6. Concept Plan General Business to be zoned PUD ITY 0 Pr DATE: 3/17/93 ICJ ,
,
CC DATE: 4/12/93
cllANBAtix
CASE #: 93 -1 PUD
By: Olsen/v
1 STAFF REPORT
1
PROPOSAL: Concept plan approval to allow property zoned BG, General Business to be
I rezoned to PUD, Planned Unit Development
I ""' Anion by City Administrator
Z w ' Q lr�dor��d�_ � A �
LOCATION: 7900 Monterey Drive - Chaska Machine and Tool, Inc. kic�i;;e''
Lots 3, 4 and 5, Burdick Park Reject:'
Da 4- 4 0 - y
I —j O. Bete Submitted to Commission
0.. Dees Subm tted to Council
1 Q APPLICANT: Doug Hanson 4_ r Z-
17001 Stodola Road
Minnetonka, MN 55345
1
1 PRESENT ZONING: BG, General Business
1 ACREAGE: 95,394 square feet
1 DENSITY: n/a
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N - BG, vacant
1 Q s_ Highway 5
E - BG, Market Square /City owned outlot
W - PUD, Target
W WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site has an existing light manufacturing building with parking
(/) lot improvements, landscaping and utilities.
1
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial
1
1
^V► ." U ty 1'1'3 \ - , 711�I►
� � ;' ♦ !'�!iRl� � Q LOTUS \; -- - 6900 _
Y t ' ' ' -- \ 71 ' " .,,..,.
It ;r r ; l t�` % T 'mil + r �� -Ii 7000
.. \,\ to 1 -: i_ f-,-- i } r ! j
v
la / Nir ? tr. I- t y , \ v 7 , - , - ---1 " _..-- II 7200
r -.• E'' _. !,. ` L A KE �^ �i 7 WINMAPLE LANE
* .) ' d i .-,,' ,,,> Li ,' ,r ; r � ,> i - —7300 •
,_. -- P
�1_L t -• ,. I BASSWOOD CIRCLE
i 0 i T •
, $ Vr Vitt- . ealii,,r13 - •;.,, _ --. co
— HAS S , i .1.70, Iii ii . , -4 c s.,, a np • g \ k _ 0 .-
I 1 c\ --.1 • 7 ' , ___-:T_NLI r . i 14,--.),;.46- , ,
I___,
,_ : . Ea • es Ept,„., „iir . , ,,
1 or - . c. _ . Tit ri, !---- 7 :7 *\- I f fo li°1--g-7 - - -"Y
g or: 41 MIMI I 41:fX
I o I 111111 III _ 'q?" sT —
INICB • • OOP% k
_.......-----_,,..---r B H - AK t- _Li
.% 1 . L .
II . /� •T 5 t ► _ AKE DR 2
till • 5-4_, I a0. ,� -
RR * • ` ,---"\ $ ti fir HA ETSS N I
`�\ �' ��- r7 tiNE YES
it k, • \ 1 wr W � firSZI
P A RK
A \ o / :•+ / ° '' 0.31 j am .� ' : E 1P , *, - aC (
.-,-,, - / , . I��� � > ► .. S; • 8100
,.. 1 , , , \ un • vie R /CE - - -8200
,. "�, F MARSH : .
- pallin40 lit LAKE - -_ _ 11 , I SINNEN PARK - -' , - 830Q
�- CIRCLE
LAKE
SUSAN ! 8 UD--R
1 R . i b -1 ♦ ' o \� I R /CE • Ar SH LAKE ,,
. ________ . E.. ---'
, . , „ivy „pg.:, , , / 7 _ .. rtr, _
1
West One Expansion
Chaska Machine
March 17, 1993
Page 2
1
BACKGROUND
On April 16, 1973 the subject site was zoned I -1, Industrial. On June 12, 1978, the City Council
approved a site plan for a Office/Warehouse /Manufacturing facility on Lots 4 and 5, Burdick
Park. The site plan was approved with conditions and a variance to setback requirements (see
attachment #1). The site was developed meeting the original conditions of approval.
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY 1
The applicant, Doug Hanson, was involved in the initial development of the subject site and has
requested approval to expand the building onto Lot 3, Burdick Park. Chaska Machine and Tool,
1
Inc., which is a light manufacturing facility with an employment base of 40 (30 during the day
shift and 10 during the evening shift) occupies the building. The shifts are from 6:30 a.m. - 4:30
p.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 3:30 a.m. The business is a metal stamping facility and the loading
1
dock/truck activity is minimal and only used during the day. The zoning of the property has
been changed, since the previous approval, from I -1, Industrial to BG, General Business. The
BG, General Business District does not permit industrial uses such as manufacturing. Therefore,
the existing use is now non - conforming and cannot be expanded.
There is one more lot left vacant adjacent and to the south of the existing building (Lot 3, 1
Burdick Park). This parcel is owned by the Chanhassen HRA. The existing building and Lot
3 are located at the end of Monterey, between Market Square and Target/City owned outlot .
The site is bordered to the south by Highway 5 right -of -way. Staff visited the site to determine
how the existing use fit in with the newly developed properties adjacent to it and to determine
if the site was suitable for commercial and therefore, should be maintained as commercial. The
remaining lot (Lot 3) is less than an acre in size, is not easily seen from West 78th Street (where
it would receive access) or Highway 5 and abuts the rear parking lot and outdoor storage area
of Market Square. With these circumstances, staff did not feel that a new user would find this
site to be appropriate for a commercial use. Also, staff felt that the existing facility was low
level industrial and has proven to be compatible with the surrounding property and uses.
The only options the applicant has to expand the site is to rezone the property to IOP, Industrial
Office Park or PUD, Planned Unit Development. Staff did not feel rezoning the site to IOP,
Industrial Office Park was appropriate. We did not wish to open the site up to any industrial use.
Instead we recommended the applicant apply for rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development.
This will allow the proposed expansion to the facility and also allow the city to maintain control
on the improvements and uses. The comprehensive plan designates this property as commercial. 1
The comprehensive plan will have to be amended as part of the application process to designate
the subject site as industrial. The first step in this process is the concept plan approval. The
concept plan allows the applicant to receive direction from the Planning Commission and City
Council as to whether they will approve the proposed rezoning.
1
1
West One Expansion
Chaska Machine
March 17, 1993
' Page 3
PUD
' The City Code requires the PUD to only be used for the use for which the site is designated in
the Comprehensive Plan. As stated above, the property is designated as commercial, and if the
PUD is to be approved, the Comprehensive Plan will have to be amended to designate the site
as industrial. The City Code requires a minimum area of five (5) acres for a PUD unless the
applicant can demonstrate unique physical features of the site. There is no way for the site to
contain five acres as it is abutted by Highway 5, Pica Drive, city property and Market Square.
The site is also located adjacent to the Target PUD. For these reasons, we believe it is
reasonable to waive the 5 acre standard as allowed by the ordinance.
' The current buildin g is 19,980 square feet and is located on two lots (Lots 4 and 5, Burdick
Park). The total area of the two lots is 61,158 square feet. The building is one story and is
made of square block with canopies over the entrances. There is parking located at the front and
rear of the building. There is no setback for the parking to the rear of the building. This was
' permitted with a variance in 1978. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing building
by 12,735 square feet with a future expansion of 5,400 square feet. The use of the building and
expansion will remain the same, which is Chaska Machine and Tool - light manufacturing. The
' expansion of the building will be of the same material, color and architectural design as the
existing building. There are a total of 65 parking stalls which could be provided.
' Typically with a PUD, the city would require higher quality architectural design than what exists
and is being proposed. Since the desire with this situation is to have the expansion match the
existing building, staff would agree to the proposed architectural design. The applicant is
' providing for 65 parking spaces. The City Code would only require 43 parking spaces (including
one for a company vehicle). Therefore, 65 parking spaces are not necessary and the applicant
can remove some of the parking area and replace it with landscaped open space. Some of the
proposed parking is an extension of existing parking at the rear of the building. The applicant
is proposing to continue to have this parking adjacent to the westerly lot line with no setback.
This area abuts open space that has existing vegetation and which will never be developed. Staff
would prefer to keep the parking in this area rather than add parking to the front of the building.
Therefore, staff does not object to keeping the zero setback for the rear parking. The hard surface
coverage has not yet been calculated, but it cannot exceed 70 %. The landscaping plan will
have to show existing and proposed vegetation and shall meet the new landscaping regulations.
Outdoor storage will not be permitted.
