Loading...
1986 08 20 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 20, 1986 e Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT Howard Noziska STAFF PRESENT Barbara Dacy, City Planner; Todd Gerhardt, Intern Preliminary Plat Request to subdivide 14 acres into three large lake lots on property zoned R-1A, Agricultural Residence and located at l0a-PIoneer Trail, David ~ Hansen. e Barbara Dacy: I know the applicant has another meeting to go to tonight so I will make the Staff presentation brief. I just want to review quickly what the required variances are for. One is the Shoreland Management Ordinance variance for the width along the driveway easement. 150 feet is required, proposed is 133. The other variance is the length of the lot twice the width. The third variance is all lots must abut to a public street. Lot 2 does not have public street frontage. The variance is the width of the proposed Lot 2 is 133 feet. The required standard is 180 feet. Out of those variances, I will discuss each one briefly as to Staff's position. Of those variances, the length twice the width is a variance that we feel can be granted. Because of the dimension of the lot, there is no way that you can achieve 2 1/2 acres without going beyond that twice the width requirement so Staff has no problem with that particular variance request. Secondly, as far as creating a landlock parcel is concerned, that has been approved in the past by the City if it is served by a 60 foot private easement and if the entire piece can be resubdivided in the future and a public street created. The next variance was the frontage along Lake Riley. Last week the DNR submitted another letter dated August 13, 1986 which replaced the letter that is in your packets and the intent of that letter basically lists the requirements of the Shoreland Management Ordinance. DNR's position is that they feel there would be no adverse impact from granting of the variance to 133 feet. They feel, however, that is up to the local jurisdiction as to whether or not a hardship exists and as to whether or not a variance should be granted. The DNR's position is simply because of the size of the lots; because home sites will be located a good distance away from the lake and above the lake, so to speak because of the elevation, they feel there would be no adverse impact so it comes back to the municipality to decide whether or not a hardship exists. The remaining variance then is for a lot width variance covering Lot 2 from 180 feet down to 133 feet. As I stated in the report, through a subdivision ordinance approval, a City can not grant or create a substandard lot and in - Planning Commission Special Meeting August 20, 1986 - Page 2 e e essence, that is what Lot 2 is. The side setbacks of 10 feet on one side and 100 feet on the other, when you apply it to this particular lot, you have 23 feet remaining. Clearly not a buildable lot for what is being intended. Now whether you agree with the intent of those side setbacks, we all know that they are for a subdivision. Unfortunately, in the applicant's case there is still the law. If the Commission feels that the variances should be granted for the lot width, I recommend instead that you table the subdivision request and look at the zoning ordinance and look at an amendment for the side setbacks. Really, what the applicant is proposing to you tonight is an issue of a subdivision. Staff maintains the position that 180 feet should be maintained and the City should not be approving a substandard lot for a buildable lot until the standard is changed. As far as the lot width variances along the lake and so on, the DNR has said, okay Chanhassen, it is up to you to determine whether or not a hardship exists. Typically, in any variance request a rule that Staff has to use in interpretation of the ordinance is, is there an opportunity to conform? In this case there is an opportunity to have at least two lots meeting the 150 foot requirement. Subdivision of the property still can be obtained. Not in a manner which the applicant desires but denying the variance would not prevent the applicant from subdividing the property. In fact, we did discussed with the applicant the alternative choice of putting two lake lots and the third lot along pioneer Trail. Shown in red here is an alternative. Two lake lots, 200 feet each and then the third lot along pioneer Trail. What this does is allow for the extension of the easement up to near the lake property. If the second lot was created, the house would meet the 100 foot setback from the lake and most naturally the house would probably be up in this area someplace. If it was to be resubdivided, there would be no more than three lake lots created and I have indicated the 90 foot frontage requirement so you can see how the resubdivision could occur. What the applicant is saying, and he is going to state his case further, but what he explained to Staff was that he would prefer to have this lot in the center here and he would prefer to have the three lots and states that he would not like to see this area resubdivided but could envision this area being resubdivided in the future. It really poses the question back to the Commission. Staff has a duty to show you the ultimate impacts of subdivision requests and has to interpret the ordinances based on planning principles and so on. In this case here you have a classic case where the property owner wishes to do one thing and unfortunately the ordinances are not going in his favor, thus the need for the variances. David Hansen: I would like to run through this, if I may. First of all I have to say that I feel that the Staff has not really presented a fair picture, scenario of this particular piece of property and our intent. Before I get into this, I would just like to go through the Staff's report and I will comment on it and hopefully I can convince the Staff or convince the Planning Council that this is absolutely the best use of this piece of property. Let's go back in history a little. I purchased this property in 1973 and have been a resident in Chanhassen for over 12 years. In 1974 as I was putting my plans together on this property and building my own home, e Planning Commission Special Meeting August 20, 1986 - Page 3 e e I worked very closely with Mr. Jerry Schlenk who at that time was the City Administrator and Building Inspector. In fact, I carne back to Jerry at least half a dozen times during the construction. Mr. Schlenk was fully aware of what I desired on the property. That is why I built my home way over on the east side of the property with a 10 foot setback with a definite reason that I wanted to put three equal, beautiful, rural type lake lots on the property. Mine being 134 feet and the other two being 133 each. I feel I have a very definite hardship that has been created by the enactment of new codes and restrictions since this time. Let's just take a look at some of these restrictions. Most of these new codes on lot sizes with 100 foot setback on one side and 10 on the other. These are for one reason only gentlemen, for future resubdivision with the idea of sewage and resplitting of these lots. When I built, the side setback was 10 feet