8. Sign Variance Metro Lake Mini Storage � • g4
CITY OF P.C. DATE: Nov. 16 , 1988
CHANHASSEN C.C. DATE: Dec. 12, 1988
_
kl CASE NO: 88 18 Sign
IPrepared by: Olsen/v
I
STAFF REPORT
I -
I PROPOSAL: Sign Variance Request to Permit a Pylon Sign in the
IOP, Industrial Office Park District
Iz a
IV J LOCATION: Lot 1 and 2, Block 2 , Chanhassen Lakes Business Park
I a:el. APPLICANT: Mark Senn
Metro Lakes West Mini-Storage
7800 Park Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
1
PRESENT ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Park
IACREAGE: 4 .5 acres Action by City Administrator%
Endorsed_ 1/ NJ*
DENSITY: Iflo:ified
ADJACENT ZONING Nti:.—___L 1"gX_,_
AND LAND USE: N- RR; Lake Ann Park Date Suomi ied jo ,cr,,r ! sion
S- IOP; office/warehouse ;vote StLiniited to t,ountT-
IE- IOP; office/warehouse
0 W- IOP; future day care center
IW WATER AND SEWER: Water and sewer services are available ,
IPHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site is the location of the mini-
warehouse facility
I2000 LAND USE PLAN: Industrial
II
1 -.--
ir
, .
'-
_„.
j
_•__. -.
R A 01.1 3
C*-_
LA K E AN N RSF
j 1 1 \ ;
,_
::-
.._ 1 .. ,.
..:
R4
_ . R i. ,
...
f
RR -. ...
.• ..,,
...
....
... , _ .
MI I I I SIG-Ai V 11-12-1 '
..c,.:.‘,....-.
-- MI
v
:
A- . 9 ,
. :OU E VA - o
..„
4 . 1
. ip ar i
. ..... _.........,
.........,....,„.....,,,....,,,...... .....,4,
- , •110\v1 I I;&.1 I I I
4 ,,..„........,,..„.... .. iiiiiiii.,
6 Xl........ '"”"
1 0
P • „C*e
' 11‘/;..e.°.../.../..‘°.1....°..°. ......°...... .
, ,,.. .
' 1 ■:, r" I op .
...
_ •
,...
__.,.... _, .g .
.. 1
...,
' f • -_
\ ■ Nor •. --,
_.1 CT. -,—...,- - -
.... .:__ , ---:"..■_, - . : --
......-_____
■..
,,
V d () LAKE SU
./ >
-.1
03
-;-;
A
0 W
It
i PUD-R -----__,.-.11
111
. .
.. _,.
_' :•:I:717
-- •!' . ..' -
Z I
•
0
. A 2 . __ . . ... _
- 'cr -
z-..
II
Metro Lakes West Mini-Storage Sign
' November 16 , 1988
Page 2
' APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
The following signs are allowed by permit in the IOP District:
One ground low profile business sign per street frontage with a
maximum of two signs per lot. Such signs shall not exceed 80
' square feet in sign display area nor be greater than 8 feet in
height.
One wall business sign shall be permitted per street frontage.
The total wall mounted sign area shall not exceed 15% of the
total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted
and no individual business signs shall exceed 80 square feet in
' sign display area.
BACKGROUND
The applicant received site plan approval for the mini-warehouse
facility by the City Council on September 8, 1986 (Attachment
#2) . As part of the site plan approval, the applicant was
' required to provide berming and landscaping along Hwy. 5 to
screen the building.
' ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a sign variance to the IOP District
to permit a pylon sign on the subject site. The proposed pylon
sign is 50 square feet in sign area and 15 feet in height
(Attachment #3) . The pylon sign is also proposed to be two
faced. Attachment #4 shows the proposed location of the pylon
' sign.
The sign ordinance permits properties in the IOP District ground
low profile signs with a maximum area of 80 square feet and 8
feet in height and wall business signs with a maximum area of 80
square feet. Since the site is located on Park Drive and Hwy. 5 ,
it is permitted two ground low profile signs and two wall signs.
' The ground low profile signs must be located 10 feet from the
property line.
The applicant is requesting the pylon sign and a variance to the
sign ordinance because they feel that the signs permitted in the
IOP District will not be visible because of the berming and
landscaping along Hwy. 5 . The applicant feels a hardship exists
due to the physical improvements made to the site.
For a variance to the sign ordinance to be granted, the applicant
must prove that enforcement of the ordinance causes undue
hardship. Currently, the applicant has a temporary wall sign
located on the north side of the building facing Hwy. 5 . This sign
1
r
9
' I
Metro Lakes West Mini-Storage Sign
November 16 , 1988
Page 3
is easily visible to traffic on Hwy. 5 . The applicant has the
right to have two ground low profile signs which can be as large
as 80 square feet. The signs must be setback 10 feet from the
property line . The ground low profile signs could be located
on or into the existing berm, where they would easily be seen by
traffic both on Hwy. 5 and Park Drive. The applicant is also
permitted two wall signs (80 square feet) which can be seen from
Hwy. 5 and Park Drive. Therefore, staff does not feel that a
pylon sign is necessary for the applicant to be able to promote
the site and feels that the ground low profile signs and wall
signs permitted in the IOP District are adequate to service the
site.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends denial of Sign Variance '
Request #88-18 . "
Should the Planning Commission feel that a pylon sign is ,
necessary and a variance should be granted, the Commission should
list the hardships for which the variance was granted.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission recommended denial of the sign variance
for a 50 square foot pylon sign in the IOP District. The recom-
mendation for denial was approved 6 to 1 . Wildermuth was against
the denial of the sign variance.
It was brought to the Planning Commission' s attention that on
page 9 of the City Council minutes dated September 8 , 1986 , in
the middle of the page, it states that Barbara Dacy states that
the sign ordinance will give the applicant the right to install a
wall sign or a pylon sign . The applicant stated that they had
always been under the impression that they could always have a
pylon sign on the site. The sign ordinance existing at the time
of the site plan approval for the mini-storage facility permitted
in the industrial districts, one identification sign per business
occupant of any building not to exceed 32 square feet or 2 feet I
of the gross area of the building main floor with a maximum of 80
square feet and a maximum height of 20 feet. No sign shall be
placed closer than 25 feet to any street right of way line and
the identification sign shall not extend above the roof or coping
of the building (Attachment 6 ) . The previous sign ordinance did
not specifically define pylon signs but the maximum height of 20
feet for the identification sign could be interpreted to mean a
pylon sign. Therefore, at time of site plan approval , the appli-
cant could have received a sign permit for an identification sign
with a maximum height of 20 feet. This section also stated that ,
I
1 ,
Metro Lakes West Mini-Storage Sign
November 16 , 1988
Page 4
the identification sign shall not extend above the roof or coping
of the building. It would have to be shown that the proposed
pylon sign by the applicant, if not exceeding 20 feet in height,
would also not extend above the roof or the coping of the
building.
' The Planning Commission also wanted staff to confirm whether the
planning report, Planning Commission minutes and City Council
minutes referred to pylon sign more than the statement made by
' Barbara Dacy which would have given the applicant the impression
that pylon signs were permitted. Staff has attached the Planning
Commission minutes and the staff report and there is no other
mention of pylon signs being permitted or requested on the site.
The fact that the ordinance has been amended since the applicant
received site plan approval means that the application for the
sign permit at this time must conform with the existing sign
ordinance. The current ordinance does not permit a pylon sign
and staff still recommends that a variance to the ordinance must
' be granted for a pylon sign to be installed.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
' Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council denies Sign Variance Request #88-18 . "
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Excerpts from City Code.
' 2 . City Council minutes dated September 8 , 1986 .
3 . Detail of proposed pylon sign.
4 . Location of proposed pylon sign.
5 . Letter and photographs from applicant.
6 . Sign Ordinance Section 4 .04 (old ordinance) .
7 . City Council minutes dated September 8 , 1986 , Planning
Commission minutes dated August 20 , 1986 and Planning Report.
8 . Planning Commission minutes dated November 16 , 1988 .
ZONING• § 20-1305 1
(4) Development identification signs. One (1) development identification sign, not ex-
ceeding sixty-four(64) square feet of sign display area, shall be permitted for each
major entrance into any commercial development of three(3)or more buildings. For
the purposes of this paragraph,"major entrance"shall be defined as the intersection ,
of any local or collector street serving the identified development with any arterial or
collector street so designated as such in this chapter. Such signs shall be located so as
not to conflict with traffic visibility or street maintenance operations, and shall be '
securely anchored to the ground.
(Ord.No. 80,Art.IX, § 7, 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1304. Industrial office park signs.
The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any IOP District:
(1) Ground low profile business signs. One (1)ground low profile business sign shall be
permitted per street frontage, with a maximum of two (2) such signs per lot. Such
signs shall not exceed eighty(80)square feet in sign display area nor be greater than
eight (8) feet in height. Such signs shall be located at least ten (10) feet from any
property line. ,
(2) Wall business signs.One(1)wall business sign shall be permitted per street frontage
for each business occupant within a building. The total of all wall mounted sign
display area shall not exceed fifteen(15)percent of the total area of the building wall
upon which the signs are mounted. No individual business sign shall exceed eighty
(80)square feet in sign display area. A wall business sign may be mounted upon any
wall of a principal building. '
(3) Development identification signs. One (1) development identification sign, not ex-
ceeding ninety(90)square feet of sign display area, shall be permitted for each major
entrance into any Industrial Office Park of three(3)or more principal buildings. For
the purposes of this paragraph, "major entrance" shall be defined as the intersection
of local, collector or arterial street serving the identified development with any
arterial or collector street so designated in this division. Such signs shall be located
so as not to conflict with traffic visibility or street maintenance operations, and shall
be securely anchored to the ground. '
(Ord.No. 80,Art. IX, § 8, 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1305. Central business district. '
The following signs shall be allowed by permit in the B-3 District:
(1) Wall business sign. One(1)wall business sign shall be permitted per street frontage '
for each business occupant within a building. The total of all wall mounted sign
display area shall not exceed fifteen(15)percent of the total area of the building wall
C- upon which the signs are mounted. No individual business sign shall exceed sixty-
four(64)square feet in sign display area.The design and location of all business signs
in this district shall be in keeping with the purpose and intent of this article and the
1269
2 >
II �l+o�
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO CREATE 3 LOTS, 108 PIONEER TRAIL, DAVID HANSEN.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to table this item until the
next regularly scheduled Council meeting on September 22, 1986 pursuant to
David Hansen's request. All voted in favor and motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FORA 64,391 SQUARE FOOT MINI-WAREHOUSE FACILITY, LOTS 1 AND
2, BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, LSR PROPERTIES.
Barbara Dacy: The site is located in the southwest corner of TH 5 and Park
Drive. As you recall, about a year ago the most interior lot was considered
by the Council for a site plan review for an industrial building. However,
since then the plans have fallen through and the applicants are proposing the
mini-warehouse storage facility. The proposal contains 64,000 square feet.
What is being proposed is the buildings and the storage units are forming a
perimeter around the site and containing additional storage in the site. A
24 hour security room is also proposed in the corner and there will be a
security gate at the entrance off of Park Court. The proposed hours range
' between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. As you all may surmise, because of the
visibility of this particular lot, the City is very concerned about the
appearance from the major entrance into our community. The applicant has
' proposed landscaping along the perimeter of the lot, especially along the north
side adjacent to TH 5. Staff is recommending and the Planning Commission also
approved installation of additional landscaping. Also, what is being done on
the north side is that the rear of those units or the wall, what will be seen
' is approximately a 4 foot wall with cut-outs along the way. You can see those
on the plans that you have in your packets to break up the expanse a little as
well as the landscaping will aid to that effect. Since the Planning
' Commission meeting, the Manager and the applicant met to discuss this whole
visibility issue. We are satisified that you will not be able to see the
center of the site from TH 5. An extensive stand of mature vegetation in the
' northwest corner of the site will also aid in screening of the proposed
development. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the site plan
subject to the four conditions in the Staff Report. All bituminous surfaces
must be lined with concrete curb, installation of additional landscaping,
' compliance with the Watershed District's requirements, installation of proper
erosion control measures and the Commission added a fifth condition which
requires that no outside storage be permitted which would protrude from the
site so that you would be able to see it from adjacent streets and properties.
Their intent being that if storage is to occur on site, fine but it should not
be visible from adjacent streets and properties. With that, I know that
the applicants are here.
Councilwoman Watson said her big concern was the apperance from TH 5 and that
seemed to be addressed with the landscaping. The only other question was what
' material was to be used in the wall. Mark Senn stated that it would be either
rock base brick or red brick.
Councilwoman Watson also stated the fact that someone had brought up the fact
that Chanhassen means Sugar Maple in Indian and did the applicant plan on
using any Sugar Maple Trees in their landscaping. Nick Ruehl, Architect
representing LSR Properties, stated they were looking into doing research on
7
1
226
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986 '
the hardiness of the Sugar Maple Tree in being so close to a major road to see
where an appropriate place to put the Sugar Maple Trees and it would be no
problem to accomodate the planting of Sugar Maple Trees.
Councilwoman Watson stated that she did not want any outside storage. Mark '
Senn stated that there would be no outside storage, that the plan is not
designed for outside storage and they do not intend to have any. Barbara Dacy —
stated that outside storage is a permitted accessory use in an Industrial
District and that is where that particular use of the land is allowed.
Councilman Geving asked if the Staff had done any calculations on the density
of the green space. Barbara Dacy stated that the site was below the 70% so
•
that was not an issue.
Councilman Geving stated that he wanted to see the landscaping requirements
for plantings every 80 feet be reduced to every 25 feet to be in conformance
with the east side and the south side. The applicants stated they had no
problem with that. Councilman Geving stated he was interested in the City
Engineer's comments and that everything seemed to be in order as far as
utilities, drainage, streets. The only concern the City Engineer brought to
the attention of the City Council was potential for widening of TH 5 and what
that might do to, not the project because the buiding will be in place, but
when it happens the frontage of TH 5 will move close to the building and the
rest of the road could be shoved further to the north. Otherwise, he liked
the plan and thought Chanhassen needed it and was all for it. I
i
Mayor Hamilton stated that he was surprised when he saw a storage facility
like this being proposed for the industrial park. In his mind it didn't seem
to fit there and he was not real pleased in seeing it there. He understands
it is one of the permitted uses but at the same time it is not one of the uses
he was looking for in an industrial park. Mayor Hamilton also stated that he
absolutely did not want any outside storage. ,
Mayor Hamilton stated that in such a facility there is the possibility of
hazardous materials being brought in and stored in these garages. Mayor
Hamilton was thinking particularly of the incident that happened about a year
ago when a car blew up from explosives that were stored in the car. He asked
what is to prevent the same type of individual from storing explosives in a
garage facility similar to this and having an accident where someone could be
injured again. Mark Senn stated that they can and do control that for
insurance and other purposes. They will not allow the storage of hazardous
materials in this facility. There will be a 24 hour a day caretaker at the
facility. When something goes into these storage units, the caretaker will be
there. Mayor Hamilton asked if he inspected everything that goes into
storage. Mark Senn stated that was the purpose for security purposes and part
of security, as far as they are concerned, is what is going into storage.
They do not want anything hazardous going into there. That is not to say that
someone might not put a fishing boat in and there might be a little gas left
in the motor or something like that. There will be a statement in their '
rental materials and brochures which puts a requirement on the applicant to
drain that stuff to any kind of minimal level before storage. The other thing
is that the buildings are constructed totally of non-combustible materials.
8
22
ICity Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
It is a brick building, precast ceiling, steel wall and metal door. There
Iisn't anything to burn other than the contents confined to that specific unit.
Mayor Hamilton stated that if there was an explosion, it wouldn't be confined
Ito one unit. Mark Senn stated that it would have to be quite an explosion.
Roman Roos stated that because of the insurance rates that they will have to
be paying, they will be watching very closely for toxic materials that might
be stored. He stated that it would be very hard to check every single box
I that comes in but they would be monitoring the contents as closely as possible
because of the insurance demands it. Mayor Hamilton stated that was his
comment. Unless it is in their lease that every time they bring something in
I that it is going to be looked at. Roman Roos stated there would be a
disclaimer that they would have to sign. Mayor Hamilton stated that a
disclaimer would save LSR from harm but not individuals who might get hurt.
IRoman Roos stated that with the landscaping and the wall being built around
the perimeter of the facility, no one would be able to see garage doors or
anything from TH 5. Mayor Hamilton stated that there was a big difference
I between Victory Envelope or any other large industrial buildings and it is not
just the visual. When you drive by and see Victory Envelope you know there
are hundreds of people working in there. When you drive by and see your
II facility, there is one employee. Mayor Hamilton said we are talking about an
industrial site, prime land, right in the heart of the best locations of the
whole industrial park and you have one person working there. Roman Roos
stated the project provided a good tax base.