RECOMMENDATION
Rezoning the property to PUD will allow the expansion of the existing use which has proven to
be compatible to the site and surrounding uses. The rezoning will also allow the business to
remain in the city and the development of a lot which might otherwise remain vacant if it
1
1
West One Expansion
Chaska Machine
March 17, 1993
Page 4 1
remains zoned commercial. A PUD allows the city more control over the development of the
site, such as improved landscaping and site specific conditions (i.e. no outdoor storage). If the
site remains as is, it is non - conforming and the city has less control over the site. Since this is
only concept plan approval, staff will be recommending general conditions. More detailed review
of specific plans (i.e. utilities, grading, landscaping, etc.) will take place at the next phase of
approval.
Planning Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the concept plan
request to rezone Lots 3, 4 and 5, Burdick Park from BG, General Business to PUD, Planned
Unit Development with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall receive and meet the conditions of the following approvals:
PP g PP
a. Preliminary and Final Plat approval combining Lots 3, 4 and 5, Burdick Park into
1
one lot with appropriate easements.
b. Comprehensive Plan amendment changing the land use designation from
Commercial to Industrial.
c. Site Plan approval for the building expansion. 1
d. Rezoning approval from BG, General Business to PUD, Planned Unit
Development.
2. The site plan shall have to maintain the proposed concept plan, with the proposal being
an expansion of the existing building for use by the existing use, light manufacturing.
A higher intensity industrial use will not be permitted at this site.
3. The expansion of the building shall match the architectural design of the existing building.
4. There shall be no outdoor storage permitted. 1
5. All rooftop equipment shall be screened.
6. The hard cover surface of the site (the three lots) shall not exceed 70 %.
MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
Which came first- -the chicken or the egg? In this case, staff decided that the Planning
Commission's thoughts and concerns should be obtained before asking the HRA if they want to
sell their land. Given the battles which occurred in attempting to move Hanus, Hendrickson Dry
1
1
West One Expansion
Chaska Machine
March 17, 1993
' Page 5
Wall, Instant Web, FMS, etc., out of downtown; I must admit that an expansion of an industrial
user is of concern. Paul advises me that those concerns can be alleviated through the PUD
contract.
' PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the concept plan request to
rezone Lots 3, 4 and 5, Burdick Park from BG, General Business to PUD, Planned Unit
Development with staff's recommended conditions and adding the following:
' 7. Prior to rezoning and development, the applicant shall purchase the property in question
from the HRA.
8. Transit planning shall be incorporated into this development.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council approve the concept plan request to rezone Lots 3, 4 and 5,
Burdick Park from BG, General Business to PUD, Planned Unit Development with the following
' conditions:
' 1. The applicant shall receive and meet the conditions of the following approvals:
a. Preliminary and Final Plat approval combining Lots 3, 4 and 5, Burdick Park into
' one lot with appropriate easements.
b. Comprehensive Plan amendment changing the land use designation from
Commercial to Industrial.
c. Site Plan approval for the building expansion.
d. Rezoning approval from BG, General Business to PUD, Planned Unit
Development.
2. The site plan shall have to maintain the proposed concept plan, with the proposal being
an expansion of the existing building for use by the existing use, light manufacturing.
A higher intensity industrial use will not be permitted at this site.
3. The expansion of the building shall match the architectural design of the existing building.
4. There shall be no outdoor storage permitted.
1
I .
West One Expansion
Chaska Machine
March 17, 1993
Page 6 1
5. All rooftop equipment shall be screened.
6. The hard cover surface of the site (the three lots) shall not exceed 70 %. 111
7. Prior to rezoning and development, the applicant shall purchase the property in question 1
from the HRA.
8. Transit planning shall be incorporated into this development. 1
ATTACHMENTS
1. Variance Contract for building. I
2. Staff report dated May 7, 1979.
3. Planning Commission minutes dated March 17, 1993.
I
4. Concept plan.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
' HANSEN & KLINGELHUTZ CONSTRUCTION, INC.
VARIANCE CONTRACT
FOR BUILDING AT
BUILDING AT PICHA DRIVE AND MANDAN DRIVE
WHEREAS, application has been made by Hansen & Klingelhutz
' Construction, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, as the developer of a
tract of land lying within the City of Chanhassen, and more particularly
described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
by West I Properties, a partnership consisting of Jeffery E. Swedlund,
Roxanne Swedlund, Douglas M. Hansen, Beverly J. Hansen, Thomas A.
Klingelhutz, Catherine M. Klingelhutz, and Robert O. Nyen, as the
proposed owner and operating entity of a 19,000 square foot combina-
tion office /warehouse /light manufacturing building, hereinafter
referred to as The Building ", to be constructed upon the above
described tract of land. (Said corporation and said partnership are
hereinafter referred to collectively as "The Applicants "); and
WHEREAS, the subject property is presently zoned I -1,
Industrial District; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have requested certain variances
from the literal provisions of applicable Chanhassen Ordinances; and
1 WHEREAS, §462.357, Subd. 6 of Minnesota Statutes, and 522.02
of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance authorize the Chanhassen City
1 Council to impose conditions upon the granting of such variances to
insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Chanhassen Board of
' Adjustments and Appeals on July 6, 1978 to consider public comment on
said variance requests; and
WHEREAS, the Chanhassen City Council has, by its resolution
dated June 12, 1978, approved the development plans and certain
variance requests of the applicants, as hereinafter described in
Paragraph 2, subject only to the issuance by the Chanhassen Board of
Adjustments and Appeals of a recommendation that certain variances be
approved and
WHEREAS, the Chanhassen Board of Adjustments and Appeals, by
its resolution dated July 6, 1978, approved the proposal of the Appli-
cants as hereinafter set forth; and
1 WHEREAS, the above described resolutions were adopted subject
to and on condition that the applicants enter into this variance
contract; and
11 WHEREAS, the Chanhassen City Council has determined that the
proposed development as described herein substantially complies with
the standards set forth in the second full paragraph of §22.02 of the
Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance;
11 -1-
II
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises
and acceptance by the City of Chanhassen (hereinafter referred to as
"The City ") of the Applicants' development plans and the approval
of the above described variance requests, the City and the Applicants
agree as follows:
1. Improvements by Applicants. Applicants agree at their expense
to construct, install and perform all work and furnish all materials
and equipment in connection with the installation of the following '
improvements in accordance with the site plan and landscape plan
described in paragraph 2 below:
a. Parking lot and access driveway grading, stabilizing, and 1
bituminous surfacing,
b. concrete curbs and gutters abutting all parking lot areas
and access driveways, except the western edge whereon a
rolled bituminous curb shall be installed,
c. storm and surface water drainage,
d. boulevard sodding or seeding of uniformly good quality, and
e. grounds lighting.
2. Scope of Development Governed by Exhibits. The exterior
dimensions, architectural design, decorating scheme, grading plan,
loading dock configuration, and placement of structures shall be in
conformance with that certain Site Plan dated April, 1978, Site Plan
dated May, 1978, Landscape Plan dated April, 1978, undated Ground
Floor Plan, undated Exterior Elevation Drawing, Street Construction
Plan dated April 13, 1978 as revised by the City Engineer on April 21,
1978, and Storm Drainage Plan dated April 13, 1978 as revised by the
City Engineer on April 21, 1978, all of which are on file in the
office of the Chanhassen Zoning Administrator in File P -481.
The building shall be constructed of stacked square block except for a II
decorative band of vertical fracture block creating a relief effect
shadow line. Said block shall be painted in tones of gray or white.
The canopies depicted on said elevation drawings shall project outward II
six (6) feet and night lights shall be provided to illuminate all
entrances to the Building.
3. Effect of Conflicting Ordinance Provisions. The parties hereto '
acknowledge that the development as described in paragraph 2 above
conflicts with the literal provisions for setbacks, load dock con- '
figuration, front yards, side yards, and rear yards contained in
SS12.05, 12.08 and 9.07 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. The parties
hereto furtheracknowledge that, in accordance with the above described
resolutions of the Chanhassen Board of Adjustments and Appeals and the II
City Council, the proposed development may be constructed in conformity
with the various plans which are described in paragraph 2, above.
