1987 03 11
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 11, 1987
e
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad, David Headla
and Howard Noziska
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart, James Wildermuth
STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner and Barbara Dacy, City
Planner.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Subdivision of 17 acres into three single family lots on property zoned RR,
Rural Residential and located on County Road 117 ('GaIPln Blvd.),
approximately 1/4 mile north of Hwy ~ Mike Kl~elhutz, Applicant.
Public Present:
Brent Peterson
e
Jo Ann Olsen: Actually it is zoned A-2. The applicant is proposing to
subdivide 17 acres into 3 single family lots. They came in under the old
Ordinance so they have to meet the 2 1/2 acre minimum and the 180 feet of
street frontage. The property does not have sewer or water available and the
lots sizes range from 2.63, 2.51 to 11.85 acres. As far as the sewer and
water, each lot has to have it's own septic system and well. They provided
the soil borings which were reviewed by Roger Machmeier and Jim Anderson.
The consultants found that Lots 1 and 2 have mottled soils at a depth of 16
to 18 inches and that means that mounds would be required and also that fill
will be required. They pointed out that the plats show some of the house
sites on top of the well sites on Lot 2. Staff pointed out that we did need
the well site, two septic site locations and a house site shown on the plat
to determine if there is adequate room for all of the necessary items on the
site. As far as Lot 3, the mottled soil is even higher or just below the
surface with 6 to 14 inches and that will require a large amount of fill.
Also, the treatment sites shown farther to the east on Lot 3 is right on a
drainage way and that's not a suitable area for a mound system. They must
find a more suitable site on Lot 3. As far as the grading and drainage,
there are some steep slopes and the Staff is recommending that they provide a
grading and erosion control plan prior to building permits on each of the
lots. For the street, they are providing a private drive which has been
accepted in the past for up to three single family lots. They are providing
the 60 foot right-of-way which is usually what a private drive is conditioned
on. Staff is recommending that the 60 foot right-of-way be continued on over
to the east to provide a future access to the property to the east. Lot 2
will be landlocked and not have the adequate public street frontage and
therefore we would require a variance as part of this subdivision. Also, the
private drive must meet the City and Carver County standards which have been
provided in the report. Finally, the name Whitetail Acres is very similar to
e
~,
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 2
e
Whitetail Ridge which was just approved so we are recommending that they
change that name to avoid any confusion as far as the Fire Department.
That was Paul Palmer's, the six single family lots on Lake Lucy that
was just approved. Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision with
the following recommendations.
1. The applicant must provide an amended plan providing two treatment
sites with approved soil borings, a house pad and a well on each
site.
2. The applicant must relocate the treatment site on Lot 3 out of the
drainage area and must provide new sites where less fill is
required.
3. The name of Whitetail Acres should be changed.
4. They must locate an 18 inch drainage culvert within the drainage
easement and provide sufficient length for the culvert to extend a
minimum of 2 feet beyond each side of the roadway for slopes.
5. Access to County Road 117 will be limited to the private drive.
6. The private drive cross-section shall be modified in accordance with
the attached City typical section.
e
7.
The County requirements for the approach section, grade and profile,
shall be adhered to.
Mike Klingelhutz: I grew up in Chanhassen and I want to live in Chanhassen.
I want to divide it like this so I can sell a lot, build a house on a lot and
sit on the big lot until the Lake Ann Interceptor is available, comes through
that area and will be available. As far as the soil borings and house pads,
the guy who drew up the plans, I thought I explained the logistics to him
right but he drew the house pad on the soil borings. I'm really confident
that the soil borings...
Conrad: Have you read Staff Report?
Mike Klingelhutz: Yes, I've read through the Staff Report. One thing I'm
not too comfortable with is providing a straight line easement through to the
other side of the property. I would be willing to provide an easement along
in a straight line like this. I'm thinking maybe sometime in the future that
might be subdivided. I would be willing to work out a different route than
that. I'm not too keen on providing a straight through easement.
Conrad: Jo Ann, what do you think about that?
e
Olsen: That's fine. We can work with the applicant. It doesn't necessarily
have to go straight through. In fact that goes through a slope area anyway.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 3
~onrad: Trying to understand point 6 in the Staff Report, I'm not sure what
that means.
Olsen: The recommendation?
Conrad: I'm tryi ng to understand prov id i ng that access. In your report
under streets you had that recommendation. Point 6, is that what it's
saying that you would like the applicant to do that and I'm not sure what a
cross section shall be modified...?
Olsen: That is referring to the City Engineer's memo. Since he has worked
here we have asked him, since we have so many requests for private drives,
we've asked him to come up with exact details. That's referring to his memo
and one of the conditions that was meant to be that a right-of-way would be
provided.
Conrad: So we need another recommendation or condition and that would be a
right-of-way provided to the...
Olsen: East boundary. And we can work with the applicant on a suitable
arrangement.
Brent Davidson: My wife and I purchased the property just north of the land
we're talking about. We have 13 acres there and we're just finishing
.u i 1 din g a horn e and we' reg 0 i n g tom 0 v e i nab 0 uta wee k 0 r two and I g u e s s to
tart off, we oppose this subdivision going in. When we looked for a place
to settle and move into, what we looked for was some kind of rural area that
we could live in and we were hoping it would be that at least in the near
future. I worked with Al Klingelhutz, my realtor, for probably about a year
and found a spot that we thought was suitable and at the time, the Ordinance
still of course was that you could subdivide it into 2 1/2 acre lots. We
talked to Al about it and he said that it was on the books to change it to a
minimum of 10 acres and we felt real confident that is in fact what would
happen. At the time, because we had the 13 and there were 17 left, we
thought that was pretty much as far as it would be subdivided so when we saw
the surveyors out, of course we went over and asked what's going on and he
said that we're proposing to subdivide this into three lots. Two, 2 1/2 and
one large lot so I called Mike on the phone to kind of get a handle on what
he was planning and what he was going to do and we even talked at that time
of the possibility of selling the land if he was interested in selling. He
said he wasn't. That his intent at the time was to split it up into two 2 1/2
acres and a large lot and then a build a house and keep the rest for maybe
future time for house lots also. I guess our feeling is obviously we don't
want it but on the other hand feel like it's kind of contradictory to what
the Council proposed for the future. It appears that they are proposing to
keep in larger subdivided lots with over 10 acres and here they would be
going against what they are planning to do in the future so I guess we would
ask for it not to be subdivided or for it not to go through.
~mmings moved, Siegel seconded to close public hearing.
..,nd motion carried.
All voted in favor
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 4
tteadla: I went out and walked the location and the house locations, if we
make a motion tonight, if we can put in a motion that the house locations is
compatible with the drainage field. I'm not quite sure on how to handle
that. I don't know where the houses are going to be on this property.
Conrad: David is saying the house location should be in sync with the
drainage. Is that something that we really need to do or that's something
that Staff or the Building Department?
Olsen: Right. When it comes through with a building permit and that's one
thing that we kind of pointed out with the drainage ways to maintain the
natural flow. If we see that there is a natural drainageway and they're
going to be putting the house right there, we'll stop it. We'll catch it
when they come in with a building permit.
Headla: The other one, is Mike obligated to provide an easement to the east?
Is this not an unusual request that we're making? I feel a little
uncomfortable with that. Have we done that in other cases?
Olsen: Oh yes. If we see that there is going to be a potential use for a
connection in the future and we have an opportunity to get that, yes. He's
providing the 60 foot right-of-way for that to become a public street.
Headla:
_1 sen :
And that's going to be adequate?
60 foot right-of-way? Yes.
Headla: The 60 foot easement, that doesn't go into the 320 feet depth that
you have on the lot there? Like 2.51 acres, it's 320 feet north to south.
The easement doesn't cut into that dimension does it?
Olsen: Right now it's an easement so that does not take away from that lot
area. Once it becomes a right-of-way, it does but when it becomes a right-
of-way we most likely will have sewer and water and the lots can be smaller.
Siegel: What is the access to that property right now? Is there any access
at all? There's no access at all. Where is the next east access north? All
the way to Lake Ann?
Olsen: The one on 67th Street is the next street.
road, you're talking Crestview...
If you follow this same
Siegel: So there aren't a lot of roads in there so it would be quite a few
years in the future before we would ever enforce that east access. That's
all I have.
Emmings: Is this the only time we get to look at this?
Olsen: Yes.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 5
4Itmmings: I wondered why there are
3? Is there any reason for that?
two separate building sites shown on Lot
Olsen: That was Staff's comment when they went back, I think they were just
showing some of the more potential sites. I think Mike can explain that
further. It's not necessary but I think they were just showing...
Emmings: Where houses could go?
Olsen: Right.
Emmings: This application came in under the old Ordinance?
Olsen: They came in under the deadline yes.
Emmings: As far as frontage on CR 117 goes, they are supposed to have 180
feet of frontage and there is 123 for Lot 3.
Olsen: It adds a little part on here so it does come out to over 180.
Headla: Is that that 33.24?
Olsen: Yes. That's another 50 foot and that adds on.
.mmings: There's 50 feet that you add to the 123 and that makes 173 to the
asement?
Olsen: Right, you don't go to the easement. Again, the easement is not
taken away from the lot frontage so you have the 50 then you go to the lot
line. It comes out to well over 180.
Emmings: Besides adding the 50 to the 123...
Olsen: You add all the way up to the other lot line. The easement can be
within the property. He's having the driveway easement to be at the property
boundary.
Emmings: Here's my question.
If a public street was built through there.
Olsen: They would have to rearrange the lot line. They would not meet the
180 feet. Is that what you're asking? If they were to put in a public
street, it would become right-of-way and then you would be taking away that
60 feet.
Emmings: Why don't we do that now or doesn't it make any different?
Olsen: Staff would take the position to get public streets when we can but
the past precedence for the three lots in the rural area, the City has
approved private drives. If they do a public street, it has to be paved. If
4I5e can get it that's fine.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 6
e. d
Emmlngs: An
to be moved to
each.
if this was going to be a public street, the street would have
the north and then those lots would no longer be 2 1/2 acres
Olsen: What they would have to do is move the lot line up further but then
they could move these lines over. They could still get the 2 1/2 acres, it
would just take some rearranging.
Emmings: Assuming they built their houses in places that would allow those
lines to be moved.
Olsen: They would have to come in showing the soil borings on the site. It
can be done. You can move the street up. Am I confusing you?
Emmings: I think I understand what you're saying. I guess what confuses me
is why we wouldn't just have it done to those specifications now since we
know the plan is for future development. Why wouldn't we require them to
meet those specifications now instead of hoping that we can do it later?
Olsen: We just point out both sides.
Emmings: I don't want you to get defensive. I was just wondering if there
was a reason for that.
.lsen: The reason is cost. A lot of times, with just these three lots,
he developer who is not a large developer, the costs might be prohibitJ:\l}5so
that's why we started using private drives where it can just be gravel.
Conrad: We're not saying put the streets in now. Steve is saying, let's
plan for the fact that there is going to be a street. What you're doing is
causing an automatic variance in the future.
Olsen: You won't be. What happens is you will still have enough area here.
When this will be improved, it will have sewer and water so then you have
15,000 square feet.
Emmings:
So we don't need 180 feet on the road anymore?
Olsen: No. We looked at that and for the future subdivision that is
adequate.
Emm i ng s: Do we need to have as a cond i t i on tha t they ha ve to get an acces s
permit from the County for their roadway? In number 7 there it says that the
county requirements for the approach section, grade and profile shall be
adhered to but should we also have an access permit shall be obtained?
Olsen:
That's part of it.
Conrad: Jo
.he future
Ann, go back for me, I don't understand the 180 foot and how in
that's not going to be a problem.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 7
e
Olsen: In the future it will have sewer and water and most likely it will be
under the single family and that's 90 feet of street frontage.
Conrad: It sounds like we're not paying attention to your comment and I
realize that. The applicant made their application when the Ordinance read 2
1/2 acres and as a Planning Commission, we're tied to that. I know the
Planning Commission never liked the 2 1/2 acre minimum. I've been here that
long to know that we were uncomfortable with 5 acres minimum and more
comfortable with 10 but that doesn't matter what our feelings are. The
Ordinance reads 2 1/2. City Council made that as an absolute and the
applicant has the right to subdivide into those particular sizes. At this
point in time, there is just really not much that can be done. What has
happened however is that we are going back to the 10 acre minimum. That's
the future but the applicant has total weight to do what they're doing on
this particular subdivision. There's not really anything else I can say on
that.
Conrad: When was the deadline for filing 2 1/2 acres?
Olsen: January 15th. You're still going to be seeing a lot more coming
through.
Conrad:
the way
eHeadla:
wi th you
There's got to be a time when the Ordinance is changed and that's
it is. I'm not a lawyer.
I tend to look at it as we make some opinions. We can be symphathetic
but I don't know if that's logical or not.
Emmings: When I came on the Commission I made it very clear that I wasn't
going to render any legal opinions. You have to follow the law that is in
effect at the time the application is made and if you don't you're in a heck
of trouble.
Headla moved, Siegel seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of Subdivision Request #87-6 for three single family lots with the following
conditions:
1. The applicant must provide an amended plan providing two treatment
sites with approved soil borings, a house pad and well on each site.
2. The applicant must relocate the treatment site on Lot 3 out of the
drainage area and must provide new sites where less fill is
required.
3. The name of Whitetail Acres should be changed.
4. Locate the 18 inch drainage culvert within the drainage easement and
provide sufficient length for the culvert to extend a minimum of 2
feet beyond each side of the roadway for slopes.
e
5.
Access to County Road 117 will be limited to the private drive.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 8
e
6. The private drive cross-section shall be modified in accordance with
the attached City typical section.
7. County requirements for the approach section, grade and profile
shall be adhered to and that an access permit shall be obtained from
Carver County.
8. A 60 foot right-of-way from Galpin Blvd. to the east boundary be
established.
All voted in favor and motion carried. This item will go to City Council
April 6, 1987.
*Howard Noziska arrived at this point in the meeting and was not present for
voting on the previous item.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Conditional Use Permit request for outside storage on property zoned B-G,
General Business-olstrict and located at Lot 2, Block 3, Burdick Park
Addition, 7901 Monterey DrIVe, Steve WII1~ Lakeshore~quipment.
Olsen: The lot is located in the Burdick Addition on the northwest corner
of Monterey and Piper Drive. The applicant is proposing to obtain a
~onditional use permit for screened outdoor storage. The property is zoned
~-G, general business and the land use amendment designates it as commercial.
The Zoning Ordinance allows screened outdoor storage as a conditional use
permit and the applicant is proposing to store boats, docks, lifts and such
in the storage area. It will be 75 x 125 feet and screened by an 8 foot
cedar fence. The storage area exceeds the setbacks of the district and it
preserves the wooded area to the west. The applicant is also providing
landscaping to insure the screening of the site. The proposal actually will
clean up the area by allowing him to screen some storage that is currently
out in the parking area and the fencing and landscaping will not be visually
detr imental to the area. The use is compa tible wi th other uses in the
general business district and Staff is recommending approval with the
following conditions:
1. The fence shall be increased to 10 feet high.
2. All equipment stored in the area must be screened by the fence.
3. All equipment currently stored on the Lakeshore equipment must be
removed to the storage area.