IIICouncilwoman Watson stated she didn't see anything about signage. Barbara
Dacy stated that from her understanding, the applicants will propose one sign
I for the property. Mark Senn stated it would be located out by the TH 5 side.
They hadn't decided on which end of the building it would be located.
Councilwoman Watson stated she didn't want a big red and white sign stamped on
II the side of the building. Barbara Dacy stated that the sign ordinance will
give them the right to install a wall sign or a pylon sign.
Councilman Horn stated that he was excited to hear there was going to be
1 another building in the industrial park and he shared Mayor Hamilton's
disappointment in this type of facility in that location. He understands that
it is an approved type of use and there isn't much that can be done to deny it
II but he is not terribly excited about this type of facility at this location.
Back in the corner is a better location in his mind.
Councilman Geving wanted to clarify condition 5 which states that no outside
I storage is permitted which would protrude above the wall. He thought what was
trying to be said was that they did not favor any outside storage at all.
Mayor Hamilton stated that, as Barbara Dacy stated, outside storage is a
II permitted use so that would be a restriction if there were any outside
storage.
I Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Site
Plan #85-7 on the Site Plan stamped "Received July 23, 1986" for a 64,391
square foot Mini-Warehouse Facility on Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Chanhassen Lakes
Business Park, subject to the following conditions: -
II
9
II
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986 '
1. All bituminous surfaces not bounded by structures shall be lined with
concrete curb.
2. The developer shall place, at minimum, three more pine trees along
the north lot line adjacent to TH 5.
3. Compliance with all of the Watershed District's regulations on new
construction.
4. Erosion control shall be installed along the east, south and west
construction limits and conform with City standards for Type 1 and 2
as noted on Exhibit A.
5. No outside storage is permitted which would protrude above the wall
and would be visible from adjacent streets. ,
All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed. The motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: I'm opposed because I think it is not a proper use of the '
land.
CONSIDER FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR SANITARY SEWER SERVICE TO WEST 65TH
STREET/CRESTVIEW DRIVE.
Bill Monk: Several months ago the City Council approved preparation of a !!
feasibility study for sanitary sewer extension to 65th Street and Crestview
Drive based on information provided by Staff and residents in the area about
inoperable and failing septic systems and that approval was based on
submission of a petition. The petition was submitted by a number of residents
and in reviewing it, I made the determination that they represented
approximately 35% of the homeowners in the area so the feasibility study was
finally put together. I'm a little bit slow in getting it complete. Council
has the study before them at this point and a copy was sent to all of the
resident or effected property owners along the proposed route of the sewer who
would be proposed to be assessed. Although this is not a public hearing,
because of my involvement in this project, I did invite the residents in to
discuss this item with the Council if they so choose tonight so a full
discussion could take place before the public hearing. My intent is not to
gumble the process but again, with the circumstances of my being here only for
a few more days, I figured this was the best way to get a full discussion on
the item. What I would like to do is just run through the major portions of
the report and answer questions, go over potential costs.
General sites involved are West 65th Street and Crestview Drive, both west of
County Road 117. My initial thought with this project was to service these
areas which are outside of the existing Municipal Urban Service Area, that they
would not be servicable by gravity sewer and that a lift station would have to
be placed in the approximate location of the lowest service point in the area
which would be at the Crestview Drive/CR 117 intersection and then pump to the
north to an existing sanitary sewer further north on CR 117. In looking at
the proposal a little bit closer, had a site survey done, a very quick one but
10
I ,
is Ul
-f--
I
...
I .
- - --- .1
1 -7->
I
k
L.
,
l __I
I rt-_-.1-.3
, , ,, 1
i- ___. L----__-------) ' I ' 1
7.7.
,--„,„
I
r
,
r
1 N,
1 .--
r---.,:__ __. -L
; -L.] n
E------- _J
j
I I -." ' I
___I
El .L.._..\:, 1 Q
• i'• --Li---
ii-j---9--.)
;
._..i ,., _ ,
, ___J
• !
i ■ i;
t-
I . .,
: .
. /1(-------'-,
's 1 _ ._
o
.,A
1 ..,-- ' .
,
I
\ ‘,._} -_-) I L. L L,
,
,,,-3
...,._...-
I -•-- ------.
7 ./''"" \--N'\
■ ( ) \ .. i
I‘ --,' )•-' i )
.,____,, .K.) I
(
......., 6
...
.3
I
\-
--
' I
_I ---
f' -
. :
- 1
' ---------!
----, :
--,
I_-1 \ 1-1. .,--•
11
( '\
I { --1 2,1
H
I " L
, ----..
(Toff)
I 1---1 f-----1 I
- -
\
-t,--,
___
.._ ._
.....
7. ---....z..• '6.
■
...‘,
rP,Z,.......
'71 .
-.A 1....
.......,.._
.. --
...,. ,.,..., ... ,'...: :.„.:-7,,,.......,...".;._... ._.,.,..i,74.;.,
.
.. , -
. . . ,
,•
- •-• '
7 - -':tl.•.!'• 2 , . .
• .
- - , . ,.
- .. ottj .). .!,-. . - ,,., . _,, -. ; -,.__,.„. _. .,.._ . ., ' • _ .7,•,,,.t z -:-• I
,.._
,•'^v.1,..2"...
D ,.. .
,$•••-• r....-".•." ••••7 ... "..1 •",.. ' ,
•"70t ''''' '''': .:7V'.. ' ': ' ,'5: 6.• 7 •• ' , . , .. _ .,
-• _„,..;.g. ...."-'••5"""'''' .• - ' -. -2 1•7 '.■ ,"5 .,-"", ... .:7-:
-.'":'.:•--,c1.,'t'•-- : , -' -
I
.r•?.•••:.•,!;.,.W.,,* ,g ...i 4......;..!.. ,•,':,'-. " - '
-...--.4
.-- - -' - •-,.- . ,.
,--.- '•C• '"-t
1/41•1, ..
,•,.; i . , - ' •-' '-- ::-.7 . 411>\ ' .'.,',I- -, "...:-‘1 ,;.'.
. : :4l' ',-!.•:.-li ' - 7:" -..., %., • . .. .' itr,-All , 10.- ,-,_
• --;.-..- -.1,-- : -.. - „ :-. , ,
- .
5•:-..t•Y' • -.? -• -.-- ilftl -:- . :.. _ _Y „,..,, _,., . • •- , „ ,
'4igt I
,...
•
- . !...,-;:";•----:1404 - 4. ;--;- '.s-lirePt ' ''•-• - - . . -, • - -:.'_f...,;:. • it ;,r'-i.4.. .-3-
. ,„ ..,.
.. _ ...,
. . ...4 su
.- - ' 7-g•,.;,,_,-. ' ,,, (0ri• _, • --...: .. -.. ,, .. .. • .. .
---- • II . - 4 =
4. .
o _ „.
„
'2."•••'...^4•'••• i'.......f"..".... ...et." - •, • .-•
• .".''•‘. 1- ••• ''' •-••••'''..‘' - rin,) '. !';'.2•"!--5".eit:,‘..‘-',' . ....4-...-•
- ,---,.-_- -• ve.4):dil.,
• .•-",:-. ..,: ,;„.-0,„
_
. . . .
'11.1-,.'"--,-.4. Tii..41, •." '-•
' • ' ftVilil Oh ---* = ! ---
-‘• 1'....t.'..:.•:i7 • irj .- .._ . ,.:. . , .
• -''''' 4401.1 4110 , ' - .5 .":-
-.-.' 10
ri
I
,---•r--0 ,• .i... ,
• ,
it-'. 0
e''-- I - OD
ze.- ,.4 ...:,
..
.,-..-.-.: •--•-,-, ,-,,...--- • AWL x -,,;;,...4•.-....7,40e.:•.•-=,. z.,,,,i-.,-,.,
. -,..... 0. -1-, ..- -.• , -- . - . . .
..4 ,.....,1 _
- . . - • .- p ...i. ,.;,.. op,Aid" .. ),;•. 3•4-•7..:',.'7.:4•Y-;• :- e'•-•*7,i--
....7-7..,,,:.,,,•3 .7,- • :• .,. .•,_,,, , .,.,4 n-4.-,,,,,"1 -, ,..,„:. . -'..: -,.. 7 t-7,.••.`,.;.,•'-'••`':7e.•,7;•....4-,-f.,...::',17.'ifin•'•,-*,.::71,1V;..7tr e;1„,4,'•.-2„:,7--c.,.%•.,,,,..0,, ei. ,s„;-...,. I
...,...,„....,.,..i, ..:.t•.-1,-. „-?., "•;`,., -.--:-..,.."-,-.:,4‘,••••:4A3--„' ::',•-•:4?•-',',7'; r`1•:14,--',.• --i,z,...-.!.,--•-•,.&•1':-ftAi.• :. '7•11:-17,,;'-';:i; :.-..i.,.,t;*??,'.'4,•'''41-1-1,--.'-r%1 P•-d 4.. ttiTi--••••tef AW:.•44-- :A.r.-4,-- --
- --.1. 40',:,,,I.i,., •.■• %k..1"7-Of%>'..- .;7';..T.;.--,,,:---i-,,-*:-., t,l-p4t,.;.‘., 1,!...;:','......',,..':."."'-',..,".1...' ''----''---,._;-..y.,-„,.1.:1,'•--"ftri,l,;.;+ f..,_...z.:,;.--, iiir;:t,_vi _:.,-,.-..,:,,,s,..;,,t3,,,pi,....„,,,--;---4,--r--
.......;.-_-_;:,--, tg..3 A p . : ----"- -.;j,-:'-,-i''' ....:',-:--.:' - :2;,-.--:' ,-.,.. ..`-f-:";'..-•':' 1-., ---e,-;-.--:,,- ,---"-1.-.-10.;',,•-4,4. .-4..:„..,-,....p. oapiet ,,,..4 ,r..-?1,--a.,4-.41._ ,:,•..--.1-,..4.•.
. --,4,--. ..., -‘..,ix- .,:.-,-..,,,..-::::;-,7,,••r,i, .s_ : A,-. ,7, ..,_ --„ - •7,7,V.,:',7,..;,.., !.."r,.:.,.::7,•?:ir-.'.. ••■•-•-,...it;.. l'''. •■•••‘ . k,*,'•e-r4•4"4;1.1r:. --.=" °Iii.
4'a....,„.,....,,,‘'.. •-:_-....,.7...:-. =:- .-,• -,...,- ..,,•,,-..-r.,--. -,.71 ....- -. -i '-,-..,,,.1., :z..-4,--.-,,,....-Itt,-,-., lit,.„# --.1,, --•,..,...-......,..... • -...:-:0,27,771-_:::.
---2.-7-...'",:-.72...,. sili. :.. .....; .‘. ..„4....... ,,, ,,,:-.... ■.;...' ' r...• '''.. - ''.r.'''' `.'°- !:- `,#^:•--•..,f,,,..c.,,,,,,.•;:,,,..,-;,-.'„- . ,tif ',.-
":_lt'.1-7-4.4,i4;',1"....-F, ip,,,•-:ejte '''' -'5'.-3.... •,, :•,■:?.''''S '.'''.;, ".'.:'.,',...._.',.• .s..:...:;-'.-''..."'';'..''. ' ',:'-i....',--r„i.''':,..1+,;;;,,c.V....1.„';^P*.-4`.;:'n,..4.,:. ,'•:%••e"." --...,,,A?."-'2.•., 'ffill?'::--,7_,-lt,...iir'it Cf..::;!.:41.-,-- .-,
'''''*§'Cil,*„,,,A1 'Cf101 .. s ';';''''''''G -'''\'-'''.../:'''''-'--',xi' :.s'''''""""-..-''': ''''.5?:-...-:-:=.'''''''.; -;.--:e,,,- -+'-' ••'1•`%?-i--*: i''‘•..i'-'-';'!41`.•.;- ',..'t 11! PT 1'41 .7°7;..'-is•-41-st1;-- •,',4•-r-4Y.--,',- :-
--"••-----a--1-'4,:4- '-....: ,-;-,;•-•-•;:--';',-2:--••'-;,,,,,i.."-*'.••.-•-r,;;!-,,, f•I').•,'?°,.-,t-.! 4;i-•4•*••••';'■•-',-,:i.,•-•1..,••;:::,' ;Ntl.??-,5,--:,,-'3/4..:%,:!.-,''‘--,:p.`• '4'4"-,I1,!..Nt 411 :.-•_- ....; '...._--pv-pl.:-.-y,.,;,,, ,..4.1-K..--,,'"-,_ r:
If . ,,, -......-....01-4,-S ‘-NIV A•."..^...•
. r'-'--'''''q.7%-.'"... ''...- •..if"■-.I.:: ..i."'-
.•••:',.4-.--p,,M., •.c--' '.i....et_ ' -.:. -_ ,., .-:.'-_-,:pi-,' -- - ; "-,",-.---4-. - ."0--` '-- • •.:.-",-.....-±-4---.7.----- 7.,t,i -4.4-,-•.■","#.7 '-.---74, . --;.1-,2-..?"-f-..--3-_,:l.,Aptp....1,,k, p,„?,P.x,•ki,,,,-
,›;;;.4gt., :v4,-.,.. 7,..,.4::,- ..--,..i-,.:-. ';-, ,N,-,!--..!1_ .. • :::',.:-. %-.-.....:-. .••.•-:•.'-.'',.•..•••'•••''- ';-3--.,:"3.•-,,-.. '-;:-•••••i•.-:'--''.V.-t-r%•-•-' i--41*.4 f: '-• . w• •_:';--,•i•' ;`,1:1:7-1:k.-ti'.:1•-•'it ---"•=7'
t
I
. Xi•rl'4.7-!4-1-= .. •.-.•..: • 'X...:,,-:';:--,'••-.-,`‘•1-7 ,-".;'>---4v4--".1.--.'''.;k':5--'_,*'-.X.T,.;.••=,.-:,'l':":',4,4;'-:-,t:-K,--:::'-.1,-- gl! ,..4?-*•-._
- ,,,'FI:i",;E:,--y ‘• '..._-..,....„ -,,, '--.., , .:'s, .c.•'. .;..;•-•-=4;i,.i,%.:74-,‘Pvia.•.,-'1:.::Z..7.-•--7:,,.?....s_;--2;,,,--:,:iW. ".,e,-, ;:::.i ,,...4.* 4. '1,*-c.iik'•':4', i'••=2.,..V..%V-it..-/(Xs' ,:.1,:':---
- .';'-'-'`''';'•••14`a:•''..:..!..r.V%",;-_• r.'4 : • ..4•• 1'..- '±-"---.7.-. ..i' '''''''. 2-•...,?::•, = -4:4--,,,,'': :.1.-t,';'-.4,==`,7,,::-',,i4;ti... :',„- if_,-
1
-*-1,7-iLai,-,?.. ,,,,.:,:,•,.,::,-,-.,•.1,:-.!•;•,.....,•-.-;;:. ,• •;''.!!.?!....,'--•.:...,,- 1-'''-- , 7 ,'..1.'"' '. '''.,..' ...,
'-':-; i .e4:-e..i,-- :!.!ts- •I' N'-$V,, -.2.''7-1*t.f..X .1,--k*‘-i' • ;1;;F•A' ripPter..filf4 ",.,''.