4. Outside Storage Prohibited. With the exception of trash 1
facilities as hereinafter provided, and with the exception of licensed
vehicle parking as hereinafter provided, no equipment or other personal
property shall be stored or displayed outside of the building. 1
-2- i
1
5. Overnight Parking Requirements. No motor vehicle of larger
than 9000 lbs. licensed gross weight shall be parked overnight except
in parking spaces #39 -58 as shown on parking layout dated 5/78. This
area shall permit overnight parking for larger licensed vehicles not
to exceed 8' x 24'. Applicant agrees to review parking within the
' designated area (parking spaces 39 -58) on or about November 1, 1979;
and further agrees that in no case shall boats be parked (stored)
on the property, and that parking within the designated area shall
be tenant oriented parking only.
6. Parking Lot Configuration. Off- street parking facilities
shall be constructed in accordance with the Site Plan described in
Paragraph 2 above with the following modification:
a. All parking spaces shall be clearly delineated or marked
as such and shall have a minimum width of nine (9) feet
and a minimum length of twenty (20) feet exclusive of
aisles and maneuvering space.
' b. A clear aisle width of at least eighteen (18) feet shall
be provided for all parking spaces located easterly of
' the building.
7. Schedule of Work. The Applicants further agree that they
shall commence work hereunder immediately, and shall have all work done
and improvements fully completed to the satisfaction and approval
of the City on or before August 1, 1979. The Applicants shall
submit a written schedule indicating the proposed progress schedule
and order of completion of work covered by this contract, which
schedule shall be a part of this contract. Upon receipt of written
notice from the Applicants of the existence of causes over which the
Applicants have no control which will delay the completion of the
' work, the City, in its discretion, may extend the date hereinbefore
specified for completion.
8. Grading Plan and Lighting Plan. No Certificate of
Occupancy shall be issued and the Applicants shall not occupy the
building until the Applicants' final grading plan has been reviewed
by City staff for purposes of verifying that said grading plan is in
complete conformity with all of the provisions of the within
permit and contract. Said final grading plan shall include existing
contours, proposed grading elevations, drainage configurations,
storm water drainage configurations, spot elevations, proposed
access driveway road pfofiles, location and candlepower of all
illuminaries, and locations of exterior trash storage areas.
9. Sign Plan. The Applicants agree to prepare and submit to
the City a sign plan, which shall include location, type and
dimensions of all proposed exterior signs. No exterior signs shall
be erected and no sign permit shall be issued until after said
sign plan has been reviewed by the City for purposes of verifying
that said sign plan is in conformity with applicable city ordinances.
11
11 -3-
II
Plan The Applicants agree to re
10. Landscape pp prepare and submit g p p
to City staff a final landscape plan which shall include location,
type and diameters of proposed plantings, description of and locations II of all screening devices, and location and elevation of proposed berms.
No landscaping permit shall be issued and the Applicants shall perform
no landscaping until after said landscape plan has been reviewed by
City staff for purposes of verifying that said landscape plan is in
conformity with all of the provisions of the within contract.
11. Reimbursement of Costs. The Applicants shall reimburse the '
City for all costs, including reasonable engineering, legal, planning
and administrative expenses, incurred by the City in connection with
all matters relating to the administration and enforcement of the with- II
in contract, and the performances thereof by the Applicants.
12. Performance Bond; For the purpose of assuring to the City
that the improvements to be by the Applicants constructed, installed
and furnished as set forth in Paragraph 1 hereof shall be constructed,
installed and furnished according to the terms of this agreement, and
that the Applicants shall pay all claims for work done and materials II and supplies furnished for the performance of this agreement, Applicants
agree to furnish to the City a cash deposit in the amount of $15,000.00
or in lieu thereof, a corporate surety bond in said amount approved
by the City and naming the City as obligee thereunder, being conditioned
upon the performance by the Applicants of their obligations hereunder,
said sum being equal to 110% of the total cost of such improvements as
estimated by Schoell & Madson, Inc., the City Engineers.
13. Public Welfare. The establishment, maintenance and operation
of the use shall not be detrimental to, nor endanger the public health, II
safety, comfort or general welfare.
14. Screening. All trash areas, mechanical equipment, compressors
and air conditioning equipment, including roof top equipment, shall be
screened from view from West 78th Street, Mandan Drive, and Picha Drive.
15. Nuisance. The activities conducted on the premises shall not II
cause the emission of noxious odors, nor cause objectionable noise. The
proposed use shall not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property, nor diminish nor impair property values in the immediate
vicinity.
16. Public Address System. No public address system or other
audio paging system shall be utilized on the subject property which
emits noise in excess of the standards set forth in the Chanhassen
Zoning Ordinance and all regulations amendatory and supplementary
thereto, which standards shall be binding upon the Applicants. ,
17. Other Regulations. The Applicants shall comply with all City
Ordinances, state laws, and regulations of state agencies and depart-
ments.
-4-
1
18. Proof of Title. Upon request, the Applicants shall furnish
the City with evidence satisfactory to the City that they have acquired
fee title to the subject property.
19. Erosion Control. The Applicants, at their expense, shall
provide temporary dams, earthworks, or such other devices and practices,
including the seeding or sodding of graded areas, as shall be needed,
I in the judgment of the City Engineer, to prevent the washing, flooding,
sedimentation or erosion of lands and roads within and outside the sub-
ject property during all phases of construction. Applicants shall keep
' all streets free of all dirt and debris resulting from construction by
the Applicants or their agents upon the lands described in Exhibit A
hereto.
20. Disclaimer by City. It is understood and agreed that the
City, the City Council, and the agents and employees of the City shall
not be personally liable or responsible in any manner to the Applicants,
' the Applicants' contractors or subcontractors, materialmen, laborers,
or to any other person, firm or corporation whomsoever, for any debt,
claim, demand, damages, actions or causes of action of any kind or
' character arising out of or by reason of the execution of this agree-
ment or the performance and completion of any work and improvements
hereunder; and that the Applicants will save the City, the City Council,
and the agents and employees of the City harmless from any and all
' claims, damages, demands, actions or causes of action arising therefrom
and the costs, disbursements and expenses of defending the same.
' 21. Written Work Orders. The Applicants shall do no work nor
furnish materials for which reimbursement is expected from the City
unless a written order for such work or materials is received from
the City Manager. Any such work or materials which may be done or fur-
nished by the Applicants without such written order first being given
shall be at its own risk, cost and expense, and Applicants hereby agree
that without such written order, Applicants will make no claim for com-
pensation for work or materials so done or furnished.
22. Liability Insurance. The Applicants shall take out and main-
tain, until the time of completion of the Building and the improvements
described in 111 above, public liability and property damage insurance
covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property
damage which may arise out of the Applicants' work or the work of their
subcontractors, or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them.
Limits for bodily injury or death shall be not less than $100,000 for
one person and $300,000 for each accident; limits for property damage
I shall be not less than $100,000 for each accident. The City shall be
named as co- insured on said policy and the Applicants shall file a copy
of the insurance coverage with the City.
23. Remedies Upon Default.
a. In the event the Applicants shall default in the performance
of any of the covenants and agreements herein contained, and
such default shall not have cured within ten (10) days after
receipt by the Applicants of written notice thereof, the City,
' if it so elects, may cause any of the improvements described
in 111 above to be constructed and installed, and may cause
the entire cost thereof, including all reasonable engineering,
' -5-
I/
1
legal, and administrative expense incurred by the City, to
be recovered as a special assessment under Minnesota Statutes I
Chapter 429, in which case the Applicants agree to pay the
entire amount of the assessment roll pertaining to any such
improvement within thirty (30) days after its adoption. App- ,
licants further agree that in the event of their failure to
pay in full any such special assessment within the time
prescribed herein, the City shall have a specific lien on all
of Applicants' real property described on Exhibit A for any
amount so unpaid, and the City shall have the right to fore-
close said lien in the manner prescribed for the foreclosure
of mechanic's liens under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
b. In addition to the foregoing, the City may also institute
legal action against the Applicants and the corporate surety
on their performance bond, or utilize any cash deposit made II hereunder, to collect, pay or reimburse the City for the cost
of making any of said improvements. In the event of an
emergency, as determined by the City engineers, the notice II requirements to the Applicants shall be and hereby are waived
in their entirety, and the Applicants shall reimburse the City
for any expense incurred by the City in remedying the condi-
tions
creating the emergency.
c. In addition to the foregoing, the City may institute any
proper action or proceeding at law or at equity to prevent
violations of the within variance contract, to restrain or
abate violations of the within variance contract, or to prevent
use or occupancy of the proposed Building.
24. Address of Developers. The address of the Applicants for
purposes of this development contract and for purposes of notice under
this contract shall be: Box 207, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317.
