CC Minutes 11-10-2014Chanhassen City Council – November 10, 2014
11. Dakota Retail Property, Chanhassen Dakota Retail One, LLC:
a. Approval of Amendment to Purchase Agreement.
b. Approval of DEED Grant Agreement.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
None.
TWIN CITIES SELF STORAGE, 1900 STOUGHTON AVENUE: APPROVAL OF
AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1987-02 TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF
STORAGE BUILDINGS; AND APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN FOR FIVE ADDITIONAL
STORAGE BUILDINGS; APPLICANT/OWNER: BRUCE LAMO, TWIN CITIES SELF
STORAGE, CHASKA, LLC.
Kate Aanenson: Can I just get clarification if you can see this on your screen?
Mayor Furlong: Oh I should say, yeah. We are having some technical difficulties with the monitors this
evening so we may not be able to. I don’t know if we can broadcast them or not but we don’t have them
in the council chambers.
Kate Aanenson: Okay. So this item as you mentioned Mayor, council members is on 1900 Stoughton
Avenue. Mr. Bruce Lamo, the applicant. This property is zoned Business Fringe. If you recall the
history on this property, we did do a conditional use amendment on the, he’s requesting a conditional use
amendment from the original one that was done. As you recall this property was split and the conditional
use that over rode the entire property, there was some ambiguity there so we changed our ordinance to
make sure that there’s an existing conditional use. You can administratively split the property. So that,
the storage unit did put in a stormwater pond to the back to resolve some of those issues and now Mr.
Lamo wants to continue with additional phases so it needs a CUP amendment. Some of the concerns
when we had the Planning Commission public hearing was to make sure that there’s screening across the
street on Stoughton Avenue. They were concerned about the visibility. The staff did require Mr. Lamo, I
do have the material samples here to match the existing or the architectural standards. Not what was put
in place then but to meet the new standards. As you may be aware, these types of buildings can last quite
a while on a piece of property so we wanted to make sure. I think the other discussion that we had with
Mr. Lamo and Mr. Generous and myself talking to him about long term wise we looked at some of the
access points to this property. We talked about this on our 61 corridor study that we did. We informed
Mr. Lamo that that is our intention to bring sewer and water down in this area and that if we’re down in
that area before this developed there’s still an opportunity to provide municipal services to the back of
this property coming through an access way through Chaska and making sure that he’s provided an
opportunity so I think we’re in sync on that to make sure that, provide him the most opportunities for
future development as possible. So right now he’ll be kind of doing the buildings in increments. Not
attending them all see how he, how much use there is but again he’s planning on five additional buildings
again to taking those incrementally. So the BF district again was intended to look at limited use of
commercial properties if this was guided industrial it still could be a use in that zoning district so we did
take a look at that but again we are coming forward with the Comprehensive Plan amendment in this area
itself. The difference with the BF district in the, when that was put in place is intended to be kind of a
temporary use without municipal sewer and water. If this was some other type of facility we’d want to
see that. The one issue with the BF district it does require the 40 percent, which is a higher percent of
green space requirement so that does limit the ultimate development of the property so again looking at
providing municipal service and giving him that opportunity. So cold storage warehousing is permitted in
the BF district so we are saying it does meet the standards of the zoning district and as the site plan,
2
Chanhassen City Council – November 10, 2014
architectural renderings have been provided to the staff and represented here. Again the neighbors were
concerned about landscaping. Not only the architectural view. Some of the lighting issues that are out
there and I think those were all addressed at the Planning Commission so with that the staff is
recommending the amendment to the conditional use permit to allow the 11 storage buildings for the cold
storage warehousing. For 5, for the 5 new buildings and subject to the conditions of approval and
adoption of Findings of Fact and I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you Ms. Aanenson. Any questions for staff? Mr. McDonald.
Councilman McDonald: I have a question. I remember when this came to us before. Wasn’t there an
issue about a storage water pond?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilman McDonald: At one corner. Did we get all of that resolved?
Kate Aanenson: Yes and that was one of the issues that our Water Resources Coordinator has worked
with the applicant on to making sure that additional stormwater can be addressed and we believe that can
be executed with the site plan agreement.