on each side. That is why I built my home over here in the fashion. I want the two lots to be very large, rural, lakeshore lots. Very complimentary to my home. I do not want a smaller lot in there. Anyhow, Mr. Schlenk, and I'm sorry Jerry is not up here but he said anyone of you gentlemen are free to call him on this, knew that this is what I wanted and the only reason that I did not plat it back then is that I wanted to keep Green Acres as we raise Arabian horses, etc. and I didn't think there would ever be a problem if we put in huge, the smallest lot is 2 1/2 acres, the other if 4 and the other is over 7, lot in this community at any time regardless of the sewage situation. That is the basic scenario. Because of the codes that have come in since then, I feel that this is definitely a hardship for me. I hope that you gentlemen agree with me that the hardship does exist and that is why we do have variances. But actually what I am asking for here today is more, not less. If we followed Staff's plan and put two 200 foot lots in there and some day in time and space, whatever, when sewer presented itself, we would further resubdivide this land. Now we would get two 100 foot lots on the east. What would we do with this 64 feet that is adjacent to my home. Either Mr. Kent Lokkesmoe, the head of the Trails and Waterways of the DNR, feels that my lot would be much superior, by the way you are welcome to call Mr. Lokkesmoe also, to the end result submitted by the Staff here in Chanhassen. Now if I may go through the letter that was presented to me by Staff. Applicable regulations. The zoning ordinance etc. requires one side yard having a depth of not less than 100 feet. Well, obviously we know that the purpose of this is for future resubdivision. I do not want future resubdivision on these lots. I want them to be a large, 133 feet on the lake, no less. If the lots are to be resubdivided it will be the rear of Lot 3 and possibly the rear of Lot 1 which have more than adequate area for subdivision. Now we have already allowed, I spent hours on this plat with this arrangement before we worked it out. I've been developing and building real estate, developing real estate for 27 years. I think that this plat here is an exceptionally good design, all three lots. If in the future the owners of Lots 1 a.nd 3 want to subdivide the lot, they will take off the back end here. We have these 60 foot easement which comes up and serves this and if a cul-de-sac is necessary, which it certainly isn't in this case, there is still room for the cul-de-sac. Now gentlemen, this is e Planning Commission Special Meeting August 20, 1986 - Page 4 e common sense. When you don1t have room to build on a 2 1/2 acre lot, isn1t there something wrong with the codes and regulations? How could lot 2 possibly be unbuildable? 133 feet in width and over 500 feet in depth and that is unbuildable? This is common sense. When I originally developed this and put my lot in, we had 10 foot sideyard setbacks which, of course is 20 feet between buildings. Again, I want Lot 2 and Lot 3, the widths to correlate with my home. I don1t want a resubdivision where one lot ends up to be 100 feet, etc. In fact the DNR would much rather have this plan then the ultimate plan presented. Also, Subdivision Ordinance No. 33-D, etc. requies that all lots shall aubt for their full required minimum frontage on a publicly dedicated street. Well, this is not true. This is only part of the ordinance. The other part was conveniently left out. The rest of that ordinance states or on a private drive pursuant to 6.214 and that reads: private drives will provide access to not more than three lots may be allowed. So that is only telling half the story. Actually that is fine. There is no situation that would give any static whatsoever. The Shoreland Management Ordinance states that lots not served by a public sewer shall have at least 150 feet of width, etc. on an ordinary high water mark. This is a general thing to go by. The DNR, the Division of Waterways and Trails under Kent Lokkesmoe has made many, many variances since 1977 on many ordinances on lots that don1t have anywhere near the topographical situation that mine have. Before I even started this, I went over and talked to Mr. Lokkesmoe in person because if it didn1t fly with him, I knew I was in trouble. He looked at my plan, he looked at the lots, _ IIthere is no problem with usll but it is a local problem and they have to . handle it down there. If you gentlemen read the first letter that came back from the DNR, I was as surprised to see that as anybody. I called Mr. Lokkesmoe and he never knew about that letter before it went out by his assistant Boudreau. Never even knew about it and he came up to my site and spent three hours up there. Looked at the site and talked to Barb Dacy about that. He sees absolutely nothing wrong with this site. In fact, he things they are beautiful lots. They are very high. The topographical lay is beautiful for affulence. It slopes from the high bridge mark towards the pioneer Trail down there. There is over five times of the smallest lot the requirements that they want. They want 40,000 square feet. My smallest lot is 120,000-130,000 square feet so the lots are beautiful and big. Also, she made a note here that a 15 foot utility easement runs across Lot 2. That can be moved in 15 minutes by notifying any of the utility companies so there is problem with that. On the analysis, the Shoreland Management Ordinance requires 150 feet of lot width adjacent to Lake Riley for lots not served by public sewer. Our proposal of three lots contain 133 feet each. The DNR1s attached letter states that a hardship does not exist. Well, we void that letter so there is on problem there. That letter is false. It didn1t even come from the head of that particular department. The subdivision ordinance requires that each lot abut a public dedicated street. That is totally untrue as we just saw in the ordinance or served by a private drive up to three lots which we definitely do have. Also, she states here that the three lots and the private driveway would allow for a creation of a public street in the future and resubdivision of the property. Gentlemen, we do not want to resubdivide the frontage of e these lots. If, in the future, these lots are ever resubdivided they will Planning Commission Special Meeting August 20, 1986 - Page 5 e be detailed on this beautiful hill that is overlooking the pond and we have already made the necessary 60 foot driveway for that purpose so again, there is absolutely no problem there whatsoever. If and when those lots are ever resubdivided in the future. I seriously doubt that there will be because the need for these beautiful, rural lakelots is tremendous. The lots that we are putting out now in these subdivisions, these little lots, there is a big demand for this but more importantly, on these lots I want those two lots to correlate with my home. The Subdivision Ordinance requires that these lots contain a width of 180 feet. Lot 1 narrows to 130 feet along the back side but that doesn't really have anything to do with it. That is this little piece narrowing down here because we aren't talking about