4. The site will be reviewed on an annual basis to make sure it's
maintained in a proper manner.
Chairman Conrad opened the meeting to the public. Neither the applicant nor
~anyone from the public were present. Noziska moved, Headla seconded to close
~ublic hearing and motion carried.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 9
4Itmmings: Here they are proposing an 8 foot fence and Staff recommended that
it be a 10 foot fence and on our next one, when we get to the mini-storage
warehouse, it's a 6 foot fence and I just wonder...
Gary Brown: I wanted to ask the same question but I didn't want to get in
the middle of this.
Olsen: This is in a different location. It's going to be right next to the
downtown redevelopment area. In fact, it originally was going to be located
kitty corner right over here but some of the City Council members heard and
they requested that the applicant move it farther away from the development
area where they are proposing some shops right there. The storage that they
are proposing, the boats and stuff, normally are higher than 8 feet and the
docks and since the type of storage, we are recommending that it be
increased. The applicant told us whatever height fence we wanted we could
have. Just to make sure that the storage isn't above the fence line.
Emmings: I guess the only other thing I would do is suggest that the
language on the conditions, instead of saying all equipment stored in 2 and
all equipment currently stored in 3, we just say everything instead of
getting into any hassle later on about what is equipment. Let's just say
everything stored in there has to be screened.
Noziska: whether it's currently parked there or whether it's not currently
earked there.
Emmings: The only other thing, every time I see one of these conditional, use
permits come across, I look at these standards that we've got in the new
Ordinance which I assume applies to this application, and I wonder if an
analysis, and we've got 12 points there, I wonder if all of those have been
reviewed by Staff to be sure that we're complying with those standards.
Olsen: Yes, we looked at whether it's going to be detrimental to the
surrounding property.
Emmings: So staff has reviewed this application in light of the standards
under 3.2.3?
Olsen: Right and then if there are additional standards, we also look at
those.
Siegel:
Is this all used equipment? Is it new equipment or used equipment?
Olsen: I have a feeling it's going to be used a lot for storage during the
winter for people with boats and docks. That's the type of equipment they
sell too. I don't think they would be putting their new stuff out there but
I'm not sure.
Siegel: They don't have any outside display for their new equipment that
.hey sell?
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 10
~lsen :
No. They've got a display inside. They sell boats inside.
Siegel: I was just wondering whether they were just putting new equipment
there if there wouldn't really be any real need for the fence.
Olsen: No, this is going to be for storage.
Siegel: So just storage for private parties?
Olsen: I don't know if it's for private parties or storage for...
Siegel: For their own rentals or leases.
Noziska: The questions that I had, the applicant has no problem with 10 feet
and there's no need to go to 12 so that's a good round number. Then as Steve
said, would it be possible to take the comments or the recommendations in
number 2 and 3 and put them together? Just say that everything stored in the
area needs to be screened by the fence? Number 3 for example, is their
equipment stored on the Lakeshore Equipment site that is not within that
storage area?
Olsen: Now there is. There is equipment out there.
Noziska:
_1 s en: I
facility
And it needs to be said that they should move that in?
just thought it would be good so they know now that they have this
that they won't be allowed to store other equipment outside.
Headla:
fence?
I'm quite familiar with boat storage and what's the purpose of the
Olsen: To screen it from the surrounding properties.
Headla: Does that mean what you can see over the fence is too high or are we
just trying to break up the litter? Does the fence break up aesthetically
you don't see all the ground clutter?
Olsen: Right and then also with another mini-storage that we just went
through in the Business Park, one of the conditions they were looking at was
that there wouldn't be any storage up above the fence. They just wanted it
to be completely screened.
Headla: They're going to get boats over, you're putting a 10 foot ceiling on
that, you're going to get boats over 10 feet. By the time you get it on the
trailer, you take your various boats and sailboats, you're above that 10
feet but I'm not sure that's necessarily objectionable. That's why I ask
about the 10 foot requirement. Is 10 going to do anymore for us than 8 feet?
Olsen: From Staff's viewpoint, we want to screen as much as possible.
~gain, it is right on the edge of an area we are trying to visually clean up.
..,t's kind of at the entrance to the City so we're just tyring to make it as
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 11
~lean as possible. If there are masts and things like that, yes very
definitely. He didn't say whether they are going to be large boats.
Headla: Is he going to be able to bring in a boat that is let's just say a
Sunrunner. That may be 11 to 11 1/2 feet high on the trailer. Is he going
to be able to store that there? Are we putting a restriction on that?
Olsen: The way it is stated here, no. We want everything to be screened.
Again, if it's a mast, we'll let that go but the way that Staff has stated
it, we want everything to be screened.
Headla: So we're stating that maximum height on the storage is 10 feet? You
really didn't say that.
Olsen: I said that all equipment stored in the area must be screened by the
fence. The storage must be screened. That was what Staff's position was but
if you don't feel it's reasonable.
Headla: It almost seems like we ought to put a limit then. It may be 12
feet is a reasonable limit. I would like to see a limit on that. You can
bring in a lot of sailboats. I would kind of like to see a limit and maybe
12 feet is reasonable for the owner. I'm not sure that that would really be
objectionable as you look at it from TH 5 or up here. The only other one, I
think 4 is a make work statement. I guess I really think that should be
removed. If somebody objects to it, I think we ought to go look at it but to
Aay someone to go down and look at it annually, we're just adding more
~ollars and I don't think we should do that.
Conrad: Conditional Use Permits can be retracted, withdrawn at any time?
Olsen: If there's a condition that are set that aren't being met it can be
revoked. Again, normally what happens is we write them letters, clean it up,
meet the conditions and if you don't do that, we write another letter and
then we take them to court and the City can revoke it at the City Council.
Conrad: But right now our conditions, based on what we've got here, as long
as they maintain a 10 foot high fence and equipment is stored within it, they
really can run that use forever and economics will force them out but not
anything that we've got. It's probably not the best of uses in the area but
nothing is happening there anyway so it would be foolish to restrict that.
Olsen: They are just renting the property from Burdick.
Conrad: Economics will certainly dictate that. Outside storage in our
business area is less optimal use but right now some use is better than none.
Does Staff feel the cedar fence is the way to do the screening?
Olsen: It's a very nice fence. It's the kind of fence Staff would prefer.
It totally screens and is aesthetically pleasing to look at.
.onr ad:
You've seen samples of that type of thing?
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 12
_1 sen :
I've got copies of what it would look like.
Conrad: I have a real problem wi th fences in general. I don't know that you
create a better image or better appearance with a solid appearance.
Emmings: There seems to be a lot of shrubery around this. Trees all on one
side and then shrubs around both corners and it's a little hard to imagine
what it's going to look like but I thought it was broken up pretty well.
Conrad: I guess I'm comfortable with the 10 feet requirement and combining
Steve's points 2 and 3 and I think Dave, my feeling would be to review it on
an annual basis. It is a little bit of work but it's a short drive for Staff
to go down there and take a look and on that type of use, I wouldn't mind to
have an annual review of what it's looking like. The only question, I still
have that gap, this is the ultimate best use but I guess economics are going
to take care of that. Not us imposing some arbitrary guideline that will
revoke their condition. I couldn't make up a good one so I guess with that
I'll end my comments.
Emmings: It just occurred to me, first of all, we've got a fence ordinance
and there are requirements that people who build fences have to maintain them
and those provisions would apply to this fence.
Noziska: That would basically be the real reason for the annual review.
'-'mmings: I agree with Dave. I don't see how the annual review as a
~ondition on this permit, Staff has the right to review it every 5 minutes or
once a month or every year if they want to. It has to do with something they
do, not the applicant and I don't see any reason to have it on there as a
condition. The other thing I was going to say, maybe just as a suggestion,
maybe we could say that the fence has to be a minimum of 10 feet high but if
he has to understand that we don't want to see anything stored sticking up
above the top of the fence so if his storage is going to typically run 11
feet, he should build a 12 foot fence. He should build a fence high enough
to screen everything that's inside but it can't be less than 10 feet.
Conrad: Realistically, screen from where?
area.
Most roads look down into that
Emmings: Oh really. TH 5 does for sure.
Conrad: TH 5 does for sure so you would have to put up a pretty big fence.
Siegel: I think you would have to put a dome over it to do that. To screen
everything inside.
Emmings: Alright, let me ask you this then, why are we requiring a fence at
all? What are we screening it from?
Olsen:
Most from the surrounding properties.
-
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 13
~iegel: What's existing right now there is a lot of low trailers, boat
trailers and tires and that kind of stuff that they have sitting around the
property. 10 feet will take care of a stack of tires.
Noziska: So will 8 feet as far as that goes and looking at it from the other
perspective, if you were an adjacent neighbor, looking at 5 1/2 foot height
at your eyes and you've got an 8 foot fence or if you're sitting in a car and
driving past it, the higher it is the more imposing that wall becomes and
pretty soon it looks like you've got a total wall and I don't know if that's
good or bad but it's just a comment and whether it's 8 or 10 feet, I guess
either one, whatever makes someone else happy but I think it's the lower, the
3 to 4 feet where you tend to get the junky stuff and the crud tha t you
really need that for but if you get the top of one of these boats sticking
up, those are kind of aesthetics sometimes.
Conrad:
part.
I'm not too worried about what sticks up. The benefit is the bottom
Does Mr. Burdick own all the property around there?
Olsen: I don't know if he owns the property where the Lakeshore Equipment is
on but it's his plat and he owns the abutting property.
Conrad: I'm looking at the standards in that area for conditional use
permits and it says that it will not result in the destruction, loss or
damage, ... will be aesthetically compatible with the area, will not
depreciate surrounding property values. What if a new person came in and
~ught the lot next to this, would they have grounds, that would be basically
~ negative value for that new owner to have a screened storage area next to
them?
Olsen: I think that can be debated. Again, if it's done properly, it's not
going to be necessarily a detriment to adjacent properties.
Conrad: If you can build a fence and make it look good, that's not an asset
to a business area is it?
Olsen: It's an asset that it's cleaning up this site.
Conrad: Right now it is but there is nothing else around.
Noziska: I think that's a chance you're going to have to take with somebody
coming in. If it's going to clean up the site and hide the crud, I think
that's a positive move. The only question is whether we want it 6 or 8 or 10
feet?
Emmings: I think too Ladd, to go back to what you said before, economics is
going to dictate and Burdick owns all that property and if he gets somebody
he wants to go in next door that doesn't like that thing, he'll terminate the
lease.
Conrad: That's why I was asking who owned the property?
e
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 14
aeadla: I think a 10 foot fence is very imposing. I really think 8 feet
isn't going to be as objectionable and maybe let the person so 3 feet above
that and that's 11 feet he can store or 12 feet. A top of a boat isn't
aesthetically as bad.
Noziska:
It's even kind of interesting.
Headla: It could be. I would just like to have us maybe look at 8 feet
helping the neighbors.
Olsen: It wouldn't necessarily just be boats though. They could have a dock
up against it reaching out too. There could be some ugly storage sticking
out above there too.
Headla: It can be. If you drive by there a lot, a 10 foot fence is very
intimidating.
Olsen:
It's just that it won't always be storing lovely boats.
Headla: If it is dock storage sticking above that, you certainly can talk to
them about that.
Conrad: That's a good comment Dave.
10 feet is a big solid wall.
Emmings: Do you think it would be worthwhile to take another look at this
.ith the applicant and ask him what he's going to be storing and how high it
is to see if we could get by with an 8 foot fence rather than a 10 foot
fence. It would be nice if he was here so we could ask him.
Siegel: Jo Ann, what was the study that the Staff did on 10 feet versus 8
feet or was it just arbitrary?
Olsen: When we found out that 10 foot was used at another outdoor storage
from other cities around. It ranged from 6 feet, 8 feet...
Emmings:
inside?
Did we specifically talk to him about what he's going to put
Olsen: Yes, I asked him and he said boats, docks and boat lifts. That can
mean a lot of different things.
Siegel: I think as long as he's amenable to it, we might as well make it 10
feet. I'm not worried about being intimidated by a 10 foot versus an 8 foot
fence. Since we are looking down on this property and there are a lot of
ground storage things, like boat trailers and tires and used equipment that
the 10 foot would allow that part of the area, a larger share of the area to
be screened from the highway.
Noziska: Higher vantage point.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 15
~mmings moved, Noziska seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Conditional Use Permit #87-4 for screened outdoor storage as
shown on site plan dated March 4, 1987 with the following conditions:
1. The fence shall be 10 feet high.
2. Everything stored on that lot must be stored inside the fence and
screened by the fence.
All voted in favor of motion except David Headla and motion carried.
Headla: Does that mean he can bring in a sailboat and leave the mast
straight up?
Conrad: Yes.
Headla: My rationale is I don't think the extra 2 feet does anything and we
did not restrict a height of what the storage height should be.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Conditional Use Permi! request for mini-storage facilities on property zoned
BF, Fringe Business and located at the intersection of TH 212 and Stoughton
Avenue, Gary Brown.
tlPlsen: The site is located in the fringe business district in the southwest
corner of Chanhassen next to Gedney pickle. As we were going through the
Zoning Ordinance, we rezoned this site to fringe business. Mr. Brown had
shown an interest in putting mini-storage warehouse in this area. The fringe
business district again wanted to accommodate the uses along TH 212 which
does not have sewer or water available so it was all uses that would not
necessarily need that and if they did, it would be very small use. The
proposal is for a mini-storage. The setbacks are 25 feet in the front, 20
foot rear and 10 foot on the side. The site plan does meet the setbacks.
The applicant is proposing three phases. The first one would be four
buildings. The second and third are two buildings. Each building will have
46 stalls and will be 15 feet high. The applicant has brought with him
color swatches to have the Planning Commission give their opinion on what
color they would like. It will be one of the pre-fab metal buildings. The
applicant has proposed a gravel drive and chain link fence. As far as the
fence and landscaping, the Ordinance requires a berm between the vehicular
area and the right-of-way and that the berm be two feet high with trees every
40 feet. It also requires trees every 40 feet along the perimeter of the
lot. The berms have been provided and the applicant has provided the trees.