sr-' ' . ........t ''''''''.it'l-'7.'.';;.'..41.-A. -1''''.-01r111■30/7'%-'i'C'i1/4'.-.-
.:-i,..k.,!.!--.: . __,, ,--„,- - -.=-•,-... - , ,, 3i,,..,-...-.;',), --_,..-. ,., ' . -,-,r,"•_-•.::,'•••:,!;,•.', •.-21-‘,"..,.. q ,.. 7.,,e7- ....... ... 0 ,,..-• -,,;..- -
- ,-,
,44474/17 -%•-,..,:-`,:' ; ..• ,__,4.r.,-.-.41.:r 0.._ lilt - ,, 4 4,,-,...-,.1.:
gh. . .,,,'' .,11-..,.. ,,4.,:p•-,',,!Y- ,;•;,,4.7.,:•."..fe0. a. ,/.7'..-.i.-;'.,-4,7?...:li:A;---..:"0 tialli%A-- ' • .,,i','...---',.-
, . ••■ 41 ---•-•-- ' •'"-••:1-;•' : •;"t Z. -'14:-.••7 7•f.F..;';•:1'7:-•i 2 St• '7..-"*IY't''''• .• ...-'-A'•= *- '-- .•••?`-''••tr-s- -4•!st',...1's=1- ' fira '' Oh -'-''':•:.•:IP"''''' -''''"Z"-4--4--
, ;,,..,._•, ...:._. . ,7..... .... - .-/-'1 .`.`"r'-,.. . ,...•- " -"-C"' - - -',-.8-.."','"-"'is''''' ' ''''''" 1"--.-'1 te."';'. ''''.:;'t..'''''' 43 iii , in ,.„ ;,-, -, ,., -..4-:-.7-*14-:,
-, ,'---:;--.•:,'„'-.;--- '-111 ..!-i..-L-,,,:p.:if -.--1;.-v-•:.,-.t.;:;;;.:,;.-:„.-.- ..-n...:ii,-7,?-zaz,"->--E',--,-:.,•.,=0.54.a;f42--S-..f..k,---.:,.,i-• •A, i.i7,4.i.:-- •=k•,-.;,-,-, ra•- 4 4 '''s--.;' +'''''1* --' '':''`''"''''''Y''
.- ,-:. ,i,,"-",---:-- ••
- -':'',:- • - ai.'..,,:•... '-':'4.:p4i.:-,._?.--R;,,i,-,;::,'4, -f:',6.Z.1',...',.'-->,;e-r..,: i'-E.r",,t4-,=-',.."..,ie-",-;',.-A,-pc:::, 1":4-cti.--'',:-.1,4v.-.;,',.‘•..,---y.--.N4..-=.,*. w , 7--.-...-.,..---!,.:.-,...-.--,-:.-..! c.t....-4,.,--
- ' .7. ' •., . .-..;."'-:0 ,e7 ...7. ;.:‘'...,s,...,:;:..--.:4 4:-',';',-i'v,,-:-3:1ke 4..J.-.7i2.4.A-....i--.1::;„,.-', L,...,'-,:...-.-.,--47,:.--;:t,.,:-xr-!%t.'....1-ii-'-,,i'4,7.-:-.-,. ..,*.i,i,:,.... --.t...0_ ,;76.'"'...":"."--..-6-;C:E...1.:•z:'''".7 rA-i-i--::,:.-
*r...t,
_.--'_ -,i,,ri,.;._ ".•-:-.7.. ' ,_,_. .."-k...„t ',,T,,,-,4.i„,..,:',.:.z,"i':,:x-rf=7:',....';',4-1...=''''''.....i.,--'-' f'-' ',.;'..1;•-•''-:' ••••"‘-V"'''re-e='- -6%0
cd: ' '' -'...•-t& ,",..'.'''!':',.:^ ',I.:,:717,!,;;',1:_,1,' . ,:.!,4, : :, .z>',•',...z,': .";.---i7- .., : V:; ; / , II ..2 '.:!.: -
,,. -- - - -._ ',„.,...-- •' -.:.-;,-......t.--,:-...,..„,.-_,..- :.-...-..,.,..--..-..: : ,rolits,. „;,:,,..,.,„:v...i. 4:.:i„.,
',--_--,6,',.2..'7,...:, .frt;.--,..i 7- ....,,,,,!.;1'..,-;-;-.,--,4.-..-_,. _.:-.7: -,,..,.„,,,_.,.f.,. •--... -,:i-.....,-.„-:::-,.,--- ,. ,,.i.,-w,-, ;, -.,t,-,--..-,,.1-,-t, --.,-,:_-_-
,(.. ,,.. ' '.; - . - 7 -ri*,''•?'-747'-•. '''r.',-'2:'['riii, '. I I,i)_ 'VIC'... ..-•-•'-;:.--.4r-l'S-•,'"S,:. P•At<W,-„".
•,. .•_-r:7 ii; '•-•,, ;:;;.',.',-,..i' •ti,*,•??/„.y,•.1 .7!..7. .1 -.f7 --.'':,'7 ---,;-.!--. ..,.--;-. - .c.I. 7"z-;• :,-'.=' -'1',7" 1.'■-•--:-;-'-; *IWO 9 IA'" ''."':-.--7;`; i. -"f■-f--41-: '
-- - .'S,,•■ -..'„"-i:''-:tr:--i-,'-'::'"- _. '7,!,..,:::''''.,::-'":- -''-‘--)-if's:-.:=7='=•'----;, '- '4.-',;.'i,.;•-:---- ;',',v.'--- e-,,.,1 1, . ..,4-...,-. w,..".,:„..V•i".".1 5.7,•..-.•
. '''e:A.'', :. • '5"5'e"- • 5":"." .'•• "•"5"......'• ..4....`':... 15:•••%-..-4!.'1'.7'',5,''""".•••■••:"".f,."'P■•■•:,.•'•5 5,;".. 5•"•.''','''''•• - ..- ' . "P',5.-:4.5' ,5,•••••••-i.÷.... ;'-
',.'7-•:•,..,•..,. •-•,,Lic. -.,--",...., ".....77,5•• '
1.1 Airli L ''-'-'r.-1'P---.,--,•,--. - _.--:.----;
. .....-.: .:---
. . _ 4414., AActpr i .,....,--_,.,.., ..:::,-.:,-.-,;:i:-..,..,,i,-.......,-;„:::!,-.-;•-_-::.::_i_.--:::-,r.,=.a._:_:;- .7...---,..;,:7-::,;::3-• ,--::, ...,.,.-0.... -.,-,,,,,,,,„ •,..-.--
4p. - • ,..7- ,..-'• .4.-•--• ..;•••,,,I,.. ..
:..-•'v,i•,:_-7. •`-filM.411 41111166. 1 --'''•-•'-7 •'•• '-,'..7i,.-i.::1'f'''''',..'`'•=-7 i,1'' '.' '*. * * . -- e Oh 10 4011.. ,.4,,glij ."...:-.7i.,:•,‘.':•._1..7::2 -.7•,2":• :
.-.•..1-,.., 11,; '.-• --- V-,-70 -.7..„
• --. -4•,?t- '':-•.••: ti jildlar- --..;.-:',.;,:',:apt; '.-.....;11:::".;4.1-,f,,,,. . Ow.. .:-- .'..,i',..-!,:,..._.}.z,•
- •,....; .. -.... -.1,-' Ms% ",,}' fe.2 ,,,nr;,,, ----•, ,, .,,,. AI, '',".:--', ,41'.i'..."4.1-'''; . ' .:,, I. '`--•-:',.•."''‘":1,.:-
. '''•‘--''''-'"`"'--; 1 - ' Ailf‘,IO "I's'' - ..IIIIIWP 011oh-411;T:Natvell,,,,Vklkylir_. ..,-.%'-',....V... b'
•:;-.1.,- °as- ' - ' 0 . - - .
-;..--_ 4 . - ,:...,,... ..-z_ -:
-,,,,,,:,;•,,,... , 4, ''5.X. •, lb... ii. "•--!.'.. .4 040 1141117 ... . ' -•• • '"••• .. 5.‘' r.' . - 't i..tI,Z"')., '-(.$-
'..-i:',..1,--= :7• AL\ ■,.., -,.. - fitti. ..... \....--.." . -'"-g.::;...-.:,-,..-s.....m.,...d....,..-
- -
"''.'ttr.---; ' Vag;II '. ..
.'';7=-t--;:: : ' " • . . ,.-- - - - "' ...... _ .
..... .. 5 . . . • -. ;.•'i ;.5'3'.'!_i•7,•,',.."I. -•2' -4. , ....",...4'.. ,i-p
I
. ,..,.t.',....:-)e,-.-
- . :- ••••• "< -
._ 4ro ., s - q0 40 -- - g i -. • -.::‘,.. ,...7,B.,.:-,-.7.,i''.3'2.-'''''''.i. '.,,-
,-i'''..n■.^..:.,i' , ' - 4D • .., ,
.....i.;:o__.,,,, :. A•:: *. 1- ': 1-..:' .. 10 CI; ' , •.
= ";•.-I.••'..:,.„I.,,,,,,,')::,-',..., _.•• , t-
-i.f.:‘-'--- ;''.•-•''''f:C : ' ' ..- •;'..- ''' '-' 'n- ; • -
PARK DR IVE ---.' .---• ;-, .-.‘-:- --,!••• - :,..:. : -,.,-;,.=-- .,,. ‘ .,,,, ,,..,....--,.•..„.
I
.• ...
. ,
_ . . ;.• ..„.... - _ . _-,:i.-:,,-.
-.,
. . . . .
.. _,.• .. . , ., ....". 5.■?,,51'....••-,,-
. .•" . ..,, .
- .
.. ••• .
. . -•'1'a.s...!",,.. -
--, 1".:5‘•;:',S,...7"" --
. . , „ •.. -I.,.
- - .
. .
• ' , , '. .... , ,7, , ,,,.. ,;,,_ ,. .. _
.. . • - ..' ,- . . . . , .
• •
_ + - • '
•", . ••• - • • , s
, . • - '''- '••'•. 5.... 1;7
,
,
IP.; „, .•
• • .." 1;••- "."'-.:.5. ".• r•-.7.s'-•
. -
,...5.
-:-•• i-Ah•r--;-
. ■ .
ii7-'•• ' '''' ' -
•-•:,. ..• . ^ . . ,
,:i.!',-- - , - • , •-......,• --,...
' , ...•• • ',4^'
.4...7.--
,•::-= ' ,
.. • • _..0 • ve,-
- ,,.. -- ,••.7., -4.:,;47,
I
f•>!..-44, - , .
. : - - , • ; • • , •-:-' • • -' -..?-4•:-'r.;7.Vt`'"I
I MARCUS
Real Estate Development
I CORPORATION
October 21, 1988
Ms. JoAnn Olsen
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
' Dear Ms. Olsen:
Please find attached an application for zoning variance
relating to our Metro Lakes West Mini-Storage project at 7800
' Park Drive (SW corner of Highway 5 and Park Drive) . I have
also attached the required $75. 00 fee.
' Originally we had planned on placing our signage on the North
and East building faces abutting the Northeast corner of the
project. Since the project is now substantially complete we
have determined that this original plan is no longer feasible
' due to the fact that the signage will not be visible on the
North face of the building.
' As part of our agreement with the City we agreed to hold the
building elevation running parallel along Highway 5 to
approximately 6 feet in height. In addition, we agreed to
' provide landscaping and a berm along this same stretch.
A problem has arisen in that with the limited building
elevation exposed and the placement of the berm and
' landscaping the previously designed signage scheme would not
be visible. We have studied other alternatives relating to
placing the signage on the building and due to the limited
wall surface above grade we have been unable to find a decent
alternative.
' Consequently, we are proposing to eliminate the wall mounted
signage and have one pylon sign (double faced) as a
replacement. Please see the attached plan. The pylon sign
will be tastefully done and will be of the highest quality.
We would hope that the City would look favorably on this
variance given the circumstances. We believe it was never
anyones intention to negatively affect the necessary project
' identification signage which would enable us to conduct
business in a reasonable fashion.
10001 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 100 • Minnetonka MN 55343 • (612) 593-1177
Understandably, our mini-storage project, which is '
essentially warehousing, is classified as an industrial use
and belongs in such an area. Mini-storage, however, is by
its character a retail business which is different from most
warehousing. Signage is a critical element in that the
general public is trying to seek us out to obtain retail
storage facilities to meet their temporary needs. '
Please don't hesitate to contact me should you have any
questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Mark O. Senn
Metro Lakes West Mini-Storage
MOS/bjm
Enclosure
1
i
I
1
I .
-c. t `
..-„,,..:•-•::„. y�.. 7
R :-.;;•=, •5. -. _
•
I .r{q: - --Y++ { F"y -K--x..tz�c.F„:
U -� �? r .. t ; u cy s.•+ #,� r - s '�i'�"„a ,c •-
1 i.
•
•
I
I
I
I
-7--,...;;:'.1v,/,-,.
3}- '
ti �t
5- ,Y
pyS�ec k � -
_
I
•
I •
I
I
I
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
• (612) 937-1900
Mark 0. Senn/Roman Roos
APPLICANT: Mho Lakes West Mini-Storage OWNER: Same
ADDRESS 7500 Park Drive ADDRESS Same '
Chanhassen. MN 55317
Zip Code Zip Code II
TELEPHONE (Daytime) 593-1177 TELEPHONE Same
REQUEST:
Zoning District Change ___ Planned Unit Development
Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan ,
X. Zoning Variance Preliminary Plan
Final Plan
Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision
Land Use Plan Amendment Platting
Metes and Bounds
Conditional Use Permit
Street/Easement Vacation
Site Plan Review '
Wetlands Permit
PROJECT NAME Metro Lakes West Mini-Storage
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Industrial
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION N/A '
PRESENT ZONING Industrial
REQUESTED ZONING N/A '
USES PROPOSED N/A
SIZE OF PROPERTY Approximately 4.5 Acres
LOCATION 7500 Park Drive (SW corner of #5 and Park Drive) '
• REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST is the need for a variance to allow placement of
a pylon sign in the I - zone for the mini-storage
project (See attached letter)
•
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary)
y) N/A
I
City of Chanhassen
Land Development Application
1 Page 2
IFILING INSTRUCTIONS:
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten
clearly printed and must be accompanied by all informationandor
I plans required by applicable City Ordinance
filing this application Provisions . Before __
to determine the specific ordinance and fprocedural erequirements
'
applicable to your application.
is
FILING CERTIFICATION:
I The undersi� ne -
that he is famiiliarrwithtthevproceduralprequirt requirements
I hereby certifies
applicable City Ordinances , q ements of all
1
ISigned By God /
Applicant _ Date "Q •y,
I
The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been
authorized to make this application for the property herein
described. .,,,______4/1/6
I _ / (-1
Signed By /( /
' v Fee Owner Date /O 1/ ;��
•
IDate Application Received !n ` — eO
- Application Fee Paid $ 756°
•I City Receipt No. / (p ,
I
* This Application will be considered by the Planning
i Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their Commission/
meeting.
I
1 .. . ti
4 n i ` I
City Council Meetings- September 8, 1986
II
IP- 5ELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO CREATE 3 LOTS, 108 PIONEER TRAIL, DAVID HANSEN.
! ( Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to table this item until the II
Q� next regularly scheduled Council meeting on September 22, 1986 pursuant to
CC33 ,_,,,e, David Hansen's request. All voted in favor and motion carried.
TE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 64,391 SQUARE FOOT MINI-WAREHOUSE FACILI TY, LOTS 1 AND II
2, BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, LSR PROPERTIES.
U „ 240-i Barbara Dacy: The site is located in the southwest corner of TH 5 and Park II
61/-- ' Drive. As you recall, about a year ago the most interior lot was considered
by the Council for a site plan review for an industrial building. However,
II
since then the plans have fallen through and the applicants are proposing the
mini-warehouse storage facility. The proposal contains 64,000 square feet.
What is being proposed is the buildings and the storage units are forming a
perimeter around the site and containing additional storage in the site. A
II
24 hour security room is also proposed in the corner and there will be a
security gate at the entrance off of Park Court. The proposed hours range
between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. As you all may surmise, because of the
II
visibility of this particular lot, the City is very concerned about the
appearance from the major entrance into our community. The applicant has
proposed landscaping along the perimeter of the lot, especially along the north
IIside adjacent to TH 5. Staff is recommending and the Planning Commission also
approved installation of additional landscaping. Also, what is being done on
y the north side is that the rear of those units or the wall, what will be seen
is approximately a 4 foot wall with cut-outs along the way. You can see those II
on the plans that you have in your packets to break up the expanse a little as _
well as the landscaping will aid to that effect. Since the Planning
Commission meeting, the Manager and the applicant met to discuss this whole II visibility issue. We are satisified that you will not be able to see the
center of the site from TH 5. An extensive stand of mature vegetation in the
northwest corner of the site will also aid in screening of the proposed
development. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the site plan
II
subject to the four conditions in the Staff Report. All bituminous surfaces
must be lined with concrete curb, installation of additional landscaping,
compliance with the Watershed District's requirements, installation of proper
II
erosion control measures and the Commission added a fifth condition which
requires that no outside storage be permitted which would protrude from the
site so that you would be able to see it from adjacent streets and properties.
Their intent being that if storage is to occur on site, fine but it should not II
be visible from adjacent streets and properties. With that, I know that
the applicants are here.
Councilwoman Watson said her big concern was the apperance from TH 5 and that 1
seemed to be addressed with the landscaping. The only other question was what
material was to be used in the wall. Mark Senn stated that it would be either
rock base brick or red brick.
II
Councilwoman Watson also stated the fact that someone had brought up the fact
that Chanhassen means Sugar Maple in Indian and did the applicant plan on II
using any Sugar Maple Trees in their landscaping. Nick Ruehl, Architect
representing LSR Properties, stated they were looking into doing research on
II
7
II
j/i
li . A fi I
I
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
II
II
the hardiness of the Sugar Maple Tree in being so close to a major road to see
II where an appropriate place to put the Sugar Maple Trees and it would be no
problem to accomodate the planting of Sugar Maple Trees.
II Councilwoman Watson stated that she did not want any outside storage. Mark
Senn stated that there would be no outside storage, that the plan is not
designed for outside storage and they do not intend to have any. Barbara Dacy
II stated that outside storage is a permitted accessory use in an Industrial
District and that is where that particular use of the land is allowed.
Councilman Geving asked if the Staff had done any calculations on the density
II of the green space. Barbara Dacy stated that the site was below the 70% so
that was not an issue.