resubdivision at all. What we want to end up with here are three beautiful lots today that are provided with septic systems and drain fields. We have five times the necessary area for a properly designed septic system and drain field which leads into another very short topic. Drain fields today, septic systems, properly sized for soil conditions and homes is absolutely the best thing on earth for getting rid of affulence today. Even in soil testing we hear about this percolation which is definitely a very important part of a septic system but nobody mentions evaporation which can take up to 60-75% of your affulence evaporates through the air. Not percolated through the ground. Again, here we have no tree cover. It is high, windy, sunny so we have as far as pollution is concerned, there is a zero factor involved with this and I'm sure the DNR will back us up on also. Ms. Dacy mentioned the fact that it is very ~ difficult to have 2 1/2 acre lots that aren't at least twice as long as . they are wide. Again, we hope that this variance will be a very small thing to contend with because you just have to. These are again, very beautiful lake lots, topographically excellent and I think there are very few, if any, lakeshore lots on Lake Riley that are over 100 feet. I know of one that went in a long time ago. The subdivision just to the east of me, I think the largest lot in there is about 3/4 acre to one acre. Their distance on the lakeshore is much less than that and they have been serviced by septic systems and drain fields for many years. Also, I might attest to the fact that in my own home, obviously I have a septic system and drain field with zero problems going on 12 years now. The Subdivision Ordinance requires that lots that are R-IA District have side setbacks of 10 feet on one side and 100 feet on the other side. Alright, again we know what the 100 feet is for. At the time that I planned this with Mr. Schlenk and myself, we had 10 and 10. The only reason gentlemen, for the 100 foot side setback is for future subdivision and I do not want those lakeshore lots to be subdivided. I live there. I want those lots to be big just the way they are right now. So what we are really looking at in the final analysis is the lots that I am proposing today are much more spacious, much more adequate then the lots would be if and when they are ever subdivided in the future. We are talking about an unknown. Obviously the Metropolitan Sewer District, this could change in the next five years again so what we are looking at is a very real beautiful lot today. Again, Staff is eluding to the rural areas of resubdivision should be contemplated. Obviously, we have contemplated the type of resubdivision that would go into this lot. Again, if it ever happened, it would be on the rear of the elot. We do provide a 60 foot easement to the lots for future subdivision Planning Commission Special Meeting August 20, 1986 - Page 6 _ that would occur under any of those lots. We observed the plot plan presented by Staff. This is not what we are looking for at all. We are not looking for density. The DNR is not looking for density in there. This is not what we are interested in. We want three large, rural lakeshore lots. Not 50 or 20 resubdivided lots in the future. The recommendations by Staff are basically based upon three things. Adequate frontage does not exist to meet the required 150 feet requirement of the DNR. Well, it really does. There are many, many variances throughout the State of Minnesota on lots again, that are far less desirable then these. As far as the DNR is concerned, "there is no problem" with these whatsoever but felt it had to be decided on the City level. The subdivision creates a lot that can not meet the required setbacks of a R-1A District, here we are talking about Lot 2. Obviously if you take a 133 foot lot and we don't have a variance on that 100 feet for future sewer development, sure you can't build on it but I am appealing to your common sense. The day we can't build on a beautiful 133 foot lot that is 600 feet deep, I think we should take a look at something. Something is not functioning as it is meant to be. Also, the proposed lot pattern does not allow the efficient resubdivision of the land. I disagree with this because yes, I own the property, I am subdividing it and for our intent it does 100% satisfy the resubdivision. We want to keep our three beautiful 133 foot lake frontage lots. At some future date if Lot 3 is to be subdivided off here, the plans are already made for it. That alone will be over a 4 acre lot in itself if it is ever subdivided. Lot 1 mayor may not be subdivided but I don't ~ think that really has any bearing on what we are looking at today. The .. plans are here for subdivision. We are not looking for little lots gentlemen, we want to keep the beautiful lots that we have intended to put in there in the first place. I guess that is about all I can say about it without reiterating further on the fact that the DNR is in approval of it, we are looking for a variance of the 100 foot sideyard setback on one side and as Ms. Dacy mentioned, twice the width times the length. I think that is common sense. Even the forebearing that she mentioned, if we go with 200 footers, you can't them in there so I think the variances that we are asking for are definitely sensible plus the fact there is a hardship that definitely exists. When I sat down with one of your own City officials in 1974 and designed this and laid this out so there would be no future problems, tha tis why I bui 1 t my house over in the corner and I want the lots to correlate with my home. Other. than that, I hope that the Planning Commission exercises, let's not say common sense but wherever there is a variance involved, some variances don't make sense but I hope that I have presented a case here where the variance that we are asking for make good common sense because we are asking for big and beautiful lots. Not chopped up lots or lots that someday are going to be resubdivided and again, from the DNR's standpoint, they would much rather see my three lots put in there than any kind of lots that would add density to the lake. In fact, they would love to see 133 foot lots all the way around that lake so the DNR basically is on my side. I wish they were here to say something but they are not. You are very welcome to call Commissioner Schlenk and speak to Jerry about it and if any of you gentlemen have not viewed my site, you are _certainlY welcome to come out there any time and take a look. Planning Commission Special Meeting August 20, 1986 - Page 7 e Erhard moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. favor and motion carried. All voted in Robert Siegel: Barb, what exists on either side of this property? Dacy: To the east there is a single family home and to the west it is vacant and agricultural right now. Siegel: Does this single family home have lakeshore? Dacy: Yes. Siegel: What is the size of that lot? Dacy: I'm not sure. It is in Eden prairie so I don't have that number. Hansen: It is about 2/3 of an acre. Siegel: Then the purpose of this subdivision is to resell the lots to other individuals or to develop it as a