desire to use that driving range during the hours of operation when there’s snow on the ground, yes? Al-Jaff: Yes. Papke: Okay. McDonald: I’ve got a few questions for you, too. You addressed the one about driving range. On the lights, you say that they have to be shaded so that they downcast. I take it what you’re talking about is all around the light would be opaque, I believe, so it’s focused down. Al-Jaff: Like a shoebox. Correct. McDonald: On the north side, and again I’m not worried about the east or the west or the south, on the north side there at the property line which is roughly 120, 130-something feet from maybe the light poles or something, that’s going to be 1 foot candle? Is that what the ordinance… Al-Jaff: That’s going to be less than half a foot candle. McDonald: And we know this why? Al-Jaff: Because they submitted the photometrics and we will hold them to these photometrics. 46 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 McDonald: Now what’s the difference between a 15-foot pole and a 25-foot pole? What does that do? Al-Jaff: When you bring the light fixture down, two things will happen. The area that’s illuminated becomes less so we know that as you get closer to the exterior property lines, your foot candle is substantially less. Also, if you live across the street and you look out, chances are you will be able to see a 25-foot tall pole a lot easier than a 15-foot pole. McDonald: And by going to the 15-foot with the 10-foot berming, that would help the situation to the north now where I’m talking about where you’ve got roughly a 10-foot berm at that north… Al-Jaff: The reason why we chose the 15-foot is we believe it’s a human scale, if you will, a human-scale light fixture. So it’s the height of the street lights that we have in downtown versus the shoeboxes that you see along public streets and highways at times. McDonald: Are these going to be halogen lights, or the gas plasma lights, or incandescent lights, or fluorescent lights? What kind of lights are we talking about? Al-Jaff: The City Code, I need to look at it. There is a specific type of light fixture that the applicant would have to use. We have a City Code that governs the type of light fixtures. Bob, if you would kindly…If there is another question, maybe we can answer it. McDonald: Okay. The other thing that I’ve got is you state in the report that we are sunrise to sunset and seem pretty much in agreement on that. That’s not what I read in the report. The applicant is wanting things, what I read, until 11:00 p.m. at night. Al-Jaff: And staff is recommending denial of that. McDonald: Okay, but what’s coming out is there doesn’t seem to be a lot of agreement here in some of these areas. I hear the applicant talking about halogen lights. You’re saying that there’s a City Ordinance requirement that is probably not halogen, it’s probably something with a… Generous: Pressure sodium. McDonald: Okay, that’s not that much better. So, in some of the points that have been brought up, I guess what my question is how solid is this plan that you’re bringing before us because it sounds as though there’s still a lot of unknowns here as to what we’re looking at. Al-Jaff: The applicant has provided us with a list of amendments. We are recommending that, we believe that what we have before us, what we are recommending approval of, is in compliance with ordinance requirements. Everything else such as landscaping, grading has to comply with the original plan that was approved back in 2003. McDonald: Okay. So for the most part, this is the original plan with certain amendments which are increasing sizes, bringing in the lighting, and those types of things. 47 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 Al-Jaff: Increasing size, extending hours of operation, illuminating additional area. McDonald: Okay. Down a road as additional things are added to this, they will have to come back through the Planning Commission again to get approval. Al-Jaff: Correct. McDonald: Okay. That’s all the questions I have at this point. Is the applicant available to present his case? John Kosmas: My name is John Kosmas. I’m representing Halla Greens. I have an architectural office in St. Louis Park. We were sort of latecomers in the project. This project had been before you well before we were involved two or three years ago. We’ve basically gotten involved to take a look at the previous request that was approved and then to see how that fits with the current needs and some evaluation that has taken place over the last couple of years. The process of getting this building put together has been taking a bit of time. There’s a lot of work that has been going in, a lot of hard work. The people have gone in to develop that site and get that into the condition that it is right now and in doing so, also gave them time to look at, okay, how do things fit together in what we see today. We have a very good project. We’d like to enhance that project with the changes that we’re requesting. I’ll take them kind of in a one by one. The original building size, what was determined was that that needed some enhancement. Just having outdoor spaces, we live in Minnesota, our favorite bird doesn’t always want to be around us so we wanted to enclose some portraits, so that was developed. The look of the building was reevaluated. There was an architectural office, Anderson & Associates, who would take a look at it, and the Halla’s took a look at the building saying, we’d like something a little nicer. All of a sudden that starts changing the characteristics of the building, the characteristics of the grounds around it, and the requirements that I gave you. Beyond the club house, then the amenities of the other buildings. If you are going to have a driving range, you need a facility that cleans and washes the balls and where you bucket them, I’ll use that terminology, where you distribute them, where you handle that process. That should be adjacent to the club house. Unfortunately, that wasn’t one of the things that was included in the building. Then the evaluation of the means of maintaining this property that’s development. Now you start counting up number of mowers, the number of types of mowers that you need and the vehicles that you needs, and we started placing those inside of a building, all of a sudden we realized, okay, that building has to be bigger if we’re going to put everything inside. For the longevity of the equipment and proper maintenance of that equipment, it is better if it’s inside. We had the discussion with Sharmeen about putting it outside, build fencing and screening around it. But you’re not doing that equipment any good having to go through the rains and such like that. So you look at that as say, okay, let’s increase the size of that building. So we got to the building, the various buildings that were involved, and the little teaching shed that’s off on the course that Sharmeen noted as a place for when it’s inclement weather but you can still do some teaching so that the golf pro that can be helping that person doing the work on the driving range, they’re in a shelter. That’s the function of that building. It’s often referred to as a loafing shed as far as it is concerned when you have horses so it’s the same type of structure as that three-sided, open-end, sloped roof, so that when the swing takes place you’re not hitting anything as far as the structure 48 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 is concerned. So all of those were kind of looked at. We put it together. Basically the site plan is identical, as Sharmeen was saying. Nothing’s really changed. A little massaging here and there to accommodate these different buildings, placing them basically staying in the same spot. The elevations of the building are the same. All of that is still the same. All of the basic grading. There is undulation a bit to all directions from the club house. The club house is sitting up at 916 which is basically a little bit taller than the rest of the site is happening around it. That drops off as you go down to the parking lot and go to the point. That grade drops down approximately six to seven feet. You have an elevation back at the north end of that parking that’s at an elevation number 910. The road, Pioneer Trail, is an elevation of 914 so this issue of headlights going right onto the highway, they’re basically going into the ground. The cars are not perched in an upward direction while they’re doing that. They’re actually in a downward slope. Everything is draining in that north direction and then off to the west. All of that was taken into consideration. I’m going to walk through a little bit on the, let’s take this section. I’m going to have you do the same thing that Sharmeen had you do. The buildings that we’re talking about and the orientation as we talked about, Pioneer Trail is on the north side of the property and hopefully I’ll put all of these drawings down so north is always up. We have the club house building, the maintenance building, the accessory building (we’re calling it a ball washing building), and the teaching building. That’s the physical buildings that are on the property to the south. The course is basically laid out and some of you have probably seen it before as far as the first tee, then picking up second, third, fourth, cutting back to the fifth, crossing over six, seven, eight and nine. It’s a nine-hole course. There is some variation of grade that occurs in through here. We’re all aware of how 101 drops down so that grade down at the lower corner down in there is considerably lower than the course itself so there is some undulation that is occurring there. The plantings that occur all the way around and through, all of you know that this was basically a nursery, a little growing space that was almost like a little tree farm I’ll call it, that was functioning. What they’ve done is they’ve basically taken out the trees that are necessary for the course, leaving the other ones all in place. We talked about buffering around into this whole side of the property is quite heavily done. This is probably, the north side is probably the most open side and that’s the side that will have some plantings and such reestablished in that area. They enlarged some berms that occurred over on this side. There is a break in a berm that happens here to allow water infiltration and then there’s a slight berm that’s happening over in there and, like I said, there are some new plantings that are happening along the south property line. I’ll probably have you come back just a little, let’s stay in the parking lot. That seems to be a focus tonight. Let’s take care of lighting and I’ll fill that in a bit. I did say that we were recommending metal halide rather than sodium. My recommendation for that is they get better coverage and more efficient use of lesser lamps and I figured the fewer number of lamps and I figure the fewer number of lamps starts to help with the idea of less intrusion on my eyes. We’ve tried to do it with a smaller number a bit taller than what’s being requested by staff and again, that gives me better coverage so that I don’t have the issues of having lights sitting right next to the roadway. I tried purposely not to put any in over here. You have to on the driveway. That’s an automatic. You have to do something to identify this from a safety standpoint. I do not want cars pulling in and out of here if it’s perfectly pitch black. Now, the ordinance reads half a foot candle. Along this property line, and I know it’s very difficult to read the photometrics, the numbers along that property line are basically running 0 to 0.2 all the way across. This corner, right in through here, is where pick up into that 0.5. Normally, if I were laying the site out, I would have actually made that about a 1.5 to 2 at an intersection because I 49 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 like that intersection a little brighter but to comply with the ordinance, we’ve kept it at the 0.5. So you have the 0.5 that’s in this area and all of this like I said is either 0 or below. All of the plantings that are here, both the trees and wildflowers and such that are going to go on that berm, will all be there during the summer season. They will not be there in the winter season except for the trees themselves so there will be a little different type of character. But with the berm that’s there, which unfortunately there was a grading plan that was developed that did say ten feet there, but there is no way physically to get ten feet of earth change between what the elevation of the highway is and the elevation of the property. We’re not going to build a straight up and down retaining wall and put the earth sloping right back down onto the highway or something like that. Basically, it’s going to be a four-foot grade change that occurs that does take care of the, so when I talk about headlights in that area, they’re basically being taken care of by the berm that’s there and the highway that’s there. In relationship to how the light then traverses from vehicles through here, it’s basically taken care of by the berm and by the plantings. The lighting from, this is my style of a shoebox, that pole with its lights are basically directing the light downward. Now if I take and just pretend it’s sitting way over here off to the left, that light that’s coming is