Councilman Geving stated that he wanted to see the landscaping requirements
I for plantings every 80 feet be reduced to every 25 feet to be in conformance
with the east side and the south side. The applicants stated they had no -
problem with that. Councilman Geving stated he was interested in the City
Engineer's comments and that everything seemed to be in order as far as
utilities, drainage, streets. The only concern the City Engineer brought to
the attention of the City Council was potential for widening of TH 5 and what
II that might do to, not the project because the buiding will be in place, but
when it happens the frontage of TH 5 will move close to the building and the
rest of the road could be shoved further to the north. Otherwise, he liked
the plan and thought Chanhassen needed it and was all for it. . - [
IMayor Hamilton stated that he was surprised when he saw a storage facility
like this being proposed for the industrial park. In his mind it didn't seem
II to fit there and he was not real pleased in seeing it there. He understands
it is one of the permitted uses but at the same time it is not one of the uses
he was looking for in an industrial park. Mayor Hamilton also stated that he
IIabsolutely did not want any outside storage.
Mayor Hamilton stated that in such a facility there is the possibility of
hazardous materials being brought in and stored in these garages. Mayor
I Hamilton was thinking particularly of the incident that happened about a year
ago when a car blew up from explosives that were stored in the car. He asked
what is to prevent the same type of individual from storing explosives in a
I garage facility similar to this and having an accident where someone could be
injured again. Mark Senn stated that they can and do control that for
insurance and other purposes. They will not allow the storage of hazardous
materials in this facility. There will be a 24 hour a day caretaker at the
I facility. When something goes into these storage units, the caretaker will be
there. Mayor Hamilton asked if he inspected everything that goes into
storage. Mark Senn stated that was the purpose for security purposes and part
II of security, as far as they are concerned, is what is going into storage.
They do not want anything hazardous going into there. That is not to say that
someone might not put a fishing boat in and there might be a little gas left
in the motor or something like that. There will be a statement in their
I rental materials and brochures which puts a requirement on the applicant to
drain that stuff to any kind of minimal level before storage. The other thing
6!
IIis that the buildings are constructed totally of non-combustible materials.
8
II
C . ._�,
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
It is a brick building, precast ceiling, steel wall and metal door. There
isn't anything to burn other than the contents confined to that specific unit.
Mayor Hamilton stated that if there was an explosion, it wouldn't be confined
to one unit. Mark Senn stated that it would have to be quite an explosion.
Roman Roos stated that because of the insurance rates that they will have to
be paying, they will be watching very closely for toxic materials that might
be stored. He stated that it would be very hard to check every single box
that comes in but they would be monitoring the contents as closely as possible
because of the insurance demands it. Mayor Hamilton stated that was his
comment. Unless it is in their lease that every time they bring something in
that it is going to be looked at. Roman Roos stated there would be a
disclaimer that they would have to sign. Mayor Hamilton stated that a
disclaimer would save LSR from harm but not individuals who might get hurt.
Roman Roos stated that with the landscaping and the wall being built around '
the perimeter of the facility, no one would be able to see garage doors or
anything from TH 5. Mayor Hamilton stated that there was a big difference
between Victory Envelope or any other large industrial buildings and it is not
just the visual. When you drive by and see Victory Envelope you know there
are hundreds of people working in there. When you drive by and see your
facility, there is one employee. Mayor Hamilton said we are talking about an
industrial site, prime land, right in the heart of the best locations of the
whole industrial park and you have one person working there. Roman Roos
stated the project provided a good tax base.
Councilwoman Watson stated she didn't see anything about signage. Barbara
Dacy stated that from her understanding, the applicants will propose one sign
for the property. Mark Senn stated it would be located out by the TH 5 side.
They hadn't decided on which end of the building it would be located.
Councilwoman Watson stated she didn't want a big red and white sign stamped on
the side of the building. Barbara Dacy stated that the sign ordinance will
give them the right to install a wall sign or a pylon sign. '
Councilman Horn stated that he was excited to hear there was going to be
another building in the industrial park and he shared Mayor Hamilton's
disappointment in this type of facility in that location. He understands that
it is an approved type of use and there isn't much that can be done to deny it
but he is not terribly excited about this type of facility at this location.
Back in the corner is a better location in his mind.
Councilman Geving wanted to clarify condition 5 which states that no outside
storage is permitted which would protrude above the wall. He thought what was
trying to be said was that they did not favor any outside storage at all.
Mayor Hamilton stated that, as Barbara Dacy stated, outside storage is a
permitted use so that would be a restriction if there were any outside
storage.
Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Site
Plan #85-7 on the Site Plan stamped "Received July 23, 1986" for a 64,391
square foot Mini-Warehouse Facility on Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Chanhassen Lakes
Business Park, subject to the following conditions:
9
•
.., • I' . 1 c
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
1. All bituminous surfaces not bounded by structures shall be lined with
concrete curb.
II
2. The developer shall place, at minimum, three more pine trees along
II the north lot line adjacent to TH 5.
3. Compliance with all
of the Watershed District's regulations on new
construction.
I4. Erosion control shall
construction limits and conform lwith lCity standards sforh for 1 and 2
at
ii
as noted on Exhibit A. 1
II 5. No
outside storage is permitted which would protrude above the wall
Iand would be visible from adjacent streets.
All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed. The motion carried.
I Mayor Hamilton: I'm opposed because I think it is not a proper use of the
land.
UCONSIDER FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR SANITARY SEWER SERVICE TO WEST 65TH
STREET/CRESTVIEW DRIVE. —
I Bill Monk: Several months ago the City Council approved preparation of a
feasibility study for sanitary sewer extension to 65th Street and Crestview
Drive based on information provided by Staff and residents in the area about
II inoperable and failing septic systems and that approval was based on
submission of a petition. The petition was submitted by a number of residents
and in reviewing it, I made the determination that they represented
II approximately 35% of the homeowners in the area so the feasibility study was
finally put together. I'm a little bit slow in getting it complete. Council
has the study before them at this point and a copy was sent to all of the
resident or effected property owners along the proposed route of the sewer who
I would be proposed to be assessed. Although this is not a public hearing,
because of my involvement in this project, I did invite the residents in to
discuss this item with the Council if they so choose tonight so a full
I discussion could take place before the public hearing. My intent is not to
gumble the process but again, with the circumstances of my being here only for
a few more days, I figured this was the best way to get a full discussion on
the item. What I would like to do is just run through the major portions of
Ithe report and answer questions, go over potential costs.
General sites involved are West 65th Street and Crestview Drive, both west of
County Road 117. My initial thought with this project was to service these
I areas which are outside of the existing Municipal Urban Service Area, that the y
would not be servicable by gravity sewer and that a lift station would have to
be placed in the approximate location of the lowest service point in the area
I which would be at the Crestview Drive/CR 117 intersection and then pump to the
north to an existing sanitary sewer further north on CR 117. In looking at
[ !
IIthe proposal a little bit closer, had a site survey done, a very quick one but
10
1
' 1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING '
AUGUST 13, 1986
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 8 : 00 p.m. I
MEMBERS PRESENT
Tim Erhart, Robert Siegel , Ladd Conrad I
MEMBERS ABSENT ,
Steven Emmings, Howard Noziska
STAFF PRESENT
Barbara Dacy, City Planner ; Todd Gerhardt, Intern.
A quorum was not present at the meeting with only three Commission
members present. Therefore, an informal discussion meeting was held on
items that did not require any official action. A special meeting was
called for next Wednesday, August 20, 1986 at which time a quorum would
be present. '
Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies - Mark Koegler.
Barbara Dacy: Basically, in his (Mark Koegler's) memo, as a result of the
meeting that Mark and Staff had , are policies that we felt should be
changed. Those are the ones that refer to the Rural Surface Area and in
the downtown. We felt that the other policies were just as applicable now
as they were in the past and did not warrant a change so we are in a
position of recommending that, pursuant to Mark's memo, we will go ahead
and amend the policies as presented.
Ladd Conrad: Any thoughts on what Staff recommended as the additions to I
the Comprehensive Plan? As we looked at the Land Use section, specifically
the goals and policies, any comments?
Tim Erhart: Number 1, suggested policy of Chanhassen's Rural Service Area. I
The term Rural Service Area, where are you drawing that from? That term is
not used in the proposed zoning ordinance.
Dacy: The term is drawn from Metro Council's definition of the Urban
Service Area and the Rural Service Area.
Erhart: So there is a statute on this... The only other one I would add
is the word "septic" after "on-site". That leaves the sentence a little
vague. It says on-site systems and it should say on-site septic systems.
On the suggested policy on the next one on the next page, the portion of
the Rural Service Area between Chanhassen's MUSA line and the Metropolitan
Council's MUSA line, obviously you are planning on sticking to your guns on
(-- C I ( P.C. DATE: Aug. 13, 1986
Y OF
I �\\i ClIAMASSEN C.C. DATE: Sept. 9 , 1986
1 Y CASE NO 85-7 5 7 S ite Pl -2122)
Prepared by: T. Gerhardt:k
i
•
I STAFF REPORT
I
I PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for a 64,391 Square Foot
Mini-Storage Facility on 4 .5 Acres of Property
1 Z ,,„:n City 1dminisif^,tor
Eitarsec L�
I 0 LOCATION: Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Chanhassen Lakes titcditied
SIMMS
Business Park Rejected
Late ���� G
APPLICANT: LSR Cat. Submitted to Commission
Q.. Chanhassen Mini-Storage Property 8J,3/ v
QMark 0. Senn Cite Suomitte. to Council
10 Water Street 9/1/424
IExcelsior, MN 55331
1 PRESENT ZONING: P-4, Planned Industrial Development District
I ACREAGE: Lot 1 - 1 . 83 Acres; Lot 2 - 2 . 70, Acres
DENSITY:
U ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- R-la, Lake Ann Park (across TH 5)
S- P-4, Office-Warehouse
iQ E- P-4, Vacant Industrial
IW- P-4, Vacant Industrial
R '
I W WATER AND SEWER: Municipal services available
1
IPHYSICAL CHARAC. : The area' s topography gradually slopes from
v, the north to south with existing vegetation
in the northeast corner.
I1990 LAND USE PLAN: Industrial
I
C C • . 1
I
I
I
Letcki.ion
Propote.d .te.
STATE 1H1GHWAY NUMBER
1 '
103 798
5
t.
cn
c-,40
---.-.4t,'-=-•- ' '-':7--,_ , ,,!:*-'''Vil:Zg4:10:0,..7.- 41 : 7 ,--. .
ViNf€10BISAI;:'e -t._-7 , 5,45:t110.‘-;a- 1
t-A-tr,-Oat-i4-5:- Iv '---...W47,.---.,:-.--j-,.t-._`;-.--',. "•---
-.".:._. .-7 ,'-:-.It;',..',.;..']W„:-'-.-_-.'. .,- - k,sA-,F. VEL PE 5.01 ACRES
-:
.,-\ 924 1.-7,V:77-43i.,-- ;7•: --%?'": ".
Cs.KER,.-,s- Z..'0-i- -.17,.--kz,,,12-..--- ," - --....,-.71,\. ,-,,,_.,.....c.,,,..,
-_.....x.:.-:3-7-.,,,-•.4t2----t::•-•'..:-- -----•4`wr',,t..,..-1-01..,•,,- ..
-4•"4-,-;,-17_,-1*,•_--------..4,..,-, .
.7,-,-;.9?„-ti.,,-•`..4-.,..f.'-••-s.-:.;-, ,..!---i_=4- ",---'-:r4-s4 .1--" 4 ... 1..---• ---.-_,-_-•..,----t, 4.,-
---.--..-4.71.,-------- '----•- -
-DUNN ' PARK COURT
4.17 PC R ES -::-: # ;:.
_,.....„-: ___,_;',',---_-_,.,..-,_;"... ,f- -7.;.c.., . - ,,,r„,■:;'.1f. .i■-, ',' 74-,(- ---4-.,,- .,-7-'`'',.
'.. " CC "4=4.A-K3-,aci; .-Z.: ,:=-;&:•Iivit:14i
2 0 ]:'- 'f,i,-.1-"• -••=77:.!',-.
_.A..,-,ir-rc-v 7zo-jg*:%.
i # `› - .I.' --,,: .--- :I S.;,_,1---",-,.•,.....;:-.-..,;..7.3_,
':4;4;.'";•r.j2if!'-'1,it,r;'.::: 51Ir-, 4'.. - _-::=5„p*-ii.,444r.".,.-::-„:','"'-f...,
CRES „ ,.„--'1,..i.,,, BLOCK 1
.9 2.92 ACRES „,. -
627 -.'":.-—CHANHASSEN
a'' ;-".:--::::: '::.,---,.7:.':•--'.4,i,Vit. --:
..., .. ' - ---"-';-•-LAKES BUSINESS ,
.--.-; ''
--- -,-- ---,4*-
c
40 C.7,ENTER iIk I--i*
-
•
,1XA,
- '' ••• .
:- --j,',-. 3,--"- - ..---:"......... .t* ,,,.--, • .-,--ti•-, ,,- -
,
:.;-,,, --..;-••,,,:e, ";--i.,--1,4-'7.1'.-,--_,..c- •.,..r."-:-- _---.,,...4-.
)• ,,,,,:A) -‘_ _-: ---4---:=-.. .-,-;:-7;,i•l--.4g4.,,:i.,TiV5'r.;74A4,4-,:,*--Fi.3•--.. ....,•••'..*''f...14 ,:
. \-s,i-P2) % =-7,"t:','ei•
.,P :r---,..---,-•-,5----,:-..),,,t,,,t,,,,,,--,,,,,-7,,
CRES sIPA-1.0-
ITED , - •Li:.---,, ,,t,.
- :,-;a el-. -.1-z-st,..- --, ---....:-..:-:....,.,.-r.;,,,
CONCRETE:4. :::::.-:.
-!,.:5.* .,4. •4 --!.., - --P.,
--i4A 41% "0 COMPANY,,--.'. .
1,9;z ,
-......4,-,,,Vr...e_.......ff 4' ;.,....4....,
10 k": 7----,, 'i..,,.:.-,-','-,-::- :-•i.,.-1-1.P4.7.,--:;_:.=,*
,.._,-.,,,...„ - ,f,----.....A17.,,i,3-4,,,,,,,k..-.;_t-..- -- :•-..,-,7.7.1.....,,-37.2-i-,';•••'':1
. _
41,./^, ..-,. 'ff-•.-"eke '4-12'
'.7_,..-_,:a1:0714, .,trf..:'7."--...= '. ...g-.,., '',.'":',.,-,..,;,,•.,.,\-,,,,., . ,.A.: ..,..E: ..,.._•:,......,.
CHANHASSEN •-..f.•=r.
CI • LAKES BUSINESS •,:- --,••'f,,,e,:>. ,•1,..•--..,• ..-;,-...:1
,,I"- •4.='..!:,,.L.,. *--— - ,
..•
j. :Ar.,,,,,)-. -, .s.-2,■.-4:71' :::---:
CENTER — --r-41'''a' '.4''-''''-t0 .t=ij:*--.'4.,- kir.;
0 1\0..: .,.. ..A.......,.;,„ .., ,... ,,,,,,,,,,....,,, .
._
CRES _Tr:, ,-- N'-r3,-' '`:.,• 'r.'43-..'
- .. •
0 503 ck ..:;tee..... 4Fts
--,-,, ,-sitteNt. 4 z ,-V.'•,'"-_", -1'.-1'.
,„;.;.*:.- ,----,
3 .,,.. .„. .,„„,„„.. .„..,.....f..,..„ .....:„. -,........,..
3.95 ACRES a..:.
CHANHASSEN
111
2 "-' 64 .,.,
LAKES BUSINESS
---.-. 1._
- -4'...-,,
\C RES
'4— - '''"----- ENERGY - . - — . - ' • ,-4.,Te
ii,....- CONTROLS, '=.:Xt.1.7. :;!..:-.;,.5:1:-.4---
165 It;,.."4.11:-■-::.:
• -• -.... . ,..-. -
MACHINES
, --ls..7,5.7,,::;:- ' ,%1 ,... ••
FLUOROWAR -;,.. 77- ,.3,:ive f \.)XN.
0 U 11
'.4.- .
-:-.<;,;:, ---1.-..;:•.44e......4c....,,it....„4.*::..„,i,.:*:pl.:. - , r-
1\1 16.94 ,
,..„1„..
C
LSR Mini-Storage
' August 13 , 1986
Page 2
' APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 17. 05 of the Zoning
Ordinance requires that all
' construction for a principle
building must be reviewed by the
Planning Commission and City
Council.
REFERRAL AGENCIES
' City Engineer See attached
ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting site plan approval for the construc-
tion of a 64 , 391 square foot Mini-Storage Facility and Security
Office for LSR Properties. The Security Office will also be used
' as the living quarters for a 24-hour security guard. The office
hours will be from 7 : 30 a.m. to 8 : 00 p.m. , seven days per week.