developer? Hansen: I really don't have any plans to sell the lots during this tax year but I definitely want to develop them before we have any more 10 acre rules corne in, etc. which is going to be all the more difficult to... e Siegel: I guess the question that comes to my mind is whether it is precipitous for you to do it to get three lakeshore lots at this time in order to facilitate future subdivision of the rest of the lots. In other words, six months from now you may corne in with a subdivision for Lots 3 and 1 on the outer site of it. Hansen: I will even put a covenant in the deed promising that that won't happen. Dacy: That would not be possible. variances needed to get area, etc. private drive and the subdivision would not be possible. There would be probably a lot of and you would have 5 or 6 lots on a ordinance only allows up to 3 so that Siegel: But Lots 3 and 1 could be subdivided? Dacy: Only if services are available which may be beyond the year 2000. Siegel: What was the initial negative reaction from the DNR on the 150 foot requirement versus what this latest communique says? Dacy: It is in your packet as Attachment #6. At that time they felt that a hardship did not exist and she stated that results of approval of such a request might create additional variance requests for septic system ~placement, so since then the DNR has retracted that letter and submitted ..,the letter of August 13, 1986. Planning Commission Special Meeting August 20, 1986 - Page 8 e Hansen: I would like to clarify that. Judy Boudreau wrote that letter on her own that at no time reflected the feelings of that division of the DNR. I want to go down on record as saying that. Conrad: But Kent signed it. Hansen: No, not the first one. Conrad: The August 12th letter? Dacy: There were three letters. The third one I distributed last week. Steve has a copy. Steven Emmings: What does the letter of the 12th say? I have the letter of the 7th and the letter of the 13th. Dacy: The letter of the 12th says. At Mr. Hansen's request, I reviewed the subdivision and visited the site. This letter will clarify the department's position. Lake Riley is a recreational development lake. Now it goes through the four things then he says that the Shoreland Management is designed to provide the wize utilization of water and land resources of the State. We trust the City will properly evaluate this matter and make it's own decision. After that he went out, looked at the site, spent 3 hours, etc. and reissued this letter of August 13, 1986. The August 13th letter is the one that should be considered by the Commission. e Emmings: I think we ought to consider all three of them and I would sure like everyone to know that the DNR has lost all credibility with me. This is stupid. They put out a letter and say one thing and then they turn around absolutely 180 degrees and don't tell us why. That one official from that department would override another person writing on behalf of the department without explanation, particularly after spending 3 hours on the property. God only knows how he has 3 hours to spend on one person's property on what to the DNR, would be a pretty minor matter is just incredible to me so I think we can just ignore the DNR. I'm going to. Anyway, what is a hardship? In the language of planning, what does hardship mean? Dacy: Hardship means that the zoning ordinance or subdivision ordinance is imposing restrictions that is restricting the property owner the ability to subdivide or use his property. If there was no other way, if the zoning ordinance was preventing absolute subdivision or absolute use then that is called a hardship and a relaxation of the ordinance is justified. Emmings: So under that definition there is not a hardship in this case, is that right? Dacy: Right. tit e Planning Commission Special Meeting August 20, 1986 - Page 9 Emmings: And that is one of the questions we have got to decide. I also take it that what we are talking about here is the Shoreland Managenment Ordinance. That is an ordinance of the City of Chanhassen. That has nothing to do with the DNR. That is an ordinance that we enforce. Dacy: Right. We adopted their standards of Ordinance No. 65. Emmings: Okay, so as far as in however many of these letters, they are saying that it is a matter to be determined at a local level. That at least is correct. This 100 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other side, I take it that none of the three lots will be able to do that. Is that right? e Dacy: The lot with the existing home on it will be a non-conforming situation. Lot 3, there is a buildable area which could meet that down by the pond. If the property owner that bought Lot 3 wanted to come in and build down by the lake, they would have to come in for a variance. I think what needs to be clarified on these setbacks is that you can not, through this action, grant a variance to the setbacks now. It is not legally possible so that is why we were saying in my presentation if you don't feel 10 on one side and 100 on the other is appropriate, you shouldn't be creating lots that can't meet it. You should go back and change the standards first. Even if Staff was in favor of all the variances, we could not legally stand here and say yes, we recommend approval of Lot 2 because you can't give a setback variance now. This is a subdivision. Emmings: Okay, so we have a problem with our Shoreland Management Ordinance in that we don't have 150 feet on the lake and in addition to that we've got a lot must be 180 feet wide. Dacy: That is set by our subdivision ordinance. Emmings: Alright, so it also doesn't meet that. Then the applicant brought up the fact that each lot has to abut a publicly dedicated street and he brought up the fact of this private drive. Does that satisfy Staff that he is right about that? Dacy: I would like to respond. We did not "conveniently" forget that. We aren't here to be giving the Commission half truths. We can easily quote that section again on the report. In fact, item 2 under the analysis, unfortunately he was misreading it. That is where we stated Lot 2 is proposed to be served by a private drive and does not abut a public street. In the past the City has approved a landlocked parcel to be served by a private drive if the drive is to serve no more than 3 lots. In essence, what we are saying is that it is possible to do it. We are justifying the variance. e Emmings: Okay, that is the way I read it too. I just wanted to give you a chance to clear that up. I am real torn about this. As far as my own comments go because I think 133 feet, since I live on a 100 foot lot on the Planning Commission Special Meeting August 20, 1996 - Page 10 e lake, is plenty to put in a house. My neighbors have anywhere from 150 to 120 and things like that and I think there is plenty of land and I think there is plenty of frontage and I'm not very persuaded having 100 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other side. It doesn't really make any sense in this situation and in a lot of ways this is not a bad plan. On the other hand, and I think more persuasive to me, is the fact that it runs afoul of so many existing ordinances. I just don't think I can