PC 2006 10 03
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 3, 2006
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Jerry McDonald, Mark Undestad, Kathleen Thomas, Kevin Dillon,
Kurt Papke, Debbie Larson and Dan Keefe
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Lori Haak, Water
Resources Coordinator; Josh Metzer, Planner I, and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
OATH OF OFFICE:
Chairman McDonald administered the Oath of Office to Kathleen
Thomas.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A
GARAGE ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY LOCATED AT
3735 HICKORY LANE, ED & CHERYL BIXBY, PLANNING CASE NO. 06-31.
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Dan, you want to start us off?
Keefe: Yeah. You know I was looking at the history that Cedar Point variance history and it
does look like, there's the property right next door 3733, that particular number looks like they
want to add an 18 foot front yard setback variance and a 5% hard surface coverage variance for
the construction of a 2 stall garage. And in this case they're asking for a single stall, is that
correct? And hard surface coverage variance would only be 3%, is that correct?
Metzer: Correct.
Keefe: So if you kind of look at, sort of compare the properties and things that we've done in
the area but it looks like maybe the best comparable for that might be the one right next door. Is
that correct?
Metzer: Yep. It's the same size lot.
Keefe: Alright, I just want to make sure I was interpreting that correctly so. Okay, thanks.
That's all I have.
Larson: Kind of on the same vein, had they originally wanted a 2 stall? No? Okay, that's all I
have.
Undestad: Just one question Josh. With the proposed or possible reconstruction of Hickory,
then recommendation A is what we're looking for for an 18 foot?
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
Metzer: Correct.
Undestad: Front yard setback, is that right?
Metzer: Correct.
Aanenson: Maybe we can ask Alyson to comment a little bit about the need for reconstruction.
The purpose why.
Fauske: Certainly. Planning Commissioners. When engineering staff looked at this proposal we
looked at long term, what will happen in that neighborhood and we realize that the streets and
right-of-way widths for that matter are sub-standard in this area so we do realize that there's
some flexibility required in through here. The need for street reconstruction is actually two fold.
One being the surface condition of the streets, and they are not very good. And the other is the
utilities in there. They're old cast iron watermain. The old sanitary sewer in there. We have a
problem with inflow and infiltration and so when we looked at this situation we realized that in
the next 5 or 10 years this street will need to be reconstructed so we wanted to have a staff
recommendation that would allow the applicant a good use of their driveway, i.e. having a
parking space available while being able to have room to do some reconstruction in the area.
McDonald: Thank you. Kathleen?
Thomas: Actually I believe Alyson answered my other question I had.
Papke: Just one clarification question. The table on page 2. Very handy little table. I assume
that they could have penned a column 3. The first column is the ordinance. The second column
is the proposed by the applicant. Third column would be the staff proposal. The detached
accessory structure would remain at 280. The front yard setback would go to 18 feet. Side yard
setback would stay at 10 feet. Hard surface coverage would go up to 28.94%. Do I have that
right?
Metzer: Right.
Aanenson: Correct.
Papke: And that's what we're really talking about here so it's really, unlike, it's actually about a
4% delta.
Metzer: That's correct.
Papke: Not a 3%. Okay, I got it.
Dillon: I don't have any additional questions.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
McDonald: Okay. I don't have any questions either at this time. If the applicant is present,
would you care to step up and make a statement before the commissioners?
Ed Bixby: The survey I had originally was faulty. They missed part of the house and that's why
I actually come up with the plan for a one car garage. And I came in under the 25% hard surface
but then when they found out that the survey was faulty, I wasn't, this is more of a variance that I
was originally looking for but it's…
McDonald: Excuse me, before you go on would you state your name and address for the record?
Ed Bixby: Sure. Ed Bixby, 3735 Hickory Lane.
McDonald: Go ahead.
Ed Bixby: I don't have anything else to say.
McDonald: Okay. Does anyone, Planning Commissioners have any questions?
Keefe: Just one quick question. Did it say you were going to tear down a shed or something?
Ed Bixby: Yeah.
Keefe: Okay.
Ed Bixby: And that was originally to make it to get in under the 25% hard cover.
Keefe: Okay. And so would that, since this is at 28.94, would you still be doing that then or?
Ed Bixby: I probably would, yeah. Since I've been planning to do that.
Keefe: Okay.
McDonald: Debbie.
Larson: Nothing.
McDonald: Mark?
Undestad: No.
McDonald: Kathleen?
Thomas: No.
McDonald: Okay. At this point what I'd like to do is open the floor for public comment. What I
would ask is that you would come up to the podium. Please state your name and address and
3
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
address your comments to the commissioners. Okay, seeing no one come forward, I close the
public meeting and at this point bring the matter back before the commissioners for discussion.
Why don't we start with you.
Dillon: Well it seems like the staff has worked with the applicant to come to a reasonable you
know acceptable solution here. That coupled with all the other variances that have been granted
in the neighborhood, you know it would be hard to, this is certainly not maybe as egregious as
some of the other ones so I mean I think it sounds like something that would be certainly
supportable from my point of view.
Papke: Given the balancing act here, I mean the applicant can't meet all the city code regardless
of what he does here so between you know on one hand the 2 car garage and on the other hand
the setback and the hard surface coverage, I think this is a very reasonable request and I
appreciate the applicant for not, for stopping at a 1 car request. I think this is very reasonable.
Thomas: I agree as well. I think that the 1 car request is very, was…of the applicant and I agree.
McDonald: Okay, thank you.
Keefe: I think there's plenty of precedence in regards to variances here and I think the hardship
you know has been satisfied and he should have a garage like every other property in the city so I
think it's fine.
McDonald: And I guess the only thing I would add to that is the fact that the minimal lot sizes
that we've got now are 15,000 square feet. This is 5,000. I don't see how you're going to do
anything to meet it upon a 5,000 square foot so I'm, plus going out looking at the property, I
commend you for working with staff. You probably could have brought us a very grandiose plan
but you didn't so for that I would have no problem supporting this either. At that point I'm ready
for a motion from the commissioners.
Papke: Mr. Chair I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission approves Variance #06-31
for a 12 foot front yard setback variance to construct a 1 stall, oops. Yes. To construct a 1 stall
garage with an 18 foot front yard setback and 3.94% hard surface coverage variance on property
located in the single family residential (RSF) with conditions 1 and 2 as listed in the staff report.
McDonald: Do I have a second?
Dillon: Second.
Papke moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance #06-31
for a 12 foot front yard setback variance to construct a one-stall garage with an 18 foot
front yard setback and a 3.94% hard surface coverage variance on property located in the
Single Family Residential (RSF) with the following conditions:
1. A building permit is required for the construction of the garage.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
2. A revised survey showing proposed structures and hard surface coverage data must be
submitted with the building permit application.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
GOLF ZONE: REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO INTERIM USE PERMIT #98-2,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR A
PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE, LOCATED IN THE
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2) DISTRICT AT 825 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE,
APPLICANT, JEFF HELSTROM, GOLF ZONE, PLANNING CASE 06-30.
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Dan, you want to start?
Keefe: Sure. The 800 square foot that is in the, that it's currently operating under. Is that, where
did that number come from, do you know?
Metzer: Well originally there was an existing structure on the property, which is what the
existing clubhouse is today. Which I believe was 800 square feet at that time and the reason the
standard was set at that is, that was viewed as the size of a structure that lends itself to a
temporary use, and that what was being proposed was an interim use which had an expiration
date on it so.
Keefe: Yeah, so I guess what I'm struggling with here is yeah. I mean you look at the variance,
800 and 11,000 and it's like oh my gosh. That's just gargantuan but I guess a long range plan is
for large lot use here but I mean is the use of this particular, I mean the temporary use something
that we're trying to prevent or don't want or, it does seem to me that there's some reasonableness
to the request to maybe have a little bit more of an operational facility. And I don't know that
800 feet is enough to accommodate that sort of winter use, which I think is what they're driving
at. To have a larger club house that can accommodate more the winter crowd so anyway, any
idea on that?