Councilman McDonald: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you Mr. McDonald. Any other questions? Mr. Laufenburger.
Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Kate there are 6 buildings on the site right now,
correct? And the existing CUP allows 8, correct?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Laufenburger: So he could do 2 more without any approval but what he’s asking for is
approval to do those, in addition to the 2 that he already has approval on, 3 more for a total of 11, is that
correct?
Kate Aanenson: (Yes).
Councilman Laufenburger: So the action that we take tonight, if we approve this, he can build out his, he
can take use of this permit all the way to 11?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions? Ms. Aanenson, you mentioned the 61 corridor study
which I know has been ongoing.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: And has been looking at land use down in this area. What’s your sense, because a
conditional use permit as I understand it, or maybe this is where I start. To the extent that the conditional
use is allowed within a current zoning district, really the matter before the council this evening is whether
or not they meet the criteria for that approval, correct?
3
Chanhassen City Council – November 10, 2014
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: It’s a quasi-judicial type of a decision in our case for the matter before us tonight.
Kate Aanenson: Well the.
Mayor Furlong: If they meet the standard then.
Kate Aanenson: Right. A conditional use you can just attach conditions to mitigate any impacts. You
couldn’t deny the conditional use.
Mayor Furlong: Right.
Kate Aanenson: So I think right, our first conversation was that we wanted the standards to meet, not
what was the steel buildings that were built in the past but to do a higher architectural grade and then
additional landscaping.
Mayor Furlong: Which is part of the conditions that we’re looking for.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Or that the City, is being recommended to the council.
Kate Aanenson: Right. Again to mitigate that and I also just wanted to point out too that we did talk
about, depending on the rate that those buildings that we could provide opportunities for office industrial
is what we’re looking at in the revised Comprehensive Plan that would allow him additional buildings of
a higher value.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess that’s my question. That while this is, this type of use is allowed with a
conditional use permit in the BF zone. The existing zoning.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: It sounds like your expectation is a different zoning would be more appropriate as we go
through the Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: That’s already in that process, that planning process.
Kate Aanenson: Right, if it was office or industrial, which is what we have on Highway 5. We do have
storage units on Highway 5 and those also are.
Mayor Furlong: So this would also be a permitted use.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Under what you think most likely will be the recommendation.
4
Chanhassen City Council – November 10, 2014
Kate Aanenson: Yeah because I think we talked about that early on when we were doing the corridor
study. Whether or not we needed to do a moratorium but we felt like these, because this use would
probably fit in the other category. We just wanted to apprise the property owner of the potential for
higher and better uses that, and that be just very careful and considerate of how the property develops.
Give himself the most opportunities.
Mayor Furlong: And that would still be available, if I look at the schematics correctly, there would still
be room to develop on this.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: On the property beyond what’s just being requested for these additional 5 buildings but 3
in addition to the current.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright that sounds, thank you. Any other questions for staff? Is the applicant
here? Is there anything? Good evening. Would you like to address the council this evening or anything
you’d like to provide for us to consider?
Bruce Lamo: Well I think Kate has done a good job of presenting exactly what I’m looking at doing.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. If you could state your name and address for the record too, I’d appreciate it.
Bruce Lamo: My name is Bruce Lamo. I live at downtown Minneapolis, 607 Washington Avenue South,
Unit 503.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Welcome.