basically like I said where this property line runs through here, is zero. There is no light coming from that fixture any place past the property line. I’ll correct myself. I said zero but it could be 0.2. That is very minimal, it’s virtually zero. I even thought about bringing a photometric reader and turning the lights off and leaving something on in the room so you could see what that actually is. It is virtually darkness. You’ll get more ambient light coming from around you, houses or whatever else coming from at you when you measure that kind of a light level. The fixtures are shoebox as it’s referred to in the trade. It’s basically a box that sits like that. The lamp is typically a horizontal lamp because of the shallowness of the fixture, rather than a vertical lamp and the lens is very minimal. It think it’s about a half-inch projection below the actual box itself. So it’s a downward casting fixture. Its not intended to spread. Many times you’ll see parking lot lights that are sitting like that and shining outward but that is not what we’re are proposing. We are proposing that they stay in a downward position because we’re not trying to light the road. We’re not trying to light the neighbors, we’re trying to light the parking lot in a nice, safe manner for people when they come and go. So to address that issue of hours of operation, however we handle that, basically what we recommend is the use of a solar time clock so that that time clock keeps up with what type of day we’re having and it changes it. It automatically makes a change on that basis. Something that’s going to be motion, it takes too long for a reaction, especially in either one, the use of a halogen or metal halide, or the use of a sodium. They all take a certain amount of time to cook before they actually are a lamp so you don’t want those cycling on and off in that manner. So the lights will be kept downward. They’ll stay away from the neighborhood. The lighting that is being proposed as we were talking about is basically two along the drive and those are 15-foot poles. Those are a different scale because we’re only trying to light a pod of area in that manner. We’re not trying to light all the way down into the course and we’re not trying to light back on the road. These we do recommend staying at the 25-foot elevation because again, going back to the question, it allows me to put less in. It’s like the question do I put more lower ones in or do I put less with a reasonable height to them. We’re not asking for 30 and 40-foot which you find sometimes in shopping centers. We’re talking about staying in that 25-foot zone. It gives good coverage. It takes care of the areas that we’re talking about. We get some wash out of those and we give people lighting to go by. That lighting is basically there for both customers and employees. Not to shied the customer, but I’m more concerned about the employee coming and 50 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 going because that employee has to be able to come safely before the customers come and leave safely after the customers are through so it’s more of a matter of taking care of their needs more than the customers’ needs. That leads me to the question of hours of operation. We have sunrise/sunset. That’s when we start playing golf, and that’s when we finish playing golf but if I’m working in the golf course, I’m going there before that and I’ve got to do things to get ready for the golfer and I have to do things to close after the golfer’s been there. So when we start talking about these hours, it’s like if you’re going to be there for golf at 6:00, at sunrise, I should have been there by 5:00. I should have started mowing green one at that time, have green one clean and ready. Be on green two or three before that first person tees off. There’s a difference in what I consider the operational hours for a customer, and the operational hours for taking care of the facility itself. In reverse, the same thing at closing. If I’m coming in at 9:30 or 10:00, as the sun sets in the long hours of the summer, I’m going to then be having to clean up and close after you come in and have a coke or a cup of coffee and a sandwich or whatever until maybe 10, 10:30, 11:00 so I’m going to be leaving at 11:00. So that’s our request for looking at the hours actually getting talked about hours. I’d like to see the ordinance; I would have loved to be involved in writing your ordinance. I was listening to your earlier about your differences in ordinances and the car and a half for three bedrooms and such like that. We only had the opportunity once to get involved in writing an ordinance as a user of an ordinance, and it was great because it ended up in my opinion, of course. It worked because it worked for what we saw everybody needing. I would have loved to been involved in writing this one. I understand the sunrise/sunset for the operational hours of the customer, but it has to be different for how you actually run the business. The business has to be earlier, and has to run later and therefore you’ve got to light it before and after. They’ll be off all day and they won’t be sitting there burning from 10:00 until 4:00-5:00 in the morning, they’ll be off and hopefully everybody’s sleeping at that time that’s in the neighborhood so it really doesn’t make any difference if they are on or off, but they will be off at those kinds of times which appropriately should be. The other lighting that does have to take place is again we have to take customers and clients or golfers back in the balance of the part of the site and so they’ll be coming, this is our handicap accessibility and even though we don’t see a lot of handicapped golfers, that facility has to still meet those requirements and it will. It does. The driving range at this time is not lit and we have not proposed it to be lit purposely until we see what happens. You have a different facility as I referred to down at the bottom of the hill at 212 and 169 than what we’re talking about here. The primary function for this one is the golf and also practicing during the day. It can’t run during the winter because the only way you can run, we’ve done some other winter driving ranges as the one that is down the hill as a net system so they can catch the balls. Those balls come back in through a trough and retrieval system. You can do that in the winter because you’re sitting above the snow. In this case we’re not proposing anything like that. It’s not that type of facility. It’s more like you would see like the other golf courses in the area, some of the traditional ones, the Hazeltines, and the Minnekahdas and the Interlachens type of thing. They are seasonal. They don’t have ball catchers and continuing on through the winter. I’m trying to think if we covered all of those…we got time, the hours, we got the lighting, the building sizes. What I’d like to do on the building size just to help maybe have you understand that. It looks like we’ve got a fair amount of room in this building but this is that maintenance building. It gets too light. I’m sorry. I could have darkened it. But basically, the maintenance building has a small office, a little break room for employees, bathroom facilities, a small little storage area that’s separated the whole parts department because you have maintain your equipment, and the rest of it then is 51 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 basically vehicle parking and a maintenance area, a little shop area. It’s basically there to bring the equipment inside, bring the mowers inside, bring carts inside because there will be carts available for the course. In doing that, then the building gets to be a little bit larger, it gets a little different scale, a different type of building and the economics, and it is partially economics that drive the color, a dark green, evergreen, and a cream color. We’ll call it that. At least on my screen that I’m looking at up here turns out to be a little less green. A very moderate, reasonably priced building and efficient building utilizing the same type of building that was proposed before, being a Lester-type building type of facility and I guess I’m one that pushes a little harder as I look around the neighborhood. The property to the east of the golf course has a two-toned brown Lester-type building. I’m going to use their terminology for that. So it felt like it was compatible with that. Looking across to the northwest corner of the property off the corner, there’s one, two, three, I think five maintenance-type buildings, Lester-type buildings. There’s even one that’s a Quonset hut, which is more of a ribbed metal type of a look. In this particular case, we’re talking about it being a building that has metal panels that has sort of a board and batten look to them so it’s not corrugated. It’s not like what we thought up when we were doing typical metal buildings where we had the corrugated metal that we’d screw onto the frame. So, we’re looking at it being something that’s acceptable in the neighborhood. It becomes sort of a dual question. We’re back to codes again. If I were a farm, I could have them. If I had a farm and a residence not any larger than our club house building, it’s only a 4,000 square-foot type building. We draw homes that are that large and I have my horse barn. I don’t know exactly what the people of the northwest that are across from that other kitty corner do, but there is four buildings on the one parcel and at least two or three on the other, and I think even to the south of us there’s a couple of buildings. The metal building, because it’s so far off the property and because it seems to be in keeping with the neighborhood, we feel that’s an appropriate use. If it were a commercial use, which we’re not rezoned as a commercial, we are maintained as an A2 Agricultural property, allowing us to have a golf course on it, it would be a different matter. But it doesn’t change zoning. We stay as an ag zoning so therefore I think the ag applications should be applied to the property in its fullest. So therefore the property, the building would actually stay as a metal building rather than changing the materials itself. And that’s true for the other two buildings. As Sharmeen indicated, we have changed the appearance to the building. I’m not giving you all of the, I didn’t tone at all because it’s a fair amount to do, but the building that you saw in that colored photo before was basically almost the same lean-to type of building. We’re not proposing that. This is a hand, stick-frame building, and trussed roof adding some character to it. Accentuating entries is what is really what you want to have happen in your neighborhoods. It’s residential scale. It’s potentially, well I don’t know how I would judge it. There are homes that I saw when I drove through the neighborhood to the north that I think are larger scale than this one, different style. We’re looking at it more for a little different use than we are trying to put…but it’s basically we’re using the same material that Sharmeen was showing you before. The asphalt shingles. The question as to what these materials are. This is a trim material. There’s bead board that will occur in part of the entrance. This is a product that’s called Azack(?). It’s a trim plastic. It sounds cheaper when I use that term. It’s a much more elaborate trim than that. It’s a permanent material. It doesn’t deteriorate. It doesn’t fail. It accepts paint. We’re basically looking at using the white trim with our siding and these are the trim boards that go around the windows and such like that. There will be residential double- hung windows. They’re actually what’s called a cottage style where the top half portion is smaller than the lower portion so it’s being kept in that nice scale of a residence. The use of, in 52 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 this case we ended up developing the clear story glass up on the top, a dormer type of a treatment, to again let some light in from a different direction and add a different character to the building. Currently there are the two screen porches that are on the end. There has been some discussion and it is the same thing relating to if we change the approach. We’re going to actually build those screen porches where the foundation is insulated so that if there is a need and a good rationale in the future we may be talking to you again about enclosing one of those so that they can enhance their facility. What did I miss? I’ll shut up. You can turn me off. I’ll answer questions. McDonald: Okay. I have a question for you. We do have a time limit now. We’re obviously not going to make the time limit. Can we run these meetings over or are we… Generous: It’s up to the Commission. McDonald: Okay. That’s all I wanted to check on. At that point, does anyone, Commissioners, who wants to start asking questions? Go with Kurt. Dan? Keefe: Let me ask you a question. In regards to the, let me get back to the hours of operation and the lighting, if we were to run that to sunrise to sunset, what would that do to the lighting that you’re proposing? John Kosmas: It would stay the same. Keefe: It would stay the same even though… John Kosmas: I’ve got to have the lights on for you to come early to your tee time and I’ve got to have the lights on for you to leave and I’ve got to leave the lights on for the employees. Even though, even if you were to say sunset is the theoretical closing time, people are still on the golf course. They’re going to come in, they’re going to finish, and the employees have to stay and take care of them. That’s why I kind of question the use of that, in the ordinance. If I were running a golf course, that’s what I’d have to do. Keefe: Now in regards to lighting itself, you reference a couple of golf courses, Minnekahda and Interlachen, where they utilize in their entrances much lower lighting than what you’re proposing. John Kosmas: Not that… Keefe: No, but in terms of height? John Kosmas: Minnekahda has their pole lights coming in on their main drive that are up there. Keefe: Yeah, but Interlachen has their… John Kosmas: Interlachen has it’s globes. 