He is putting them around the perimeter of the mini-storage itself and not
around the whole site which will actually screen it better. Staff is asking
that the applicant provide a description of the plantings because the
Ordinance requires a minimum of 6 foot high for evergreens and 2 inch caliper
for deciduous. The Zoning Ordinance requires for commercial and industrial
fences to be 100% opaque and at least 6 feet high. The applicant is
~ropoSing a chain linked fence for visibility and security and fire reasons.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 16
ere feels that if police can see in, that will deter robberies and they will
see if there is a fire there in a faster time. We just got this memo from
the Fire Chief. I'm sorry it didn't go out wi th the packet but he is in
support of having the screening that you can see through for the fire and
safety purposes. Staff has discussed this position, the reasoning, the
Planning position versus public safety position. What has been done in the
past, if there is going to be a security problem, a 24 hour guard has been
proposed. There is a mini-storage that was just approved in the business
district in the Chanhassen Lake Business Park and for security reasons there,
they provided a 24 hour guard. That is one possibility to do and still allow
the opaque fence. I guess the City can take the position that if it is going
to be a security risk, there are cases where the City has the applicant
provide his own safety measures such as Filly's did. There were so many
calls to the police that they finally provided their own protection. Anyway,
if there is a problem with fire and security, one option is to recommend a 24
hour guard. Staff is recommending that to be consistant with the other mini-
storage facilities that we require them to be totally screened with an opaque
fence. Actually a fire will be able to be seen because it will only be
screened in the parking and vehicular area. The buildings will be able to be
seen. As far as utilities and grading, there is no sewer and water to the
site and they will have to provide a well and septic system if they are to
have any utilities on the site. Staff just found out yesterday in talking to
the applicant that he is thinking about providing office space and having a
person there approximately 12 hours per day. In that case he will have to
~ave water ~acilities and a bathroom facility so he must provide the basic
.-our soil borings to provide two treatment sites on that site so that will be
one of the conditions. As far as grading, it has been farmed and it's pretty
level. It slopes to the northwest. Because of the gravel area and there is
going to be increased run-off, Staff is recommending that the applicant
provide a detention pond approximatley in the northwest corner which will be
sized for pre-development run-off and that the run-off will be directed to
culverts underneath TH 212. The applicant has met with Staff on this and has
agreed to locate such a pond. As far as access in the vehicular areas, the
Staff did point out that they would prefer the driveway to be moved 40 feet
to the west upon the engineer's review. If this is possible, that's fine.
It's actually is just going to be going across from the driveway and it's not
a necessary condition so if you would like to remove that, that's fine. If
not, it's not an important issue. As far as the vehicular area, the
Ordinance requires that vehicular areas for business and industrial sites,
must be paved with a dust free surface and provide proper drainage. The
applicant is providing just gravel driveways so Staff is recommending that
they be paved to conform with the Ordinance. We are also recommending that
it conform to the Ordinance by providing perimeter curb and gutter which will
direct the run-off to that detention pond. Staff is recommending approval of
the Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions:
1. That one tree per every 40 feet be provided along the berm between
the vehicular area and the right-of-way and that berm must be 2 feet
high.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 17
e
2.
A description of the plantings proposed be provided and that they
meet the minimum standards of 6 feet high for evergreens and 2 inch
caliper for dedicuous trees.
3. The landscaped areas must be sod or seeded.
4. A 11313% opaque fence of at least 6 feet in height must surround the
storage area.
5. A detention basin should be included in the site drainage plan and
designed to limit the on-site run-off to the pre-development rate
for a 11313 year storm event.
6. If possible, align Stoughton Avenue site access with driveway access
on the south side of Stoughton Avenue.
7. Parking areas and access drives shall be paved with a dust free, all
weather surface.
8. Concrete curb and gutter will be required only along the outer edge
of the perimeter drive around the site.
The 9th condition has been met by moving the fence and the sign out of the
right-of-way. The other two conditions are:
e
9.
provisions for a 24 hour security guard.
113. Four soil borings for two septic treatment sites.
Gary Brown: First of all, do you folks realize where we're talking about
building this thing? It's way down in the corner there. The last part of
Chanhassen in the middle of a field. I think that should have some bearing
on this. This ground is 11313% sand that they've been trying to grow corn on
for 513 years and it won't grow. It's worthless. I want to put up a nice
facility here but I'm not building a church either. The Fire Department
recommended that we do not screen the fence in. Let's start at the top here.
You've got one tree for every 413 feet along the right-of-way. I go along
with that part if you guys can bend a little bit on the 6 foot thing. I
called around a little bit and a 6 foot evergreen is $21313.1313. I don't know
if you realize that and they are harder than hell to come by right now. Am I
right?
Olsen: I'm sure a lot of people are planting them.
Gary Brown: Yeah, but let's be realistic about this thing a little bit. I
would love to put the trees in. That's all fine and dandy. I think 6 foot
is being ridiculous for the middle of a field. The rest of this ground, by
the way, this is 14 acres of ground. I'm going to use about 4 1/2 acres of
it for this project, the rest of it is going to an alfalfa field yet. Like I
e
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 18
4Ilay, it's all sandy soil. The landscaped area in the front, the berm, I
don't have any problem with that. We'll sod that thing in and it shouldn't
be any problem at all. That 100% opaque fence, that is a definite problem.
The reason you put a chain linked fence around this thing is for security
reasons. When this thing is done it's going to be like 390 stalls in there.
If you've got a car sitting in a stall 300 feet back that's on fire and if
you've got a 6 or 7 foot opaque fence going around this thing, by the time
anybody figured out that that thing was burning, you could lose a lot of
stuff there. Where you can see through the thing, when cars are going by,
you are going to be able to see a fire hopefully. You'll be able to see
somebody in there in the middle of the night ripping people off. A fence is
for security but make this thing opaque, it's stupid. It doesn't make sense
and it takes away from what we're trying to cover. The detention basin on
number 5, we're working on that right now. The parking areas and access
drives to be paved, I'll give in to that one as long as we can pave them as
we build them okay? It's impossible to pave the whole thing and then decide
where to build. Concrete curb and gutter is no way. It's going to be field
all the way around this thing. We're going to have a berm around it now
where the water, if any water does run down, it's going to hit the berm and
curtail into this basin that we're doing all this studying on now so curb and
gutters, it just doesn't make sense to put that in an alfalfa field I don't
think. I hope you guys agree with me on that. If we're talking about my car
wash or something like that where it's in the middle of town here and
everybody is driving by it and you want to keep it up real nice, yes that's
fine and dandy but down there, that's throwing money away I think.
~Noziska: You haven't discussed the 24 hour security guard.
Gary Brown: This is the first I've heard about 24 hour security guard is
when I walked in here and Jo Ann said it tonight. No, I'm not going to have
a 24 hour security guard. The office is open from 8:00 to 8:00 seven days a
week and that's what they run on TH 7. That's what they run on the Crosstown
in Eden Prairie. That's what A-l and Minnesota Storage and Space centers all
run. They have people in some of those places that live there as part of
their pay is being able to live in the house. As far as being a security
guard. No, they don't have to sit home 24 hours a day. Where did you come
up with this new idea? I didn't hear about this until tonight.
Olsen: At the Staff discussion this afternoon we were looking at this and it
was what was proposed on that other mini-storage in town.
Gary Brown: You've got Roman's project up here on TH 5 and I know that's
where you're coming from but you also have to realize that Roman's going to
get, let's just use for instance here, in a 10 x 20 building, he's got to
get 40% more out of that than we do because of the fact that we're down
there. We're out of the way. We're not going after this high buck stuff.
We're in a different area of town. In fact, I think Chaska would be a little
more concerned about this than Chanhassen.
Headla moved, Noziska seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor
4Irnd motion carried.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 19
&onrad:
they?
Jo Ann you mentioned there were houses on three sides. Where are
Olsen:
there.
There is a single family house which is now in the BF district right
One to the west and one to the south. They are nice homes.
Emmings:
Those people got notice of this?
Olsen:
Yes.
Emmings: What is the rationale for the 6 foot high fence?
Olsen: That's in the Ordinance and the requirement for that is for
commercial uses thinking that that would be enough to screen parking areas.
Emmings: And the reason we're shorter here than in the last one is all the
storage is going to be inside buildings where they are outside in the other
one?
Olsen: We're trying to screen the vehicular area.
Emmings: On that point I'm going to propose that we add as an 11th condition
that everything stored on this site has to be stored inside a building.
Anyway, if the fence is to provide security, which I heard the applicant say,
~s a 6 foot fence the optimum height to keep people out do you think?
Gary Brown: Originally I proposed an 8 foot fence with barbs on it.
Everybody had heart attacks so I had to take that off but I still would like
to have this thing 7 feet.
Olsen: 6 feet is the minimum.
Emmings: That 6 feet is a minimum so you could have it higher if you wanted
to.
Olsen: Technically he can go up to 8 feet and then you would have to get a
conditional use but since you're getting a conditional use anyway, we can set
the height to whatever you want.
Emmings: The Fire Chief says that early detection of fire is important and
you seem to stress that too when you made your comments. It seems to me that
if it's that important, we shouldn't be relying on passers by and the local
neighbors to be doing the surveillance that is necessary but instead there
ought to be some kind of smoke detectors or other electronic surveillance.
Now you're smiling at me back there. What's the problem with that?
Gary Brown: Everyone of these storage rooms have metal walls and metal
ceilings that go all the way up so each one is divided. What are you talking
about, putting in 46 smoke detectors?
e
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 20
~mmings: Whatever it takes. Are you proposing to let the fire surveillance
to be done by the public passing by on the highway?
Gary Brown: Yes.
Emmings: I don't think that's a very good system and it doesn't strike me as
the way we want to do it. If it's that important to the Fire Chief and if
it's that important to his facilities as he says it is, then it ought to be
provided for in a better way. If it's not by a 24 hour guard, then I would
frankly not be in favor of making him have am employee there 24 hours. That
doesn't seem reasonable to me but there ought to be some means of fire
surveillance if it's that big a problem.
Gary Brown: I don't think it's a question of that big a problem, it's a
question of it could happen.
Emmings: A lot of it was made out by the Fire Department and you took it
when you made your comments, if it is a problem, it would seem to me that the
be s t way to h and 1 e t hat w 0 u 1 d be by so me kin d 0 f e qui pm en t t hat co u 1 d h and 1 e
that and I don't know what's available there but that to me, that should be
provided by the applicant. What is the rationale for an opaque fence? To
screen cars going in and out because there are residents around it and there
is going to be a lot of traffic there?
~iegel: I'm not sure I understand that requirement for concrete curb and
~utter. Is there concrete curb and gutter in that area right now along the
residential area?
Olsen: No.
It's a requirement for commercial and business uses.
Siegel:
In the business areas.
Olsen: The purpose is to reduce dust and erosion problems and to direct
drainage.
Siegel: I just question whether there shouldn't be some exceptions according
to where it's located. For instance, that one house is located in the
business district and the other two are across the road.
Olsen: The rest are in the residental area or agricultural district.
Siegel: It seems to me that we could be creating a problem here by trying to
go along with the restrictions of the Ordinance for the business district on
this site. I don't see a problem with the erosion and stuff because this is
going down to the Minnesota River. All the drainage is towards the River?
Olsen: No, it will be going the other way. The ponding area is here and
then it will be directed through a culvert under TH 212. It will be going
the other way. We don't want it to go toward the River and it naturally
drains toward the northwest.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 21
&ary Brown:
The drainfield has a nice fall to it all the way down.
Olsen: The Engineer did go out to the site and reviewed where the site is
with the surrounding uses and felt that curb and gutter should be used.
Siegel: Would that extend around the property existing where that single
family home is too?
Olsen: No, it would just be around the perimeter of the mini-storage site.
Right now he is proposing that all of this is gravel in this vehicular area
and what would happen is we would have the curb and gutter just around
the facility on the site. Just around the mini-storage site. Not the
property boundary. What that would do is direct the drainage to the holding
pond.
Siegel: I see. This is around the parking and berming area.
applicant agree to the soil boring test for plumbing on-site?
condition 10?
Did the
Wasn't this
Olsen: Right. Again, we were just talking and he brought in the plan to
show me that stalls to see if I wanted to bring it tonight and then he
mentioned that one of the buildings wouldn't have all the stalls and that it
would have an office instead and we found out that the use it was going to be
used and he was just going through the building department to get the septic
~ystem design and I explained that he had to go through the preliminary soil
~orings to see if there were sites on the property first.
Gary Brown: We've already done half of them.
Siegel: Does it make a difference? When we talk about mini-storage here, it
keeps popping into my mind that we're talking about a wide variety of uses
some of which would not require an on-site operator or any kind of
restrictions.
Olsen: Typically, we had another mini-storage that went in on TH 212 and
it's not going to have anyon-site employees at all so they did not have to
provide soil borings or any water or any septic systems but since he is
proposing to have an employee there 12 hours per day, he has to provide the
soil borings to show that he does have the two sites. Technically the size
of the system is going to be very small but he still has to go through the
proper tests.
Siegel: Then what was the reasoning for the 24 hour guard?
Olsen: We're doing an option that if it is for security, rather than having
whoever's driving by or having lots of calls because of people thinking they
are being robbed, that they provide a security guard and that was being
provided in the other mini-storage.
Siegel: But that was at the owner's option wasn't it because of the use of
_the property.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 22
.sen: Right, that was just an option that was thrown out that if they would
want to keep, if the Ci ty would want to keep it an opaque fence yet the
developer feels an opaque fence would not provide that security or allow
visual into the site, that an option would be to have them provide a 24 hour
guard. A typical alternative is to provide sprinkling systems.
Siegel: So the 24 hour guard is really in reaction to the opaque fence
requirement and the opinion of the Fire Marshall?
Olsen: No, it's in reaction to security. If that was going to be an
important issue to have somebody there who can be responsible for seeing if
there is anything wrong. It's not a response to the opaque fence but a
response to the security question.
Siegel: I don't know exactly what the usage of this mini-storage area is
going to be but it seems that we've got to sort of set up some sort of common
grounds of allowing the owners to operate for their own good. Obviously
they've got insurance to take care of things like that which obviously happen
over here where they put on a 24 hour guard. I'm just wondering whether
we're not being a little too restrictive here in trying to set up an ideal
situation when the situation should create itself. In other words, whatever
the usage of the property is for mini-storage would dictate what the owner
does because it's ultimately his responsibility. I just wonder if us
requiring a 24 hour guard as part of the conditional use permit would set a
~ecedent here for all types of mini-storage.
Olsen: There's no doubt that it's restrictive.
Siegel: I'm not sure, when you pass the mini-storage places along the
highways and byways really they're sort of blaisee type of construction and
you can't imagine anybody having a watch guard, a human being watch guard.
Gary Brown: I think sometimes that that will police itself. If you have
that serious of a problem with people stealing and breaking into it, I think
it would be up to the person who owns the project, you would have to hire a
guard or you wouldn't have anybody renting from you.
Siegel: Isn't it typical that you have to have insurance to cover the
lessors?
Gary Brown: The person who stores has their own insurance.
Siegel: That's what I mean. I guess there are no restrictions based on the
insurance companies requiring mini-storage to have a 24 hour guard. I just
fail to see that requirement but with that I'll let somebody else speak to
it.
Noziska: This is going to be eight buildings with 46 stalls a piece that
~ans we're talking about a total facility of 368 stalls. Several buildings
.e 21313 feet long and 1138, 1713 foot, 1913 foot. It's a pretty big facility.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 23
4Itt's not just like your backyard storage shed and I think that's probably
what Jo Ann was talking about when she was talking about a 24 hour
security guard or sprinklers or something and whether that's ours to worry
about or not, I don't know. All I know is that it's going to get plenty of
exposure in that particular area. As far as fire goes, if you want to fight a
fire you have to bring your own water regardless of who discovers the fire.
Somehow, running through the back of my brain, that we have 368 storage
units, that would make a pretty good bonfire if you get it all cranked up.