25. Successors and Assigns. It is agreed by and between the parties
hereto that the agreement herein contained shall be binding upon and inure'
to the benefit of their respective successors and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these
presents to be executed on this day of , 1978.
CITT CHANHASSEN HANSEN & KLINGELHUTZ CONSTRUCTION, INC.
By A10 Ao By ���,.:. -, ,! _ /I i
Mayor Its 1. , ,
ATTEST:/
_
/7, And
City' eager is �- C ,
-6- 1
1
II WEST I PROPERTIES
i
1 Y • , <
Je f r/ E Swldlund, a Partner
1 � . 4._. !/< < .. << . _
Roxanne Swedlund; a Partner
/ / ,
/‘ f
Douglas /M. Hansen, a Partner
Beverly J. a(', sen, a Partner
II - :,7, 7/1/
II Thomas $. Klinge.hutz, ,/Partner
/. - ,* / >
II Catherine M. Klingelhutz, a Partner
II Ro rt O. Nyen, a Partner
11 STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
II COUNTY OF C:a/u4v■/ )
On this /4. day of 7 z z. , 19 1, before me, a notary
II public within and for said county, personally appeared Walter Hobbs and
Donald W. Ashworth, to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn,
did say that they are respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the
municipal corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that said
II instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by authority
of its City Council, and said Walter Hobbs and Donald W. Ashworth
acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporatior
1
Notary Pu is
l
4 :..4.i4 KAREN J. ENGELHARDT
.
_']_ II � NOTARY PUBLIC • MINNESOTA
I 0 . CARVER COUNTY
,.." My Comr.,iss,' " L..�.rea Oct. 11. 111N5
1 W.
I
STATE OF MINNESOTA ) 1
ss.
COUNTY OF } '
On this day of , 1978, before me, a
notary public within and for said county, personally appeared
and , to me
personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn, did say that they
are respectively the and the
of the corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that the
seal affixed to said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of
said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors, and said
and acknowledged said
instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. 1
Notary Public 1
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF )
On this day of 7)1A4 , 1979, before me, a
notary public within and for said county, personally appeared JEFFERY
E. SWEDLUND, to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn did
say that he is a partner of the partnership named in the foregoing
instrument, and he acknowledged to me that such partnership executed
the same.
Notary Public 1
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF )
On this fi" day of `7»�ccc�� , 1979, before me, a
notary public within and for said cou'ity, personally appeared ROXANNE
SWEDLUND, to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn did say that
she is a partner of the partnership named in the foregoing instrument,
and she acknowledged to me that such partnership executed the same. ,
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF -t ttik U )
On this � day of 71 , 1979, before me, a
notary public within and for said coun personally appeared DOUGLAS M. II
HANSEN, to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn did say that
he is a partner of the partnership named in the foregoing instrument,
and he acknowledged to me that such partnership executed the same.
Notary Public Cc
-8- '
1
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
I
ss.
COUNTY OF �� �� L i v )
On this .g day of 77 ?�C , 197p, before me, a notary
I public within and for said county, psonally appeared BEVERLY J.
HANSEN, to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say
that she is a partner of the partnership named in the foregoing instru-
I ment and she acknowledged to me thatsuch partnership executed the same.
1 Notary Public `
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
1
ss.
COUNTY OF N-' )
On this 6 day of 72)4 - , 1979, before me, a
I notary public within and for said coun €y, personally appeared THOMAS
A. KLINGELHUTZ, to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn,
did say that he is a partner of the partnership named in the foregoing
I instrument andhe acknowledged to me that such partnership executed the
same.
'4 -- A s=ic a A/(- v..1 -
STATE OF MINNESOTA ) Notary Public
1
ss.
COUNTY OF )
I On this -` {` day of 7) - , 1979, before me, a
notary public within and for said county, personally appeared CATHERINE
M. KLINGELHUTZ, to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did
I say that she is a partner of the partnership named in the foregoing instru-
ment and she acknowledged to me that such partnership executed the same.
v I
1 Notary Public
I STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF )
On this //, ' day of 7i ct - , 197 , before me, a
notary public within and for said county, personally appeared ROBERT
0. NYEN, to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did
I say that he is a partner of the partnership named in the foregoing instru-
ment and he acknowledged to me that such partnership executed the same.
L.Lr'
N public
KAR EN J. FNGELHAROT
s� �� ►rQTARY FL'.
CARVER COUNTY _IC. - MINNESOTA
My Cpmmiss+ n Exp Oc t. 11, 1ABE
1
r
HANSEN & KLINGELHUTZ CONSTRUCTION, INC.
VARIANCE CONTRACT FOR BUILDING AT
PICHA DRIVE AND MANDAN DRIVE
1
EXHIBIT A 1
Lots 4 and 5, Block 2, Burdick Park Addition, 1
according to the map or plat thereof on file
and of record in the office of the County Recorder
in and for Carver County, Minnesota. 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-10- 1
1
1
1
%:J
1 C I TY O F O ,
CHANHASSEN
7610 LAREDO DRIVE•P.O. BOX 147•CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 474 -8885
1 *bon by Cdr kieini: tab'
Endorsed
PLANNING REPORT IAodit �,,
DATE: May 7, 1979
Del
TO: City Manager, Don Ashworth Dete Schmitted to Commas
• Council
FROM: Assistant Manager /Planner, Bob Waibel oats `` ie� to r
SUBJ: Development Contract Amendment Request, H & K Warehouse,
Burdick Park
APPLICANT: Hasen and Klingelhutz
PLANNING CASE: P -481
Petition
The applicants are requesting to amend Sections 4 and 5 of their
proposed development contract with regards to overnight motor vehicle
parking. As shown in the attached planning commission minutes of
' April 4, 1979, the planning commission moved to recommend that
"the council amend the development contract, item 4 be amended to
read licensed vehicle parking, item 5 increased the weight
restrictions from 7,000 to 9,000 lbs for overnight parking on the
east and south, that outside storage be confined to the west side
of the building with no storage of vehicles larger than 8 x 20 feet."
' This office recalls that during the site plan review of the subject
proposal, the plans were presented in a manner indicating that the
bay doors on the building were designed so that they could accomodate
various types of construction equipment mounted on trailers.
Based upon the concerns of the planning commission during site plan
' review regarding the issues of storage and parking on the
subject property, and the fact that many service vans and pick up
type vehicles are licensed at 9,000 lbs., I recommend that Section
5 of the development contract be amended to read that no motor
vehicle larger than 9,000 lbs. licensed gross weight shall be parked
or stored outside of the building on the subject property between
the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. on any day. Furthermore, I
recommend that all vehicles to be stored overnight shall be self
propelled light duty over the road vehicles, and that permission be
restricted to the west property line only.
CITYOF
•
CHANHASSEN
f 7R 7610 LAREDO DRIVE•P.O. BOX 147•CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
•
(612) 474 -8885
PLANNING REPORT ,
DATE: April 2, 1979
TO: Planning Commission and Staff '
FROM: Assistant Manager /Planner, Bob Waibel
SUBJ: Development Contract Review for H & K Warehouse
APPLICANT: Hansen and Klingelhutz Construction, Inc. ,
PLANNING CASE: P -581
This item was before the planning - commission at it's regular February
28, 1979, meeting, at which time the planning commission wanted staff
to look at alternative amendments concerning the overnight parking II at the H & I: warehouse site in Burdick Park. From an administrative
standpoint, I believe that staff is not authorized to enter into
amendment negotiations until the city council so directs that the
development contract might. be amended.
•
What is needed at this time, is a polling of the planning commission,
and a motion resulting from that polling stating how and if the
development contract should be amended. This motion will be submitted III
concurrently with the staff recommendation to the city council for
their consideration. a ,
Based upon the recollection that the initial plan proposal, was pre-
sented so as to indicate-that the door bay heights. were adequate to
clear equipment on trailers, I recommend that section 5 weight
restrictions be increased. to vehicles no larger than 9,000 lbs.,
that this provision apply only to the western side of the property,
and that the vehicles eligible for overnight parking shall be self -
propelled light duty over the road vehicles.
•
1
1
1
CITYOF
I CHANHASSEN
1 7610 LAREDO DRIVE•P.O. BOX 147•CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 474 -8885
1 PLANNING REPORT
II DATE: February 28, 1979
TO: Planning Commission and Staff
II FROM: Assistant City Manager /Planner, Bob Waibel
SUBJ: Development Contract Amendment Request
II APPLICANT: Hansen and Klingelhutz Construction, Inc.