53 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 Keefe: Yeah, right. You could do that if they’re lower. John Kosmas: And I could do that efficiently in the driveway because the driveway, just like the… Keefe: They’re not 15 feet high. John Kosmas: They’re probably 12 to 15 and they’re also greater than 360-degree lamps. Now they let light, they’re typical, old street-light fashion and they emit light in all directions. You get a great deal different efficiency out of a lamp that’s doing that and in many cases it’s more efficient for the lighting, but it’s potentially more objectionable to the viewer. So your use by the ordinance to ask for it to be a shoebox, I think from the standpoint of those that are driving by and going by, I think it’s more compatible. But you have to get them up to get them to light. Otherwise, you’re putting them at every 15-foot interval type of thing and that gets to be a lot of lamps. Keefe: What would be, so if we were to go with more lamps, what would be the conceivable minimum height that you could go at? John Kosmas: I don’t know where I would put them except for putting them out on the north side of the parking lot and I don’t recommend that because then I’m taking and putting more light to an area where I don’t want light so I’ve got to keep the lights where they are. Keefe: What height would you be looking at? John Kosmas: I’d probably work at 20, I’d work with a 20-foot high and I’d tip them up to make them cover better. If I start bringing them down to 15 and squaring them up, you’re going to probably be putting them at every third parking stall. That’s 27-foot spacing. That’s a lot. We have nine stalls to park now, so it’s much more effective and actually I think softer when you get to the property line. The ambient light that’s going off to the sides like I said is virtually zero. McDonald: Okay. Mark? Undestad: I just have a question on your hours of operation. You want to start at sunrise and have your employees come in an hour, an hour and a half, two hours, who knows how early they are going to come. John Kosmas: A reasonable time to come in. Undestad: But I think most golf courses now, aren’t they going to first tee times of 7:00 a.m. rather than the 6:00 a.m. and not having all that? Again, how you can show all that and then you’ve got residents around there, the trucks come in, the employees come in, the equipment starts rattling. In the summertime people like to sleep with their windows open. I’m seeing more of these that are now, the first tee time is ________. People try to get out there before the club house opens up, but I think 7:00 a.m. to me is… 54 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 John Kosmas: I’m not a golfer all the time. I’m a hacker. I don’t get up early to go play golf. You won’t see me be the sun riser. But I understand that, what I’ve learned and understood, that sunrise is the starting time and many people are willing to do that, partly sometimes to get that early tee time to get through this course in an hour, hour and a half, and they’re at work at regular times almost. So it doesn’t interfere with anybody’s day. Undestad: I kind of see that more with golf courses out in the farms yet. They’re still, every time you want to get up, come on out and play but I think the things that are, the courses that are in around the cities and things are starting to move that back. John Kosmas: I don’t know. I don’t have an answer for that because I’m not familiar with it in that respect. Undestad: It minimizes all that early morning noise out there. John Kosmas: The mowers that we’re talking about, they’re not huge tractors. The mower that works on a green is almost like a hover because it’s not trying to maximize what it’s throwing around. It doesn’t have to be powerful, it’s maintaining. That’s the mowing that takes place early. The course can be done safely during the day because they’ll be in cages but you can’t mow while I’m playing golf or while you’re playing golf. So you’ve got to start that before the people get there and sort of stay ahead of them and that’s the purpose for that. Undestad: Other than just the sheer numbers, is there any reason why you wouldn’t set up your hours with first tee times? John Kosmas: I’ll do it as in economics. If I say you can’t start playing golf, let’s say I lose four tee times in the morning and I do that enough times during the year and we did a little math, I think if we lost, there were four tee times that you would cut off…let me just check my notes because we did do it. The question did come up. If you had three foursomes, because you’re basically starting them at that 15-20 minute cycle so you cut off an hour of starting time, you’d lose 12 golfers in the morning. If you did it in the evening and you said okay, because we’ve got to be gone I’ve got to take off four starting times. I’ve got to cut it off a half hour, 45 minutes early. Take away another 12. You have 24 golfers that you’ve lost in that day and if each golfer intended to spend his green fees of $15 and you do that over the period of days that you’re open, it’s a $60,000 swing. That’s $60,000. It helps take care of everything that you’re doing on that course. That’s a big number. If I could put it in my pocket, I wouldn’t probably be here. So it’s a big number when you start saying, let’s change that half-hour, 45 minutes. It does make a big difference in the operation. I’m not saying, of course, it’s an ideal condition. It’s every day. And there’s days when you don’t even play golf because it’s raining so that will throw out those days. Just taking them on that average, that’s what makes a difference so it is an important factor for us to try and look at that hour of golfers starting at sunrise and employees starting before that. That’s how I guess I would have worded, if I’d rewritten the ordinance. Undestad: Just out of curiosity, how many total golfers do you plan on running through in a day? 55 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 John Kosmas: If you say you can do, oh what would be a good number, a foursome every eight minutes? If you’re really on pace, you can do a foursome in eight minutes so if you’re open and you really have that many people out there, it’s a lot of people. And that’s part of the reason for having them start earlier and doing some of the maintenance and cutting those greens because you’ve got to stay ahead of them. You can’t do that while you’re open. That type of thing you can’t. You can’t be on that green. Larson: Okay. Just one quick question. You may or may not know the answer to this. Are they planning on applying for a liquor license? John Kosmas: They’re looking for a beer license. Larson: Okay. The reason I ask that is then, the course is open sunrise to sunset. Then you’re talking people, they have to be off the course by sunset or do they off they premises by sunset? John Kosmas: I think that’s a very good question. Larson: Because if they’re going to go and finish up and go have a beer that puts them an hour later maybe? John Kosmas: I think they should be able to do that. Undestad: I think the reason for the sunrise/sunset is the lighting issue. If you don’t want the lighting issues then you need to close the place down. Larson: Right. That’s what I mean. It puts your lights later. Your lighting issues are later. John Kosmas: I happen to think I should be able to that. I think I should be able to play a good round of golf and I should be able to stop and have a sandwich and a beer or a sandwich and a pop and then leave. But if I go to the literal interpretation, and that’s what I guess I’ve got to ask you to do, is look at that interpretation a little differently, because if I look at the literal interpretation, if sunset that day is at 8:30 it’s closed. And there’s a lot of light potentially after what we count as sunset. We talked about the sunset on the calendar, on the time clock as one thing, but actual sun’s gone is anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour past… Larson: Lake zoning ordinances, like jet skis and small things, have to be off half and hour or an hour, whatever it is, before sunset. I should know that one. So that’s what I mean. That might be something that needs to be discussed. That’s all I have. John Kosmas: Like I said, I’d have loved to been in writing that ordinance because I would have written it… McDonald: Debbie? Zorn: I’m going to let Kurt go first. 56 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 Papke: What’s the designed lifetime of the buildings? How long are you designing these to last? John Kosmas: The club house building? Papke: Yes. John Kosmas: As long as you’re residence. It’s a long-term building. Papke: Okay. We’re also the planning and zoning commission so we do have to take zoning considerations into issue here. So staff, this area is guided rural residential in 2020? Generous: Large lot. Papke: Large lot. So 2020 comes along and gets rezoned, what happens? John Kosmas: We stay there. Al-Jaff: The applicant needs to make a decision, do they want to continue the golf course use or do they want to change it to a residential use? Papke: But there’s nothing that requires them to then stop operation of the golf course? Al-Jaff: It’s a conditional use. There is a higher and better use with residential. Papke: But they can continue to operate this golf course until the year 2100, as long as the building doesn’t fall over. Al-Jaff: Unless they violate the conditions of… John Kosmas: My understanding is that you have some interim uses in your ordinances and I think that thought of an interim use would be applied but in this case its not an interim use. Al-Jaff: It’s a conditional use. John Kosmas: It’s a conditional use under the ag zoning. Papke: So coming back to, I think this issue of hours of operation is going to be crucial here from a city code perspective. In this case, taking into account somebody sitting at the bar having a beer and somebody mowing the greens. What constitutes hours of operation according to our city code? Al-Jaff: Sunrise to sunset. Papke: But what operations, what things can take place during that time period? After sunset… Generous: They cannot maintain. 57 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 Papke: They cannot maintain. That’s the way it’s currently written? Al-Jaff: Correct. Papke: Do we enforce this? Al-Jaff: We haven’t had a problem yet. I’ve never had a complaint. Papke: I’ll make one now. Al-Jaff: Okay. Papke: On Bluff Creek. Al-Jaff: Done. McDonald: Okay. Debbie? Zorn: I want to hold my comments or my questions so that we can have the public hearing. Thanks. McDonald: Okay. I have got some questions for you. You talk about economics. Have you compared this course to the Chaska course the way it’s run and operated? To me they’re comparable. John Kosmas: My understanding is they have, are aware of how the Chaska course operates. McDonald: Do you know what the hours of operation are for that course? John Kosmas: No, I’d have to defer to that. The Chaska course? McDonald: No, the Chaska short course. It’s over by Hazeltine. : We didn’t talk to the par 30 course but we talked to the town course and we’re basically running the same as the town course. McDonald: You want to come in early and do the mowing and everything, but how can you do the mowing without light? John Kosmas: The lighting that you need for the level of lighting you need for the greens is strictly on the mower itself. There’s no need for broad headlights or beacons of light to do that. McDonald: Okay. You’ve run through the economic numbers of what it takes to make it work and all such as that but one of the factors I think you need to put into that is that you’re in a neighborhood, a residential neighborhood. That’s why a lot of people are here today and you’re 58 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 going to see a lot of pressure coming from us as far as the use of this course. I understand you have to make a profit. I understand you’ve done your numbers and you know what it’s going to take to go through it but the problem that we’re going to hold you up to that’s a scrutiny that we’re looking at on this is you’ve got to live within that neighborhood and we just don’t want a lot of complaints. That’s one of the things that we look at. The whole thing about the liquor license and those things. If you come back before us with that, you’ll have a hard time getting that through, I’ll tell you right now. I guess the reason I say all that is that we do look at this in the context of where it’s at and my question is have you looked at that? There’s a lot