Bruce Lamo: Thank you. I appreciate your consideration of my proposal. I am, you know to your earlier
question. I do have the, on the books permission to build 2 additional buildings. I brought the adjoining
property and put the original 16 plus acres that this was built on back as one large, larger piece and my
plan is to expand. I want to put a slightly different design building on so the buildings that are there, you
know they’re basically metal sheds. Buildings that are going up will be a little more elaborate. They’ll
have a drive through feature to them. They will be the exterior, you what you’ll see on the street will be a
higher quality finished material so I won’t be building buildings like I have. They’ll actually be a little
nicer building. Both I think from an outside appearance standpoint and from my customers access and
use so I think it will be a better product for everybody. I have been full for about a year and a half, two
years so I’ve been looking for an opportunity to expand. You know I think I service Chanhassen and
Chaska. Most of my customers are fairly close to my facility so I think I’m providing a service. I get
paid for it. I’m happy with that but I think I’ve got a good group of customers and I don’t want to lose
them. Frankly if I don’t get to expand I think somebody else somewhere probably will take the
opportunity to do so and then it’s not going to be good for me and not necessarily good for them if they
can’t fill their business up either so I think this is a good proposal for all parties considered. I don’t know
if, I feel like I am, this is a little more expensive proposition for me because I am having to incorporate
the higher design features in it but at the same time I don’t have the municipal water supply so it’s an
expensive proposition for me to put in a sprinkling system. It’s required now. I’m not arguing that I
don’t have to put it in but it is an added expense that if this did have the city water that would come with
an industrial zone, you know it would be a significant savings for me but I’m willing to incur that cost
because I have to do it in accordance with your code which isn’t a problem but there are, it’s not as easy a
business to get into when, it was when these original buildings were built. You know they’re fairly
5
Chanhassen City Council – November 10, 2014
inexpensive. Fairly simple buildings. They’re sturdy. They last a while but this will definitely be a
better building all around. It will be a safer building. More attractive building and a better built building
so hopefully you’ll see it that way and approve my request. I am building only 2 buildings now and if I
fill those up quickly I will want to continue to build as there is demand but I don’t really know how much
more demand there will be. By building where I am and building fairly close to my existing buildings, it
will leave me the most flexibility to, if it gets rezoned and there are services provided. Someone else can
use the land in a better way. That I can sell the land, I’d be happy to do that. If I can, if I have demand
for it and I can use it, it does leave both me and potential uses you know the most flexibility. So that was,
that’s been my design. That’s also what we worked out with Kate. I know the potential for roads coming
through. That was incorporated into my site plan. Where the buildings are located so if any roads do
come through I don’t, there won’t be any access issues. I won’t be in anyone’s way. You know there’ll
still be plenty of room for my driveways. Adequate screening so it shouldn’t be a problem for anyone if
and when that time comes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Bruce Lamo: Did you have any questions for me?
Mayor Furlong: Very good. I guess the first question I’ll ask is, are you comfortable or in agreement
with the conditions that are being proposed by staff for the proposal here?
Bruce Lamo: Yes. I’d prefer they not be but yes. No, there’s no surprises. I mean I knew when I started
on this path that you would have some concerns and we’ve talked about them and I understand them and
I’m comfortable with them, yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, alright. Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Laufenburger.
Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Lamo I appreciate your willingness to take advantage of perhaps a
market opportunity that might be there for you and I realize there’s investment associated with them and I
wish you good luck with that. Tell me this, is there a utility that runs through the north side of your
property? Is there a utility easement there?
Bruce Lamo: There’s a power line.
Councilman Laufenburger: Power line.
Bruce Lamo: That runs through there, yes.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, alright. I wasn’t sure if that was affecting your property or just to the
west of you.
Bruce Lamo: Yeah it does cut across my property, yes.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, alright. And I’m assuming that anything that you do you’re, we’re
operating in accordance with that utility easement, is that correct?
Bruce Lamo: Yes. In fact on the property before I bought it there was a garage that was put up sometime
ago that was partially under that line. That was demolished prior to me taking, that was one of the
conditions I put before I took ownership of the property to make sure that that non-complying building
which was under the power line was removed.
6
Chanhassen City Council – November 10, 2014
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Well very good. Thank you Mr. Lamo.
Bruce Lamo: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Lamo? No? Thank you very much.
Bruce Lamo: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: There was a public hearing was there not I believe I saw at the Planning Commission.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: And so with that, unless there’s specific, anything that’s changed specifically since the
Planning Commission that the council needs to be aware of, we’ll bypass any public comment this
evening unless somebody has something that’s pressing that they want to share with us. Seeing nobody,
why don’t we bring it to council then for discussion and consideration of a motion. Thoughts and
comments. I think it’s, just a comment as Mr. Lamo expressed, he sees a market opportunity. He’s
looking to invest here in Chanhassen recognizing that the expectations have changed over the years in
terms of construction and requirements but we still appreciate his looking to invest and grow his business
here in Chanhassen so with that thank you for that. I think the proposal seems to make sense. It seems to
be in line with the zoning requirements and conditions as well so unless there are any other thoughts or
comments, I’d certainly entertain a motion at this time.
Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Laufenburger.
Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Mayor I move that the Chanhassen City Council approve the amendment
to the conditional use permit to allow 11 storage buildings for cold storage and warehousing and approve
the site plan for five 14,250 square foot one-story storage buildings subject to the conditions in the staff
report and adoption of the Findings of Fact.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman McDonald: So moved.
Councilwoman Ernst: Second.
Mayor Furlong: I’ll let you guys fight that one out. I’m sorry. Motion’s been made and seconded. Any
discussion on the motion? Hearing none we’ll proceed with the vote.
Councilman Laufenburger moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the Chanhassen City
Council approves the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit to allow 11 storage buildings for
cold storage and warehousing; and approves the Site Plan for five 14,250 square foot one-story
storage buildings subject to the following conditions and adoption of the Findings of Fact:
Conditional Use Permit
1. The 60 parking stalls for vehicle storage shall be confined to the area labeled Building P4.
7
Chanhassen City Council – November 10, 2014
2. The development shall comply with site plan 2014-31, plans prepared by Carlson McCain dated
September 5, 2014.
Site Plan
Building:
1. The buildings are required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems.
2. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
3. Retaining walls over four high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit must be
obtained prior to construction.
4. Detailed occupancy related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans are
submitted.
Engineering:
1. The applicant must provide adequate evidence that there is no area on the subject property suitable for
infiltration. The discussion must include the practicality of altering the site layout.
2. The hydrologic modeling must be completed with accepted literature values for the soil type present
or the applicant must provide evidence that the infiltration rates are equal to the 3.97 inches per hour
assumed for the model. The applicant must provide water quality modeling, acceptable under Section
19-144(a)(1)c. of Chanhassen City Code, showing that the water quality treatment conditions are met
for the required water quality volume from all new impervious surfaces.
3. A comprehensive, standalone SWPPP document with all elements required by Part III of the NPDES
construction permit, the provided checklist and Section 19-145 of city code shall be prepared and
submitted to the City for review and comment before any earth-disturbing activities, including but not
limited to removal of any existing surfaces or structures, and removal of vegetation will be allowed or
any grading permit will be issued.
4. The conveyance must be stabilized along the entire length and energy dissipation and erosion
prevention practices must be designed and implemented to protect the infiltration basin from
unnecessary sediment deposition.
5. The applicant shall include a materials list and engineers opinion of cost for all items necessary to
meet the SWPPP requirements for erosion prevention and sediment control including the materials
necessary for six (6) inches of topsoil and final stabilization. This amount shall be collected as
escrow for erosion control.
6. The applicant shall prepare an operations and maintenance manual for the channel.
7. Assurances shall be provided for the conveyance channel consistent with the MS4 permit
requirements for systems not owned and maintained by the MS4 permittee. Specifically:
8
Chanhassen City Council – November 10, 2014
a. It must allow for the city to conduct inspections, perform maintenance and assess costs when the
permittee determines that the owner and/or operator of the structural stormwater BMP has not
conducted maintenance.
b. It must include conditions that are designed to preserve the permittee’s right to ensure
maintenance responsibility...when those responsibilities are legally transferred to another party.
c. It must include conditions that are designed to protect/preserve structural stormwater BMPs and
site features that are implemented to comply with Part III.D.5.a(2). If site configurations or
structural stormwater BMPs change, causing decreased structural stormwater BMP effectiveness,
new or improved structural stormwater BMPs must be implemented to ensure the conditions for
post-construction stormwater management in Part III.D.5.a(2) continue to be met
8. The applicant must procure and comply with the requirements of all other jurisdictional agencies with
authority over the project area.
9. The plan shall be redrawn to 50-scale or larger, and must show the location of the benchmark used in
the survey.
10. The first floor elevation and corner elevations of the nearby buildings must be labeled to confirm that
the grading will allow water to flow away from all structures onsite.
11. The pond’s Emergency Overflow Elevation and location must be shown on the plans.
12. Due to the location of the open channel drainage, the developer’s engineer shall submit phased
grading and erosion control plans. The plan phasing shall illustrate the erosion control that will be in
place as the different buildings are constructed in Phase 1 through Phase 4.
13. The plan sheets must identify any proposed stockpile locations and the erosion control measures to
contain them.
14. The aisles around the perimeter of the buildings must meet a minimum of width of 30 feet to allow 8-
foot parking on one side and a 22-foot driving aisle.
15. The corners of the parking lot shall be modified to provide adequate aisle width.
Environmental Resources Specialist:
1. The applicant shall provide landscape buffers to the north of buildings P2, P3 and P4 and the west of
P3. The required number of trees for the vehicular use area shall be incorporated into the buffer
landscaping.
2. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing the additional buffers as well as an
alternate selection to blue spruce.
Fire:
1. The new buildings will be required to have an approved fire sprinkler suppression system installed.
Plans shall be drawn by a sprinkler design professional and submitted to Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
review and approval.
9
Chanhassen City Council – November 10, 2014
2. Twelve-inch building address numbers must be installed on each end of the building. Numbers must
be of contrasting color. Contact Fire Marshal for additional information.
3. “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required. Contact Fire Marshal for specific areas to be signed.
Planning:
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to
guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. The applicant shall create a zoning lot and recombine the two properties as one parcel.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
7015 SANDY HOOK CIRCLE: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITATION TO CONSTRUCT A DRIVEWAY; APPLICANT/
OWNER: RICK KOLBOW.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. This item did appear before the
st
Planning Commission on their October 21 meeting. The commission voted 4 and 3 against so therefore
it gets appealed to the City Council. As you mentioned the property address is 7015 Sandy Hook Circle.
This area, they’re requesting a hard cover variance to allow them to expand their driveway and create a,
expand their property to allow for a driveway and a garage pad. The garage pad itself meets all the
requirements of the zoning district as far as setbacks. The problem that they’re having then is the 2.7
percent hard surface coverage. The staff had recommended if the Planning Commission wanted to
approve it and wanted for mitigation for the variance provide a rain garden that was also shown on the
site. There was a lot of back and forth regarding the discussion of the future, the applicant’s desire to
future put a garage on the site and then the driveway, you’d have to widen the driveway to make the
move, turn movement to get to the garage so again they wanted that additional space in the future. So we
pointed out at the Planning Commission meeting too your side yard can, as a plan you can put a boat. A
camper, those sort of things. Storage can go on your side yard. You don’t have to use hard surface
coverage as you could with a car but as the applicant’s had indicated, when you have people getting in
and out of a car all the time it’s different than a parked storage on the side of your when you have to do
snow removal to get in and out of the vehicle. Again they wanted to provide that pad today to allow for
future use of the garage and any structure on that if they stay within the pad limits would then meet the
setback requirements so it’s the hard surface of the 2.75 that was the problem. The staff did look at
several properties in the area that have a larger than a two car garage. There were several in the
surrounding properties and in addition we looked at some of the lot sizes. When they project came in in
1980 the, anything over 24 lots was required to do a PUD so when it came in there was lots that were
smaller in the area. The subject site is smaller in the 12,632. Smaller than the 15,000 square footage
requirements, as are the two properties immediately behind and then the one adjacent are also between 10
and the 12,600 square footage so a little bit of an anomaly there. Those being the smallest lots within the
neighborhood. So we looked at some of the surrounding properties. Back in the 1980’s we didn’t do the
detailed surveys that we do now and we found that out when we rezoned a lot of those PUD’s that some
properties did work without permits. We didn’t manage stormwater calculations as we do today. The
applicants did come in and go through the correct process to do that so some of the surrounding properties
are over the hard surface coverage so while this application isn’t today, the surrounding properties are
over the 25 percent. Anywhere from 26 to 28 percent. The largest lot adjacent to this one, the property to
the south is a little bit larger so that is under the 25 percent. So with that there was a split decision. The
staff had put approval conditions, findings and denial but again the Planning Commission went back and
forth regarding is it appropriate to do a rain garden? Does that make sense? Can this is something that,
10