PLANNING CASE: P -481
II
Attached hereto you will find the letter of amendment request of
II behalf of Hansen and Klingelhutz and involved section of the development
contract.
I As stated in section 5, no motor vehicle larger than 7,000 lbs.
be permitted to be parked at the site between the hours of 2:00 a.m.
and 6:00 a.m. on any day.
II The second page of the Hansen and Klingelhutz letter of January 18,
1979, appears to imply that a business leasing must have the right
to park a truck,trailer and equipment if need be. The attached planning
II commission minutes of May 10, 1978, state that materials will be
stored outside but vehicles may be parked outside and that an
adequate development contract controlling the visual quality of the
II grounds should be implemented. From my recollection, I believe that
it was also stated at site plan review that bay doors of the structure
were desiged as such to allow equipment of tenants to be stored
indoors overnight. It is for these reasons, that I recommended that
1 section 5 of the development contract be amended to read that no
motor vehicle larger than 9,000 lbs. licensed gross weight shall
be parked or stored outside of the building on the subject property
II between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. on any day. Furthermore
the motor vehicles to be stored outside shall be self - propelled
light duty, over the road vehicles.
li
II
11
sir h1/
,r )J S , r: i C■ty Atlrrinistrafojt
1 Refetred To;
Lt Meyer
Ceuntil
Aittryov
-- allIeell.84~0
Du�l�lt�
♦.�
1'aedu, er y a
KLINGELHUTZ Pe''`' - --
Parh c� hec�
1 construction, inc. Stfect Meint.___. Utiiitie3
Pt ess •i_ M .......r
Othtl'
DATE: January 18, 1979 De
TO: City Manager, Don Ashworth AND the City Council
FRCM: Hansen & Klingelhutz Construction, Inc.
SUBJ: City Development Contract for Industrial Building on Manadan Drive 1
Upon reviewing the City contract for our industrial building on Mandan
Drive in Chanhassen and having some experience in the leasing process of
the building, we find that we cannot live with the restriction as stated
in item 5 (overnight parking prohibited).
We would like you to reconsider this portion with the following changes:
1. Change 7000# to 9000# gross weight so it may include all vans
and pick up trucks commonly licensed at 9000, -
2. Change this overall restriction to apply to vehicles in the
front area of building only -not to include parking restrictions
on the side or rear of our private property.
I recommend this for the following reasons:
1. Many ordinary vans and pick ups are licensed for 9000#.
2. By changing the restriction to apply to the front of the
building only,you will still accomplish what I think you
are intending to do, which is keep the appearance of the
site in front neat and clean looking with no large vehicles
parked in front. The rear and south of the building will
be screened by the building itself which is approximately
18' high.
3. We are completely screened in the rear by the woods which
I assume will likely remain. The tree line is an asset of
great value especially along the lot line to whomever owns
the property.
1
cont.
1
7198 FRONTIER TRAIL • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 • (612) 474 -4146
1
HANSEN &
KLINGELHUTZ
construction, inc.
' Industrial Bldg. Contract cont. Page 2
r
We request this change not because we expect a mess but because a
business leasing here must have the right to park a truck, trailer,
equipment if need be. This should be a lessors right in Eden Prairie,
Edina, Chanhassen or wherever.
I assure you, backed by our reputation in dealing with you in the past,
that our building and site will be kept neat and clean in front and
back with no trace of junked cars or trucks etc. as seen in other parts
' of Chanhassen.
Please consider this seriously since it is very important for us to
1 succeed in leasing the building. I hope you will approve this change
and we will do our part in policing our parking so the overall appear-
ance is pleasing.
1
Sincerely,
l./
1
Douglas M. Hansen
Thomas 0. Klingelhutz
•
1
1
1
7198 FRONTIER TRAIL • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 • (612) 474 -4146
Planning Commission Meeting May 10, 1978 -7-
SITE PLAN REVIEW - nANSEN & KLINGELHUTZ: Ton, -d ingelhutz, Doug 1
Hansen, Jim Hawks, and Jeff Swedlund were present. H. & K. are
proposing to construct a 19,800 square foot office /warehouse facility it
on Lots 4 and 5 Burdick Park. The property is currently zoned I -1
and is shown on the HRA plan as General Business. Sewer and water
are available to the property. The proposed building has seven 30' x
90' bays and approximately 600 square feet of that will be office.
Seventy -six parking spaces are shown but some may have to be eliminate"
near the loading dock. No materials will be stored outside but vehicles
may be parked outside. The building will be eight inch concrete block,
with a fractured block band along the top for decoration.
Walter Thompson moved to recommend the Council look with favor on the
Hansen and Klingelhutz office /warehouse facility subject to:
1. That an adequate development contract controlling the visual quali
of the grounds be implemented.
2. That the proposed rear yard setback be allowed as submitted.
3. That parking up to the westerly property line be permitted.
4. That the clear aisle widths by the loading docks be increased
to meet ordinance standards.
5. That the loading dock width be increased to 12 feet.
6. That the berm at the north access on Mandan Drive should not
exceed 22 feet in height.
7. That more detailed information be supplied concerning the outside II
storage facilities.
8. That information regarding the architectural treatment of the
building be furnished.
9. That plans for signage be submitted for Sign Committee review.
10. The developer submit a lighting plan for review by the Planning
Commission.
11. The front yard setback is 23 feet. The ordinance calls for a 30
foot front yard setback.
12. The developer consider 45° angle parking along the west property
line. The Guide Plan and CBD Plan show the area to the west to be
something other than R -1A, therefore, the Planning Commission recommen
a side yard variance be granted.
Notion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. 1
Dick Matthews moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Les Bridger and
unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m.
Don Ashworth 1
City Manager
1
1
1
1
11
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises
and acceptance by the City of Chanhassen (hereinafter referred to as
"The City ") of the Applicants' development plans and the approval
of the above described variance requests, the City and the Applicants
agree as follows:
1. Improvements by Applicants. Applicants agree at their expense
to construct, install and perform all work and furnish all materials
and equipment in connection with the installation of the following
improvements in accordance with the site plan and landscape plan
described in paragraph 2 below:
a. Parking lot and access driveway grading, stabilizing, and
bituminous surfacing,
b. concrete curbs and gutters abutting all parking lot 'areas
and access driveways, except the western edge whereon a
rolled bituminous curb shall be installed,
c. storm and surface water drainage,
' d. boulevard sodding or seeding of uniformly good quality, and
e. grounds lighting.
2. Scope of Development Governed by Exhibits. The exterior
dimensions, architectural design, decorating scheme, grading plan,
loading dock configuration, and placement of structures shall be in
conformance with that certain Site Plan dated April, 1978, Site Plan
1 dated May, 1978, Landscape Plan dated April, 1978, undated Ground
Floor Plan, undated Exterior Elevation Drawing, Street Construction
Plan dated April 13, 1978 as revised by the City Engineer on April 21,
1978, and Storm Drainage Plan dated April 13, 1978 as revised by the
City Engineer on April 21, 1978, all of which are on file in the
office of the Chanhassen Zoning Administrator in File P -481.
The building shall be constructed of stacked square block except for a
decorative band of vertical fracture block creating a relief effect
shadow line. Said block shall be painted in tones of gray or white.
The canopies depicted on said elevation drawings shall project outward
six (6) feet and night lights shall be provided to illuminate all
entrances to the Building.
1 3. Effect of Conflicting Ordinance Provisions. The parties hereto
acknowledge that the development as described in paragraph 2 above
conflicts with the literal provisions for setbacks, load dock con-
, figuration, front yards, side yards, and rear yards contained in
SS12.05, 12.08 and 9.07 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. The parties
hereto furtheracknowledge that, in accordance with the above described
resolutions of the Chanhassen Board of Adjustments and Appeals and the
City Council, the proposed development may be constructed in conformity
with the various plans which are described in paragraph 2, above.
4. Outside Storage Prohibited. With the exception of trash
facilities as hereinafter provided, and with the exception of motor
vehicle parking as hereinafter provided, no equipment or other personal
property shall be stored or displayed outside of the building.
-2-
i
•
1
5. Overnight Parking Prohibited. No motor vehicle of larger 1
than 7,000 pounds licensed gross weight shall be parked or stored
outside of the Building on the subject property between the hours
of 2:00 o'clock A.M. and 6:00 o'clock A.M. on any day. The Applicants II
acknowledge that their acceptance of the foregoing restriction was
the keystone to the City's action approving the variances requested
by the Applicants, and further acknowledge said restriction must be
• strictly complied with and may be enforced by the City in proceedings II
at law or in equity.
6. Parking Lot Configuration. Off - street parking facilities
shall be constructed in accordance with the Site Plan described in ¶2
above with the following modification:
a. All parking spaces shall be clearly delineated or marked as 1
such and shall have a minimum width of nine (9) feet and a
minimum length of twenty (20) feet exclusive of aisles and
maneuvering space.
b. A clear aisle width of at least eighteen (18) feet shall be
provided for all parking spaces located easterly of the
Building.
7. Schedule of Work. The Applicants further agree that they
shall commence work hereunder immediately, and shall have all work done
and improvements fully completed to the satisfaction and approval of
the City on or before ,a i , e j = >' , 197i The Applicants
shall submit a written schedule indicating the proposed progress schedul,
and order of completion of work covered by this contract, which schedule
shall be a part of this contract. Upon receipt of written notice from II
Applicants of the existence of causes over which the Applicants
have no control which will delay the completion of the work, the City,
in its discretion, may extend the date hereinbefore specified for
completion. 1
8. Grading Plan and Lighting Plan. No Certificate of Occupancy
shall be issued and the Applicants shall not occupy the Building
until the Applicants' final grading plan has been reviewed by City
staff for purposes of verifying that said grading plan is in complete
conformity with all of the provisions of the within permit and contract.,
Said final grading plan shall include existing contours, proposed
grading elevations, drainage configurations, storm water drainage
configurations, spot elevations, proposed access driveway road profiles,
location and candlepower of all illuminaries, and locations of exterior II
trash storage areas.
9. Sign Plan. The Applicants agree to prepare and submit to the
City a sign plan, which shall include location, type, and dimensions of ,
all proposed exterior signs. No exterior signs shall be erected and no
sign permit shall be issued until after said sign plan has been reviewed
by the City for purposes of verifying that said sign plan is in confor- 1
mity with applicable City ordinances.
-3-
(
Planning Commissic 9eting April 4, 1979 -3-
I from Chapparal would be reduced from about
•
113 cfs prior to development
to 54 cfs after development. The Engineer is engaged in a study
II to determine whether this reduction in flow is enough to eliminate
the existing erosion problem in the creek. Additional controls
within the Chapparal development are not recommended. The storm
II sewer system has adequate capacity except that a second catch basin
should be added in the most southeasterly cul -de -sac. The watermain
in Kerber Blvd. should be 18 inch instead of 16 inch. The slopes on
the pond should be 3:1 or possibly 4:1 for maintenance and safety
II reasons.
Pat Swenson moved to recommend the Council grant final approval of
II the plat as proposed with the shifting of the boundary of the second
addition to encompass the southern boundary of the road (Exhibit A,
Road A)and subject to the conditions of staff. Motion seconded by
II Mal MacAlpine and unanimously approved.
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AMENDMENT HANSEN AND KLINGELHUTZ, BURDICK PARK:
Tom Klingelhutz and Doug Hansen were present requesting amendments to
II items 4 and 5 in their development contract.
Mal MacAlpine moved to recommend the council amend the development
II contract, item #4 be amended to read licensed vehicle parking, item #5
increase the weight restriction from 7,000 to 9,000 lbs. for overnight
parking on the east and south, that outside storage be confined to the
west side of the building with no storage of vehicles larger than 8 x 20
feet. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved.
if MC GINN LOT SPLIT LOT 4, BLOCK 1, HARVIR HILL: Mr. McGinn is seeking
approval to subdivide Lot 4, Block 1, Harvir Hill into two lots.
Pat Swenson moved to hold a public hearing on April 25, 1979, to
I consider the lot split conditioned upon receipt of an abstractor's
certificate by April 9. Motion seconded by Mal MacAlpine and
unanimously' approved.
II THE BALTIC COMPANY - SITE PLAN: The Baltic Company is requesting
rezoning of Lots 1 and 2, Minnewashta Park from R -1 to C -1. The
property currently is the site of_Cermak Sales and Service. Reynold
I Roberts, representing the owners, gave a presentation. They are
proposing to remodel the existing building into an office building.
The remaining structures and equipment would be removed from the
II property. Eleven parking spaces would be provided on the east side
of the building. The Baltic Company would be the owner /user of
the building. The Assistant City Attorney asked for vertification
of ownership of the property.
II Mal MacAlpine moved to hold a public hearing on April 25, 1979, to
consider rezoning from R -1 to C -1 subject to proof of ownership.
II Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved.
II
II
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937 -1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: U G 1 OSt' OWNER: ' 1Dokie- M Ann's EA '
ADDRESS: 11001 Sit LP P ADDRESS: I S"1 — ODOLA KO AD
'MTKA M PJ 55 f1fci 1 MO Ss 34 5
TELEPHONE (Day time) 9 3 4 Off' S4 TELEPHONE: 9 3 4 9 2 G 3 1
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Subdivision
2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Vacation of ROW /Easements ,
3. Grading /Excavation Permit 13. Variance 1
•
4. Interim Use Permit 14. Wetland Alteration Permit
5. L. Notification Signs + 15. Zoning Appeal
6. Planned Unit Development 16. Zoning Ordinance Amendment
1` P 9
7. Rezoning 17. Filing Fees /Attorney Cost - (Collected after 1
approval of item)
8. Sign Permits 18. Consultant Fees 1
9. Sign Plan Review
10. k Site Plan Review TOTAL FEE $
1
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must 1
included with the application.
2 Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 1
1 81/2" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet.
* NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. ,
1
I PROJECT NAME V'T OF3E Ek •A OS I DO
LOCATION 7 N1 Df�TE---EY 1.k\ VC
I LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lol 3 4- , s PvOic< pit
1
I PRESENT ZONING, B G
REQUESTED ZONING P I
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION ( \MCA/Jr) Lor 3
1 REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION L. i6 i.1 t A k1 u FA C1UQI its 1G -- DFF I CE were"
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST ?C 7 NS I DO roil-- C 4 Mf34 , 72,9L COG —
1 L 7j&T TD SAT,S 7A CTD2/ Ptt e-p-AGE o Lo 7 3 re_ori C..4,1 SS n) N kA,
I This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or dearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
1 This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying
with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party
whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of
I ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the
authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best
I of my knowledge.
I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded
against the title to the property for which the approval /permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
1 Office and the original document retumed to City Hall Records.
Signature oVpplicant Date
I
S ignature rdf Fee Owner Date
1 Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No.
This application will be considered by the Planning Commission /Board.of Adjustments and Appeals on •
1
g c Ol L,1 . • 2 ` . .1---It t
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING _1 ) W =� .. ..A al I
tear
,. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING iiiii Milligilehlk
Wednesday, March 17, 1993, 7:30 P.M. BG 1" ■�� B 1 ,
City Hall Council Chambers 31.1.• P • o
690 Coulter Drive > m �p
Project: Concept Plan for RR. __ %., � - ' 5\ l
West One Expansion r------r 1 0 DR�vE IGKw a'' .. Developer: Doug Hanson a - ,
West One Properties 40 � '
, _
�r�
Location: 7900 Monterey Drive I
e
'A' s ♦ -
I , __
i s \sr',
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in 1
your area. Doug Hanson proposes to rezone property zoned BG, General Business to PUD,
Planned Unit Development for a manufacturing and office expansion located at 7900 1
Monterey Drive.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform
1
you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this
project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing
through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The
I
Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please
I
stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you
wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Jo Ann at 937 -1900. If you choose
to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department in 1
advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on March 4,
1
1993.
1
1 Frontier Development Corp.
c/o Bloomberg Companies, Inc. B. C. Burdick Bloomberg Companies, Inc.
P. 0. Box 730 426 Lake Street 545 West 78th Street
I Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 P. 0. Box 730
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'Roberts Automatic Products, Inc. Lutheran Church of the Living E. Jerome Carlson
880 Lake Drive Christ Instant Web, Inc.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Box 340 6950 Galpin Lake Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331
1 Twin Cities & Western Railroad Dayton Hudson Corp.
723 1 lth Street East c/o Target Stores
Glencoe, MN 55336 33 South 6th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting IF
March 17, 1993 - Page 60
becoming real intense and irritating the people around them and over
11
crowding the lake. Okay?
Gary Carlson: I think we should accept your recommendation...