of complaints here. I’ve got a stack of emails. I’ve been getting calls constantly about this and what it comes down to is maybe it’s a lack of cooperation or listening to your neighbors. The 25 to 15-foot, it seems to me as though it’s a small trade off but it would buy you a lot of good capital. What have you looked at as far as talking to the people within the neighborhoods. Have you held meetings with them? John Kosmas: No, we have not. It was a discussion to do that but there is also the understanding that it has been in front of you before and the neighbors were involved before and so we are basically working with that. McDonald: Okay. I guess the feeling that everybody has while you’re back is these seem to be some rather drastic changes. This is not the deal everybody signed up for is kind of the feeling I’m getting from reading through all of this. I understand the issue about the lights but why wouldn’t 15-foot light poles work? John Kosmas: I’m not saying they don’t work. I’m not saying that they do not work. They do not work in the configuration we have them set up right now and if 15-foot is the number that you work with, we’re going to have to have more lamps than what we’re talking about with the six we’re talking about. I don’t recommend that. That’s where I’m at with it. It doesn’t make sense for the use of the property to put more of them around and start moving the lamps closer to someone who doesn’t want them. I don’t want to put them in your backyard. That’s not the purpose. The purpose is to keep them away from you. McDonald: Does part of this come down to the resolution of what does sunrise to sunset mean? John Kosmas: It is some of that, yes. And the safety of the employee leaving and/or coming. I don’t want to send an employee out there in any business. I work at a nice little strip center in St. Louis Park and I really like it when that light’s on over that door and lighting up that alley when I walk out the back door to go get in my car and I’m not small guy but I feel much better. When that thing’s out, I let the landlord know. McDonald: I don’t think any of us are saying anything about safety. We all agree with that. I think the question comes down to how much lighting do we actually need to achieve that objective. The other question I’ve got concerns the building materials. Staff seems to have made a point about the ribbed metal. What I heard you talking about, I’m not sure that that’s what you’re talking about. Is there a difference of opinion there between you and staff or has something changed? 59 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 John Kosmas: I think it’s a play on words. The metal building that we’re talking about is a metal building that has a simulation of a standing seam and a board and batten type of look where it has a flat panel, a strip, a flat panel, not a corrugate, what I would call a corrugated…so I think it’s just a matter of terminology. McDonald: Because when I think of ribbed, as you said, I think of corrugated but that wasn’t what you presented. Okay. I have no further questions and I don’t mean to be overbearing about all of this but it’s just one of these things. There are a lot of questions about this coming back that it does appear things have changed from what we initially approved. John Kosmas: Hopefully I’ve made it obvious that it isn’t that drastic of a change what we’ve done. It’s more a clarification of what, I’m not picking on the people that were here before you before, but I think some of it should have been taken care before but I’m willing to carry the message afterwards now to try and get the answers squared away. Because I want these people to live with what’s there. I like the building that we’re developing. I think it’s a good use. Therefore, let’s bring it back and let’s talk about it. McDonald: Okay. Let’s see what everybody has to say and then we’ll go from there. John Kosmas: Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. At this point we will open up the public meeting and what I would ask is that you step up to the podium, state your name and address and then address your comments to the Commission and we will try to get everyone in. Yes, sir. Boyd Peterson: Good evening. I’m Boyd Peterson. I live at 9860 Pioneer Circle. I’m the residence directly on the east side of it which puts me right on the second fairway. I’m the fellow with the big brown pole barn that was built in 1985. At that point in time there were farm fields, three nurseries, this and that. There wasn’t these fancy buildings that we can do that with so I need to point that out. Other thing is these hours of operation. When those sprinklers go off, my house is probably, you know, 200 feet away. You would not believe how loud those sprinklers are when they’re going off and they run them things unbelievably a lot. As far as lawn mowing, them lawn mowers run a lot and they start damn early in the morning and they seem like they are mowing all the time. Now that’s a lot and it’s right there. Another problem with, I mean I don’t want to make any enemies with the applicant, but it may too late for a lot of that. I’ve been there since 1987. But the big problem I have and I was hoping there was a little bit of a buffer between my property and the second fairway and the original design of this course was great and happy and everybody that’s here was really great and happy about this going. It was a real tame nine-hole course for the public and for the kids, older folks that can only go do nine and be done and a quick deal. I don’t think there’s anybody here really too stupid to see what’s going on here. This is a master plan for bigger things. It’s ridiculous. I was hoping for a little more of a buffer. I want to get back to that. I mean the applicant, he’s well aware of what I was hoping for and well aware of what was on the original docket. As a matter of fact, I even took care of trees that were planted by myself. I drug 400 feet of hose around for months just so they could take care of the rest of the course. They had enough problems. I wanted this thing to work. Now, what I got is, they’re mowing right up to the line fence and what happened to my 40 60 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 yards of weeds? What happened to my buffer? It’s not there. I’ve got a dog. Okay, well keep your dog off of my course. Well, okay but what happened to my three, four feet of weeds for my dog wouldn’t see a golfer running across. My dog don’t see nobody over there, my dog ain’t going to go there. I got four kids. My big concern is where my pole barn is. It’s real close to the second tee box and I know damn well this is going to happen because there’s a lot of golfers that have a few before they start their round. What’s real convenient, and you’re all welcome to come over to my place and look around all you want, the back side of my pole barn’s a perfect place to walk over and relieve yourself. And I know that’s going to happen and that’s why I was hoping for a buffer. You’re not going to walk through 30 yards of weeds with hopefully thistles. What it’s supposed to be isn’t happening and I don’t want to make enemies with the applicant. That ain’t what I’m trying to do. The applicant’s well aware of all I really wanted. I got one pole barn with one light and you’re all welcome to cover over after this meeting and see what one light does. That’s all you need. I got kids running around all the time. I got cars coming and going. Why do you need all these lights. I could talk all night. It’s obvious I’m a little frustrated on how it’s gone at this point and nobody comes and asks me what would be nice. I thought that was all worked out but it isn’t what’s happening. I’ll let other folks get up. Thank you. McDonald: Okay. : I have a question for him. Sir, quick question for you. Do you have any concerns with golf balls hitting your pole barn? Boyd Peterson: I’m not a golfer, plain and simple. In talking to golfers and the original guy that was putting this all together, designed this so the balls are all drove nice effectively away from my property. I guess unless you put a pretty heavy hook on and there’s been people say that’s going to happen so there are going to be balls coming at my house and I’m hoping the first window that gets broke that the golf course takes care of it and puts in one that won’t break again for when the next one hits. That was kind of a, in a sense, a verbal thing that was worked out just being a nice neighbor about stuff. I’ve got beautiful pines that have been there forever that are up there that I’m hoping they’ll take care of a lot of that. I took care of a bunch of trees and I’m hoping they’ll take care of that, too. I hope that answers your question. McDonald: Thank you. Next, please. David Gatto: Good evening, folks. I’m David Gatto. I live at 9631 Foxford Road. I’m going to represent the entire Lake Riley Woods Homeowners Association. Several members of the board are present tonight. In fact, the President is right there. I’ve been authorized by the board to speak on the behalf of all 37 families that live across the street and to the north of the golf course. I’ll invite any other members of the association that are here tonight and present that do not agree with any of my comments to come forward or speak up and correct me. I want to say first that the association really encourages the development. I’m sorry, I’m going to kind of read this because I prepared these comments and I shared them with some other people and they listened so I’ve got some things to say but I’m going to read most of it. We encourage the development of the golf course and wish its management a great success with this current business model and as presented and approved in September of 2003. I know that myself and 61 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 several of the residents are eager to use the facility. We’ve been encouraged by it’s positive visual impact. We feel the landscaping that has been completed is an improvement from even the beautiful nursery that was present there before. We know we could have something across the street that’s far more detrimental and not as pleasant to view as a golf course so we don’t want the Halla’s to misconstrue our comments tonight in any way. We have a generally positive impression of the development and look forward to its completion and opening. Our first question to Halla’s is when is this thing going to open? One of our concerns is this is going to become a white elephant and never open and that will be an embarrassment to Halla and the neighborhood out there. We want to plant that first question. So we understand it, the Planning Commission now has the discretion in approving or denying the site plan and is limited to whether or not the project complies with zoning ordinances. When we review the September th 15 conditional use permit, we want to acknowledge for the record again, the applicant did accept that City awarded them the permit with no exterior lighting except a safety light on the building, as we understood. Let’s talk about safety for a minute, guys. Sharon and Kathy, would you stand up? This is the example of the kind of people that are out in our neighborhood after dark and before sunrise. These two ladies and several other ladies that are nearly identical to these ladies get up before the sun rises and walks around our neighborhood. Walks right down the street. Right down the bike path. Some of them walk entirely around Lake Riley and to my knowledge; we have not had any problems with safety. Now unless that some other kind of folks are brought into the neighborhood by this business, we don’t think that there’s going to be any problem with safety and we frankly don’t understand all these needs and all this talk about protective of employees before the sun rises and after the sun sets over there, because we think that we’ve been pretty lucky with what we’ve got. We’ve got the following comments. We’ve got another question. The conditional use permit states the applicant is going to provide a pedestrian bikeway connection to the City’s trail system at the intersection of Great Plains Boulevard and Pioneer Trail. We want to know, Mr. Chairman, when Halla’s going to complete that connection. So far we haven’t seen any evidence that they’ve even begun that. Then also, we want a copy, the Lake Riley Woods Homeowners Association needs a copy of the hydro geologic study that’s regarding the impact to the surrounding wells that’s referenced on page 5 of 18, condition number 13. I want to comment for the record tonight more about this watering and the irrigation system. I personally observed the watering and specifically during the month of September when we received over 10½ inches of water. I had to go out and get my newspaper one morning with an umbrella because it was raining so hard, and as I glanced over at the nursery, they were pouring out irrigation water onto that (shag field?) during a heavy rainstorm. You know, all of us neighbors have talked a lot and we’re really sensitive to our common water supply and our wells out there and really don’t see the need to operate a commercial golf course sprinkler system during heavy rain events. We wonder if the golf course has any sensors integral to their system or can be added to their system that will preclude the system from working, especially during a