The URL can be used to link to this page

6. CUP 7851 Park Drive Fence Height i 1 CITYOF (:).---____ 1 ,, CHANHASSEN 1 , i 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 ) A.r t,y; r- i. - MEMORANDUM :;✓ TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager t�; be a i---- 1f y I 1 FROM: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner Iv~ THROUGH: Paul Krauss, Planning Director IIDATE: October 23, 1991 I SUBJ: Conditional Use Permit Amendment Update to Increase the Fence Height from 8 feet to 15 feet for the Lakeshore Equipment Outdoor Storage Area IPROPOSAL/SUMMARY This item has been before the Planning Commission and City Council Ion several occasions over the past year. Most recently, it was on the City Council meeting of August 26, 1991, where the Council ultimately recommended continuance of this request. The item was 1 continued to allow a group comprised of members of the City Council and staff to visit the site with the applicant to discuss alternatives which may prove to be satisfactory. A site visit was subsequently held and the following recommendation represents a 1 compilation of comments that were received by staff. The applicant was requested to remove a section of fence so that I the site could be visited and the visual impact of removing the upper portion of the fence could be reviewed. This was done and the site has been visited. There is a concern that staff has that materials on this site will still be visible over the 8 foot fence I that would be remaining. Undoubtedly there will be some materials that will be visible above the 8 foot height; however, we note that this was the original requirement that the applicant was required Ito adhere to. At the present time, he appears to have stacked materials over this height around the site, but this is an operational problem as we understand it. We realize that when I docks are assembled or brought back to the site for repair, that the attached canopy structures may well exceed the 8 foot height; however, we do not believe that this should be the norm. Materials stacked around the site for other purposes should not exceed this I 8 foot height limitation and thus, should be screened reasonably well by this proposal. Based upon the site visit, staff is I ,t v.Or PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER I i Lakeshore Equipment October 23 , 1991 Page 2 I recommending that the conditional use permit amendment requested by the applicant be denied with conditions outlined below. RECOMMENDATION 11 Staff recommends that the request to amend Conditional Use Permit #88-17 be denied and the applicant be required to reconstruct the originally approved fence to an 8 ft. height and meet the following conditions: 1. Picket fence sections along the south and east walls of the storage yard shall be removed. The existing picket fence sections along the west yard entrance and along the northern , exposure adjacent to Lakeshore Equipment would be allowed to remain. The transition between the picket fence section along the west side and the proposed area along the south, where the pickets shall be removed, shall be acceptably faired. 2 . All horizontal boards shall be realigned so that they are fully horizontal and in line with one another. 3 . The applicant consider removing the southeast corner gate. 4 . All materials stored inside the yard area shall be subject to ' the original 8 ft. height limitation. The exception shall be dock canopy supports which would be allowed to extend over this height when they are attached to assembled dock sections. The outdoor material storage rack located near the building must be reduced in height and made to conform to the original conditional use permit approval. 5. Exterior landscaping on the east elevations and the southeast corner area should be infilled to replace dead material and to provide ample screening. 6. Remove the piles of wood that is dumped outside of the fence line. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter to Steve Willette dated September 13, 1991. 2. City Council Minutes dated August 26, 1991. 3 . Staff report dated August 26, 1991. I I; CITY OF LA:2 CHANHASSEN 1 1111110011' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-19000 FAX (612) 937-5739 1 September 13, 1991 • Mr. Steve Willette Lakeshore Equipment 7851 Park Drive 1 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Steve: 1 The following letter is a result of a site visit to Lakeshore Equipment that occurred on Wednesday, September 11, 1991, between 1 yourself, members of the City Council and City Staff. This meeting grew out of the City Council's action at a recent meeting to continue discussion on your request to amend your conditional use permit to allow for a visit and discussion of optional alternatives. Growing out of this meeting, the Yfollowing conditions were 1 generally agreed to by those present. - 1. Picket fence sections along the south and east walls of the 1 storage yard should be removed. The existing picket fence sections along the west yard entrance and along the north exposure adjacent to Lakeshore Equipment would be allowed to remain. The transition between the picket fence section along 1 the west side and the proposed area along the south where the pickets shall be removed shall be acceptably faired. ' 2. All horizontal boards shall be realigned so that they are fully horizontal and in line with one another. The area receiving the most concern was the southeast corner of the site where boards run at different angles from the balance of 1 the fence. We must also ask that you consider removing the southeast corner gate since there is no apparent purpose for this and it is visually obtrusive. 1 3. All materials stored inside the yard area shall be subject to the original 8 foot height limitation. The exception shall 1 dock canopy supports which would be allowed to extend over this height when they are attached to assembled dock sections. The outdoor material storage rack located near the building 1 n 41, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER • 1 sr Mr. Steve Willette September 13, 1991 Page 2 must be reduced in height and made to conform to your original conditional use permit approval. 4. Exterior landscaping is generally acceptable on the west and south elevations. East elevations and the southeast corner area should be infilled to replace dead material and to provide ample screening. 5. Remove the piles of wood that is dumped outside of your fence line. As I indicated, these are conditions that were generally agreed reed to by those who were present but it is not official Council policy 1 until it is acted upon. There was a further request that you remove several sections of the picket fence near the south and southeastern exposures so that the City Council can review the site to ensure that the approach outlined above is the correct one. I am therefore going to pull the Lakeshore item from consideration at the September 23rd meeting and will schedule it for the October 14th meeting. In the interim, I would ask that you remove those I/ sections of fence as soon as possible so that I may notify the City Council and they can visit the site. Thank you for your assistance in this matter, Sincerely, rglif_zed„d Paul Krauss, AICP . Director of Planning PK:/ ' pc: City Council Planning Commission Don Ashworth, City Manager Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I 1 1 I i _ City Council Meeting - ' qust 26, 1991 comfortable had this been a small deck just to get access from those doors. But not a major 12 x 12 screened porch going to a 17 foot deck. I think that exceeds the needs and clearly impacts that corner and that lot beyond it's limits. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. What I would like to do is to make a motion to approve the front yard variance request and appeal the decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Is there a second? Without a second the motion fails. Councilman Wing: I'd like to make a motion denying this particular request. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? I Councilman Workman: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? , • Roger Knutson: Mr. Mayor. So the record is clear. The basis for your motion of denial is the Planning report and the Minutes of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Councilman Wing: Would you repeat that Roger? Roger Knutson: Is the basis of your motion the Planning report and the recommendation of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals? So the record is clear. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, clarification. It does include staff's report. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to deny Variance $91-7 based on the reasons outlined in the planning report and the Minutes of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals dated July 8, 1991. All voted in favor except Mayor Chmiel who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. I CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT REGARDING THE FENCE SCREENING HEIGHT FROM 8 FT. t.) 4) TO 15 FT.. 7851 PARK DRIVE. LAKESHORE EQUIPMENT. STEVE WILLETTE. CPaul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, in 1988 the City issued a conditional use permit for Lakeshore Equipment. Outdoor storage was a part and parcel of this request and it was an issue at the time it was approved and there was a fair amount of testimony and emphasis placed on it. As a result an 8 foot high wooden fence was required and ultimately was installed. The City Council also required that no stored materials be placed higher than 8 feet to keep the visibility of materials down. In 1990 my staff was doing regular site visits for conditional use permits, which we've begun to do on an annual basis and we noticed that this fence had fallen in one area. I believe it was the result of a fairly heavy wind storm. We did ask the owner to restore the fence and we did notify him of the 8 foot height limitation. The applicant obtained a building permit and we put notice of the limitation on that. In October the building inspector went out there to update the project or do the final inspection, I don't recall which, but he noticed that the fence had been constructed as high as 15 foot in some places. Staff then requested that the fence be cut back to the allowable height that was a condition, a stipulation of the conditional use permit. We also indicated that one option for the owner would be to petition the city to I 15 1 City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 change the condition. We didn't indicate one way or the other what our preference would be and we did indicate that that would be an alternative and II that if they wanted to do pursue that, we would delay action until that occurred. The applicant is making that request to repeal that condition, or to modify that condition. We believe the issue here is more than one of simply the II height of the fence. It basically revolves around the visual impact of outdoor storage, and particularly a fence of that magnitude and our belief that it detracts from the overall quality of the industrial park. We note that because of problems with this site, primarily problems with this site and some others 1 around the city, when we're reviewing the landscaping standards to change the zoning ordinance, we're actually looking at banning the use of wooden fences for outdoor storage areas. They just haven't worked well. This one predates or II this one was part of the learning curve but knowing what we know now, we sure wouldn't do it again. That doesn't have any particular bearing on this request. It's just that we're trying to rectify what's happened in the past. The Planning Commission did review this in November and on a split vote, we didn't 1 have all the Planning Commissioners there that night but I believe they voted 4-1 to allow the large fence to remain contingent upon the applicant working a revised landscaping plan. Basically to break up the massing of the fence. The II landscaping plan was submitted and frankly it's not really the applicant's fault that this was November when this occurred and we have it now. We thought we could get this done by spring and we tried to work with him to do that. There's II been some delay since then but the revised landscaping plan that's been submitted would add an additional 8 spruce trees and 20 pots of ivy which presumably would climb up the wall and break it up with some green. We think it's an improvement but frankly we don't believe that it's really going to serve I the goal. It's very tough to screen or to break up a wall that big. We're therefore continuing to recommend that the fence, or the modification to the fence be denied and that the fence go back to it's original height and that the • Istorage of materials inside the fence also go back to the original height. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Would anyone like to address the situation? ISteve Willette: I'm Steve Willette, the owner of the property. I'm President of Lakeshore Equipment Company. I think Paul has got some misinformation in reference to this. The Planning, or what do we call it? The City Planners? IIMayor Chmiel: Planning Commission. 1 Steve Willette: The Planning Commission also felt that there was probably some prejudice or problems within the Planning Director's office. First of all he's got a lot of facts that, since he wasn't here probably are not his fault that he doesn't have clear but he doesn't have them clear. First of all the conditional I use permit was granted on conditions that the outside storage area be totally screened. And an oversight on the Planning Commission and my part and the City Council and the contractors and everybody did not take into consideration the I hieght of the road and the height of the storage area. We did build the fence at 12 feet and it was approved by the old city, what do you call, Building Inspector. By the old Building Inspector and was approved by him at 12 feet. I He did see it. There were several Planning Commission people that came out that day. Walked around the fence with me. The fence. Part of the fence did blow down. Part of the fence was reconstructed. Part of the fence that goes towards the road was reconstructed at 15 feet. At 14 to 15 feet 'maximum height along 1 16 II I—". • City Council Meeting - ' •gust 26, 1991 1 one small area which faces the highway. Because of the height of the highway being 20 feet higher than the storage area, at the storage area's highest point there's no way that it can be done any differently other than a 15 foot high fence to keep it so you can't see inside. I think that's what we're all after is to try to keep the product so you can't see it. I now have a building that is built specifically for Lakeshore Equipment Company and Lakeshore Equipment Company is reliant on that building. My source of income is reliant on having that building and having this company. I am trying to do what is right to try and keep the city nice looking. I look at the building north of me and there are several tenants there. Instead of having any kind of storage area, all they do is park all the vehicles and equipment outside. I looked at the buildings to the south of me, because we're in an industrial park. Same thing happens. There are vehicles stored outside. Junk cars. Heavy equipment. Walls. Gas tanks. Same thing to the north and I'm right inbetween these two people and everytime I look either north or south I see this stuff. When I take a look at our area, I see a cedar fence. Cedar fence that cost me over $35,000.00 to construct so I could try to keep it so it looked nice. I also exceeded all of your Planning Commission's or all your ordinances in reference to landscaping when I first did it. I said I have no problem with trying to come up and make it look a little more presentable by putting in some more landscaping again. When I did the original trees and shurbs I exceeded what was required of me by almost 50%. I am willing to put more in. I'm willing to spend more money. I do think that it does have to be screened. I want it to look nice. It is part of my business too. I don't want to Look like I'm running a junk yard. I want to make it look like I'm running a nice reputable business. We're are the largest in the nation of docks and boat lifts. We pull people in from all over the 5 state area. We have a dealer network. We sell to dealers as well as sell to retail consumers. We sell lifts as far away as Alaska. Down in Arizona. So we do do some things for the community. We pull people in. And all we want to do is get by in the community and I think that I'm willing to spend some money to try to make it look a little bit better by putting in the extra shurbs and the vines. The fence is well constructed now. It's not going to blow down again. There is some areas that haven't been complete because I'm not going to spend any more money until I get final approval on it. There's some boards missing that didn't get put back on. Call the contractor out as soon as Sharmin started raising her voice and getting mad and so I just said well Sharmin, let's go through the process so I put a hold on all the remaining parts to the fence as far as fixing and making them look nice. The fence will look nice. It will weather. It will fit into the area. I have taken a big portion of my 4 1/4 acres and left it into the wild to go with the green strip for the river. I'm really trying and I just don't know what the problem with the Planning Director and his staff is. But it seems like the Planning Commission did say well if you put some more shurbs in or some more trees in and did something, if I could come • to terms with Sharmin from the Planning Commission, it would be taken care of but it just seems like it's kind of like pushing a pencil with your nose or something. It's kind of tough. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. 1 as • 17 1 City Council Meeting - -.gust 26, 1991 Don Ashworth: Can I respond to some of the points brought up by Mr. Willette? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Don Ashworth: I do not believe that the Planning Commission made a mistake in 11 the review and original conditions. The sight line from TH 5 is very minimal. You cannot observe the fence if you are heading easterly. From anywhere along TH 5. If you're heading westerly you will have obtained 55 mph. You will I/ potentially see that for 3-4 seconds. I mean you just don't see it from TM 5. The contention that it needs to be 15 feet in height because of TH 5 is, in my own mind, not a concern. The area that is a concern is if you're in the lower portion of the business park and you have one of the abutting properties. Mr. 11 Willette's property is like it's up on a hill and you then put a 15 foot high fence on top of that hill and it's just kind of mind boggling to anything below it. It's not solely the Planning Department. I think any of the departments 1 have referred to that back area as kind of Fort Apache and it looks like it. Mr. Willette brought out some of the neighbors and there's no question but that some of the illegal conditions have continued to mushroom around him. The Dayco property. Merit property to the north. The Roos property to the west. But to allow one violation. To say yeah, that's okay. You can go ahead and violate what it is you had agreed to do is sending the wrong message to Merit. To Dayco and to Roos. I really believe that the issue was debated at significant length before the Planning Commission with Commissioner Earnings saying, you agree that it will be 8 feet. You will not see anything and Mr. Willette said, I'm going to make it even shorter than the 8 feet. I mean this is not something that no one really thought about. I mean it was questioned and requestioned and requestioned again. I don't think it has anything to do with the Planning Director. Staff recommends denial. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Paul, did you have anything more? Paul Krauss: Only on the matter of Merit and Dayco. I've had my staff going out there trying to document what's there so that we can start working with them to clean up those problems. We are aware of them. It takes some time to get people to comply but we are beginning to work with them on those matters. Councilman Workman: The reason that Mr. Willette wants a 15 foot high fence is to potentially store things higher in there correct? Paul Krauss: That's our presumption, although I think Mr. Willette disputes that. Now my staff has been out there on different occasions with the Building Inspector and measured materials of 11 feet, 10 foot 6 inches, 913", 8'6" and 12 feet. I don't know what the real intent was but it sure seems to us that that is the case, yes. Mayor Chmiel: Steve, would you like to come up here? ' Steve Willette: That is not the case of what we're trying to do. One of the big things that came up in the meeting was to keep things out of sight. Okay, whether it be 5 seconds or 10 seconds, I didn't know that there was any clarification on that as far as. As far as the 8 foot high fence goes, that would not have screened it. That wouldn't screen a pair of tennis shoes sitting on the ground inside the storage yard. There were berms built to try to keep 18 City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 the height to a•minimum. What with the difference in elevations. There's no way you could do it from that area. As far as the height of the fence from looking down and looking up, as you look into the skyline going towards the north from the south part of the road down south of the property, you'll see in the skyline above the so called Fort or whatever you want to call it. It's not really a joking matter to me. It's a livelihood but you'll see in the skyline a whole bunch of vehicles and I'm not just pointing my finger at Merit. I's pointing, I'm saying that in the skyline if you look up above this 15 foot high fortress, as Don calls it, you'd see a whole bunch of vehicles, equipment, I signs, mobile signs. All kinds of different things as well as sticking and protruding above that you would see the complete building to the north. So as far as it hurting the skyline, I can see that. Eventually the pine trees and so forth that are screening that fenced area will grow to this height of 24 to 30 feet. They have grown a couple of feet now since we planted them. There are some that are missing and that's what those I'm going to put back in but like I say, the Planning Commission, whether they were all here or not, did see that we could probably come to terms and figure out a way to make it work so that it looked nice. I wanted it to look nice and I maybe want it to look nicer than what you're recommending because if we have an 8 foot high fence in there so you can see a pair of tennis shoes on the ground, it just doesn't make sense to se. I want to get it so you can't see in there. It's probably better advertising for me if I could have an 8 foot high fence and for that 5 or 10 seconds you could see a bunch of docks and boat lifts stacked in there, yeah. Councilman Wing: That wasn't the issue here. I think Don was talking about the issue that we're worried about the low area. You're talking about the I higher elevation. That's not the issue here. It's the lower area that's the issue as Don pointed out. And it's true, an 8 foot fence won't hide a pair of tennis shoes from the majority of that area. From the lower area. I Steve Willette: From the upper area? From the road? Councilman Wing: From the lower area. I Steve Willette: An 8 foot high fence, yeah. Councilman Wing: We're really discussing the lower area. I agree with Don. I TH S's not the issue. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'd like to start from one end to the other. It's your i turn. Councilman Wing: I came on right as this was being discussed I think last I November and on the recommendations here in our packet, the current fence was constructed in disregard to previous actions by the Planning Commission And City Council. I believe that to have been true. I think the discussion I walked in on at my first Planning Commission meeting was wondering how it went from 8 to 15 feet. Nobody was in agreement and I don't think it's fair to take light or make light of the appearance of your fence. Fort Apache was frankly my first, to be honest with you, it was kind of my initial reaction. I said it kind of , looks like a stockade. I don't say that sarcastically or to be flippant. But • I also noticed the difficulty with the terrain and that troubles se. The terrain at that point looks difficult to fence. It goes down and I guess I tend 19 1 City Council Meeting - Au' •st 26, 1991 to support the staff's recommendation here only because I think it was I/ constructed in a way that it should not have been. I think they were aware of the fact that it should not have been put to 15 feet. That there was the 8 foot and I think it does currently visually detract from the area but I am concerned about the terrain and can that terrain be fenced properly. And very frankly I'm just really looking for a solution. I don't think the 15 foot fence is necessarily the solution. I think it's an excellent business. I happen to be a customer and I don't wish to put a hardship on this. If we want an 8 foot fence and that makes people happy and if that seems to go along with staff recommendations, would that 8 foot fence requirement cause a hardship? A severe hardship. What's at stake here Paul? What's involved here correcting this? Paul Krauss: Would it create a hardship? I don't know if it creates a hardship on the business or not. I think Mr. Willette would have to get at that. The fact is is that's consistent with the way the project was approved and I guess ' if there's a hardship we didn't create it. I'm more concerned I guess with the visual impact here. We've got a fairly high quality industrial park. We've got a couple of sites, particularly some of the older ones and old is 4, 5, 6 years 1 and beyond that aren't up to the standards of the newer ones and somewhat detract from the newer ones. And you know industrial parks are like residential neighborhoods. If you have a house that is starting to look shabby in a residential neighborhood, it devalues the others and you can have a neighborhood go down hill. We'd like to maintain and where we can improve the quality in there. As I said, we're beginning to work with some of other property owners to get at those same issues. We're aware of them. Mayor Chmiel: Steve. Steve Willette: Can I address it from back here if I speak up? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. I Steve Willette: Okay. Richard, as far as going ahead with the height that was approved. Your building inspectors were out and we discussed the matter of an 8 foot high fence and what it would do. You would be able to see materials inside the area. They told me to go ahead at that point and they approved it after they had looked at it. So it was your building inspectors that told me to go ahead and do it. I didn't just all of a sudden say let's automatically have a 12 foot high fence. I didn't take it out of the top of my head and say well we won't worry about the City Hall people because they don't mean anything. I asked the people at that point, I asked your building inspector when they were out on the site what did they think and they recommended that I build it higher so it would be totally screened. So I said the problem is that you're asking for it to be totally screened. The only problem is you're asking me to put an 8 foot high fence. With the terrain and the way things are, there's no way you ' can totally screen anything with an 8 foot high fence. Councilman Wing: Do you see a solution to this? A compromise, may I ask? If I were to say that I'm uncomfortable with the 15 foot high appearance and the break from your use permit. Steve Willette: Richard, if you went with solid pine trees along there...pine trees in 2 or 3 years, those pine trees will be up to the "height of the fence ' 20 1 City Council Meeting - At'vust 26, 1991 and you'll see very little fence and you can put some ivy on there. According to the landscape people, there's no fix it you're going to get for next year. There's no fix for next year but in the future you'd have all these gorgeous pine trees and that's all you'd see. Councilman Wing: So your solution is landscaping? I Steve Willette: Yeah. Mayor Chmiel: That's about the only thing that will really address it. Even I with that 15 feet as was indicated at the Planning Commission's concerns. With that there was a 4 to 1 vote on that. Nothing else is really going to take care of it other than having evergreens. It can't be a deciduous kind of tree because the leaves are gone and it's still open. Steve Willette: Can I address one other thing Don? The 15 foot is at the I highest point. Okay? It's not the average height. Mayor Chmiel: You're saying basically what's facing TH 5 is the 15 foot height. On the back side of that it's less than 15 feet. Steve Willette: Right and it goes up in the front. Like the planning people say, they have no problem with any area other than that one area where we don't have any pine trees. Now they address the pine tree issue and now there's another issue because... Well I think the cedar fence looks better than most things around. I don't see anything myself attrocious to it other than the fact I that it's not finished or complete. When it's weathered it will look nice... I don't understand. Mayor Chmiel: Aesthetically I really see what you're trying to achieve. Plus I probably trying to keep some of your equipment there and go up just a little bit higher and of course I understand that but I think the overall purpose for what you're saying, you want to achieve what's best for your business as well as to be in compliance with the City. Steve Willette: I want it to look nice. I Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, right. And I think maybe what I would like to see us do is to sit down with staff and come up with a conclusion as to what is best and it may be one of us to sit on that particular meeting. Councilman Workman: Not me because I know I'm still confused by this issue. This is kind of a. I Councilman Wing: I'd be happy, to. - Mayor Chmiel: And reach that solution. I think what we're looking for of • I course and a lot of things that we're doing with TH S is looking at how we can have additional businesses coming in to the community adhere to what we're trying to establish as an aesthetic kind of view along TH S and not have the kinds of things that are happening in other communities. This being where it is, and it's set back further as well and it's right at the direction as you're going. If you don't look for it you're not going to see''it. And those that do 21 I R I City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 IIsee it, does it make that much of an impact as well for that hat short period of time. IICouncilman Wing: But it does from the lower elevation. I Mayor Chmiel: Yes. And. that's something we have to address from that lower part. And I think what Steve is saying is he's willing to do the landscaping, the additional landscaping to make it look decent because he has pride within his own business as well and wants to see that look good for his clientele IIcoming into his business. Councilman Wing: I'd support your suggestion to table this allowing that to 1 occur. ,Steve Willette: Don, can I bring up one thing about tabling? The Planning Commission said that I was supposed to work with staff so I've already tried to 1 work with staff. And staff and I came up with the plans that you're presented with right now. Which staff is also saying that they're recommending. IIDon Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Don. IIDon Ashworth: I think your suggestion is a good one. I have not sat in on some of those meetings. I think the idea of having a Council member sit on some of those or a meeting like that would be beneficial as well. I guess I would like II to take and look back at this building permit that Steve had referred to because that's kind of a new issue in my own mind and it's come up tonight. I think that our job as a committee is going to be tougher in that to the best of my II knowledge the only company that was allowed outside storage was Mr. Willette's so where you have Dayco for example who currently has outside storage, that was prohibited as a part of their original permit. Where Merit has outside storage, that was prohibited. My biggest concern is if we grant approval to a firm that 1 right now has more than anyone else within the business park, is it not logical that the Dayco people who are 20 feet below him will come back and ask for a fence of whatever height to screen stuff that they have. We'd be more than II happy to sit in this type of a meeting and try to come back to some type of solution but understand my concern is I'd like to see all of the businesses in that area working to make that the quality business park that it is. We have Isome wonderful businesses there. Councilman Mason: If I could piggyback on what Mr. Ashworth is saying. I agree with that completely. My concern too is what the other businesses around 1 Lakeshore are going to say because if this doesn't get cleaned up satisfactorily to the City, Don I think it is logical to assume that they're going to come in and say well I get a fence too. I'm hoping that this meeting will work and we 1 can come to an agreeable compromise but if there are people that are violating what's going on now, it certainly adds fuel to their fire. II Mayor Chmiel: Well the fence is there. It's been there for years. It was granted. I1 22 II . City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 1 • Councilman Mason: Right. And the fence will be there. I understand that. I understand the issue of height and I understand the issue of what is going around on there. I know the fence will... Councilman Wing: I'd be comfortable serving on that committee with Mr. Willette understanding that we could well come back and say we agree with staff recommendation. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. What I'd like to do if the Council's in agreement is I establish a date for them to get together. Sit down and reach that compromise. As we're looking at this week and I don't know what staff's schedule is. Paul Krauss: I'd prefer for consistency sake I'd prefer that Sharmin be involved in the meeting and she's on vacation until Friday. She'll be back Monday. I Mayor Chmiel: No, she'll be back Tuesday. Paul Krauss: Tuesday. Exactly. I Mayor Chmiel: Steve, is that alright with you? As it's sitting there nothing's hurting right now other than. I Steve Willette: Next week is a horrible week for me. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, the week of the 2nd? 1 Steve Willette: The week after that is a better possibility. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's establish that week and set up a date. Maybe you can get back to Steve and let him check his books and come up with a conclusion on it. I Councilman Workman: Not Tuesday or Wednesday. Don Ashworth: That's the week of the 9th. 1 Councilman Wing: Are you intending the Council to be kind of a mediator at this point? I Mayor Chmiel: I think I'd like to have that Council representation there. Not that I'm trying to take away from staff. I just think by having one more person there to reach that conclusion as well as the City Manager. Don Ashworth: I would like to do this type of meeting either having the meeting out at the site or at least starting at the site because I really think that a full 360 degree vista is necessary before we start meeting. Mayor Chmiel: I agree. Okay. I Steve Willette: I'll do whatever you people. 1 23 1 i City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 II • Mayor Chmiel: And I get that feeling from you so that's why I'm trying to co up with something here. me Steve Willette. I just want it to be logical... Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Well that's something that I think can be discussed back ' and forth accordingly. So with that I'd like to just have a motion to table this. ' Councilman Workman: So moved. Councilman Wing: Second. ' Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Until, does it come back to Council on the 23rd of September? Councilman Wing: And have we ruled out this week? ' Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Evidentally. Don Ashworth: The 23rd of September. ' Councilman Wing: Was I supposed to be on that committee? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. ' Councilman Wing: And were you going to be attempting to make that? Mayor Chmiel: If I can. Councilman Workman: I might just try to hook up with Steve here. I/ Paul Krauss: We'll notify all of you. Steve Willette: If any of you would like to come over and take a look...from my standpoint anyway. Councilman Wing: And you're...a resolution of this? Mayor Chmiel: I would certainly hope so. We'll move on to the Lake Ann Picnic/Recreation Shelter location, Park and Recreation Coordinator. Councilman Workman: I don't think we voted on that table. Mayor Chmiel: No, we just tabled it. We don't have to vote on it. I had a II motion and a second. Right Roger? On a tabled item it's not necessary to have a vote? Roger Knutson: I believe that's correct, yes. Excuse me. The Council's practice has been to vote on a table. Mayor Chmiel: Have we? It's not needed but let's do that then. 24 City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 • y 71 Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table action on the Condition Use Permit Amendment regarding the fence screening height for Lakeshore Equipment until the September 23, 1991 City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATION: LAKE ANN PICNIC/RECREATION SHELTER LOCATION. PARK AND RECREATION COORDINATOR. Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor and City Council members. In planning for the construction of the Lake Ann Park community shelter, the identification of it's exactly location is one step. As can be seen from your attachments, the three locations labeled A, 8 and C on both diagrams were studied to better understand the implications of locating the shelter at each location. In breaking them down really three main issues, attention issues stand out. Those being the need for overall accessibility to the general public. The increased cost of construction and maintenance of Options B and C due to the necessity of retaining wall construction. And then as well the proximity to the beach overall. The report presented to you is comprised of three separate summaries of the advantages and disadvantages of each location prepared by the City Manager, Mr. Mark Koegler and me. What can be derived from them is that there is a consensus based upon sound reasoning that Location A as shown should be the location of the building and as such it is staff's recommendation that the City Council approve Location A for the Lake Ann Park picnic/recreation shelter building. Councilman Wing: So moved. 1 Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: I need discussion before I make a motion, or request a motion. 1 Councilman Mason: I think site A looks wonderful. Mayor Chmiel: The only reason that I asked Todd to bring this back is when we looked at it and we had the ground breaking, it was approximately probably where Site B is located. And I wanted to make sure that everybody is in agreement with the location of it if it were to go on Site A. It's a little farther from the beach and one of my only concerns I had was your children having to go to Site A. Councilman Mason: They can handle it. It will be a struggle for the little one but. Mayor Chmiel: A little longer. But that was one of the concerns that I had. Site A from a cost aspect is much better. It's less to run the utilities as well in distance. Cost of the electrical, sewer and the water would be much less so that's something that I'd like to make sure what was proposed and that those costs, if they were included in that, that we be reimbursed back for those. Councilman Wing: Is this your recommendation? Is this the location you personally are supporting and recommending? 1t i 25 1 1 If TY O F _ 2 DATE: 11/28/90 CC DATE: 8/26/91 CHANUASCEII ' CASE #: .__8_8-17 CUP • By: Al-Jaff v I .- 1 STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit Amendment amending the Fence 1 Height from Approved 8 Feet to 15 Feet in the Rear and Side Yard I- 1 Z Q LOCATION: 7851 Park Drive - Lot 2, Block 3, Chanhassen Lakes II V Business Park APPLICANT: Steve Willette - Lakeshore Equipment 7851 Park Drive Q Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 - 1 _ PRESENT ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Park ACREAGE: 4.1 acres ' DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND 1 LAND USE: N - IOP, S - IOP, Q E - IOP, W - IOP, 1 � . (mg WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site 1 W imm PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : The site slopes to the south and southeast. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Industrial I 1 �,' S.. V �J� \ A KE ANN _ \. �.� �� ! 1 . P ' `P 0105 1i ..._C. ; 1111tV: '11.11 PA ,...." _ _ w .2k.f.R4 "_ ` r3l•y,r�• ,:. RR - .• i� - - R1 R12. =0U EVAR' BUTTERCUP Ft;�ill ' BG A a�ROAD , 013'.'4 PPRK Ii—ri' ......r, I"-r, /"." ....." I p • 2.;,,,,,ir . _ _ _. 04 ' /\%.k .."' _ To iiiiL ) X11, PR c POSED COA D/T1 vi 4'— (._-5E ��+� ,0 � � �� ►fir. co ti .40% le Viter6 0,/\\#7 0■4111,4* ‘°,11 ‘-*" .1 -I 7 4111 /1 L A �7 TWA* m 04 MP Ct W • 3 PUD-R re ■ __._ 1 .. 2 ,,..., 0 co .4 litl .*4.11 till:I dit _ . ger iii. „., , _ 0,011. # • .4„.. • \ .,, ,. --,:ximalt 1 tr. Alismwaii.....4.6,,,,, . k ,:L2--.: z ',-W-- 4F?Z e z,, 4 M t'r yj1 !:,-1: "i ..,,1-�t?r,R - 3iF* T.-. . , fie-, fit ;' a� .. �,;, w ,•, .-: � b.� ..1 t `~ r' S-%;y�e.