Aanenson: Yes, that's a very good point and it's kind of a struggle that the staff had, and if you
look at the purpose of interim uses, we have a number of interim uses in town. For example
across the street we have the garden center. Those uses which were given interim uses were put
in place because they were going to go away when a higher and better use, for example sewer
and water was to come to the property. So we allowed garden centers, but we put time lines on
all those, assuming that once sewer and water became available, value of the property would go
up. So the issue here really is, if you're to expand. Now this is guided large lot. When we're
updating the comprehensive plan this will be one of the properties that we'll also look at. There
are some properties along the south side of 212, which originally, or the last update and the one
prior to that, the 1991 update, didn't anticipate sewer and water. We're re-evaluating that
decision as we look through the County's. Working with the County. Looking at the
transportation corridor there and what is the best way to provide services. A lot of that area
5
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
south of 212 is in the flood plain, but there are some upland areas so we'll be investigating that.
So really kind of going to what you're speaking to Commissioner Keefe is, what is the best long
term use for this because if you're going to put something in there to make it permanent, then at a
minimum we're saying that you need to at least have the architectural standards because the
criticism that the staff gets is that, things that end up in the southern area of the city tend to be of
a different standard and why is that? If it's going to be in there for the long term, and you believe
that's the highest and best use, which I think is kind of the discussion that if that's what you
believe then, then at a minimum they should meet the architectural standards. For example the
contractors yard has a very small building. If you look at what we just approved on Halla
Nursery. Has a very small building and that's more of a golf course. This is a driving range,
which we looked at a different use so we struggled with that, at the highest and best use on that
but if you believe as a commission that that would be the best use long term, it may last the life
of 2020 or you believe it could come down, then we would at least say that at a minimum that
you should look at the architectural standards. But really the interim use is just to get some
reasonable use. Some capital on the property until such time as something better came along.
Keefe: Alright, so because we're going to be working on the comp plan is this maybe premature
then in terms of this request potentially if we decide to guide it differently than the comp plan
discussion?
Aanenson: It could be, and I think that's where the catch comes in to say well now, we're going
to make them put the architectural in place but what if, what if we tell them you don't have to put
the architectural in place because we're going to give it commercial zoning and then it never goes
away so it's really kind of a predicament of.
Keefe: Right. Well the building they're proposing isn't necessarily, you know isn't one that
seems you know, it's a permanent type of long term building. I guess it's permanent but I
mean…
Aanenson: Well we wouldn't accept it anywhere else in the city. That's our point. And so what
we do will brought to our attention later. The only other one that we did was metal that's in this
area, that's also in on an interim use would be, and the reasons for that was the horse barn across
the street. And that was really a functional part of the fact that they're storing animals and that
one also has an accepted but limited time frame. There's no sewer and water to the property and
they also believe that there'll be a higher and better use. And it is guided for higher and better
use. Office industrial. So we do believe that that one will change over and it's kind of got it's
life cycle out of it.
Keefe: That's all I have for now.
Larson: Well I've got a question just so Kate, are you saying that.
Aanenson: I'm listening, I'm sorry.
Larson: Are you saying that if they were to up the architectural standards on this, that it would
be something that…
6
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
Aanenson: I'm saying the question is, if you believe this is the best long term use, what do you
believe is the best look for the building? That's why we gave you the different options. If you
believe that the golf course is going to stay there for a longer term, then I think we should look
at…
Larson: …to first of all be accepted to do this and then went with the higher standard building,
could it be converted to an office or whatever it is you're.
Aanenson: Sure.
Larson: So in that vein, would the City be okay with that? You know what I mean? I'm trying
to figure out, because we're getting a couple choices here.
Aanenson: Sure, no I think what we're saying is that, our first choice would be, if you're going to
approve it, that you approve it at the higher architectural standards.
Larson: Okay.
Aanenson: So if you did want to approve that. Well first you have to recommend the denial.
Larson: The thing is we're looking into a crystal ball here I mean.
Aanenson: Right.
Larson: Because we don't know.
Aanenson: Right. But at a minimum it's going to have a life cycle but it's going to sit there for a
while and is that the standard you want for that area? Yeah.
Larson: We're talking 14 years at this point.
Aanenson: And also adding onto it and is that really a temporary use? If you look again at the
landscaping yard, it doesn't have that many buildings. You try to make them more fluid where
they can change over so that's kind, so it's kind of a two prong question. Is this the highest and
best use ultimately and what do you want it to look like?
Larson: Okay. That's all I have.
McDonald: Mark.
Undestad: Yeah, I think it's the fact that the life cycle and that I mean. We can't hardly say
yeah, build this knowing that in 2020 we could all be sitting here going okay, tear that down.
We're doing something else.
Aanenson: Right. Well it would become non-conforming. We wouldn't force them.
7
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
Undestad: If it ends, it ends in 2020 so if something were to change between now and then.
Aanenson: Right. Right.
Undestad: So if we said yes, you know we think you should do that. Change your building
façade and your structure, they could still be coming back next year or next month or 6 months
from now saying, okay that's all going to be changed and now. So we really can't say yes, you
can. I mean I'm looking at all the options of trying to say if you approve it, you do this.
Everything in there kind of changes. Is helping everything other than that time period. We can
change the façade. We can change the parking. We can do this park.
Aanenson: That's why our first recommendation is it's probably premature and we then do that
because you really, I believe that economics down there are going to change. Is that 15 years?
20 years? Has it run the life cycle? Is the applicant willing to do that? Could he modify the
building? Is there additional land that could still be built on? There's a lot of what if's. Will we
provide sewer and water down there? Would this be an area that we reconsider for possibly a
business or office industrial site? Those are all possibilities.
McDonald: Kathleen.
Thomas: Actually I don't think I have any questions.
McDonald: Kurt.
Papke: The Halla property was brought up already. What size limit are they being held to?
Aanenson: 60 by 40 wasn't it?
Metzer: Well I'm not sure what the size limit is but I know it was approved at, for that specific
use. I don't know what the max is but yeah, the club house is 60 by 40. There's a maintenance
building that is 60 by 30. Now we figure that combined those two aren't even half of what's
being requested here.
Papke: Okay. And Commissioner Undestad brought up the issue of, you know what happens in
2020? Is there any concern on the part of staff or is there a precedent for an applicant coming in,
this applicant in particular, coming in 2020 saying, you allowed me to build this big building. I
have this big investment on this property. You can't rezone this. I have too much investment
here.
Aanenson: Absolutely, and that goes to my question of saying if you put that much architecture
into it, now you've made a big investment commitment but so, but then if you don't do that,
you're stuck with a building that may last longer.
8
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
Papke: Right. So this, if we approve this, it could potentially, there is the possibility. No
guarantee but the possibility this could ham string us. Or it could become a contentious issue in
14 years.
Aanenson: Right, and that's why I went back to, I think Commissioner Keefe asked the right
question. Is this a use you feel comfortable with for possibly longer period of time?
Papke: Given that I have a question on the rationale on page 4 of the staff report. It stated that it
will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If this caused the driving
range to you know somehow or another exist way past the 2020 point, is there an argument that
says it would be detrimental because we couldn't take this property to a higher use than a driving
range. Large lot. Parkland. Whatever. I understand the rationale. In the, the tough one here is
in the short term, clearly there's an economic benefit to the community. I mean this driving
range does a tremendous business down there. Is a real asset to the community for the next 14
years. But there's also a county argument that says in 2020, you know allowing this to go
through could be an economic detriment. You see where I'm going with that?
Aanenson: Correct. Yes, and it's a good argument. The only counter argue to that is right now
in the comprehensive plan it's still just guided large lot. Because we weren't anticipating sewer
and water. So what would change the dynamics of that is the unknown of what we'll be looking
at with the comprehensive plan update. Is it a signalized intersection. If you did put sewer in
there, obviously it's a nice piece. Highly visible. Beautiful.
Dillon: …understand, you know it talks in the report here a little bit about flooding and you
know that kind of backs up to the river there and a few years ago I mean the flooding down there
was kind of like an under statement. So longer term, you know is it kind of realistic to think that
there'll be like businesses and a lot of houses and stuff down there? I mean how are we going to
ever like present that?
Aanenson: There's a flood plain, if you look at the entire site. There's quite a few acres. 6-7 of
it is upland. That's the part that's buildable. Josh can show you on there how big the whole
parcel is. Can you just take your pencil around the yellow.
Metzer: The buildable area is roughly.
Aanenson: Well just show the whole site first maybe.
Metzer: Yeah, the whole site is kind of this hammer head. What's currently being used for the
golf range is the area in green you see here. What is actually upland, buildable to actually put a
structure on roughly runs about like that. So within this area here.
Dillon: So, alright.