The proposed location is on Lots 1 and 2 , Block 2, Chanhassen
' Lakes Business Park.
On October 7, 1985 , the City Council approved a site plan for a
15 , 000 square foot manufacturing facility for Lane Evelope
' Company on Lot 1 of the proposed development. However, due to
uncertain circumstances, the sale of the property never occurred.
Thus, the present proposal has been submitted for site plan
' approval.
Site Design
' Access to the site will be provided by a 24 foot driveway from
Park Court. There is adequate separation from the intersection
to the proposed driveway cut entrance. Access to the facility
' would be gained by punching in a three digit code, which in turn
will raise an electronic gate.
' The proposed site plan provides three parking spaces located next
to the security office. This is based on the Zoning Ordinance
requirement of one parking space for each employee on the major
shift. The number of employees on the major shift totals 1.
The material to be used in the construction of the facility are
all non-combustible, made up mostly of concrete and some sheet
' metal for dividing walls and doors . The applicant will not allow
the storage of toxic or flammable substance within the facility.
Landscaping
The applicant is requesting the construction of 97 storage units
around the perimeter of the proposed development. With a large
portion of the development next to the highway, the applicant is
LSR Mini-Storage
August 13 , 1986
Page 3
proposing the construction of a precast concrete retaining wall '
along the north lot line. The retaining wall will extend six
feet above grade and eight feet above the storage unit on the
opposite side. Through this process, only six feet of the pro-
posed
retaining wall would be visible from Highway 5 . The
applicant is also providing screening about every 80 feet using a
mixture of Green Ash, Austrian Pine and Redtwig Dogwood. Staff
is recommending additional vegetation to be placed along the
north lot line adjacent to Highway 5 to provide continuous screening.
On the east and south lot lines, the applicant is providing
screening every 25 feet using a mixture of Green Ash, Austrian
Pine and surrounding the trees with Golden Mockorange, Dwarf
Korean Lilac and Techny Arbovitae. The applicant is also pro-
posing
a 110 foot long wall, just north of the cul-de-sac on Park
Court, which may be a location for a future entrance.
Along the northwest corner of the proposed development, the
applicant is not proposing any new landscaping because of the
existing grove of mature trees. This would provide adequate
screening of any activities taking place within the facility. '
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the '
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan '
#85-7 for a 64 , 391 square foot Mini-Storage Facility based on
the site plan stamped 'Received July 23, 1986 ' and subject to
the following conditions: '
1 . All bituminous surfaces not bounded by structures shall
be lined with concrete curb.
2 . The developer shall place, at minimum, three more pines
along the north lot line adjacent to Highway 5 .
3 . Compliance with all of the Watershed District' s regula-
tions on new construction. "
4 . Erosion control shall be installed along the east, south I
and west construction limits and conform with City stan-
dards for Type 1 or 2 as noted on Exhibit A.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On a motion by Emmings, seconded by Erhart, the Commission unani-
mously
recommended approval of the site plan subject to the four
conditions presented by staff and adding the following:
1
LSR Mini-Storage
August 13, 1986
Page 4
5 . No outside storage is permitted which would P rotrude
above the wall and would be visible from adjacent
streets .
STAFF UPDATE
Since the preparation of this report, the applicant and Planning
staff met with the City Manager to resolve concerns regarding the
expanse of the wall/building along TH 5 . The applicant has
' demonstrated that vegetation as well as cut out features of the
wall will break up its expanse and minimize its visual effect.
Further, the applicant has agreed to grade the southern and
' eastern portion of the site so that the height of the wall is
lessened by the height of the grade.
Staff is confident that vehicular activity on the site will not
' be seen from TH 5 .
ATTACHMENTS
' 1 . Memo from the City Engineer dated August 7, 1986 .
2 . Planning Commission minutes dated September 25 , 1985.
' 3 . City Council minutes dated October 7, 1985 .
4 . Application.
5 . Letter from William Crawford, MnDOT dated August 20, 1986 .
6 . Planning Commission minutes dated August 20, 1986 .
' 7 . Site Plan stamped "Received July 23 , 1986" .
8 . Site Plan Elevation Plan stamped "Received August 4, 1986" .
1
I
. .
c c . 1
CIT'foF 1
\ CHANHASSEN
,\, ,,N
_,.,„ .
�; r 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
I
`
MEMORANDUM
ITO: Planning Commission
FROM: Bill Monk, City Engineer I
DATE: August 7, 1986
SUBJ: Site Plan for Mini-Storage on Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, I
Chanhassen Lakes Business Park
Utilities I
Sanitary sewer and water services are stubbed to the property I
line and, as noted on the utility plan, will be extended to ser-
vice the security building.
Drainage
I
As the Business Park was developed, the storm sewer and ponds
were designed to handle conditions for ultimate development.
I
This plan calls for construction of significant impervious
surface, however, the storm sewer system can adequately handle
the additional flow from the development' s interior storm sewer
I
system.
Grading
Site grading is extensive given the type of facility being I
constructed. However, the visual impact along TH 5 should be
minimized as the buildings on the north boundary will be recessed
I
approximately six feet into the existing slope. The scope of the
grading operation also increases the potential for site erosion.
As noted on the grading plan, erosion control is proposed along
I
the east, south and west construction limits . This erosion
control shall conform to the standards noted on the attached spe-
cification sheet.
Streets
The single drive on Park Circle presents adequate site access and
I
no vehicular conflicts . The only engineering concern regarding
this proposal involves the setback from TH 5 . The 30 foot set-
back will require any future widening of the highway to encroach I
46(41461/ IP /
i
I ' I ,
' Planning Commission
August 7, 1986
Page 2
additionally across property on the north side of the highway
(City park) . This northward realignment will not necessarily
cause problems, however, the full impact of the mini-storage
should be noted.
Recommended Conditions
1 . Erosion control shall be installed along the east, south and
west construction limits and conform with City standards for
Type 1 or 2 as noted on Exhibit A.
2 . All bituminous surfaces not bounded by structures shall be
lined with concrete curb.
3 . All regulatory agency conditions shall be adopted by
reference.
1
LI
ENGINEERING FABRIC
STEEL FENCE AFI-ENVIRO FENCE
OR I
POSTS 7'-7"O.C.— OR APPROVED EQUAL)
io —
Iv
N
I
EROSION CONTROL
FENCE-TYPE I
I
•
11 I II 1 11I I I STEEL FENCE POSTS TO
�I''II'HH'{{�II 1'III1��I��'�II SUPPd1TE SNOWO FENCE SMALL
•
I
1�•
� -7"; I
.E
. I
x
NAT DR STRAW (ALES
TWO RE-BARB DRIVEN TNROUON EACH BALE
I I/2'-S' INTO ()ROUND. BALES TO BE RECESSED
•'BELOW ORAOE ANO WIRED TO SNOW FENCE
EROSION CONTROL
I
FENCE-TYPE 2
I
:URB I
IIIIA 0
Egh, b, #hip .",
409 .
. ..
1
1
State Proj. No.194-101.01 8a I94-101-02 I
C C C
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25 , 1985
Page 3
Dacy stated that the Zoning Ordinance was established after these
structures were built. She stated that the lengthy legal
description will be eliminated, the non-conforming status of
these structures will be removed, and each structure would be
maintained better because of individual ownership. She stated
' that this is an existing situation which the city had no control
over when the buildings were constructed.
' Noziska felt that a condition should be placed in the recommen-
dation that stated that there will be no increase in density.
Emmings moved, seconded by J. Thompson, that the Planning
' Commission recommends approval of Preliminary and Final
Development Plan request #84-2 for Ches Mar Farms including
rezoning to P-1., Planned Residential Development based on the
' preliminary plat stamped "Received September 4, 1985 " with the
following conditions:
1 1 . A homeowner' s association maintain Outlot A;
2 . There should be no increased density.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Site Plan Review #85-7 for a 15 ,000 Square Foot
Manufacturing/Warehouse Facility on Property Zoned P-4 , Planned
Industrial Development District and Located in the Southwest
Corner of the Hwy. 5 and Park Drive Intersection , LSR Properties ,
applicant
Dacy stated that the applicant is requesting site plan approval
for Phase I construction of a 15 ,000 square foot production/storage
' and office building for Lane Envelopes . She stated that the pro-
posed site is located at the southwest corner of Park Drive and
Highway 5 . She stated that the proposed driveways will be from
Park Drive and Park Court and that there is adequate separation
' from the intersections. She stated that the site plan provides
30 parking spaces for Phase I which is based on the ordinance
requirement of one space for each employee on the major shift.
' She stated that the applicant is proposing a two foot berm along
the perimeter of the parking areas adjacent to the road right-of-
ways. She also noted that along the top of the berms, the appli -
cant is proposing six Green Ash trees complimented by eight 5
foot Austrian Pine trees which should provide adequate screening
of the parking activities. She noted that the elevation of the
area adjacent to the loading dock will rise two to four feet from
the pavement of the loading area. She noted that the combination
of the fast growing vegetation and the rise in topography will
adequately screen loading activities. She also noted that all
areas of the site are designated for sodding except for the area
A M 4
•
C - r
1
Planning Commission Minutes r
September 25 , 1985
Page 4
r
for the future addition and the future parking area and staff
is recommending however that the future parking area be sodded as
it is the drainage area for the first phase of parking.
Noziska asked about the building height and elevation. r
Nick Ruehl , from LSR Properties, stated that the building is r
basically tucked into the site and at its highest point would be
approximately 19 to 22 feet; however that highest portion of the
building is actually tucked four feet into the ground. He stated
that it would be roughly 15 to 18 feet high.
Ryan wanted clarification on the number of employees per shift
and the parking availability.
Ruehl stated that there was a misunderstanding in the staff
report. He stated that the total number of employees is 23 which
also includes the office area and all three shifts.
Ryan asked if any solvents or air emissions could possibly cause
any traffic problems on Highway 5 .
Ruehl stated that the printing operation is nothing more than
what would be from a very small print shop. He stated other than
that there are no odors that would be generated and nothing that
would be considered pollutants.
Ryan also asked about the status of the Park Drive intersection
with Highway 5 .
Dacy stated she would obtain that information for the City r
Council meeting .
Conrad moved, seconded by Noziska to recommend approval of Site
Plan #85-7 for a 15 ,000 square foot manufacturing/office facility
be approved based on the site plan stamped "Received September 5,
1985 " and subject to the following conditions :
1 . The perimeter of all parking areas shall be lined with
concrete curb except those areas that are to be expanded.
2. The future parking area shall be sodded.
3 . The parking should reflect the appropriate needs for total
number of people on site for each shift.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
r
' • Council Meeting, Octobe(- 7, 1985 -12-
I SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 15 ,000 SQUARE FOOT MANUFACTURING/WAREHOUSE FACILITY, SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND PARK DRIVE, LSR PROPERTIES :
Barb Dacy : The applicants have received notice from the state regarding the
industrial revenue bonds and the state has approved their application so we will be
I proceeding with our requirements for industrial revenue bonds . The site is located
in the southwest corner of Park Drive and Highway 5. The applicant is Lane Envelope
Company and LSR Properties. What is being proposed is the construction of a 15,000
I square foot building with Park Drive on the east and Park Court on the South . Access
to the site will be provided by driveways from Park Drive and Park Court . You can
see on the plan that this area is eventually intended to be elected as future parking
for the proposed phase II addition . However, between now and when phase II occurs,
Ithis area will be used for drainage purposes. The loading dock area is along the
west lot line. The applicant has submitted an adequate landscaping plan and should
provide ample screen between the berming and the vegetation along the street rights-
, of-way . The building will also be built into the slope, so to speak. There was
some confusion at the Planning Commission about the number of parking spaces and if
that would be adequate . Staff has clarified that with the applicant . The first
I phase of parking shows 23 spaces. The Commission was concerned about shift changes
and so on and if there would be adequate parking and the applicant has indicated that
sometimes some of the shift members leave one-half hour earlier . Secondly , the
Commission wanted some clarification and an update on the status of the Park Drive
I intersection onto Highway 5. We contacted MnDot and their response was that Powers
Boulevard and Audobon Road will be full intersections and lighted at some point in
the future . There may be a median stretching from Powers Boulevard west to Audobon
II Road which would prevent a whole turning movement at the Park Drive intersection. It
would kind of be a right-in and right-out turn only . However, when and if that takes
place, that particular access will continue to function as is . With that, we are
I recommending approval with the standard condition that all the parking areas be lined
with concrete curb and that the future parking area in the southeast corner of the
site be sodded instead of what was shown as seed .
I Mayor Hamilton : Will the mechanical equipment be screened or will that be a con-
dition also?
IBarb Dacy: Yes, it is an ordinance requirement .
Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve site plan #85-7 for a 15 ,000 square foot manu-
facturing/warehouse facility based on the site plan stamped "Received September 5,
1985" and subject to the following conditions:
1 . The perimeter of all parking areas shall be lined with concrete
IIcurb except those areas that are to be expanded .
2 . The future parking area shall be sodded
IIMotion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson .
Councilman Horn: The discussion on closing that entrance completely didn 't come from
I MnDot . It came from this group as a concern with that type of access onto Highway 5,
and the concerns that we have with too many accesses onto Highway 5. I would hope
that we wouldn ' t wait for MnDot to tell us that is dangerous intersection . That is a
I dangerous intersection today with people making turns in and out of that today . I
think everyone should be aware that the road may stay that way in the future until
MnDot decides that it should change . It was built as a temporary access and was to
be closed as soon as County Road 17 was completed . I would make it a right-in/
Iright-out immediately rather than having both ways.
i
44ckle41 3
• ' Council Meeting, Oct``-er 7, 1985 -13- II
The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton , Councilwomen Watson and Swenson ,
Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes . Motion carried .
SIGN PERMIT VARIANCE REQUEST FOR AN ADDITIONAL FREE-STANDING SIGN , 581 WEST 78TH
STREET, JOEN DOREK/BILL BADEN:
Barb Dacy : When we looked at the original site planning process of the whole deve-
lopment a recommendation was made that we should have an overall sign plan, that we
limit signage to an area identification sign, a directory sign and the appropriate
traffic directional signage on site . The way now that the property has been sub-
divided , the Kirt property does have street frontage , our property techincally does
not and the Chanhassen Bowl does not as well until we build the north/south roadway
along the western boundary . Mr . Kirt intends to construct his own identification
sign listing the tenants in his portion of the building. In the meantime , the
bowling center has indicated to staff that there is some difficulty with people and
traffic trying to find their place . They walk into the animal fair portion first
before they come all the way down back into the bowling center portion . What staff
would like to propose through a sign variance request is until the street is built
along the western boundary that the Chanhassen Bowl be allowed to run a temporary ,
not a make shift portable sign , but a temporary/permanent sign that can be placed on
the City property and the appropriate distance back from the street until such time
that the road gets built . When the road is constructed, they will be able to move
that sign to the proposed entrance at this location and simultaneously , the City
should construct its own sign so that it can advertise whatever use is occurring in
our portion of the building as well as advertising the bowling center, or saying the
Chanhassen Mall , maybe a community type of identification purpose . That is the pro-
posal as to allow the Chanhassen Bowl to erect a temporary sign until the north/south
street is constructed . When it is constructed they can move that and the city , at
the same time, construct a sign along West 78th Street to advertise, not only bowling
but our portion as well . They will be the only two free standing signs along that
stretch of the road frontage .
Councilman Horn : The one that is there now?
Barb Dacy : No. That will taken down by Mr. Kirt .
Councilman Horn : Then there will be one sign for front area, the bowling and the
city area .
Barb Dacy : There will be one sign for Kirt and then after the road is built there
will be one sign for us and the bowling center .
Councilman Horn : When is the Kirt sign going to be built?
Barb Dacy : He said within the next month or so .
Councilman Horn : Could they temporarily have the bowling sign in with that sign
until we do this whole thing?
Barb Dacy: I suggested that option and the bowling center would perfer to have their
own sign and Mr . Kirt would prefer to have his own sign on his own property and not
share with the bowling center . His purpose is just advertise the tenants up front .
Councilwoman Swenson : How far apart would they be?