support it and I think in a way it is kind of unfortunate. Maybe we do need to review some of these things but I can't support it the way it is I guess. Tim Erhart: I agree with you Steve in that I guess I'm probably one who likes to stick in voting in favor of current ordinances. On the other hand I think I am going to vote for this one for a number of reasons. One, I think the 133 feet certainly is adequate. I don't think I need to say anything more about that. The second thing is the 10 feet and the 100 feet, I believe that in our new proposed zoning ordinance those haven't been changed. Dacy: It depends on what lot size is chosen. Erhart: Yes, but on the 2 1/2 acre or 5 acre lots with 180 foot width. e Dacy: with the 5 acre lot we have a wider lot width so that would not be applicable. Erhart: That's true. I was looking at, okay. In any effect, I've always felt that is sort of the silly part of the ordinance. The twice width again, I don't feel that applies to the size of the lots we are dealing with here. I think the most important thing that would swing me on this is the fact that there was a plan involved on this whole parcel and the house, in fact, was built on 1/3 of the lot so I think there was a commitment to do what the City had as an ordinance at that time. Lastly, the reason why I would like to stick with current ordinances is precedent. In looking at this one and let's say another one came in in a week, because of the history and because of the site, I guess I feel that this would not necessarily set a precedent to condone 133 foot lots on the lake in a rural area. I think there is an unusual circumstance here and that gets in to this thing of hardship. I'm not too sure of your definition because I brought that term up about 3 weeks ago and we have been batting it around. I would like you to bring to the next meeting a little clearer definition of hardship. Dacy: I'm reading from the ordinance which quotes exactly from the State Statute. Undue hardship as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question can not be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his propety not created by landowner and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the... e Planning Commission Special Meeting August 20, 1986 - Page 11 Erhart: When you stated earlier; you used the term "subdivision". The term they are using there is reasonable use~ Dacy: Right, we are saying that if the controls were prohibiting the applicant the ability to subdivide on that property, it could be consideration for a hardship but the controls are allowing some type of subdivision of the property even though it may not... Erhart: Okay, I don't want to get into that. I, personally don't think there is a hardship here. I think there is a history of this property and I think there is a reasonableness to it that I guess I am going on. I guess what I was getting to is that I don't think the hardship is necessarily an issue here so with that, I guess those are my comments. Conrad: Just a couple of quick thoughts. I don't think there is a hardship. There is reasonable use. It can be divided into three properties. I think the precedent in breaking the ordinance is not good. The ordinances do have validity. There are multi-variances that are being asked for. I would not feel good about granting variances. I would not feel good about creating substandard lots and there is an opportunity that the applicant has to conform to our ordinances as they are. Therefore, I don't think there is a need on my part to grant the variance and to approve the subdivision. - Dacy: Could I make one more statement before the motion is considered? If a motion recommending approval is considered, Staff would request that you also direct Staff to initiate a zoning ordinance amendment for amending the side setbacks because you can not create a substandard lot until the standard is changed. That is clear and I know that the City Attorney would recommend that also. Secondly, if a motion for approval is made, we would recommend that there be no clear-cutting or grading below the 916 contour to preserve the slope except for the path to the proposed docks. Dacy: If the Commission does recommend approval, we would recommend that the Council initiate it's own zoning ordinance. Erhart: But if it doesn't get approved here then it is not an issue so I will just make a simple motion. Give it a try. Erhart moved to approve the subdivision including the conditions that there be no clear-cutting or grading below the 916 contour. Regarding the changing of the side setbacks is a totally different issue and not related to this motion. There was no second. Motion failed due to lack of second. Emmings moved, Siegel seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the Subdivision Case No. 86-16 for the creation of three lots based on the following findings: 1. That the subdivision would be creating substandard lots. e ,-~~.~ Planning Commission Special Meeting August 20, 1986 - Page 12 e 2. It runs afoul of the City of Chanhassen's Shoreland Management Ordinance, and the Subdivision Ordinance, particularly the 180 foot lot width. All voted in favor of denial except Erhart who opposed. The motion carried. Emmings: In the Staff Report, they have listed "findings". What is the reason for that? I've never seen that before. Dacy: The reasons for including "findings" in the Staff Report, as it proceeds through the planning case because after a final decision is made, the City should have a record of why a decision of denial was made so if the matter was pursued in Court there is a clear record of why the case was denied. If you want to make your own findings, that is fine. If you want to add or subtract. Siegel: I think we should also encourage the applicant to redesign the plat as eluded by Staff to minimize the number of variances. Conrad: I think the applicant has that alternative at any point. I think he has felt us out tonight to see what we think and he certainly will be able to take this to City Council to see if they feel that the variances are appropriate or should be overlooked. I think our signal is that there should be a different design of the subdivision. e Erhart: (Reason for opposing motion). I think it is a good plan and I feel there is enough basis here to allow for the variances. Conrad: Do you want to be more specific? Erhart: Just back to my comments rather then take a lot of time. Conrad: This item will go to City Council September 8th and David, they may have different thinking and there are occasions when they don't take our recommendations. We are a little bit more philosophical here then maybe they are. Hansen: May I ask one question on one of your ordinances. You keep eluding to this 180 feet water protection. Isn't that for future subdivision? In other words, when sewer comes in those will actually be 90 foot lots. Dacy: The 180 feet is for along the street and the 150 is along the lake. Hansen: So we are talking about two different things and not to get confused, you are still abiding basically by the DNR 150 feet. Dacy: As it pertains to the lake. Any include this 180 feet along the street. from going down to 150 along the lake. e lot in a