-sy� t _ -%rta Lakeshore Equipment November 28, 1990 Page 2 BACKGROUND On October 19, 1988, the Planning Commission recommended approval ' of the conditional use permit for Lakeshore Equipment (Attachment #1) . One of the issues that was discussed at that meeting was the outdoor storage fencing. The applicant had stated at the meeting that the fence would be 8 feet high. On October 24, 1988, the City Council approved the conditional use permit (Attachment #2) . Again, the issue of the fence was discussed. The City Council recommended that the fence be 8 feet in height. The condition stated that all items stored in the outdoor storage area must be totally screened by an 8 foot wooden ' fence and no stored items shall project over the fence. On January 23, 1990, staff was conducting a conditional use permit review for the Lakeshore Equipment site and discovered that a portion of the fence had collapsed. The owner of the site was sent a letter asking him to restore the fence. The applicant complied with staff's request immediately. ' On July 7, 1990, Chanhassen experienced a wind storm which resulted in the destruction of a large portion of the fence. The applicant applied for a building permit which was received by the Planning Department on July 13, 1990. Staff contacted the applicant and made him aware that the fence may not exceed 8 feet in height. A copy of the City Council minutes and conditions of approval of the 1 conditional use permit were sent to the applicant. It was also noted on the survey submitted for the fence permit that the fence may not exceed 8 feet in height (Attachment #3) . On October 19, 1990, the City Building Inspector was to conduct a final inspection on the fence. He requested that he be accompanied by a staff member from the Planning Department because he suspected ' that the fence was higher than 8 feet. Staff concluded that the fence reaches as high as 15 feet in some areas. The applicant was informed that he was in violation of city approvals. The applicant was advised to either cut the fence down to 8 feet or apply for an amendment to his conditional use permit. The applicant chose to apply for the amendment. ' ANALYSIS The conditional use permit was approved on the condition that all ' outdoor storage must be totally screened by an 8 foot wooden fence. The fence is located on an area with an elevation of 930' . Highway 5 has an elevation of 952 ' . The topography of the land does not permit the equipment stored outdoors to be screened by an 8 foot high fence from some views from Hwy. 5 (Attachment #4) . However, it appears as though much of this problem stems from the fact that 1 1 Lakeshore Equipment , November 22, 1990 Page 3 effective screening is made difficult by the applicant's decision to stack materials in excess of the approved 8 foot height. The fence that has been installed by the applicant, in our opinion, , is unacceptable due to visual impact. It appears as though sections from two different types of fencing were stacked together in an unrestrained manner. ' The jagged building line of the fence makes it appear even more implausible. Staff cannot support the fence as currently designed since we believe it is inconsistent with the goal in maintaining reasonable architectural standards in our community. We believe that if the need for a screen fence of this height was known in the first place, the question should reasonably have been asked whether or not outdoor storage of this nature was acceptable. If it was deemed to be acceptable, at the very least, a masonry wall consistent with the exterior of the building and supplied with extensive landscaping should have been required. In requiring that the fence be rebuilt to an 8 foot height, we do not desire to expose the storage area to off-site views, however, as we indicated earlier, a good part of this problem is of the applicant's own making. Materials enclosed within the yard should not be stacked to the excessive heights they are at the present. The fact that the fence has already been erected should have no bearing on this application. The applicant was placed on notice by staff that an 8 foot high fence was all that was approved on this site and in spite of this notification, he constructed the present fence. Therefore, if, in requiring the removal of this fence, there is an investment in material and time that is lost, this is the applicant's doing and not the City's responsibility. Based upon the arguments presented above, and the fact that we believe that allowing the fence to remain as currently built would establish a poor precedent of future development in the community, we are recommending that the request to amend the conditional use permit approval be denied. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On November 28, 1990, the Planning Commission reviewed the amendment for the conditional use permit and it was approved on a 4 to 1 vote. Commissioner Ellson was opposed. The Commission's motion was to approve the fence with a maximum height of 15 feet at its highest point with the following condition: , 1. The applicant shall work with staff to get more screening up close to the fence or somehow work out additions to the landscape plan to break up the fence a little more. 1 Lakeshore Equipment I November 28, 1990 Page 4 The Commission felt that there is an existing hardship due the difference in elevation between the Lakeshore Equipment site and Hwy. 5, which would make efficient screening difficult. At the meeting, the applicant stated that he does not stack any of the equipment above 8 feet in height. On November 29, 1990, Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner and Steve Kirchman, Building Official visited the site and measured the height of the stacks of equipment. They ranged as follows: Covered boat lift 11'/10.6' Dock 9.3 '/8.6' Storage racks 12 ' I They also found pipes laying up against the fence over the top and tires stacked just over the top of the fence. On December 5, 1990, July 15 and 16, 1991, staff met with the applicant and worked out a landscaping plan to screen the fence. Proposed landscaping includes the following: I East elevation - 5 Black Hills Spruce & 8 (1 gal) Engelmann Ivy South Elevation - 3 Black Hills Spruce & 12 (1 gal) Engelmann Ivy We note that the originally approved landscaping plan was completed, but some of the material that was planted has since died. The current plan is intended to rectify all problems with I this site. • Staff met with the Building Department and they requested that plans and specifications designed and signed by a registered I structural engineer shall be submitted to the Building Department for their approval of the 15 foot high fence. I Staff continues to be concerned with the visual impact of the fence and the poor precedent it sets. The additional screening is an improvement, but due to the size of the fence, surrounding I topography and small size of the trees, it is unlikely to achieve the goal of breaking up the fence massing for many years, if ever. We are therefore continuing to recommend that the conditional use permit amendment be denied, the fence be restored to its approved height and dead or missing trees replaced. If however, the City Council wishes to approve the fence, we would recommend the following: 1. Additional trees be provided as needed. I I I Lakeshore Equipment November 28, 1990 Page 5 1 2. Plans for the fence prepared by a registered structural engineer be provided to the Building Department so they can sign-off on the Building Permit. I 3. A landscape letter of credit be provided in the amount of 110% of the cost of the landscaping. I 4. The fence be required to be kept in good repair with materials stacked no higher than 8 feet to maintain the conditional use permit in good standing. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the request to amend Conditional Use Permit #88-17 be denied and the applicant required to reconstruct the originally approved fence to an 8 foot height for the following reasons: 1. The current fence was constructed in disregard of previous actions by the Planning Commission and City Council. ' 2. The current fence was constructed in disregard of requirements placed on the fence permit application by city staff. I 3. The current fence visually detracts from the high quality design standards of the surrounding business park. 4. The presumed need to erect a 15 foot high fence to screen outdoor storage is a result of the applicant's decisions with • regard to managing his operation. ' 5. Had the City been aware of the requirement to construct a 15 foot high screen fence at the outset, this site plan would 11 have likely either been substantially different or may have even been rejected by the City. If the City Codncil wishes to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #88-17, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. The applicant provide a landscape plan approved by Planning Staff to screen the fence. Additional 8 foot high Black Spruce trees and climbing vines shall be used. The city will obtain professional advice to determine the size and number of vines and trees required to provide screening. 2. Plans and specifications designed and signed by a registered structural engineer shall be submitted to the Building Department for their approval of the 15 foot high fence. 3. The pile of wood dumped east of the site shall be removed. , i ' Lakeshore Equipment November 28, 1990 Page 6 4. The deteriorating portions of the fence shall be replaced and fence kept in good repair. ' 5. The applicant shall provide the city with financial security in the amount of 110% of the cost of the landscaping to guarantee installation and maintenance of the landscaping. ' ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission minutes dated October 19, 1988. 2. City Council minutes dated October 24, 1988. 3. Building permit application. ' 4. Topography map. 5. Staff report dated October 19, 1988. 6. Planning Commission minutes dated November 28, 1990. 7. Memo from Steve Nelson, Building Inspector dated December 5, ' 1990. 8. Landscape plan. Manager's Comment: A special assessment reduction agreement was approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority contingent on the same presentation made to the Planning Commission, i.e. you ' will not see anything, an 8 foot fence and berms will be installed to visually reduce the 8 foot fence, etc. Although I have asked the City Attorney to review this, I am positive that his opinion Iwill be that Mr. Willette must meet the HRA's conditions if the . - incentive is to continue to exist. Update (8-26-91) ' The above comment was prepared in November, 1990 and remains correct. However, the points brought out during the Planning Commission discussion warrant additional discussion, i.e: Screening from Highway 5: Screening the site from Highway 5 is not the problem. In traveling the 5,000+ feet between I Powers Boulevard and Audubon Road, there is less than a 300- foot strip from where the fencing can be seen. It cannot be seen when traveling easterly. Vehicles traveling westerly can see it for less than 5 seconds as they have attained the speed of 55 mph before the potential vision area occurs; and The Neighbor's View: It is the view from the center of the business park that is the problem. United Mailing, Victory Envelope and the Opus Business Centers all lie 20 to 30-feet below the applicant's property. Accordingly, from their properties, Mr. Willette's property is at the top of a hill. Update (8-26-91) , Continued Placing a 15-foot barricade on top of the hill gives the I property the appearance of an 18th century fort - "Fort Apache" is an acronym most often used by parties questioning why the city has allowed this to be built in the business park. Staff is currently working with Merit Heating to get them into compliance with their outside storage. The question arises as to why they should comply if their neighbor, Mr. Willette, can violate code. Mr. Carlson has come before the city on at least three different occasions asking for permission for temporary outside storage during their busy Christmas season. If Mr. Willette's request is approved, will Mr. Carlson understand the necessity for him to continue to ask to have outside storage? Is it logical that Opus can continue to attract high tech leases or is it more logical that "Harry's Used Washers" would be more at home at the base of Fort Apache? Over the course of the past years, the Council has seen numerous , applicants come before them stating their unawareness as to the need for a permit, their unawareness as to the location or existence of a wetland that they filled, etc. Many of those cases were difficult in that the applicant may not have known. However, in this case, the Planning Commission, Council and staff questioned and re-questioned the applicant as to whether he knew of the outside storage conditions, if he could meet those conditions, and his sincerity as to meeting the conditions. Mr. Willette's comments were: , Willette: "The fence is going to be an 8-foot high fence. . .The storage area is now 5 times what we've got [storage at previous site] , so we won't have to see it stacked so high so you won't ever see anything above the fence as well as I have designed in berms` going around the entire fence to try to drop the height of that 8-ft. fence as well." , Emmings: "Again, just add to No. 1 that no stored items may project over the top of the fence. Again, so it's just clear. He said that that's not going to happen and I am sure it's not, but just so that it's clear." Willette: "It didn't happen very often even over at our other I one, maybe a week or two." Given the significant precedent that would be set through amendment and the fact that the applicant stated and restated his agreement with the original conditions, this office would highly recommend that the Council not modify the original conditional use permit. Dvj QL14- °i 4 ■ , . ' ■ 11•111111111•1111111111111r4 LLCM Nili'N311441,0■43 NM 193M 91 . /QUM 1 Min er.toi . - J60 " 01 41'D ifjs! . . \ 11261fIC rj4V (1". 0_,.., "s--r1040.3 r ers c d cjd-oz • /NevVcjw0-D T • . 45' 11'MIA rsoclvd-8 dAelAciin 03 Dziais3›tv--1 3-..v.D5 • * t...,....6.,,,,,,a s.., ,,,43 1. 7 I . . . . • D 01 9 ..... ( . - I 1 I i tt -- . Iff e IF . - - - a )k- . , • 4,„,,,, . I . .. , '.. - . . . -0--"tIV—Ifi-ew • is------.— •-•41- ...,..........".." ... * * - - * -*-- - --.-ili--"'-sci--.--4-''‘At • MO aiii UM iiii iii MI iiii iiii MO MO NM OM OM ME iiii in NM 1..--.. Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 1 I PUBLIC HEARING: LAKESHORE EQUIPMENT, PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, LOCATED II ON PARK DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE SOUTH OF HWY. 5: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE ON 4.19 ACRES. Public Present: Steve Willet Applicant Jo .Ann Olsen presented the staff report. 1 Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Steve Willet: Good evening. I'm Steve Willet and I'm the president of Lakeshore Equipment Company. What we are proposing is an outside storage II area for docks and boat lifts. We currently have outside storage on our location over on Monterey Drive which is nothing like what this one is going to be. This is all going to be cedar fence. I came to you 2 years II ago when we moved into town when we got an outside storage permit. I started working on the fence and the Mayor, Tom Hamilton and a few of the council members decided well , don't cut down anymore trees and put up any more fences. Leave the trees to make a natural screen .so that's the reason for the condition that the outside storage in existence is this area in which I 'm proposing. I am going to own the land, the building and everything and we have a very strong vested interest in it. I had picked ' up the fencing report. The fence is going to be an 8 foot high fence and some of the stuff that we've got in our storage yard now, apparently we've grown up so large, we stacked them rather large in height this spring. This storage area is now 5 times what we've got so we won't have to see it , stacked so high so you won't ever see anything above the fence as well as I have designed in berms going around the entire fence to try to drop the height of that 8 foot high fence as well. On our property line, if you' ll " note along the north edge of our property there' s an existing berm already going onto the next piece so that even brings it down a little further so you' re not going to see this big high fence but we' re still going to be able to achieve our screened storage. We have in the total landscape plan, right now there' s 1 tree on our entire lot which is about the size of your thumb. I put 80 some odd trees on our lot at the cost to Lakeshore Equipment of almost $14,000.00. I am committed to try to stay in Chanhassen if * I can. I've spent a lot of advertising dollars. We're the largest in the midwest of our kind and we are doing very, very well. We bring in a lot of trade to the community and this is a necessity for our business. The fence is all going to be cedar. Fully stained to earth , tone color to seal it and let it blend with the rest of the land. I guess that's basically it. We're just dealing with the fenced area right now? "Y • i Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 2 Conrad : Yes , just the fence. Thanks, and we' ll call on you when we get to the site plan. Any other public comments? ' Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart: The outdoor, that is included in the ordinance as an acceptable use? Is there any restrictions on how close the fence can be to the ' property line? In this case it's not right at the edge. Steve Willet: . . .We have plenty of land behind it. ' Erhart: The area that you can see, you were asking for some more landscaping Jo Ann? ' Olsen: The fence does. . . Erhart: And there's trees all around the fence? ' Olsen: Yes , there is. Emmings : We' re only doing the conditional use permit, right? ' Conrad: Yes. ' Emmings: The only thing I would do again is, number one says that all items will be totally screened and I would just add to that, and I 've added this in whenever we've looked at mini-storage with walls on it. Again, just add to number 1 that no stored items may project over the top of the fence. Again , so it's just clear . He's said that' s not going to happen and I 'm sure it's not but just so that's clear. Steve Willet: It didn' t happen very of ter even over at our other one. maybe a week or two. Emmings: I'm not directing this at you. Whenever we've looked at things with fences around them, I 've tried to put that condition in. ' Steve Willet: That was in our last one. Emmings: But do you get anything where you have just like a mast, just a pipe sticking up in the back? Ellson: It looks fine to me. Batzli : To get totally technical and somewhat legal here, after the word "any" in the second condition I would insert the words "and all". That's it. 1 Wildermuth: I don' t have anything. • I • 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 3 Conrad: I have nothing. Is there a motion? Batzli : I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #88-17 as shown on the Site Plan dated September 26, 1988 with II the following conditions. The first condition reading as staff prepared it with the amendment that the period by a semicolon and that the phrase, no stored items shall project over the fence, be inserted. And the second condition, that the words "and all" after the word "any" be inserted. • Emmings: Second. I Batzli moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #88-17 as shown on the site plan dated II September 26, 1988 with the following conditions: 1. All items stored in the outdoor storage area must be totally screened; ' no stored items shall project over the fence. 2. The conditional use permit must meet any and all conditions of the site plan approval for Site Plan #88-16. All voted in favor and the motion carried. B. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN OFFICE/WAREHOUSE FACILITY, PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, LOCATED ON PARK DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE SOUTH OF HWY. 5, LAKESHORE EQUIPMENT. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. 1 Conrad: Steve, do you want to react to the conditions that the staff has I laid out? Steve Willet : As far as the additional trees in the front, if I could I II 'would like the opportunity to, move a couple from someplace else because I already spent $15,000.00 on landscaping and I think it's substantial . I came in with a plan thinking that I'm going to do it up right and the II first time we' ll get it through, we' ll get done and there:s not going to be anyplace to pur a few more trees when I already spent $15,000.00. I'd _ like to move 1 or 2 of those from along that parking lot area. If you' ll notice, on that plan that you have on the board there, it's a little different from the photocopied plan that I revised because of the berm that we had to put around the parking area and the pine trees that we put on the berm to screen the parking lot area from the road. I found out later on that it was just because of headlights but we're going to screen II them a little bit more so you don't have to look at the parking lot. I'd like the opportunity to move a maple tree or two and maybe put a couple pines trees out front. You' ll notice there are some pine trees on the corner around the parking area. Maybe if I could just respace them. I hate to spend any more money. Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 4 Conrad: Jo Ann, what do you comment back? Olsen: That' s fine because in other areas he is exceeding. So that' s fine. Steve Willet : In answer to, I don' t know if I 'm answering my own questions or maybe you can run back through them. Conrad: I just want to make sure that you've read the staff report and we hear what your comments are. So if you don't have any comments. Steve Willet : I do as far as Riley Creek. Riley Creek is right in here. This is the Riley Creek area. You' ll notice there's the 200 foot is shown right on Opus ' plot map and this is my lot right here to the right. 200 foot, that's the 200 foot easement to the north of Riley Creek. I did not buy any part of that easement. I just bought the lot. My legal description is that so if that answers any question about the 200 foot to the north. Olsen : The creek meanders through there. What this light blue is an outlot that the City has retained a drainage easement over the creek area. That doesn' t necessarily provide the 200 foot separate. I don' t believe that that's 200 feet. Erhart : Where does the 200 feet come from? Is that an ordinance? An existing ordinance? ' Olsen: It comes from the Watershed District. Steve Willet: That's from the center of the creek? Olsen : Yes. Erhart: For creeks but not for wetlands? Creeks? Conrad: I guess it's just a plain fact you've got to be 200 feet back. ' Olsen: He has to maintain a 200 foot green space along the creek. Steve Willet: There's no problem with that anyway. There's no way I can get that close to it anyway. Olsen: It looked like when we were reviewing with the Watershed District, it looked like it was pretty close but what we're saying is that because of development of the site to the south that's taking. . .that was a condition between Opus and the Watershed District. • ' Steve Willet: Here' s the blue area. This is where the blue area starts. This is my property line. There's over a 100 foot blue area. If you're talking from the center of the creek so here's the property line and then we've got to go all this distance here. We can measure that out right now. • Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 5 I • i Conrad: You' re comfortable that you' re going to meet that- and I think staff is pointing that out that we want to make sure that you do. They don't have the evidence documented right now that you do so. It sounds like you can. It's not a big problem. Batzli : We may want to change the wording because we're saying he has to 1 revise the plan. If it can be demonstrated to the staff that it already does meet that, perhaps there is better wording. Steve Willet: I 'm also asking if I can show you, without getting into a whole bunch of survey costs. The lot is already subdivided and the creek is drawn in there. All I 'm asking is that we can use the scale, existing plat map and show you that there's 200 foot from where we' re talking about. Olsen: Staff is just pointing it out that it' s something that the Watershed District is going to require. Conrad: It' s not even us. You've got to satisfy them. i Olsen: We make it clear that we want it. Batzli : And if we are imposing it as a condition, make it clear , then I I think we probably can just say that he work with staff and decide. Steve Willet: Opus did give me a letter from Riley Creek and the Watershed District just before I did my purchase agreement with them and II they did state that there was a setback from the creek and that we would have to comply with that. Conrad : Who is Steve working with on this? When 9 ' you're worried about setback from the creek. Olsen: The actual setback from the creek will have to be, we've always enforced that along the river. We've always had them show that that site plan can meet that setback because otherwise they'll have to come back and , do a new site plan. Conrad: So show us, the City? Olsen: Because that it is going to be enforced. in working with the Watershed District on this site, it looks like there's the possibility that that setback is being encroached. It' s with the outdoor storage and II that would have to be adjusted. We just would like to say, look, meet that now rather than approving the site plan, it might be changed. If that's minor to you and the site plan is changing, that's okay and that's , not necessary but they will have to meet that setback to receive the Watershed District permit which is a condition of approval. Steve Willet: I'd just like to in closing, as far as an answer to the questions that came up. I will comply with all city ordinances. With all - Watershed District laws and we are doing this as a fairly comprehensive II ' Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 6 1 ' plan. We' re a 3 year old company. We've grown very fast. For us, this is undertaking a large project for us and it means a lot of us. We're in a time frame where I want to try to get down by January 1 but we' re going ' to make sure we do it right. As far as the drainage area, I 'll deal with the Watershed as far as drainage from the parking lot. I have talked to the contractors and there's no problem whatsoever as far as putting in something that will provide us as far as the drainage. We' ll work with staff on that. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time. Wildermuth: I think all the bases are covered here. I'd like to reword item 6. Something along the lines that the plan shall reflect the exact location of Riley Creek and that the setback requirements are satisfied. Batzli : You don't want to put it in under 7? Wildermuth : Under 7 rather . Other than that, I really don't have much else. I would just say that I 'm. sure the applicant would like a solid fence for security reasons but I guess I would much rather see an evergreen fence all the way around the storage area rather than a wooden fence. Conrad : Yes, I 'm not wild about wood either. Batzli : I agree with Jim. I think 7 should be revised to indicate that ' the applicant will somehow work with staff to make sure that the green space is maintained. One question I did have on that is, in Larry's memo he talked about 130 foot setback. Didn' t it? . Olsen : Right. I think that was the closest that the building could be. There are areas on the applicant's site that would have to maintain a 130 foot setback. The reason we put in the 200 foot, because the fact that we're at a 130 foot setback is and there's only one portion on the north site that can be 100 feet. Batzli : I guess I didn't follow that. Sorry. Conrad: I didn' t get it either. You said it a couple times. Olsen: You have to have a 200 foot green space. In going to the south it was allowed to be 70 feet. Typically it is 100 feet on either side of the center line. What the Watershed District wanted was for them was to. . .to ' go up 30 feet. They have to add the 30 feet. Because we don't know exactly where that is, we said just to maintain the 200 feet. Steve Willet: I was aware of the 130. That's why I said, I. wasn' t sure what the figure was when we were talking. I did get a letter about the 130 foot from Opus . I was only aware of a 130 foot setback, the green ' area. I didn't know that had to be. . . I still don't think there's going to be a problem if it was 200.. If it comes down to 10 feet or something like that where. . . Batzli : So you were aware that you had to go 100 feet and now to 130? Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 7 1 Steve Willet : 130 is what I was aware of. They gave up 70 feet before so. . . Conrad: No . , Steve Willet: I have to maintain 130? Conrad: You're okay. , Steve Willet : We' ll work with the Watershed and do what they want us to do. Batzli : I was confused because they used the 130 and I didn' t realize they were measuring from the center line. That's where I was confused. Okay, the only other question I have was on condition 8. The storm sewer II system which directs the site runoff to Riley Creek, do we normally drain it directly into a thing like that without some sort of a catch basin or II sedimentation or skimmer or some other. . . • Olsen: I 'm sure they' ll have some sort of a catch basin and that would bell part of the storm sewer plan. The applicant does have the option to do a storm water management but the engineering department requested that they just provide a storm sewer. Steve Willet: My engineers did say that in the storm sewer we would have II some kind of a catch basin. We figured it into the cost of putting it in. Batzli : So you wouldn' t have a problem if we said that would include a catch basin? • Steve Willet : No, we' re going to work with staff on that anyways and that " would be part of working with staff on the changes there. We don't have any problem with that. It should be done properly and I 've got. . . Your engineers brought it up and when they did, I went back to the contractor II and I talked to him and he said, yes, you could have that so we figured it out and we are going to put something in there. . . Batzli : Is that by law or something or is that just common sense? ' Conrad: That would be our engineering standards wouldn't it? Olsen: Yes. Plus they have to get a permit from the DNR which would require it. Conrad: I don' t think we need anything. 1 • Batzli : Okay. Those were my two questions. Then, I do agree that we should amend condition 1 to say that he can adjust his trees. , Ellson: I like it. Number 13 has to be in there even though we granted the conditional use permit? You say, by the way, anything in the conditional use permit says you've got to do also. It seems kind of redundant that you've got it in both places. It's what we always do? • 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 8 Emmings: Yes. Ellson: Okay. I like it. No problem. Emmings: It looks like a good plan 9 g p a to me. I have no additional comments. Erhart: I agree. Conrad : I have no comments. Is there a motion Brian? Batzli : I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #88-16 shown on the plan dated September 26, 1988 subject to the following conditions. 2 through 6 and 8 through 13 as proposed by staff. Condition 1 I think should read, the applicant shall work with staff to insure that appropriate landscaping in the form of evergreens along Park Drive from the proposed building are. . . Conrad: You said exactly what the staff report just said. Batzli : Let me start over. Strike that. The applicant shall work with staff to insure that adequate landscaping is provided for the proposed site plan. So just let him come back to staff and make sure that it all meets everything we want because that' s what we' re basically asking. He' s ' going to start jockeying it around. • Wildermuth: Did you want to say something about Park Drive? Batzli : No , because once he starts moving trees, he' s going to have to make sure that that' s still okay for that area. I don't want to talk ' about any location. Just insure that it meets standards. Conrad: Do you require an additional landscaping? In this case would you require a different landscape plan Jo Ann? Olsen: He can just draw on the official. . . Do you want to read what you had for 7 because I didn' t get that? Batzli : Well , I haven' t even made up 7 yet. I did such a poor job on 1. ' Erhart I got that one. Batzli : Do you have a suggestion for 7? ' Erhart: Yes. The plans shall be consistent with the Watershed District's 200 foot green span along Riley Creek. Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #88-16 as shown on the plan dated September 26, 1988 and subject to the following conditions: . Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 9 1 1. The applicant shall work with staff to insure that adequate I landscaping is provided for the proposed site plan. 2. The retail sales proposed for the site shall not exceed 20% of the floor area of the building. 3. The trash receptacle shall be moved away from the building and must bell totally screened. 4. All rooftop equipment shall be screened. I 5. The applicant must meet the requirements of the Building Department . 6. The plans shall be revised to indicate the exact location of Riley Creek and the normal water line (NWL) for the sedimentation/retention II pond located on the northeast corner of the parcel . 7. The plans shall be consistent with the Watershed district's 200 foot II green space along Riley Creek. 8. The plans shall be revised to provide a storm sewer system which I directs the site runoff to Riley Creek or the existing sedimentation basin located on the property prior to final review. 9. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Department of Natural Resources permit. 10. - The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 11. The applicant shall submit a revised grading plan which properly , addresses erosion control. 12. The applicant shall notify the City 48 hours in advance of any construction which has a potential to impact Park Drive. 13. The site plan must meet the conditions of the conditional use permit for the outdoor storage area. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved, Ellson seconded to approve the Minutes of the. Planning Commission meeting dated October 5, 1988 as .presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. • 94 'City Council Meeting - 00L,oer 24, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: Did you have anything else Bill? I didn't know if you were finished. 1- Councilman Boyt: Well, yes. I do have mote. I would argue that the boat launch that we're getting is certainly a nice thing to have for the community ' and it's certainly an improvement over putting it through the trees which would have been the other alternative but when we're talking about 600 employees, we're talking about heavy use on city parks. We've got a development here that I think we're all happy to have in town. I think that they should look at how ' they can be contributing more to the costs that we have in operating those parks. I would like to see, is there anyone from Rosemount here? Okay, I guess what I'd like to see happen is, since you're going to have 30% of your property covered with same sort of hard surface, which is basically what you're limited to, and I would imagine you're going to be grading a good bit of that property. Is that a reasonable assumption? What I'd like to have a commitment to is that when you're doing that, you'll build sane bailfields out there. It's still not impervious surface so you get the greenspace credit and the coammunity and your employees get sane fields to play on. That would seen like a reasonable approach. ' Rosemount Representative: We approach all of our sites... Councilman Boyt: So you'd be open to putting those in when you developed? Rosemount Representative: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: Anything else Bill? • Councilman Boyt: No. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamil on y t seconded to approve Rosemount Inc., Outlot A and Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park Third Addition: (1) ' Preliminary Plat to subdivide 87.3 acres into 5 industrial office lots and two outlots; and (2) Final Plat pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. !k,r) uP (H) SITE PLAN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, FOR OFFICE/WAREHOUSE FACILITY AND OUTDOOR STORAGE, OANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, LAKESHORE I EQUIPMENT. tL Councilman Boyt: I just had one comment. They've discussed putting in a 8 foot ' wooden fence but in our conditions we didn't reference to that. We just said put in an opaque fence. There's a lot of opaque fencing I wouldn't be happy with so I would like to see us, under Council recommendations on page 3 of the ' staff notes, add that the fence under item 1 where it says, must be totally screened with an 8 foot wooden fence. I'd like to see that added. Mayor Hamilton: I've seen wooden fences that aren't nearly as attractive as a lot of other types of fences. They tend to fall apart. Councilman Boyt: Well, it's going to have to be maintained. t 4 ! tachrc eby 94`II ...ty Council Meeting - uctober 24, 1988 1 Mayor Hamilton: There's no question about that. We have inspectors now to do that. 1 Councilman Boyt: Great. They've indicated they would like to build it. I'd just like to see it in writing. 1 Mayor Hamilton: I'm merely commenting on your comment. That there are fences that are better than wood fences. Councilman Boyt: Tom, if you'd like to suggest one, I'll change this. Mayor Hamilton: I'm not an expert on fences. I guess I didn't know you were either but I do think there are fences better than wood fences. Wood is not the answer. You don't like to cut down trees but you want everything to be wood. It's amazing. It's kind of hard to do. Councilman Boyt: Would you accept wood fence or better? Mayor Hamilton: Sure. I think opaque fence answers what we're attempting to do. To screen the storage from site. Councilman Boyt: What I don't want is an interwoven chain linked fence. 1 Mayor Hamilton: I wouldn't accept that either because you can see right through them. They are not opaque in my opinion. Councilman Boyt: I guess we can shorten this up. I would move that we amend point 1 under staff recommendations for the conditional use permit to include an 8 foot wooden fence. 1 Councilman Johnson: I'll second it. I think there's another point where, a lot of times we talk in our zoning ordinance about what type of trees we want and whatever. When we're talking about opaquing, if we want to prohibit interwoven chain linked fence, we should have it right in the ordinance that those are considered adequate for screening purposes. Councilman Geving: I'd agree with you on that Jay. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit request for Office/Warehouse facility and outdoor storage, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, Lakeshore Equipment with an amendment to condition 1 of the conditional use to include an 8 foot wooden fence. All voted in favor and the motion carried. (I) AUTHORIZATION TO TAKE BIDS, FIRE DEPARTMENT AERIAL LADDER TRUCK. Councilman Boyt: I just have a question that I'd like to clear up. Is there anyone fram the Fire Department here tonight? Okay, you can probably answer this question for me. It's my impression that when you're taking the bid on this truck, that we're getting a truck that goes through the downtown, makes all the turns and you can set it up down there. Is that correct? 5 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING II CITY OF CHANHASSEN BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION GENERAL INFORMAT ON Date: 1;Agir 0 Single Family: Multiple Dwelling: No. or Units:_ II Site A.dres : 7,g57 /4-i� Owner: , / TE6/ /v l//`// Address: 6 0 '/,(� .-, 4J!/,,,,v)--�'��,QL /� • Contractor: #`..44. IQ__t- IY�fc� , /~ �`-71"-.cC A/�c�-- ' Address: '! C Ae-NV-NALjti Ph. Lot No:�_ Block No: 3 Subdivision: \ _hOn.ifl-f5Pe-{,� �q�`" I Parcel Identification No: • , 0 0 1 O ction No: N : j: Zoning District: Estimated Completion Date: **********i*+**********************************a*********************x********** **+t*********** *****err** DWELLING IIValuation o some Excluding Land: Square Footage: I1st Floor: 2nd Flo. • 3rd Floor: 4th ..r: Total: Heating System: Oil: Gas: Electric: Forced Air: Hot Water: i II Air Conditioning: Yes No No. of i Baths: No. of 3/4 :- s: No. of Fu :aths: No. of Bedrooms: INo. of Fireplaces: ype - Masonry: Metal: Ot Basement Finishes Explain: -.finished: II Garage: ' 'ached Detached Tuck-under Dimensions I variance required: Yes No If so, has variance been approved: Yes No MISCELLANEOUS IMPROVEMENTS, ETC. IValue of Improve ent: `) UO,o C� New: Alter: Repair: Addition: Explain: ' ��E iit U .7.1 , id1t 0) ��,4 �,i/i�� /t' <;t eeA-97L Ye/ I Dimensions: 5qu a Feet: ******************************************************************************************************** THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR A BUILDING PERMIT AND NOT TO BE MISUNDERSTOOD AS THE ACTUAL BUILDING PERMIT. II THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY AGREES TO DO ALL WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN AND THE RULINGS OF THE BUILDING DEPARTM_ENNT , �� IApplicant's Name(print): �l� ‘/� (rid,K/. 'ICJ**dress: 69f/ /eX,• C.../C// Applicant's Signature -.../.