Barb Dacy: About 150-200 feet . '
1 . Cr
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
ICITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
1 L.S.R. Properties(612) 937-1900 L.S.R. Properties
Chanhassen Mini Storage property Chanhassen Mini Storage Property
APPLICANT: Mark 0. Senn OWNER: Mark 0. Senn
1 ADDRESS 10 Water Street ADDRESS 10 Water Street
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
TELEPHONE (Daytime) 474-2363 Zip Code -
TELEPHONE 474-2363 Zip Code
REQUEST:
IZoning District Change Planned Unit Development
IZoning Appeal Sketch Plan
Preliminary Plan
Zoning Variance Final Plan
IZoning Text Amendment Subdivision
Land Use Plan Amendmt Platting
I ____ Metes and Bounds
se Permit
Street/Easement Vacation
I
::X Site Plan Review
Wetlands Permit
IPROJECT NAME Chanhassen Mini Storage Project
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Industrial
IREQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Industrial
PRESENT ZONING p_4
IREQUESTED ZONING P-4
USES PROPOSED Mini Storage - warehouse
ISIZE OF PROPERTY 4 S ArreS with city parcel
LOCATION rk Drive - Highway #5
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST Approval for Mini Storage Warehouses
I
ILEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) LOT 1 BLOCK 2 Chanhassen Lakes
LOT 2 BLOCK 2 Chanhassen Lakes Business Park (City Parcel)
111 Mehrle0 f -14-
•
City of Chanhass. i
C c • II
Land Development Application
Page 2
FILING INSTRUCTIONS :
I
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten
clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and or
plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions . Before I
filing this application, you should confer with the City Planner
to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements
applicable to your application . I
FILING CERTIFICATION:
The undersigned representative I
that he is familiar with th f� 1 requirements hereby certifies
applicable City Ordinances Pr�. dural requirements of all
I
5-14er---4 - e4-e—_____________
Signed By Mark o. Senn I
Applicant _ Date 7/23/86
1
The undersigned hereby certifi ha the applicant has been
authorized to make this appl ' atioor the property herein I
described .
. � ��'/�_ I
Signed By Mark 0. Senn
Date 7/23/86
I
Fee Owner
I
Date Application Received • '
Application Fee Paid n 5 op
City Receipt No. Al Add I
I
* This Application will be considered b
Board of Adjustments and Appeals by the Planning Commission/
I
meeting, ppeals at their .
I
•
1
•
I �NNESOT ( -
1016 q Minnesota
I a Department of Transportation ",ilG ti ;06
4. F- District 5
�cp 2055 No. Lilac Drive i i Y OF CHANHAS� .'!
Iof no, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
(612)ztlop,
I 593-8403
August 20, 1986
1 Ms. Barbara Dacy, City Planner
City of Chanhassen
II 690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
I Re: S.P. 1002 (T.H. 5)
Plat Review of Mini-Storage Facilities located in
the SW Quadrant of T.H.5 and Park Drive in City
I of Chanhassen, Carver County
Dear Ms. Dacy:
We are in receipt of the above referenced plat for our review in accordance
11 with Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03 Plats and Surveys. We find the
plat acceptable for further development with consideration of the following
comments:
II - As you know, we are presently working on preliminary plans to widen
T.H.5 in this area. Although the project currently scheduled will _
tie into the existing roadway near Park Drive, it is anticipated
II T.H.5 will have to be widened to the west. If the highway is widened
all to the north side of the existing highway, this proposed develop-
ment would not be impacted other than the need for a slope easement.
A northerly alignment will require a significant amount of additional
II right-of-way along the north side of the existing highway but it
appears to be a better choice than a southerly alignment.
- For our review, we have assumed that the existing drainage patterns
and rate of runoff will be maintained.
If you have any questions in regard to this review, please contact Evan Green
II at 593-8537. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerel
/
II fi
/1% '
W. . Crawfo : ,. P.E.
IDistrict Engineer
cc: Sandra Gardebring - Metropolitan Council
IIRoger Gustafson - Carver County Engineer
II
An Equal Opportunity Employer A-�-ac.I4 n1 EA); -3s
I
Planning Commission Sc,cial Meeting II
August 20, 1986 - Page 19
II
Erhart : Apparently there is plenty of space here for that to come down to
make a right angle turn to hit TH 41. That is the only questions I had.
Siegel moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the II
City Council approve Subdivision Request #86-18 as shown on the plat
stamped "Received July 22, 1986" subject to submittal of detailed plans II showing the structural design, proposed housing site, septic field and well
sites . All voted in favor and motion carried.
Conrad: This will go to City Council September 8, 1986.
II
Site Plan Review for a 64,391 square foot mini storage warehouse facility I
on 4.5 acres of property zoned P-4, Planned Industrial Development and
located on Lot 1, Block 2, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, LSR Properties.
Gerhardt: We have a site plan review for a 64,391 square foot mini-storage '
facility on 12.5 acres of property. The location of the site is on Lots 1
and 2 of Block 2 of Chanhassen Lakes Business Park as shown here. The
present zoning is P-4, Planned Industrial Development District. Lot 1 is
II
1.83 acres and Lot 2 is 2.7 acres. Municipal services are available and
the topography is generally sloped from the north to the south with
existing vegetation in the northeast corner. Staff has met with the II developer and the architect several times to discuss the plan and the City
Manager on the plan to discuss additional landscaping along TH 5 here and
the developer and the architect have agreed to add additional vegetation II and trees along this plan. We have also talked about additional
landscaping along Park Court here where there they will use fill and -
scraping the site and it is sort of a berm type put against the wall so you •
don't see the 12 foot wall underneath. It will reduced down to almost 8.
II
Applicant has also promised us that as you are driving down along TH 5, you
can not see down into the site. You may see just the very tops of the
buildings or nothing at all. Staff is recommending that the applicant
provide erosion control shall be installed along the east and south and
west construction lines so they conform to City standards for types 1 or 2
as noted on Exhibit A. All bituminous surfaces not bound by the structure
shall be lined with concrete curb and all reglatory agencies conditions il
shall be adopted by reference.
Erhart: I'm just sort of curious. They feel there is a market for this
II
storage out here?
Mark Senn: We think there is a market there now for the storage. Not to
the extent we are building now. What we are going to be doing initially II
with our plans, part of it is going to go into bulk storage and part is
going to go into mini-storage and eventually we phase into all mini-
storage. Some of the larger units initially will be used more for just
II
bulk storage and probably other users have needs for 6 months during the
height of their season . That sort of thing .
Erhart: Storage will include inventory? II
1
/}TT/1Gffm eArT 44 ‘'
II
Planning Commission S1 cial Meeting C
August 20, 1986 - Page 20
Senn: It may be inventory or it may be, good example down there a g P ere is
Fitness Masters. About 6 months out of the year they are in need of
' about 5,000-10,000 square feet because they have to boost their production
to meet the demand coming up around Christmas time and that sort of thing
so we are going to plug into that as much as possible. Our projections are
' showing that basically if Chanhassen keeps growing at the rate it is,
probably within this side of 5 years , this will be 100% mini storage.
Erhart: Is there restrictions on what people can store in there? Like
industrial chemicals and stuff?
Senn: There won't be any hazardous chemicals or anything like that. Most
of the people using this will be private users. In terms of bulk storage
we are going to have to control and limit that but it will be primarily
from our standpoint, staying within the reglatory codes that exist. From
our standpoint we aren't going to allow anything hazardous in terms of
chemicals.
Erhart : Does the State regulate that at all?
Dacy: Through the Building Code and Fire Code and I should note, the Fire
Marshall has reviewed the plan, their construction materials are going to
have to meet codes and so on because there may be a situation where there
is a need for cold storage. There may be a little bit of gas left in a
motor and we discussed this with the Fire Marshall. The Codes will handle
that.
Senn : For example, a big user of mini-storage are people who store their
boats for the winter and we try to control that as much as possible in
' terms of keeping the gas levels down but you can't totally control it. At
the same time the structures are designed in a fashion that there is
nothing in any one of these structures that is combustible. They are
' basically 100% concrete and steel .
Erhart : In a development like this and we are asking the applicant to
screen from TH 5, which I'm all in favor of, at the same time you might
have the next lot be a business who wants a highly visible building and
wants his sign out on TH 5. He wants the exposure on TH 5. How do we
differentiate our treatment between that applicant and this one?
Dacy: Are you talking about another lot?
Erhart: Yes, say the guy on the other side of the park wants to build a
fancy office building and he wants his name out there. He wants the
exposure. Do we make him cover his building up with the same pine trees?
Dacy: I think what you have to look at is the use. A storage facility,
and there is going to be a lot of vehicular activity going in and around
the site. If you have a corporate headquarters or so on, they are going to
make their statement with the building .
1
I
Planning Commission SCcial Meeting C II
August 20, 1986 - Page 21
Erhart: So we can differentiate this because of the appearance of the
buildings.
Dacy: Our stated criteria is always to screen vehicular areas and parking
areas, etc. g
Nick Ruehl (Architect for the Developer) : One of the other reasons for the II
landscaping is to help break up the length of the building. You notice the
elevation along TH 5 is really only about 6 feet out of the ground so there '
is more like a fence but it is a rather long fence. We have taken care to
break up that facade by staggering some of the rock over there and then
with the landscaping that will help break the length of that. That is one
of the reasons that we discussed that and we don't really have any problem II
with the addition of more trees to achieve that.
Senn: Don't get us wrong. Visibility and ease of access and those sort of II
things are very important to this business but what we are trying to hide
and stay away from is seeing a bunch of garage doors and that sort of thing
that we don 't think is any more attractive then anybody else does.
Ruehl: The other aspect of this is that the height of the structure is set
very carefully. Not arbitrarily but very carefully to accommodate not only
the security aspect of having people climb over a wall and get into the '
project as well as the site lines. Literally from an automobile driving on
TH 5, you will not even see the roof of the building but rather you will
see just what will appear to look like a fence. Also, we will be cutting a II
great deal of the site and in a sense, tucking those structures down
because they will have 12 foot cleared height ceilings in them so we will
be able to hold 7-8 feet and that will allow for maximum use of our
structure without getting into some heavy structural retaining type walls
so it is set very carefully.
Emmings: Do our ordinances regulate this type of facility as to whether or I
not the things that are stored inside of it have to be inside?
Dacy: In the Industrial District, this is the only district that exterior
storage is allowed. For example, our own public works building have areas 11
in the back that are screened. There are some other uses in the business
park that have a screened area. As long as it is screened and not visible
from the street it is allowed to occur but from what I understand the '
applicant said, exterior storage is not being proposed.
Senn: It is not practical. If you look at the plan, it is very simple.
We can't have any outside storage because if we did that it would cover up
access to our inside part.
Conrad : What are all these little squares we are looking at on the plan
then?
Senn: In essence, what you end up with is a lot of different sized units.
We will have units in this thing that range anywhere from 5 x 5, 5 x 10,
Planning Commission S(17_:cial Meeting
August 20, 1986 - Page 22
10 x 20, 10 x 30, 12 x 30
12 x 40, 10 x 40 and that sort of thing. These
are the different size individual units that people will be able to lease
' on a monthly basis. If you take the smallest box there, it is the 5 x 5
and it goes up by scale. Your largest units are the ones way over on Park
Drive. Those are the 14 x 40 units along Park Drive there. Most of the
' ones along TH 5 are regular 10 x 30 or 12 x 30 if I remember right. -
Conrad : How do we get the number 97? If I count up all the squares here
' there are 150 or something like that.
Ruehl: I think there is actually a total of 64,000 square feet that will
be enclosed and depending upon the marketplace, they will be divided up
' into those units. For instance is there is a greater demand for 5 x 5's,
they will chop more areas up.
' Conrad : I don ' t know where the number 97 came from. ,
Senn: It is around the perimeter of the structure. To tell you how we
approach something like this, these in essence are constructed shells and
' the shells there are basically totally enclosed. You have doors all along
the access side to them. The other side is basically outside just concrete
and then you have the roof on top but inside your partition system in
effect is a metal stud wall. We are making a lot of guesses up front on
this in terms of the market. In terms of placing the doors and the sizes
of these units but we will actually construct it as we identify the market.
To get the project more or less going, the shell will be dug, the services
will be put in, the drains and everything else. The interiors, we'll build
out a certain amount to start with but as we get the facility opened and -
find out what the demand is. We are guessing maybe 100 5 x 5's and we may
find out it is 200 5 x 5's but we allow ourselves the flexibility inside of
the unit to break it up as the market trend indicates as we go along.
' Emmings: Just to follow up on this a little bit more, I understand they
don't plan to store things outside, but again, would there be regulations
against them storing things that would stick up. If something were left
outside and it stuck up above the wall , would we have a way to tell them
they can' t do that whether they intend to it now or not?
Dacy: I'm looking for the ordinance section now. There is one because the
issue came up before in the Business Park about 1 1/2 years ago if I
remember. I just have to find it but if it was determined that it was
causing a visual nuisance and so on, there are screening requirements in
' the ordinance to require that it be completely screened or put on it's
side. This site will be completely enclosed so that it will not be seeing
any activity going on.
' Emmings: Could we put it on as a condition that nothing be stored that
would rise above the highest elevation of the building?
Dacy: Yes , that would be under the Commission ' s pervue.
Planning Commission Ccial Meeting
August 20, 1986 - Page 23
Earnings : Do you have any problems if we did that?
1
Senn: To be honest with you, I can' t foresee any problem with that. '
Ruehl : I might add , it would take something that would be with the site
lines. Let me back up, we have 12 foot clear plus a 1 foot structure plus
1 foot of parapet wall so that is a total of 14 feet. So any vehicle, even '
if you get under a bridge would have to be below that. The only thing
might be a sailboat mast which almost all of them come down.
Dacy: I found it. Outside storage is allowed as an accessory use and
17.03 says outside storage of raw materials applies to equipment use on the
premises and permitted use, provided however, that all outside storage
areas shall not comprise an area greater than the floor area of the
principal structure and shall be closed by screened wall fence of not less
than 10 feet in height. Said screening wall shall be 1000 okayed,
architecturally harmonious as screening planning may be substituting for
the screened wall at the discretion of the Council. It is allowed as an
accessory use and it is obvious that there are screening requirements.
Siegel: I just have one comment. I've been meaning to mention this before II
but I wonder if we fail to emphasis in landscaping that the City of
Chanhassen's name in Indian terms means Maple or specifically Sugar Maple.
I wonder if we're not doing enough to emphasis what we could be doing for
Chanhassen and that is making it forest of Maples or Sugar Maples and I
notice we have Green Ash coming in again here in the landscaping plan.
Just not to make it a requirement but just to make it as an off-demand
comment that whether Staff is not telling people that we do like that. We
have .the leaf right on our letterhead and stationary, the maple leaf and
that whether we're not emphasizing enough when we talk about screening, II whether we couldn't be emphasizing that fact that we should be playing that
up as a City promotion.
Dacy: That is fine. We can encourage them to use it. We do encourage
coniferous planting as we are looking for year round screening. The Sugar
Maple will add variety and color during the Fall season and so on. It has
not been brought up before but we certainly from now on. . . I
Siegel : Just as a matter of information especially if petitioner is
looking for favorable reaction from the City Council . '
Senn: We have to be a little careful especially when you get around
highways, you have to look for a lot more sturdy street tree.
Siegel : Well , along the street side but along the inside.
Senn: That is well taken. We can very easily effect the change. ,
Conrad: My only comments are landscaping too. Are you using the proposed
zoning ordinance landscape requirements when you look at current
developments coming in?
IPlanning Commission Ccial Meeting
August 20, 1986 - Page 24
Dacy: We '
y can ' t enforce it but we use them as guidelines .
Conrad: What are the proposed landscaping requirements on the perimeter.
Right here it says the applicant is providing screening about every 80 feet
using a mixture of whatever. Does that fit with what we are talking about
in our proposed?
Dacy: Yes, our proposed ordinance maybe is a little more restrictive
' but the ordinance is geared toward screening parking areas and open parking
areas that are visible to the street but this is a different situation
where we have a building acting as a perimeter screen already and what the
applicant is doing is bringing up the expanse of the wall .
' Conrad: The architect had a real valid point. What we want to do with
landscaping and that is to break up a very long, visual board out there and
' what we have done is an effective job for summer months but I'm not sure we
have done much of a job in the winter months which in Minnesota can occupy
the bulk of our time.
Ruehl : We talked some about that and we are going to switch some of them
to pines so they are year round. We talked about that.
Conrad: I think that would really be nice to make it more attractive year
round. I think that is beneficial for everybody if you can do that. We
certainly don't have an ordinance that demands it but if you can work with
Staff and come up with something that screens it both ways, both major
seasons , I think that would be nice . I don ' t have any other comments .
Gerhardt: The 80 feet would be broken up with three additional pines
' located on TH 5 as one of the conditions .
Conrad: Again, I was trying to figure out why you came up with 3
' additional trees versus willy nelly. That is why I like some standards and
I know our proposed ordinance has those there and rather than developers
going to hit a mark that they are sure of, it is there and they are very
' reasonable standards.
Emmings: I just noticed in Bill Monk's report too that he said that because
of the setback here, if TH 5 were ever widened, all the widening would have
to occur on the north side of the road which is park. I don't know really
what to make of that and the Staff doesn't seem to think that is any
problem. Can we run into any problems? First of all, are there any plans
' to widened TH 5 there and secondly, do we run into problems with the
Department of Transportation?
Dacy: No , as a matter of fact Bill has met with MnDot and the developer
' and myself have met with MnDot about the same issue. Widening in that
particular part of TH 5 is not anticipated for several years. It is not
even included in the widening plans that are now under consideration. No,
' we do not have a problem with the widening occuring on the north side. One
of the factors involved with that is that the City has always looked at
Planning Commission (:cial Meeting (
August 20, 1986 - Page 25
connection road between Lake '
r L e Ann Park and Eckenkar property creating an
intersection directly opposite the Park Drive entrance. When that
improvement to the north would occur, the City would also create an
intersection and look at creating an east-west frontage road, if you will,
to make it part of that. The ultimate plan is to close that entrance and
realign it across the street. '
Senn: We still do have a 50 foot setback so there is expansion room for
the existing highway even there.
Dacy: The major concern from MnDot was a safety clearance and so on so
there is an adequate distance being maintained.
Conrad : We are under in terms of impervious surface. Even in the future? I
Dacy: Yes, this is the ultimate plan of the site as far as Staff is
concerned .
Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of Site Plan #85-7 for a 64,391 square foot Mini-Storage Facility II
based on the site plan stamped "Received July 23, 1986" and subject to the
following conditions:
1. All bituminous surfaces not bounded by structures shall be lined ,
with concrete curb.
2. The developer shall place, at minimum, three more pines along the II
north lot line adjacent to Highway 5.
3. Compliance with all of the Watershed District's regulations on new II
construction.
4. Erosion control shall be installed along the east, south and west
construction limits and conform with City standards for Type 1 and
2 as noted on Exhibit A.
5. No storage which would protrude above the outer wall of the '
facility so it could be visible from the street.
All voted in favor and motion carried . '
Conrad: Are you saying outside on the inside?
Emmings: No, I guess the idea is this. If I'm outside of this facility ''
anywhere, I shouldn't see anything stored inside the facility. Nothing
should be visible. I should see nothing but the wall that goes around it
if I am outside. '
Conrad: So you do not want to see anything projecting above the building
elevation? '
•
I
1
Planning Commission ( cial Meeting
August 20, 1986 - Page 26
Emmings :: That is true.
ue.
' Siegel : Above or not at all?
Emmings: Let's go back. If I am outside, there should be nothing stored
' inside the facility that would project above the walls that surround it.
Now is that clear?
Siegel : Is that possible?
Emmings : Is what possible?
' Siegel : That something inside can be stored and be showing outside.
Emmings: If it was stored outside of the garage.
Dacy: How about no storage which would protrude above the walls and would
be visible from the streets?
Emmings : Fine.
Siegel : Isn ' t that what the ordinance says?
Dacy: If it is an accessory use then it does require a certain amount of
screening. If the issue came to push and shove, it doesn't really say as
' to how tall or whatever as to what is to be stored, but we would have to
look at that closer .
Emmings: The problem here is the inside and outside. I think they fully
intend to store everything inside the garages inside the facility.
Conrad : Are you going to build the inner buildings later on?
Senn: What you see there in terms of the outside of the shells in the
structure will all be built in one phase to start with. The only thing
that will be built as we go on from there, is the interior walls within the
' structure. We have to do it that way because we can't open this facility
until basically all the services are in place so to get the driving
surfaces in place, which is the pavement and everything else, we have to
' get the building pads set in place and basically the heavy work which
involves putting the structures up. We can haul in sheet metal later for
If the walls for the interior partitions. Our hope is to still get this done
before the beginning of winter this year .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Siegel moved, Emmings seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning
Commission dated July 23, 1986. All voted in favor and motion carried.
City of Chanhassen
Planning Department f
690 Coulter Drive C'
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
(7:221-(:1%
Date: Jul 28, 1986
�Y 1
To: Development Plan Referral Agencies
Fin: Planning Department By: Todd Gerhardt, Planning Intern II
Subject: Site Plan review for a 64,391 square foot mini storage facility on 4.5 acres of
property zoned P-4, Planned Industrial and located at the southwest corner of II
Hwy. 5 and Park Drive.
Planning Case No: 85-7 Site Plan Review
The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with
the . Chanhassen Planning Department on July 21, 1986 •
In order for us to have the benefit of as much information as possible concerning this
application, we would like your agency to review the enclosed development plans insofar
as is applicable to your agency, and make any comments you might have on this proposal. II
We are particularly interested in matters which affect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
Specifically, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact II
of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services,
storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites,
street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems
exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so II
that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council encompassing
these needs. I
This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission
on August 13, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at
Chanhassen City Hall. In order for the Planning Department to prepare a
thorough review of this application for the Catmtission and Council, we would appreciate
receiving your comments by no later than August 6, 1986
You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire.
Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated.
Enclosed: Proposed Development Plans I
DISTRIBUTION:
XV City Engineer Watershed Dist. Engineer MN Dept of Natural Resource
2. City Attorney 7. Soil Conservation Service 12. ne Company
3. City Park Director 8 MN Dept of Transportation
B�Y1 or United)
0 Fire Department U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (11 is Company
5. County Engineer C y" Minnegasco NSP MN Valley Co-op)
14. DOW-SAT Cable I
File: I
Form No. 81-10
Agency Referral
7/1/81
rr
l
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
ICITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
I L.S.R. Properties(612) 937-1900 L.S.R. Properties
Chanhassen Mini Storage property Chanhassen Mini Storage Property
APPLICANT: Mark 0. Senn OWNER: Mark 0. Senn
IADDRESS 10 Water Street ADDRESS 10 Water Street
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
I TELEPHONE (Daytime) 474-2363 Zip Code -
TELEPHONE 474-2363 Zip Code
IREQUEST:
Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development
IZoning Appeal Sketch Plan
Preliminary Plan
Zoning Variance Final Plan
IZoning Text Amendment Subdivision
I Land Use Plan Amendment Platting
Conditional Use Permit Metes and Bounds
Street/Easement Vacation
I Site Plan Review
Wetlands Permit
IPROJECT NAME Chanhassen Mini Storage Project
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Industrial
IREQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Industrial
PRESENT ZONING P-4
IREQUESTED ZONING p-4
IUSES PROPOSED Mini Storage, - warehouse
SIZE OF PROPERTY 4 5 Acres with city parcel
ILOCATION S w_ Corner Park Drive - Highway #5
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST Approval for Mini Storage Warehouses
I
ILEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) LOT 1 BLOCK 2 Chanhassen Lakes
ILOT 2 BLOCK 2 Chanhassen Lakes Business Park (City Parcel)
I
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING '
AUGUST 13, 1986
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 8 : 00 p.m. '
MEMBERS PRESENT
Tim Erhart, Robert Siegel , Ladd Conrad
MEMBERS ABSENT '
Steven Emmings, Howard Noziska
STAFF PRESENT
Barbara Dacy, City Planner ; Todd Gerhardt, Intern.
A quorum was not present at the meeting with only three Commission
members present. Therefore, an informal discussion meeting was held on
items that did not require any official action. A special meeting was
called for next Wednesday, August 20, 1986 at which time a quorum would
be present.
Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies - Mark Koegler. ,
Barbara Dacy: Basically, in his (Mark Koegler's) memo, as a result of the
meeting that Mark and Staff had, are policies that we felt should be
changed. Those are the ones that refer to the Rural Surface Area and in
the downtown. We felt that the other policies were just as applicable now
as they were in the past and did not warrant a change so we are in a
position of recommending that, pursuant to Mark's memo, we will go ahead
and amend the policies as presented.
Ladd Conrad: Any thoughts on what Staff recommended as the additions to II the Comprehensive Plan? As we looked at the Land Use section, specifically
the goals and policies, any comments?
Tim Erhart: Number 1, suggested policy of Chanhassen's Rural Service Area. I
The term Rural Service Area, where are you drawing that from? That term is
not used in the proposed zoning ordinance.
Dacy: The term is drawn from Metro Council's definition of the Urban
Service Area and the Rural Service Area.
Erhart: So there is a statute on this... The only other one I would add
is the word "septic" after "on-site". That leaves the sentence a little
vague. It says on-site systems and it should say on-site septic systems.
On the suggested policy on the next one on the next page, the portion of
the Rural Service Area between Chanhassen's MUSA line and the Metropolitan
Council's MUSA line, obviously you are planning on sticking to your guns on
r
I .
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 16
' Emmings: I think the plan is fine and I only want to make sure that the
issue of the outside storage and sale of merchandise is raised to the
Council . That' s the only reason I 'm voting it down.
Conrad: So Jo Ann, there are two issues that are coming up, that should
be put on work que someplace. They may not be done by you for the next
' month.
Olsen : Outside storage?
Conrad: Outside storage, yes .
' PUBLIC HEARING:
IGN VARIANCE FOR A DOUBLE FACED PYLON SIGN (5 ' X 10 ' ) FOR METRO LAKES
WEST MINI-STORAGE ON PROPETY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED
IAT 7800 PARK DRIVE, MARCUS CORPORATION.
Public Present:
Mark Senn - Applicant
Roman Roos - Applicant
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report .
•
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order.
Mark Senn : If I could start by possibly correcting something that' s
already been mentioned twice tonight. Where our building was built, it
was not built within the right-of-way for the expansion of TH 5. That is
an issue that you addressed prior to the approval of the mini-storage
' project. At that point the State had no specific location for the highway
but we knew it was an issue we had to address. Prior to approval of the
project we had three meetings, if I remember correctly with the City Staff
and State Highway Department right-of-way staff. At that time a consensus
was reached, both on our part and the City' s part, that it would be much
preferred for the highway location to take a northerly location rather
than a southerly location from the current highway in terms of the
' expansion. The reason for that was the City wanted to accomplish a
service road servicing Lake Ann Park and tie it back into the County road .
That' s the premise we designed and operated on. Since then now the State
' has come out with an exact location of the highway but we didn' t see that
at least until after our project had been started . In relationship to it,
our buildings yes , are affected by what are called the construction limits
of the highway. Not the actual highway right-of-way. When I got into a
discussion several weeks back with Evan Greene of the State Highway
Department, they had since our original meeting on this, researched the
issue and found out some federal funds were used in relationship to the
' Lake Ann Park. . .some sort of fund that prohibited them using that land to
expand the highway. That' s been a. . .like geez we put a building where the
highway belongs but that isn' t the case. We put a building where we were
�... .
II
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 17 '
supposed to put it. Highway plans have changed and conditions have
changed and where everybody kind of thought it was going to, they found
out after it can' t go there. Just to make a long story short, that' s
basically it. As far as the signage issue goes , let me try to walk you
through why we' re in a hardship situation. Possibly the easiest way to do
that is to go back to when the project was originally approved. There
were a lot of concerns at the time this project was built over the long
expanse of wall created by the mini-storage project. We agreed with staff
and then subsequently with the Commission and Council to limit the
elevation of the building so only about 6 or 7 feet were actually sticking 1
up above the ground. We built the project into the hill per se and
limited the amount of wall space sticking up above the ground. Where the
building ' s are actually, I believe they' re around 14 foot clear at that
point so we're about 8 feet or so into the ground at this point. The next I
issue that came up was, while we were still concerned about this wall ,
let's put a berm in. So we agreed and we put a berm in. That berm was
designed to basically run the full length of the project which further
impacts that visual elevation. The next thing that came up was, well
let' s beef up the landscaping . Let' s intensify the landscaping . Again ,
no disagreement on our part to intensify the landscaping. Through all
these agreements , we had what we thought was an understanding , which has II
now turned into a misunderstanding because we thought we were always able
to put up a pylon sign. Probably the easiest way for me to bring that to
your attention is I ' ll refer to the September 8 , 1986 Council Minutes II which I believe you have in your packet. If you go to Page 9. . .when the
issue of signage came up, the third paragraph down. Councilwoman Watson
stated that she didn' t see anything about signage. Barbara Dacy stated
that from her understanding the applicant proposed one sign for the
property. Mark Senn stated that it would be located by the TH 5 side.
They hadn' t decided at which end of the building to locate it.
Councilwoman Watson stated that she didn' t want a big red and white sign I
stamped on the side of the building. Barbara Dacy stated that the sign
ordinance will give them the right to install a wall sign or a pylon sign.
That' s the premise we always have taken. That was the premise we created
on when we agreed to make all these changes along with the project. Those
changes now substantially affect the visibility of that northern wall .
Now we've come to the point where we' re ready to address signage which
quite honestly on our list of priorities was fairly low. Getting the
project done was much higher on the priority list. When we looked at the
issue of putting signage out on the building , we quickly saw that we were
going to have a problem from this building standpoint. One of the things II
that caused that was , as soon as we had some units available, we hung a
banner up there on the outside of the building which I think you've
probably all seen and our manager started referencing that in terms of
getting people to the location. We had a number of people come in and
comment that we couldn' t find you so we went out and looked at the
situation again and again, a limited part of the wall is visible,
especially when you consider the berm in front of it and the landscaping. II
The landscaping is going to mature and it' s even going to make the
situation worse . Our plans were always to put a pylon sign off of one
corner at the edge of the building, i .e. the northwest or the northeast
corner of the building. We' ve settled on the site and we would like to
put it basically on the northeast corner of the building. . .meeting the
11
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 18
setback requirements . . . The hardship was created by these agreements we
reached and by the conditions that have been created around it. This is
really not part of the hardship but it' s an economic reality to us and
that is that yes we are in an industrial district and we are in an
industrial park which you could argue a lot of different ways whether
mini-storage belongs there or not, but that' s where we' re at. Probably
' when you look at the city. . .you come up with one from a use standpoint.
The problem is , mini-storage is retail business . It' s not a typical
industrial business . We function off people basically calling in out of
' the Yellow Pages or advertising saying do you have storage units available
and we say yes and then they drive down to find the place. Or it would be
on the basis of them driving by and seeing a convenience store in the
community, they' re back to the phone number or stop in. Our units are all
' rented on a month to month basis. We function very heavily on a retail
basis rather than assessment basis so that again . . . is very important to
the success for our operation. Again, I really think we have demonstrated
' a hardship. . . In relationship to the council minutes and the premise that
we' re operating under, that we were allowed to put up a pylon sign and we
now find out after the fact no and if we would really like to request your
favorable action on this and allow the variance to put the pylon sign in.
I 'd be happy to answer any other questions you may have.
Conrad : Jo Ann, ground low profile. What does that mean?
' Olsen : That ' s one of the kind that has the. . .
' Conrad: Built right on it?
Olsen : Right . I believe it ' s 8 foot high height restriction. 8 feet in
height.
' Roman Roos : Some additional comments to what Mark Senn has offered to
you. One of the primary concerns at the time we put this project together
' . . . in terms of stone walls and elevations and. . .accomplish that in the
landscaping. I think that was one of the most important . . .but it ' s
interesting to note that we did this project back in 1986. We also know
that the sign ordinance. . .December 15, 1986. I guess the question I would
' ask is, prior to that time, was pylon signs allowed? That would still
like to explain why Jo Ann has . . . We were totally cognizant that we could
put a pylon sign in. Unfortunately, as Mark said, it was a low priority
issue. . .sign variance to get it done now but it' s extremely important.
One final comment and then I ' ll sit down, according to Jo Ann about the
new ordinance, we could have 2 or 3 signs. . . We could also have 2 wall
signs . . .along TH 5. . . . it seems ridiculous to have to do that. . . This
might be a very logical approach. . .
Mark Senn : If I might even correct one thing please. The bottom of the
sign would be 10 feet off the ground. The sign would be 5 x 10. We
deliberately designed it that way because we don ' t want to have any impact
on the visual sight angles coming off of that intersection on TH 5. We
don ' t want that sign down so low that it ' s going to impact the vision one
way or another.
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 19 1
Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in I
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart: The list of permitted and the conditional permitted uses in the II
IOP District, refresh me Jo Ann, where does this fit?
Olsen : In warehouse is what it came under . '
Erhart: I wish you had had the Planning Commission minutes from this
meeting on this part because at that meeting I expressed my, I guess
displeasure with putting that particular business at that location because II
it was , really was an ideal location for an office being right on TH 5.
In the same place, a home office for somebody. I guess the problem that
you' re really stating and one that we have here is an area called zoned
industrial office park and what you have is a retail business which
doesn ' t quite fit the intent of the zoning district even though you look
through the conditional and permitted uses , there' s several retail
oriented uses in there. It' s really not the best fit. I guess that was
why I was a little disappointed in the fact that we were using that site
for that use . I feel that even though maybe Barb had made an error in her
statement or whatever, as we look into it, I feel that it was clear that
the risks associated with moving into that site for a retail business as a
sign interest is pretty restrictive. Additionally, I guess my business is
in that district and I 'm limited to the low profile, single sign and I -
feel that if somebody is being permitted to put in a pylon signs , then
golly, I 'd like to have a pylon sign announcing my business there too. I
would not be favorable to a variance to this. '
Emmings: Basically I agree with Tim' s comments . I don ' t know what
Barbara had in mind when she made the comment that she did but it' s
clearly in error and I think maybe what she ' s saying is , that you have the II
right to install a wall sign or pylon sign. I think the fact is, there
just was no concrete plan on the table and she was saying, to me it says
no more than whatever kind of sign they' re going to have that' s going to
be coming in the future. There' s no hardship here. I don' t know how we
can grant a variance. It' s not allowed in that area according to our
ordinance. I don' t think there' s anyway we should allow a pylon sign in
the IOP.