Whether it's sprinklers or 24 hour security guards or fire resistant
construction or something. I think there is some concern. We know that
we're going to have to have a septic system Jo Ann?
Olsen: If they are going to have an office there.
Noziska: They said they're going to have an office there and it's going to
be open 12 hours a day or something like that and we're going to have to
drill a well but that still won't take care of a fire on the property.
Olsen: There is not water service to that property even from Chaska. Chaska
abuts up to the property and they do not have water. I heard from the Fire
Department that if there is a fire they won't go right on the site. They
will hose it down from far back because there can be explosives. Gas tanks,
boats and cars and they will have to bring their own water.
~oziska: Somehow I think that is an excellent candidate for fire resistant
..,onstruction as far as I'm concerned because we are talking about a huge
complex. We're not talking just about a little tiny thing. In the first
phase we've got three 200 foot long buildings and one 190 foot long building.
That's makes several hundred lineal feet of building. Almost 800. That's a
pretty big deal. Those are just some rambling thoughts. Maybe a' 24 hour
security guard or fire resistant construction or sprinklers are available.
Gary Brown: One of the things that we're kind of missing the boat here and
getting strung out on this thing too far. These are going to be made out of
29 gauge metal. The entire building outside of the trusses are metal. Each
bay is confined to it's own.
Headla: The trusses are metal?
Gary Brown: No, the trusses are wood but we have metal walls up to a metal
roof so each bay, if it be 10 x 20 or 5 x 10 is confined in metal. It's a
metal cubicle with a metal door. I know where you're coming from, you're
thinking of an old hay barn that once one burns, she'll go right down the
line but how are you going to start 29 guage metal on fire?
Noziska: Metal melts, that's the problem.
Gary Brown: You're right.
Noziska: 29 gauge metal. Do you know how thin that is? Holy buckets. I'm
~amiliar with sheet metal and that's thin sheet metal.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 24
4Itary Brown: But what I'm trying to impress on you is that other than what's
being stored, what's going to burn?
Noziska: That's the question. What's being stored, if it does start on
fire, will burn and the metal wall next to it will collapse and what's in the
next compartment will burn.
Gary Brown: After an hour, right.
right in there.
You have to have a pretty good hour
Noziska: No, I don't think so. I don't think, I know that. 29 gauge sheet
metal. 26 gauge sheet metal is thin stuff. 22 gauge is much better.
Gary Brown: I just think we're carrying the fire thing a little too far here
and we're getting away from the issue.
Noziska: I think you've got a major facility here Gary and I think you need
to think about that. I recognize that the people who store in there will be
carrying their own insurance so as a building owner you have no concern about
that but I think someone who stores in your facility, they will have to adjust
their thinking as far as storing in your place or someplace else.
Gary Brown: I guess that's the chance we're going to have to take.
Noziska: But again, you've got a major facility that has no fire protection.
~ou're surrounded with virtually three volunteer fire departments.
Gary Brown: What do the rest of these storage facilities have in the area or
anywhere for fire protection?
Noziska: A lot of them are fire resistant. They are either pre-test plank
or block and that way, one compartment burns and the rest of them didn't and
that's the difference. If one compartment is gutted, that's a whole lot
different than gutting the whole building or possibly gutting the whole
complex because they're not all that far apart. That's what I know about it.
Headla: I think fire is a very realistic concern. I would like to hear how
you're going to fight a fire in a sheet metal building like that. From what
I can see, if we have an explosion, spontaneous combustion, whatever, how
will be stop it from going from one space to the other? You get a hot fire
it's just going to precipitate spontaneous combustion in the next one.
Gary Brown: Let me ask you guys this then. Maybe we can clarify this thing
in one shot here. Let's say we don't store any, is cars the issue here or is
it gas cans?
Headla: I think it's spontaneous combustion.
Emmings: You're not going to have any control over what people put in there
are you?
e
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 25
~ary Brown: I would say we
have a contract to get in.
would, yes because people are going to have to
Emmings: How are going to control what people put in their stalls?
Gary Brown:
I don't have any idea.
Emmings: Right.
problems.
You can't. That's the problem I think or one of the
Headla: That berm around here, we asked it to be two feet.
Olsen: That's the minimum. The landscaping ordinance, the berms have to be
at least two feet high and that's to help protect parking.
Headla: I wonder if we left the chain link, here we've got two standards.
we required one person here that is storing stuff that is much more likely to
be burgarlized and to have fire and we can tell him to put a 10 foot fence
around it. Now we're telling someone else can put in a chain link, I don't
think that's consistent. I think we should show some consistency in what we
recommend. If he were putting in a chain link, and that probaby would be
better, putting in a berm to block the view would accomplish the same thing.
The curbs, I guess I have a hard time bel iev i ng concrete curb would be a good
financial investment for this man. I think the way this whole thing is set
~ with the berms and everything, that probably should do it. I like the 2
"'oot caliper deciduous trees. You're open from 8:00 to 8:00. No traffic
goes in before 8:00 a.m. or after 8:00 at night?
Gary Brown: Right.
Headla: How about outside lighting. Are you going to have any outside
lighting there at all?
Gary Brown: Yes.
Headla: Do we have any control over that?
Olsen: It's just around the buildings.
Headla: Okay, so he can have that.
Gary Brown: We have high pressure sodium lights.
Headla: Will the neighbors?
Gary Brown: No. It's between the buildings.
require which is a good idea.
It's the low lights which you
Headla: I guess my only other comment is I sure would like to see heat
sensors in each building. I would like to see, whoever is going to be the
eerson with the fire, I would like to see some statement on how they're going
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 26
e.. .
to fIght that fIre. What they are gOIng to do to protect the homes around
there? If we're going to let these buildings go up in smoke, I think we have
an obligation to all the homes surrounding that.
Gary Brown: The homes around there, that's why it's in the Ordinance that
they have to be so many feet away from the residents.
Headla: You have 200 feet by 40 feet full of combustible material, I think
you've got a ton of possibility there. We don't have access to how to fight
this.
Gary Brown: But that's why you have building codes too is for fire reasons
and that's why I went through this with George Donnelly to make sure that we
had the building code covered for fire.
Headla: We looked at it and the Fire Department said that they have a way of
fighting it?
Noziska: No, they stand back and watch it burn. That's what she said.
Headla: Then I guess I would like to see somebody come in and say how they
are going to fight it and I would like to see heat sensors installed.
Gary Brown: By the time Chanhassen gets down there it's not going to make
tlrny difference.
Emmings: Chaska will be the first on there.
Gary Brown: According to Art they would call Chanhassen first, correct?
Olsen: Yes, in that district everyone would be called and whoever would get
there first.
Headla: Don't we have an obligation to Chaska to let them know what's going
on here and see if they have any comments?
Olsen:
I spoke with somebody from the City and they are aware of it.
Gary Brown: The Fire Chief of Chaska is aware of it.
Headla: Do we have any further obligation or courtesy to let the people
know?
Olsen: The surrounding neighbors have been notified. As far as the City
itself, we have notified them.
Noziska: Jo Ann, you said they were notified. Do they know that they are
just about to get 368 metal units of storage right next to their house? If
that isn't enough to destroy your property value, I don't know what is and
4ItI'm surprised that we see no one here.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 27
_lsen: The
facility.
notice was for a conditional use permit for a mini-storage
Noziska: Did you get a response from it? You wrote them a letter. They
could be on vacation.
Gary Brown: The three houses there. One house that sits right on that
here is my partner.
Noziska:
there.
So you've got an in there. How about the one that's sitting out
Gary Brown: The one right here on the corner, I think he's going to be
tickled pink because he's not going to have to shovel sand off his lawn all
summer.
Headla:
I think that's a good point. I think he is improving it.
Gary Brown: I am improving his property. That's a sand storm down in that
area. That land is 100% sand. I'll show you what the soil engineer found.
o to 48 inches is ground silt and sand and 40 to 72 inches is brown sand. I
mean that's sand.
Conrad: Gary, is everything going to be stored inside? Is that your intent?
tIIo outside storage?
Gary Brown: There's an Ordinance against it as I understand it.
Olsen:
It's a whole other conditional use to have outside storage.
Conrad: But we have allowed it?
Gary Brown: You have a tremendous amount of outside storage that is not in
a fenced in area. I would say, everything on ours will be inside but I would
think it would be to your benefit to say you could have outside storage so
you can combine all the stuff. It kind of goes back to the guy here with
building a 10 foot fence and he's going to have some of the boats sticking up
above it. What are you folks going to do someday when a contractor moves
into town and has cranes and stuff? These guys aren't going to build 50 foot
fences. You guys are going to have to start thinking about that.
Conrad: No, we don't want 50 foot fences.
Gary Brown: But Chanhassen is on the move. She's going to be built and some
of this stuff is going to be coming in here.
Conrad: We know that.
Emmings: We see it twice a month so we're kind of aware of that.
eary Brown: You can't hold back forever. You have to let it grow.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 28
~onrad: I don't think we are. We typically end up protecting the rights of
the people who are there already. That's typically what we tend to do but
the people who are here, whether we're talking business community or
residential, they're not really wild about some of the growth and we listen
to that.
Gary Brown:
I know what you mean.
Conrad: The 100% opaque fence in the Staff Report. Gary you want chain
link, Staff shows 100% opaque, 6 feet surrounding the storage area. Just for
definition, is that the entire area? The entire 8 buildings are fenced?
Gary Brown: It will be 4 1/2 acres.
Conrad: When we say 100% opaque, I know that you can put fabric in chain
link.
Olsen: You can put those slats.
Conrad: That's kind of what we did at Hanus and that was real close to real
ugly wasn't it?
Gary Brown: I thought that the trees were to off-set some of the opaque
look. Am I right or wrong? I thought it was either trees or opaque
4Itccording to your definition.
Olsen: In the commercial business district, the fences are required to be
opaque. The trees are required...
Gary Brown: We're calling this the fringe district down here so how are we
classifying that?
Emmings: You put up the fence to hide the buildings then you put up the
trees to hide the fence.
Gary Brown: Yes, you see somewhere along the line something just doesn't
gel. If we want to make it look prettier or whatever you want to say, but
we have to work together here. We're going to price ourselves out of
business we might as well go back to corn.
Conrad: What we have is an Ordinance. We're reviewing what the Ordinance is
dictating. It's not Jo Ann coming up with creative ways of making Gary Brown
go back to raising corn or start another car wash but we're looking at
Ordinance requirements and we're trying to rationalize whether they're right
or wrong Gary.
Gary Brown: I think where it's at should have some bearing on this thing.
It's not in the central business district.
Conrad: You're right but the Ordinance as it stands now is talking about the
~roperty that you're on so that leaves open some things that we can change
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 29
~the Ordinance. Fringe Business is a term, when did we develop fringe
business?
Olsen: I don't know when it first came out but it was to conform to the
existing uses in this area.
Conrad: We coined it to categorize some stuff that was already in existence.
I'm trying to get a handle on some of this stuff. 100% opaque fence so Jo
Ann you are saying in this particular part, because of the standards, the
opaque fence would have to be placed around the entire perimeter of the
property and the rationale for that is to screen right? It's not security,
it is to screen?
Olsen: It's to screen and secure the area.
Conrad: So the back side, the alfalfa side, do we need to fence that?
Olsen: You'll still be able to see from TH 212. We can come up with a
compromise but technically, it just surrounds the use with a 100% opaque
fence.
Conrad: I'm trying to get to the intent of the Ordinance and see if there is
a rationale for doing something different.
tlflsen: Again, it is to screen the vehicular activity, parking.
Noziska: It's practically surrounded anyhow. If you come out of Stoughton
Avenue or around on TH 212, there's a little deal over here maybe that is
alfalfa and corn but that's about it. The rest of it you can see from the
road. Except for a little chunk of fence in a spot a couple hundred feet
long and that's about all so don't worry about that. You can see it coming
this way, you can see it coming that way and you sure as hell can see it
coming this way so don't worry about leaving a little chunk of fence out
here. If you want to discuss opaque or not opaque, fine but don't worry
about whether it's got alfalfa on the other side of it or not. That's
another question. It's such a minor part of it. If you're interested in
screening and an opaque fence, then do the whole thing. If it's not
important then don't.
Headla: Does that screening have to be there immediately? What I'm thinking
of is on the tone of opaque, if he is putting chain link on this side, the
west side where you have the railroad and Gary's got a good point on 6 foot
trees, if we let him put in like 1 foot or 18 inch conifers, they grow very
fast in that soil so probaby in about 4 years, by the time he gets these
other buildings, you're going to have a pretty solid opaque fence in that
amount of time and that would really cover the intent of the Ordinance
wouldn't it?
Olsen: If I can quote under the Fence Ordinance for commercial and
~~ndustrial fences, it states that where the commercial use abuts property
~sed or zoned as residential uses, a fence at least 6 feet high shall be
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 30
e
placed between the residential and commercial property and said fence shall
be 100% opaque so technically it would only have to be on the east, south and
west side. He could have a chain linked fence, if he wanted on the northwest
side but we've always taken it one step further. We wanted it screened from
everywhere and TH 212 is down so they would be looking up to the site. A
higher fence is not necesary but berming should be provided to screen.
Gary Brown: We are providing the berming you're asking for. All the way
around?
Olsen: Right.
Gary Brown: You didn't ask for all. You said to stop.
Olsen: But we were asking for opaque fence.
Headla: Is a berm put up like a tree berm.
Gary Brown: They just want a two foot berm along there for water diversion.
Headla: I was thinking if you go 3 feet, it's going to pretty well block out
the view from the road but chain link would go a long with that wouldn't it?
Gary Brown: Yes. I don't know why we're trying to block it out to begin
~with. We're not building junky looking buildings here. We're building a
~ice looking setting.
Olsen: You won't be blocking the building because the buildings will be 15
feet high. We are screening some of the uses that are stored.
Gary Brown: But there's nothing that's going to be stored outside. You
already made it clear that there's not going to be anything outside. What
are we hiding? If I build this I want to be proud of it. Why not see it?
Conrad: Talking about curb and gutter, the engineer made that
recommendation.
Olsen: It's a standard in the Ordinance that all commercial districts would
have curb and gutter.
Conrad: And the purpose of that is?
Olsen: To direct drainage.
Conrad: To direct drainage so in this site if we didn't have it.
Olsen: It would run out over the site.
Gary Brown: It would still run in just exactly the same place where we want
it to because it's got natural flowage going down there. If you look at your
~levations, from the top to the bottom, everything points to the corner down
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 31
e
there where the culvert go underneath TH 212 and where you've already asked
me to build this pond down there. Water can't run uphill. Remember we
covered that when we built the car wash. Like I said, the rest of it around
the outside is going to be all alfalfa anyway.
Conrad: What rationale could we use on that curb and gutter?
Olsen: On our other condition is that it be paved also so it just helps
direct it. It's going to be running off from the site, it helps direct it to
a point where it will run over to the retention pond rather than just flowing
off every which way. It just controls it.
Headla: Could that be a blacktop curb?