Aanenson: So a majority of it is in the flood plain. There is some upland.
Papke: So that would have to be parkland, open space.
9
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
Dillon: Driving range.
Aanenson: Right.
Dillon: I mean I'm just trying to make a point. The other thing is, you know the building, you
know looks a little bit on the big side to me. I've been there many times and with, has the staff
and the applicant talked about maybe not only changing the aesthetics but the size and maybe
kind of work out some kind of compromise so that it's not such a big, honking thing that is you
know, maybe an eye sore or whatever you know.
Metzer: Originally in meeting with the applicant the original proposal is near 14,000 square feet.
We've since come down. Originally the proposal was, part of the building was in the flood plain.
The layout was changed to come out of the flood plain. Reduce the size of the building a little
bit.
Aanenson: So it has been reduced.
Dillon: And then the other thing, and it's not, I mean it's just the term higher use. I mean that's
kind of an evaluated term and what's higher and how do we know that? I mean because there are
some people, and I'm not being facetious here that would say like a golf course is about the
highest use of land you can have. So how do we, how is that determined? The goodness of the
use.
Aanenson: Well part of the indicator would be one, if it's available for sewer and water. It
would allow commercial building which when you, a taxable based on building and the function
of the building. The valuation of the building. So if this is a metal building, mostly open, I
would think it would have a different valuation than a commercial office building. So that would
be one functionality. So that would be a higher and better use if you're looking at it for the tax
purposes.
Dillon: I see.
Aanenson: Strictly valuation and that goes, getting back to really the struggle is, if you believe
this is the best. It's not a bad use. I'm not saying that. You know it's, if you believe that's the
best use in the long term.
Keefe: Jerry, just one quick question. You know a good portion of the acreage in here is in the
wetland or in the flood plain. Do we ever look at, you know then you've got this large building
that's really on a small portion, that's really a buildable area of that. Do we any sense, I think we
have a lot of other buildings that are like this on that 5 acre you know size and do we look at the
setbacks related just to the buildable area versus the entire? Because if you look at the setbacks,
if you look at your grid on page 8 here, it's showing the whole site. Well, you really don't have
use of the whole site. You only have use of 5 or 6 acres out of the site so, if you look at the
buildable area, you know it'd be interesting to kind of know sort of that piece of it.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
Aanenson: Right. The golf course itself takes up, or the driving range, takes up more than that
because they're actually driving into the flood plain with the nets and they're captured by the
nets. So that's, the buildable area in the future, if there was sewer and water, could only occur on
the buildable area. Could only be on the upland portion.
Keefe: Right.
Aanenson: You couldn't be able to capture the use of the flood plain, which this use does.
Keefe: Right, and that's part of what I'm struggling. I mean if you were to look at this just solely
as you've got it stated, I mean what's the big deal because they're set back, they have over 1,000
foot setback. You know so, but if you measure it on that small buildable area you might look at
it a little bit differently. Although it's still 5 or 6 acres which is pretty decent size.
Aanenson: Because you've got the other pitching…
Keefe: Yeah.
Undestad: I just have one more again on this timing issue. Have they talked at all about you
know if they're going to put up a metal building or I assume a pole barn type deal that you know,
would they look at some agreement that way that says when your conditional use permit
expires…
Aanenson: That might be a question for the applicant.
McDonald: I've got a couple questions for you. We kind of covered about the flood plain. I'm a
little concerned about that when we start talking about better uses and higher usages and those
types of things. You know I didn't see that becoming residential because of where it's at. And
then you look at putting an office building in there, I think you've kind of gotten to the heart of
that. Yeah, a better use is subjective, depending upon who's you know making the
determination. I think all the golfers in the city probably would agree that that is the highest use
possible and others will not but you mentioned taxes. If we go to something that meets the
architectural guidelines, at that point now we're looking at a higher valuation for tax purposes, is
that correct?
Aanenson: I would assume so, but I'm not the expert in that.
McDonald: Okay, but I mean generally it's based upon the value of the building, and so one that
would meet these standards would probably be a higher cost building.
Aanenson: Correct.
McDonald: Okay. And at that point, I'm still a little confused about the 2020 because if we do
this, everything just doesn't go away in 2020. I mean the building could stay there and they
could continue as a golf course if it's still economically feasible, is that right? Or what problems
do we create then?
11
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
Aanenson: Again. If you look at what the original interim use was for. Where you had the
original house and then we have the minimal structures. That was the intent. This applicant
wants to go beyond that and it's no longer an interim use. That's the first hurdle. We've moved
from interim use that's flexible and can go away and become something else to say now we
believe this is what's going to stay here long term.
McDonald: Okay. So by doing this we're doing away with the interim use permit or the interim
use use?
Aanenson: Well no, you're amending the permit but I think.
McDonald: What I'm getting to.
Aanenson: It's implied that it's going to be a longer term use, is my opinion.
McDonald: Okay.
Aanenson: You've bought in some time. It'd be hard to tell somebody now you've made this
kind of investment, to take it down. And that's why interim uses, we look at contractor's yards,
wholesale nurseries, but they don't have that big of investment. They may have a few
greenhouses or just a fruit stand or something like that. We have a short list of interim uses and
that's when we looked at this originally. So that's kind of that hurdle, if you believe this is the
best long term.
McDonald: Okay. Now I guess I understand why you keep emphasizing upon that because we
could have to live with this for quite some time.
Aanenson: Yeah, and I'm not saying that's a bad thing. It's just how you want it to look, right.
McDonald: Okay.
Dillon: Can you make taking down the building at the end of 2020 a condition of the approval?
Aanenson: That might be a tough burden. I think that's something you would want to ask the
applicant, if that's too big of a hurdle for them to say. It's a good question.
McDonald: Well the other question I've got is, what kind of a business have they been? I mean
do we get a lot of complaints against them? Have they been pretty good as far as sticking with
the agreement thus far and everything?
Metzer: Yeah.
McDonald: Okay. That's kind of all the questions I've got. Anybody else want to?
12
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
Larson: Yeah, Chairman McDonald. So then if we were to agree, I mean if we're establishing
that maybe this building would come down in 2020, why not allow the lower standard building?
Considering it's a, for the purpose that he wants.
Aanenson: Well again, I think that the first thought process is going to be, we're moving beyond
kind of a temporary interim use. This was the old farm house. Then once you go beyond that,
then I think that's a question for the applicant is to say what is my long term plans for that
property. Is it still realistic to say it's coming down in.
Larson: Well, I understand that but from the city's standpoint, wouldn't it make more sense then,
I've got some questions for him too but wouldn't it make more sense than we're not stuck with,
you know it would be more enforceable should I say at the end of the 14 year period to say okay,
you know. The building's now 14 years old and okay you didn't spend all that much money on it
so it's a less expensive investment to be argued.
Aanenson: I'm not sure of the legal, how that would be. I'm not sure I'd want to argue that one.
I don't know.
McDonald: You don't want to get into that.
Larson: Okay.
Aanenson: Yeah, because you'd still approve something beyond.
Larson: Well see that's what I mean. I don't know what are limitations are on that.
Aanenson: Don't know either.
McDonald: Okay. And at that point is the applicant present? Why don't you come on up and
give us your presentation.
Jeff Helstrom: Wow. 2020. If I can't grow my business from now til 2020, I'm not going to be
in business. I mean you've seen the size of my club house, if you've been there. It's not even as
big as this room I don't think. And what I'm doing here is building a facility that turns my winter
operation from a place that serious golfers go to, and that's about it, to a place that families can
go, and that's what I have in the summer, and that's why it's so important. I can't, I mean it's easy
to say that I just keep it the way it is and everything's peachy but I just had a driving range open
up up the street from me and you know my business is down 30% this summer. Do they have a
condition use or an interim use?
Aanenson: They have a conditional use.
Jeff Helstrom: Which I wasn't granted to begin with, and I don't understand if a higher and better
use for the property is the big concern, why did they get a conditional use permit?
Aanenson: Because they're a golf course.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
Jeff Helstrom: I have a golf course too.