heavy rain. Now I know that I can override my automatic sprinkler system and I do when it rains or when it gets so wet in here and that usually occurs different times in the summer. We just shut the irrigation system off. So we’re wondering if the golf course can do the same for us. We also would like to review the Carver County, the letter dated August 29, 2003 and a MnDOT letter dated 8/26/03. We’d like to look at all this prior to the City Council meeting which this matter is going to be under consideration. The reason I say all that is because I’ve got some comments in their personally and this applicant has shown time and time again their lack of consideration for what is actually permitted. In other words, the City of Chanhassen 62 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 tells them they are permitted to do and they go about their own business and they do things that are not consistent with the permit. So we feel that would be better if we just go ahead and double check it ourselves, too. We now know the reason for the parking lot lighting. It kind of was a mystery to us but it’s clear after we read the application items number 5 and 8, and I think everybody’s been alluding to this, that this applicant is really trying to have a future driving range with lights, a future miniature golf range with lights, and some sort of future evening operations that revolve something around maybe coffee and a sandwich shop, maybe more. I mean there’s no way we can tell. But its really clear that the applicant desires to kind of step up his business model. I mean, he came here and everybody, as everybody’s been saying, was really happy in 2003 that we were going to have a executive golf course and we were all going to be able to use it like Mr. Peterson said during the day, and now we’re back here and we’re talking about massive buildings, different kinds of uses, all kinds of lights in the parking lot for safety reasons, and we can see that the technique here is to come in and ask for more variances on top of the conditional original intent and permit and we flatly don’t like it, obviously. So the facility is only needed to operate between sunset and we really wonder why safety lights are needed during the day like everybody’s been talking about. I guess Mr. Papke, you must have read my notes before the meeting because you got most of my, you’ve already talked about most of my ideas. I was going to talk about, and so I’m not even going to waste too much of this, but I was going to talk about the lighting pollution. I mean, these folks talk about lighting that is downblasted and has so many foot candles and so forth at the property line, but we all know that what really in effect happens is I don’t care what color, flat black, those lights are going to reflect off we’re going to have light pollution. When it snows, if those lights are on, and these guys want to operate in the winter, its going to reflect off the snow and it’s really going to be bright. And it is true, we can see the lights from Mystic Lake in the south end of Chanhassen real clearly. And it is true, I can look to the sky in the south, I can look to the sky in the west, not everybody knows this, but all of our neighbors get together a lot of nights and we try to count the number of satellites we can see fly over the City, the skies and its really nice in that part of Chanhassen still and we just don’t want to lose it. So, now I do have a, I got a trump card. I can’t believe nobody else has said this tonight. I want to make note that the Bluff Creek Golf Course does not have any parking lot lights. I don’t know that everybody understands that. I drove over there today because I was curious and that’s kind of what I thought. That seems to be a pretty successfully golf course and one that has never kicked anybody off because of sunset and you can get pretty decent tee times in the morning and I’ve never felt threatened by any kind of safety. You know, I golf all the time folks and these guys talk about going and doing their maintenance before the golfers get there. That would be pretty hi-fi, because I can’t remember too many times when I was the first golfer on the course and I didn’t have go ahead and put through the moisture and dew on the golf greens, or I didn’t have to wait for the guy to mow off the golf green before I was putting on it. There’s a lot of us in here in this room that are golfers and we know the way golf courses work. We agree with the City on the denial of the extended hours, the increased traffic, the lighting, the noise, the disruptions after dark are going to impair our property values. I notice your ordinances are full, your ordinances are full of those words, things that impair property values, things that diminish property values, things that impact property values. That’s the kind of thing where somebody’s going to come look at our house if we want to sell it. I know that some people in my neighborhood have their houses directly from that golf course for sale right now and that individual told me just tonight that he didn’t buy his house next to a parking lot and he doesn’t this house next to a parking lot, and I’m sure that the 63 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 people that are going to try to buy this house don’t want to buy a house that’s next to a parking lot. So it’s probably pretty obvious that that’s going to diminish the value of that property. The maintenance building, I mean, we don’t agree with the increased size of this maintenance building. We’re trying to figure out why you need a maintenance building that big for a golf course of this size and I don’t think that’s been clearly demonstrated even though we’ve seen lots of diagrams here tonight. A 32-foot by 24-foot ball washing building is kind of curious also. I have been to a lot golf courses and the ball washing buildings and the buildings that dispense those golf balls, and I’m talking about the Hazeltine golf course, it isn’t any bigger than this little space here between all these desks and Hazeltine golf course uses that and I think that’s a pretty good golf course. The Deer Run Golf Course over in Victoria has got just that little building that does the same thing so I guess it’s not clear to me what 32 to 24-foot is going to be used for, in addition to 100-foot long maintenance buildings. It’s kind of interesting. These larger buildings and more buildings on this property are certainly going to impact the visual appearance of the property and again potentially impact our property values. We want to agree, a comment that we agreed with the staff recommendation that all the buildings be consistent with the wood exterior, whatever you approve. I mean the steel exterior skin would certainly be something that we’re not used seeing. Mr. Peterson’s got some metal buildings over there. I live across the street from him. I can’t see them. He’s got plenty of trees around them, it was built a long time ago, and it’s just not going to be out in a new golf course. Finally, let’s talk about non-compliance. I’ve got a specific one for you. The neighbors have noticed that the underground wiring is indeed presently installed for the lighting of the parking lot. Mr. Chairman, some of our neighbors want to know why we were all subjected to very strict compliance and inspections during construction of our homes; however, this applicant has been allowed to install items while they’re clearly inconsistent with his present permit. We just don’t understand how that happens. Additionally, they’ve admitted tonight that the permit says that the berm is going to be 10-foot high on Pioneer Trail and they simply said, aw gosh we can’t do that. I guess we don’t understand that attitude. I would have had a hard time telling the inspectors that when I built my house that geez the plan said that I can’t have that drain box under my garage but I just can’t do that. I want a drain box so I’m going to put it there. That’s that tough things for us normal people to understand. So I’m going to do a quick summary here that we do not agree to the staff recommendation to the City Council to approve these amendments to the conditional use permit for parking lot lights and drive aisle lighting. We just don’t think they need any lighting. I do agree, Mr. Papke, if you really wanted to come to some sort of agreement, the short path lightings, we would talk about those. That’s a great idea and we actually had that idea tonight. We were talking about that over pizza before we came up here. We don’t feel the applicant has really shown this facility is different from other facilities engaged in the exact same business. In fact, the business that Bluff Creek is in is enhanced. Bluff Creek is the closer of this golf course, and not an executive golf course and so they’re in the same business in Chanhassen and actually directly adjacent to the same property we’re talking about. We don’t see any real comments or valid documentation from the applicant to support that the lighting after dark will in any way provide a safer environment for the public during the period from sunrise to sunset. We do not agree that the applicant should be given the opportunity to put commercial lighting of any type on the property just because the local ordinances provide them for safety. They were permitted to have lights on their building for safety. That’s exactly what Bluff Creek has. Bluff Creek has a very standard double fixture on one end of the building. I noticed that was pointing where all the carts were parked on the side of the building as I drove through there today and that’s all 64 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 there is. So, I’m sure a lot of other people want to talk; I have just spoken for 37 people, so thank you very much. McDonald: Thank you. Anyone else? Judy Walstad: Hi. My name is Judy Walstad. I live at 10071 Great Plains Boulevard. Our property would be on the south side of the golf course directly behind the, we have a private road, and we are directly behind the driving range. Could I just confirm first of all that you did th receive an email from Dave Walstad dated February 6? McDonald: Yes. Judy Walstad: Alright. Thank you. I would just like to say I do have concerns with the lawn mowing. I guess I didn’t realize that they started or considering starting that early. I have to say I was shocked about hearing any winter usage because on page 2 of the 18-page proposal it says operations shall be seasonal and limited to sunrise and sunset. I’ve always assumed the golf course was summer, luckily in the spring sometimes and in the fall, but I never heard of it for winter usage. I might just add to my neighbors to the north that I haven’t met yet, but in a comment with the lighting in the parking lot and cars leaving, I think we should consider that headlights on a car, on a vehicle are not on the ground, they are three to four feet off the ground; therefore, you might be getting some of that headlight projected into your properties. Since we live directly across from the driving range, the range actually butts up to our front yard, my first area of concern is regarding the demand for lights on the driving range, and I guess that’s going to be discussed in the future but I would just like to state while I have an opportunity that I’m adamantly against lights on the driving range. I would also be opposed to the proposed future miniature golf course and lights involved in those and the parking lot lights. Also, I didn’t know about the lights on the maintenance building that would be right in our path of vision. I would not be comfortable with lights on that building. In addition to the lighting, if the concern if truly for personal safety and not for property protection or to generate income, and it’s deemed necessary to have parking lot lights, I feel they should be put of timers to shut off after the business is closed. We do not support all night lighting solely for personal property protection. If that’s the major concern we feel the applicant should handle that protection with alarm systems. I am vehemently opposed to extended hours 6 to 11 p.m. and being open year round. I feel that this is an operation that occurs in the prime season of the year and they are running from sunrise to sunset, 7 days of the week already and I feel there should be no extension of these two items. This is not zoned as a business district and we don’t want it to become one. I would like to mention during the construction of the golf course a berm was placed directly north of our private road. This was not in line with the original plan and we are concerned that this will cause water to drain onto our road causing pot holes and increased maintenance costs. And I do understand the private road was mentioned earlier tonight. That would need to be handled separately. But I would like to say that that berm was not intended to be there and it was not in compliance with the plan that was proposed to us earlier. The drainage was supposed to go into their drainage ponds. I just wanted to mention that and feel that this needs to be addressed. Landscaping: I would like to say I am very pleased with the evergreen trees placed directly across from our driveway and I have faith in the manager and crew upon putting those in. I feel that this project though is still in process regarding the south side of the golf course