Olsen: Normally they are concrete. I don't know if we could go with
blacktop. The engineer would have to make that determination.
Headla: To me, concrete is you have a lot of traffic.
Conrad: Is run-off on gravel the same as on asphalt? If they didn't asphalt
this, we have two problems. We have the dust problem and I'm sure the
neighbors wouldn't care for that but then again I can't compare it to what
they currently have. Right now, with the asphalt, we're just going to create
100% run-off. Is there any advantage to keeping it gravel? I would assume
~that we would still have a huge percentage of run-off on the packed gravel.
Olsen: You would just have the dust problem and the erosion problem.
Noziska: The think what keeps consuming me is we're talking about almost
61,000 square feet of building and that's a lot of building. I wonder if we
really know what the hell it's going to look like. What I'm looking at is
it's in a very visible spot. Shouldn't we be looking at some elevation views
or something? Jo Ann, isn't this a normal deal?
Gary Brown: The elevations are on there.
Olsen: He's talking about the building elevations. We asked for building
elevations and we got site elevations on the plan, but not building
elevations.
Gary Brown: They've got elevations on there.
Noziska: No, no. That's not what we're talking about. We want to take a
look at it. If it's going to be scattered out over quite an area. How many
acres? 5 acres?
Gary Brown: About 5 acres.
Noziska: Okay, so we've got 5 acres worth of buildings scattered here and
_there.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 32
e
Gary Brown:
distinctly.
No, they're not scattered here and there. They're laid out very
Noziska: I understand that but what I'm saying is by looking at 5 acres
worth of buildings, 61,000 square feet, I don't know as though we know what
we're looking at.
Gary Brown: That's why it's in a good place down there because you aren't
going to go down there and look at it.
Noziska: Oh, wrong. Every time I go to Chaser's I have to look at the thing.
I don't think that's a consideration because I think we are on a major
highway there. I also think there are some other considerations. I have an
aversion again to whether it's in the southern tip or the northern tip of
Chanhassen, sticking an eyesore or a fire hazard.
Gary Brown: It's defini tely not going to be an eyesore.
beautiful laid out structure.
It's going to be a
Noziska: I would like to see some elevations then. Also, I see that at one
point we don't have anything as far as soil borings and now we do have
something as far as soiling borings.
Olsen: What he provided as perc tests which have some soil borings which
~hey do for the system design. What we don't have are the two soil borings
~er site. The detailed soil borings that we need to review to see if a site
has two treatment sites on them. When we determine that they do, then they
bring in the specific perc tests for the specific site.
Noziska: Okay, then going back to these, we're talking about eight buildings
that are basically what? They are wood frame and then they have sheet metal
nailed to the wood frame right? Is that how it is?
Gary Brown: Basically, yes.
Noziska: Basically. So we're kind of talking about a low pole barn type of
thing. It's the same type of construction. It's a wood truss with poles
that are drilled and stuck in the ground?
Gary Brown: No. It's built slab on grade.
Noziska: Okay, then you come up from the slab on grading with timber?
Gary Brown: Studs.
Noziska: Then you tack the 29 gauge sheet metal to it?
Gary Brown: Right.
_Olsen:
It has to meet building codes.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 25, 1987 - Page 33
4I!hart: Is that common to try and provide connection through groups of
townhomes?
Dacy: Yes. I think it is and also it kind of puts more of a burden, the
useable acreage in here probably totals up to 3 or 4. Just to localize it
all in one point, I don't think would be really good. We should try and
connect with any type of access for emergency vehicles and general use.
Erhart: Is item 1 and item 10 essentially the same?
Dacy: Yes, that's the same. What happens is that the planners and the
engineer usually end up thinking alike and we come up with the same
conditions so there is a 25 foot easement that we also noted that the
applicant should probaby try to move their trees a little bit farther to the
west to stay out of that easement for the sewer. That's why you see
duplicated conditions.
Conrad: Procedurally, have we closed public hearing?
Noziska moved, Erhart seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
Emmings: Several times you mentioned a feasibility study and I don't know
what that is.
4ItCY: A feasibility study is an engineering technical document that analyses
the cost and the location for extension of public improvements. Streets,
storm sewer, sewer and water and so on.
Emmings: Is that something the applicant prepares for the City?
Dacy: Yes. The applicants have the option to request the City to do that.
In this case that has happened so utility service can be extended to the
property so he can build. In those types of situations we try to coordinate
applications and feasibility studies so we get answers about what we want.
Emmings: Because I had my eyes opened somewhat at the Public Safety
Commission meeting I attended last week, I was interested to see if there
would be a Fire Department review of this thing and see if the height of the
building or anything like that caused them any problems but we got a report
and it doesn't say anything.
Dacy: I had them check two things. One, the fire hydrant radius and thus
the recommendation and second of all, the building separation between the
units. We checked the Uniform Building Code and they have 25 feet separation
between the buildings so that exceeds code requirements. You could, from
what I understand, even go down to 5 or 10 depending on the type of fire
walls that you provide. What he's proposing here and it's a fairly level
site now, he's doing minimal amount of berming that they felt it was easily
4Ijtacked from any direction.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 34
~onrad: I don't know how to do what you're saying. When somebody makes a
motion we've got to send the City Council our comments on the overall
proposal and that's the minimum. The landscaping ordinance, the berms
have to be at least two feet high and that's to help protect parking. With a
few of these and I think if you are, then you should jump in and make the
motion and the City Council is going to review the same things with Gary when
he goes in so I'm not quite sure how to do what you want to do other than
disagreeing with Staff which is your perogative. I've been looking for ways
to say this is a fringe business district and I think our standards from the
core business district have been applied out here. Whether it's through good
or bad logic I don't know. I can't remember but I'm looking in combing
through here trying to say hey, it isn't our core. It isn't the area that
we're developing as a focal point.
Gary Brown: Right. You've got Gedney pickles on one side and a sanitary
dump on the other.
Conrad: That's right. There is a dump on the other side of the road folks.
It's not like the prettiest, it's not a garden of Eden down there and we're
not going to create it in that area so I'm really having a tough time with
this one because I think we're requiring some things that may be out of sync
with that entire area but on the other hand, the Ordinance is there and I see
some neighbors around and I see a big project. That's the flip side. It's a
tough one to deal with. I think it would be smart of us to ask in any kirrl
af motion to ask the Fire Department to review this by the time it gets to
Wity Council.
Emmings: We got a letter from the Fire Chief and always in the past we've
gotten these little missles from Jim Castleberry. Why did we get a report
from Art Kerber? Who asked him for it?
Olsen: I did. Jim Castleberry is no longer with the City and we hadn't
appointed another Public Safety Director at the time.
Emmings: What was he asked to do that he wrote this letter?
Olsen: We gave him the site plan with the Zoning Ordinance and asked him to
comment on it.
Emmings: And his only comment was that it should have a chain link fence and
absolutely has nothing to do with any fire concerns whatsoever.
Olsen: I think his memo was more in reference to his discussion with Mr.
Brown.
Emm ing s: I do too. In deference to How ie, I don't think elevations wi 11
help us too much on this deal and I think it's a big project. It seems to me
it's kind of an appropriate site for this kind of project. It really doesn't
bother me very much and I don't know why. It just doesn't. Given the fact
~hat you've got the railroad tracks there. You've got Gedney there. You've
~ot streets on each side of it. I don't know what the heck else is ever going
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 35
~o go out there.
It seems to me to be kind of an appropriate project.
Gary Brown: That's why we picked the land that we did.
Emmings: It doesn't really bother me very much. On the other hand, I don't
think I'm not too impressed when someone stands back and says, I think that's
a risk we'll have to take when you're talking about fire and you don't know
what they're storing. To me that is kind of a very important issue and I
don't think it's enough to say that the people who put their stuff in there
are going to have to have their own insurance. That's not looking at the
problem. I think what we ought to do here, I think what we're going to have
to do because there are so many conditions is make a motion and vote on it
and all give our reasons why and shove this thing onto the City Council.
There is no reason to keep it here. I think it ought to go up and be fought
out there but I think we're all going to have very different feelings about
which of these conditions are important and which are not.
Conrad:
I think that's what Dave was trying to get to.
Emmings: I disagree with Dave too. I think there ought to be one motion.
Vote yes or not, give our reasons why and send it on.
Noziska:
Don't you really feel that this is at very best incomplete?
4!tonrad:
Emmings:
That's very incomplete.
That says nothing to do with fire.
Conrad:
It addressed the fence. It didn't address anything else.
Noziska: I think we should get somebody who is semi knowledgable on fire to
take a look at the fact that we've got a 61,000 square foot complex here.
Emmings: But they could do that between now and the City Council couldn't
they?
Gary Brown: Would you feel more comfortable if I have the Fire Chief from
Chaska, get his opinion on it?
Conrad: I think what we're looking for is somebody from the Fire Department
saying, none of our business, we don't care. If there is a fire, here's how
we would handle it. I really don't want to get involved in your business
Gary. It's your job to figure out what the market wants in terms of fire
security and I guess I don't feel responsible yet on the other hand, from the
community standpoint, we will still be called upon to put that fire out and I
guess we should what's going to happen and if that has any significance on
the design, then we should now about it before we pass it.
Noziska: I think so too and I don't necessarily agree with Steve on the
~esthetics of the thing. I would never imagine to talk in terms of the Taj
~ahal down there but I still think it's a major facility and I still don't
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 36
~hink that anybody has any concept. I've got a rough idea because I look
plans a lot. I just know that this is going to cover a large piece of the
landscape. It's a five acre plot and I know that southern Chanhassen is
second class territory but still.
at
Conrad: Here we get into aesthetics again. From the standpoint of putting a
fence around that whole thing Howie, it makes the project look bigger than it
may be. You surround anything with a 6 foot fence, it looks massive whereas
visually, if you take the fence away, you've got the units themselves will
break it up a little bit and you won't have the same impact. It's far beyond
me to comprehend what the right thing to do is on a project like this. I
know we have an Ordinance that is put there for good intentions but I don't
know if the fence applies in some cases. I just don't know.
Noziska: I have a rough idea of 200 feet and I know that it's an awful long
straight line and then we've got a whole series of awful long, straight lines
and that's all I'm going to say.
Conrad: There are so many things and Gary is not going to like a lot of
stuff here because they are costly but Staff has put some things in like tree
plantings based on our Ordinance that is going to break some of that stuff
up. I know Gary still is not happy about some of those things but it's going
to soften it somehow and there is a dump on the other side of the street.
Flat out. High berm. It's a dump folks and Gedney is not necessarily the
...ost attractive facility. I think you're going to have to take some of
~hese issues along with you and talk to City Council about them. I just have
a feeling that some of these things I'm going to go along with even though I
kind of like to make some exceptions but I'm not comfortable with how I can
vote against some of these things.
Headla: Item number 1, with the trees. Are you specifying that they have to
put in foot conifers?
Emmings: Okay, let me ask Jo Ann a question.
come from? Is that part of our Ordinance?
Where did the 6 foot trees
Olsen: Yes.
Emmings: My thinking is this. If that's what our Ordinance calls for, then
that's what we ought to do. If our Ordinance is wrong, we ought to take a
look at it. I'm not convinced that you need to have a 6 foot tree down there
but if that's what our Ordinance calls for, that's what we should follow and
that's why I'm doing a lot of these things. Like Ladd, I'm not sure that a
lot of these things are appropriate to that place down there but I'm nervous
about altering our Ordinance in so many ways for just this one project
because I don't know what would distingish this from all other plans like it
that would come in to us so I'm more comfortable sticking with the Ordinance
than I am deviating from it. If the City Council wants to deviate from it,
let them.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 37
-
Conrad: If you would comfortable Dave, after the motion is passed or
rejected to send along a footnote on some of these issues. I think we could
do that. We could pass it or reject it, whatever but request that City
Council consider the particular fringe business district and smaller trees or
the district and location and allowing no curb and gutter based on
appropriate drainage review by the City Engineer. Those are issues I think.
They are not going to be in the motion itself but they will be a concern that
we can pass along.
Headla: Overall, I think it is a pretty good motion. Can I vote yes and
then put in my notes or do I have to object to it?
Conrad: The way to get attention from City Council is to object so you could
be voting against the whole motion because of certain points. However, you
have to calculate that based on how you think other people are going to vote
on the motion and your vote may can the whole thing and we may be sending
them the wrong signal. There is more impact when you vote against something
yet on the other hand, I think what I'll do on this, if you do have some
issues right after the motion that you would just like to ask the City
Council to consider further, I will let you do that. There is no legal
bearing that we can pass those comments on.
Emmings: I would like to do that too. I think we're all going to want to on
this one. Maybe we could just tell the City Council in the Minutes that
",lthough we are passing it along, or recommending approval, we have a lot of
~oncerns and they are as follows.
Emmings moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #87-2 for mini-storage as shown on the
site plan dated March 4, 1987 with the following conditions:
1. One tree for every 40 feet be provided along the berm between the
vehicular area and right-of-way and the berm must be two feet high.
2. A description of the plantings proposed meet the minimum standards
of six feet high (evergreens) and two inch caliper (deciduous).
3. The landscaped areas must be sod or seeded.
4. A 100% opaque fence of at least six feet high must surround the
storage area.
5. A detention basin should be included in the site drainage plan and
be designed to limit the on-site run-off to the pre-development
rate for a 100 year storm event.
6. If possible, align Stoughton Avenue site access with driveway access
on the south side of Stoughton Avenue.
,e
7.
Parking areas and access drives shall be paved with a dust free, all
weather surface.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 38
e
8.
Concrete curb and gutter will be required only along the outer edge
of the perimeter drive around the site.
9. Some provision must be made for fire detection after a review of the
plan and intended use of the buildings by someone knowledgable about
fire detection and fire prevention.
10. Four soil borings for two septic treatment sites.
11. Everything stored on site must be stored inside a building.
Emmings, Conrad and Headla voted in favor, Siegel and Noziska voted against
the motion. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Siegel: I think we should take into consideration the location in this case
and I think the requirement of the trees and the berming, maybe we could make
the berming higher but I don't see any reason why a chain link fence is not
appropriate in this area with trees and berms outside of it, especially as
the piece of property ages. Also, I don't think in this case that concrete
curb and gutter should be a requirement. That asphalt gutter would be more
appropriate for this site.
Noziska: I think that we really didn't get adequate information from the
Fire Department. I think anytime we're talking about a facility that is this
.arge, regardless of what end of the City it's stuck in, I feel that there
hould be certainly more than a few lines about security from the Fire
people. I am just very concerned about anything called 29 gauge sheet metal.
I think it doesn't take too many times of backing into it before it becomes
an aesthetic eyesore. I don't think we're really raising the valuation of
Chanhassen property whatsoever by allowing this sort of construction to go
on and therefore, we're not enhancing our tax structure a bit. If this is
going to set any kind of precedence where we throw up 15 foot high pole
barns, regardless of where it is in the Ci ty, I don't think it's goi ng the
right direction. I think it's going backwards and especially when we're
talking about the supposed belongings of some 368 people or at least 368
stalls. I just can't go along with this being a project that makes an awful
lot of sense for Chanhassen. It may make a lot of sense to developers but in
my eyes, it makes no sense for Chanhassen.
