Loading...
CC Minutes 7-14-08City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008 19.Any existing public utility not covered by right-of-way or easement will require drainage and nd utility easements to be dedicated on the final plat for the Crossroads of Chanhassen 2 Addition. 20.The sidewalk on the west side of Crossroads Boulevard will need an easement over the portion which is not in the right-of-way. nd 21.Storm runoff from Crossroads of Chanhassen 2 Addition must discharge to the drainage pond constructed with Crossroads of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that the City Council accept the +\- .02 acres of land adjacent to Crossroads Boulevard Right-of-Way from MnDot and approve the Quit Claim Deed. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. NICK’S STORAGE & PARKING, 1900 STOUGHTON AVENUE, APPLICANT: JACQUES GIBBS: REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-2, VARIANCE REQUESTS. th Nick’s Storage. This item did appear before the Planning Commission on June 17. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the project. There’s two motions. One to amend a conditional use and one for a variance for a sign permit. So I’d like to give you the background on this application. It’s a little complex. When it first came before the staff, we spent a lot of time trying to resolve how to reconcile the application itself and we took a course of action that we felt, based on the circumstances, seemed to make the most sense. The site itself is located along the 212 corridor on Stoughton Avenue. This would be Stoughton and this is 212. It’s also bordered by Chaska. Chaska has these pieces here, and also the abandoned trail along here. This is Chaska and the Gedney Pickle site which is in Chanhassen. And then this parcel here is with the newly upgraded Xcel Energy site. So the site itself is zoned business fringe. Business fringe does allow cold storage, as this is, and outdoor storage. The site was approved way back in 1987, so it’s been in place for over 20 years and was amended in 1992, and that’s where some of the ambiguity comes in place with the conditional use and the interim use. So the property that was approved for a site plan was on Parcel A, and then there’s Parcel B. The interim use and the conditional use go over both parcels, so the entire property within that conditional and interim use is 16 acres, or 16 acres. So there were 3 phases. The first 2, this was the first phase. These buildings. Phase II and then Phase III. Again that included 8 storage buildings. So with Phase I and II, 20% of the 16.29 acres were built on and there’s additional phasing for 2 additional buildings on Parcel A. Back in 1992 they wanted, the applicant went to the City Council to get the original conditions approved to allow trucks and trailers so the interim or the business fringe district was amended to allow the outdoor storage for the sales trailers. And then behind that were the conditions outlined for those terms to be met. Staff in their report put together what those original conditions were and have they been met or not. Again the conditions were that the, quantify the number of outdoor storage and then the screening and where they could be confined to. Again everything was confined to Area 1. It should be noted too at that time there was a ponding requirement on the property in Parcel B. So in 1992 then after a second reading, 6 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008 the interim use permit was allowed to allow outdoor storage. So here’s where the ambiguity comes in if you look at the interim use permit. If you go to the standards for the interim use permit, under the terms of the original conditional use permit, which were attached in the staff report, it does say in that interim use permit that outdoor storage is permitted. It doesn’t quantify that part and I think the ambiguity came in with the conditional use. So there is a finite time for this to expire, and I’ve prepared on condition 12. I added an additional condition but clearly the intent was that there’d be some sort of term. If you look at the interim use permit it says we should define the time when this should expire. If you look on the original interim use permit, that time was if there was a violation to the code. If one year it didn’t get started. But in looking at this piece of property, certainly a higher and better use could come along when the city did provide municipal services. Although the long range guiding of this property is for office industrial, which cold storage is a permitted use, even in that zoning district so and a fact that it is zoned to become a higher and better use. This is still a permitted use because we do have two cold storages currently in the city. One has got the auto related and the other one’s right here on Highway 5, and that is also cold storage so the uses may not be non-conforming. Although condition 12 that I just passed out says that if the two additional units come into play, they must come completely in compliance with the stormwater. Which is in the original conditional use. Mayor Furlong: Excuse me. Kate Aanenson: Yep. Mayor Furlong: The, you said additional units. Is that what’s referred to as this Phase III? Kate Aanenson: Yes. If they were to put structures there instead of big cars. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Then they would have to bring that, and that always was a condition in there. There should be no more outdoor storage. Mayor Furlong: So the, based upon what prior councils have approved, the outdoor storage for 24 rental vehicles was allowed until such time as they built additional storage structures? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Always was until, yeah. Once those last two buildings are built, there should be no more additional outdoor storage, and that’s consistent and we haven’t changed from that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And so the request here, for clarification, is to eliminate the restriction. Well first of all expand the 24 to 60. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Parking stalls. I’ve got a question on that. Kate Aanenson: Sure. 7 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008 Mayor Furlong: But also not limit the parking stalls to rental trucks and trailers. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Which is what it was originally for. Kate Aanenson: That is correct. Yep. They’re finding other uses. Having said that, that’s kind of the background. The complexity comes in, and why we spent so much time internally trying to resolve this issue is that, in fact there was an administrative subdivision between Parcels A and B, so they actually were now under two different ownerships. So when the applicant came forward to apply for this we said you’re already over because you just own this parcel. But in reviewing that, really the conditional use still goes over, and the interim use, still goes over both parcels. So the impervious surface, and it seemed punitive because the factual part of this is that Parcel B has no development rights because all the development rights were absorbed onto Parcel A. So once sewer and water becomes available, that’s the time that triggers the time for Parcel B to develop. The rest of the 9.47 acres. Mayor Furlong: So the CUP was originally approved covered both A and B. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: And the allowable development has all occurred on Parcel A. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. And we’re still staying consistent with that, and what we said, through notification that, to the property owner, that Parcel B has no development rights because it was all absorbed on Parcel A. And it’s not uncommon. We’ve done that on other property where there may be future road right-of-way, if somebody wants to build a house. We put the rest of that in outlot. Kind of at abeyance until such time. We’ve done that in the 1 per 10. We’ve allowed someone to do smaller than 1 acre lot but then they have to put the rest of it so they meet that requirement, so this would be a similar example of that. But the rest of the development potential is predicated on the city providing municipal services. And it also allows, which we put in that district, some reasonable use of that property down in that area while we created that, kind of that old commercial zone. So because we did this administrative subdivision, it just made it move complex and in looking at that, we have, I’m working through the city attorney, you’ll be seeing a code amendment coming through that will now, if there’s an interim use or a conditional use on your property, you cannot subdivide it. We didn’t have that in place so the city attorney has recommended that we do that. That has gone to the Planning Commission. You’ll be seeing that amendment but we haven’t had too many examples of this but this is clearly one that it would have been easier to have it all on one parcel. But again we didn’t have an mechanism to stop that. So again we have a piece that was non-conforming. The development rights go over the entire property so that’s the way we process it and that was kind of one hurdle to get over. Okay? So with that there were some illegal signs noted on the property and that’s what brought to our attention kind of what’s happening down there to date and the applicants wanting to pursue that. So with that we proceeded to, let’s clean up what we have. Make best of what we’ve got. Permit it and then try to make the conditions reasonable to 8 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008 what they’re trying to do and reasonable for long term for the city. So one of the things that they have done is created some ponding piping. That was one of the issues that was brought up because the pond is, that was dedicated, or let me go back to this picture. It was supposed to be built on this, or it pre-dates the current development or current NURP pond standards. So really it was to retain water but was not built to treat water. Our engineering staff, or water resources had been out there to verify the construction or how that was functioning and that’s where these recommendations are coming forward to you. I know the applicant has asked that they be allowed to continue to use that but because it was never built to those standards, it’s on someone else’s property, we believe to resolve this the best that we can, that they need to provide ponding on their site to the best of their ability, and that’s what we’ve tried to accommodate here. It’s not perfect. It wasn’t in the beginning but it’s much, much closer than it was before and it’s on their property and they have control of that and that is one area, issue that they still have with these conditions and they did appeal that at the Planning Commission but the Planning Commission did concur with the staff and recommended that they do that ponding. So they have done some ponding. Created a piping and kind of a swale. There’s a recommendation, additional recommendation that, excuse me. This is what they put in place. The picture back here is actually, creates a little bit more of a berm. A little bit more retainage for these ponds. So there’s the piping that they have out there today. So that would all be on their property, Parcel A. So this shows, and I’ll get more detail then the berming that’s in the wetland, the stormwater retention area. Councilman Litsey: Which way’s the natural drainage there? Kate Aanenson: Actually when they redid the street there, I have to go back and find a bigger map here. It goes over towards that. Councilman Litsey: Goes over the pond area? Kate Aanenson: Goes 212. Goes over 212 and that’s where we’re trying to stop it and retain it before it goes over, yeah. Councilman Litsey: So this would push it towards where the pond had been proposed to be? Kate Aanenson: Well it’s keeping it on their property. It’s keeping it, sorry I’ll go back here. So we’re in this area here. Councilman Litsey: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: So this is where it was originally. On somebody else’s property so we’re saying that really that it seems appropriate to keep it on this property. Councilman Litsey: But you’re saying it’s not, it’s better but it’s not perfect so there’s still going to be some drainage probably towards… Kate Aanenson: No I think with the swale and stuff like that, it’s not to NURP standards. 9 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008 Councilman Litsey: Okay. Kate Aanenson: It’s going to retain the water. It’s just not built to. Councilman Litsey: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. There shouldn’t be that problem. Todd Gerhardt: So basically slowing the water down a little bit but it’s still ultimately going to head down to that ponding area and then ultimately underneath Highway 212. Kate Aanenson: It will. Some of that will go that way, correct. Todd Gerhardt: Into the creek. Kate Aanenson: Which is how it’s been doing it in the past, correct. Slowing it down. Trying to treat it, which we weren’t in the past. That’s correct. Councilman Litsey: Thanks. Kate Aanenson: Okay. So that’s kind of the site plan issues. So really we’re saying, we would allow the additional outdoor storage again up to 60. The discussion there was whether it’d be hard surface or not. The Planning Commission wanted to leave it no hard surface. Leave that flexibility in there. And then, so then the next issue was the signs and there was quite a bit of conditions on the application or the recommendations that regulate the drainage so if you have questions I’d be happy to answer those but. Then again, we go back to the outdoor storage and then the rental use and the complexity involved