along the 65 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 private road. It is hard to know where they are since they did not go by their original proposal again so I would like in writing what they are doing to complete this project. I wanted to mention there is that driving range they talked about earlier that’s one mile south of our property and I would like to comment that it is open year round and what is convenient with that property is there are no residents in the area so I think that is fabulous and there’s not any conflict there. In closing, the following is a list of things that should be clarified in writing so there are no misunderstandings between the applicant and the neighbors: A map site with all the building locations. I was really kind of surprised to see the map proposed has two buildings. It does not show, I did see it tonight, but it does not show where all four buildings were to be located. Explanation of continued landscaping process. Definition of sunrise and sunset. Again, what golf patrons, when they’re expected to leave the property, including the club house. I would like to have in writing that the private road not be used for Halla Green purposes. That again may need to be handled elsewhere. We would like, if this is possible, to have the intentions for the use of the road, if they plan to do so, in writing. I would like to see denial of the miniature golf course and the lights of the driving range to be in writing also. I think that’s it and I thank you very much for your time. McDonald: Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to come up? Gaye Guyton: Good evening. My name is Gaye Guyton and I live right behind Judy Walstad, 10083 Great Plains Boulevard. First of all, I know this evening has gotten so late and you all look so tired so thank you for staying and listening. I’m very concerned about this, and I was one of those optimistic people who was here telling you we were really in favor and excited about this golf course. In 2003 I spoke in favor of it. Ron Saatzer was really good at coming to visit with us neighbors and just running things by and making sure we were all on the same page and we’ve seen that change. The initial things that you approved in 2003, some of you were here and some were different, were the four things that we’re most concerned with. The hours of operation were going to be seasonal and again, hours of operation were going to be from sunrise to sunset, not prior and later. There was going to be no outdoor speaker system, no commercial kitchen, and no exterior lighting with the exception of safety lights on the building. I have been on my property for about a dozen years at this point and I have seen that Mr. Halla has just pushed and pushed and pushed with so many other things and that’s why we brought up the private road issue. In 2003 there was supposed to be some of that orange construction fabric running between the edge of the golf course and the private road so that none of the heavy equipment would come up and down and that was one of the things that was spelled out on that evening that everything was approved and so, lo and behold the orange fabric went up and then they came and they ripped it down so they could use it for the those. The hours being seasonal are now getting pushed. The sunrise to sunset limits have been pushed. We haven’t heard yet about an outdoor speaker system and I hope that’s not going to happen. The commercial kitchen not being permitted in the club house was so that there would be no long-range, long-hour thing. It was supposed to just be a spot for kids to run in and get a Coke, have a sandwich, it wasn’t supposed to be a place for people to stay long after their golf game. There’s lots of other golf courses in the area if people would like to do that. They certainly could but this was a different type of golf course that was being proposed at that time and it just seems like it’s changed a lot. I’d like to talk just for a minute about the exterior lighting. We had seen in what you all had written that you had said this, “Just as granting the extended business hours in the variance will 66 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 be considered an annoyance to the neighbors in the early morning and evening hours contrary to the original use permit, so will these lights be considered a nuisance. I’m not here to quibble with you. If you say we need to have three 15-foot lights for safety, that’s fine. But I’m starting to get very concerned when they say okay and then there’s one by the maintenance building that’s going to be shining right into Dave and Judy Walstad’s area. There’s not that much topography there. It’s pretty flat. We can right out to Pioneer Trail right now. It’s not a nice, rolling area. It’s got little dips but it’s not rolling. On page 13 in the booklet that you all did you talked about the sound and site buffers and preservation of views and with not only those lights going in, and again keeping those to a minimum. If we need to have three low I can go along with that but those other buildings and other things, it’s really going to change that corner. Mr. Halla does not have bright lights on during the night at his nursery. This is something I’ve told him repeatedly. The nursery’s also called in the past to ask are they being good neighbors. That’s never happened with the golf course and so one of the things I’ve had chance to tell the nursery when they’ve called is how much we appreciate the lights being low or dark at night. That area is so dark that we are some of the people who come out between sunset and sunrise to be able to look at the start, shooting stars, in August where there’s all the comets and things going by. It’s a really special place so that’s an important thing. I thank you for you all to consider. If the golf course opens and dawn and closes at dusk, I also don’t understand why it’s so important that there be all those lights there anyway. There’s no one going to be there. They also have not really complied with the original landscaping plan at this point. There is a gentleman there named Eric Olson and he’s been really good about trying to tell us what he’s doing but they have been changing things and so again, I don’t know if it’s just that they’re not going to do it and they’re just doing what they have with the trees they have, but they were supposed to be on the plan a whole lot of little shrubby plants that were planted right at the end of the driving range. Those have not gone in. They’ve put in a berm and some nice pine trees but again, they’re just changing things that were on the original plan. Also, when the architect’s mentioned, kind of haphazardly, that oh well, the club house is only about 4,000 square feet and that’s just like the houses that are in the area, there are no houses in our area that have 4,000 square feet on one floor. That’s much, much bigger than our area. To come back to the gravel road just for a second, even though it’s private, I just am making this point to show that Mr. Halla has over and over the years, as long as I’ve been there, kind of disregarded the rules of the City and the guidelines from you pertaining to that road and what it was supposed to be used for. Since the Halla trees no longer exist I believe there’s no valid reason for the Halla trucks to utilize this road anymore. It’s just meant to be an easement and not a commercial road and it was one of the things again in the original use permit or conditional use permit that MnDOT was asking what part that road had in the plans for the golf course and as far as we knew, the answer was none. At this point they’re using it with their heavy equipment that tears up the road and Mr. Hall does not put money into the repair for the road at all. It is our private road. At this point, the current business use for him to use it is for access to the golf course or accessing the ravine for dumping. It has nothing to do with the nursery so if there’s anything that you can do within the limits of having the plan and MnDOT looking at that be considered outside the realm of the golf course, we would really appreciate whatever you could do. We’re not in favor of year round business. It seems more suited to a commercially zoned area and if that’s what Mr. Halla wants there are other areas where he could do that. This is a landscaping and agricultural area with neighborhoods and so we believe that the original conditional use permit that you gave were 67 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 given so well and thoughtfully, that to come back with all those changes now really changes the heart of what the business was. Thank you very much. McDonald: You’re welcome. Thank you. Next? Step right up. State your name and address and address your comments to the Commissioners. Tom Gertz: Commissioners, good evening. Good late evening. My name is Tom Gertz. I live at 10001 Great Plains Boulevard. That’s on the southwest corner of the property. I’ll show you a map of that in a minute. First off I would like to say that I’m very pro business. I’m very pro small business. This expansion into the golf course really means more jobs created. That’s a good thing. Everyone’s going to get on board with that. I don’t have any qualms with the majority of the proposals that fall within the current ordinances and guidelines. I have no issues there. My issues come with some earlier matters and some current ones which I’ve actually just learned tonight. I think when you choose to develop a golf course in an area surrounded by residential areas, there should be some caveats. There have to be some limitations there versus if it was surrounded by a commercial site. I’ve done some golfing. I think I’ve golfed in both kinds of environments and I do see differences in certain rules and regulations that apply. And in all due respect to the applicant speaking earlier, it’s easy to make the case, to make it sound reasonable that we need lights for safety, we have employees that are going to come in early. They have to mow the lawns and maintenance has to be done prior to sunrise and afterwards I want to stop and have a beer before I go home. I agree. On the surface that sounds great. The problem again, this is a residential neighborhood. I believe there has to be some kind of noise ordinance in place for the lawn turf people. I believe they can’t start blowers and mowers and things before 7:00 a.m. I don’t know that specifically but I know that there are guidelines for that. I would think that those probably are a good model to apply to a golf course as well. Let me show you where I live. Right here. I’m definitely the closest adjacent to this property line…entire golf course. In the first home on the private road, that private road has five property owners and four dwellings on it. I do happen to bear probably the brunt as my adjacent neighbors of the traffic, commercial traffic, this flotilla of commercial vehicles that is building and developing the golf course. On the surface of that, I tolerate that without great problem during the construction phase of this. I understand you have to access your golf course. There’s other way but the straightest line and my property lies between the straightest line between two points so they cross the property. He does have a legal easement to do such. I don’t know that that transcends into his flotilla of commercial vehicles but during this construction phase it goes both ways. Neighbors have to be neighborly. I do have issue with the fact that there is no effort in putting in maintenance of that road. We as the private property owners have to do it. I understand it’s a private issue but I hope that that relationship will get better and not worse because it’s been a bone of contention for some time. I’m up here on the backs of other people’s speeches so I’ll try not to fracture this out, but the crux of the matter for me is operational hours, simple and clear. In warm weather you have your windows open. If mowers are running at 5:00, how am I not going wake up? If operation hours are extended into a 10:00, 11:00, 12:00 night, whatever it may be or end up in actually, and I have to listen to pinging golf balls and doors slamming in the parking lot. That’s not a NIMBY issue with me. It’s a quality of life issue. I get to sleep. If you do a little quick math of a party of four taking off every eight minutes depending on if they all go together or go separately, that can be 50-200 cars within that hour needing to service that area, something like that. It was quick math. Now that’s on a prime 68 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 day. That’s a lot of doors slamming at 10:00 and 11:00 at night and I am within proximity of that and I will hear that so that’s one of my issues on that point. As far the, going back to the original agreement, the vegetative borders, it has not been installed adjacent to my property. Again, I’m the closest one. I have spoke with Eric who’s present here tonight and he’s been good to work with and per Eric that it’s forthcoming, but it still hasn’t. There just hasn’t been any progress on that point so I just really wanted to go on record to say that that is still an issue for me. I hope that that still comes to fruition, one so that there’s just a natural barrier for golfers not to impede upon my property whether they’re chasing golf balls and as the other gentleman stated, may be relieving themselves. I think I’m at the furthest point from the club house. That would be nice to get that natural barrier in there. Drainage, I would like to go on record additionally saying I want no additional drain tile installed and drained over my property. There was excavation and drain tile installed across my road on my property without my permission. I took issue with that immediately and I don’t know the watershed area that’s being drained but it’s probably several acres, maybe greater. Eric was very responsive to that and he did install a pipe that runs over my property so it will not erode it and I appreciate that and currently if that holds up that will be fine. If you’d go back to the original agreement you can see that the requirements were for the vegetative barrier and the type of vegetation. I just ask that that be honored or if there’s a deviation in that, come talk to me. I’m a pretty easy guy to work with. I think that’s my big talking points and I actually know Bluff Creek didn’t have lights a while back. Again, lighting in a much lower grade fashion is probably the desirable thing. It is a very dark neighborhood and there is some benefit to that but my biggest issues comes down to extended hours meaning more noise. It’s unavoidable. I wish the endeavor well in success to be profitable but again, within the understanding that it’s a neighborhood and there has to be some adjustments. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you very much. Next? Tom Jessen: Good evening. My name is Tom Jessen. I live at 9570 Foxford Road. I’m part of the Lake Riley Woods Homeowners. The primary issue I’d like to address is traffic safety and the intersection which is the main entrance to the golf course and it’s also the main exit point that I go to every day to work. I’m afraid you’re creating an unsafe traffic issue there. Where my home is at now I watch traffic accidents take place on Highway 101 on that sharp curve that goes north of the intersection of the Highway 101 and Pioneer Trail and it’s a dangerous situation that’s there and also living in the neighborhood for 13 years, I’ve had trouble adapting to get this hill to leave home every morning and get onto Pioneer Trail and to do it safely. All the people that are exiting that golf course will be facing the same kind of issue. When traffic comes through there it’s going 50-55 miles an hour and with the stop lights that’s there, they’re coming from the west at a high rate of speed. If you don’t pull out properly and pick your opening to get out in the traffic stream, it’s very likely going to have some accidents in that area and as related to the issue of drinking and late hours, that intersection is going to be even more dangerous. I was surprised that there wasn’t a traffic light involved with them. One time going to work pulling out from that intersection I had a car come up from 101 and Pioneer Trail intersection and he didn’t like the way I merged onto the traffic and he rode my bumper all the way to Flying Cloud Drive within 10 feet of my car. If you look at the traffic situation there, I’d say that’s something that needs to be looked into, especially with after-hours operation or dark operation with cars coming and going there. Thank you. 69 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 McDonald: Thank you. Would anyone else like to come up and address the Commission? Okay. Seeing no one get up, the public meeting is closed and I will bring the meeting back to the Commission for our review and discussion. Who would like to start or who would like to go last? Papke: I’ll go first before I collapse. McDonald: Okay, Kurt? Papke: Okay. I have the honor of driving by this site twice per day on my commute so I’ve had the opportunity to observe the construction and so one and my kudos to the applicant on the landscaping. It’s really spectacular, I think. The plantings, the waterfall, the boulderscape and so on, very very nice and the club house looks very nicely designed. The maintenance building gives me cause for pause. I’m not going to make any allusions or inferences here but just as a data point for the rest of the Commissioners, the last time I remember Mr. Halla making an application to the Planning Commission, it was to build another building in the nursery for raising koi and that was denied so he has a track record of requesting additional building sites so just a data point there, just for the folks that weren’t around back at that point. I’m very concerned with the ambient lighting. As was stated by a number of the residents, I live down in this area, it’s very dark and it’s amazing how much the lighting carries down there so I think we have to be very sensitive to that. The same thing with the noise issues. I live across from Bluff Creek Golf Course and my bedroom faces the golf course and I can very clearly hear them when they fire up the mowers and 5:00 a.m. or whatever during the summer so it carries for a long way down there. One of my concerns here overall and this is kind of where I was going with the zoning issues, I have a concern that this has grown from what was kind of a mom and pop type operation that was very limited in scope, to something that is now snowballed. When you get into this kind of a situation as a business owner, you make an investment and you want to make it profitable and sometimes in order to do that you need to invest even more and so what I see happening here is I seen fireplaces planned for the club house, I see what looks like almost like a bar situation, the screened-in porches on both sides, the increased maintenance size. It just looks like there’s a tremendous investment that’s going into this and I just have a concern that we’re going to see the applicant back again looking to enhance this site even more to make this more like a commercial site which is why I think some of the comments from the public were coming from. What was originally kind of a mom and pop outfit in a residential neighborhood is now starting to resemble a commercial enterprise and I just have a concern that we’re creeping into something that we didn’t earlier anticipate. Last but not least, there were a couple comments about the water supply and the wells and this was a major issue when it came before the Planning Commission last time. There was a lot of concern about the impact on the water supply. I haven’t heard anything since then as this being an issue so as far as I’m aware and heard since then that there weren’t any legal issues or code issues surrounding this one. Overall, I have a lot of worries but at the end of they day, once again we’re looking at what do we approve as a Planning Commission with the proposal in front of us. I think if we can work something with the lighting, if we’re very specific and stringent about the hours of operation here, I think it’s a reasonably workable proposal but I think we’re going to need to nail down a couple of these things to make sure that we don’t stray outside the boundaries. 70 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 McDonald: Thank you. Zorn: My comments. This was the first time that I was able to read through this application and not being on the Commission in 2003, I’ve been struggling to try and understanding what the 2003 proposal was that was accepted at that time and what the changes are and it really seems that there’s different levels of, public members here feel that the proposed plan is significantly different while the applicant indicates that it isn’t. My observation I feel is that the zoning isn’t, does not seem to be matching up what is before us this evening. The increased lights, the lights for safety reasons, the larger buildings, really do suggest a larger operation here. Once these large buildings are in place that will lead to more profitably and that is what is concerning, especially wanting to max out the number of golfers per day. I think that traffic and noise and additional lighting, I think all of that is peripheral to how this conditional use is interpreted. The hours of operation, I think we need to be very strict in considering this area and that operation, meaning that a sprinkler cannot turn on before 7:00 a.m. I’m strict in that way. I live in an area that’s under construction right now and no one can start their saws or radios before 7:00 a.m. I feel like that shouldn’t be any different for a business operation in a residential area. Sprinklers, all of that. I guess have some great concerns in changing the materials also relate back to the surrounding cedar was a very nice choice. Moving towards a metal just seems to be less of a fit for the area. I guess I’m struggling a little because this is new to me but I just feel like there are some big concerns and if we can work with the lighting and perhaps, I guess some other aspects but, I would not be for this at this point. McDonald: Okay. Deborah? Larson: Okay. A couple of the issues I want to bring up is one of the first things that the citizens brought up was it’s a safe neighborhood so the crime issue to me and safety lights and having to have the 25-foot poles just doesn’t seem completely necessary at this time. I’ve lived in Chanhassen 21 years and I’ve seen it go from farms everywhere to pretty much city and everything else going on. However, one thing the neighborhoods have not taken into consideration is that there is growing population happening, quite a lot of it. We’ve seen a lot of new neighborhoods going in and high-density homes and other things maybe a little be further west to you. That is going to cause more cars, more people, more everything and so that’s something you guys need to think about. It is a growing city and that’s progress and that’s what happens. That’s how towns grow. So, both sides of the fence on that one. I really would prefer to see if we’re going to do some sort of lighting, I love the idea. In fact, I was thinking about it, Kurt, when you brought up the short ones. Some of the golf courses that we go to up north, that’s what they’ve got. These low things and they illuminate the ground and their non-obtrusive and they do sufficient lighting so I’d like to see maybe some more feedback into that. I’m not happy with what I’m hearing from the citizens about what the original plan was and what the Halla’s have been doing since which aren’t quite consistent with what they originally planned to do and the fact that the City hasn’t seen it our caught it and I think it maybe needs to be scrutinized more. Hours of operation, I think we also need to be very strict on that. I for one also have my windows open in the summertime and I want to go out and scream at the people that start mowing at 5:00 a.m. I think it’s wrong to have the caliber of machines that are going to be out there doing the courses. It’s going to be loud. It’s going to be a lot and I think that does 71 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 need to be scrutinized. The thing if they do get a liquor license, that’s also too to consider. Hours of operation, I think it should be everybody needs to be off the premises at a given time and it needs to be like and hour before sunset or at sunset, something. For the sake of the citizens, it needs to be a safety issue again if people are going to be pounding down a lot of beers afterwards and that could be a growing problem. That’s all I have. McDonald: Okay. Mark? Undestad: The only comment I’m going to have here tonight is with all the issues that are going on and it doesn’t sound like there was a lot of communications between the applicant and the neighborhood and the changes that have gone on here and kind of the way we’re heading here it doesn’t look like we’re going to be able to resolve these issues on exactly how can we nail down what are these times and issues with hours of operation. What are our lighting options and some of that stuff. We should maybe send them back to kind of look at, bring some more options back as far as lighting and come up with something that makes sense for hours of operation. If you use the sunrise to sunset, it keeps ticking off through the season. There just are a lot of issues on this matter that are unresolved right now. McDonald: Okay. Dan? Keefe: I’ll try to keep my comments fairly short. I’m disappointed that the applicant hasn’t met with the neighbors, particularly given where the previous owner was and then where the site is and the surrounding neighbors. I think they should have made a bigger effort to engage the local residents. I’m concerned with, I’m going to consider it the incrementalism. I kind of look as this as we’ll try to continue to try and build this thing and we’ll add on, we’ll add on, we’ll add on to make it a fairly low-cost business site. I’m a business guy and I kind of understand that but I’m concerned just about the location here and the lack of working with the local residents to try and get a proper fit. I’m against the lights. I just don’t have enough evidence on the safety issue. I liked the comment on Bluff Creek Golf Course. I’m just not convinced on the need for safety. I think that links in a little bit to the incrementalism and I have a concern there. The conditional use permit I think would be alright but I would want to amend what is stated here on number 9. In regards to the site plan review, I’m generally okay with it. I