Conrad: Dave, is there anything you would like to add even though you voted
for the motion?
Headla: No, I think you covered it pretty well.
Emmings: How about the trees?
Headla: Didn't you cover that?
Emmings: No, I left them at 6 foot.
~iegel: I didn't say anything about the size of trees.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 39
-
Headla: I would like the City Council to look at the requirement of 6 foot
con i fer. In that area, if we couldn't reduce the size of that tree. In that
soil they are going to grow very fast anyway. I think it's just a tremendous
investment to ask him when I'm not sure how much benefit it is really going
to worth.
Noziska: Also, I really think we need to look at an elevation view of
anything of this size. I still think that is a huge complex to be approving
without taking a look at any elevation views.
Gary Brown: I'm confused when you talk about elevation views. Are you
talking about height of the buildings?
Noziska: Yes. Say we have somebody driving down the road here, what is he
going to see?
Gary Brown: Roofs with a 4/12 pitch.
Noziska: I caught that and it ends up being 15
with any large projects and this, 61,000 square
size project in total. Not the first phase but
these buildings, I think it's a big complex and
don't know why we don't have somethings of that
procedures on that.
4Itlsen: Again, we asked for elevations and this is
understand.
foot high at the peak but
feet, that's a pretty good
by the time you put up all
I think it's something that I
size, already some standards
what we got.
He didn't
Noziska: Oh, well elevation views Gary is as you're standing looking at the
building, what's it going to look like? What is the side of the building
look like? What does the complex look like?
Gary Brown: As that complex goes, it gradually tapers away.
Noziska: Yes, it follows the contours.
Gary Brown: It follows the contours. It can't follow any nicer than what it
is following it there.
Noziska: I just think that I may have a basic concept but I'm not sure that
everybody on the City Council and Planning Commission has a concept of what 5
acres of roofs look like. Why don't you get that for the City Council.
Olsen: We'll get that.
Conrad: My last footnote would be to ask the City Council if they would like
Planning Commission and Staff to review some of the ordinances as they apply
to the fringe district.
~mmings: I would like to go on record as basically agreeing with Bob's
~mments and none of Howard's.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 40
4Itite Plan Review for a 15,000 square foot office/warehouse building on
prope~zoned IO~Industrial Office Park and located on Lot 2, BloCk 1,
Chanhassen Lakes-BUsiness Park 4th AddItIOn;-Industrial-rnIOrmation Controls,
Applicant.
Conrad: Jo Ann, why does it say Industrial Information Controls is the
applicant there and in the Staff Report it says R.J. Ryan Construction. Are
they the same?
Olsen: No, the R.J. Ryan Construction is the applicant on the application
but the building is for I.I.C.. It is a site plan review for an office/
warehouse building. 15,808 square feet on 2.9 acres ajacent to the property
with Components Engineer in the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. The proposal
meets all the setbacks, the landscaping and parking requirements. It has two
phases they propose in the future and they both meet the impervious surface
requirement of 70% or under. The building has to be setback from the creek,
which is shown on this line, the building itself will be up into the hill
area where there is some mature vegetation and this is being requested to be
removed. As far as grading and erosion control, the basic erosion control,
the silt fences and hay bales will be required to minimize sedimentation
leaving the site into the creek and those erosion controls will have to be
maintained until the vegetation is restored. Drainage is being proposed to
be piped through a 12 inch storm pipe into the creek. Staff has some
problems with that in that we're concerned with direct piping into the creek.
.t will be f low i n g f r om the 0 v e rIa n d be for e i t doe s en t e r t he pip e but we
ould prefer that some of the drainage be directed to Park Drive where there
are some existing storm sewers and culverts and it will direct the water into
the pond area which then goes back through to another pond ing area and then
into the creek. Again, it would not allow it to feed directly into the
creek. The Watershed District also did not approve of the pipe going as it
is proposed. They talked about having a sedimentation basin at the base of
that pipe. The City Staff would prefer that at least half of the drainage be
directed to the street. With Component Engineering to the north, when we
when through the site plan for Component Engineering it was understood that
Component Engineering site does drain into this proposed site and that we
would have to work with that drainage when this site came through. Right
now, on-site there is a ditch that Component Engineering has dug in the site
allowing the drainage from their parking area into the site which then goes
into the creek. This is not acceptable because it runs right through the
future parking area and future building and parking area of the proposed
site. It was meant to maintain an easement and the applicant is not willing
to do that obviously so what is being provided is a 10 foot easement along
the western and southern borders where it will allow the drainage from
Component Engineering to go along, to have an easement along there and then
go into the creek area. The Watershed District maintains a 200 foot
greenspace around the creek and normally that is 100 feet on either side of
the center line. Again, the applicant can not meet that because of the size
of the property. They must get a variance from the Watershed District. The
Watershed District has reviewed this on March 4th and gave it preliminary
~proval if they could receive deed restrictions on the City's outlot and
~en on Day-Co Concrete which is just to the south. The applicant is
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 41
~UrSUing those and should receive the variance the watershed District. If
the pipe is installed for drainage, also they must receive a permit from the
DNR. Staff is recommending approval for the site plan with the following
conditions:
1. The applicant submit a plan showing existing vegetation which will
be removed and that has been provided.
2. The applicant shall provide one tree per 40 feet along the north
property line.
3. The applicant shall provide an acceptable grading plan to
accommodate drainage from the Component Engineering site to the
north.
4. The applicant shall provide revised site grades to force the
easterly half of the site drainage to flow to Park Drive thus
eliminating the 12 inch storm pipe and maximize the sediment
removal/erosion control for the site. The westerly half of the site
shall be graded to allow "sheet" flow into the creek setback.
5. The applicant shall provide an acceptable erosion control plan for
the site.
e
6.
The applicant shall install erosion control measures prior to
initiating construction; to be maintained throughout construction
until the landscaping/vegetative cover has been restored.
7. The applicant shall provide all necessary drainage and utility
easements.
8. The applicant must receive permits from the DNR and watershed
District.
Jack Rogers from R.J. Ryan: The only thing I have, I'm not really not
involved in it. Another guy from our office has been involved since the
conception of the development of the plans but he is on vacation this week
and I arranged for a guy from Industrial Controls to be here and he bailed
out at the last minute so I got educated here the last hour on the City of
Chanhassen. I guess I have a question about, we have vegetation shown on the
plan, the property line with trees, grading plans to accommodate drainge from
Component Engineering, I think that takes care of it with that easement
across there. The only one I have a question on is 4 where they are asking
to send the water out into the street. I've never really dealt with the City
of Chanhassen before but most cities kind of go the opposite way. You're
dealing with an awful steep hill coming down off of TH 5 and you've got water
coming from Court there, I think you've got an awful lot of water coming down
off that hill as it is. What we're trying to do is avoid sending more water
~ut there. Most cities appreciate when you try to maintain the water in your
..,arking lot through storm sewer, through catch basin and I think that's kind
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 42
~f what we were trying to do. Here this other guy here with his curbs and
you get one thin sheet flowing off putting erosion. I think that's what
we're trying to do here with this catch basin. We've got an awful lot of
rip-rap that we're going to put down at the botton and I think that's going
to take care of an awful lot of erosion that may happen before it gets to the
creek. It eventually is going to end up there. I think conceptually if you
want it go around and go through your holding pond or whatever you've got
down there, it sounds like an awful lot of work. I think with this catch
basin and that hill, it's an awful steep site out there. You're going to
have natural flowage down that way anyway and I think with that curb on that
south line, will help pool it together and bring it into this 12 inch catch
basin and send it down there. I think we work an awful lot with site plans
and I think aesthetically that is probably our best bet.
Headla: What is going in your warehouse?
Jack Rogers: What they do is manufacture computers for building machines and
remote control things where they can set the building's computers for
automated machines and that kind of thing. Basically they are computer
assembly on a small basis.
Headla: Are they going to store any chemicals at all?
Jack Rogers: No. No chemicals at all.
4Iteadla: How are they going to clean up their computer equipment.
Jack Rogers: I don't know that they have any cleaning to take care of. They
put together small computers and I don't know what kind of chemicals they
use. In discussion with the president of the company today, he said we
absolutely have no chemicals on the site whatsoever. I think it is my
understanding that these parts come in new and I don't know what kind of
cleaning they can get into.
Headla: If you're going to do any of that work at all, you're going to have
touch-up on the boards. They're going to use chemicals like TFP or something
to clean the boards.
Jack Rogers: I don't know that they do any of the circui t assembly. I guess
I can't answer that for you other than I'm basing my statement on what,
because I specifically asked him that because I figured you would ask me
that. I said do you store any or use any hazardous chemicals on site and he
said absolutely not.
Headla: So in the plan here where the tech area I think it is. Is that
where they will do the assembly?
Jack Rogers: Correct.
tjeadla:
What goes in the storage area?
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 43
~ack Rogers: I think that's just storage for parts, finished products,
unassembled parts. They are going to have some rack storage back there that
we will take a look at later as to what kind of racks there are. There is a
sprinkling system for the building. Depending on what they store back there,
if they have some racks, then we'll have to look into getting rack sprinkling
and that kind of stuff depending on what they're going to store. I don't
know if it's all been determined yet.
Headla: They must be looking at a lot of expansion there because this
storage area is way out of proportion.
Jack Rogers:
people.
Yes, they are a relatively small company now and they employ 30
Headla: Are they going to have any type of incerator in the plant?
Jack Rogers: No.
Headla: We have a lot of other requirements as they go along to put up
barricades and stuff, who monitors that kind of thing? Do our inspectors go
out there periodically to check on progress?
Olsen: On the erosion control?
eeadla: Yes.
Olsen: Yes, in fact we're confirming exactly who will be taking control of
that but the engineering department has control right now over the monitoring
of erosion control. The engineering tech will go out and monitor but the
building inspectors are who are actually out there on a day to day basis.
Headla: That's other run-off. Are they aware of what they proposed already
and somewhat of a holding area at the outlet of the 12 inch pipe? The
outflow of the 12 inch pipe and they are going to rip-rap that pretty
heavily.
Olsen: They are aware of that. They still are concerned with it being
outletted so near the creek and the impact it will have on the creek.
Noziska: Doesn't it eventually end up there?
Olsen: It ends up in the creek but it's faster. If it goes out to the
street, in this case we do want it to go out to the street because it has the
catch basins which directs it into the holding pond which takes it back over
to the catch basin here where the creek bed continues versus it going
directly into the creek.
Jack Rogers: You keep that thing far back away from the creek as proposed,
aren't you alleviating, taking away from some of the property. If you run it
~ut to the street though, that's an awful steep hill there, aren't you just
..,oing to be adding to the problem? If you run that water out there, you're
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 44
e ., f h .
Just gOIng to Increase the flow 0 t at thIng that much more.
Olsen:
It directs it to a holding pond.
Jack Rogers: Like I said I haven't been involved with the site plan but I
think in order to do that you would have to put that building pad up an awful
lot.
Olsen: We figured you're already up a foot higher.
Jack Rogers: From the street?
Olsen: From your elevations...
Jack Rogers: You're up 4 feet from the street, you're up a long ways already
and in order to pitch the parking lot to drain to the street, you're talking
about that much more in for fill. We've got an awful lot going in already.
Your draining isn't that great in there anyway. You're talking about 1% to
2% grades.
Olsen: In going over it with the engineer, it wasn't going up that much.
You already were up a foot or two.
Jack Rogers: You also want to get into the ponding area. I'm just looking
.t it, I'm concerned. We run into this all the time with cities and ideally
or us it would be to alleviate the storm sewer and curbing, and we would
just as soon dump them out in the street but cities normally say catch basins
in the street are not for private use for the company. They are to handle
their own water.
Conrad: Just to respond, we're real concerned wi th erosion. We're real
concerned with pollution. I guess I'm going to go along with Staff Report
unless you can persuade the engineering group that you have a better way.
From what I saw Staff telling me, their recommendation makes a lot of sense
to me. Whether we use the stre~ts or not as a method of getting the water to
settling basins and whatever but if you do have a better way of doing it that
is going to eliminate some of the pOllution and run-off and whatever that
we're very concerned with out here, then I'm sure they are going to listen to
you but if it's not better, it's going to stay as is.
Emmings: Do they have to get a Watershed District to have that discharged
that way?
Olsen: And the DNR.
Emmings: And the DNR both? Okay. Again, it's one of those technical issues
that we can't really resolve. We can talk about it all night and we'll never
reso 1 ve wha t' s got to be bet ween them and the eng i neer s and the DNR and the
Watershed so I think we should ignore it. As you come up to Chanhassen,
.sually we have them put all the water in the streets. We try not to be like
..,ther cities. We're making an exception in your case. You only have to put
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 45
--
half your water in the street.
Jack Rogers: We took Component Engineering all the way through this. That
was our design through our office and everything else and at the last minute
it was pulled out from under us but we're real familiar with that are out
there.
Conrad: Jo Ann, under miscellaneous it says the proposal has impervious
surface with 100 foot setback must receive a variance. Why do we need a
variance? Why do we need impervious surface within 100 feet?
Olsen: It's not your variance. It's the Watershed District. They maintain
a 100 foot setback from the center line of the creek. That's just to provide
the greenspace to protect the creek.
Conrad: So it is their variance. Can't we make the design so it is 100 feet
between that and Purgatory Creek? What is it that, it's a variance that they
grant but I think we have some control on that don't we? Can't we require
design that says we don't want that variance?
Olsen:
Sure you could.
Conrad: But I don't know what it is right now. What is the variance that
would have to be required?
_lsen: It's the Watershed District's variance and the City will not approve
of it. One of the conditions of that variance is that we have to a deed
restriction on that outlot. If we say no, forget it, then they won't have a
guarantee 200 foot greenspace. What they're doing is saying they need 100 on
either side or if they have 75 on one side then we need to get 125 to
compensate on the other side. You can state that you're not in favor of a
variance but technically it's the Watershed District's variance. You're not
granting a variance because they are meeting all of the City's requirements.
Conrad: What is it though?
it for 1,000 feet?
Is it for a few feet that they don't have?
Is
Olsen: No.
It's shown in that shaded area.
Conrad: Basically it's driveway coming in.
Olsen: Portions of the driveway and the dock area are within the 100 foot.
The creek center line curves up and down, that's why a curvy line is shown on
the plan but the shaded area which is within that 100 foot setback.
Conrad: So by the time this gets to City Council, they could not approve
this unless they know whether the Watershed District grants the variance or
not.
_01 sen :
They have conditioned approval.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 46
e
Jack Rogers: We've already been to the Watershed and they have given
conditional approval as long as we get the variance from Day-Co Concrete
which he has given tentative approval but he is working with the owner on
cash to bring back here and give Day-Co the concrete work. They are working
it out amongst themselves. They will get that straighten out in a month or
so.
Siegel moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of site plan #87-1 as shown on site plan dated February 18,1987 with the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide one tree per 40 feet along the north
property line.
2. The applicant shall provide an acceptable grading plan to
accommodate drainage from the Component Engineering site to the
north.