in there. The goal and the interim use permit require that all outdoor storage be screened. That’s something that we need to resolve because right now it’s not completely screened so that is a condition of approval. In looking at the signs, the applicant alleges that there were a pylon sign in place, and has requested 4 signs, and I’ll go through those in a little bit more detail. Because when they ultimately screen this entire site we did feel that maybe a variance for one sign because it’s set back a ways from 212 and would be completely screened would be appropriate so we did recommend the variance though so again the signage in the BF district allows just one monument sign. 24 square feet. It’s pretty minimal with a maximum of 5 feet. So the signs that they had made and wanted to put on the site. The first one, sign number 1 on Stoughton was 10 feet high. 48 square feet so that one exceeds the sign area and did not receive a sign permit. Same permit so we are recommending denial of that one. Sign number 2. Along 212. Exceeds the sign display area. The height limitation. Is located in MnDot right-of-way and did not receive a permit. So we would support this sign. This would be the sign area. It needs to be located outside the right-of-way but it would have to be made smaller, but this would be that area that’d be heavily landscaped along 212 that would give some identification so really otherwise you’re on Stoughton, the residential side so this would give identification for that, and then that would allow the directional sign. Sign 3 is the one that has the pylon sign. Again, the BF district doesn’t allow signs that tall. This one is 18 feet and 60 square feet in area so we’ve got 3 significant large signs which is much more than we have in any other district. So that we also recommended denial and then sign 4 would be the 10 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008 directional sign, which we will permit but they need to be smaller to make those work and again we do allow directional signs for someone to find a business. Again that seems to be an appropriate use. So again the other thing that we did address was landscaping. They need to provide that screening on the other so with that we would recommend approval of those 60 with the conditions in there. The main one being that if in fact they do build those additional buildings, then the storage has to be eliminated, and maybe we need to further clarify. Let’s say they build one and if there’s an appropriate, you know that splits the outdoor storage somewhere because it may be only one additional building gets built and then do the 60 outdoors so maybe we might want to address, may be that technical but maybe we do want to just talk about that a little bit too. If they just did the one building so. I didn’t address that in the staff report. So with that we are recommending the conditions we’ve put in the staff report and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Questions at this point. Councilman McDonald: Well I’ve got a question. I’m a little confused about the ponding. We created a PUD for the entire site because at that time one person owned it and they had had the intentions of putting up a storage facility anyway so that’s what they built. Then it goes and gets sold and it gets divided down between the two parcels and now all of a sudden Parcel A is having to pretty much bare the burden of the ponding. Why can’t we enforce the entire PUD over onto the second lot? Kate Aanenson: Well we could. Mr. Dungey’s here, if he wants to speak to that but I’m not sure that, if he doesn’t agree to it, what can we do to force him to do it? But for that they could not proceed. Councilman McDonald: Well yeah, I don’t have the answer. Kate Aanenson: He sold the property. Councilman McDonald: He sold the property, you’re right but at the time you know all of this was built around one PUD with one piece of land and the way the burden was spread out across that, it works. Now all of a sudden we have someone coming back after they bought the second parcel, and it doesn’t work because again we’ve split it up so. Kate Aanenson: Well there’s two answers to that. One is you can null and void the whole CUP because it’s no longer valid. We didn’t think that was a reasonable approach. I’m not sure trying to make Mr. Dungey do that. Would we stop it until he does? Councilman McDonald: Well I’m not sure that we accomplish what we’re trying to get accomplished by putting a PUD, by doing what we’re doing either. That’s where my confusion comes in is that okay if what we’re trying to do is trying to do something about the drainage, and alleviate some of that, how are we doing that by just having him do a couple swales and some pipes that go nowhere and all of a sudden where’s the water go? 11 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008 Kate Aanenson: If you look at the report from the consultant’s engineer and what we reviewed internally, I think that they make the case that it does meet the conditions. As best, I’m on page, well he’s on the same page. On page 7 of our staff report. While, this is a summary. While the proposed infiltration ponds do not meet the NURP standards based on the site complaints with the exception of, the applicant has taken adequate measures to treat the storm water and rate control so we believe it does meet that. Mayor Furlong: And I guess one question. Councilman McDonald obviously this is something that I think all of us were looking at but the original, if they had followed the original conditions of approval, which would be, as I’m reading out of the staff report here, designed to limit the runoff to a pre-development rate of a 100 year storm. Is it true that what they’re doing on Parcel A right now is better in terms of quality and quantity than what would have been done if they had followed the original plan? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Is that correct? What’s being proposed here on Parcel A in terms of storm water quality and quantity. Paul Oehme: It doesn’t completely meet the NURP standards is my understanding. In terms of water quantity control, but it does do a good job of treating the water before it leaves the site. Mayor Furlong: Does it do as good a job or better than what would have been in place if the original 1987 condition had been followed? Paul Oehme: I think it gets close to the NURP standard. Mayor Furlong: Because NURP, as I read the staff report, there weren’t NURP standards at that time. Paul Oehme: I think ’88. Mayor Furlong: And so I guess I’m looking at councilman, a sense of relative here. You know if it was coming in fresh, and my next question is, what would it take to meet current NURP standards if they were coming in fresh today. But what was required was this, and my question is, what they’re proposing, is it equal to what was originally required? Or better. Do we know that? It’s not at our current standard. Paul Oehme: Right. I’d have to look back exactly what was approved back in ’87 and I don’t know if we have that data. But in terms of water quality… Mayor Furlong: Wasn’t there some reference to that though in the staff report? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Well as presented in the Planning Commission, really I mean you can see clearly on this site. It’s been driven as a race car track over it. We did walk. It’s not functioning. It’s a recessed area. It’s not functioning as it was intended. I think the Planning 12 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008 Commission also considered that. Why can’t we just build it big enough to make it, for the potential. Well we don’t know what use, future uses would be on the site to make it big enough. Certainly that ponding area may not be big enough for the entire parcel when it’s fully developed so it seemed reasonable that when this parcel got split off, that they have to take some ownership of that by splitting it off, and I’m not sure how we would compel. Maybe the city attorney has an opinion on that. How we would compel Mr. Dungey to create the pond that adequately meets that site. Councilman McDonald: Well I’m not sure how we compel it either but the thing is that, it holds up what happens on the second parcel. I mean we have a right within a PUD to say you’ve got to meet those requirements. Kate Aanenson: But the person asking for the request is Parcel A, and that’s the only person I can control. Is Parcel A is asking for an increase in use. So the nexus would be that require them to adequately manage that. Councilman Litsey: So in the staff report it says the proposed improvements are more effective than the original holding pond requires the condition of approval in 1987. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Councilman Litsey: …water quality and rate or just quality? Or is it the whole thing? Kate Aanenson: Both. Both. Councilman Litsey: So as the mayor said, then we’re approving a pond, what was there, in place before in terms of water quality and. Todd Gerhardt: They’re meeting the ’87 standard. Councilman Litsey: Yeah. It’s better than what was in place originally. Kate Aanenson: It’s better than that. Yeah. Todd Gerhardt: And I don’t know if we want to go down the other track. I mean the other track gets very complicated and I mean if we’re meeting the standard you know, that argument would be used back against us I think. If we tried to you know enforce the old conditional use permit. Mayor Furlong: And what would be required from a stormwater management standpoint if they had to be on Parcel A the current NURP standards? Kate Aanenson: I can’t answer that. As far as quantity, size. If it’s rate, or deeper pond. Something like that. Mayor Furlong: More than what they’re doing? 13 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008 Kate Aanenson: Yep. Yeah. Mayor Furlong: More than what is being proposed. Okay. And I guess the question is, is the impervious surface area here on Parcel A and it’s really the impervious surface across the entire area. A and B. Is that what was anticipated back in, is that? Kate Aanenson: No. The only development rights were on Parcel A. Mayor Furlong: But is the, is the total impervious surface area on A and B combined because there’s none on B. Is that what was expected when this was originally approved? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Or there’s more from a impervious surface standpoint? Kate Aanenson: No. No, because the only thing that was approved would be Phase A. Would be Parcel A so if something else went beyond that we probably would have addressed a bigger pond. At that time it seemed that that was adequate for the 8 buildings. And that’s what really was the intended to accomplish was to. Mayor Furlong: And the 8 would include the additional 2 that have not been constructed yet. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. That’s correct. So at that time that pond in that corner, where it was draining to, seemed to be logical to manage all that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. I kind of jumped in on your question there to clarify it for me. Any other thoughts at this point? Councilman McDonald: That’s fine. Well. Mayor Furlong: Or questions. Councilman McDonald: There are some other issues with both Parcel A and Parcel B that I think we’ll get into and all I’m trying to get at is, I think that we as a city control the entire CUP because we issued it and if we’re now going to break it up, my question comes then why have it? I don’t understand the advantage to us. I’m not quite sure how to put this but I don’t understand the advantage to us of now enforcing the CUP across the entire property because that’s how it was initially put together. Kate Aanenson: We are. We are balancing. There’s no development rights on Parcel B. Councilman McDonald: Okay, but if we go and move the ponding over to Parcel A, why can’t the owner of Parcel B then come in and say that I could do it? Kate Aanenson: What if he chooses not to? Or what can we do to compel him to do that? So then therefore Parcel A can’t go forward because then you have inadequate storm water. 14 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008 Todd Gerhardt: And if Parcel B was to come in with development, knowing that the pond is on Parcel A the, we would force Parcel B to treat the water of Parcel A to the level of what our current standards are. Not that he may have to pull the whole burden of that cost but we would bring in Parcel A and B into our current standards with the development of Parcel B. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Let’s go ahead. I’m fine with that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions at this point? Other questions for staff? Councilwoman Tjornhom? Ernst? Litsey? On the signage. What I was reading in the recommendations of staff, and I believe the Planning Commission are consistent, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: (Yes). Mayor Furlong: Was in the report and that is to allow a sign on Stoughton Avenue. If you can go back to your 1, 2, 3, 4. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: So the Stoughton Avenue sign, that’s allowed currently. That just is not meeting the current size requirements based on ordinance for this specific, correct? Kate Aanenson: No. Actually sign 1. Mayor Furlong: It’s height and display area. Kate Aanenson: Sign 1, yeah. The applicant must replace sign 1. Yes, you’re correct. That meets the sign area. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: It’s too large. Mayor Furlong: But that would under current ordinance be allowed as long as it was, it met the size and area. Kate Aanenson: Exactly. Yep. Mayor Furlong: The sign 2 is proposed to be allowed by a variance because of the Findings of Fact and the issues related to the variance request simple because in part they’re being asked to shield naturally with trees visibility of their business from 212. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. In effect screen the entire use so it’s hard to see, if you’re trying to find their location. That’s correct. 15 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Okay. So that’s the basis there. Sign 4 is a pylon. That doesn’t meet it. Sign, or excuse me. Sign 3. Sign 4 is directional. You said directional’s are allowed. Kate Aanenson: Not that size. Mayor Furlong: But this one doesn’t meet the size. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, that’s correct. Mayor Furlong: So a directional sign would still be allowed, and I believe that’s one at the intersection of Stoughton and 212, correct? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So that by current ordinance would be allowed. It just has to meet the right size. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: So that isn’t really being addressed in this area. Kate Aanenson: Right. Mayor Furlong: But for the it has to meet current ordinance. Kate Aanenson: (Yes). Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, and then the other question I had. Well, we’ll get back to that later. Anything else at this point? Councilman McDonald: Yeah, I had a question about the signs too. Mayor Furlong: No, that’s fine. Councilman McDonald: Within the report there was some discussion about that sign had been there for 20 years. Have we as a city ever allowed pylon signs? Kate Aanenson: No. Not to my knowledge. They have a difference of opinion on that but. Councilman McDonald: Okay, because. Kate Aanenson: I can’t, since I’ve been here. 17 years. This was approved 20 years ago so. Councilman McDonald: Well some of what was said in there was somehow there was a permit issue that we have no record of it. 16 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008 Kate Aanenson: Right. We can’t find a record of it. We did search for that, and it could have been done without a permit. Councilman McDonald: Are there any other businesses that are let’s say at least 20 years old that where there are pylon signs in the city? Kate Aanenson: There may be along the, I’m trying to think on the, at the bottom of the Y if there’s anything down there. So. Councilman McDonald: You mean down where the hotel’s at and the golf driving range? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. If there’s some non-conforming ones down there, but I’m not sure they’re that tall. I know the Brooks Hotel has a pylon sign I believe so. Councilman McDonald: Okay. That’s all. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Any other questions for staff at this time then? No? I know the applicant’s here. I believe so anyway so at this time I invite their representative to come forward. Craig Mertz: I’m Craig Mertz. I’m the attorney for Nick’s Storage and with me is Mr. Engel who’s the in-house counsel for Nick’s Storage and Mr. Gibbs who is the principle owner of Nick’s storage and Wendy Langley who is their on-site management and John McCain who is their consulting engineer, and Gary Dungey is here. I just talked to him for the first time tonight and Gary’s got something he wants to say but if you’ll let me talk first it’d be appreciated. Nick’s Storage bought this property in the year 2004 and what we thought we were buying was an ongoing business that had both cold storage facility plus signage plus outdoor storage and we thought we really weren’t changing anything from what Mr. Dungey and Mr. Brown were doing. They’re the sellers from whom Nick’s Storage purchased. On the signs there was a pylon sign there and there were monument signs on the two highway frontages and all that Nick’s Storage did was order refacing of those signs and we were unaware of the fact that there was a problem with the signs since all we did was order refacing. Specifically what triggered all of this was that one of the faces on the pylon sign was storm damaged and we ordered replacement faces for that and Ms. Auseth on a drive by spotted the face change in progress and that led to the compliance review on the property. The two things that Nick’s Storage needs here is both the outside storage and as much signage as we can get. The real estate taxes since they purchased the property have gone from approximately $30,000 a year to about $52,000 a year. Before we lost our pylon sign with Ms. Auseth’s compliance inspection, our statistics indicated that about 75% of our business was coming in from the pylon sign because that’s what the people said they saw. That’s what they spotted. That was the sign that was illuminated at night, and the, our occupancy rate has declined since that sign went down. We’re from about 85% occupancy down to about 65%. Now I can’t say whether some of that is attributable to the economy and how much of that is attributable to the signage but I think that the loss of our pylon sign is a significant factor on the suffering that we are incurring at the moment. About 1/3 of the gross income of this business comes from the outside storage so both the signage and the outside storage is important to us. We’re asking that we get these outside storage spaces. The staff 17 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008 report talks about them being grassy or gravel. We really want to do them grass and not gravel. We believe it’s going to be easier for us to maintain with lawnmowers than to deal with having to spray for weeds and what not coming through the gravel so we would like the grass parking stalls and we’d like as much signing as we can, signage as we can possibly get. Mr. Dungey, who I met out in front of the building here tonight, tells me that when he was the owner of the property 20 some, well you had it for 20 some years almost. He remembers working with Don Ashworth, the then city manager and while he, you can’t remember specifically getting a permit or not getting a permit for the signs, you told me out in front of the building that you do recall that you did the footings yourself for the pylon sign and that you met with a city inspector who was approving the footings before putting the pylon onto the footings. And you also told me that, that you did do dirt work in the ponding area, as indicated on the extreme north portion of Parcel B. That you hired some scrapper work and what not and you thought you had met the requirements of the city on the ponding. And you also indicated to me that you had been watching the water situation over the years and the various big storms that we’ve had and you were unaware of any problems with overflow across Highway 212, etc. Have I fairly said those things that you brought to my attention outside? Gary Dungey: That’s right. Craig Mertz: Okay. And you also indicated to me that you thought the soils on the north end of the property were such that there wasn’t going to be a big drainage problem out here. Here’s the bottom line is my client is asking that you approve these outside storage spaces and that you approve it’s sign request and then as for the ponding, that you table the ponding part of this until such time as Mr. Dungey and our engineer and your engineering can walk these improvements that Mr. Dungey did some 20 some years ago for the ponding area on the north for the property. Is there anything you want to add Mr. Dungey? Gary Dungey: Well as far as the ponding goes, when we first built that, that was just all sand out there and nothing was actually, you know all of the dirt work was done in the sand so there was some erosion problems. But in time that was all seeded with alfalfa and grass and you go out there now and it’s just, it is seeded heavily and runoff from my property. Runoff, everything that runs north out of the mini storage, it hits that grass. It doesn’t even hardly get to that ponding area. And before the grass and the alfalfa and everything was seeded. In ’87 we had an 11 inch rain. I don’t know how many people remember that, but at that point in time when we had that 11 inch rain in 2 days, the water never went over 212. And with all of the grass and the alfalfa and everything that’s in there now, and it’s so much sand, the water soaks into the sand. It doesn’t get to that ponding area anyway. So I really don’t know how much of an issue that ponding area would be. Now 20 years ago it wasn’t and like you know today things change but it works very efficiently just the way it is now. I don’t know what more you could really do to it to change it. There is a culvert that runs underneath 212. If you do get a really heavy rain, there’ll be a little puddle on the other side of 212 but I think that’s coming from the land that’s over there anyway. And for that water to ever get over to the creek, or the little stream or whatever that is over there, I just, I don’t know how it, I think it would have to be 3 feet over 212 to get to that creek. Kate Aanenson: Mayor, can I just ask? 18 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008 Gary Dungey: Because of the elevation. Kate Aanenson: W did, our Water Resources Coordinator did walk the site so we have walked and verified the conditions on site so I just want to be clear. I’m not disputing that, at some time that this was graded and it’s seeded but in the Water Resources’ opinion it didn’t meet the standards. It wasn’t built to any standards and it’s not meeting standards today. So that’s why we’re recommending additional storm water because it didn’t, it was deemed that it wasn’t meeting today’s standards. Councilman McDonald: Okay but isn’t that key? If you’re saying it’s not meeting today’s standards but yet it was set up to meet standards in 1987, does it meet those standards? Kate Aanenson: It was built over 20 years ago. I don’t even think it’s functioning today it was built. It was hand built. I’m not sure it was engineered properly. It was dug by a, not designed by an engineering standard so I’m saying, the staff’s opinion that it didn’t meet standards as it was designed. Councilman Litsey: When you make an amendment like we’re doing, can you then add additional requirements…? Kate Aanenson: Right, and that’s what we’re saying is, that’s what I’m saying. That’s the appropriate time if they’re asking for additional, what do we believe is appropriate at this time? We have two different ownerships. How do we insure? We have no control over if pond, this additional pond up here was to get changed, that’s somebody else’s property. We have no control. This person has no control how that pond’s being managed. It’s on somebody else’s property so the, it’s on Mr. Dungey’s property so he has no obligation, if it gets plugged or something like that, how do we manage some of that so. Councilman Litsey: So we have to manage everything on Parcel A? Kate Aanenson: That was our opinion, correct. They should manage some of that on their parcel. Right. Councilman Litsey: Okay. Craig Mertz: Mr. Mayor, may our engineer make a brief comment to the council? Mayor Furlong: Ah, certainly. John McCain: Good evening. My name is John McCain. I’m a civil engineer representing Nick’s Storage. I’d like to try to clarify some of the drainage issues on these two parcels that have been discussed. When we first met with city staff, we discussed the fact that the CUP does in fact, as has been discussed here tonight, run with the land and is still applicable on Parcel B as well as Parcel A. Staff acknowledged that but was unsure about the enforcement question that has been brought up tonight. Staff asked that we look into what ponding for stormwater 19 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008 treatment could be accomplished on Parcel A, while they were looking into the possibility of creating the ponding that was called for in the original CUP on Parcel B. So we prepared a ponding plan. It is possible but it is by no means ideal, but we attempted, as city requested, to provide a concept of what could be done on Parcel A. That concept unfortunately got a life of it’s own and has become a proposal that it was not intended to be. The east half of Parcel A drains to the north and to the east and runoff from that half of Parcel A will be collected in the ponds that were shown. Runoff from the west half of Parcel A runs more north, northwest and due to the layout of the site and the topography it is not even feasible to collect and route runoff from that half of the property over to the two ponds that were shown. The pond over in the west corner is going to go into an area that’s currently grassed, landscaped and it’s going to take out that area both for usability for Nick’s Storage as well as just maneuvering of vehicles around that end of the storage building. That pond needs to be connected by a pipe to the pond that’s shown on the north corner. The pond on the north corner is constructed with essentially a dike built on that hillside, and while it’s possible to do it, it’s not an ideal ponding situation. There’s a lot of dirt that needs to be put into that area. The existing ground needs to be disrupted and we pick up a little bit of additional storage capacity. Not really worth the effort. And runoff from this entire, so as regards whether or not the drainage proposal with these ponds complies with current standards. It does partially for the east half of the property. But the west half is still going to run off site down to the ponding area that was originally designated in the CUP. So we have a split. We are not aware of what the city has done regarding pursuing the ability of the city to enforce the drainage portion of the CUP on Parcel B. We have since however started working with Mr. Dungey and believe that