� j Telephone No. (w) jP1f�...3'62..iih) Y7Q—QViij *******,********************* *I' * '� + ******************************************************* II APPR VALS: FEES: . L}, • 1L �� ) —Permit Fee $ i8 -D5 1 2 �0 Plan Check Fee Building Official D e State Fee -.5-r.j SAC Sewer Surcharge Engineering Department Date Park Dedication Fee AI/jam - 7 Trail Dedication Fee City Planner -- _ I / �' Water Unit II y ing Case No. •ate Sewer Unit Interest Water Meter Assessment Clerk Date _ _ ITOTAL S •LJ () Park and Recreation Date w ��C�� I Fence not e cP S Fee, - In hi- , 41 . • • If ,.,.,:t" ,• . ,. 4 1 •_. ?, 1 O H‘: • ....1. c ' <;" war .x' � �• 'r n �.a ^ s.. _ y. �, 1 �,- -.,-,,,.-.2srsosyslit- .-:.,-:......-_-.,...,,E.t,tt-,,,,..,!-,.„.t...- ..,;.,.. -45•:--_ .- ;'s s ',.-' ' : i('• per--- - .� .,..... Y w.,i.p.- t' a. ' :.T ••.. '�'�•'.7 Ate` � �/� mss. r•• n/. �,, •4 r-" :_.V'}�.. .r: • 'ya lr.�•- !4'7;'! »w I-...1.-6. - �T::. - '• • ti^.,.i�. ,i,�-K}u*...4.'• • . . ,�• =•'_Ixr" -rnt=.. 71f _-- 6,- `QI ; . - ;{ •:r_.",r,: _ ,f:yl. s •.a !-, y• 4. •t k b':«. .i-,,14.,...17:1,. ,-e..,;,-1!..4.e- •1• -E�•=:�II.':i.•-`tif)l'yr Yip. iii rY'?• . % X. - r'n'• 7.^ •t - •i�a��1•L i :ti�94�ay.�r�.?�•' .a:;: .t°. / - .,r •"'. "d-••af'-1.;.•yi_EiiI+ i ' 1.4-,2^ iso A' • . .".' I,•'/ : ;• .C;trt*:.• • • / • - , ..,ij... .. , , • Y ^s N t (� * 434:c.c t. 1 CS p V 1 1 . ix . n •o • 'PARK. • I _ s - Aill .ar- ." --- ,&--II: _.,__•-•-!•-. .. mss: - `s-- �' c��.:,.•. ••■■••• • q,-- 'i . r ;. I r - ` - - i A _)4 u4 _ _ 7 ° __•f I/ -ars •s.�w= .—j-. ass it.'+', I • �•' ---_-`mow... ^__-`*,.3pT•tc�., "ON. ~; i- �` .--'- 'Sr• : .e .4 r".ii.-14, i'L.t.M.*.iftvisox, -t. -,-•-!-i,- -- I I Ii - -- - _ ^ ---- rfsn, , -•,-- 1.0..--;.-,. •+ir...;''.''‘...f•''''..•'''''_ '._:•!Pr.71-P.C.M3r.71'''-`"-,t,-r" `'',...:•-.,'"...:::tito,.:',.. .-;'liecl,,,';;:_.1 ,,,,VIGT.,,„.- • re-, .. .:,',.-f4.. • .. -',,,:, •,:_ ••&•,,,-,i1„;,. -,,,,.`"*.,, ... ; '''-'-k,,, ,=="z-...t9.;:r•-: ..,_3'..Ve...V.IV4 „--.. •.,--,A.,§.." .1,0"',_ '''. '..5 .--41....ik -ittl:f"::k."--g--,e'i.Z:,■5".. ..T.,1.:7:-'2"',:;-,:r*,..4e ,•'.; 1,7 °' -'44-e1. -1 .^-4* • --=e,x.---.st7".Y.--'", ..":.„,, -.--v -._T'*7 *.is*Zi•s,,.44.* . 1 ..••• ••• .)15--•., :*7.'' •'7--•'•...';',-!...Y4• Not_ ,''...,s.e....';:' 'i.-- r.„-si.iiv.7,,,, ‘ :_s,;w3,•-.,;-. -,_-_,,q__ :,,,_ .,s. ....::::, A ' . - ' '''''', .1',457.. ,-;-.. ., ..Q.reitir :t,:W -t. . lain • ....I.Z.,..4, t -r. ...., • . 1.*,.V•., • r 4!.,,,,,, .„,,,:„....,.,,;:,... .4-- '' •44,1,. - .11,1z---v..-,,,,,------. ...,,,,,,,--i.-,Ot-,:- - A--,:.;-: --- _, ...3-- ,... -T.t.., -t• #:,:::-•„•;;=- ''''*04-41$V4-,:A• --,4-e-'4.-i: ""'e- -.. -,- .1.-..: 1-`!"r-A."Yik%-.- * ---AiNAV, k;k73;''':-- -. - _..-kal.....•,:- _ -13*.-..z--..,-.4,0_ -•-•4 -=-' . _.... --e,..'4-tre,...ptl... ,'.''t,-,:,-- ,.- :t - .•.i. , al..•....' .,,,••••4,:::•f,-1-4#-.4-1.•,-,- --At ."t..2,:. -'. .•,-.`•-1, '-.- '.-T•' 1.'..... '‘.•:•1. It. - . • ..-. w....-,,,......*--7.•' N14:.7., ,,I.:,=-• • •?,-&,i. *„ ...,.;;;,.=.. =. -'•:_,A..2.,-4-,;=•,:a.*g--.3 .- -*.-.-triWIt;V,....'...4."%_:i-,„4'-.7.--,`,-.•---; - . -7;401.. ,,,-4 , ...t.it: '1,-....,:i• f- ,-, • ..-;...Cg.j.,,,,..; :., „7.‘VOPIN.... .,,,;. ...A.' :',.-•••,.13:-V,:...,'...,._%.:"'!--.;•.,•'.';... ',. - • ,...„,?:;•11t11,..-f,.. • .••". .1.1. •.■-••:* -iT"7'•:'..•1*,--7' 7 sistijita._11,- -,-t4"-47'?:•:Mv.,•, _iti'.4: -Z,'.,•,..,,.4:-e ',` ,. . , • .•.Fet7....‘•••.::7^', - .',...•7:•-;?:*•':■7t.;":i.,,':•11'4) --.. 4r -7,4 A;:.:1--" %• • --' --. •.:•-..14.• •••••4 ..-1.,,::-•,-,. -; .1'`.5-tiV',':-',„)...-.-.-..e-- - - .i....,.7;_;.-• .-... ...,... - .r..44,;-.; ,-.,•..f ,--..: -- - -....4,-ki. . ,_..:---,.....r..s,.• ..-.,..x -4.-N-...- .---:,:4 .'.. -' 19?,..*-4;_. - ... i#--..T.4.......A-,-,,- • , , .4.,, , -,,,--,. _. -, - --,1, .-- ----i -r-1,=.4. ...--.----7.-- --.:.T.• '-: - ••---!;-" ; i • . - • ••:- - .;: -•.. .T. _. .., . _, . .,L,.....3.-4,- ---•.--- . . 4,_ _.. '..1.4,.., •-•••■•; -!-..'"----4.3,----..Akt„.._'-aliA•a=ph...........;..._ __, . -,... .:' p,*.,, --..' ..• -- '. 4.4.- - .: : 'i 1.2141;24 - <. Srm, 44:4'-.. 'IS .1 /14,4-••• .1. 41-'.---- -.. *--",.....-*...-;•-...--+•.„2.-:•---''' - " --- ''''‘''' • -... ---%kt---4'..-•,,•:-.; sdit• •. • :• - . • . .. .t. . 72..... ,. , , *.far•rult==......,.... '' ), ,1017_ ,,a1h....‘„,-."..........; ._ ....‘- - -. ..4”......, -,.... '-- • : . .,,,,. i. no"- - ..,1...;______. '-'''''•-"---"Ii"-t",--....la-' -•`-' • ••••••••E•07- ••■•=sa4.4-_-_--. t. o'''' 1"--•s, -'s-•••tv.2'...._ -•-•42,,,, G '',_P 4 -• ____.„, __,„ ,_- ,1•11Pmpumgzaka. „.,t. • -. ..--. 1.&. , ,4■"*. fr,.•,.. . ''''''- - -• --•:--.- -11' -•-! ... • -..z----.;•••-•----;---?.....--...-.-:....... . . , - - i--..,1.-.. .•...''"' ...:',".1....... I-1 W S ....a ___ ..,..„, r . - a ./ 4 .: ,._,..01...j. z........,..4...,...3;4,..1,.......„.i... . .1..5:.fAmli...oiterec,:ps . ov,,,.,,,,-''' .7%.-4:Xil 141"`".1%- ---- --- ----------r4-k--.17.: - ,. ii0,.;•&4 Lige, -_-,.-.. .-- 2,,,...: .1-,- ‘ -4ftudo-,. . - ,Ift-' , ,....--.74--••9-•----..•=1----- -,:::;•-■••1:::-.../....;1•-•.-.- 1 ."--- --..L:- -rt,--" .. '.."-- _t•,..' t ,•••••.,.. ., ........--•*",- - ----7- - • I.'• ) : N, - 1 f -..1 -elge.- 1•■-..,,,....- ----X,,'-•11,1",1344:,7gt,4-'--:. ''ft.... e.r.f-/ „„„_•-::,--ratiCriffite7•4.14.,„.'-••.7:-zT...t":!..11" _fiC•45.13/ .--- ; -t:1.• '''„ --4,...'_tr.=..„.:. .. ..., ",,z. •., •:::- ..."077.'-r---I• 1„...---''' • ... ... 4''' • •..".•1•11./.2t. •e:1.17...:N.4g.r":,nt':=------3-i ---,., - -,„ . . . • . .---,..-,-- .,•• •- ti -•-•.--,. A.----- - •;-- - ,.. .. .._.: , 1 1,...,0- -,•"" :.,..-4: -Vbi-.•:T-1... ""44":%--`1.• ---••■:` -•!)i i ' - ----"-- -- ' . 4" ' '...\,IL?el. .0: -fr. ... ..h7.4. --R.'■-r.t.!'-',...-r.2. ' •.•-•-',..-... 4: ;41, '''' JP- • ' -.: / ' .-+--s.ac - • ''.17'.1 • 'T.:s_t:,.....ifettr --..• '•-••-•,71 Al. t:•1"-,_•----:-`,..'g "-.• 19.- •'.- .•••, 44:- ..-• . •.. -r ''•f. • .2.,ao"-e- ,',- - !.."'..-1-.., W../i'. \,..,,,N.Z,•\„,%•-.--i- -,. 31 f i ! • .., _ .. - "',..,....,...7.0: ".., ,.........4.1,,b;$i:.;)„,•4-'k,,,c.. . .e_ ,....:-.:-7--.„,:\‘■ ,..!.,I, ,--------- •'' •• -44,-.f■CAri-••■•.'..t. --\ -A - . ..,, . .., , , -- -A:-.,,t--.' ..,•'.tt..f.s ',...•-•.,. -. rs.,:,,---_,,- ,,,'1..r......„..4 ,‘ 111 r • - ,........2„,„ ' v s *4-r ' - -■ - N-: ' - .-:s. . - -. =.--, - -,---1'' i/ ,-",- ,. • 4.,..',..' . , ''. • r"`" 1 f / / • ' • i ,-- . - A•TP. -.• • ' • /, ,r 4 '' I • i -t-''`-tt%. 1W\ . -..'.‘_ .•• . - ...-. • 3, -i " *Cr f Ert_tit II - • .,,.-, ilt .. IT , \ .?., ,.....“ . . . .. , • If ,:. \--- . ; . ' • -. . ,. - t V - ..\. s. -...t , • , "r:i ,._ . .• -.:-.. ':.,.-•'-:.•v• ' 1 t •'/Ct:4'9. - - ''' "■,;'.5 a f ! , ,1 -* •. - . 7, V.. k4---_- \N..N.- ---\.,"-_-t..,.. ---_,......1-- ,-., . .--- ,.:_1-• • tr• . , , - • -4:-p ..,,:- ...., • . - ‘ • , ,. - , -, . • - -,..- -,.,....- ...... . - • - • . ,.<,. rozi f-71 4 • ... .....--- ' a. -•4 .. Z 4,• it: e. ./ r ..I ‘,.. e-m, \ . • .1 ,, : i.._., . 4 ..'. . ■- .“ 1 ‘.", •' "''',. .''.4. -• --* 1,,,,t •- -.. ••••-•• ..,/V/47.3°V$4 ..1,2""-;-''... '‘, . . .--..•,''..'. t. • ' .",--.-,-.......--- '.. : ‘ ...;" -' ,-- APIS '••-:,s, ..1'..,611./.. -.1.i.? .• ..• -. • -'.T. 3,-1...- •-4: -••.:..•:'-',---,,t, r ecr..14.-....: 1.-. ..‘.._ - .%-......1. -- . . " .-- .:1 - .:----- '2,:.ir.' -, '• '', . . - - :.A.2.-.-'-- -.. .,--. - ,---'......._ - __-'. ---- ---- .--''94T).1.-- - --- -_- '_-- ... .-.-41-2',ri.----';'.%kj't. .1 -. .--:4-A., f --.._-•'- kr § •••- !_.c...,__....,..:1,„-• / /- ' ,,....• ;''''`*--. .. • . '''''-'4' .I.:•' '' ---.1,....p.,:-.--. ---- >elf :.i.. ,. '''.•./ ,. _fr.,.- ,.• •.;.•-:..."4::::_:'-'....ift.,..4:.".!..1-14-._::4„ .....: 4.:...° :::"--;;;-Fi‘ -';'.'-'..,:'---_-:' --1.1::-.-'.--' r , .a..n-_--a-. '. f"_-- c. ..11S..-• •' ./o.4,--' !,..;.,.•4••••.•--',-•'"-, -. ''' ''..',...1....'..;,•....::-..-:',:-,-..--..-.....-„-..-`,.‘■...:-.-::.,.:.„"..t".::.-.;,-,.1•.1.f..,.4..,;...S•...-E....'.-W...= ,%••'_"4,,-_',---t,'.1,'...-:..,..-.,'..,-.„,.?,.4,_•,''.%i.,;.-.........;,.-.„-:7i2'k,'':-„-.._.'',.<..,..:7-::...-......:...:..:-?:-...,.-._:,‘.7.„.:..7k...-.._•!. ., I ,..4 1 •, " .) .„,s-•1.24;,,,.i.,.Y..„....-4.,....•.V......,..":...,.„...2..-..•..4 „7'f-.-,,Ift-..„.5,•e•r.,‘S-,.,.-„-..,,,:_,-.?,.,.,...1.,,„.:,1-,_, ,.......-f.41-,:mi... 1 /„-÷,:-.: ..... • J./- "-.A4‘17.'or-4-'72V. --;--_e_li'-'4,-„.,..^'-- - -..----.4.70e. •• . _ f.,-- • . • ..-- , 4. -. - : '' •N-.-'•,----0.•%--f.riz.- . ...4---„;j.---..--7-',---7 ,-..,---',••,..17:41, ...,e t ."' r'‘ 'X 4-':--tr---- ...• ,.., --- „;:f..3/-.--..7,-4••---•,...'" • -........ 2 - 11, , ..., ..., ,,,,N....;:. - ..,,,... .,, _ 'di, _. „ , . "'A, ' ....,-*.-.1.1.-4.--- _ ',..f.,,,16 ,•&-Ak,'..-yrkw-o__. -gl-,,,,-7, . - ..,14.-,'"' • VI "" -....- :AU-% ".t.-1,-.4..-0/V• . /• -__ ••'..,p-;;I:es-:.;_l="i'VE7___- -. - -:--•"--71---• . ..'. '.."-,' 4.'i• 1'1.4 k - ,!-..* ••' .., ,• , C"-- -..., ' ' .• • -0 , . . ...?-- : • 0 ; ,i... . , .:-... r../. ," /. ;.',:2.; •'■-tw ..',•yi• .-,..' . 1 ' • c\ / ..' .., •VI _,,e4;•.: . ,-,‘,,,t., ,,!... . '• '%,;/ - 4•, N *- L ,,,.))( -. .-- n..., • • ...e,/,'"vr,?,?......"•••••.•,;.'",-,f±e:.-7-- • •• •• • -/ .;.i • i„.. ' .. '; ...i.. • .. . . / P,IC:•....-.1C.47,' / ?r.,,,_1 --1- -._...:t;', .4, .. •.. • V t‘ ......:•:?P' , .... .:...:-+..:t.' ' i I •'I '. •iir•..,..!..,„:7.-"' •••• • •'• •. '---• '- '.-- '.....y/ 011. . 410 ....' 'lir III A ...kir '•••••• • 4 ' • • i • • IA • .IY7s. '4.-."-- u•-• - • - / XI,g ,- .., ••.. ....1- - l• . -. • '. ' • - , 41F• tin.4"1-,"1..e•-••0:: rr-"---i•-44-•1_V" 1--- •.. • 1' .. •,,1" .. ■ ,4, ---••■••-le --.‘,...... • • )-. :' SW- -:.,..,..--,- ,.,. ,...,,,. ,,,,,•( ..• : , . ,.„,•,,,-•:, ;..: . _ -,....,,-,;;;, -- . / • - - . .4 ; . .,. . -. _-..-...,c,:-.-,---,-,'--- , , •f• .i -, , . • ____/ f• =.-- 4-7.: : -'yr- - f . ,-. I'lf;.t.• -.7_'-'- '. ••• ,i/e/•''...; V. . %*.• i i • w :-.. ' .Y6' • 4.•:•.,4 '.■,' ...".t.f' 'i • ' it, '4.-•--:' '. rf ' ..-- • - - .•:•-;";:4;_ -'-^'.1., ri;d: ..% 1.:',,ti -',';4 11. ., './ `•( . ...,;''..-:1'.....;, ,.-'..";-;;;;"' #.--1--; ...,. A .i V r:::,,I.;. .A ..:A).,,.4:(;):4:.%., .' ,..'i..11.: : s'. :'?re.::., 7,. .'?. .11‘,' ,?.11,.■)C:/, ,.4;irit14)!A):1:''...):1,:.....:./.001.C.O.f. ''.4._1:,,;-:,-,■-i-:01:, :14i'.4::• ' • 1.. , -.„...,..t... ....„..„,..:I..,"ite,,,..€.,t.,:...r., „....,.......,4",.",,..- .m.s.....:.......'fieci.if,.c-,,,,,, ,,,.....,t,.,5•,-.21,-::- ,,,,,fts.:....,y ,,• - __...........-;---- ,.. ....,..:-.-...-.,,,..:-,.. .., •,.,.., ,,,.4) .f.,.ft NLv...S.t .,) .,_.z ,,-1.:■....,:.%,.....:.:---',94,_?`...,....:. .• ' rfk i• ..41,..- -, , :_. , ke, ...-„.,,,-_,.-..„-.-..--.....-14-- , •,.43 1144..*-1 •Vif ' .CFY4r/'1) _,...eer--• '...,_,..i.,-%:-..;,./.." -- -• f-114.-- -- -- 1 - • „..,.,- • -, ..,-,. . -. - „,..-.,4.--f..-:-.-:-?_.--.7,-....,:-. ,./... ...:,--tix:).;.•..vi, • ,. '1',;,.. 1. • .S.'-...-", _- __,,,40".ft,...e.:, ,;,,,-,,,,,-,.- _ -;!.:,,,,f-I„-. ; ,:. -,..,ft• 8. ,..- 4. .. . ..,....,--,ff,-_,.. .. , :••,',7f•P".1..iy,1-° 7 .11 '.< gte, .,•, '' -^-- „.....,-,z••••"%-;.‹i'!:-...1 rt••":. r - 4,-.4',..r.„.,-- • 44• I .-- f-‘: i!...r4'. ev'• -'- •- - - :,-..f- ---- ‘A...,..it .s•.,--, • . 12.1 y t ." -.--- ,-'7i, ...-•-• ;;;;• --I.- . - - : a -,. .- • r ,:, •-_. 4 •-- ,-,'• -4° -' :- - --I'-----'e --■• -:'...*:,: • - •. ,..-i"'1.-r." -P f•i• ;$i'...'.-, :Es...I,*r. - .7..it.,..-10.7,;:r_-1,4' . -. :... --',pi,- :-. 1., _ -....„.*- * ; .Ts...a.: A ..,- . _ ..-; -, et:43...y ,--....- ,kf-.....'t•T,•.,;•.,4", ,•,:. 0: 7 fli.-: ,„ • „•.....,,,,t;•■_,J, -•-•,:fw,&A..........,4„f• ' ..... • t - • : •..: • ,. t . -.•,,, 0 ,- ' ,••=7•-.. .i**•"4/ C1/4 r".;' •r 7 e 4tV., 4.4-4' '.V./.11 'r f:'-••''''''''''' I."- ' l-;;'''';.;k: " ---. ', -C? 1:4t,• . •' . .1.5,..f- ." ; " - .."..• ,-- - /,'.1.:7. -3,.' • -...LN , . f A, . • 1'1. .-• --,-•'N' . : :,...1---:11-- ,• •-• .•-4- '1' I ia. • •.,.* •-,., -„I:- --.>.4,07.i.*-3 )•f•Y. i:r 1 e*Yr1:0.Oi4:11'. o,;,•-" :-. --- , ,.,1"It- ' v.. : .4 4;- ..1," •.'i'... ... :1 . ck• V _!it __ •_. % t ., 1 1 it 1-74,5;1:14:.,--4.3.. .'_,''-7';i..' ,.;4‘‘:V 1 4 ..1 f' •1,:454;1::I A'''e A. $,,-,4"*' '''' --''' .-:'i•'2.0-.,7:4-;1.;i. :..4 1.*: ' -4.-:. ft'.. St •''' '';'.4"...• .21.-c. . :, ..., . , ,., . - -,1.- ...-_-..i....4-- ;.7-?--.:••••'-'-.V• i'-ii '' ..4•'•,• , • A -;? ,r.;11.` - _-• re -;:,./..""I'_. •..---=,41-- •-• .. .... or. ,:i-•„:',(4•';:. , ",„:. t. ) -1. s " .0.-4-, l■-•V!..s.e.1"--•-• •••Ailtt:kz I tig ,gj%.3 g.4,- ' •V!'<-: -.T'-- .` (A.- -V.% -ii T -- . 1._. . . • '-:,4.-•?-'..-2 ... . .. .....,.. i,14■ t 1 • 1441- • -..........,,, ,,,,,. ..,.-_,,,! •,,,,i, .. , „,..;,; ,,,..,,, ; , ,,,,-,, ,..,__-....0.--. ._,- ...„...,„±..4....i.,.....,at,,,,_ ,,,....._. - . ., . .... •-„, • .. ..,..,:,..te,,•.;., , ., . r. ....• .. , \ %. eit., It4i.712L,,-";-.. .. ,../.0 %I ../.jiyi %V.,' '- ,.; - 1-',_,*:....-.4.."..---f.."---. .,*- •••-t,- ' ,---. ,-.: -4.- • . 6 Ag:•-.4.16., ••• . AV:<-,- .,:. -, ; '.'• 0 4-..4. je.e-..-- 4...-c.,....„1„9... 4.,), ........;„,, 4....-• : it ,. t ..tt I "' •••..1.41 tz,,,;,..,„,.t._-....1:•.,.,,1 P. _71.7,_..„..-,•:r.iu,„„,'1;•.:S::Tc'il..zz.-:.ia":-..Ik'f.:-,2:.,..:47_:ee'":',...\.v.r....-oe«.4.;- a:7k CO, .41 r;"AT ..m.. ....•1:41.127...„7...41 "Sl......11,c...3..i...4- -A.-.:,,1-- -.4-z -i.,‘--pc-.1,-,:,:x----1-...,-- ,..-_-_-:. -1-5, - •I4/ \ .....,,.„. _,..,.,_:„..,..,7,-.n.1.14.1.4„..0,.. a, 0:-...?„-...V7_,,),...,-,,s,_, : . _c_tk.ors..m,..: ._.. ...SA-......„4,-!-..:1:::;;;f„..r...4...;.!-.."4,:::,t-'3.-,%".1-:,..."-14-31,-•;:ajza.-.7.......t.s.„„..•.:711..,:,_2...z.-.....,‘,. ....,.A-ti•-•••• .:::....\- et. •.;;;;;-;.. '• :j. ..r.. '1..E.,....4 W6'• ,...-..--;,..- - -,:ti 4..- kr. ".•...,.' •,' . '' ----" .'‘r" •' . . ....%.---- i •"‘ •••1 "..^ • I glum' ITY O F .C. DATE: Oct. 19, 8 C.C. DATE: Oct c 24, 1988 CASE N0. 88 88 -17 CUP Plan Prepared by: Olsen/v 1 STAFF REPORT 1 PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for an Office Warehouse Building ant. Conditional Use Permit for Screened Outdoor Storage 1 • V LOCATION: Lot 2, Block 3 , Chanhassen Lakes Business Park• Q. APPLICANT: Mr. Steve Willet 1 Q Lakeshore Equipment ' - - 7904 Monterey Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' PRESENT ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Park —_ - ACREAGE: 4.19 acres 1 DENSITY: 1 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- IOP; future office warehouse facility S- IOP; office warehouse facility QE- IOP; Victory Envelope Ig ' W- IOP; IIC I [12 WATER AND SEWER: Water and sewer is available PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site contains steep slopes to the 1 south/southeast. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Industrial 1 f. .��, - 11 a-a = ____ L�9 LAKE LUCY • B!PI - -' -=� RT.�� -• ,. iz4f� ! ibt• 1i�� /� == 4r,..7"-=.� -= 11111 4 , Alliiiiiillr ' 6- ' '' �` dt........./Z• 009 �` •• " �: C:, LAKE ANN Li RSF xr. �.. P. RD m }t: t :R 1 R4 R1 ' RR .. , 4` -4 1 ^:� R12- 4 \ F-1 1 1 • i. II ill OULEVAR• SglilkL 1 o :g 6,:.u ,i. MG mu v--• ' { .CRT . �; 1 LocAnc4.1 5(6:.7146441 i9- 'E' • test-QC, P. � �i:. ....,......................... S �im° , I 0 P (3 ) dam, i ., , _. - k . .... . s.% _ ............„,_ 0'/ ___ .x\\''11/ 12 ° LA4 �� J - -RS 4 /� I R8 y • RSF W ..: . .. Lakeshore Equipment ' October 19, 1988 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-812 permits warehouse and office as a permitted use in ' the IOP District. Screened outdoor storage is a conditional use in the IOP District. ' Retail sales of merchandise stored or manufactured on site is a permitted accessory use if it does not exceed 20% of floor area. ' Section 20-815 allows a maximum lot coverage of 70%, a front yard setback of 30 feet, a rear yard setback of 10 feet and a side yard setback of 10 feet. This section also allows a maximum ' height of 50 feet for the prinicipal structure. Section 20-1191 requires a 10 foot strip of land between abutting right-of-way and vehicular use areas including one tree per 40 ' feet and a hedge wall or berm of at least 2 feet. Section 20-1192 requires interior property lines to be landscaped ' with one tree per 40 feet. Section 20-1211 requires interior landscaping for vehicular use ' areas. Section .20-1125 requires for warehouse one parking space for each 1 ,000 square feet of gross floor area up to 10,000 and one addi- I -tional space for each additional 2,000 square feet, plus one space for each company vehicle for office it requires 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet. ' (Attachment #1) ' REFERRAL AGENCIES Asst. City Engineer Attachment #2 ' Building Department Attachment #3 Fire Inspector Attachment #4 ' Watershed District Attachment #5 ANALYSIS The applicant' s business is currently located on Monterey Drive near downtown Chanhassen. The applicant' s current facility con- tains an office warehouse facility and a screened outdoor storage area. The applicant is expanding his business and is proposing to relocate to the industrial office park. • 1 Lakeshore Equipmen , October 19, 1988 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for screened outdoor storage. The applicant is proposing the outdoor storage to be located behind the proposed building and parking area. The out- door storage is approximately 24,000 square feet in size and will have a gravel surface. The outdoor storage area will be accessed from the parking area and will be surrounded by an 8 foot high wood fence. The types of equipment to be stored in the storage area will be docks and boat lifts and there will be no equipment stored above the 8 foot high fence. There are no specific conditions for outdoor screened storage and the proposal meets the 12 general conditions of the conditional use permit. Since all of the storage in the area will be totally screened by the fence and it is located to the rear of parking and proposed building, there should be no impacts to the surrounding sites. ' RECOMMENDATION - Conditional Use Permit Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the ' following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use I Permit #88-17 as shown on the site plan dated September 26, 1988 with the following conditions: 1 . All items stored in the outdoor storage area must be totally screened. 2. The conditional use permit must meet any conditions of the r site plan approval for Site Plan #88-16_. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION , The Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit with the following changes to staff' s conditions: ' 1 . All items stored in the outdoor storage area must be totally screened and no stored items shall project over the fence. 2 . The conditional use permit must meet any and all conditions of the site plan approval for Site Plan #88-16. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit Request #88-17 as shown on the site plan dated September 26, 1988, with the following conditions: 1 . All items stored in the outdoor storage area must be totally ' screened and no stored items shall project over the fence. 2 . The conditional use permit must meet any and all conditions of the site plan approval for Site Plan #88-16. 1 Lakeshore Equipment October 19, 1988 Page 4 SITE PLAN REVIEW The applicant is proposing an office warehouse facility with a small portion of the facility being used for retail sales. The 1 proposed building is 7,332 square feet and is located in the northwest corner of the site adjacent to the outdoor storage and parking area. The proposed site plan is meeting all of the required setbacks for the IOP District and is also maintaining an ' impervious surface of less than 70%. The applicant is providing adequate parking. The proposed ' landscaping plan is shown on the first page of the site plan. There is a copy of the site plan underneath the letter attached to the site plan which designates what types of landscaping is ' being provided. The applicant is providing evergreens around the outdoor storage area and is providing maples around the parking and building area. Staff is recommending that additional landscaping be provided just south of the proposed sign and adja- cent to Park Drive, which should include evergreens to provide winter opacity and to meet the requirements of one tree per 40 feet. The applicant is providing the required berming which will additionally screen the parking area from Park Drive. The City Fire Inspector has recommended that the trash receptacle be located away from the building. ' The IOP District allows retail sales of products stored or manu- factured on the site provided that no more than 20% of the floor space is used for retail sales. The applicant is proposing to ' have a showroom area which would involve retail sales of the pro- ducts stored and manufactured on site. The approximate area is shown on page 3 and is approximately 20% of the building floor area. The major use of the facility remains as manufacturing and storage of docks and boat lifts. Grading, Drainage and Utilities ' In Attachment #2, the Assistant Engineer reviews grading, drainage and utilities for the site plan. The site is located ' adjacent to Riley Creek which is protected by the Watershed District and the DNR. Development adjacent to the creek must maintain 100 feet of open space from the centerline of the creek for a total area of 200 feet of open space around the creek. In 1985 the city approved a site plan for the office/warehouse faci- lity south of the subject site (Attachment #6) . The parking area was located only 70 feet from the centerline of the creek. The ' site received Watershed District approval on the condition that the 200 foot green space be maintained with the development of the site to the north (subject site) (see letter from Bob ' Obermeyer) . Both lots were owned by Opus and Opus agreed to this requirement. Therefore, the development of the subject site must maintain a 200 foot green space setback along Riley creek. It is ' not clear where the creek is located in relation to the proposed site and developed site to the south to determine whether or not 1 1• Lakeshore Equipment October 19, 1988 Page 5 the required separation is being maintained. Staff is recom- mending that an amended site plan be submitted showing the loca- tion of the creek centerline and site to the south to determine if the required 200 green space is being maintained. It appears that the outdoor storage area may be infringing on the setback from Riley Creek. The applicant is proposing to drain a portion of the site directly from the outdoor storage area overland into the creek and ponding area located southeast of the property. The Watershed District has stated that a stormwater management plan is required to show how the runoff is directed from the site. Should the applicant provide storm sewer directly to the creek a DNR permit would be required. The Assistant City Engineer's memo provides further detail on the drainage issue. RECOMMENDATION - Site Plan Review Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approvals of Site Plan Review #88-16 as shown on the plan dated September 26, 1988 and subject to the following conditions: 1 . The applicant provide additional landscaping in the form of ' evergreens along Park Drive in front of the proposed building. 