Batzli: Okay. 1
Gary Carlson: Because two things will happen. First of all, when you say
launch, a boat and trailer...If someone sees that it's a, the only people ,.
who will launch will be my neighbor...but if you say launch and I tell
everyone there's going to be a launch.
Batzli: Well we're going to say no launch in a minute so don't worry
about that.
Gary Carlson: If you say no launch, fine.
Batzli: Okay. Do we have a motion?
Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend the approva
of the Non - Conforming Recreational Beachlot permit application by Schmid'
Acre according to or consistent with the request and specifically with
these exceptions. The number of boats docked to 1. Number of boats on II
land being 1 and an exception to the request for a boat launch. No boat
launch.
Batzli: Is there a second? 1
Mancino: Second.
Batzli: Is there any discussion?
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Non - Conforming Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot for
Schmid's Acres with the continued use of one dock, 1 boat parked at the
dock, 1 boat parked on land, off street parking for 10, 1 canoe rack, and
no boat launch permitted. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
Batzli: When does this go to the Council?
Aanenson: It should be on April 12th.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONCEPT PLAN TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM BG, GENERAL BUSINESS TO PUD, PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR EXPANSION OF AN OFFICE AND MANUFACTURING FACILITY II
LOCATED AT 7900 MONTEREY DRIVE, WEST ONE EXPANSION, DOUG HANSON. WEST ONE
PROPERTIES.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli
called the public hearing to order.
Doug Hanson: I'm Doug Hanson. I live in Minnetonka. 1
I/ Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 1993 Page 61
Batzli: I'm sorry. Before you start in, I have one more question of Jo
Ann. Are you done with the rest of your staff report?
Olsen: I was just going to finish to say that there used to be 5 users in
this building. As Chaska has expanded, they've pushed them out. He, Doug
Hanson who will be explaining that he is proposing with this expansion
that he will locate his own construction business there also and I believe
a plumber. So I think we need to have it clear exactly who would be using
that site.
Farmakes: Can I ask for some additional site plan, I guess this isn't
site plan review but some concept on how this is in relationship to the
Burdick property that still remains behind Target and that road going in.
I believe we might have a few drawings in the back of there of Target, but
we don't see that on any of this. The relationship of this building to
the area behind Target and the drive in, the service road that goes back
behind there.
Olsen: Right here is...Market Square... This is Pica Drive and this is
where you get into Target...
Farmakes: But there still are some lots I believe behind Target. There's
I 2 lots.
Olsen: ...where the trees are?
Farmakes: Okay, down there by your stomach.
Batzli: But is this contingent upon, I mean looking at Don's comments
' here. Is this all contingent upon, rezoning this PUD can be made
contingent upon the HRA selling this hunk of land?
Olsen: Well they have, they own it and they have total control now.
Batzli: Yeah but I don't want to rezone this PUD.
Olsen: If the HRA.
Batzli: Well it says here, isn't this hunk, is this a proposed expansion?
Is that going on land that's owned by the HRA right now?
Olsen: Correct. Right.
Batzli: So can we make this contingent, because I don't see in any of the
conditions that this is contingent upon them getting all the property
under common ownership.
1 Olsen: Sure you can.
Batzli: If they don't do that, then there's no point in us rezoning these
' individual little parcels PUD.
Olsen: Exactly.
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1,
March 17, 1993 - Page 62
Batzli: Okay. Please, go ahead. II
Doug Hanson: I'm Doug Hanson. I was one of the builders, the partner of
Tom Klingelhutz back in '78. We had about 5 previous people as tenants i
there. It was office /warehouse. DayCo Concrete was in there. Vernco
Maintenance. Frontier Meats. There was an auto body shop in there and
there's another one but I can't think of what it was. But eventually
II
Chaska Machine has taken over the whole operation and they're in a
position to expand. They would like to stay there if they could. We
would, I have a company, Hanson Hometech. We do residential remodeling. 11
work with my two sons. Steinkraus Plumbing would be another tenant and w
would share a small area in the very end of this building. About 2,000
square feet. We would share the office and the secretary /receptionist. II
That type of thing. Otherwise it's mainly for Chaska Machine. And the
future expansion area would be for them also as they grow. There's 5,400
square feet in the proposed expansion... The highway is here and the
railroad tracks is here...
II
Batzli: Okay. Does anybody have any questions?
Harberts: I have a comment. Chaska Business Machines as well as the 1
Target area, if you recall when Target came before the Commission there
was a transit element involved and it's simply because of the amount of '
traffic and trips that would probably be generated in the Target area.
Chaska Business Machines is one of the businesses that are being targeted
for reverse commute opportunities. Basically bringing people from the
inner city out to a possible location such as Chaska Business for II employment. And because of the location, and what could potentially
happen with these other areas, my comment is that I would like to have
Southwest Metro involved in the, if this thing goes forward, to add that II
transit element in here because I see a potential high demand for public
bus service to bring potential workers out to this area. Especially with
Target...and what I'm seeing right now is basically maybe just adding lik
a bus shelter or a bus stop or something in that turn around area. That
circle, that cul -de -sac little thing. So I'd like to encourage that
Southwest Metro become involved with this conceptual site plan design to
insure that it's transit friendly and that it continues to fill that
II
reverse commute strategy.
Olsen: By transit friendly you mean that a bus can get in there or a van
Harberts: More a van but just basically putting maybe a bench or a bus
shelter or something. Simply, you know with Chaska Business Machines is
expanding. They're going to expand their work force. They've already
been identified as a company out in Chanhassen to promote reverse commute
So I just think that they're a top candidate to really focus in on making
sure that this facility is transit friendly. That would be basically the
same concept that you see presented to you when you looked at the Target '
site plan.
Batzli: Any other comments right now? Okay. Did you have anything else
Doug Hanson: I'm here to answer any questions.
11
II
Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 1993 - Page 63
Batzli: Okay. We'll probably ask them in a minute. Is there anyone else
from the public that would like to address the Commission? Okay. Is
there a motion to close the public hearing?
Ledvina moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mancino: I have one question.
Batzli: Go ahead.
Mancino: My big question is, is that the comprehensive plan that was done
in 1992 designated this property as commercial even when Chaska Machine
and Tool were there at the time. I'd just like to hear the rationale
behind that. Why did they not, when Chaska Machine and Tool were in there
at the time in 1992, designate it as industrial? Or light manufacturing.
Batzli: Because we're trying to get all the manufacturing out of the city
and we assumed that once they were ready to leave or we'd buy them out, it
would be commercial property. It's downtown.
Farmakes: But the ensuing developments that occurred basically boxed in
that property from any reasonable access or for potential client, retail
client to see it. It just isn't going to happen. You're going to have to
know it's back there because you're not going to see it from anywhere
else.
Mancino: So commercial, is that only retail or could that be office?
' Farmakes: Well it possibly could be office.
Mancino: It could be an office. So it could still be commercial and not
be retail but be.
Farmakes: That's correct.
' Batzli: And that's the big issue.
Farmakes: Except most of our office buildings are retail. We've heard
arguments about that before too. That's what they wind up being.
Harberts: But isn't the office industry also telling us that it's going
to be another 10 years before that market comes back around?
Farmakes: That's how things progressed in development of the city.
Eventually come the lawyers...
Mancino: The industrial is an anomaly there. The way it looks right now
and to keep adding onto it and make it even bigger, it just doesn't fit.
That's all I have.
Batzli: Jeff.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
March 17, 1993 - Page 64
Farmakes: It would depend on how they would revision that building. I
have I think real sympathy that that particular piece of property would
not work as a retail and I'm not sure that the foreseeable future if it's"
feasible to consider it as a business area. It is sort of a little hold
over pocket from a failed development many years ago of, I remember
seeing, I will build on this site your company sign, I don't know a decad
at least. I never saw one of the properties being sold. I'm not sure
that this is going to be something that's going to be easy for the City t
deal with as to what they're going to do with this. This may be a
reasonable alternative. It isn't very low impact area. It's going to bell
basically surrounded by other buildings and the only way you're going to
be able to see it is for a very brief time as you drive over the bridge.
Certainly one of the possibilities is giving it a facelift and eliminatinli
any of the types of objectionable industrial use that'd be incompatible
such as on site storage of machinery or materials that would be
objectionable. Expanding that type of useage I think would be the wrong
way to go. But I think from a conceptual point of how we're looking at II
this, I wouldn't turn it down flat and say that's not a reasonable
alternative to use this property. I'd leave that up to the applicant as
to how they would soften that connection of an industrial use with what
on the plan that designates it as a commercial area. In other words, the
more you could make it look like a business building, office building, the
better off a case could be made that that was being done as a solution.