McDonald: Well I guess the issue isn't so much what Halla got as to what it is you're wanting to
get. I mean one of the things that we're wrestling with, and I think we're beginning to come to
terms with is this whole thing about higher and better uses and interim use permit. What we're
really being asked to do today is to, we could impact that and basically change it. And I guess
there is a reluctance I think to do that without asking some very detailed questions. It's not to
compare you with Halla. He went through a lot to get what he did and we asked a lot of
questions and they had to compromise a lot in order to get that, and your name was mentioned
during those times so. But yes, what we're really interested in is, okay we need to feel
comfortable with basically I think going ahead with this and allowing you to put something on
there that is probably going to be more permanent, whether it's metal or you know meets the
agricultural standards, or architectural standards. That's what you're asking us to do. That's the
bottom line. We need to feel comfortable with that. You need to convince us why are we doing
this so stick to that. Don't worry about Halla.
Jeff Helstrom: Well what I've done down there so far is taken what was a piece of essentially
swamp land and I've taken the swamp land area and put the driving range there. I took the rest of
the swamp land area and put par 3. It wasn't really swamp. It's surrounded by swamp and it's in
the flood plain, so you're never going to build anything there. And then I've taken and built what
I thought was as nice of a facility as I could just using that existing building. What I'm
proposing here would really tie the whole thing together and that's why I proposed a pole
structure because you can really make it look nice, but it doesn't cost a fortune to do it. I mean if
you look at the siding and then I added $11,000 worth of stone to the bottom of it. I don't know
if you've been down there lately but I've done a ton of landscaping down there. I did it all
myself. I bet it's $100,000 worth of landscaping. Boulders and streams and all those kind of
things. I think I've done, I've done a nice job of taking that corner, which was you know, there's
a little hotel there and that little garden center, and I think some stability in bringing a lot of
people into the community. And I see this as being, and that's why I asked about the conditional
use permit. I'd like to keep going down there with this business the way it is. I don't, you know
if 30 years down the road sewer and water comes in, and they want to put offices down there and
pay me $15 bucks a foot for that land, you know we'll bulldoze the thing. I mean but that might
not happen and I can't run my business with the assumption that that's going to happen. I've got
to take a business that's viable and going okay, but it could be better, and try to find ways to
improve and that's what I'm doing.
McDonald: Okay. Questions for the applicant.
Keefe: Yeah, can you explain a little bit more of what the use of the building itself would be.
I'm not, you know I heard some mention of increased winter usage. What is the layout and then
sort of…I'd like to know a little bit about the construction of it as well, just in terms of product
and permanency and that type of thing.
Metzer: Why don't first of all we'll show you the exterior elevations. This would be the north
elevation looking, as if you were standing at 212, on the parking lot. And then moving around
14
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
the building, west. South elevation. If you're on the driving range. And east. And then again,
this would be the north. So parking lot side. This is the existing club house. Existing driving
stalls. And new portion.
Jeff Helstrom: This is…it would be attached to the house and then we'd match up the house.
Attach a new roof on the house, which it really needs but the money's not always there to make
those improvements but I was going to make it part of my expansion. Can we put this back up?
Oh there it is. Okay, so over here, these would be, this would be the maintenance area down in
the end and these would be driving stalls. So I'd add about 8 driving stalls because in February
and March that's my prime time. That's when we're really busy. It happens for 8 weeks and then
it's done, so it'd be nice to have some extra stalls there. And then I'd put a new reception area in
this area right here, and then putting greens and then a huge practice putting green right in here.
So families, moms could bring the kids down. Be in here you know reading a book and have a
nice place to sit in a warm area while the kids are doing something. Because if the kids are all
hitting in the stalls, it's, I mean it's not always warm when you're kind of standing, you know
behind the stalls watching the kids hit. You need a place to go that's actually enclosed and
heated where the whole family can come down and enjoy the place, rather than just, like I said,
the serious golfers. And that's what they'd be able to do in this whole place, and the reason it's so
big is because you know golf is just a big sport. I mean golf courses are huge and you've got to,
even when you're putting, you've got to putt a certain distance. You know you've got to putt 30-
40 feet sometimes and you put a few of those putting holes around and put some water features
and such in there, all of a sudden you need a pretty big space, and I did shrink it down from my
original plan, but that's about as small as I could get it.
Keefe: So the bulk of that building is really, your plan for it would be an indoor putting?
Jeff Helstrom: Yeah, indoor putting. Like I said, put water features in there. I'd have a new
reception area with a bigger area to serve you know some pizzas and soft drinks. Like right now
I just have a pop machine. I literally don't have any room to put any kind of equipment to cook
or do anything like that, so I just want to make it a whole experience. You know there's the
option of just adding more stalls, but that's just a 2 month deal. I need something that's going to
go all winter, and I really think in the winter when it seems like bowling seems to be the only
thing you can do inside as a family, that it makes sense to grab the kids and go down and do
something like this. So that was my idea behind it. And once again, a pole barn structure is a lot
less expensive to build than, because my other stall here actually is wood frame construction. It's
not pole barn. So this is less expensive addition. For me it's, if I were to add and do, meet all the
architectural standards of Chanhassen, downtown Chanhassen, I couldn't afford to do it. I mean
it just wouldn't be feasible, but I did, you know I took pictures of the other buildings that are
down on 212, if you want to see them. This would be by far the nicest structure down there, and
I think it would be a nice structure in a lot of towns. You know Chanhassen happens to be pretty
darn nice so. But I am on 212. It's a little different down there. It's not downtown Chanhassen.
Keefe: What if you were to put up the structure that you're proposing here and then in 2020 the
city says you know you've got to vacate or something changes? Then what does it do to you? I
mean is it still, I mean presumably there'd be a way to maybe continue it but what if the worst
came in 2020, is it something that you would still be a viable business for 14 years…
15
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
Jeff Helstrom: It could be. It could stay there and you could put, I mean you could eliminate the
outside putting course and there's land up there and you could put some buildings up there. Most
of what I'm using is just the flood plain. I mean my building, I don't know if you can see this one
but, this line right here is the flood plain. Right here. And so this is the only upland. So
everything back here is all in the flood plain. It's undevelopable. So this building could have,
wouldn't really necessarily have to go away, in my opinion. But once again, you have 5 acres.
You probably want to come in and put condos in there, and sewer and water actually comes
down there, which we don't know for sure at this point, then maybe it would make sense at that
point to do something. And a pole structure is also something that could be moved. I mean I
could take a pole barn and move it to another property if I wanted to. Literally just sheathing and
poles and.
Keefe: You're in a little bit of a pickle just from the standpoint of if we were to grant an interim
use, it's interim use right?
Aanenson: Yes.
Keefe: And build that structure and then we go to sit down with the comp plan a year from now
and we guide it for something else in 2020. You know I mean you're a little bit at risk from that
standpoint but again you've got 14 years…
Jeff Helstrom: And like I said, that's a long time. I mean that's, I do a really good business for 8
to 10 weeks but this summer was not the greatest. The weather wasn't the best. I'm splitting all
my range business, I mean how many ranges in the cities have another range open up a mile
from them? I mean ranges are shutting down everywhere and I just so happen to have a range
open up a mile from me, you know. Anyway. So I lost a lot of business there and I've got to
look at ways to expand, you know expand and keep operating and this is the best idea that I
could come up with.
Larson: Yeah, I just want to confirm that to go to the structure standards that the city's asking
for, you wouldn't be able to do that, or you're not willing to do that.
Jeff Helstrom: No.
Larson: Okay.
Jeff Helstrom: Just to match like what we had in downtown Chanhassen.
Larson: No, I hear you. I understand what you're saying too, and I agree with you. But, okay.
That was all I had.
Undestad: Just going back to the question of, when you say moving. Relocating. Would you
look at the, if there was some way to put it in where, you know when the interim use permit is up
and you've got, you know it's guided for something different, would you look at that as an option
16
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
to say alright. Let's put it in there. I'll take my pole barn and find another piece of ground farther
west or something and do it again…
Jeff Helstrom: That little house, I mean.
Undestad: But see we have to look at again as we change these as alright, 14 years from now
there may not be the greenhouse across the street and that hotel over there and so all that changes
around there, then all of a sudden you've got the only pole barn…
Jeff Helstrom: Well look at Hazeltine and look at the Par 30. I mean that's just a short little par
30 and they've got a big office building right next to them. Hazeltine golf course is right next to
that, and they're still.
Undestad: They also have a little, tiny.
Jeff Helstrom: Yeah, they've got about 1,500-2,000 square foot space to operate out of, but still I
mean they're still in there and there's other things going on around there. So that I think would
be very similar.