Conrad : Do you two feel that they have visibility? They can get
visibility? I
Emmings : I think they' re going to have to find a way to get visibility
and if they' ve got. . .
Conrad : They' re asking for that.
Emmings : I don' t have to design their signs . To me that' s their problem I
that should have been addressed when they designed their facility.
I guess between the combination of ground low profile signs and wall
signs, which they' re permitted, I would think you would get the visibility II
they need . Even if they can ' t, I 'm not willing to look at a pylon sign .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 20
rConrad : But they have some alternatives that might be more offensive
visually. I 'm just throwing these. They can put up wall signs and get
that awareness . That might be more offensive than what they' re
suggesting. I just want to make sure you know.
Emmings: Yes but Ladd , if they do put up a wall sign, we have provisions
in our sign ordinance for what that wall sign can be, is that right? And
if they design it within the parameters that they' re allowed here, even if
we don' t like the way it looks , then that's too bad for us at that point
' I guess . They can do that anyway right?
Conrad: They certainly can.
' Emmings: And I 'm never going to listen to anybody say to me, hey we can
do something ugly out there so give us what we want that' s not allowed.
Conrad : But it can be a trade. It might be a rational . . .
Emmings : But then we have to say to ourselves, are they likely to go out
and do something ugly to get back at us or are they going to do something
that' s going to make their facility attractive and I think they' ll do the
latter . I hope so.
' Ellson: I pretty much agree with them both . I can ' t really see how we
could say no to everybody else that comes along if we say yes to this one.
They didn ' t have it in their original plans . If we had said yes , because
' Barbara had seen it in the plans or whatever, then I think it would be
pretty much locked into it but they never really had it in the first
place.
' Conrad : You don ' t think that the berming and that shrubery is. . .
Ellson: I think the berming and the shrubery is what we require of
' anybody in there. I don' t think we said , by the way do you want to put
some extra because we'd like it more. I think they' re putting in what
we'd require of anybody.
' Batzli : Where else does the City allow warehousing like that? What other
district?
Olsen : We allow it as a conditional use permit in the BF district .
Batzli : So they could either have gone in the IOP or the BF? That' s it?
Olsen : In the BF district we specifically state cold storage warehousing .
. . .whereas in the IOP it' s warehouse.
Batzli : Do you know what the ordinance was prior to the 12-15-86 date?
Olsen: You mean as far as the pylon signs?
Batzli : Yes . Were pylon signs allowed back then?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 21 1
Olsen: I can' t remember . I can find that out.
Batzli : Okay, so we don' t know whether the 12-15-86 codification amended
that part or added? 11
Olsen : I don' t remember the pylon signs . . .would be permitted . I can
double check that. '
Batzli : I guess I 'm looking at it from the standpoint of, if they were
led by the City to believe that they could have a pylon, they might have I
some kind of case. If we had made them put in additional shrubbing and
berming and everything else and they thought they were going to get a
pylon all along and they didn' t. But on the other hand, if the Statute
read no pylons and this was one isolated instance in which Barb misspoke, II
I don' t know that they should have the right to rely on that at that
point. I think that should have been something that they should have
checked and I kind of agree that that probably should have been part of
the plan and agreed upon in advance if they were really counting on
getting a pylon. I also have kind of a real sense that the low profiles
won' t work or the wall signs. Maybe that' s the case but I don' t know that
I really heard them say that we can' t make it work with what we' re
allowing. At this point I 'm not for allowing the variance.
Wildermuth : The mini-storage of the caliber of construction that that one I
is is a good, quiet, non-polluting neighbor. I think they've done a nice
job with shrubery. On the other hand, as the industrial park really is a
good looking asset to the City and it would be the only pylon sign in that
industrial park. I agree with Brian. Unless there was a clear indication '
that a pylon sign would have been permitted when you came in for approval ,
initial approval , I 'd like to see them make a low profile sign.
Conrad: Because you know it will . Do you think it will?
Wildermuth: I don' t think a lot of signs on the building are going to
work.
Conrad : Speak to us on that issue . You obviously don' t want a low,
ground profile because you don' t feel it' s got visibility? You ' re going
for height .
Mark Senn: If we push the low profile signage right out to the limits of I
the property, yes, it would be visible. We prefer not to push it out to
the limits of the property because we don' t think, it really belongs there
and I think your ordinance prohibits that anyway. I think there are some
setback requirements of about 10 feet.
Conrad : What are we, at 10 feet Jo Ann? Yes. So if we push it back 10
feet, you' re saying it doesn' t work? 1
Mark Senn: 10 feet you' re going to be right by the landscaping.
Regardless of where you try to keep. . .and especially the mature trees. . .
One of the things I 've heard mentioned time and time again up here is
there isn ' t one other one in the industrial park but please consider , the
II
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 22
City did not ask any other building in the industrial park to limit their
surface to less than 8 feet. That is a substantial different in
relationship to any other building in that industrial park. If I had 13
foot wall area, and don' t get me wrong. . .we wouldn' t even be having this
discussion. But I 've got a 6 to 7 foot wall and again, it was something
that we agreed to at the time because we were trying to build and design a
nice project . We weren ' t trying to get into an argument. . .
Conrad: Wall signs can' t project over the height of the building. Isn' t
' that right Jo Ann?
Olsen: Right.
' Mark Senn: Ladd , if I could , one other comment. This wasn ' t an isolated
incident of the word pylon sign. This was talked about a number of times
during the planning stage of the project . You can probably even go back
to some earlier plans where we had it x' ed out for pylon signs. We
basically threw the issue of signage out as something we really wanted to
address at that time because quite honestly, through the whole city
process we were redesigning that project . I remember at least 2 or 3
Planning Commission meetings and Council meetings. We made the changes
when we did some negotiating , etc . so that was just one of the conditions
that we agreed to come back and deal with it then. . .
' Conrad : You may not have been involved with this . Were you around when
this came in?
' Olsen : This one I think I was on maternity leave.
Wildermuth: How far up on a berm can a low profile sign go? _
Olsen: It can be, as our ordinance says , it can be built into the berm.
' Roman Roos: Just one final comment. I think if we were to go back and
pull the other minutes , again , I 'm trying to make the position that we
went through a lot of detail to get to where we' re at today. I think we
' really went through, the Minutes from the Planning Commission and the
Council Minutes, I think you' ll find. . . Again, we' re not trying to do
anything that ' s detrimental to the . . .or to the industrial park but we feel
this is a compromise on our signage. It' s more attractive than wall
' signage for retail use. . .
Conrad : Your guess Jo Ann would be that we tried to bury this project to
basically cover up the height of the wall for aesthetic reasons so it just
wasn ' t a big wall in the industrial park. So we tried to make that wall
less of an impact.
t Erhart : What more did you do than was required by ordinance in terms of
what the City was requesting?
Roman Roos : We came back with a site plan and . . .additional landscaping .
Erhart: Additional height on the berm or what?
11
II
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 23
Roman Roos : We also put the . . .elevations of the wall . The staff was
concerned that the look from TH 5 was . . .massive kind of wall so they
wanted a low profile. . . Now it ' s true we could put a sign on the Park
Drive side but no matter where we put it, it just does not seem to do,
does not identify. . .
Headla : I heard . .a couple of comments . One is the majority of his
business comes from the Yellow Pages . Those people come out and ask where
it is . I don' t think you need a 15 foot pylon sign to tell people where
you are that are looking for you. They proposed one way to solve
alternatives to that problem. They proposed one way. It's either that
way or no way. I don' t believe that' s the case. I think there' s other
ways to solve the problem so I would vote against the current proposal of
the pylon sign but the City wouldn' t want to face developments coming back II
with maybe some other alternatives . Maybe there is a possibility that if
there is a problem, maybe something on the roof is a logical solution to
the problem. I don' t know but I 'd like to see us . . .to possibility some
other solutions .
Wildermuth: That' s a scary thought .
Batzli : I big mayonaise jar tilted to the side.
Headla : They don' t need this but what shape of building . . . '
Roman Roos: You' re correct on the telephone. . . We' re also trying to
attract traffic . . .but they will identify that they drove by this
service. . .
Headla : I think that' s a fair comment but I think there ' s probably other
ways to get about the same effect that isn' t such a blatant markdown of
the land .
Conrad : Jo Ann , Brian brings up a good point . Have you gone back through I
the Minutes and examined what we've led the applicant to believe?
Olsen: I went through the City Council Minutes in your packet. I didn' t
go through the Planning Commission Minutes. The fact is, is that they I
still have to, they had to receive a sign permit in effect at that time.
They obviously did not request a pylon sign approval at part of their site
plan. Why, I don' t know. •
Conrad : It' s an interesting scenario . I think they weren' t looking ahead
because we were trying to bury this project or make the ground profile a
little bit nicer so I can see how we may have lost sight of the signage
needs. I don' t know. I think there' s an option folks to table it. To
take another look at it and see if there is a compelling reason for a
hardship or for the fact that we led them astray. I don' t know that we
did but I sure can see a little scenario here where I recall this coming
in a couple times and we were paying a lot of attention to making it less
visible. They did do that. They did listen to us and they did make it a I
nice effort.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 24
Emmings: Is the applicant asking us to table it?
Conrad: No. The applicant is not.
Ellson: Couldn' t we ask in the interim they up?
look that u
' Conrad: We can do that too. I 'm just opening up all sorts of options to
anybody who wants to take charge of the motion.
' Wildermuth: That little mini-storage in Eden Prairie on TH 4, can you
remember what kind of sign they have?
Mark Senn: A pylon sign.
' Wildermuth: The place is almost hidden below the berm down there.
Mark Senn: The pylon sign sits right up at County Road 4 there. Right by
the street that you turn into that berm.
' Conrad: Generally my comments , it' s not an impulse business . It ' s not
where you flash a sign because you want to get the traffic to turn in 500
feet away but I do want to keep you visible. The bottom line for me is ,
you are kind of a retail business and I think I want to make sure that
you' re visible. I don' t know that you ' re not however. You do have the
options and they' re probably not my favorite options of using the wall but
they are there. I honestly can ' t think of a way around, right now I don' t
' have enough data to tell me that there is a hardship. We' ve led you
astray. We did something wrong . There are some symptons . There are some
clues here and there but I don' t see it. It appears that there are some
ways , what I want to make sure of is that there are ways that the facility
' can get that recognition and the name out there. As I say, it doesn' t
need the brash , neon lights . It doesn ' t need huge signage. It just needs
to be made aware that it ' s there for the passing traffic. I think there
' are alternatives available . I guess right now I 'm having a real tough
time saying that we have a special circumstance that will preclude getting
us around or that will take us around the current ordinance. Unless you
come back in and show us that it just won' t work. As I looked at the
' site, it looked like there were ways to do it so I guess what I need to do
is either hear back from staff that we really did mislead the developer in
this case and whether we table it or send it along to City Council , when
' it gets to City Council I think that whole sequence has to be well
documented for City Council to review. If we did continue to lead them a
little bit away, I think we have an obligation to make the building
visible.
Emmings: But Ladd , I think Dave' s point is a very good one. We' re not
being presented any alternatives . One of the alternatives, if one of the
' things they did was to put in extra landscaping or berming or whatever ,
maybe that could be modified to make more visible another kind of sign
that wouldn ' t be a pylon sign. Maybe the modification is in the extra
' requirements or whatever. On the other hand, when I said tonight the
SuperAmerica went along with what we said and you said they would have
done anything to get their project. Well , maybe this is not different.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 25 '
I 'm not persuaded by the fact that they made some concessions to the City, '
that that imposes an obligation on the City to give them something that
nobody else in the IOP has and that' s a pylon sign which is real different
character to me. I think alternatives have not been considered here and '
that might be a good reason to table it . But tabling would only be
meaningful I think if we wanted to do a complete review of the Minutes. I
think I was here when this was considered. At least I remember the issue I
and I don' t remember things about the signs . It would be kind of
interesting historically to review it. The only reason tabling would make
any sense to me is if we got a good review of everything that happened and 111 we were presented with alternatives. If we' re not going to get those two
things, then I don' t think it would require tabling. I think this is
something maybe we should do more work on before it goes to the City
Council otherwise it could take them. See when I looked at this at first I
it was a very simple issue to me. Now it' s gotten more complex and I
think maybe we need to go into some of these issues .
Mark Senn : One thing on that. We' re limited right now to a 30 day '
temporary sign permit.
Conrad : You ' d like to see this go forward I bet. '
Mark Senn: We really need this to go forward otherwise we' re going to be
without any identification here pretty soon. To go back and address the I
question of why we waited until now to comply. As I said, then we hadn' t
even , a pylon sign was allowed and we were talking 50 square feet , we were
so positive of the requirements of the ordinance, we were led to believe I
we had a simple administrative procedure to run through. Only when we
came in to now do that at the end of the project, we find out that the
rules have changed . It' s rather difficult for us to deal with.
Emmings: Did someone specifically say to you, yes you can have a pylon
sign if you want one?
Mark Senn: Yes, on numerous occasions .
Emmings: And who said that?
Mark Senn: The City Planner .
Emmings: Barbara Dacy said that? '
Mark Senn: Yes .
Emmings: I find that absolutely unbelieveable.
Mark Senn: Read the Minutes .
Emmings : She mentions the pylon sign in the Minutes . There' s no question
about it. I guess another thing we might do is find out from Barbara what
she recalls about what was going on back then. '
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 26
Conrad : The applicant would like us to move on it . That doesn ' t mean we
have to but the applicant would like to have us make an action. Again,
whoever wants to make a motion, they can consider that . There ' s some
' benefit in going to the City Council . One, there may be some people there
who remember it . On the other hand , if we table it we might be able to
give the City Council more accurate information historically. But the
' applicant has a special problem too. They do need signage even on a
temporary basis so it may be appropriate to move it on.
Headla : Let me ask the question. If it looks like this would be turned
down in our recommendation, what could we do to help you?
Mark Senn: In relation to what?
Headla : Like this 30 day limit on the sign?
Mark Senn: It' s my understanding that that ' s prescribed by ordinance.
There' s nothing you can do on that. You have 30 day max for a year
period.
Olsen : On a temporary sign.
Headla : Okay, so if we table it, can we recommend that that be extended?
' We' re looking for more information. It seems like that would be a
reasonable recommendation. This is a business we want to keep.
' Olsen: They' ve got the wall signs up too. . .
Mark Senn : We' ll be happy to take that down if you want. We put it up
and found out it wasn' t working anyway so we just have to take it down
' when we put the other one out there .
Headla: You' re looking for some identification for people looking for
' you.
Mark Senn : That ' s right . We ' ve been running into a real problem with
' that. The temporary sign we have out there now on the corner, which is
the lit signs which we have to hook up an extension cord , is serving the
purpose right now.
' Conrad : The applicant would like to move forward I bet you.
Emmings: You have no way to extend that?
Olsen : Actually they need a variance.
Mark Senn: I believe that' s a variance to the ordinance.
Conrad : I do believe the applicant would like to move forward so is there
a motion?
Ellson : I ' ll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend denial
of Sign Variance Request #88-18.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16 , 1988 - Page 27 '
Emmings: I ' ll second it.
Batzli : I think we should provide direction to staff. Whether that ' s
part of this motion or whether that' s an additional statement after the
fact.
Conrad : Make it an addition. '
Ellson moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
denial of Sign Variance Request #88-18. All voted in favor except
Wildermuth who opposed and the motion carried.
Wildermuth: I 'm opposed. I 'm in favor of tabling the issue. I 'm in
favor of tabling it because I would like to see the background researched
to see what understanding there may have been , if there was an
understanding .
Conrad : Annette , as far as your motion to turn it down , are there things
you would like staff to do between now and when it gets to City Council?
Ellson : Yes , as we discussed, check into the Minutes and the sign
ordinance at that time when they made their original application if we did
indeed allow them. There are more references to a promise of a pylon
sign.
Conrad : Do you want Jo Ann to contact Barbara Dacy to find out what her
recollection is?
Ellson : I don ' t really think that ' s necessary.
Conrad: And the reason for your turndown is, do you believe there are
adequate ways to give the applicant the exposure they need at that site?
Ellson: Right and I like Dave' s comment, there probably is another '
option. It would have been nicer to have a choice of things instead of an
all or nothing kind of thing.
Conrad : Would you make any recommendation to the applicant of what to
present when they go to City Council?
Ellson: Yes , I would also recommend that they present maybe some other
options like Steve had said.
Conrad : This item goes to City Council on the 12th and maybe there are
some things you can do between now and then. We'd sure entertain looking
at it again but I think instead of tabling it we had a sense that you
wanted to take it forward so it ' s there. Not with our favorable response
but you can deal with that.