2. The retail sales proposed for the site shall not exceed 20% of the floor area of the building. 3 . The trash receptacle shall be moved away from the building ' and must be totally screened. 4. All rooftop equipment shall be screened. I 5 . The applicant must meet the requirements of the Building Department. ' 6 . The plans shall be revised to indicate the exact location of Riley Creek and the normal water line (NWL) for the sedimentation/retention pond located on the northeast corner of the parcel. 7. The plans shall be revised such that a 200-foot green space I along Riley Creek is maintained. 8. The plans shall be revised to provide a storm sewer system which directs the site runoff to Riley Creek or the existing sedimentation basin located on the property prior to final review. , I • Lakeshore Equipment October 19, 1988 ' Page 6 9 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Department of Natural Resources permit. 10. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 11. The applicant shall submit a revised grading plan which pro- perly addresses erosion control. 12. The applicant shall notify the City 48 hours in advance of any construction which has a potential to impact Park Drive. 13. The site plan must meet the conditions of the conditional use permit for the outdoor storage area. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ' The Planning Commission recommended approval of the site plan request with staff' s recommended conditions and the following changes: ' 1 . The applicant shall work with staff to ensure that adequate landscaping is provided on the site. ' 7 . The plans shall be consistent with the Watershed District requirements providing a 200 foot green space along Riley Creek. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council approve Site Plan Review #88-16 ' as shown on the plan dated September 26, 1988 and subject to the following conditions: Ii . The applicant shall work with staff to ensure that adequate landscaping is provided on the site. ' 2 . The retail sales proposed for the site shall not exceed 20% • of the floor area of the building. 3 . The trash receptacle shall be moved away from the building ' and must be totally screened. 4 . All rooftop equipment shall be screened. 5 . The applicant must meet the requirements of the Building Department. 6 . The plans shall be revised to indicate the exact location of Riley Creek and the normal water line (NWL) for the sedimentation/retention pond located on the northeast corner ' of the parcel. 1 Lakeshore Equipment October 19, 1988 1 Page 7 7. The plans shall be consistent with the Watershed District I requirements providing a 200 foot green space along Riley Creek. 8. The plans shall be revised to provide a storm sewer system which directs the site runoff to Riley Creek or the existing sedimentation basin located on the property prior to final review. 9. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Department of Natural Resources permit. 10. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 1 11. The applicant shall submit a revised grading plan which pro- perly addresses erosion control. 12. The applicant shall notify the City 48 hours in advance of any construction which has a potential to impact Park Drive. 13. The site plan must meet the conditions of the conditional use . permit for the outdoor storage area. ATTACHMENTS - 1 . Excerpts from City Code. 2 . Memo from Assistant City Engineer dated October 12, 1988. 3 . Memo from Building Department dated October 5, 1988. 4 . Memo from Fire Inspector dated October 5, 1988. 5 . Letter from Watershed District dated October 12, 1988 and December 4 , 1985. 6 . Planning Commission minutes dated October 19, 1988. 7 . Site plan for Chan Lakes Business Center II. 1 1 1 1 1 1 ZONING §20-814 ARTICLE XXII."IOP"INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT Sec. 20-811. Intent. ' The intent of the "IOP" District is to provide an area identified for large scale light industrial and commercial planned development. (Ord.No. 80,Art.V, § 16(5-16-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-812. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an"IOP"District: (1) Offices. - ' (2) Warehouses. (3) Light manufacturing. , (4) Trade shops. (5) Health services. I (6) Printers. (7) Indoor health and recreation clubs. I - (8) Body shops. (9) Utility services. (10) Recording studios. (11) Off-premises parking lots. (12) Conference/convention centers. (Ord. No. 80,Art.V, § 16(5-16-2), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-813. Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in an"IOP"District: (1) Parking lots and ramps. (2) Signs. I (3) Retail sales of products stored or manufactured on the site provided no more than twenty(20)percent of the floor space is used for retail sales. (Ord.No.80,Art.V, § 16(5-16-3), 12-15-86) ISec. 20-814. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in an"10P"District: ' (1) Concrete mixing plants. - ' (2) Communication transmission towers. 1227 • - - -- 1 §20-814 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (3) Public buildings. ' (4) Motor freight terminals. (5) Outdoor health and recreation clubs. (6) Screened outdoor storage. (7) Research laboratories. (8) Contracting yards. (9) Lumber yards. (10) Home improvement trades. (11) Hotels and motels. (12) Food processing. (Ord. No. 80,Art.V, § 16(5-16-4), 12-15-86) State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-815. Lot requirements and setbacks. ' The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "IOP" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is one(1)acre. (2) The minimum lot frontage is one hundred fifty(150)feet,except that lots fronting on I a cul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage of sixty(60)feet. (3) The minimum lot depth is two hundred(200)feet. (4) The maximum lot coverage is seventy(70)percent. , (5) Off-street parking areas shall comply with all yard requirements of this section, • except that no rear yard parking setback shall be required for lots directly abutting railroad trackage; and, no side yard shall be required when adjoining commercial uses establish joint off-street parking facilities,as provided in section 20-1122,except that no parking areas shall be permitted in any required side street side yard. The , minimum rear yard shall be fifty (50)feet for lots directly abutting any residential district. Side street side yards shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet in all districts. Other setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards,thirty(30)feet. b. For rear yards,ten(10)feet. c. For side yards,ten(10)feet. (6) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure,four(4)stories/fifty(50)feet. b. For accessory structures,one(1)story. (Ord.No. 80,Art. V, § 16(5-16-5), 12-15-86) 1228 - ::_, 1 • CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer ) ?/ 1 DATE: October 12, 1988 1 SUBJ: Preliminary Site Plan Review for Lot 2, Block 3 Chanhassen Lakes Business Park Planning File No. 88-16, Lakeshore Equipment This site is located on the east side of Park Drive approximately 1 500 feet south of State Highway 5. This site is comprised of an open field which drains to the east to the existing sedimentation pond located on the northeast corner of the subject parcel. This 1 sedimentation basin was constructed as part of the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park project . Sanitary Sewer 1 Municipal sanitary sewer is available to the site be the existing 10-inch diameter sanitary sewer main which has been extended ' along Park Drive. A sanitary sewer service has been provided for this parcel at the property boundary. Watermain Municipal water service is also available to the site by the' existing 10-inch ductile iron pipe (DIP) which has been extended 1 along Park Drive. A water service has also been extended to the property boundary to service this parcel. Access • 1 The plans propose a 30-foot wide driveway which is to access Park Drive. The City's standard concrete driveway apron shall be installed at this driveway (refer to Attachment No. 1) . The bituminous wear course has been place on Park Drive. The 1 installation of the concrete cross gutter shall be done without disturbing the driving surface of Park Drive. The applicant shall notify the City 48 hours in advance prior to the installa- tion of the cross gutters. 1 i Planning Commission October 12 , 1988 Page 2 Grading and Drainage At present, the entire site drains to the southeast and into ' Riley Creek and ultimately to the sedimentation/retention pond located on the northeast corner of the site. The plans indicate that the proposed grading for the site will ' encroach beyond the 130-foot setback required by the Department of Natural Resources and the Watershed District for Riley Creek. The plans should be revised to reflect the exact location of Riley Creek and the existing sedimentation ponds. The drainage pattern for the site proposes to outlet the drainage through the granular surface located immediately to the east of the building, down the proposed slope and ultimately to Riley Creek. In discussing this application with the Watershed District , the District Engineer, Robert Obermeyer, has indicated that a storm sewer system in all probability would be necessary to direct drainage to Riley Creek or the sedimentation basin. The discharge of the storm water runoff to Riley Creek will require a Department of Natural Resources permit. These calcula- tions should be provided prior to final site plan approval. The plans would suggest that there will be a ponding problem ' within the most southeasterly corner of the parking lot. With the proposed curbing the bituminous parking lot has no outlet . The plans should be revised to accommodate this drainage in a manner that will not create an erosion problem. Erosion Control The plans do not address erosion control. Revised plans which show the location and type of erosion control shall be submitted prior to final site plan review. The plans should reflect to show the City' s standard for Type II erosion control (staked hay bales and snow fence) . Recommended Conditions 1. The plans shall be revised to indicate the exact location of Riley Creek and the normal water line (NWL) for the sedimentation/retention pond located on the northeast corner of the parcel. 2. The plans shall be revised such that the 130-foot setback from Riley Creek is maintained. I 3. The plans shall be revised to provide a storm sewer system which directs the site runoff to Riley Creek or the existing sedimentation basin located on the property prior to final review. I II ' Planning Commission October 12 , 1988 Page 3 • 4. The applicant shall obtain and comply 1 with all conditions of . the Department of Natural Resources permit. ' 5. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 6. The applicant shall submit a revised grading plan which pro- perly addresses erosion control. ' 7. The applicant shall notify the City 48 hours in advance of any construction which has a potential to impact Park Drive. 1 • CITY OF - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: JoAnn Olsen, Assistant City Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Inspector lC , DATE: October 5, 1988 SUBJ: Planning Case 88-17 CUP & 88-16 Site Plan (Lakeshore Equipment) 1 The building must be sprinklered. 1 The building must comply with all the requirements of the hand- icap code. 1 i 1 1 • 1 I 1 I CITY OF CHANHASSEN - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ' (612) 937-1900 ' MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner ' FROM: Mark Littf in, Fire Inspector ' DATE:. October 5 , 1988 SUBJ: Site Plan Review, Lakeshore Equipment, Planning Case 88-16 Site Plan I have reviewed the site plan for the proposed office/warehouse ' building for Lake Shore Equipment and feel that consideration should be given to the dumpster area. Possibly it should be moved away from the building in the event of a fire started in the dumpster and then spread to the building. • 1 -' tr 1 .0 i 13 ' BE 14: 41 BHP'!= Et4GINEERING rHGE . Uc I ' . '1 1 I 1 • `•"'°° Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed Distri Viµ), G a, Engineering Advisor:Barr Engineering Co. °...»...,. 7803 Glenroy Road I Ijkl, 1 j'$.1-• Minneapolis,MN 53435 Q, 830.0555 ' ; Legal Advisor:Popham.Haul,Sanobrich&Kaufman K°°"""' 3300 Piper Jaffrey Tower I Minneapolis,MN 55402 333-4800 ._ i October 12, 1988 1 - Mrs. JoAnne Olson I City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive I • P.O. Box 147 • Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Lakeshore Equipment: Chanhassen I Dear Mrs. Olson: The engineering advisors to the Board of Managers of the ' Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District has reviewed the preliminary . plans as submitted to the District for the Lakeshore Equipment Development I • in the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park in Chanhassen. The District, in December 1985, reviewed and approved a grading and land alteration permit • for the Chanhassen Lakes Business Center II. This project is located directly south of the Lakeshore Equipment site, Both parcels of property I i were under joint ownership and for development to proceed on the Chanhassen Lakes Business Center site, restrictions regarding floodplain encroachment and setback from Riley Creek were placed on this property; Lot 2, Block 3, I • • Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. A copy of the District's correspondence summarizing these requirements is attached for your reference. Development . on Lot 2, Block 3, Lakeshore Equipment site, must conform with the I - requirements as outlined in this correspondence. Therefore, the following policies and criteria of the Watershed District are applicable to this project. I • - 1. In accordance with Section E (2) of the District's revised Rules • : and Regulations, a grading and land alteration permit must be I obtained from the District for this project. Accompanying the permit application, a detailed grading plan showing both existing and proposed contours must be submitted to the District for I review. - — - �.�•_ Mrs. JoAnne Olson October 12, 1988 Page 2 2. A detailed erosion control plan outlining how sediment is to be controlled both during and after construction must be submitted to the District for review and approval. ' 3. The requirements and restriction as summarized in the District's December 4, 1985 correspondence regarding development on this site are applicable and must be complied with. 1 4. A detailed s tormwater management plan showing how surface water runoff from the site is to be handled must be submitted to the IDistrict for review and approval. It is unclear at this time as to whether or not surface runoff from the site is to be conveyed in a "sheet-flow" condition or if storm sewer is to be installed, 11 The grading plan indicates that runoff is to be directed towards the southeast corner of the site. The District is concerned with the potential of an erosion problem occurring at this location and 11 . impacts on Riley Creek located immediately south. The information submitted as part of the on-site stormwater management plan must address this issue. ' Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project at an early date. If you have any questions regarding the District's comments, please call us at 830-0555. Sincerely, Robert C. Obermeyer BARR ENGINEERING CO. ' Engineers for the District RCO/lsf • ' c: Mr. •Frederick Richards Mr. Frederick Rehr JOLTR/330,0 r � 1 .\ .11 CITY '0F 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 1 December 9 , 1985 1 - Mr. Bob Worthington 1 Opus Corporation P.O. Box 150 Minneapolis, MN 55440 i Dear Mr. Worthington : This is to confirm that on December 2, 1985, the City Council 1 approved your site plan for the Chanhassen Lakes Business Center Two, dated October 31 , 1985 , with the following conditions: 1. That additional landscaping be planted between the Austrian Pine and Summit Ash on the center island adjacent to Park Road. i 2. The applicant must receive the required permits/variances from the Watershed District and DNR. 3 . Concrete aprons including gutters be constructed at each access to maintain the flow of runoff in the streets. • 4. The most easterly section of the storm sewers must be RCP (in • place of plastic) with a flared end section and rip-rap. 5. Restabilization of all disturbed areas outside the construc- 1 tion limits as soon as possible following initial grading. 6. All bituminous areas be lined with concrete curb. i 7. Silt fence shall be installed along the north and south property lines to protect creek and pond from erosion during construction. • Should you have any questions , please call me. Sincerely, Jo Ann Olsen Assistant City Planner t/ 7 1 JO:v '� I . < Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District t kr, A �.•...... c Z� Engineering Advisor. Barr Engineering Co. 6800 France Ave."•'" Edina,MN 55435 J sS�� d 920-0655 Legal Advisor. Popham,Haik,Schnobrich,Kaufman&Dot I °� Doty �, 4344 IDS Center Minneapolis,MN 55402 333-4800 II December 4, 1985 I I Mr. Robert Worthington Opus Corporation 9900 Bren Road East P.Q. Box 150 IIMinneapolis, Minnesota 55440 Re: Chanhassen Lakes Business Center II: Chanhassen IDear Mr. Worthington: I The Board of Managers of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed Dis- trict has reviewed the plans and grading and land alteration permit applica- tion as submitted to the District for site grading and utility installation for the Chanhassen Lakes Business Center II project in the Chanhassen Lakes IIBusiness Center in Chanhassen. The District notes that parking for this project is to be located within II 100 feet of the centerline of Riley Creek. Construction for the future building on Lot 2, Block 3, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park (the property to the north of this site) , however, is to be located so that a 200 foot green- belt is being provided paralleling the creek. The provision of this greenbelt II (200 foot) is consistent with the Watershed District criteria. The District also notes that an encroachment into the 100-year frequency Ifloodplain of Riley Creek is proposed. Our calculations indicated that this• encroachment is in accordance with the District's floodplain encroachment criteria, however, no further fill or encroachment on this site and on Lot 2, I Block 3, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park for that shown on the plans dated October 22, 1985, revised November 22, 1985, will be permitted for future development. • I With this noted, the Managers approve the grading and land alteration t subject to the following conditions: Ii. All erosion control measures shown on the plans must be installed prior to commencement of grading operations and be maintained until all areas altered on the site have been restored. I2. All areas altered must be restored with seed and disced mulch, sod wood fiber blanket, or be hard surfaced within 2 weeks after comple- ' tion of construction or no later than September 15, 1986. r. Robert Worthingtr I page 2 y December 4, 1985 "� 3. Prior to commencement of construction II must be executed and placed on record� innthe appropriate convenant Carver County Records Office indicating that no further fill or encroach- ment will be allowed on this site and on Lot 2, Block 3, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park from that shown on the plans dated October 22, 1985 and revised November 22, 1985 for future development. This II covenant must be submitted to the District's legal advisor for review and approval. • 4. The District will require that as development to the north of the II site proceeds, Lot 2, Block 3, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, all structures and parking on this area must be set back a sufficient distance as shown on the plans dated October 22 and revised November II 22, 1985, to provide a 200-foot green strip along Riley Creek. ' 5. At the outlets of the storm sewer systems discharging into the stormwater detention/sedimentation basin located on the east side II ' of the site, riprap and sand filter, in accordance with MnDOT criteria, must be installed to dissipate energy. This will mini- mize the potential of an erosion problem from occurring. II 6. The District must be notified in writing a minimum of 48 hours prior to commencement of construction. II If you have any questions regarding the conditions of the District's permit, please call us at 830-0555 '~�Sincerely, II ,w /` 4 X. .aiii.4 Robert , C. Obermeye I /// • BARR ENGINEERING Cp. Engineers for the District II Approved by the Board of Managers II RILEY-PURGATORY-BLUFF CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT / / RCO/111 ' • ..' - • • , President c: Mr. Frederick Richards II Mr. Frederick Rahr Date: - - Mr. Bill Monk II 1 II • I - . e li , .. li I Illli - . HIGHWAY ; ,Qa: ■ 5 rah y Rtr E B +E' I, ; , i ..b,Art , I . 