Undestad: What we're struggling with is trying to say, if we say no. You know we don't want to
say alright, you know we don't want you to do what you want to do but on the same hand, we
don't want to say yeah, do that and then come back and have to tell you well you know, it's not
working. Something else is guided in there and you might have to tear that down or move it. So
it gets back to the question, if you could work it out somehow with staff and through the city
there that you know you could bring your construction back to the pole barn, something that you
could afford something that comes up, comes down, that you can put into that…
Jeff Helstrom: That's the way to do it. The way I have it proposed with this kind of building,
absolutely. If that's what we do and I don't see anything going in down there before that's going
to better the architectural standards that I have here. I couldn't find one building down there that
had any stone on the front of it. I've got all the pictures with me here if you guys want to. I
think, and certainly you don't have anybody going out and landscaping and waterfalls and all that
stuff around there like we have.
Undestad: And again our concern isn't today. It's 2020 and we don't want to put you in a
position that in 2020 okay, now you've got this and you're going to spend more money, more
money and now across the street from you there's something else and something on the other
corner and then they're all looking at you and.
Jeff Helstrom: That seems to me that's a win/win situation. I mean if I'm forced to leave, that
land's worth a lot of money. I mean if I've got 6 acres of upland, if that's the deal I'm not going
to lose out on that.
Undestad: And that kind of goes back to your willingness or some, you know if you say alright,
2020 then I'll pack up and. Or you can come in and try to renew it or.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
Aanenson: Well to be clear, the interim use does drop dead at 2020. What we're missing here is
the legal opinion that says, or can we make it go away. That's why it's limited, and the shift here
that I hope you understood is that this you know was intended to be a seasonal operation. Now it
wants to go year round. So now we're really shifting, and I'm not saying that's good or bad. I'm
just saying we're shifting from the original premise and it has big implications because we're
moving away from the standards and do you believe that in 2020 it's going to go away. That's
the question I don't know. Maybe it won't. Maybe it's still there and wonderful in 2030.
Undestad: The question I have then…
Aanenson: But the legal ordinance right now says 2020 is the drop dead date and we need to get
an opinion on that before it goes to City Council.
Undestad: See that's the, you know the drop dead date is there. If we say yeah, go ahead and
build something else.
Aanenson: Because that's what the interim use says, yeah.
Jeff Helstrom: Well, at that point I could reapply for an additional interim use permit, or a
conditional use permit. And if sewer and water did come in. If I want to keep operating, I could
do that. Or I could sell too. I mean, I mean I'm going on record saying I'm not holding the city
responsible for making a decision for me to expand my business that's going to be detrimental to
me 15 years from now. That's a lot of time. 15 years. Once again I need to find the best way to
grow my business and this is it. Most cost effective. I think it's the best for the people around
here. You know a sense of families. We have 400 kids in our junior programs, but on a
Saturday afternoon in those stalls you might see 2 kids. It's just, I want to be able to pull all
those people in year round.
Undestad: Yeah, nobody's doubting that and you do have a great business down there, and
probably some of us use it all the time too but, again we can't say yes to something now and.
Jeff Helstrom: It's really important to me to keep my business going. I don't know if you
noticed but there used to be a few of these places around, but they're going out of business. I
mean golf in general is slipping. I mean the courses are slower than they used to be. The
sport's…not what it was 4-5 years ago. Gas is a lot more expensive and I get a lot of people that
drive from Wisconsin and Duluth and they come from everywhere to hit balls here before their
trip. And things, it's getting a little tougher and I've just got to look at ways to keep things going.
I don't want to be sitting here in 4 years…and have to shut the place down. Now we've got a
structure that's sitting there and doing nothing.
McDonald: Is that it?
Thomas: Yeah, actually I do have a question. While you were talking about moving forward in
14 years and we were talking about sewer and water coming in. I was curious if you gave any
thought to what you would do, if we do decide to bring sewer and water in there, you've got a
septic tank currently on this site. Do you have a plan for that at all? Have you thought about it?
18
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
I mean if your business is growing and it stays there and 1414 comes, I mean in 14 years, you
know have you given any thought to if you allow, you know you take in city water and sewage
or would you keep the tank or any plans?
Jeff Helstrom: I don't know. My understanding of what happens when sewer and water comes
in, you get taxed enough, it's not financially feasible to keep doing what you're doing and you
end up selling your land. I mean that's what's going to happen to a lot of people, I mean when
sewer and water comes in it changes everything. But it's not just me. It's a lot of different
businesses and a lot of different homeowners and I don't know exactly how that works. In a lot
of the houses they don't, I don't know if they convert over to the city sewer and water or not.
Kate would know more about that, when that happens. What goes on.
Aanenson: Well I think you're right. Exactly right. That's what does change, the economics of
when sewer, if there's an assessment on the property and if, right now it's guided for large lot.
Again that's something we would consider but that would be an issue that would force, may force
the economic change that you got assessed. You know obviously you can defer some of
the…underlying land use. How will it be assessed? With office or something like that.
McDonald: Is that all?
Thomas: That was it.
McDonald: Kurt.
Papke: Just a quick one. When you initially put together your business plan for Golf Zone, was
your original business plan predicated on your current building or did you make an assumption
when you put together your business plan that you would expand your building?
Jeff Helstrom: I thought I would expand. I mean I thought it was going to be a possibility. I
mean you never know when you start out how things are going to go. And it's been a work in
progress. I mean we started with.
Papke: Plans change, but I'm just wondering what your initial assumptions were when you
created your business.
Jeff Helstrom: Doing business to make money.
Papke: Short plan then.
Jeff Helstrom: Yeah, I guess the business plan the bank asked for and I went from there.
Dillon: What like data do you have that says that you're going to fill all the new stalls and you
know put people in the indoor putting greens and all that stuff, because you kind of said a couple
inconsistent things. You know golf's big and popular and people want to do it. And then you
know there's people, that the industry's not what it was a few years ago so I'm just kind of
curious how you square all of these things and if you've got any like empirical data that you've
19
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
done to show that you're going to get a lot more customers by doing this or is it just your
intuition?
Jeff Helstrom: Well that's why I set this up the way that I did is it didn't cost me much money to
add those additional stalls on the back side. You know where I showed you. Stalls along the
back and then you've got the putting inside, but it didn't cost me much more to add the stalls and
then the whole front piece is all new clientele. And I just, I know this area well enough to know
that there's so many families and kids around here that would love to be able to do something
like that in the winter and I'm just going off that. There's not, there really isn't much data that I
know of because there's, I mean there isn't one of these in Minnesota that's inside. So if there
wasn't the year round, I mean this was the first year round full length driving range in northern
tier ever built so I have no data to work off of that either. But people love being able to play golf
here in the winter. I mean we've got a lot of golf fanatics. But my comment about golf in
general decreasing some is true, but I don't think it's so tough that it's going to necessarily going
to put me out of business tomorrow. It's something I need to try to stay ahead of the game and
try to do some different things and my place has been essentially the same for the last 3 or 4
years and I just need a spark and something new and a way to get more people down there and
create more interest and once again to me this seems to be the best way to do it. And it's
something that doesn't cost a fortune because I can do you know a lot of the stuff inside myself
because I'm a landscaper by trade so I can put water features in and landscaping boulders and do
all the site work and those kind of things.
Larson: Are you going to be putting in turf inside or grass or?
Jeff Helstrom: Artificial.
Larson: Artificial?
Jeff Helstrom: Yeah. But there'll be like fake pine trees and boulders and fake moose and things
like that.
Larson: All the stuff you run into on a golf course in Minnesota.
Jeff Helstrom: Exactly.
McDonald: I guess I've got a couple questions for you. If we were to hold you to the
architectural standards that the City's looking at, do you know roughly what the difference in
price is between the steel building that you're proposing and to go to something that would meet
the standards?
Jeff Helstrom: Oh, it's a lot. I mean I'm, I couldn't tell you for sure but I think we're building the
pole barn structure for $18 to $20 a foot. And I'm building some office condos in Waconia right
now that are $140 for you know nice stone structure and wood frame construction. Slab on
grade. You know all of the city specs. I mean it's a huge difference. Huge. Especially when
you get into a building that size because a pole barn, pole barns are made to be, to cover a big
20
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
span whereas you know wood frame construction and office type construction is a lot tougher to
do that. Big steel beams and that would be a lot more money. A lot more money.
McDonald: Okay. And then as far as the land's concerned, what's your relationship? Do you
own the land? Do you lease the land?
Jeff Helstrom: I own the land.
McDonald: You own the land?
Jeff Helstrom: Yes.
McDonald: So actually in 2020 if it becomes something else you're just going to, you would sell
off to someone else anyway or else you'll come back to the City and continue with this.
Jeff Helstrom: See if I get another interim use permit. Plus I guess I wouldn't think if there's no
sewer and water the city would have no reason to not grant me another interim use permit. If
there wasn't a higher and better use at that point in time. I'm right there. I mean it wouldn't
make any sense.
McDonald: The other question I've got for you, okay you started out with this, with the existing
building and that was going to go through til 2020. Now you're back before us. Things have
changed. Things always change. Looks like for you a little bit for the better. Are you looking at
coming back again because the other thing is are we going to get incremental zed into something
we're, you know you suddenly have got a very big and thriving business and you've managed to
kind of get around a lot of the rules that we've got in place for businesses.
Jeff Helstrom: I know I would come back. I mean I can't go any farther. I'm already right on
the edge of the flood plain there. I mean if I were to add onto my existing structure, and it
wouldn't make any sense to go this way because that's my parking lot. I don't know where I'd go,
so no is the answer.
McDonald: Okay. I have no further questions, unless someone else has some follow up or
something. We'll open up the floor to anyone from the public wishing to make comment. And
what I'd ask you to do is come up to the podium. State your name and address and then address
your comments up to the commission.
Jeff Helstrom: Thank you.
McDonald: Thank you. Okay, seeing no one come forward. I close the public meeting on this
one and I bring it back before the commissioners. Kevin.
Dillon: I don't know where to begin. This is a very complex, you know not that it's super
complex but the implications of what we decide would have you know implications for the
applicant as well as the city and so like on one hand I, you know certainly don't want to deny the
person a right to build and grow their business and I agree that you've got to think creativity and
21
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
maybe this a good way to do it. But on the you know, we don't want to paint ourselves into a
corner either in terms of what, in terms of other plans and everything for this neck of the woods.
I think that there's going to be, it's visible and it's busy and as you know, kind of like as much as
going on on that road now, it's even going to get more so and I think we'll have to live with the
aesthetic direction that we provide on this one for a while so I, you know I'm, I like the idea of
you know taking it, the little house and making it a little more of a robust thing you know
assuming that we can kind of come to agreement on what the thing looks like but I am, you know
I don't know longer term if it'd be a better use or higher use for this thing. That we ought to
make sure we don't close the door on.
McDonald: Kurt.
Papke: Okay. I'm opposed to approving this request. First issue is, it doesn't meet 4 of the
staff's standards or findings for an IUP, as listed in the staff report. I'm very concerned that the
applicant mentioned that he's seen a 30% drop in business since Halla came in. I'm very
concerned that we're setting ourselves up for a constant you know, we approve this one. Halla
comes back. He wants an indoor putting range. Okay. We're setting a precedent here, as we all
know. Every time we approve a variance, we set the precedent and I'm very concerned that
there's, you know it's a zero sum game with the number of golfers in the area unfortunately and I,
so I'm just very concerned over the precedent issue that we're going to have Mr. Halla back here
in a year asking to put in more buildings. Third point, I'm very concerned over the aesthetics.
This is over 150 feet long. That's a big, big building on that little property compared to the little
one that's there now and I think it's a metal building of that size is just going to be a horrible eye
sore. And lastly, I think we're, approving this would hamstring us when it goes to finalizing the
comp plan. When it comes to what happens when this interim use permit runs out in 2020.
We're setting a precedent. We're making it tougher on the city to change this over to whatever
better use is decided at that point. Now it could very well be, this is a very good business. You
know I appreciate what the applicant has done at that site. It may very well be in 2020 that we
decide that a driving range and par 3 golf course is exactly what we want to do with that spot but
I'm opposed to painting ourselves into a corner by approving this at this point would not allow us
to move in the direction to which that property is currently guided.
McDonald: Okay.
Thomas: I'm quite…as well just because I see the good points on both sides. However I'm
siding unfortunately more towards the opposed side just because of the points that were just
made. I don't want to be painted into a corner with the city unfortunately and that's kind of
where I am right now.
McDonald: Okay. Mark.
Undestad: Well yeah, I mean I have to agree. The way I look at it, the options we can't really
get into the, unless there was a way that they could go back and if we tabled it somehow and they
went back to see if there was a way to incorporate the drop dead date out there. That the
equipment and the buildings, everything just had to go if that was the case. Besides from that, I
guess I'll have to agree.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
McDonald: Debbie.
Larson: Okay. I'll be the odd man out. I'm actually for it, and the reason why is number one,
we've got til 2020. We've got 14 years. It seems silly to hold him to the standards of having to
put in a high quality structured building if he's going to have to take it down. Or if we're going
to consider having him take it down. I like the idea of having a place for families to go. I think
that's a great point. It's in an area right now where you know, close to Chaska and everything
and it's on part of the road that I imagine it's going to start taking steps to being developed, but I
don't think this is a bad use. I like the use and you know as I say, 14 years down the road, you
know he's got a piece of property if he so chooses will be able to either stick with it or do
something different but I like it. And granted yeah, the precedent that we're setting and if Mr.
Halla comes back to us wanting to do the same thing, the properties are not like properties. The
property down on 212 is on a major highway. And Halla's property is on Pioneer Trail. Very
different properties. And he can't state that it's the same type of property because they're
completely different. One is more like a state highway and the other isn't. And therefore I think
that they shouldn't be considered like though they're only a mile apart. Yes, they draw the same
amount of business but they're different types of property, in my opinion. So I think it's a great
idea and I would be willing to vote for it.
McDonald: Dan.
Keefe: Well this one's a tough one. I mean I think this is sort of entrepreneurship at it's best. I
mean from the perspective of what he's done to the property, I think he's done a terrific job with
his existing property. Great landscaping. I was just down there the other day. I think it looks
great. I'd like to see you grow your business. I actually think that this is almost more of a timing
question then anything from the perspective of if we may come back you know whenever we do
the comp plan, a year or 2 years from now, or next year I guess is when it is, that we'll come
back and decide that this is the best long term use. I think the direction that you're thinking of
taking it in terms of increasing it towards family usage I think is terrific. In some ways I'd really
just like to table this for 6 to 9 months just to see where we come out on the comp plan but I
don't know that that's a viable thing to do today. So I guess really where I come down on it is, I
really don't want you to go away. I want you to stick around. I want you to keep your business
going and, but I think to approve this at this point without knowing the you know what we're
going to do from a comp planning standpoint, what, you know we haven't even talked about
what's going to, if we put this building up, what would it do to the development of all the other
properties across 212 from it? Would they all go away because this is there now and, I mean
that's kind of a discussion we get into with the comp planning so, it's tough. It's really, this is a
really tough one from that perspective so I guess where I kind of some down on it is, I think it is
unfortunately a little bit premature, just because we don't, because we're right on, just right in
front of that comp planning thing. And so, that's kind of where I'm at.
McDonald: Well, I'll tell you what I find interesting is that you know for once when Debbie's,
looks like the minority, I really agree with her. The problem that I'm having with this that I've
been wrestling with and going back and forth is that number one, we've got a very viable
business. Business is good for Chanhassen. It is family oriented. I don't see how we're going to
23
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
get anything else in there that we wouldn't want. I mean from that standpoint this is the kind of
business that we supposedly want to come into this city. What I wrestle with also is the Halla
issue. I know he's going to come back. I think Debbie's right. They are different. I mean we
went through a lot of things with that one. That's in a residential neighborhood. We fought long
and hard about hours of operation and tenant purposes and all of that stuff. Your down in the
middle of a wetland. No one got up today to oppose any of this. There was no one from the area
that's marching up here saying that oh no, this is going to be detrimental. It's going to kill my
property rights. It's going to do all kinds of bad things to me. Didn't happen. You know you're a
very good business within the city. I asked the question of what exactly, what kind of a neighbor
are you. City says you're a very good neighbor. That's good. You know you've shown a
willingness to work with us. I still have a problem about the building being metal because I do
worry about setting a precedent for that. We've gone long and hard about architectural standards
and tried to really enforce those. I guess the thing I look at is that I understand that if we enforce
it here, we're killing a business. That's not to say that it's, at some point you know that's why I
wondered if you're going to be coming back to us. I just can't see this forever staying that way.