we can create the storage that was originally contemplated on Parcel B where it can fully comply with current NURP standards, and meets the original intent of the CUP and doesn’t shoe horn these little ponds onto Parcel A. Mayor Furlong: How long would that take to, because wasn’t that…proposal is to wait on the stormwater management portion of this? Craig Mertz: Yes. Mayor Furlong: How long would that take to work with Mr. Dungey and come up with an agreement that would bring the entire Parcel A and B up to current NURP standards? John McCain: The storm water analysis can be done in a week. An agreement with Mr. Dungey is out of my realm. But my whole point is that, it’s a much better solution from the city’s perspective in terms of providing for rate control and storm water treatment to create the ponding area on Parcel B that was originally envisioned. Because what’s proposed with the two small ponds on Parcel A only gets you halfway there. Kate Aanenson: Mayor if I may. This is the first time Mr. Dungey has been in, Mr. Mertz just met him. We’ve asked for this and so I guess we would say that if they want to work through that then we would need to table that because we would want to make, change the conditions of approval if you want to consider that as an alternative because there needs to be again some tie that, where we have two separate owners. How you maintain. That there’s an easement or some sort of control. 20 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008 Mayor Furlong: But, but I think the request here is to separate the two. Would that be your recommendation as well that we separate them? Kate Aanenson: No, they can tie them together. We’ve told that to the applicant before but they’ve never spoken to him. Obviously this is the first time they’ve even met so we said that’s a th possibility. They’ve never pursued it. Here we are at the 12 hour. Roger Knutson: Mayor, I don’t think you can separate them into approving part of the Conditional Use Permit tonight potentially and part of the Conditional Use Permit under different conditions on another night. If you want to pursue this then I suggest the whole matter be tabled. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I’m sorry. I didn’t understand that but yeah, definitely table. Give them time. Mayor Furlong: And that was my question. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, to give them time to come back to see if it works. Roger Knutson: And we can’t sit here tonight and design a storm water pond. Mayor Furlong: Understand. Understand. Kate Aanenson: Right. So we need some time to go through that and make sure that Mr. Dungey’s on board to do that and it can meet standards and how that whole works and who maintains it and. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Craig Mertz: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Anything else from the applicant on? Kate Aanenson: Can we just clarify where we are on time and if they want to give us an extension. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, why don’t you check into that. I just want to make sure from the applicant that there’s nothing else they wanted to address. Kate Aanenson: Okay. Craig Mertz: Would council at least consider doing the signage issue tonight? That’s not affected by the drainage. Kate Aanenson: No. I think we should do it all at once. 21 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008 Todd Gerhardt: It wouldn’t be staff’s recommendation. It’s up to the mayor and council if you want to do that but it would be our recommendation not to. Mayor Furlong: Was there anything else then this evening? Kate Aanenson: Mayor, if I can just get clarification from. Craig Mertz: …Mr. Dungey wants to explain how the pylon sign got there. Mayor Furlong: If you could Mr. Dungey, slide to the podium for the microphone. You’re kind of inbetween two microphones. Gary Dungey: There? Mayor Furlong: Yep. You don’t have to, just talk natural. Thank you. Gary Dungey: Okay. I put that sign in 20 years ago and we had the sign inspected. I have no record to this. It’s 20 years ago. I do know that when I poured the footing for that sign I had to have a footing inspection. For the size of the footing. The steel in the footing and the size of the bolts to hold the sign. And I had that. That’s all I have. So as far as paperwork, I have no paperwork from 20 years ago for that sign. But the sign at that point in time was put up legally. I mean you know I wouldn’t have painted a sign up there and certainly got by with it for 20 years so I just wanted you to know that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Gary Dungey: That it was inspected and obviously there had to be a permit for it if we had an inspection for it so. But I have no paperwork. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Any questions for the applicant? I guess whether it’s a question for the applicant or staff just for clarification. I was reading through the Interim Use Permit that allowed the outside storage for the rental trucks. Specifically spoke to number of vehicles. It was so many trailers. So many trucks. What’s being asked here are basically 60 spaces, and I guess just for clarification. Maybe this is a question to the applicant. Is the request to have space for 60 vehicles? Craig Mertz: We want 60 spaces that could be occupied by trailers or by trucks or by boats. Just 60 spaces without designating what exactly would be parked on those spaces. Mayor Furlong: But it wouldn’t be your intention, I noticed motorcycles was one of the items in here, to put 2 or 3 motorcycles in a single space. I mean you’re looking for space for 60 vehicles. Craig Mertz: RV’s, boats and trailers. Wendy Langley: RV’s, boats, trailers, yeah. 22 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008 Mayor Furlong: And maybe it’s a nit but it’s just sometimes there’s, that each space provides space for a single vehicle. That’s what I hear you asking. That’s kind of the way I first read it but as I was reading through here there was a change in the terminology so I just wanted to clarify. Kate Aanenson: We can clarify that. Mayor Furlong: Yeah. Okay. Then I guess the question is, if there is a request by the applicant, do we have a written request or? Kate Aanenson: We’re getting one drafted. Roger Knutson: If I write any faster you won’t be able to read it. Mayor Furlong: No, I can keep talking abut I don’t know if anybody wants to listen. Councilwoman Ernst: Can I ask just. Mayor Furlong: Sure… Councilwoman Ernst: When the applicant referred to wanting grass in the area rather than gravel. I’m wondering why that would be a problem. Kate Aanenson: It’s not. Councilwoman Ernst: Oh. Okay. Kate Aanenson: That was approved by the Planning Commission. Councilwoman Ernst: Because I thought it would really actually contribute to the improvement of the drainage. Kate Aanenson: Yep, we recommended that. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions while the city attorney is writing frantically? Todd Gerhardt: We’ll get some boiler plate language and just put them in that pile Roger. st Kate Aanenson: Just for clarification, we’re just asking for a waiver until September 1. The construction, there’s still cost considerations and association so we just want to make sure we have enough time in there. st Mayor Furlong: And there would be, between now and September 1 there’d be 3 additional council meetings? 23 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008 Kate Aanenson: Yeah. And we’ll get it on as soon as we can, just so they can execute. Mayor Furlong: Right. Okay. Does your request still stand? Craig Mertz: We are asking that in spite of the staff recommendation, we’re asking that you bifurcate this and give them sign permits and outside storage permits and table the ponding. Mayor Furlong: I guess I’d be open to council. Staff has recommended against that. I’d be open to council’s thoughts there on whether we break that apart. My inclination would be not. To keep it as a single item but. Councilman McDonald: No I’m making these great arguments about the fact that I think we ought to be enforcing the CUP across the entire thing so I think we ought to stay with it’s part of all that. We ought to discuss it when we come back. Mayor Furlong: Consider all the items together. Councilman McDonald: Consider all the items together. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other thoughts or comments? Councilman Litsey: I agree. I agree. Mayor Furlong: Alright. I guess it is, you know either we move forward with everything or nothing so. Given that. Craig Mertz: You’re in the drivers seat here so. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Before we make a motion then you have to sign the waiver. Otherwise they’re going to make a motion. Mayor Furlong: Otherwise we’ll proceed this evening with what we have in front of us. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Roger Knutson: Then the motion would be to accept the applicant’s request for an extension of time and to table the matter until… st Kate Aanenson: September 1, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Would somebody like to make that motion? Councilwoman Ernst: I just have one question. So when we’re doing this we’re going to approve all those, so it’d be the outside storage. 24 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Excuse me. The request now would be to table the entire matter to come back at a future meeting. Councilwoman Ernst: Right, but I mean when we approve it or not approve it, it would be either rejected or approved as a whole package. It wouldn’t be broken, none of those things would be broken out separately. Mayor Furlong: Not necessarily. Roger Knutson: No, you could when it comes back to you after it’s tabled. That’s what happens. You could for example decide to approve the sign variance and not the amendment to the CUP or vice versa. You can deal with them individually when they come back. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: The request was to separate them tonight. Act on some tonight. Defer others and it was the sense of all of us to no. Let’s just keep all of them on the table unless we have the whole picture. Councilwoman Ernst: Yep. Mayor Furlong: So the city attorney presented a proposed motion. Would somebody like to move that motion? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mayor, I move that we accept the applicant’s request for additional time and table the motion. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Roger Knutson: Table the matter. There’s no motion. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Table the matter, sorry. Mayor Furlong: Table the matter to a future meeting. Councilwoman Ernst: Second. Councilman McDonald: I’ll second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any other discussion on that? Councilman Litsey: Do we have to put the date in there or it’s not important? It’s in there? Okay. Mayor Furlong: Any other discussion? 25 City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008 Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council table the request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 87-2 and variance requests for Nick’s Storage and Parking. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails 5-0. Thank you. Thank you and let’s see if we can get something worked out and look forward to seeing you in a few weeks. Appreciate your efforts. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilwoman Ernst: I would just like to say another wonderful Fourth of July event. Everything that I saw, it was so crowded I could hardly move, so that was a good sign. So good job to everyone. Todd and your team. It was a great event. I had a good time, and I think everyone else did too that was there. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, I think attendance was up at least 20 plus percent over last year. I don’t know if it was gas prices and people were staying a little closer to home but we really appreciated it. I think everybody did have a good time. I think we put on a great event you know thanks to all the outside agencies. The Rotary for organizing so many different things on rdth the 3 and the 4. Especially the parade, which was a huge attendance there also. You always know when you have a good event is when accidents and incidents are down and we just had a couple of minor incidents on both days so that’s always a positive. You know when nobody gets hurt, things are good so. Kudos to Todd Hoffman, his staff and all the volunteers and everybody at city hall that helped pull this event off. It was a lot of fun. Councilwoman Ernst: Just curious, do we know what our attendance was this year compared to other years? Todd Gerhardt: You know there’s no way to really count it, other than you know. Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah, I kind of figured there wasn’t but if you had any kind of idea. Todd Gerhardt: How many people are close to your shoulders, you know. Councilwoman Ernst: I think it depends on the time of the day that you get there too. I found that out. Todd Gerhardt: If we could measure it on kegs I could tell you. Mayor Furlong: But to that point, there literally is something for everybody. With the business rd expo put on by the Chamber early in the afternoon on the 3. You see a number of people there. You see a different group of people, a lot more families, younger children during the evening hours during the carnival rides. Then you see, you know and it doesn’t mean that it’s the total number of people there is going up or down. But then you see adults enjoying themselves in the rd evening on the 3 so the number of people attending might be the same during that period but 26