9Eig i .. cum FAR}' COURT 426 ACRES = y : _ -- `. - -.- - - 1filfiff:4414) ECEPTICITI 47:4:: ii , ! ,.. ,... , 3.44Q ACAEE = Lear[ CF - ,I,41.- i reu �.4 CQNQ-t it t N' 2 COMPANY .' 3.34 ACRES 3 2.08 ACRES _T;UNITED MAILING .f 4 252 ACRES '� ;'.r,: 2 rFEES O 2.51 ACRES SOP A aNl�� QP`� •! ?��G 2.31 ACRES '�. !R ` CHANHASSEN p, kLAKES BUSINESS 15 P AG11G CENTER ENERGY e9 "' ` ill CONTROLS,CONTROLS, P 1\ MURPHY INC. S . MACHINES v• L OUTLOT F P�) M`�� 16.94 ACRES\ ATTACRPIP/4r IS/ .... LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION II CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive . Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 1 APPLICANT: L4KE5IODRE Cu.\').•:ac,,.1- e;;Th,OgNER: 61-6�IF ∎..Qsi\ke O c n /f-r�t�.&1ad ,Pig at0 0:01* Dit t ADDRESS (7/0V /`r►v6:4 6k,, £DRESS (cctOl l" tie 4A-R. -( CA-4∎1�. I `►, !l-oit-SS FA) i M Ai. 55311 eL0,04 .A.ss Fit/ ,n id. S-5-317 Zip Code ` Zip Code II TELEPHONE (Daytime) (/.2-939.1A (S.r TELEPHONE .97o-eye/ REQUEST: i Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan II Preliminary Plan Zoning Variance Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision II Land Use Plan Amendment Platting II Metes and Bounds )! Conditional Use Permit Street/Easement Vacation CX Site Plan Review II Wetlands Permit -PROJECT NAME AA/c /4O/Le ,t-t; i.e T• e , -cle I PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION II PRESENT ZONING . _ 17 REQUESTED ZONING ",--- / / 4 USES PROPOSED 01-;t¢1��.4...&J0,.,., . .- �;f t f /l?f,G. OuT.4/DO r5-�h.47.,6 SIZE OF PROPERTY // . 15 A. LOCATION '}?m2k DQ;o 4 I REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST At.,w' (34-.124;-4-) 1" J i LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) Y II II ) S. 4 City of Chanhassen I Land Development Application Page 2 I . FILING INSTRUCTIONS : This application must be completed in full and be t II clearly rmationtan or y printed and must be accompanied by all information and_ plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the City Planner to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements II , applicable to your application. • FILING CERTIFICATION: ii : The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies that he is familiar •e procedural requirements of all II i applicable City Or-. IP IISigned By ∎�I� i�� 9 111111110r --7 . �,�/ Date • IThe undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been • authorized to make this application for the property herein described. 1 • • . Signed By II _Date Fee Owner I • IIDate Application Received Application Fee Paid • City Receipt No. I * This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/ I Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their meeting. II L . :70 v _ ' - 1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION " REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 28, 1990 Vice Chairman Erhart called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Tim Erhart , Brian Batzli and Joan Ahrens MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Wildermuth and Ladd Conrad STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner and Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner 1 PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AMENDING THE FENCE HEIGHT FROM THE APPROVED 8 FEET TO 15 FEET IN THE REAR AND SIDE YARDS ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP" AND LOCATED AT 7851 PARK DRIVE. LAKESHORE EQUIPMENT. STEVE WILLETTE. Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chairman Erhart called the public hearing to order . Steve Willette: Yes, I 'd like to speak on my behalf. I also have some things I 'd like to show you. I don't know what our problem is with the II staff but I 've taken photographs with scales and I 'm kind of ticked off at the report . To say the least and I 'll pass those around. That is a tape measure . That is with my arm protected, 8 feet in the air . I can touch all 8 foot high ceiling. I cannot touch a 9 foot high ceiling. That's the highest stack of docks in the entire yard. This is the panoramic view of the entire yard. I do not stack things over 8 feet. Okay? I 'd also like to show you what it looks like from the highway side. I 'm shooting into the sun so I didn't get a real good picture but if I go back down to an 8 foot high fence , because of the 22 foot difference in elevation, you will look deadly into this off of TH 5. You're going to see all my docks stacked up and I don't think that it would look very nice. So I went to 15 feet . As far as the way the fence looks, the definition between a fence and a wall . I know we can go as high as we want with walls. We can put building heights at whatever we want to. My building's 22 feet. I don't think that the height should be the deterrent. If it's not properly constructed. . . This is also the side from the road going by. This is from the building down below. This is the entrance area in front of the , building where it enters. This is the corner as you drive away and these are the two road sites from down on the industrial park road. First of all the staff report is totally wrong. I do not and have not stacked materials" over 8 feet high. If you ask your staff they will tell you because I talked to them about it tonight. They will tell you that they did not measure the stacks . They just eyeballed it. I mean we did a thorough job . " We're making a recommendation to disapprove it with the thorough job of. . . My product is at 8 feet high. From the ground up. The difference is the 22 feet . I think when we originally went through this back in 1988, I think we had no idea of the difference in elevation and nobody thought about it from the highway. I do feel that it should be totally screened. III don't feel that it would look good if I brought it drop it back down to 8 feet and stack my product to 6 feet high. I will do that if you would like" but you will see everything that's in my yard including when you get up to within 20 feet of the front part of the fence looking in from the back side you can see a pair of sneakers sitting on the ground because you can see 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 1990 - Page 2 the ground very clearly if we went back down to 8 feet. Okay? I have planted trees around there . There had been a couple lost along the road end that I do intend to replace. I 'm the largest dock and boat lift dealer in the entire nation. I 've got a nice looking place . I want to keep it ' looking nice . When the pine trees grow up, you will not even notice the fence because they'll totally screen it. You'll see along the whole edge of the fence with the exception of the backside where I lost a couple, that as soon as those pine trees grow up it will cover the fence. As far as the aesthetics of the fence , the only thing that I find not eye appealing at this point is the fact that there's some new lumber and some old lumber in there. I talked to city staff. The building inspector , Ron. Asked him if I should paint the fence or if he thought I should let it go natural because sometimes natural doesn't stick out as much as if you paint something . He said let. it go natural so part of it's natural . And as soon as the new cedar catches up to the natural look and gets back to all blend , I don't think it will be a bad looking piece . The other thing is when the pine trees come up, that 's going to cover it. As far as the differences in the boards , we did go a board on board in a certain section of it. Because of the height of it, we went to 6 x 6 or 8 x 8 posts in there now so it's not going to blow down again but we also put some board on board just to let some wind flow through the fence because when you erect a fence that tall , there could be a possibility of the wind not getting through. They are brace back . It's a very sound fence. It's not going to blow down again. We do plan on maintaining it and I just don't see anything wrong with it . I 've gotten a lot of compliments on the fence because it looks so nice because it's all cedar . People say wow. You built that all out of cedar . That's really nice. It's a nice looking fence because they can't believe that we spent the money to do that. I 'd sure like to be able to work it out and be able to do my business in town and I 'm in the industrial park because that's where you people wanted me. I 'm trying. I 'm trying to keep everything covered like we talked about. One of Bill Boyt's things when the City Council approved it, and it never got into the Minutes. I thought it did but if you ask Bill or anybody that was there , they were saying well the height of a commercial fence is not the biggest issue . Totally screening the product is the biggest issue. I have several other things that if it does not get approved, that I mean very , very obvious things that happened or that are going on within the city. We 've got stuff sitting outside that they didn't even bother trying to screen. I 'm putting forth an effort and I can't understand that we 're going to have a big issue over this. Do you have any questions? Emmings: Can I ask a question? Erhart: Sure . Emmings: The fence is the height it is for what reason? Steve Willette: Due to the 22 foot difference in the elevation of our highway . You sit in a car you're up another 2 or 3 feet than you're looking right down into my storage yard which is at 22 feet lower than the highway is. Emmings: Okay, so you built it at that height to screen what's in the yard? I 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 November 28, 1990 - Page 3 Steve Willette: To totally screen what 's in the yard. Emmings: Any other reason that it's that height? 1 Steve Willette: No. I just feel that it should be blocked off so that people can't see it. I mean a 8 foot high fence is fine by me but you're going to be able to see in my yard and so it's a Catch 22. You say okay , fully screen everything but then build an 8 foot high fence with a 22 foot difference in elevation. Nobody caught it all the way through the whole Planning Commission thing last time or through the City Council thing last II time and now I 'm stuck. I can't go and bring 22 feet of earth in because I 'd have to raise my building too and that's impossible. Emmings: Right . Thank you. i Erhart: Is there any other comment from the public? II moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart: Why don't we just open it up to any commissioner 's comments or 1 questions . We won't necessarily go in order . Emmings: I 've got some . He 's just explained to us why he thinks it's a good idea to have it at 15 feet and I 'd like to get some staff reaction to that . Do you think that a 15 foot high fence does a better job of screening from the highway of his yard? We obviously, when we looked at I the site plan we wanted screening of that yard. What's your response or reaction to that? Krauss: Well a couple things. TH 5 is, you know there is a visibility 1 factor from there but it's also quite a distance away. It's not as though the highway runs right adjacent to his fence line. In looking at it at an " angle past another site , it's kind of down in a valley. We'd prefer to have this concealed. You know the elevation of TH 5 hasn't changed. I mean TH 5 is where it's been for quite some time so this should come as no surprise. I think the magnitude of what's out there comes as a surprise' and you know had, and I can't put words in people's mouths who reviewed this thing 2 or 3 years ago but I think if I were in their shoes, had we been aware of the magnitude of what's being proposed there, we would have gone about this differently. I don't view a 15 foot high wood fence as the, appropriate way to screen something of that size. If it was really going to be that visible and it was really going to be that big of an issue, you might have looked at extending the masonry wall or doing something else or II even question whether or not that's a valid use. I mean the yard seems to be bigger than the building is. - We do have, there's no question we do have some other outdoor storage situations in the city that have caused problems. Some are being acted upon now. Some are waiting until we get a II new shopping center built and tenants are moving in there. We are taking the bull by the horns on that issue but what's different here is we have a ' relatively new project that was approved with specific conditions and all of a sudden the ground rules changed and we never authorized that. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 1990 - Page 4 Emmings: Have there been any complaints from any of his neighbors down in the business park or anybody in the business park? Krauss: I 'm not aware of any. This was basically found, you know we are now doing annual reviews of conditional use permits . This was uncovered during the review. Emmings: I don't have anything else right now . Erhart: Steve, do you have a comment? Steve Willette: Yeah. . . .talking about a review of the conditional use permit . . . This is not an accurate report and you 're not getting the facts. Because my fence blew down. . .I talked to Steve Kirchman and asked if I should get a building permit to rebuild the fence. . . .rebuild the fence. It was on final approval of the building permit . . .not all on the annual ' review so don't say things that aren't fact. And I cannot understand where you 're coming from. I don't know where a cement wall is going to look any different than a. Erhart: I don't think it makes any difference on when, on how we discovered this . Steve Willette: It 's just all the facts all the way through. I don't know what a cement wall is going to do versus the wood wall . Erhart: Any other commissioners have any questions or comments? IEllson: There 's never been a precedence where we've had a higher level on _ the fence before has there? I mean Jo Ann, you 've probably been around longer . If the whole idea was to screen it, I mean I can't see that we could always screen from the highest point. In this case it's TH 5 but if that was the main intent , have we ever done that before because that was the main intent previously. I mean has there ever been a precedence where we said well screening's the most important thing so we'll go against the standard 8 foot because that's basically the premise that we're kind of deciding here . Olsen: I can't recall . It seems like at one point we. . .10 foot. . . Steve Willette: Yeah, it was 10 or 12. Olsen: That was before we had the new fence ordinance that limited it to 8 without getting a permit. Steve Willette: When. . .originally approved it it was at 12 feet even though we had 8 feet in the condition. . .I said should I totally screen it and move it up a little bit so we totally screen. Erhart: Paul , let me help him there. Let me get that straight. When we approved this conditional use, we approved an 8 foot fence and now you're saying that the building inspector . Steve Willette: Ron, yeah. I 1 Planning Commission Meeting I November 28, 1990 - Page 5 Erhart: Said to go ahead and build it at 12? 1 Steve Willette: When I told him we were building the project he said, put it up high enough so you can screen it and also for the final approval we had the building, or the Planning Commission staff plus the building inspector on the final approval and it was at 12 feet at that time . I raised it up 3 feet. . . I Erhart: Who at staff was with you at that time? Olsen: I was on the final inspection but to be honest I didn't measure it " then . The condition was 8 foot. . . Steve Willette: Was it atrocious at that point Jo Ann? I Olsen: No . Steve Willette: It didn't look bad then? So if it didn't look bad at 12 I feet , when I raised it 3 feet. . . Erhart: Brian, did you have something? 1 Batzli : Yeah , I was going to ask Paul something. Given the difference in elevation, can they put fence screen of this particular yard if he didn't II have things stacked so high? I mean when I looked at it, it looked to me , with the addition on there I can't really tell what I would have been able to see without the top part on there but would an 8 foot fence really be effective at screening anything? Krauss: Probably not but arguably a 15 foot high fence doesn't do that much. Well , that comes closer to it. You've got a 16 foot change in elevation from the highway. Batzli : Yeah. Krauss: From the storage yard . Batzli: But I guess, I kind of picture the applicant in a catch 22 here I because no matter who utilizes this storage area, they're not going to be able to screen it from this particular angle with an 8 foot high fence. Krauss: Probably true . Ahrens: Does the City really have a problem with the 8 foot high fence or " with the inadequate screening or both? I mean I heard Sharmin, Sharmin didn't you say earlier that perhaps a 15 foot fence would be acceptable if the screening was adequate? So if we left the fence up, we're talking about the adequacy then of the screening which seems to be inadequate from II the pictures that you provided. I realize you've planted pine trees but the pine trees will take 10 or 15 years to screen that kind of a fence. If the screening was. . . I Batzli : Plant Russian Olives in the meantime? 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting November 28., 1990 - Page 6 ' Steve Willette: . . .I planted 6 foot 6 trees when I planted my trees and that was according to ordinance. That's what they requested. That 's what I 've done . I 've done everything. The only issue that I 'm faced with right ' now is that I 'm supposed to totally screen everything but I 'm supposed to do it with an 8 foot high fence and with the 22 foot that nobody ever thought about , I didn't think about it or anything. If you want it at 8 ' feet, I 'll put it at 8 feet. Ahrens: I 'm not sure you can even adequately screen a 15 foot high fence . Krauss: Well I guess , I keep coming back to the ground rules changed. I mean, we just went through the McGlynn's approval where they had that huge blank wall and told them to do something with that. We knew what we ' were dealing with. We asked them to respond to it. They responded with a series of earth berms with a lot of landscaping that broke up the massing . It was a solution that was acceptable to everybody. You know 6 foot high ' trees are the minimum required by ordinance. You can put a 15 foot high tree and we don't penalize you by it. When you are trying to achieve screening , if you 're trying to screen an 8 foot high fence, a 6 foot high tree is just dandy. If you know ahead of time you're dealing with a 15 ' foot high structure , you might think differently of doing that. We now have the 15 foot high structure. We don't have the screening to match. ' Ahrens: I agree that the screening isn't adequate . I don't see that any part of this is screened or will be screened for a long time. And it does look like the fence sections are of a different type . It doesn't look like it 's all the same fence at all . ' Steve Willette: It's board on board on portions where we're letting the wind out where we took and put a board on one side and board. . .but it's ' still totally opaque . Emmings: I have a question here. I 'm getting a little confused about, ' we 've got a fence to screen the yard and then we 've got trees to screen the fence so we've got but when I look back at what we did when we approved the site plan, the conditional use permit, it says all items stored in the outdoor storage area must be totally screened. What needs to be screened ' is the items in the yard. Is that right? Okay. Al-Jeff: At the same time it states that the fence may not exceed 8 feet . ' Emmings: Right . I guess I 'm having trouble with this. We did want screening and he's done that. In fact if he'd done what we required him to ' do he wouldn't have accomplished that. I also notice in our fence ordinance it says that we've got a maximum height of 8 feet on fences but you can go over that if you get a conditional use permit so certainly our ordinance comtemplates sometimes using taller fences. I think the staff ' report , and I don't mean to be critical but you know from the tenor of the conversation between the staff and the applicant here, and really the report kind of feels the same way. There 's some real unpleasantness here ' and I don't care how it started or anything else but it seems like you folks have gotten crosswise with each other and I don't think I agree with, I think what we have to do is stop and look at what we're trying to accomplish . It's true that he violated the height limit of the ordinance . 