That's my comment.
Batzli: So right now you'd be willing to look at it as a PUD or wouldn't
you be willing to vote on the concept and rezoning? 1
Farmakes: As I understood it, what we're looking at here today is just
the concept itself...correct?
Batzli: Right.
Farmakes: We're not voting to make this a PUD today? Conceptually yeah.'
Harberts: What message are we sending to the HRA though?
Batzli: Yeah. '
Farmakes: Well we really don't.
Batzli: If we vote on it conceptually that we like it, then they're going
to get the impression that we'll approve it or something soften down the
road. '
Harberts: Or we cave in on something.
Farmakes: That's difficult to do here because we're really looking at a '
very preliminary concept. What we're looking at here. We're not looking
at any detailing or what they're planning on doing with the building other
than expanding the connection use.
Batzli: But it sounds like, I've heard one person say this isn't
appropriate. You say maybe, if it's done right. 1
11
Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 1993 - Page 65
Farmakes: Correct.
Batzli: Okay.
Doug Hanson: Could I say something?
' Batzli: Sure.
Doug Hanson: I plan to follow the building that's there. It's a 20,000
' square feet building there and I just, all you're seeing is another 30
foot and a turn and another 60 foot. And so there's really not much
different on the front so I would follow the same site, the same
architecture that's there right now.
Farmakes: In long term use for downtown and if you're looking at where in
the long term in the market developed for business /office type market,
which is not, I don't believe here yet or we haven't seen that
demonstrated by our developers. We do have a fairly limited amount of
space downtown where that would go so that's another thing for
consideration in reviewing this. I'm just saying that it's how far down
the line you wish to look for this type of useage. This is a possible
solution for the existing building and I don't think that I've got enough
information to go one way or the other.
Scott: If from a manufacturing standpoint, could you tell us, and
especially me, what happens in that building? What do you do in there?
1 When you manufacture. Manufacturing...
Doug Hanson: Okay, it's Chaska Machine and Tool and punch presses and
they make parts for machines. They're shipped all over.
Scott: Custom fabrication.
Doug Hanson: Yeah. Just small, mainly small parts.
Scott: So you guys basically take, your raw materials are metal?
Doug Hanson: Yep.
' Scott: Metal castings?
Doug Hanson: No metal, sheet metal.
Scott: Pretty much sheet metal?
Doug Hanson: Stamped parts and machine parts and things like that.
Scott: Okay. So as far as any sort of, and then the scrap, basically a
scrap hauler takes it away and recycles it or something?
Doug Hanson: Yeah, it's recycled. Right.
Scott: Okay. And then as far as, is there any sort of hazardous material
11 that we could probably get some fumes?
Planning Commission Meeting 1
March 17, 1993 - Page 66
Doug Hanson: No.
Scott: You know when I was down there, it was hard for me to tell but my
opinion is conceptually I don't have a problem with this at all. Granted ,
there's some architectural features on some adjacent buildings that need
to be considered but I figure, it seems like this property is probably no
that useful for something else and if these guys happen to grow out of it
or, I mean office warehouse is pretty useful space. But then you've got
an industrial, a couple of things in the TIF district that have some of
that empty space anyway. So I mean you're right, the market isn't there.'
But conceptually I don't have a problem with it and from a standpoint,
they've got a business running here. They're looking at expanding. It
looks like a logical alternative, so that's my opinion on it.
Batzli: Okay, Matt.
Ledvina: I share the same sentiments as Joe here. I think this seems toil
be a reasonable extension of the existing use. I guess in looking at som
of the conditions in the staff report here, we have on number 3 the
expansion of the building shall match the architectural design of the
existing building. And we looked at, recently we looked at, was it...and t
we changed that building to, or we suggested the developer change the
building to include some pitched roof elements and I think you could
easily do the same thing for the expansion and make it work. Because mucil
of the building is, you know has a flat roof and then you can have an
entrance or something like that that has a pitched element to improve the
architecture or increase the standard or whatever. So I think we could '
change that to say matching and enhance the architectural design. But I
guess other than that, I agree. It's kind of a weird little corner and if
it can be expanded to an increased use by...use, I think it should be
done.
Batzli: Okay. Ladd.
Conrad: I saw an interesting figure tonight. An acre of commercial land
sells for $130,000.00 in Chanhassen. An acre of industrial land is a
little bit over $40,000.00. And so what's the implication of value. As I
you talk industrial, there's a gap between that and what commercial
property is valued at. How does this impact our decision?
Olsen: Well in the value of it, and all of that kind of gets back to the'
HRA. It's their final decision whether or not to sell it, and that's
where we got involved in this because of the HRA wanting to know, is this
an option. What were the options and so the Manager's comment is right. I
Which one goes first. If they choose to not sell it and feel that they
could sell it commercial and receive more money, that's their decision I
think. As far as us, I don't know that we're involved in that. 1
Conrad: Okay. From a planning perspective, I have no problems with that
at all.
Batzli: That's it?
Conrad: That's all there is.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 1993 - Page 67
Batzli: Okay. Diane.
Harberts: I have no problem with it. Again, I just want to recommend
there be some transit planning, and that's for the future.
Batzli: Okay, is that it? ...Ladd's remark that from a planning
perspective I have no problem with this at all. I'm more on Jeff's
wavelength. It probably could be done if it's done right and I guess I'd
give it a shot at a conceptual stage and let the HRA determine whether
it's a smart move to sell it for a third of the price that they could
maybe get doing something else. Given it's location. Maybe they can't.
I would add one condition that any approvals that we're doing tonight is
contingent on the applicant's purchase of the land, which it's shown on.
The plans we're looking at. The additional lands.
Olsen: So you would not like to see this proceed until he's actually
' finished that deal? The conceptual plans.
Batzli: Well, I find it difficult to move too far down the road if the
HRA isn't willing to do it.
Olsen: Right, 1 agree.
Doug Hanson: I've given them a purchase agreement and they're just
holding it until it goes through here.
' Batzli: Right. But I'm just saying that if the HRA at their next
meeting, after we approve this says they're not going to sell you the
land, then one of our conditions was that they sell you the land.
Doug Hanson: Yeah, I agree. I can't do anything otherwise.
Batzli: Okay. Is there any other discussion?
1 Ledvina: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Concept Plan Request to Rezone Lots 3, 4 and 5, Burdick Park from BG,
General Business to PUD with the following conditions as outlined in the
staff report subject to the following modifications and additions.
Condition number 3 should read, the expansion of the building shall match
and enhance the architectural design of the existing building. The
addition of condition 7 which would read, prior to rezoning and
development, the applicant shall purchase the property in question. And
condition 8, that transit planning be incorporated into the development.
' Batzli: Is there a second?
Harberts: Second.
Batzli: Is there any discussion?
' Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the concept plan request to rezone Lots 3, 4 and 5, Burdick
Park from BG, General Business to PUD, Planned Unit Development with the
following conditions:
Planning Commission Meeting 1
March 17, 1993 - Page 68
1. The applicant shall receive and meet the conditions of the following
approvals:
a. Preliminary and Final Plat approval combining Lots 3, 4 and 5,
Burdick park into one lot with appropriate easements.
b. Comprehensive Plan amendment changing the land use designation
from commercial to industrial.
c. Site Plan approval for the building expansion.
d. Rezoning approval from BG, General Business to PUD, Planned Unit
Development.
2. The site plan shall have to maintain the proposed concept plan, with
the proposal being an expansion of the existing building for use by
the existing use, light manufacturing. A higher intensity industrial'
use will not be permitted at this site.
3. The expansion of the building shall match and enhance the
architectural design of the existing building.
4. There shall be no outdoor storage permitted.
5. All rooftop equipment shall be screened.
6. The hard cover surface of the site (the three lots) shall not exceed I
700.
7. Prior to rezoning and development, the applicant shall purchase the
property in question from the HRA.
8. Transit planning shall be incorporated into this development.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: 1
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE TO DEFINE DOCK SETBACK ZONES.
Public Present: '
Name Address
Jeff Kvichang 6681 Horseshoe Curve
(The following people signed the public hearing sheet but had left by thill
point in the meeting.)
Randy & Rayma Smith 429 Pleasant View
Greg & Barb Hedlund 748 Lake Point
Donald & Beverly Hanson 8516 Great Plains Blvd.
1