rural, R-1A area has to This does not preclude the lot Planning Commission Special Meeting August 20, 1986 - Page 13 e Hansen: I think thi s is crea ti ng a lot of confusion here. Isn't that unless it is served by a public driveway to not more than 3 lots. We are getting back into this thing again so is 180 feet even relevant here? Dacy: Yes, whether or not it is served by a public drive does not effect the lot. Hansen: about? So that is not really Shoreland Management that we are talking Dacy: No. It is Subdivision Ordinance. Hansen: and Shoreland Management? Dacy: The Shore land Management only refers to 150 feet for the width along the lake. 180 feet is a separate issue that is regulated through the subdivision ordinance. Hansen: So it doesn't make any difference then if in Hennepin County, Ramsey County, there have been scores and scores of lake lots approved by scores of municipalities of less than 150 feet makes no difference for far less quality than these lots? Dacy: That is the current ordinance. e Hansen: I mean it makes no difference here? Dacy: This is Chanhassen, Carver County and until the ordinances are changed then you can go from there. Hansen: That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying because precedent is basically set in other municipalities on this type of lake in at least five different counties around this area, that has no significance here in Chanhassen? Conrad: We are more concerned about the precedence in Chanhassen which is what we, as a City, have been taught over the last nine months. We have done some things, either as a Planning Commission or City Council and some of those things have set precedence and some of those things sooner or later get picked up by other developers and pretty soon the threat of a Court Action is there and therefore, whether it is not necessarily our responsibility as it is City Council who is concerned about some precedent setting items. Hansen: I understand. I appreciate this. I have a very difficult time accepting the fact that 2 1/2 acre, 4 and 7 acre lots with 133 footage on Lake Riley is a substandard lot. I do have trouble with that. Conrad: I think in some cases I have to agree but I could argue on the other side too about the need for 150 in a non-sewered area even though there is plenty of space back. I think I could argue an effective case for e Planning Commission Special Meeting August 20, 1986 - Page 14 e that 150 and we have taken a look at all sorts of things over the past years. The other Planning Commissioners have not been around maybe as long as I have, which is not good or bad, but we have gone through a whole lot of looking at pollution, looking at drainage, looking at problems and we have not found good reason to justify a difference in those dimensions. We haven't found data that can say we are comfortable in reducing them. Hansen: I guess we have to look at data though at some point. All the topographical elements are there. Even the DNR feels there is zero chance of any pollution and this is the number one reason... Conrad: Even Lokkesmoe left it pretty open in his final paragraph there. That basically took him out of a position. He basically took the whole thing and put it back on the City and really in his first page, he said absolutely nothing. Hansen: That is a typical bureaucratic reply, he has to but remember they only corne down on a municipality if they feel it is a flagrant abuse and again, if he had to testify in Court, no problem. e Conrad: I don't think we think you have a flagrant abuse David. I think you don't. The problem, and I shouldn't talk for everybody else, but when we see multi-variances, I have a problem when there are multi-variances and I see other alternatives that are out there. If you can reduce them to a single variance, one that we can justify very easily, one that the next time somebody just like yourself comes in here and quotes to us, I think we would be able to handle the rationale for granting a variance and treat the next applicant with a similar situation fairly. If you can reduce the variances. Hansen: Our variances are basically there because of this sewer scare and the, I'm going to have to use the word, ignorance on placement of septic systems and drain fields. That is what this whole thing is about. That is why this setback, etc., etc. and I wish somewhere along the line some of our officials would expose themselves from the data. There is an excellent professor at the Unversity of Minnesota that I think all planners should get a hold of and talk to about this. God only knows the Metropolitan Council and Sewer Division should because he states that is the finest way on Earth yet to get rid of affulence is through septic systems and drain fields, property site, etc. The County collector is 50 years out of date and we are still concerned. Emmings: I made the motion to deny and when I think of these lots as 133 feet wide and the amount of area there is and I compare it to my own lot, it is a lot bigger and I'm on a lake but my lot existed before the present zoning ordinances and that is the difference. Had you platted this when you bought it, you wouldn't be having these problems but you chose not to, for whatever reason and that's not important, and you wind up being a victim of the circumstance that there was a new ordinance that you now don't qualify under. e Planning Commission Special Meeting August 20, 1986 - page 15 e Hansen: This is true. You addressed this problem. Isn't basically development, utilization of land, etc. for the best use of the land common sense, etc. Codes are changed everyday gentlemen. Everyday codes are changed. That is why we have variances. You said it yourself. The lot is larger and just because of the date in time, they don't really qualify but yet again, I made those lots out with the own personnel of Chanhassen. I really feel I have a hardship. Emmings: Yes, but you didn't lay any lots out. Hansen: We didn't plot them. Emmings: You thought about it but you didn't do it. PUBLIC HEARING Preliminary plat Request to replat three lots for construction of a single family residence on property zoned R-l, S~e~mily Residence~nd located at 6614 Horsehoe CUrve, Lots 47, 48 and 49, pleasant View, Robert:D. Stevens. e Gerhardt: What the applicant is doing is a preliminary plat request to subdivide Lots 47, 48 and 49 of Pleasant View Subdivision into three separate single family lots. Our present zoning is R-l, Single Family Residence. The site is 1.7 acres. Municipal services are available. The topography has steep slopes with existing stands of mature trees throughout the lot. Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Preliminary Plat Request #86-9 as shown on the plat stamped "Received July 23, 1986" with the condition that the garage on proposed Lot 3 be removed before any construction permits are issued on Lot 3 of Steven's Addition. Robert Stevens, Applicant: I'll tell you why we are dividing it. We've been that way for 27 years. We moved to that little hill 27 years ago and raised nine kids in it. We bought the place f9r $9,000.00 on a Contract for Deed and just about lost it twice the first two years. Our taxes with the assessments on this little piece of property, our sewer assessments and water assessments on our home and another lot down by the swimming area is now $8,000.00 per year. That is one of our primary reasons for wanting to subdivide the property. Conrad: Do you have three sewer assessments? Any more comments. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. e Planning Commission Special Meeting August 20, 1986 - Page 16 - Erhart: garage? What is your reaction to the requirement to remove the block Stevens: anyway. I don't have any reaction to that. We're going to take it off We can't build on that side of the hill. Erhart: No problem? Stevens: No. There was a stipulation that we move the house on the property. Erhart: That's not in there now. Dacy: That is a condition of the building permit. Stevens: It might be kind of interesting. We started out with a survey on this. The same type of survey that we have had to have 3 or 4 different times. We had to spend an additional $1,600.00 for this. If there is anybody in this room who doesn't think water doesn't run down that hill, come on out there and walk on it. This is $1,600.00 worth of work and I don't know why you need that. I don't know why you need that relief map. e Dacy: Topography is a standard requirement. The Engineer uses it for elevations. We have to have topography. It is obvious, we know water runs downhill but we have to look at the overall plan to look at the drainage, we need the eleva t ions for sewer and so on and the only way we can get it is if people come in and subdivide the property. It is a standard requirement. I know it is expensive. Stevens: Do you have a home in the City? Dacy: No sir, I don't. Stevens: You don't live in the City? Dacy: No sir, I don't. Conrad: What is the difference between a subdivision and lot split? A lot split is basically just that. A lot split into two. Can you do a series of lot splits? Dacy: His situation is different. He has three individual platted lots, 47,48 and 49 shifting the lot lines around in a manner that the only way that can be done is through a replat. The Pleasant View subdivision was done in 1909 and we do not have any topography over there. Conrad: What we try to do Bob is make sure our laws do make sense occasionally. We're not trying to force you to spend money. We like to challenge Staff occasionally just to make sure they have good answers to make you spend $1,600.00. e Planning Commission Special Meeting August 20, 1986 - Page 17 Stevens: We could have done it differently. Because of this building permit I had to combine Lot 49 part of that new house onto that back lot there if this were approved so it makes my hill steeper. The reason I wanted to divide this land is our home sits up there, the low lot line ran almost in front of the deck so what we wanted to do was to gain an additional 10 feet off of that lot and put it on back. What we should have asked for was a variance because we had 28,000 square feet. We wanted to make two lots 15,000 each. We have 100 feet on each side to add on to those. If we had a variance and just split the thing. Conrad: Does that make sense to you? Dacy: I think what he did right now is the best thing he could do. I think you can absorb that $1,600.00 and costs through the sale of the property. I think you did the best thing legally. Stevens: This is just the topography that cost $1,600.00. another $3,000.00 into a certified survey. I've got Siegel moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Preliminary Plat Request #86-9 as shown on the plat stamped "Received July 23, 1986" with the condition that the garage on proposed Lot 3 be removed before construction permits are issued on Lot 3 of Steven's Addition. All voted in favor and motion carried. e Conrad: The item will go to City Council on September 8, 1986. PUBLIC HEARING Preliminary Plat Request to subdivide 13 acres into three single family lots on propert:Y zoned R-LA, Agricultur.al Residence and located east-oI and ad'jacent to TH 41, Val Wirtz. - - PUBLIC PRESENT Bill Swearengin Gerhardt: Again, we are having preliminary plat approval to subdivide 13 acres of properties zoned R-1A into three single family lots. The location is 1 1/2 miles north of TH 41 and TH 5 intersection east and adjacent to TH 41. R-1A Agricultural Residence District is a zoning. The site is 12.97 acres with .23 units per acre. Sanitary sewer and municipal water are not available to the property. The area has rolling topography with scattered stands of mature trees. Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Subdivision Request #86-18 as shown on the plat stamped "Received July 22, 1986" subject to submittal of detailed plans showing the structural design, proposed housing site, septic field and well sites. e Planning Commission Special Meeting August 20, 1986 - Page 18 - Conrad asked if the applicant, Val wirtz had anything to state. applicant stated it was pretty self explanatory. The Bill Swearengin: I have one of my property located at 7305 Hazeltine which is several doors down from there. I have looked at the property, walked across the property, I have known him for 30 some years and the way he has it laid out it looks to me like a very adequate development with tree lots up there and I can understand the reasons why he talked to Bill about it and I can understand he must do it that way. I talked to Bill Turner who is the next neighbor down and is right adjacent to me, and he also has absolutely no problem with it whatsoever. I talked to him about that within the last several days. Siegel moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Erhart: On the road easement, the way it is angled off to the south there. How, in the future, is that supposed to intersect with TH 4l? Dacy: The existing driveway there will remain and because there are no improvements proposed to it except the extension to serve those back lots back there. I guess I'm not sure... Erhart: You have it shown on here like a cul-de-sac circle and all that, 60 foot road easement. That's not part of this. That is just notation on the drawing here right? e Dacy: That has to be shown on the preliminary plat to show that Lots 2 and 3 will be served by a private drive. That easement area is to allow the extension of that existing driveway to serve those lots so it isn't necessary for Lots 2 and 3 to have that easement as part of their deed because that is giving them access. Erhart: In other words, that is part of the legal description of these lots? Then I have another question. How does that easement which angles to the south, is that going to turn then and intersect with TH 41 at a right angle? How does he get to TH 4l? Dacy: There is the existing driveway where it is shaded. The one that is proposed is here. Here is the outline of the existing driveway now right in here. It is a gravel road that goes up this way and then it bends to serve another house. Erhart: You said there is adequate room to turn right on TH 41. Dacy: Coming back out. Oh, yes. end of the cul-de-sac. I thought you were talking about the Emmings: What did you resolve with this? e Planning Commission Special Meeting August 20, 1986 - Page 19 -- 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 City Council approve Subdivision Request #86-18 as shown on the plat stamped "Received July 22, 1986" subject to submittal of detailed plans. 