like the landscaping like Kurt said. I think they’re doing a great job there. Generally the site plan, yeah the buildings are bigger but if you look at the alternative to go maybe to residential or something like that, you look at the number of buildings and go well, its a few buildings. So I’m generally okay with the site plan. I’m in agreement with the City in regards to the denial on the variances which would be to not allow the corrugated metal or allow the golf course to be open from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Essentially we revert back to the other one which is sunrise to sunset as I understand it. Those are my comments. McDonald. Well, I’m not quite sure where to begin. I guess the first thing is that I understand the arguments that the applicant makes as far as the economics. You have to do what you’ve got to do within your particular business in order to make money. That being said though, as I’ve said before, a deal is a deal is a deal. We had an applicant in here earlier that wanted to change a deal that had been made as far as the wetlands. We denied it. I see this as creeping commercialism. Everybody agreed in the beginning as to what this was going to be. Both sides 72 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 said that this would work. We can live with it. We can go forward with it and it will be a great addition to the neighborhood. Suddenly, we’re all told this wasn’t quite it. It needs to change because of these reasons and those reasons and I guess I’m really disappointed because one of the things that seems to work the best when you want to make changes is you will talk to your neighbors and you will get at least as much support as you possibly can so that there is at least a couple that will speak in favor of what you are wanting to do. As I said in the beginning, I’ve got a pile of emails. I’ve got a bunch of emails here. Staff’s gotten calls. We have been inundated with everybody speaking against this and for a number of reasons. The big thing is, they’re afraid this is going to grow into a big retail outlet where food, drink, whatever, you name it is going to expand. I do have concerns is that the next thing is you’ll be in here asking for lights for the driving range. That was not in the bargain. The issues of safety, I’m not sure what safety we’re talking about. At one time I thought we were talking about individual safety of going back and forth in a darkened lot to get to a car. Well, if that’s what it is I agree. That doesn’t require 15 or 25-foot lights. I think you can light a parking lot so that you can safely get back and forth to a vehicle. If you’re talking about crime, that’s different. Maybe that is the 15 to 25-foot lights but as has been said, this is not an area with a history of crime. I don’t know of any place within Chanhassen right now with a history of crime that it requires that type of scrutiny. Because of that, I have to tell you I can’t support any of this and where I am at is that the original permit that was agreed to and bargained with in the beginning, that is the deal and unless there are better reasons than just economic to change this, I could not support it. With that being said, I’m open for a motion from the Commissioners. Papke: I’ll get one going here just so we have something to deal with. I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the following motions. Conditional Use Permit as stated in the staff report. Condition number 9 I would like to change the height of the light pole may not exceed four feet instead of the 15 feet stated. The motion includes conditions 1-9 as stated in the staff report and then amended as I just mentioned. I would also like to add condition number 10 that the hours of operation will be sunrise to sunset as previously stated and that will include and mowing and customer traffic outside of those hour are prohibited. The second motion is I’d like to make a motion that the City Council denies Variance Planning Case 05-39 and I would like to amend it as stated in the staff report. I’d like to remove the term “corrugated” so it will state “denies variance for metal to be used as the exterior material and I’d like to clarify this to say “and denies variance to allowance of the golf course to be open from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. because I think there’s too much ambiguity in the way its stated there so I want to make sure its clear that both of those are being denied. McDonald: Do I have a second? Zorn: Second. McDonald: I have a second. I have a question for the Commission. Do we need to vote on these individually as each one or is this one big? Each one? Just one? Okay. Having said that along with the changes that Kurt has made, all in favor, say aye. Papke: Did you want to ask for any friendly amendments? 73 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 McDonald: Does anybody want to ad any friendly amendments? Keefe: Could you restate your number 10 again? Papke: Number 10 is that specifically the hours of operation will remain sunrise to sunset and specifically no mowing nor customer traffic allowed outside of those hours of operation. Undestad: Do we need to put anything in there as far as the seasonal stuff too? What are they doing? How long? Papke: I don’t think they’re going to mow during the winter. Larson: Yeah, but they wanted to have operations year round so do we want to friendly amend that it’s spring through fall? McDonald: In that case, what you’re wanting to do is to stick to the original agreement which was hours of operation shall be seasonal and limited to sunrise to sunset. Papke: What’s seasonal? If we’re going to do that we should state what is seasonal. Larson: Lack of snow and ice? McDonald: Well, that’s one of the problems with some of this is, what is seasonal and what is sunrise to sunset? Larson: And when we have that 80-degree day in November? McDonald: I’m not sure that we as a Planning Commission can define those particular terms. All we can do is say you must adhere to it and if you want clarification that’s above our paid rate. Papke: Was there a friendly amendment there Deborah, or not? Larson: Yes. Well, no because it’s already there. Zorn: Kurt, could you please repeat your motion so I make certain I vote accurately? Papke: The motion is as stated in the staff report with the following exceptions. The first exception is a change to condition number 9 to limit the height of the light pole to four feet. The second change is to add amendment number 10 which prohibits mowing and customer traffic outside of the allowed hours of operation which is sunrise to sunset, and the third change is to remove corrugated from the denial of the variance so it denies a variance for metal to be used, so this would not be a metal building in any shape or form. Also, make sure that we deny the extension of the golf course hours. 74 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 McDonald: So I think that what you’re saying is the course would be open from sunrise to sunset? Papke: Yes. Period. McDonald: Any other amendments or clarifications? Okay. Papke moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve an amendment to Conditional Use Permit #2003-4 CUP, Planning Case 05-39 for the construction of a golf course with a club house as shown in plans dated received January 6, 2006, with the following amendment to condition 9 of the existing conditional use permit and the addition of condition 10: 9. No exterior lighting shall be permitted with the exception of safety lights which includes 4 parking lot lights and drive aisle lights. The height of the light pole may not exceed feet. All light fixtures must meet ordinance requirements. 10. Mowing and customer traffic outside of the allowed hours of operation which is sunrise to sunset is prohibited. Papke and Zorn voted in favor, Undestad, Keefe, McDonald and Larson voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 4. Papke moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve an amendment to Site Plan Review #2003-7 SPR, Planning Case 05-39 for the construction of a club house, a maintenance building, a golf ball washing building and a lean-to for a golf course as shown in plans dated received January 6, 2006, with the following added conditions: 1. Applicant shall increase landscape plantings to meet minimum requirements for parking lot trees. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the City prior to City Council approval. 2. Applicant shall fully screen parking lots from adjacent roadways through the use of berming or increased landscaping. 3. The applicant must submit detailed architectural plans for the maintenance building, golf ball washing building and lean-to that meet the design ordinance requirement. 4. Comply with all conditions of the MnDot review letter dated November 23, 2005. 5. The temporary 120 square foot octagon building is permitted for a maximum of 12 months from the day the City Council approves this application, or when the certificate of occupancy for the club house has been issued, whichever comes first. 75 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 6. The applicant is responsible for obtaining and complying with MnDot and Carver County permits and approval on any grading that takes place along the north and west side of the property. 7. All disturbed areas are required to be restored with seed and mulch within two weeks of grading completion. 8. All plans must be signed by a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. Papke and Zorn voted in favor, Undestad, Keefe, McDonald and Larson voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 4. Papke moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council denies Variance, Planning Case 05-39 for metal to be used as the exterior material of the maintenance and golf ball washing buildings, and denies the variance allowing the golf course to be open from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., based upon the findings in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. Papke and Zorn voted in favor, Undestad, Keefe, McDonald and Larson voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 4. Larson: Wait. Did we say that wrong. McDonald: It doesn’t make any difference. The motion fails. Larson: But I wanted a nay. McDonald: The motion fails 4 to 2. Papke: You were either voting for or against my motion. Larson: Right. Okay. I don’t know. McDonald: The motion fails 4 to 2. Larson: Okay. I don’t think that’s what I meant. McDonald: The request for the additions are denied and what we’re left with is the current conditional use permit and the applicant will I’m sure… Larson: I’m confused as to… 76 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 McDonald: Well it goes to City Council but what we are doing is forwarding it with a recommendation that the amendments be denied. Generous: That would be the second... Would you have to approve that though? Larson: Did I vote how I wanted to? McDonald: I beg your pardon? Generous: …move denial of the proposed amendments? McDonald: We are denying the proposed amendments to the conditional use plan as presented to us here. Larson: No. That’s not what happened. Generous: No, that would be another… McDonald: Well, even as amended by you… Generous: This was to approve with the changes to the conditions. McDonald: Right. Larson: Okay. Who am I denying? Who did I say yea to? McDonald: You said yea to Kurt’s motion which he changed their amendment to allow for the four-foot height and the limitation of hours and the elimination of corrugated and no metal building would be allowed. Larson: Okay. That’s what I meant. McDonald: What the Commission voted against and denied was that motion, which means what we’re left with is the current conditional use permit so we have denied the applicant’s request to expand his current conditional use permit. John Kosmas: That’s not the way the recommendation of staff… Larson: See, that’s what so confusing… McDonald: We denied staff’s recommendation. We voted against it. John Kosmas: No, you modified it. McDonald: Then we voted against his. 77 Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006 John Kosmas: I heard a 4 to 2 positive. McDonald: No, you heard a 4 to 2 nay. Its 2 positive, 2 against, (correction) 4 against. John Kosmas: I misunderstood the direction that you took. So, the motion was to deny the recommendation of staff? McDonald: Yes. John Kosmas: Even though the motion was positive? McDonald: Even though he amended your motion, we still denied it. John Kosmas: Okay. Can I poll? I would like to know who are, I mean I want just to understand… McDonald: You can poll. I have no problem. Papke: Yea. Zorn; Nay. McDonald: Nay. Larson: Yea. Undestad: Nay. Keefe: Nay. John Kosmas: Okay. That’s not what I heard when it was, it was too far back. So now what happens? McDonald: It goes to City Council. City Council can either approve or… Okay. That planning case is over. Next? Do I have a recognition of the minutes? APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Zorn noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 3, 2006 as presented. McDonald: Okay. A reminder, next week on February 13 at 6:00 p.m. we’re to meet at the City Council. Acting Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 11:45 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim/Kim Meuwissen 78