When we get to the comp plan and start looking at things from that perspective, I will want
something to be upgraded in that area, but I don't know. A lot of communities use these metal
buildings for certain purposes. I don't see why we couldn't look at something such as that, and I
just look at the good and bad and the way I weigh it, there's a little bit more good than there is
bad so I would be in favor of granting this. Having said all that, we have 3 proposals before us.
Do we want to just take a vote on each one or do we want to see which one comes up from the
commissioners as far as. I don't think there is either. I'll accept a motion from the floor and
we'll go with that.
Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the site
plan and amendment to Interim Use Permit #98-2 for the construction of an 11,100 square foot
addition to the principal structure requiring a 10,300 square foot building area variance from the
800 square foot building area restriction for the golf driving range principal structure and a
second variance for the use of steel paneling as the primary exterior material on property located
in the A2 District at 825 Flying Cloud Drive, as shown on the plans prepared by Structural
Buildings, Inc. dated September 11, 2006 and as shown on the plans prepared by Anderson
Engineering of Minnesota, LLC dated September 11, 2006 based on the findings in the staff
report and conditions 1 and 2 as stated in the staff report.
McDonald: Do I have a second?
Undestad: Second.
Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the
site plan and amendment to Interim Use Permit #98-2 for the construction of an 11,100
square foot addition to the principal structure requiring a 10,300 square foot building area
variance from the 800 square foot building area restriction for the golf driving range
principal structure and a second variance for the use of steel paneling as the primary
exterior material on property located in the Agricultural Estate District (A2) at 825 Flying
Cloud Drive, as shown on the plans prepared by Structural Buildings, Inc. dated
September 11, 2006 and as shown on the plans prepared by Anderson Engineering of
24
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
Minnesota, LLC dated September 11, 2006 based on the findings in the staff report and the
following conditions:
1. The applicant already has a reasonable use of the property through Interim Use Permit
#98-2 which permitted the operation of a golf driving range in the Agricultural Estate
(A2) District.
2. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
All voted in favor, except Larson, McDonald and Keefe who opposed. The motion carried
with a vote of 4 to 3.
McDonald: The motion passes. The applicant's application is denied. At this point your choices
are, you can talk with staff about appealing this up to the City Council at which point it will be
re-addressed at that point and a final decision will be made.
rd
Aanenson: Mr. Chair, it does automatically go to City Council on October 23.
McDonald: I just wanted to make sure he talked to you because I know before we had a problem
with people not coming up and it didn't get on as far as dates so I want to make sure, if you do
want this to go forward, you must tell them.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF AN ACCESS TO THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY
LOCATED EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD, WEST OF HIGHWAY 101 AND
TH
NORTH OF WEST 96 STREET, APPLICANT TIM ERHART, PLANNING CASE 06-
32.
Public Present:
Name Address
th
Kevin Bogenreif 631 96 Street West
th
Jim Byrne 700 West 96 Street
th
Andrew Riegert 620 West 96 Street
th
Roger Lee 600 West 96 Street
th
Karen Hasse 630 West 96 Street
th
Gary Bendzick 731 West 96 Street
Tim Erhart 9611 Meadowlark Lane
Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Dan, you want to start?
25
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
Keefe: No, I don’t have a lot of questions. Just a quick one here which is, you're always
referring to…referred to it as the applicant being a landowner. What role does the City play in
this? I mean other than, is he installing the lift station?
Haak: No. It would be a city project and Alyson, would you like to talk about that a little bit
more?
Fauske: Commissioner Keefe, Planning Commissioners. This site has been identified as a, this
vicinity I should say has been identified for a future lift station through our comprehensive sewer
plan, which was adopted back in 1998. So we've always known that within this vicinity we'd
need a lift station. With the Powers extension and looking at development through the area,
we're better able to pin down where an appropriate site would be for the lift station. It's
development driven. It won't be constructed until we know we have development in the area, at
which point we've identified this is an appropriate area for construction.
Keefe: So what we're doing now is we're, we alter the wetland now in anticipation that this is
where the lift station would go or how does that…?
Haak: The wetland alteration is actually being driven by the property owner himself. It really
has nothing to do with the lift station at this time, except that we know that this is an appropriate
location for it. The applicant wants to put in the road and he can tell you that himself I guess.
But the material is available now. The application needs to come from the land owner. He has
an interest in what the property looks like you know in 2 years. The City may not be there for a
number of years down the road.
Fauske: And also just to speak to the location of it. I mean when you look at it, it's aligned with
an access on the east side. So we look at aligning accesses but it's not driven by the lift station,
and the lift station does not generate a large amount of traffic. It's service vehicles a few times a
week, which can be accomplished via curb cut. Certainly if there's an opportunity to access off
of a public street, we'll certainly do that. Like Lori said, this is the wetland impact is being
pushed from the future developable property there. Not the lift station.
Aanenson: Can I just clarify one thing? There is a portion of upland, I think that's what Lori
touched on a little bit. On the area that is buildable and that's this area here. Right here. This is
the parcel that the applicant is trying to get access to. This part right here. If you can see that.
There's no trees on this part right here.
Keefe: So why now?
Aanenson: Because the dirt's available. With the 212, so the timing is…
Keefe: Okay. Okay, so the timing…
Aanenson: …so this property is not in the MUSA area currently, and that was the concern we
had about putting the road through. There's no plan to put the road through at this time. It's just
providing access to get access to this parcel. It's not intended to extend across any application
26
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
for anything on any of this property would have to come back before you. For public hearing.
At this time is to provide access to this property only. It's about 3 1/2 acres on that side. The
tree line is through here.
Haak: And the applicant can talk a little bit about this a little bit more too but he is actively
managing the property so access just to the property itself is important to him. In my
conversations with him. So it's not you know, in addition to the materials being there, you know
he's a property owner. He goes out and he knows this property better than anybody I'm pretty
sure so, you know he is actively managing it. Again, it is an outlot currently so it would need to
be replatted in order for anything else to go on with that.
Larson: I've got one quick question. If the spike rush plant is of the endangered species, then
what?
Haak: Well it's not, again it's not an endangered species, and then I would have to get a little bit
more direction as to you know, what exactly does it mean to have a plant in this area.
Larson: Put it somewhere else?
Haak: No, I'm not exactly sure and we'd need to figure that out. I just wanted to make sure that
we were covered so that we wouldn't, weren't inadvertently doing something.
Larson: Pulling weeds…
Haak: Yeah, or flooding them, yeah.
Larson: Because we don't have enough weeds already.
McDonald: Kathleen?
Thomas: No, I'm good. Thank you.
McDonald: Kurt.
Papke: Bluff Creek primary, secondary, etc. Where, does that have any impact here at all?
Haak: Not at all. That's across Powers Boulevard from this location.
Papke: Okay.
Aanenson: I'm just going to point out one more planning thing. There is a road that's been cut
off that Mr. Erhart was using, a driveway. Yeah, so that's been cut off. That's another reason to
get access to the tree farm in the back in there too besides just this parcel. So that was also
separate…
27
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
Papke: Tree impact. There's a couple oaks called out on the drawing here. Are there any
substantial trees that will be cut down as a result of this?
Haak: No. I believe they've got 5 of them that are shown here to be protected, and those were
the only significant ones that I noted in this general vicinity when we were out on site.
Papke: Okay.
McDonald: Kevin.
Dillon: No. Just one question is, when you deal with wetlands, is it just totally up to the
municipality like in this case Chanhassen to make the call on, do you have to get other you know
counties or governments or states involved?
Haak: Yes. Actually the city has a wetland ordinance that regulates wetland impacts. It's
actually a little more stringent than the Wetland Conservation Act, which is the State law, and as
a part of the State process we do send this out. It went to the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek
Watershed District, the Carver Soil and Water District. Goes to the Army Corps of Engineers. It
goes to several other reviewing agencies, including DNR and Pollution Control Agency as well,
so they've all had opportunities each to review that, and that is, it's a little bit, they're reviewing it
against a little bit different standards than the city is. But we didn't receive any additional
comments from other folks. Other jurisdictions so, but the city is the local government unit so
we do make the final decision about these matters.
Dillon: So if there was something really unsound about the idea, would they usually say
something?
Haak: Yes. Yes.
Keefe: Jerry, one more. The wetland alteration, Section 20-407. Wetland alteration on page 2
says, subsection (5) says replace unavoidable impacts to the wetland by restoring. What is an
unavoidable impact to this particular wetland?