3. The applicant shall provide revised site grades to force the
easterly half of the site drainage to flow to Park Drive thus
eliminating the 12-inch storm pipe and maximize the sediment
removal/erosion control for the site. The westerly half of the site
shall be graded to allow "sheet" flow into the creek setback.
e
4.
The applicant shall provide an acceptable erosion control plan for
the site.
5. The applicant shall install erosion control measures prior to
initiating construction; to be maintained throughout construction
until the landscaping/vegetative cover has been restored.
6. The applicant shall provide all necessary drainage and utility
easements.
7. The applicant must receive permits from the DNR and the Watershed
District.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
TH 212 CORRIDOR - DISCUSSION.
Dacy: The first item I would like to talk about is the TH 212 Corridor and
we talked a little bit about that last week but as you recall, you reviewed
your goals and objectives for 1987 and you sent it to the Council for review
and one of their specific comments was that the Planning Commission get
involved in the TH 212 alignment process so this is to initiate this prooess.
What I'm going to present is just a series of facts and maybe solicit a
little bit of reaction but nothing at this point and then at the end of my
~omments we can talk a little bit about the process. So far, at the end of
..,anuary I had a meeting with the property owners along the northerly
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 47
e
alignment here which has been stated on records as a preferred alignment by
Chanhassen since early 1980. We conducted a meeting and everybody shows up.
It was a well attended meeting and they asked very good and logical
questions. Why not the southerly alignment that goes along the railroad
tracks and into Chanhassen along pioneer Trail? When was this all approved?
Who approved it? Who was on the Council then? Very valid questions because
since that time, at that time we weren't considering a TH 101 interchange and
that was as a result of the Benshoof traffic study and that leads into a
whole different series of implications for what happens there. I think it
was last Fall, when we began the Land Use chapter review, and you said Staff
come back with some land use alternatives in this TH 212 area. Basic facts on
the need for the corridor. One is that the southwest area, like every other
metropolitan area in the State and nation, no longer are metropolitan areas
developing that we have traffic going from suburbs to central city. There is
more and more traffic going between suburbs. In our case I think that is
especially true with Eden prairie. We may have one employee for every person
that lives in Eden prairie so there is a significant amount of traffic that
goes on TH 5 and existing TH 169 and TH 7 and I think we can all agree that
our existing transportation system is burdened.
Emmings: What did you just say? You said there is one employee?
Dacy: For every person that lives in Eden prairie.
~mmings: I don't know what that means.
Dacy: That means if Eden Prairie's population is 35,000 people in 1987, they
have 35,000 employees that come into the City of Eden Prairie.
Headla:
35,000 working people.
Dacy: Right and that's amazing. They've got Eden prairie Shopping Center,
those offices along 18 and so on. It's an astounding number and the other
reason for the need for the corridor is TH 212 is a significant farm to
market route. It carries all the way into western Minnesota so it provides a
function there as well. I guess from reviewing the files, there were
originally seven alignments or I think it was even up to nine at one point
and this whole discussion began in the late 1950's. It came down to two. I'm
trying to summarize 30 years of history as much as I can. As it effects
Chanhassen is what has come to be known as the northerly route which
traverses between Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Riley and the southerly route
which comes down the railroad tracks in Eden prairie along pioneer Trail and
then into Chaska, south and on out to Norwood and Cologne. I spent the last
two weeks reading Minutes and going through files. It seems that the primary
reason why Chanhassen selected the northerly route was to not sever the West
96th Street neighborhood along pioneer Trail, provide immediate access with
the Business Park because there was a proposed interchange at the extension
of Powers Blvd. and they located it north in this alignment here because
there is a little area of hobby farms in there so they wanted to avoid
4Itdisrupting with that neighborhood too on the north side of Lyman Blvd..
So
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 48
e
the question coming back from these people is, you've got a railroad going
through Eden prairie that seems to be a logical place to put a freeway
because you have existing right-of-way and you try to combine those two types
of uses. I guess at this point, the primary problem with that is this City
has been planning for the northerly alignment. Chanhassen Hills, which is
the subdivision south of Lake Susan, we worked with the developers so they
did preserve the right-of-way. We just approved the Gagne subdivision, the
pioneer Hills Subdivision is in there, that all adds to the acquisition cost.
So the issue that is going to come back to the commission is, there is going
to be a serious request I think for Chanhassen to reopen the issue and look
at the southerly alignment. The Corridor Coalition meetings that I attend, I
hear comments from Met Council all the time. Well, you know there was this
window of opportunity in 1982 and 1983 to get the official map done and it
wasn't consummated by the communities because they couldn't agree on the
alignment so the frustration works both ways. The issue that is going to
come back to the Commission again is to reopen that whole issue and there is
going to be significant amount of talk about the impact of this TH un
interchange. What it does to the neighborhood around it and whether or not
it is absolutely necessary to provide access to the downtown. Our traffic
study that was done said that this is essential to provide needed access to
the downtown and to relieve the whole traffic movement along the corridor.
If it is just left at the interchange of CR 17, I think it is fairly obvious
that traffic going either way, access into downtown Chanhassen is not served
properly. This serves a good function in that it serves the industrial park
~ut it does not provide some access to the downtown. The nearest interchange
.over is Dell Road in Eden prairie and that does not serve Chanhassen as well
so it's going to come down to another issue of how supportive the community
is about serving or providing access for downtown. If the southerly
alignment is chosen, I think it is easy to see that there is no access to
Chanhassen.
Emmings: Was there some official action taken by the City to approve the
northerly alignment?
Dacy: They stated at a citizen advisory committees their preference.
Council members in the minutes have gone on record as saying that the City of
Chanhasen perfers the northerly alignment and we have issued resolutions to
that effect.
Emmings: And why would we reopen that issue now?
Dacy: Because I think the people along the corridor feel that it should be
on the southerly alignment and the people along the southerly alignment feel
it should be along the northerly alignment.
Emmings:
I'll repeat my question. Why would we reopen the issue now?
Noziska: We'll make the same pick allover again won't we?
~acy: Exactly. All I'm saying is that the issue is going to come back and
~hat the Commission and Council need to be prepared for it.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 49
e
Emmings: How is it going to come back?
Dacy: What I need to do is I'm going to schedule another meeting with people
on both corridors at the end of March and hopefully an objective of that
meeting will to be to come to some type of agreement with them that this
alignment should be pursued by the City. However, everyone has the right to
object and after that meeting I guess I would like to schedule a meeting
with the Planning Commission, hold a public hearing so the people can come in
and state their objections to one or the other and have the Commission review
the alignment and state their position and a recommendation on it.
Emmings: Was there ever a public hearing held on the alignments?
Dacy: Yes. There were a number held at Chanhassen City Hall and then they
had open houses at various points along the corridor but again, they were
held in 1979, 1980. We've had some turnover especially with this little
subdivision here that was approved in the last three year time period.
Conrad:
sessions.
known.
They weren't public hearings, they were informational type of
It's not like this is the official time to make your comments
Siegel:
whatever
-conrad:
I think this is just normal. Anytime any highway goes through,
the case, you're going to have people who don't want it there.
But they could bring up some real valid things that we don't know.
Dacy: And they already have at the January meeting.
Conrad: If they bring up an environmental issue, we can't say we're going to
ignore it.
Siegel: But don't we already have an Environmental Impact on this?
Dacy: The EIS has to be conducted before any construction is approved and
the EIS will study this alignment, the southerly alignment, and I believe one
other alignment through Eden prairie. The EIS has to study the whole series
of alternatives.
Siegel:
Is that going to be available before the public hearing?
Dacy: No. The EIS takes three years to be completed. This approval process
is for a conceptual alignment. We're not going to be nailing down driveway
entrances here or the width of the frontage road. It's just a conceptual
approval so that the City can proceed to the point that we can develop what
is known as an official map through here that sets for example, a 400 foot
right-of-way and preserves that right-of-way until the EIS is completed.
What that official map does is prevent a development within that alignment.
~iegel: Is that the study that all the communities are cooperating with?
~30,000.00 from each community?
Planning commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 50
e
Dacy: That's to pay for the Environmental Impact Statement. That will cost
approximatley $320,000.00 and the counties and the cities are contributing
$30,000.00 each and MnDot and Met Council are picking up the rest. That's
only to conduct the EIS.
Siegel: What other things have come up that we should be on guard for?
Dacy: Great because that just leads into the next part which is, very good
comments that they came up with is that they are concerned about land uses
and this plays right into what the Commission was looking at during the Land
Use Plan Review. They are concerned about creeping commercialization. For
those of you who were around when the Sunnybrook development came on the
north side of Lake Susan, that was Lake Susan's concern right there. What
this map reflects is everything is yellow, this is the existing land use plan
that is approved out there right now. Everything in yellow is single family
development. This little orange piece is R-4, it's low to medium density
area. This is Lakeview Hills over here in the dark brown. The pink line is
the MUSA line. There is concern about what is going to happen around this
interchange. The City Staff's position is that it's outside the Urban
Service Area, no water, no sewer, no commercial or multiple family
development should occur outside the Urban Service Area. This area has to
develop under the 1 for 10 rule. Within the Urban Service Area, we've come
up with two alternatives and you could probably take off three or four. This
is what I would call the multiple family alternative where we reserve high
~ensity, Lyman Blvd. on the south, TH 212 on the north and west and TH 101 on
"'the east, which concentrates multiple family in that little triangle there
and provides a good buffer between the two highways that surround it on three
sides by minor arterials. On the opposite side, low to medium density
residential buffering up against the existing single family area keeping this
area east of TH 101 single family and shifting that R-4 area on the property
south of the proposed alignment. Then you can go to another alternative that
could be called the commercial alternative which Staff is not advocating
because I think it creates competition to the downtown area and is counter-
productive to what the whole intent of the downtown plan is. If we did have
a commercial zoning request, probably the best place to put it would be north
alignment, south of TH 212 and west of TH 101. Concentrate it there. There
is approximately 10 acres and then back it up with some multiple family.
Again, transition use back into the single family area. I think the
neighborhood is concerned about, commercial comes in here and then commercial
comes in here and then on the east side of TH 101 we have commercial and then
the Ward Estate will have commercial. From Staff's standpoint, we would not
recommend that but we felt that it should be discussed to a point where the
Commission and Council should at least be aware of it. I can't ask you to
respond to this on such a short time. These are the types of alternatives
that we are going to show homeowners to say, pick one. State what you would
like the Commission and Council to consider. We want single family. We want
multiple family in these areas. We don't want commercial or we do want
commercial. State those types of preferences that we can present to the
Council and Commission.
~eadla: Why didn't you look at having that interchange?
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 51
e
Dacy: That might happen. We're still working with Met Council and Eden
prairie. Along the corridor there are four interchanges. One at CR 4 in Eden
prairie, one at Dell Road, one at TH 101 and one at CR 17. Met Council comes
back and says, you've got to have a mile separation between all of them which
we do but we're not convinced by the traffic flows along TH 212 that four
interchanges, especially in a corridor of an urban service area and a rural
service area, is justified. What we're trying to do is eventually we will
need all of those four interchanges and we're working with Eden prairie to
try and phase in the interchanges. Maybe do CR 4 and TH 101 first and then
as need justifies, add CR 17 and the one at Dell Road. We don't want to be
handling a lot of industrial traffic through TH 101 to get to the Business
Park so we're looking at different sets. CR 17 and TH 101 and CR 4, you
could just do a number of pairs with the interchanges but so far it has been
the Housing and Redevelopment Authority's position to advocate an interchange
at TH 101 to provide access to the downtown.
Headla: Who is that?
Dacy: Housing and Redevelopment Authority. They are in charge of
redevelopment of the downtown area.
Headla: They are strictly Chanhassen?
Dacy: Right. That's going to be the issue. The people from Lake Susan are
~aying I don't want all of that traffic dumped off in my front yard. A very
~ogical and acceptable point of view so what that forces us to do thankfully
is look at straightening out TH 101 right now and getting the ball rolling to
eliminate that snake and create a private frontage road for those people so
they don't have to deal with that. Analyzing the corridor now I think it is
very important because we get to look at these types of issues of
straightening TH 101 out which has long been a thorn in everybody's side.
So that's it for the TH 212.
Siegel: You're not looking at any alternatives south? For those people who
are going to be concerned about pushing it south? pushing TH 212 south.
Dacy: As far as land use?
Siegel: Yes. As far as what do we do?
Noziska:
I don't think that's an option, do you?
Dacy: He's got a point in that we might want to show it to see what it would
look like because we would have to provide some type of interchange here
which would affect the golf course, the creek, and the pioneer Trail Hills
subdivision and it would significantly affect Hesse Farm.
Siegel: I guess that's my point. If you're going to have a lot of people up
here who are not in favor of a northern route, you should have a map showing
~what a possible southern route would look like and the repercussions in the
~rea.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 52
e
Emmings: Can you get a mile separation between...
Dacy: Here and here? Probably not.
Emm ings:
stuff or
critical
would do
It would seem to me that the people that are doing the downtown
the traffic stuff, but that TH 101 exchange seemed to be just
to the viability of downtown Chanhassen and what would they say that
to push that far south?
Dacy: Number one, it would kill TH 5. It was on the report that even with
TH 212, TH 5 should be improved to 6 to 8 lanes because the flow through
volumes are that tremendous. Also, Eden prairie is coming back to Chanhassen
and saying that our volumes out towards 1-494 are so astronomical and they
are coming from the west someplace, why can't you look at diverting traffic
from TH 5 down into TH 212 somehow? So where do you do that? The only
option is the County is looking at realigning TH 41 to come down and
eventually intersect with TH 212 over in this location.
Noziska: With a new bridge across the river?
Dacy: Yes but that reroute is not going to occur at least past the year
2000.
Noziska:
-Siegel:
down to
Not in a million years if ever.
But they naturally go down CR 17. The real heavy traffic would go
TH 212 if they are coming in on TH 5 via CR 17 right?
Dacy: Yes. It's an indirect route down to TH 212 and it's a real question as
to how many people would use that indirect route to get on the interchange
here. Instead of going through three lights here and all the way down TH 5.
Emmings: Given all the planning that's occurred on the northern route so far
and all the prior approvals, is it really an open question? Today, could we
decide to do the southern route?
Dacy: If the City did decide on the southern route, it would, impact Eden
prairie to a certain degree in that they would have to relook at that
alignment through their community and I think the major impact of that is
that it would delay the process.
Emmings: If we have a public hearing, could it be arranged so it would just
be one night. One public hearing and then we pass it on. Take a vote and
pass it on?
Dacy: No problem.
So if you want to continue thinking about that.
Conrad: We're going to need to know more than we do right now on the
background. You covered it nicely, I wouldn't want anything further than
~hat ~ut I think we should have somewhat of a rationale behind the northerly
~ocatlon .
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 53
e
Emmings: And the history of prior discussions.
Dacy: And that's what I've been doing is putting together, there has been a
1980 Scoping Report, then I've got Minutes of all Citizen Advisory Committee
Meetings from 1979 to 1981. Resolutions. I can prepare a whole packet.