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. e Site Plan Review for a 64,391 square foot mini storage warehouse facility on 4.~res of property zoned P-4, pramne~dustrial Development and IOcated on Lot lL Block ~ Chan~en 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 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 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 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. 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 shall be adopted by reference. Erhart: I'm just sort of curious. storage out here? They feel there is a market for this 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 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 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? - Planning Commission Special Meeting August 20, 1986 - Page 20 - Senn: It may be inventory or it may be, a good example down there 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. e Senn: For example, a big user of mini-storage are people who store their boa ts for the win ter and we try to con trol tha t as much as poss i ble 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 anyone 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. - Planning Commission Special Meeting August 20, 1986 - Page 21 - Erhart: So we can differentiate this because of the appearance of the buildings. Dacy: areas, Our stated criteria is always to screen vehicular areas and parking etc. Nick Ruehl (Architect for the Developer): One of the other reasons for the 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 tha t facade by stagger ing 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 with the addition of more trees to achieve that. Senn: Don't get us wrong. visibility and ease of access and those sort of 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. e 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 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 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 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? e 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 Special Meeting August 20, 1986 - Page 22 AI 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. e 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. e Planning Commission Special Meeting August 20, 1986 - Page 23 4It Ernrnings: Do you have any problems if we did that? Senn: To be honest with you, I canlt 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 100% 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. 4It Siegel: I just have one comment. I've been meaning to mention this before 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 welre 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 welre not emphasizing enough when we talk about screening, 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... 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? e Planning Commission Special Meeting August 20, 1986 - Page 24 ~ Dacy: We 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 Special Meeting August 20, 1986 - Page 25 e connection road between Lake 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? 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 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. e 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 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 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 anywhere, I shouldn't see anything stored inside the facility. should be visible. I should see nothing but the wall that goes if I am outside. facility Nothing around it Conrad: So you do not want to see anything projecting above the building elevation? e Planning Commission Special Meeting August 20, 1986 - Page 26 e Emmings: Siegel: Above or not at all? Tha t is true. 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. e 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 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. e .-- Planning Commission Special Meeting August 20, 1986 - page 27 e Dacy: Dave Hansen was referring to the gentlemen from the U of M about the septic systems. It is kind of uncanny that he mentioned that tonight. His name is Roger Magmeyer. He works at the U of M and especially with the Agricultural Extension Office. He is the local expert on septic systems. He and the Soil Conservation System have given Todd, Jo Ann and I training session out in the fields when we look at these perc tests and soil moorings and the training session lasts no more than about 3 hours and these guys are really good. We have learned a lot from them almost to the point that we have learned too much that we are getting scared about soils and septic systems and some of the things that we have looked at and approved as far as septic systems. I am also expecting three major applications in the rural area for a large number of 2 1/2 acre lots. People are wanting to beat the ordinance, so to speak, so they have offered to extend a training session to the Planning Commission and the City Council and if I could get at least 1 or 2 people from each board, I think that would be excellent to attend this session. Emmings: Do you have a date now? Dacy: The two dates now, we are running out of daylight and good weather so the two times that they were available were September 3rd, a Wednesday evening from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. or 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., whichever is convenient for everybody or September 9th which is Tuesday night and the regular meeting is September 10th. e Erhart: Is a Saturday meeting out? Dacy: We had thought of a Saturday morning session to take time to go look at mound systems and so on because our ordinance does not allow mound systems right now but we thought if it is a nice day and you look outside and say I would rather go golfing on my day off so we thought we could have an hour out in the field. They have sites ready in the Minnewashta Regional Park where they have been studying about soils. Very interesting people to learn from. I think you would appreciate it because you hear so many people stand up and say that my septic system has been in for 20 years with no problems but what we learned is that it is not the perfiates that we really have to look at. It is where the soils are and what the model soils are telling us. We have learned a lot and I think it would benefit everybody. Emmings and Conrad stated that September 9th would be acceptable to them. Conrad: Does it take 3 hours? Dacy: Yes, the most important part is actually going out in the field and looking at what a model soil is and feeling it and comparing that to a dry soil and doing actual on-site stuff then coming back to the Council chambers and talking and going over stuff that can be done in a lecture format. It is the field part that is really good. e Planning Commission Special Meeting August 20, 1986 - Page 28 - Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.. Submitted by Barbara Dacy, City Planner prepared by Nann Opheim e e ~