Haak: Sure, and that is what we were talking a little bit with separation. Typically roads are the
easiest to make cases for unavoidable impact. Again, safety is a real big concern and spacing of
the roads here. In addition, this is a wetland adjacent to Bluff Creek and with the steep slopes
here, unavoidable just means there's no other place that you can really put it. Due to steep slopes
and wetlands alone, the only place you could really put it would be closer to the 212 ramp and
that would have considerable safety concerns. And there was a lot of discussion that went on
with this during the design phase of this project. Of, I'm sorry, not of this project. Of the 212
project.
Keefe: Yeah, the thing, it says unavoidable impact to put in a road to service the lift station,
right? Or the unavoidable impact to serve his purpose to put a road in because he wants to get
access to the western portion of his property?
28
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
Haak: That's right, correct.
Aanenson: Correct. Correct. But we just want to be clear that doesn't guarantee that there's
going to be an extension of that road. It's an access to his property today.
Keefe: And that's a reasonable purpose for, to rule unavoidable?
Haak: Yes.
Keefe: To meet the unavoidable threshold.
Haak: Yeah.
Keefe: Okay.
McDonald: I have no questions of staff. At this point I guess I would ask the applicant to come
forward and make a presentation before us. If you could state your name and address.
Tim Erhart: Yeah, Tim Erhart, 9611 Meadowlark Lane, Chanhassen. So yeah, I farm the
property, as Lori stated. My wife and I have owned it since 1980. We probably do know every
tree, many of which I planted. Actually I think, I think Lori's done a very thorough job of the
thing. The only condition that I had a question about and that is number 10 and that relates to, or
even what it means. One thing I guess I'd like to clear up a little bit is that, you several terms
appear in the report. Roads and street. I consider the application is for a field road, just to be
clear. There is no gravel. There is no asphalt. There's no curb. This is just filled and planted
with grass, so there's, so it's, I'm not sure street is probably the best description of what we're
doing here. The builder of the highway has the material to fill the pond today and there's a
substantial amount of fill involved so the idea was let's get it done now. At first I thought I could
get in there now because I have a tree growing range in there and I'd like to be able to get those
trees out and I enjoy going in and kind of maintaining trees and stuff, anyway. So when it gets
down to number 10 here, could you explain maybe a little bit what exactly does that mean?
Does that mean that I can't make roads or are we trying to say that this is a street today and the
street can never go further east? I'm not clear what that is.
Aanenson: Well I think at this point we're not, if it's a field road, I think we can all agree that's a
field road. Any decision for a public street would have to come in with an application at a future
date with the public hearing. Right now with the wetlands, we just wanted to be clear that this
doesn't give, I think we had the discussion about incrementalism earlier today.
McDonald: Right, it doesn't set a precedent that just because we've approved this, we've also
approved any future road extension.
Aanenson: So I think if we agree, I think using the field road, maybe a driveway access and field
road would kind of take that away. We can work on some different.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
Tim Erhart: Yeah, because you know we've talked obviously about long range, whether, when
we come in and put a real street there someday in association with a development of our part of
the parcel, whether there's a street access there or not.
Aanenson: Correct. That's a future decision. I guess that's…
Tim Erhart: Yes. In my mind that's a future decision than this application…
Aanenson: But we just want to put on the record that putting this driveway, this road access here
doesn't give standing that there's going to be a street extended in the future. That's still a future
decision.
Tim Erhart: …preclude that it can't either because that's…
Aanenson: Well just to be clear, it's our recommendation that it wouldn’t go through but I
understand your position that it would go through but it would be a future decision with an
application, correct.
Tim Erhart: …future decision. Any questions?
McDonald: Does anyone have any questions for the applicant?
Larson: Yeah, what are you going to do about that weed?
Tim Erhart: You saw this report before I did because I just got back from a 10 day business
trip…that this weed is there. We'll have to deal with that. Anything else?
McDonald: Anyone else have any questions? Okay, no further questions from the
commissioners. At this point I would open it up to the public. Anyone wishing to make
comment, I would ask you to come up to the podium. State your name and address and address
the commissioners. Okay, seeing no one come forward, close the public meeting and bring it
back before the commissioners for discussion and deliberation. Start with Kevin.
Dillon: You know seeing that the experts and the environmentalist issues surrounding this are
okay with it, I mean it seems like the request is otherwise reasonable to me and if there's no
negative ecological problems or anything like that, then I don't have any problems supporting
this.
McDonald: Okay.
Papke: I think this is a reasonable request. I have neighbors that have purchased trees from Mr.
Erhart back on that property so I think access to that to continue to use that as a tree farm I think
is very reasonable. And I think staff has done a good job in spelling things out here such that
we're not setting precedence. We're not setting expectations for the future so I think this is very
carefully done.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
McDonald: Okay. Kathleen.
Thomas: I agree.
McDonald: Mark?
Undestad: Yep, no problems.
McDonald: Debbie.
Larson: Sounds good.
McDonald: Commissioner Keefe? Okay. Okay I'll accept a motion from the commissioners.
Keefe: Sure, I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland
Alteration Permit #06-32 for the construction of an access road and storm water pond subject to
conditions 1 through 17 and amending number 10 to say east-west road will be a field road that
will extend from Powers Boulevard shall only serve the future development area identified on
the plan and the future lift station.
McDonald: Okay, do you want to say that again?
Keefe: The east-west road will be a field road, and the rest the same.
McDonald: Okay. Do I have a second?
Thomas: Second.
Keefe moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Wetland Alteration Permit #06-32 for the construction of an access road and stormwater
pond subject to the following conditions:
1.Because the species of spike rush was not identified during the delineation, the dominant spike
rush within Wetland B shall be keyed out to ensure that the increased period of inundation will
not adversely affect a state-threatened plant species or a significant natural community.
2.The plans shall be revised to show how M-1 will be accessed. The access route shall be stable,
shall avoid damage to significant trees (greater than 10” DBH) and shall avoid impacts to
natural drainageways and any jurisdictional wetlands that may exist on site that were not
delineated by Westwood Professional Services in August 2006.
3.A planting plan for M-1, including invasive vegetation management techniques, species to be
planted, proposed planting rates, and the approach to upland buffer restoration, shall be
submitted prior to final City Council approval.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
4.The applicant shall submit a letter of credit equal to 110% of the cost of the wetland creation
(including grading and seeding) to ensure the design standards for the replacement wetland
are met. The letter of credit shall be effective for no less than five years from the date of
final plat approval. The applicant shall submit a cost estimate for wetland creation (including
grading and seeding) so the City can calculate the amount of the wetland creation letter of
credit.
5.A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The replacement
monitoring plan shall include a detailed management plan for invasive non-native species,
particularly hybrid cattail, purple loosestrife and reed canary grass. The plans shall show
fixed photo monitoring points for the replacement wetland. The applicant shall provide proof
of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland.
6.A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around all wetlands. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked
in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge
signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per
sign.
7.A berm is proposed within the existing right-of-way (ROW) for Powers Boulevard. The
applicant shall receive approval from Carver County for the proposed normal water level
(NWL) in Pond 1 and for the proposed berm.
8.At this time, no development is approved for the “Future Development Area.” Any future
development and/or requested changes to the land use for this property shall undergo the City’s
development and land use review process(es).
9.Stormwater calculations were not submitted for Pond 1. When the future development area is
developed, the pond shall meet all stormwater requirements in place at that time.
will be a field road
10.The east-west road that will extend from Powers Boulevard shall only serve
the future development area identified on the plan and the future lift station. This road shall not
extend further east.
11.Future utility installation shall be a lighter line weight than the proposed storm sewer installation
that will be done in conjunction with the wetland alteration.
12.The silt fence along Powers Boulevard shall be installed east of the trail at the construction
limits. The rock construction entrance shall be at least 75 feet in length. The plans shall be
revised to show the City’s standard details 3107, 3108, 5300, 5301 and 5302A.
13.The temporary riser structure shall remain in place until the pond and adjacent areas are
stable.
14.Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round,
32
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed
soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter
system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man
made systems that discharge to a surface water.
15.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as-needed.
16.A building permit shall be obtained for all retaining walls greater than four (4) feet in height.
17.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Carver County) and comply with their
conditions of approval.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Keefe noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 5, 2006 as presented.
Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
33