1 Planning Commission Meeting • November 28 , 1990 - Page 7 He didn't have a permit to build the fence he build and my reaction would I be generally to that would be to say cut it down and get back within the ordinance . But the way this has come before us is he is applying for a I conditional use permit to have the higher fence that exists . So I don't think it's exactly fair to him to say we told you you should have an 8 foot fence and now you're asking for a 15 foot fence. I don't think that's a reason to deny it. Batzli : I agree and I also think we have to look at , if there are special circumstances on this particular lot because of the height differential between the road, that may be I 'm thinking more of kind of a variance reasons peculiar to that particular lot but in this case , that may be a reason to look at conditional use to have the higher fence. I don't know if I particularly like this fence but if the intent is to screen objects inside the yard , I think the only way you're going to accomplish it is to give them more height on it. I Emmings: And that clearly was the intent. When you read the condition it just says all items stored in the outdoor storage area must be totally screened. So that was the intent and it says no stored items shall project, over the fence and that's going to happen. Ahrens: Does that mean that people could stack things 40 feet high and that they would be allowed to just keep screening it as far as , I mean people could stack things forever . Emmings: No they can't because if they go over 8 feet with their fence . I They can't have the things stacked higher than the fence. Ellson: Right . But could you stack 2 feet is what she's saying with an 8 I foot fence? You could have your things stacked at 2 feet and have an 8 foot fence and would that be screened, I don't know. Ahrens: No, but what if they, what was approved was an 8 foot fence. They' had things stacked at 12 feet or 15 feet and they needed to screen that. Emmings: Well , how do we know that? We don't. Ahrens: Well because it's obvious by the fence that things. are stacked up awfully close to the top of the fence. Emmings: Oh, okay. The condition was that no stored items shall project over the fence. So and what he's in here now is doing is to ask us for a I permit for a fence that's higher than anything that's stored in there but I guess the point to me is, I don't think the fence looks good in the picture. I do think it will look better when it weathers and obviously when the trees grow and maybe he needs some more trees. But it gets hard II because the staff and the applicant aren't cooperating to find some kind of a compromise and maybe that 's what we have to do. Ahrens: I guess I don't understand also where the limits are on these fence. I mean you know are people able to come in for a certain permit . Get approval for it and then just build a fence as high as they want and then come in under a conditional use permit and then. ' ' Planning Commission Meeting November 28 , 1990 - Page 8 Emmings: This is an amendment of his conditional use. He's asking to amend that element and yeah , he's doing it after the fact and that always ' predisposes you to kind of use a knee jerk and say, you know take it down and then come back and then we'll give you permission to put it up and I don't want to do that . ' Ahrens: Well I agree . I mean that's ridiculous reasoning but you know I think that I don't understand how we set limits in preventing unsightly fences in Chanhassen that are even higher to screen storage yards. Emmings: Well hopefully you do a good job the first time around and maybe we didn't . ' Batzli : I guess in this case I see your point but in looking at the pictures , if this is the typical way that he has things stored , I don't think for the kind of business he's in that he has unreasonable piles of ' things . Ahrens: Well I 'm not saying him. I 'm saying that when things come up in the future , what are we going to do? I don't see any guidelines I guess in how we 're reasoning this out. We 're just kind of. Emmings: Yeah . It 's hard. ' Elison: What keeps going through my mind is maybe we were wrong because we didn 't notice the elevations . That there is no such thing as making it totally screened. I 'm thinking if we make the precedence that things have to be totally screened, we could end up based on the highest level that any neighbor might be , for heaven's sakes we'll end up with you know, 22 foot ' screens because there's somebody within a bird's eye view that's going to see it. And I don't know that all along that highway 5, I mean if any area wanted to see that , that's probably the least harming to people versus neighbors that don't like to see into things like that. I 'm more concerned ' that we were wrong in saying that everything has to be totally screened and making the assumption that it's from all angles. In general , do the best you can with 8 feet is about what it came out as and so it all can't be ' screened. I can live with that but I 'm more concerned that if we go totally screened, then we're going to be asking people to screen for all kinds of neighbors in the future and everything like that and we'll end up with really high fences and building extra berms just because of the ' topography. So I 'd just as soon give up on some of the seeing it from TH 5. I could live with that is what I 'm saying. Erhart: Sharmin or Paul , is the fence strong enough? Did you see it today? ' Krauss: The building inspectors have told us that it is and when a fence is over 5 foot it has to qualify under separate standards and apparently it does. ' Erhart: Okay. Is it going to stay vertical? Al-Jaff: It's up to Code . It meets all Code . ' 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 28 , 1990 - Page 9 Erhart: Is there an actual Code for a fence? I Krauss: Yeah. Over a height it has to meet wind loading and some other requirements . ' Erhart: Okay, did it not before? That it blew down. Krauss: I don't know. Steve Willette: We had a high wind storm that took off the air conditioner screens and everything else. It was just a straight line wind that came I through and just did a little path. We also had a lot of dock and boat lift damage out on the lake. It fell some trees . . .storm. Erhart: What 's going to keep this fence from starting over the years to I start leaning one way and the other? Steve Willette: It 's braced back. It's a good brace back and the inside I of it is 6 x 6 in a lot of areas. Erhart: My concern about the fence is you know, let's assume it's strong enough for wind but fences tend over the years to get to look really tacky and if you think it looks bad now, which I guess I drive by it every day. I guess I don't think it looks all that bad now but I guarantee you in 10 years it 's going to look like a pile of garbage and I guess I tend to agree . Ellson: Then your pine tree will be there. Erhart: With Joan is what you need here is a lot more trees that in 10 years you won't see the fence at all . It really won't make a lot of I difference if it 's there or not. I also agree that we ought to, you know do we have ordinances that deal with use of fences for screening purposes? We have an ordinance that talks about a fence. Emmings: No, it 's right here. Erhart: For the purpose of screening though? Emmings: Yeah. Fences for screening. - Erhart: What does it say? Emmings: Fences for screening or storage purposes installed on property used for commercial or industrial uses may have a maximum height of 8 feet .' Erhart: Okay. Emmings: And then it goes on to talk about when they abut properties zoned, for residential uses and then it says the fence has to be 100% opaque . And then it says commercial or industrial fences over 8 feet shall require a conditional use permit . It also says under an earlier point by the way that every fence shall be maintained in such condition as to not become a hazard, eyesore or public or private nuisance. ' Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 1990 - Page 10 ' Erhart: Boy, I think we ought to look at that. Even in a commercial or industrial area , it would seem to me that when we look at a mini-storage building and we don't allow them to put up wood fences around the storage ' area . They put masonary fences up. It would seem to me a commercial- industrial area that if we're going to use fences for screening, we ought to define what 's the better looking material is going forward but on this ' particular one I tend to agree that we should keep what we've got. I really think we ought to go in and what do you say the distance between those trees now is what? ' Steve Willette: They're about , well they're planted as close together as they can to let them grow because when the landscapers put them in they said this is how far apart they have to be. If you put them in closer ' together or . . .tangle together and look like that so this is where the landscapers said that they should be. Erhart: They don't look that close to me and also, I guess what I was going to suggest to alternate them in a zig zag pattern. Steve Willette: We did. We went up and down the hill and they're about 11 ' feet. At maturity they'll reach 10 foot and there is a couple of areas where we skipped so it wasn't solid all the way along because the idea of the trees was to break the fence up and not to totally screen the fence ' because we were just going to screen the drive with the fence and to be honest with you Tim, I 've got $35,000.00 into this fence. . . It's a lot of cedar and I 'll do whatever you want to make it look , I want it to look nice I too . I want to maintain it. I want to be in Chanhassen. I made that . clear to everybody . I like the community. I like being here. I 've spent a lot of money on advertising over the years to be here. I 've got a • business . My stuff is not stacked over 8 foot high in the fence. I 've ' shown you that in the pictures. You 're welcome to come over and visit. The front part of the fence is not much over 8 feet going across the drive area . Going across the back and down. . . Erhart: Okay, I think we've got a pretty good idea . Steve Willette: And you will see in there very readily. If you go down to 8 feet , it will be an eyesore. Erhart: Yeah, the pictures tell the story real well . The other thing, I ' think we should put something in here which restricts additional height on the fence. Now there's some ideas I 've gotten. Some of the other , since we 've been essentially just going around here, is there some other recommendations so we can lead to some kind of motion? Elison: I would think go down to the 8 feet until you've got a section that you can see into and it's from TH 5. I just think from a precedence standpoint , there 's probably going to be more than one situation where you can't possibly totally screen. I 'm thinking of that shopping center . That time when people were trying to measure from their decks. They didn't want ' to see the roof of the shopping center and they were trying to build berms so that people who were on their decks couldn't see and I just think that's going above and beyond totally screening. There are times when you can't do it at all and 8 feet is something that we've got in the ordinance and I • Planning Commission Meeting November 28 , 1990 - Page 11 think it 's easy to follow and I don't, think it's a problem so I would ' probably not even keep it where it is. I 'd go the 8 feet and leave it . Erhart: Okay. Brian, what's your recommendation? , Batzli: My recommendation is to give him a conditional use for his 15 foot fence based again on the differences in elevation that he's trying to deal II with and that's assuming that we want it to be screened and that's important to us. I mean that's the underlying hypothesis here is that we want it to be screened. Ellson: Totally. I mean because some of it is I think. Erhart: Joan, do you have a recommendation? Ahrens: Well , I guess I 'm not sure that it looks any better to have a 15 foot high fence that is not particularly great looking than to have something showing from above the fence. To have the 8 foot high fence and I then to have somethings behind it that you can see. I mean I don't think that that looks any worse and I think it probably would look better to have" an 8 foot high fence than to have some, be able to see what 's behind that. However , I am not enthusiastic about the idea of making him cut the fence down either . I 'm more enthusiastic about having some screening for the fence but I also, I 'm waffling. But I also don't see in the ordinance where we have any requirements to have screening for a fence . I mean that 'll seems redundant to me . I like the idea but I don't know if we can require that . Anyway, I suppose you don't have any idea of what I just said. ' Erhart: No. • Steve Willette: Joan? I 'm willing to work with you within reason. I mean' I 'm not, I just want to get . . .get on with my life because this is just . . . If it takes a couple extra trees, I 'll put in a couple of trees. That 's no problem at all . - I Ahrens: How about some vines? Emmings: I 'm not concerned about setting a precedent here because I think I this is always done a case by case basis so I 'm not worried about every one of these is different enough so I 'm not concerned about that. I essentially agree with Brian that we should let him do this. I think it would be a good thing and maybe even a condition that he maybe do a little more screening right up against the fence. Maybe some high bush cranberries or something like that that would just break up that expanse until those trees get big. Something that could live in shade after those , trees are big. Would help in the short term. But I don't know. I guess I 'd like to see them do a little more landscaping. Erhart: Okay, just to repeat. I think I 'd like to leave the fence left . Make sure it was solid and to have the applicant work with staff to improve the landscaping . I think that's also what you said Steve so with that, if II there's not any more comments or questions, I 'd like to entertain a motion. 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting November 28 , 1990 - Page 12 Emmings: I 'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #88-17 to approve a fence with a maximum height of 15 feet being my understanding that it 's only 15 feet high in certain ' areas . That 's at it 's highest and we would put one condition on that and that would be that the applicant work with the staff to try and get a little screening perhaps up close to the fence or some how work out ' additions to the landscape plan to break up the fence a little more. Screen it a little bit. Batzli : Second. ' Erhart: Any other discussion on the motion? Emmings: Well I guess in discussion I 'd like to say, we're going against our staff 's recommendation here and we don't do that very often. And I don't like to do it . And I guess I don't like the fact that you didn't comply with the original conditions of your permit and that should be said ' too here. Ahrens: Are we providing enough direction for staff Steve when we say? Emmings: No , it 's real vague but I think that now that the staff knows where we 're coming from and if the City Council agrees with us , I 'm sure ' they 'll be able to work it out between them. Ahrens: But you said just to provide a little bit of screening for that fence . Emmings: Yeah, I know. ' Ahrens: I mean that 's not what we really want is it? We want a lot of screening for that fence . ' Emmings: I don't . Ahrens: You don't? ' Emmings: No. Ahrens: I want more than a little bit. ' Emmings: I think that staff knows how to do that better than I do but my idea would be to put some clumps of bushes along the fence so that it just made it look a little better but maybe in comments after we vote on this, maybe we should all say what we've got in mind. Our ideas and let the City Council see what they think. Erhart: Are you interested in trying to amend the motion? Ahrens: No. ' Erhart: Any other discussion? 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 28 , 1990 - Page 13 Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend 11 approval to amend Conditional Use Permit *88-17 to approve a fence with a maximum height of 15 feet at it's highest point with the following condition: • 1. The applicant shall work with the staff to get a little more screening up close to the fence or some how work out additions to the landscape I plan to break up the fence a little more. All voted in favor except Ellson who opposed and the motion carried with all vote of 4 to 1. Erhart: Annette's opposed. Anybody would want to make some comments? Of . course we 'll start with you Annette . I Ellson: I just think that it's easy enough to go with just the 8 foot and keep it the way it was originally passed. ' Erhart: Yeah. I would like to add too that I 'd like to see perhaps more screening than was communicated in the motion. I think with the height of the thing and the time that it's going to take to screen it with the trees " that are there, I really think that a bit little more creativity ought to be put into this thing and some investment to make it visually better faster . So I would agree with Joan's initial comment. Do you have any more? Ahrens: No. ' Erhart: Okay. Anything else Brian? Batzli : No . I agree with what you just said. I think he does have a large investment and it wouldn't hurt to break up the fence with more screening than perhaps a little bit. Erhart: Alright . Thank you. Let's see , that will go before the City Council on December 10th. Thanks for the photographs. Ahrens: Do you want them back? ' Steve Willette: No, you can keep them. 1 1 CITYOF CHANHASSEN 101'‘4 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. B X 147• O CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX(612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I ' FROM: Steve Nelson, Building Inspector DATE: December 5, 1990 SUBJ: Lakeshore Equipment Fence, 7851 Park Drive 1 • On Friday, October 19, 1990, I was directed to make a final ' inspection of the fence construction located at 7851 Park Drive. The twelve (12) to fifteen (15) foot fence in question was not built in accordance with the approved permit application and plans . Planning notations on the application and plans restricted the height to eight (8) feet. ' The building code requires all structures to built in a manner that is structurally sound. If the Planning Department had permitted a fifteen foot high fence, the Building Department would have required plans and specifications designed and signed by a registered structural engineer. This can be required per Section 302(b) of the Uniform Building code. The reason being the fence height exceeds the standard six (6) to eight (8) fence typically ' installed in the City, the large surface area and the possible wind loading. The Building Inspection Department cannot give final approval on " the fence as it now constructed. ' cc: Scott Harr, Public Safety Director Steve Kirchman, Building Official I i I . I -,_ '--) ---1____._ . _____ • • C.- I _ . __ - .#() 3 0 '2 LL) I r- ........._ i - < „._ L . _....__ u 6J rY 7. --05-- C C -.1 J < '''' ....... 14.. - i '''.. err •-c, s.> -----____T 4.4.1, Ili . 7 . 3 .m5Y U • 0_,..- "'z . ..„.) . 11 Q *. I. . I• el . * T , I t (IN !,*ii‘• 0 1'W • :et uJ LI * i 9! i V1 4i1 1 NV, '• . 4.)! i I ,... * 4 S 14 111 el . c 49' 1 ri 01 , . ......r .4 * 1 ) '<, r c ..i g 0 „NAI • -'. .,, . ., vs 0.- c- ea 06. I f.., z . 03 Na - . . rlt, 4.0 e .* . I