Conrad: But just remember, if you are a citizen and you found this coming
through your backyard, you will want to express your concerns and say look at
the alternatives and we're going to say well, you were informed but we've
been playing around with this for a long time and now they have a chance to
talk at a public hearing and we're going to say no, we're not going to pay
attention. That's a tough one.
Dacy: That's another purpose of this meeting at the end of March. We've got
their comments initially from January and the intent is to try and resolve
those to a certain point and understanding that we're never going to convince
everybody and at least make the process for them to come and attend and make
their feelings known. Maybe that's all we can do right now. So, did you
want me to continue on with the next issue on gravel versus private roads and
paved streets? You might have grappled with that already.
Conrad: Go ahead.
Dacy: I met with the Chairman and Tim Erhart about all the rural
~pplications that you're going to be seeing in the spring under the old 2 1/2
acre rule. We've got a number of applications that want to extend the policy
of allowing private gravel drives to extend to 4, 5 or 6 lots. We grappled
with that a little bit with the Mjolsnes' application down on Sunset Trail.
That was slightly different in that that was a public right-of-way. Since
1983 it has been kind of an informal policy that the Commission and Council
have been allowing three lots to be served by a private drive and just like
any other rule, the setback, whatever ordinance that you have, we will always
have requests for 4 or 5 or 10 feet instead of 5 feet so the purpose of this
was to confirm original positions or strike out and establish a new one. I
wanted to go through the pros and cons of private versus public. The pros
that we looked at for creating private drives is that it encouraged
clustering of lots. If you remember under our new 1 for 10 rule, if you have
40 acres and the Ordinance is now written that you can four 2 1/2 acre lots
or they can be subdivided by address. We have one access point and it's
clustered all in one area and the rest is reserved for future subdivision
whenever sewer gets out there. Those are the two major pros. Clustering and
we have one access point. It also gives the landowner somewhat of a break on
economics. He doesn't have to pay for the road construction but that leads
into the cons a little bit. What are the problems that can arise out of this
situation? Eventually we could be having a number of these private drive
situations all around the City and I tried to mark up some initial ones.
Those little orange lines that you see are private drives. So far what we've
seen, especially in the Halla Nursery case, is that private easements can
cause problems for the City in the future. You get different lot owners in
~there. When one person wants to subdivide, the other one doesn't want to
~gree to a street improvement because now you've created another lot and you
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 54
e
have to pave the street and they say, no I don't want to get assessed. Then
there are maintenance problems. The owners are going to have to agree as to
who plows it? Who keeps the gravel in fairly decent shape and how the
drainage acts and so on. So those are the primary cons in that these private
drives may become more of nuisance. Basically because people come up to the
City and say can't you guys do anything. I want my road improved but my
neighbor doesn't want it and you've got plenty of examples in the urban area
on that. In trying to respond to that, we had Gary come up with sections for
rural private drives which is basically everything that we now require, 60
feet of right-of-way, appropriate lawn and sub-base, ditch sections on either
side with only using classified gravel instead of bituminous surface. This
is a paved section. Again, the only difference is the amount of slope on the
ditches and the surfacing. I guess the main complaint that we've been
getting, and I'm sure that you've heard already on the Mjolsnes application
is we can't afford to install the street now. We went back, and probably
should have done this six months ago but I went to the assessor's office and
said, okay what's the value of rural land out there right now? He says
anywhere between $2,000.00 to $3,000.00 an acre. What's the value of a
vacant lot in pioneer Hills, Lake Lucy Highlands, Hesse Farms and Hillside
Oaks? pioneer Hills down there on pioneer Trail, if it's a vacant lot with
no trees on it, it's worth $28,000.00 for a 2 1/2 acre lot. If there are oak
trees on it, it's value is increased to $32,000.00. At Hesse Farms, those
are 5 acre lots, a vacant lot is $50,000.00. Along the bluff or if it has
woods, it's value is increased to $100,000.00. Lake Lucy Highlands is very
A:;imilar. $20,000.00 to $30,000.00 vacant and those lake lots like Mr.
~ivkin's, that's worth $50,000.00. Ted Kooey's lot, on the north side of the
lake on Lake Lucy, each of his lots have a minimum value of $50,000.00 and
Lake Lucy Road at that time was gravel. Hillside Oaks on Powers Blvd., those
are a little bit larger, maybe 3 to 4 acres, that's $40,000.00. The cost to
construct a paved road section, depending on the grading necessary, is
anywhere between $4,000.00 to $9,000.00 per lot. So basically if we have a 2
1/2 acre lot at $3,000.00 that's worth $7,500.00 plus the cost of improving
the street, let's sayan additional $10,000.00 just to be more expensive,
that's $17,500.00 and they are going for at least $28,000.00 to $30,000.00
depending on if they are just a cornfield now or if they have woods. So I
think maybe the problem is the not so much I can't afford if as when I can
afford it. If we give the landowner time to sell the lots after the final
plat is approved. Give them maybe two years instead of what is now required
as one year, they have time to sell the lots and make go the mortgage banker
and say I have two or three lots and I've got purchase agreements on them,
I've got committed money, I need x amount of money to make a road improvement
and they are still realizing a significant profit on their land. The issue
back to the Commission then is whether or not we should continue the policy
of allowing private drive, gravel roads, for three lots? Should we extend it
to four lots? Should we go back and just require a public street with this
section paved by bituminous to City's standards or just not deal with the
issue at all and continue as is?
Conrad: You're saying they can afford it later on but I miss some logic that
4IFaYbe was or wasn't there.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 55
e
Dacy: Typically what they're saying is I don't have $40',0'0'0'.0'0' to make a
street improvement for lots. I just don't have that cash right now but if
they have some time to sell the lots and enter into purchase agreements, then
their chance for financing is 10'0'% enhanced when they walk into a banker and
say, I need to borrow some money to improve the road.
Conrad: But you're not saying putting in that asphalt will increase the
value of the property? It is still an impact to the developer.
Dacy: It will increase the value. I feel that because it's safe and
convenient access. It's done to typical residential standards. You don't
have to worry about potholes within one year. The drainage situation is
taken care of. It's a public street and is going to be maintained and you
don't have to fight with your adjacent property owner about who maintains it
and who's going to regravel it every year to make sure that's it's graded
properly.
Emmings: So the developer builds this public street and then the City takes
over the maintenance of it?
Dacy: Yes.
Conrad: What
yes, let's...
eDaCy: Do you
would you like tonight? You asked for our input. If we said
think it stinks? Should we continue on with the three lots?
Siegel:
this.
another
doesn't
to come
What about the timing Barbara? The legal implications of doing
We just had another case tonight and two weeks from now we have
one. Do we hold a public hearing and change the policy? And it
make any difference whether they assumed something when they decided
in with their application for a subdivision?
Dacy: On all those rural lot applications, we still tell them, it's been a
policy in the past but there is nothing to prevent Commission and Council
requiring the paved street. We do not tell them that it is for sure
that's it's going to be a private drive.
Siegel: I'm saying, we do something this month and then two months from now
we do something different and the guy says, but Mike Klingelhutz got his
developed and I have to pay $40',0'0'0'.0'0' more.
Dacy: I just had a call today. So and so got to submit their application
for 2 1/2 acres, why can't I? I said I'm sorry we had a deadline of January
15th. This is going to be the same situation. That's always going to
happen.
Siegel: I guess I'm saying this because we know that there are going to be a
lot of these coming up before us.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 56
e
Dacy: And that's exactly why the Chairman directed me to discuss it so that
you could be prepared for it.
Emmings: Is this a thing like the septic thing where eventually the road
gets so bad that the City has to go out and then spend money to fix it?
Dacy: It could in a sense in that if it got so bad that the property owners
could petition the city to make it a public street to improve it to City
standards but we would assess those costs back to the property owner. We
recover our costs through the assessments. We get the situation where you
have two property owners wanting it and two that don't so the City's from the
standpoint of always in that conflict situation.
Siegel: Why not require a Covenant on those subdivision that all agree to
it? After a given number of years anyway.
Dacy: That's a legal option that is worth exploring.
Siegel: Because it's the long term problems that exist isn't it? When it
goes for 5 to 10 years and the houses have changed hands and the new people
don't like the maintenance of the road and the old timers are sitting there
and saying, well, I'm not going to pay $5,000.00 to $10,000.00.
Dacy: Then we get the argument that I bought this to get away from urban
~ife and I like gravel roads and that's fine except the City has to establish
~ set policy. The intent for the discussion tonight is if you want to
reaffirm what we're currently doing now. If you feel the Mike Klingelhutz
sitiation is just fine, great. We just need to get reaffirmation but be
aware that next month or the month after that, you will get a request for
four or five or six and I just want to get the Commission thinking that if
you pick three, then we should cut off at three. Or if you pick two.
Emmings: Is there any reason from the standpoint of the number of trips on a
road that will give us any rational basis for doing it for three or four or
five?
Dacy: That's a good point. What we've been saying in the past is that three
has been the cut-off. Traffic engineers say that single family homes
generate 8 or 9 trips per day per home so you've got 30 trips on a driveway.
You just have to pick a cut-off point.
Emmings:
It's arbitrary.
Dacy: You cross to four and all of a sudden you've got a public street. You
could pick five.
Siegel: But the configuration of the lots could not be dependent on the
property. We might have three 5 acre lots in a row. Instead of like we had
tonight, two 2 1/2 acre and one 11 acre so the configuration thing wouldn't
~work. It would have to be on number of units. The road could be as long or
Wlonger with three than it is with five if you assume the cluster effect of
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 57
e
some pieces of property. The numbers really don't make any sense. We really
have to determine whether we're going to allow it or not or do it.
Conrad: Why do I care? Why do I want the City to take over more asphalt?
If I'm a taxpayer here, why should I want us to plow more roads, to fill more
potholes than I have to?
Dacy: That can be an argument for the pro for allowing private drives
because we've got 23 square miles and you're right, it's a lot of area to
maintain and it's going to cost more to send the trucks down there to plow
and maintain them and so on.
Conrad: Te 11 me when it ca tches up to me as a ta xpayer is wha t I wan t you to
say?
Dacy: It's always a balancing act. You could be approving 30 or 40 private
drives now and 20 years later, it all catches up to you by poor drainage
situation. A road is crumbling apart because of poor maintenance.
Conrad: And that will happen when those neighbors ask for that road to be
improved. They will be assessed for the improvement but three out of four
will ask for it and then we'll do it so inbetween when they finally get the
two out of three together and say we want, what happens? What is the
negative to us as a City?
eDaCy: A negative could be if there is poor maintenance, let's sayan
emergency occurs and a driveway isn't plowed, emergency vehicles can't get
there. Again, safe and convenient access. We know there is a public street
and we can get to public safety situation.
Conrad: Are we liable? If it's not one of our streets so we're not really
liable for not being able to get there.
Dacy: probably technically not but if you look at a moral obligation for the
city to provide health, safety and welfare for it's people, it could come
back and say, hey City Council why didn't you require public street so we
could get access? We could say it's a private street so it's not our problem
but I think it could come back and haunt the City in a negative way.
Emmings: Could the City require there to be a homeowners association that
has a responsibility for the private driveway and if it wasn't properly
maintained, sort of like we talked about with the septic systems, that the
City could come in and make the repairs and assess the homeowners
association?
Dacy: That's exactly what we're doing in Bluff Creek. Were you here then
when we approved the Bluff Creek golf course?
Emmings: Yes, I was here.
4Ibacy: The Covenants on that, that's exactly what happened. Remember you
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 58
e
approved the private street and it was to be maintained by the Homeowners
Association and we've done the exact same language in the Development
Contract. The situation here was that it was paved and it was built to City
standards.
Emmings: But now we've got a standard for the private drive and we could
enforce that standard.
Dacy: That's right. That's one of your options.
Emmings: I like that option.
Conrad: I like that option too.
Dacy: Leave the existing policy for homeowners?
Conrad:
either.
I don't know what says three or a number.
I don't know if I care
Siegel: The numbers don't mean anything.
Emmings: If they want a gravel road because it's charming to them, let them
do it. I don't care if there are 10.
_acy: I'll correct myself. It's four right now. Under the 1 per 10 we
allow two lots to be landlocked to be served by a private drive so under the
new Ordinance it's four.
Siegel: You would think there would be a covenant restriction so the
property owners along the private road would at least rule by majority of
making a decision one way or the other later on.
Ernrnings: If they have a homeowners association, would they...
Siegel: They don't have to have a homeowners association now.
Emmings: We could make them have one in the future and then just a simply
majority rules. If they all want or more than 50% want it, they petition the
City for it.
Siegel:
owner.
So some people aren't stymied for years because of one property
Conrad: I guess the only gap that I have is the number because I don't if
there were 100 people drive that, would we want 100 people driving on that
dirt road?
Dacy:
No, I think if you leave it to four, I think that's appropriate.
_conrad:
But give us some rationale for four?
Planning Commission Meeting
March 11, 1987 - Page 59
~acy: You've got to establish a cut-off.
Conrad: I know. We'll establish a cut-off but give us something that's
valid to establish it with.
Dacy: With every lot you throw on there, you're increasing maintenance
costs, you're increasing concern about safety access, you're increasing
traffic trips and so on on that road. You're raising that whole spector of
it only being maintained by a private entity separate from the public
employee. I can't recommend that you go any higher than four.
Conrad: Why don't you do this. Based on what Steve mentioned, why don't
you draft a proposed ordinance for us that we can react to and let us take a
shot at it along with rationale for it, including rationale for four. Do we
want Barbara do look at rationale for a different number?
Emmings: No, but Bob's point. Maybe if the length is shorter but there are
more, that wouldn't be as offensive as if it was 40 miles long and only four
people using it.
Dacy: Every 2 1/2 acre lot is going to be at least 200 feet wide. If you
have two on each side, that's 400 feet. Typically, in all the subdivision
manuals that they give you at planning school or in the planning magazine,
they say 500 to 1,000 feet is maximum for a typical cul-de-sac in low
density. In this case with Klingelhutz tonight, I think that was at least
~00 right there. You're right, a lot of configurations you could have 2,000
foot cul-de-sacs. Maximum length too.
Emmings: We ought to talk about length, I guess so but your number of lots
might be greater but as long as it stays short.
Dacy: I think at bare minimum it's going to be 400 feet because that's two 2
1/2 acre lots.
Conrad stated that he wanted to discuss wetlands at the next meeting and
invite Hank Sosin from the Environmental Protection Committee and have him
give the Planning Commission a brief overview of it's purpose and intent
background of the Wetland Ordinance and to invite the new City Council
members to that meeting. At that same time, he is going to initiate a little
bit of procedural review of how to handle wetland alterations. That's why he
wanted Hank Sosin present. He remember a great deal about the rationale for
that ordinance and to bounce some things off of him and City Council and
Planning Commissioners on who to execute what is in the Ordinance.
Dacy stated that the planning staff could go through and review what the
Staff does to review requests and their contacts with various agencies to see
if the Commission and Council wants any procedures changed.
Siegel moved, Emmings seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m..
~ubmitted by Barbara Dacy, City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim