The URL can be used to link to this page

3. Proposed Moratorium Ordinance for Hwy 5 3 1 . # ,,0 1 C ITY OF , - ,, CHANHASSEN ,.... , .._ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 . , /legs rtg r Illi Argrattor 1 iviascyd............. MEMORANDUM Ety.A..!..... _ ,............„ bk,ett I . crL _ TO Don Ashworth, City Manager bet Sztmbat.-1 t F....7ritale111 I FROM: P4u1 Krauss, Planning Director Data Subineevi to CotAif __,e2:1:21 ............ DATE: February 2, 1993 . II SUBJ: Propose,d Moratorium Ordinance for the Highway 5 Conidor ...., • BACKGR9U,NP ' At the January 11, 1993, meeting, the Council 14. • staff and the City Attorney to report back I regarding the potential of instituting a mora .t um : development within the Hwy. 5 corridor. The Council members proposed that this be ;'.nside ,;4 due to concerns raised when reviewing two development proposals that were on , ,, agenda at evening and being aware of the large i volume of development requests that ar 2 t 1, ely to be ccurring in the area in the near future. . Staff advised the City Council that it w . ,;ossible to in rt te ithoratorium and established some guidelines for the Council's considera t.,.n. We indica , ,, at the moratorium should be limited I _. in 'duration and be linked to a s' ,..1f c project or anal ''..„ ,.. We indicated a belief that these guidelines would be adhered to Ice the Hwy. 5 mini* study is already underway and a definitive date, 8 to 12 mon -...- - ' - 'nce, could be reasonabl stablished. Thirdly, we noted that I it would be prudent to co c,:4er including some provisions at would allow continued use of property as well . . .7' daily allowing some develop= ,. to occur or be processed with I limitations. After receiving • ' -.4 . the Council, staff and the City Attorney colta,5rted on drafting I the moratorium ordinance ''. : :ttached. Staff developed a map to : mpt to define the corridor based upon our uncierstan. iti Nfitht, are ., , . .4„Itriire This map is also attached for your review. Lastly, we develo . • i f . st of property owners potentially impacted I by die moratorium and sent out a mailing to i'p them of this hearing. Copies of the mailing list and notice are also provided. 1 PROPOSED ORDINANCE The intent section of the proposed ordinance states that the moratorium is specifically to allow I the city time to complete an in-depth study of appropriate land use controls in the Highway 5 I Noe PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 s Don Ashworth February 2, 1993 Page 2 corridor. Development activities which are covered by the ordinance include preliminary and ' final platting, issuing of building permits, approving variances, conditional use permits, interim use permits, rezoning, or site plan approvals. The ordinance further establishes three conditions wherein the moratorium would not apply. These include properties for which preliminary plats have been approved, to property rezoned to Planned Unit Development, or property which is currently zoned PUD. It is also possible to bring in new developments under the PUD ordinance. The last set of allowed actions include building permits and site plans for remodeling or ' expanding existing structures or accessory buildings. Staff believes these provisions are reasonable in terms of protecting the integrity of the corridor, while balancing this with the ability of property owners to make effective use of their land. 1 STAFF COMMENT ' Staff is unsure as to what to recommend to the City Council. We believe that the moratorium ordinance that you have requested is legally defensible and could provide the community with breathing room to get the Highway 5 corridor controls in place. On the other hand, we believe ' by -in -large this community has done and excellent job in regulating development to date and has worked diligently to ensure that the community's growing expectations in the Highway 5 corridor are met. We certainly don't believe that this has been a perfect process as illustrated by the 1 issues surrounding the Goodyear /Abra proposal. However, the Target plan is certainly indicative of what can be achieved. The proposed moratorium has generated a significant response on behalf of the property owners. Many of these people believe that they are working to plan their 1 properties in good faith and that this ordinance represents a significant and unwarranted intrusion. There can be no doubt that moratoriums can cost landowners significant sums of money. Land must be held for what is effectively another year with the resulting carrying costs. Additionally, ' the moratorium would prevent them from working with the city to get anything approved until it expires. This does not mean that you should not consider imposing the moratorium for this 1 reason alone, only that your consideration should seek to balance the pros and cons of this proposal. ' Staff is seeking your direction on this matter. Should you wish to approve the moratorium, you should act on the draft ordinance making revisions to the language as well as the official corridor map as necessary. 1 ATTACHMENTS ' 1. 2. Proposed ordinance. Corridor map. 3. List of property owners and notice. 1 1 02/01/93 13:42 22612 452 5550 CAMPBELL LNUTSON 444 CHAN. CITY HALL El 003'004 11 ,4 • 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. • AN INTERIM ORDINANCE TEMPORARILY PROHIBITING DEVELOPMENT IN THE HIGHWAY 5 CORRIDOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASS EN O RDAINS: Section 1. Definitions. The following terms whenever used in this ordinance shall be interpreted to mean: Development means approving a preliminary or final plat; ' issuing a building permit; approving a variance, conditional use permit, interim use permit, rezoning, or site plan. Highway 5 Corridor means Section 2. Intent. It is the intent of this ordinance to allow the City of Chanhassen time to complete an in -depth study on appropriate land use controls in the Highway 5 corridor, and in the interim to protect the planning process and the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the community. A task force and consulting planning firm are currently carrying out this in -depth study. Section 3. Temporary Prohibition. Pending the completion of the above referred to study and adoption of appropriate official controls, no development shall be processed or approved and no applications for such approval will be accepted. This ordinance shall not apply to development of the following property: (1) Property for which plats have been preliminarily approved 1 by the City Council unless that approval is void pursuant to Section 18 -41 of the Chanhassen City Code. (2) Building permits and site plans for remodeling or expanding existing structures or accessory buildings. (3) Property rezoned to Planned Unit Development after the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect 1 from and after its passage and publication and shall remain in effect until the date of the adoption of the official controls contemplated hereunder or January 1, 1994, whichever occurs first. 1 2869 r02/01/93 1 02/01/93 13:42 $612 452 5550 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 444 CHAN. CITY HALL W3004/004 1 ' 1 PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this day of , 1993, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen. i ATTEST: Don Ashworth, Clerk /Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor 1 (Published in the Chanhassen villager on , 1993)- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2869 2 r02/01/93 1111r -111111- -- - - -- — ■MI NS MI MI — r MI ■M OM — EN ■1111 MI ""°*- _ = - .. _ .... L,,'' � i ' f ' 0: ,1't;\ i ll y • # - 4 ; - -- z i o ]...,,... . L A KE wc , � Nei , .. `• c o rut . -- - Ali •I I 'S .�„ .,NK'S 1111► tv.irce I�FI1 / ` 4•L+ ... + \ �i . woo— � EM ■ --i IAXE ANN I E i 1 PARA.' ✓ lift .,�. i V t 9 y •. / f C ANE ,I'i '......w Y . i J MOO - �/ - _ ■ .. ilk.„/y� , 1 ' T ,QR!' .'Id .. ; ?MO P AR K ` 1 I� r 1 )bow .. _. _. -� R . � . • II 1 , 3 ,i �:�, I — _.iiOJ r "" ` • (; 1111 11/1 111 i IN � ' t ' — _ • �1® il it I �—► . ., - " 0.11 1 : r :- »' ,,.,4r . • 111, LAX( . IM r r - Ni • -. ,, ,,0 1 .?/,‘.0 ..1,110 Z.11 Awe ., 'toil 41jVl. .4" t / _ J +w+' U S.••- YI, ''•r _ A. , - CAKE • ISM �F: �. I. !.i?'7 PARK .wu ewo.— � • ' 1 I !��, _� �! �e� I LAAff ttISAN I _ v V •`, Y - , ,` c j � I N NiC N ail L ANF I t'�1111 N .; 3 ^ # i - ^ ' I rr:: • c ......... T !.p- 1 9 71 O '•�. - TM 2 gg \ ! . 1 ,` I .., o , �.- _ _ of ■ CITY. OF l �' —�. • _ _ , — - -- - -- _, 4 ..., _ i t41,7 _ _ ^r oy ♦• —«e CHAf Vf1ASS ► _ i , 00W BASE MAP ..... i '''' • • °.%. , LAKE RILEY AREA PROPOSED FOR MORATORIUM ) , Q -- - I ��\ ��- /// / • a l a — !•' / _ ��• .I -4...'? . ; ^ - tom •' - .r i • ....�». ,,. n +u.` ,M1.. „.....• ,,411110. . ..11.0. • 1. , . CITYOF 1 . 0 .0 „. i 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612 937 - 573 9 o MEETING NOTICE On Feb 8, 1993, at in Hall Council Chambers, the City Council I February 993, a 7 30 p.m. the City ty will hold a public hearing to consider imposing a moratorium on development for parcels located within the Highway 5 corridor. The purpose of the moratorium is to allow for the completion of ongoing work on the Hwy. 5 Corridor Study. The study is being used to review and refine 1 allowed land uses in the corridor, designate sensitive environmental features requiring protection, designate alignments and design standards for two parkways running parallel to Hwy. 5, work with MnDOT to refine plans for the upgrading of Hwy. 5 out to Hwy. 41 and develop new I ordinances and design guidelines for the corridor to ensure that development meets the community's expectations. The study is already in progress and it is estimated that it will take the balance of 1993 to complete the planning eff(*. The City Council asked that the moratorium I be considered in light of the rapid pace at which development is being proposed in the corridor. FS V- Your property has tentatively been identified as being located within the corridor. You I are invited to attend the meeting and/or call Paul 1Frauss or Kate Aanenson in the Planning i.- . I \ .. : Department for additional information. i. - 1 � e is :• . 1 �..«. _ rr „?G , 47. i:: - -z -2. ... «+rw D -- --- -- kh .. :. 1 . b L , / ,. S / 1' 1 — 1 I � %IP PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER I 1111111 M - - - 1111111 INN MO I= • NMI • NM all MN IIIIII r NM �• Allialla r ' $ °1 I . . �r.r0« la 1.411‘ ! WV 1 C ' `�P » ; •' � IfYl ��F l .10 ,. � it•-• _ _ a J s` III �lk, .. MO = {^-1*. 1 F ' .9_1 , � ' A i-444,— � ; Jul ie � • '1d � I,'A M -- .. .,. i.A ` 1lf �', d ' F; • ' " . ' � �' "a III , + ( .0.....:1.4 - 6:12 I CS?J a;' .. �'; ?C •' a SIN! 4" ; . l • � / .�{•� � ^� y . 5 ( � �' tNrN ■ • 6 d • N00 n 0 ` ,, i+ drt 111 Il 1 . / 1 � 1, • m• .1 1,1 r•rS 1 • I �� l y' 6 �� II a ]' _ w ` •r 1 _ 1 ..........\' - 1 " i • , .' . . 1 4 1F. ''' ii =is. II ....�_- ..........-• ' :ft.. I .t'tT� r' IY11 I" I'�- ,w k • --y. - - ^: . . ■ • 0 --- \ / • � ' ..( • • f. Q r 1 I 1e 1 ' � t: .,w , � • 1- 11111* giut3 MS i Mir 1 � � . , , 1 • • Nt i: 4.411f / DIY 1 -10---P, I O., Ina . , 1 go Du _. .._ • 'i'' °'• • l�y 1 ' w9ti , 1 ' •1 in N a,u!' a w .•. 1 >�� , , i ce , , Y. i F'�... 1M --, ., R• ti ,,,-- — Aro - - ,-, i 4 CITY OF -- -. _; , ,: ° ' _ -- ~r ). 1 .. • v � •- - - 4 1 ��• ' tok ChIANF�4SSEN 1:C' •- _ • . • � 'd / MID 4 • BASE MAP _ 11.. J i I ' - : .,. !ANL El AREA PROPOSED FOR MORATORIUM ,� �� Q -- . • •_ Y,.,„ . " •• .«.. .4.100 'WOW IM.J•.. .i1'. ' 1. ,- ' 1 Lotus Lawn and Garden Center Lyman Lumber /ABC Redmond Products 78 West 78th Street 18900 West 78th Street 18930 West 78th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 The Press Versatil • Data Sery 1 18780 West 78th Street 18400 West 77th Street 19011 Lake Drive East Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Waytek Inc. Dexter Magnetic Material Chanhassen Holding Company Y� g g P Y 7660 Quattro 7600 Quattro Drive 14201 Excelsior Blvd. 1 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Minnetonka, MN 55343 111 McDonalds Corporation (22 -146) Systems Control, Inc. Mortenson Development Co. AMF O'Hare 755 Mary Avenue N. 700 Meadow Lane No. 1 P. O. Box 66207 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Minneapolis, MN 55422 Chicago, IL 60666 Family of Christ Lutheran Church - - - - -- - - -- — - - - - I 275 Lake Drive Blue Circle Investment Co. Chanhassen NH Partnership P. O. Box 388 6125 Blue Circle Drive 1100 International Centre Chanhassen, MN 55317 Minnetonka, MN 55343 900 Second Avenue So. 1 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Robert Dittrich Holiday Station Stores Thaddeus Korzenowski 1 1827 Crestview Drive 4567 80th Street West 5315 3rd Avenue So. New Ulm, MN 56073 Bloomington, MN 55437 Minneapolis, MN 55419 Chanhassen Inn Roberts Automatic Products Lutheran Church of Living Christ i 531 West 79th Street 880 Lake Drive Box 340 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 I Metro Lakes West Mini - Storage Wayzata General Investment c/o Mark Senn c/o E. Jerome Carlson Roman R. Roos Suite 100 8280 Galpin Blvd. 10341 Heidi Lane 1 1001 Wayzata Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chaska, MN 55318 Minnetonka, MN 55343 'McGlynn Bakeries, Inc. Shamrock Property Partners M. J. Ward c/o Grand Met Tax Dept. 1 McGlynn Drive 8190 Great Plains Blvd. I 200 South 6th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Box 213 inneapolis, MN 55402 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Target Stores, Inc. Richard Brose et al I B. C. Burdick Attn: Mr. Dick Brooks c/o T. F. James Company 426 Lake Street 33 South 6th Street P. O. Box 24137 Excelsior, MN 55331 Box 1392 Minneapolis, MN 55424 1 Minneapolis, MN 55440 . . Eckankar Leander & P. Kerber Michael Gorra I P. O. Box 27300 1620 Arboretum Blvd. 1680 Arboretum Blvd. New Hope, MN 55427 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mr. Peter Olin — 1 David Luse MN Landscape Arboretum • E.Jerome Carlson/Beddor Enterprisi 15195 Martin Drive 3675 Arboretum Blvd. 1000 Park Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 P. O. Box 39 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen American Legion c/o George Beniek Henry & Edna Wrase Paul & Carol Paulson 412 West 76th Street 8175 Hazeltine Blvd. 3160 82nd Street West I Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 Regents of Univ. Minnesota Chaska Gateway Partners c/o University Attorney Dale & Marcia Wanninger 3610 Hwy. 101 S. 100 Church Street 8170 Galpin Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 Minneapolis, MN 55455 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Betty O'Shaughnessy — — (J-B 99 Partnership) Chan Land Partners Thomas & Marian Schmitz 1 1000 Hesse Farm Road 200 Hwy. 13 W. 8190 Galpin Blvd. Chaska, MN 55318 Burnsville, MN 55337 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' Hi -Way 5 Partnership Audubon 92 c/o Dennis Dirlam c/o Lars Akerberg Raymond R. Notermann 15421 Creekside Court P. O. Box 158 1450 Arboretum Blvd. 1 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Chaska, MN 55318 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 John Hennessy/D. Rengers Theodore & Marlene Bentz J P Links, Inc. 7305 Galpin Blvd. 7300 Galpin Blvd. 7750 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 L & E. VanDeVeire Conway ars MN Horticulture �Y Y 4890 Co. Rd. 10 E. 4952 Emerson Ave. So. Rm 1 Horticulture Building I Chaska, MN 55318 Minneapolis, MN 55409 University of Minnesota St. Paul, MN 55108 Charles & S. Markert Jeffrey & L. Oberman Thomas & S. Eischens 1 7461 Hazeltine Blvd. 7450 Hazeltine Blvd. 7460 Hazeltine Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 I Thomas & J. Kordonowy Jay C. Dolejsi Mills Properties, Inc. 1 3301 Tanadoona Drive 6961 Chaparral Lane 512 Laurel Street Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 P. O. Box 505 Brainerd, MN 56401 1 John P. Savaryn Estate Robert & L. Bergan Mid- American Baptist Social c/o Paul Savaryn • 3241 Tanadoona Drive Services Corp. 1049 Oak Terrance Excelsior, MN 55331 2600 Arboretum Blvd. North Mankato, MN 56003 1 Excelsior, MN 55331 Michael Sorenson Lotus Realty - Valvoline Instant Oil Change I 7606 Erie Avenue 545 West 78th Street Suite 1200 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 301 Main Street East Lexington, KY 40507 I Gary Gary Brown Ga Kirt Amoco American Oil 1831 Koehnen Circle 3915 Hwy. 7 Attn: Tax Department I Excelsior, MN 55331 Minneapolis, MN 55416 P. O. Box 3428 Oakbrook, IL 60522 "'Apple Valley Red -E -Mix Waterfront Assoc. Donald McCarville 6801 150th Street West 440 Union Place c/o State Bank of Chanhassen 'Apple Valley, MN 55124 Excelsior, MN 55331 600 West 78th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 'Ralph Molnau/Ron Dubbe Neal and D. Wunderlich Lawrence & F. Raser IIIP. O. Box 151 7011 Galpin Blvd. 8210 Galpin Blvd. Waconia, MN 55387 Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Roger & G. Schmidt Dean Feltmann 1 8301 Galpin Blvd. 8241 Galpin Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED BUILDING MORATORIUM CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, February 8, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a building moratorium on Trunk Highway 5 from Dell Road (Eden Prairie) to Victoria city limits until the completion of the Highway 5 Corridor Study. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Paul Krauss, Planning Director Phone: 937 -1900 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on January 21, 1993) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , BETTY L. O'SHAUGHNESSY 1000 Hesse Farm Road, Chaska, MN 55318 (612) 496 -1707 February 3, 1993 • 1 Don Chmiel, Mayor 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Dear Don, Regrettably 1 can't attend the meeting on February 8, 1993, concerning I the imposition of a moratorium on development for parcels located within the Highway 5 corridor, in order to allow the Hwy. 5 Corridor Study to be completed. According to the notice I received, this Study will not be ' completed until the end of 1993 or later. 1 own 85 acres on the SW corner of Hwy. 5 and Galpin Blvd. and am a partner in the Highway 5 Partnership, 1 which owns the 137 acres on the SE corner of Hwy. 5 and Galpin Blvd. This proposed moratorium is definitely not acceptable to me. Such a move would make it impossible to sell or develop the properties I'm involved in. Currently there are signed purchase agreements for the 85 acres and for part of the 137 acres; the status of those agreements would be in doubt if you and the City Council support this moratorium. As a land owner, I find it impossible to make business decisions, when both the 1 "How" and the "When" is controlled by an outside power. 1 1 1 RECEIVED �= Eft 0 41993 CITY OF CHANHA SEN 1 - 1 1 BETTY L. O'SHAUGHNESSY 1000 Hesse Farm Road, Chaska, MN 55318 (612) 496 -1707 1 1 If you insist on this course, the least 1 must do is withdraw my petition for the extension of utilities to my 85 acres. Isn't it amazing that in one week I would receive a letter from Don Ashworth indicating that 1 would be responsible for a cash deposit or a letter of credit for $2,700, to cover 1 the costs of a feasibility study for Phase II of the Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Utility Improvement Project to be completed in 1993; and another letter informing me that the development of this land would not be possible until 1994? For a land owner, this is most frustrating. Please consider the rights and needs of the landowners when you vote on this issue. 1 • Sincer , 4 " r P PPor 4„, • ughnessy 1 CC: I ' Iwo • , P . = + se, City • until Members -. 1 • 1 • - 1 1 1 - -1 1 DENNIS P. DIRLAMI ' 15241 CrPekside Court Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55346 (612) 937-1602 RECEIVED FL± February 5, 1993 1 Cr i yr CHANH43S , Mr. Don Chmiel, Mayor 7100 Tecumseh Lane 1 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Mayor; I am a general partner of the HiWay 5 Partnership which owns the property ' on the south side of Hwy 5, east of Galpin Blvd., consisting of 3/4 mile of Hwy. 5 frontage and 137 acres. I am also a managing partner of the 92 acres on Audobon Road on which the National Weather Service is being built. As you know our partnership has been involved in this property well before the city applied for an extension of the MUSA line. As a matter of fact, much of the planning and research our organization produced became a part 1 of the comprehensive guide plan. I find it unconscionable for the city to enact a moratorium on the development on those landowners who have been working for years on the corridor and for the past two years on an almost daily basis with staff on 1 developments which are finally coming to fruition. ' As you are aware the industrial market has been weak. Within the last 3 months we have had a flurry of interest in our property for exciting developments. Those companies will not wait around til 1995. By 1 spending a year studying the corridor you delay development until 1995 because of lead time needed to bid and install utilities and to gear up the ' marketing effort, our current prospects will have left for other communities. We have signed a purchase agreement for 40 residential acres and have two offers we are reviewing for residential developments on the site once considered for the a school. We are working on our PUD submission for the 1 entire 137 acres and lan on making in da p o g 30 days. The city of Chanhassen has a tremendous bond debt because of 1 infrastructure construction: the best way to pay down that debt is to build homes and business'. 1 In 1990, the city of Chanhassen spent thousands of hours and thousands of dollars studying and developing a comprehensive guide plan. That guide plan was adopted and now should be used as it was designed, as a guide. Obviously minor alterations can be made as time goes on. The city 1 currently has more than adequate resources to influence developments along Highway 5. A moratorium would be a mistake for the city of Chanhassen and unacceptable to our partnership. 1 1 Sincerely, 1 Dennis P. Dirlam cc City Council Members Paul Krause Don Ashworth 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 G 1 G111Lv111 La 1 LI \_,vl1II.JaI 17 WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 1 41 80 HIGHWAY FIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344 (612)937-0716 • FAX 937 -8635 TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: PROPOSED MORATORIUM HIGHWAY 5 CORRIDOR DATE: February 8, 1993 BY FAX: 937 -5739 The goal to establish the main corridor through the heart of the City of Chanhassen as a unique thoroughfare is an honorable one that I am sure would be supported by all residents and land owners. To shut down by moratorium now, present and future investment and development of this corridor, is counter productive to say the least and as you are aware the history of moratorium utilization has not been successful. 1 would suggest a more positive approach without delaying any projects in process. Immediately establish a committee consisting of land owners, a Senior City Planner, landscape architect, member of the Planning Commission and City Council and Chamber with a 30 day agenda to produce a list of specific goals and objectives for the corridor. One such goal might be to create a 10 to 20 foot landscape lane on each side of the highway consisting of a creative use of landscaping, berming, signage and lighting. Such a plan would be unique to this area. By implementing this plan the developer or land owner would be granted credits to use to offset fees, park credits, development standards such as set backs, or improved density. The plan could be modified as needed in the future. Consider the alternative, such as in my own situation, where I had assumed the corridor study was mostly complete, utilities are imminent,and the City wanting planned growth along this corridor, I have optioned a farm, (0/Shaughnessy Property) on the southwest corner of Highway 5 and Gaipin Boulevard (County Road 19). Presently, I have invested substantial funds on land options, legal, planning and engineering. To be halted at this juncture, S do not believe, is fair and consistent government policy. Subject to completion of a hearing at another municipality tonight, I intend on participating in the discussion planned for this evening. If I am delayed please consider this letter. S' - , THE PEMTD t 4 COM ' •a el J. H •,st President 7640 Crimson Bay Road Chanhassen, Minnesota Ica 'CO L+io.L1*13a* v+taOS : eO Ce 'GO •2O 1 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. Attorneys at Law ' Thomas J. Campbell (612) 452-5000 Roger N Knutson Fax (612) 452 -5550 Thomas M. Scott Gary 0 Fuchs 1 James R. Walston Elliott B. Knetsch Michael A. Brohack Renae D Steiner February 8, 1993 CONFIDENTIAL CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL 1 Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor Mike Mason, Councilmember 1 Richard Wing, Councilmember Colleen Dockendorf, Councilmember Mark Senn, Councilmember 1 RE: Goodyear C.U.P. Application Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: 1 Clarification is needed to the staff comments concerning the effect of the moratorium on the Goodyear application. The mora- torium will not affect Goodyear. If the moratorium is approved, the approval will not be effective for several weeks. The ordinance requires two readings before the City Council unless the second reading is waived by a 4/5 vote of the Council. Following Council 1 approval, an ordinance is not effective until it is published. V- yours, CAMPBELL, •' TSON, SCOTT F "S, P.A. BY ••ger N. Knutson 1 RNK:srn cc: Don Ashworth 1 1 1 1 Suite 317 • Eagandale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II JAMES P LARKIN LARHIN, HO1'1'1Y1J'11`1, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. PAUL B. PLUNKETT ROBERT L. HOFFMAN I JACK F DALY ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALAN L. NM.N D. KENNETH LINDGREN Illppp��,,,.w iip�� PPP�� ` gyp, KATHLEEN M. NEWMAN GERALD H. FRIEDELL �� MICHAEL B. LEBARON GREGORY E. D ALLAN E. MULLIGAN CLEVE JAMES C. ERICKSON GARY A. VAN CLEVE• EDWARD J. DRiSCOLL DANIEL L. BOWLES E H. FULLER 1500 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER TODD M. VLATKOVICH JOHN D. FU FEB 0 8 1993 TIMOTHY J. MEMANUS ROBERT E. BOYLE 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH TIMOTHY J. KE FRANK I. HARVEY ALAN M. ANDERSON CHARLES S. MODELL BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 65431 DONNA L. ROBACK CHRISTOPHER J. DIETZEN TELEPHONE (612) 835-3800 C ITY OF CHANIV�5S�. � MICHAEL W SCREEN JOHN R. BEATTIE MICHAEL A. ROBERTSON LI H. FISHER FAX (612) 896 -3333 USA A. GRAY I THOMAS P STOLTM GARY A. RENNEKE SHANNON K. McCAMBRIOGE MICHAEL C. JACKMAN CHRISTOPHER J. HARRISTHAL JOHN E. DIEHL WIWAM C. GRIFFITH, JR. JON S. SWIERZEWSKI JOHN J. STEFFENHAGEN THOMAS J. FLYNN DANIEL W VOSS JAMES P QUINN MARK A. RURIK I TODD I. FREEMAN JOHN R. HILL PETER K. BECK JEROME H. KAHNKE THOMAS J. SEYMOUR GERALD L. BECK JAMES K. MARTIN MICHAEL J. SMITH JOHN B. LUNDOUIST FREDERICK K. HAUSER III DAVLE NOLAN CILIBERTO• MARY E. VOS THOMAS B. HUMPHREY, JR. LARRY D. MARTIN JOHN A. COTTER• JANE E. BREMER I BEATRICE A. ROTHWEILER MARCY R. KREISMAN OF COUNSEL WENDELL R. ANDERSON JOSEPH 01115 RICHARD A. NORDBYE II •ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN Fby 5, 1993 UPDATED Mayor Don Chmiel City Council Member Richard Wing I 7100 Tecumseh Lane 3481 Shore Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Excelsior, Minnesota 55121 I City Council Member Mike Mason City Council Member Mark Senn 833 Wood Hill 7160 Willow View Curve Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 II City Council Member Colleen Dockendorf 2061 Oakwood Ridge Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 II Re: Opposition to Proposed Development Moratorium Within the Highway 5 II Corridor on Behalf of the Owners of Approximately Three Acres of Land at Highway 5 and Lake Drive East, Chanhassen, Minnesota Our File No. 19,721 -00 II Dear Mayor and City Council Members: We represent the owners of the above- referenced site which is the I subject of certain zoning and subdivision applications to allow development of an Abra Auto Body Repair and a Goodyear Service facility on the property (legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Chan II Haven Plaza, 3rd Addition) (the Property). This letter - memorandum summarizes background information and our reasons for opposing inclusion of the Property in the proposed development moratorium. We request that this letter be formally made a part of the record of I decision, both in the consideration of the development moratorium, and in the decision on the pending development applications for the Property. II 1 II 11 LARHIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. City Council Members February 5, 1993 Page 2 1 I{. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1 Prior History The Property, currently undeveloped, has been part of a larger parcel (the Mason Parcel) which has been the subject of much discussion, litigation, and development limitation over the years. In 1982, McDonald's proposed a restaurant development on a portion of the Mason Parcel. The proposal resulted in the filing of two lawsuits. First, when the City Council failed to approve the plat and site plan on April 19, 1982, McDonald's instituted proceedings for a writ of mandamus commanding the City Council to approve its application. On May 10, 1982, the City Council moved for reconsideration and approved the application subject to dismissal of McDonald's petition for a writ. 1 On May 28, 1982, the Chanhassen Estates Residence Association instituted an action for declaratory judgment that the City Council's approval of the McDonald's project was invalid, and for an injunction against the issuance of a building permit. The resident group argued that the City of Chanhassen (the City) zoning ordinance required approval of a conditional use permit, in addition to plat and site plan approval. The case was ultimately heard by the Minnesota Supreme Court which, on January 13, 1984, decided in favor of the property owner based upon the fact that the City zoning ordinance was ambiguous about whether or not the project was a permitted or conditional use. See Chanhassen Estates Residence Ass'n v. City of Chanhassen, 342 N.W.2d 335 (Minn. 1984). Consequently, any development on the Property was restricted by the lawsuit for over two years. After approving the subdivision of the larger parcel to allow development of the existing McDonald's restaurant, the City Council imposed a six -month moratorium on lands which included the Property. (See City Council minutes dated August 23, 1982.) The moratorium, which was originally scheduled to last only six months, was finally lifted October 23, 1984, more than two years later. Then, as now, the City was pursuing an update of its zoning ordinance in response to development in the Highway 5 corridor. After the moratorium, and presumably after studying what was the proper zoning for the Property, the City, in 1986, adopted what is essentially the current zoning ordinance, which establishes the BH- Highway and Business Service uses for the Property. 1 1 1 1 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. City Council Members February 5, 1993 II Page 3 I Current Applications The parties proposing the Goodyear Auto Service facility and the Abra Auto Body Repair (together the Applicant) began discussions with City 1 staff about the proposals in early 1992. Following commencement of these discussions with the Applicant, but prior to formal application, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 173 deleting Section 20 -712, 1 subparagraph (20) which allowed "automobile servicing within enclosed structures designed for the purpose where fuel is not dispensed" as a "permitted use" in the BH- Highway and Business Service district. I The ordinance was effective upon the publication on September 3, 1992. The Applicant submitted a formal application to the City, approximately two weeks later, on September 19, 1992. The Applicant submitted an application for a conditional use permit because of the II ordinance amendment. Prior to that change, the use was also listed as a permitted use in the BH zone. I The application was for both the Goodyear and the Abra Auto Service facilities (the Project). Staff have .generated several reports on the Project, dated October 21, 1992; November 18, 1992 (a second report, I dated November 18, 1992, was generated for Goodyear only); November 23, 1992 and most recently February 2, 1993. Each report has detailed compliance with applicable standards, itemized numerous conditions of approval, and has recommended approval of the Project. II When the Planning Commission first considered the Project at its meeting of November 18, 1992, lengthy discussion ensued regarding the I design. There was no clear direction to the Applicant as to design criteria. The matter was tabled to the meeting of December 2, 1992, for further revisions. At the Planning Commission's meeting of December 2, 1992, the Project proposal was forwarded to the City Council. Again, lengthy discussion ensued, without a clear consensus or recommended design changes. The I Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the Project, with the suggestion that "we pass this up to Council tonight and let them take a hack at it." II The City Council spent a substantial portion of its meeting of January 11, 1993 discussing both the Goodyear and Abra proposals (staff had informally separated the two proposals). Many comments 1 were made by Council members concerning Project design, concerns about the auto - related land uses in the City's eastern "gateway" on Highway 5, and frustration with the lack of standards or guidelines with which to consider the Project design. At one point, City Attorney Elliott Knetsch, in response to a question regarding the timing of City Council approval, stated, "you are II obligated to act on the preliminary plat, but then I believe it's 120 1 LARHIN, HOFFMAN, DALY &. LINDGREN, LTD. City Council Members February 5, 1993 Page 4 1 days after it's submitted to you from the Planning Commission, so I don't think you could wait until it's done to act on this. You are legally required to act in a certain amount of time." (See City Council minutes, dated January 11, 1993, p. 24.) Following extensive testimony from City staff, City Council members, the Applicant, and the public, the City Council voted to table action on the Goodyear proposal for 30 days, and to direct staff to come back 111 with the proposed draft ordinance on a moratorium with findings. Applicant Revisions ' The Project has been informally and formally discussed over the last ten months. The Applicant has made numerous changes, revisions and accommodations in response to comments by City staff, Planning Commissioners, Council members and residents. At least five separate revisions to the Project drawings have been made since formal application in September. The Applicant has always endeavored to cooperate with all reasonable requests of the City. Staff has stated on a number of occasions at public meetings that the Project meets, and in many cases substantially exceeds, the develuoment standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 20 of the _:_y Code). The Applicant has increased the setback from Hig .y 5. The investment in landscaping is two times the minimum requirement. Landscape berms have been increased in height to shield parking from the view of passing motorists. The service bay doors have been turned inward to face each other so as not to be visible from either Highway 5 or the residential area. The building footprints have been offset in a staggered configuration to break up the front building line. The site level has been reduced approximately five feet below the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) auto emissions facility to reduce the Project's apparent height. The total sign area has been reduced approximately 25 percent below the allowed sign area. Architectural design, building elevations, roof lines, building materials and decorative accents have all been substantially revised over the past several months to accommodate the various tastes of individual decision makers involved in this process. City Testimony The following are representative of the inability of the City to articulate to the Applicant a direction to follow in revising building plans: 1 ° Since we don't have the Highway 5 program yet up and running, I am not sure exactly where the gray area is or how far we should push that. Given the fact that this is somewhat traditional r If LARHIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. II City Council Members February 5, 1993 II Page 5 ' site planning, we worked with Beissner on and off as he indicated, for many months you know, trying to get a handle on where Highway 5 is going. Trying to do the best job we can within the existing ordinances. (Paul Krauss, November 18, ' 1992.) ° Now we're going to have McDonald's and the test station and this ' building and this building, and it is the entrance to Chanhassen from the east, and it doesn't seem to be going very well. But I don't know how to change it. You know these kinds of businesses ' are businesses we all use, and it's not the kind of situation where you want to say, well, they can be in somebody else's community or something. And there ought to be a solution in it, but I don't know what it is. The way the land is zoned now, ' it's an appropriate use I think for the area. (Commissioner Emmings, November 18, 1992.) ' ° I think the applicant has gone quite a long way in this process, and I'm sensitive to that, too. He spent a lot of time and money in developing many different concepts. I would have hoped that we could have zeroed more into what we really want at this ' point because there has been a lot of effort on both sides and I know that. (Commissioner Ledvina, December 2, 1992.) ' ° We're playing around with architecture, we're doing a lousy job, folks. We don't have standards to apply. (Commissioner Conrad, December 2, 1992.) ' ° I was hoping we could zone and limit fast food and auto centers and kind of centralize their automotive centers, and not spring them up on a strip basis, running out to our east and right down ' our gateway. So I guess I'm recognizing that this is meeting our standards and maybe there's very little to be said or done and my voting "no" would not even be a legal vote "no," if ' they're meeting our ordinance guidelines. (Council Member Wing, January 11, 1993.) 1 ° I'm not sure at this point that we have much choice. I agree with your comments, but I wish this was coming six months later because I suspect we'd be done with our Highway 5 overlay. (Council Member Mason, January 11, 1993.) ' II. REASONS TO NOT IMPOSE A MORATORIUM ON THE PROPERTY A. The City Should Not Enact an Interim Moratorium Ordinance to Delay or Prevent the Project. The Minnesota Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the principle that a I municipality must exercise its authority to enact a moratorium for the purpose of protecting the planning process, not to delay or prevent a 1 LARHIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. City Council Members 1 February 5, 1993 Page 6 1 single project. Medical Services, Inc. v. City of Savage, 487 N.W.2d 263, 267 (Minn. App. 1992) (citing Almquist v. Town of Marshan, 245 N.W.2d 819, 825 (Minn. 1976)) (municipalities may exercise police power to adopt moratorium ordinances provided the ordinances are enacted in good faith and without discrimination). , In the Medical Services case, the court concluded that the City of Savage acted arbitrarily in adopting the moratorium ordinance because 11 the applicant had filed for a special use permit, requested a building permit, and commenced a declaratory judgment action (regarding interpretation of the zoning ordinance), all prior to the City Council's adoption of the interim ordinance enacting the moratorium. 1 The Medical Services case is analogous to the Goodyear and Abra proposals for a number of reasons. The Applicant has been discussing the Project with the City for almost ten months. Applications have been filed and public hearings have been held. The staff and Planning Commission have recommended approval based upon the Project's compnce with standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. A _izen task force for the Highway 5 corridor study has been ui—erway for well over a year. Now that the pending application has been heard by the Planning Commission and City Council, imposition of a development moratorium directed to halt the final approval of the application is inconsistent with the City's statutory authority to enact such measures (Minn. Stat. § 462.355, subd. 4). B. The Imposition of a Development Moratorium on the Property May Result in a Compensable Regulatory Taking. Especially in Light of the Previous Moratorium on the Property. The Supreme Court of the United States set down guidelines for regulatory taking jurisprudence in its 1987 landmark decision First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304, 107 S. Ct. 2378, 96 L. Ed. 250 (1987). A land use regulation, even a temporary moratorium, may result in a compensable taking. Inc. "The general rule at least is that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking." Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 67 L. Ed. 322, 43 S. Ct. 158, 28 A.L.R. 1321 (1922); See also Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 112 S. Ct. 2886 (1992). , The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently applied the Supreme Court's regulatory takings holdings in the case of a moratorium imposed by the City of Woodbury. Woodbury Place Partners v. City of Woodbury, N.W.2d (Minn. App. 1992) (C2 -92 -670). While the Minnesota court acknowledged that the United States Supreme LARHIN, HOFFMAN, DALY BL LINDGREN, LTD. II City Council Members February 5, 1993 ' Page 7 ' Court's holdings apply to development moratoria, it distinguished the Woodbury case because of the limited duration of the moratorium. II The Woodbury holding is distinguishable from the current application, because the Property, as part of the larger Mason Parcel, has undergone a ten -year series of moratorium 1 restrictions, lawsuits, zoning studies, and zoning changes, which, in effect, have delayed, limited or restricted proposed uses of the Property during this period. C. Denial of a Conditional Use Permit Is Arbitrary as a Matter of Law. Minnesota courts have consistently held that zoning decisions at the local level must be supported by legally sufficient reasons for approval or denial. "Where a zoning ordinance specifies standards which must be applied in determining whether or not to grant a conditional use permit, and the applicant fully complies with the specified standards, denial of the permit is arbitrary I as a matter of law." Scott County Lumber v. City of Shakopee, 417 N.W.2d 721, 727 (Minn. App. 1988); Hay Township v. Grow, 206 N.W.2d 19, 22 (Minn. 1973). I The Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance sets forth detailed criteria for issuing conditional use permits (general standards for issuance of conditional use permits, Section 20 -232); (conditions of approval imposable on issuance of conditional use permits, Section 20 -233); (special standards for conditional uses located in business, office, institutional or industrial district, I Section 20 -281). City staff has opined that the Project meets, and in many cases exceeds, the standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The City does not have discretion to deny the Project given compliance with the rigid regulatory regime to which the II Project has been subjected. D. Community Opposition to a Project Is Not a Legally Sufficient Basis for Denial. It is well settled in Minnesota that denial of a conditional use permit must be based on something more concrete than community II opposition. Northpointe Plaza v. City of Rochester, 457 N.W.2d 398 (Minn. App. 1990); Chanhassen Estates Res. v. City of Chanhassen, 342 N.W.2d 335 (Minn. 1984); C.R. Investments. Inc. ' v. Village of Shoreview, 304 N.W.2d 320 (Minn. 1981); Northwestern College v. City of Arden Hills, 281 N.W.2d 865 (Minn. 1979); Inland Constr. Co. v. City of Bloomington, 195 • N.W.2d 558 (Minn. 1972). II Under Minnesota law, community opposition to the land use, especially when the use is clearly allowed under the Zoning I Ordinance in compliance with applicable standards, cannot be the basis for denial. 1 LARHIN, HoFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. City Council Members 1 February 5, 1993 Page 8 , E. Minnesota Does Not Support Denial Based Solely on Aesthetics Considerations. Minnesota is one of the jurisdictions which will not decide a case "solely on aesthetics." County of Pine v. State Dep't of Natural Resources, 280 N.W.2d 625 (Minn. 1979). In City of Bemidji v. Beighley, 410 N.W.2d 338 (Minn. App. 1987), the court stated, "Historically, courts have hesitated to allow cities to base their zoning regulations on aesthetic considerations alone. . . . Instead, courts have struggled to find other legitimate purposes to uphold zoning ordinances." Id, at 340. The developer has made several revisions to the site plan to address aesthetic comments made by the City. Landscaping has been expanded, screening increased, signage area reduced, and building roof lines redrawn. The Project meets applicable written standards. F. The City's Failure to Act on the Preliminary Plat Within ' the Statutory Time Period Results in Its Automatic Approval. The statutory deadline for acting on a preliminary plat is clear. Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd. 3(b) states, "A subdivision application shall be preliminarily approved or disapproved within 120 days following delivery of an application completed in compliance with the municipal ordinance by the applicant to the municipality, unless an extension of the review period has been agreed to by the applicant. . . . If the municipality or the responsible agency of the municipality fails to preliminarily approve or disapprove an application within the review period, the application shall be deemed preliminarily approved, and upon demand the municipality shall execute a certificate to that effect." The plat application was filed with the City on September 19, ' 1992. The City had until January 17, 1993 to act on the preliminary plat. Since it has not done so, under the subdivision statute, the preliminary plat must be deemed approved. III. CONCLUSION 1 If the City adopts a development moratorium, it should exempt the Property. The Project fully complies with all City standards. To place the Property under a moratorium will result in a substantial detriment to the property owners and the Applicant. The Project should be approved. , 11 11 4 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Lm. 11 City Council Members February 5, 1993 II Page 9 • I Thank you for your time and consideration in reviewing this letter. 1 Sincerely, Robert L. Hoffman and a' 6/// William C. Griffith, Jr., for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. II cc: Jeannie Mason Vernelle Clayton Don Hagen ' Al Beisner Don Ashworth, City Manager Roger Knutson, City Attorney Paul Krauss, City Planner i r 1 i WCG:BB5A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BETTY L. O'SHAUGHNESSY 1000 Hesse Farm Road, Chaska, MN 55318 (612) 496-1707 February 3, 1993 111 � Don Chmiel, Mayor 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Don, Regrettably I can't attend the meeting on February 8, 1993, concerning 1 the imposition of a moratorium on development for parcels located within the Highway 5 corridor, in order to allow the Hwy. 5 Corridor Study to be completed. According to the notice I received, this Study will not be completed until the end of 1993 or later. I own 85 acres on the SW corner of Hwy. 5 and Gaipin Blvd. and am a partner in the Highway 5 Partnership, 1 which owns the 137 acres on the SE corner of Hwy. 5 and Gaipin Blvd. This proposed moratorium is definitely not acceptable to me. Such a ' move would make it impossible to sell or develop the properties I'm involved in. Currently there are signed purchase agreements for the 85 1- acres and for part of the 137 acres; the status of those agreements would be in doubt if you and the City Council support this moratorium. As a land owner, I find it impossible to make business decisions, when both the "How" and the "When" is controlled by an outside power. 1 1 • RECEIVED FEB 0 4 1993 1 CITY OF CHAHh,Q SEN 1 1 BETTY L. O'SHAUGHNESSY 1000 Hesse Farm Road, Chaska, MN 55318 (612) 496-1707 1 If you insist on this course, the least I must do is withdraw my petition for the extension of utilities to my 85 acres. Isn't it amazing that in one 1 week I would receive a letter from Don Ashworth indicating that 1 would be responsible for a cash deposit or a letter of credit for $2,700, to cover the costs of a feasibility study for Phase I1 of the Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Utility Improvement Project to be completed in 1993; and another letter informing me that the development of this land would not be possible until 1994? For a land owner, this is most frustrating. Please consider the rights and needs of the landowners when you vote on this - Since 0 y, / • . Shaughn 1 CC: ken . , ort Paul 4 a e, Ci , Council Members • -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -f Opus Corpontion 0 PU. 800 Opus Confer Mailing Address 9900 Bien Road East RID, Box 150 Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 -9600 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440-0150 612936.4444 Fax 612. 936.4529 February 5, 1993 1 The Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive ' PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers; Opus Corporation as the developer of the proposed Gateway West Business Park at the intersection of Highways 5 and 41 in the city of Chanhassen wishes to express our opposition to the inclusion of our property in the proposed moratorium area along Highway 5. ' We understand the importance of our site to the city of Chanhassen and we will continue to work with city staff and city advisory groups as they continue their activities. However, because of the stipulations attached to our concept approval and the PUD process which will be required for this property, we feel ' the city has adequate controls in place and Gateway West Business Park should be exempt from any moratorium which may be imposed. We have been working with the city for approximately one year nn the development of the master plan for this property and there are still numerous issues to be resolved. While the governmental approval process for a project of this scale is understandably lengthy and complicated, it is also important that the process be predictable and timely so that development can commence. It has also come to our attention that the city is contemplating utilizing federal and state funds to construct the north frontage road along Highway 5. We request that should such funds be available that they be ' allocated to the construction of the south Highway 5 frontage mad as well in order to treat property owners on both the north and south side of Highway 5 in an equitable manner. ' Thank you for your consideration of our requests, Sincerely, Merle le Foster ' Director Real Estate Development MFYts ct Paul Steiner John Uban Opus Corporation is on affiliate of the Opua group of companies — Architects, Contractors, Developers Austin, Chicago, Dollos, Denver, Houston, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Pensacola, Phoenin, $valUd, Tarrwu Z 'd £Z :ZI £661'S 'Z N0I1tid0d2100 SldO WOad 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • JAMES P LARKIN LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Lm. PAUL 8. PLUNKETT ROBERT L. HOFFMAN ALAN L. KILDOW JACK DALY ATTORNEYS A T LAW KATHLEEN M. NEWMAN MICHAEL B. LEBARON D. KENNETH LINDGREN fi `'' g �k� GERALD H. MULLIGAN LL � WAIF GARY O A. VAN CLEVE KORSTAD ALLAN E. MULLIG JAMES C. ERICKSON DANIEL L. BO W LES EDWARD J. DRISCOLL 1600 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER - L - j_ TODD M. VLATKOVICH GENE N. FULLER � - : t C :.( (� TIMOTHY J. McMANUS JOHN D. FULLMER 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH h _ " '� ! TIMOTHY J. KEANE ROBERT E. BOYLE ALAN M. ANDERSON FRANK I. HARVEY BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 5543. p DONNA L. RGBACK CHARLES S. MODEL. ,� (T`/ O1 C I ; CHRISTOPHER J. DIETZEN TELEPHONE (612) 835 -3800 ,_�' - ° �' F -- -- , - .- MICHAEL A. SCREEN MICHAEL A. ROBERTSON I JOHN R. BEATTIE LINDA H. FISHER FAX (612) 896 -3333 LISA A. GRAY THOMAS P STOLTMAN GARY A. RENNEKE MICHAEL C. JACKMAN SHANNON K. J. HARRISTHAL CHRISTOPHER J. HARRISTHAL JOHN E. DIEHL JON S. SWIERZEWSKI WILLIAM C. GRIFFITH, JR. JOHN J. STEFFENHAGEN THOMAS J. FLYNN DANIEL W VOSS III JAMES P QUINN MARK A. RURIK TODD I. FREEMAN PETER K. BECK JAMES K. MARTIN JEROME H. KAHNKE JOHN R. HILL THOMAS J. SEYMOUR GERALD L. SECK MICHAEL J. SMITH JOHN 8. LUNDQUIST FREDERICK K. HAUSER III DAYLE NOLAN CILIBERTO MARY E. VOS THOMAS 8. HUMPHREY, JR. LARRY D. MARTIN JOHN A COTTER* JANE E. BREMER BEATRICE A. ROTHWEILER MARCY R. KREISMAN OF COUNSEL WENDELL R. ANDERSON JOSEPH GITIS RICHARD A. NORDBYE 11 .ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN February 5, 1993 UPDATED II Mayor Don Chmiel City Council Member Richard Wing 7100 Tecumseh Lane 3481 Shore Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Excelsior, Minnesota 55121 I City Council Member Mike Mason City Council Member Mark Senn 833 Wood Hill 7160 Willow View Curve Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 I City Council Member Colleen Dockendorf 2061 Oakwood Ridge • Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 II Re: Opposition to Proposed Development Moratorium Within the Highway 5 II Corridor on Behalf of the Owners of Approximately Three Acres of Land at Highway 5 and Lake Drive East, Chanhassen, Minnesota Our File No. 19,721 -00 I Dear Mayor and City Council Members: We represent the owners of the above - referenced site which is the I subject of certain zoning and subdivision applications to allow development of an Abra Auto Body Repair and a Goodyear Service facility on the property (legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Chan I Haven Plaza, 3rd Addition) (the Property). This letter- memorandum summarizes background information and our reasons for opposing inclusion of the Property in the proposed development moratorium. We I request that this letter be formally made a part of the record of decision, both in the consideration of the development moratorium, and in the decision on the pending development applications for the Property. 1 II r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 LARHIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. City Council Cou cil Members February 5, 1993 II Page 2 ' I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Prior History II The Property, currently undeveloped, has been part of a larger parcel (the Mason Parcel) which has been the subject of much discussion, litigation, and development limitation over the years. In 1982, I McDonald's proposed a restaurant development on a portion of the Mason Parcel. The proposal resulted in the filing of two lawsuits. First, when the City Council failed to approve the plat and site plan on April 19, 1982, McDonald's instituted proceedings for a writ of II mandamus commanding the City Council to approve its application. On May 10, 1982, the City Council moved for reconsideration and approved the application subject to dismissal of McDonald's petition for a I writ. On May 28, 1982, the Chanhassen Estates Residence Association I instituted an action for declaratory judgment that the City Council's approval of the McDonald's project was invalid, and for an injunction against the issuance of a building permit. The resident group argued I that the City of Chanhassen (the City) zoning ordinance required approval of a conditional use permit, in addition to plat and site plan approval. The case was ultimately heard by the Minnesota Supreme Court which, on January 13, 1984, decided in favor of the property II owner based upon the fact that the City zoning ordinance was ambiguous about whether or not the project was a permitted or conditional use. See Chanhassen Estates Residence Ass'n v. City of Chanhassen, 342 ' N.W.2d 335 (Minn. 1984). Consequently, any development on the Property was restricted by the lawsuit for over two years. ' After approving the subdivision of the larger parcel to allow development of the existing McDonald's restaurant, the City Council imposed a six -month moratorium on lands which included the Property. (See City Council minutes dated August 23, 1982.) The moratorium, I which was originally scheduled to last only six months, was finally lifted October 23, 1984, more than two years later. Then, as now, the City was pursuing an update of its zoning ordinance in response to 1 development in the Highway 5 corridor. After the moratorium, and presumably after studying what was the II proper zoning for the Property, the City, in 1986, adopted what is essentially the current zoning ordinance, which establishes the BH- Highway and Business Service uses for the Property. 1 1 1 1 LARHIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. City Council Members II February 5, 1993 Page 3 II Current Applications The parties proposing the Goodyear Auto Service facility and the Abra I Auto Body Repair (together the Applicant) began discussions with City staff about the proposals in early 1992. Following commencement of these discussions with the Applicant, but prior to formal application, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 173 deleting Section 20 -712, 1 subparagraph (20) which allowed "automobile servicing within enclosed structures designed for the purpose where fuel is not dispensed" as a "permitted use" in the BH- Highway and Business Service district. 1 The ordinance was effective upon the publication on September 3, 1992. II The Applicant submitted a formal application to the City, approximately two weeks later, on September 19, 1992. The Applicant I submitted an application for a conditional use permit because of the ordinance amendment. Prior to that change, the use was also listed as a permitted use in the BH zone. 1 The application was for both the Goodyear and the Abra Auto Service facilities (the Project). Staff have generated several reports on the Project, dated October 21, 1992; November 18, 1992 (a second report, ' dated November 18, 1992, was generated for Goodyear only); November 23, 1992 and most recently February 2, 1993. Each report has detailed compliance with applicable standards, itemized numerous I conditions of approval, and has recommended approval of the Project. When the Planning Commission first considered the Project at its meeting of November 18, 1992, lengthy discussion ensued regarding the 1 design. There was no clear direction to the Applicant as to design criteria. The matter was tabled to the meeting of December 2, 1992, for further revisions. 1 At the Planning Commission's meeting of December 2, 1992, the Project proposal was forwarded to the City Council. Again, lengthy discussion ensued, without a clear consensus or recommended design changes. The II Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the Project, with the suggestion that "we pass this up to Council tonight and let them take a hack at it." 1 The City Council spent a substantial portion of its meeting of January 11, 1993 discussing both the Goodyear and Abra proposals I (staff had informally separated the two proposals). Many comments were made by Council members concerning Project design, concerns about the auto - related land uses in the City's eastern "gateway" on Highway 5, and frustration with the lack of standards or guidelines 1 with which to consider the Project design. At one point, City Attorney Elliott Knetsch, in response to a question 1 regarding the timing of City Council approval, stated, "you are obligated to act on the preliminary plat, but then I believe it's 120 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 LARHIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. City Council Members February 5, 1993 II Page 4 II days after it's submitted to you from the Planning Commission, so I II don't think you could wait until it's done to act on this. You are legally required to act in a certain amount of time." (See City • Council minutes, dated January 11, 1993, p. 24.) Following extensive testimony from City staff, City Council members, the Applicant, and the public, the City Council voted to table action II on the Goodyear proposal for 30 days, and to direct staff to come back with the proposed draft ordinance on a moratorium with findings. 1 Applicant Revisions The Project has been informally and formally discussed over the last I ten months. The Applicant has made numerous changes, revisions and accommodations in response to comments by City staff, Planning Commissioners, Council members'and residents. At least five separate revisions to the Project drawings have been made since formal application in September. The Applicant has always endeavored to II cooperate with all reasonable requests, of the City. I Staff has stated on a number of occasions at public meetings that the Project meets, and in many cases substantially exceeds, the development standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 20 of the City Code). The Applicant has increased the setback from I Highway 5. The investment in landscaping is two times the minimum requirement. Landscape berms have been increased in height to shield parking from the view of passing motorists. The service bay doors I have been turned inward to face each other so as not to be visible from either Highway 5 or the residential area. The building footprints have been offset in a staggered configuration to break up I the front building line. The site level has been reduced approximately five feet below the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) auto emissions facility to reduce the Project's apparent height. The total sign area has been reduced approximately 25 percent below the allowed sign area. Architectural design, building elevations, roof lines, building materials and decorative accents have all been substantially revised over the past several ' months to accommodate the various tastes of individual decision makers involved in this process. ' City Testimony The following are representative of the inability of the City to articulate to the Applicant a direction to follow in revising building II plans: ° Since we don't have the Highway 5 program yet up and running, I am not sure exactly where the gray area is or how far we should push that. Given the fact that this is somewhat traditional i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. City Council Members February 5, 1993 II Page 5 site planning, we worked with Beissner on and off as he indicated, for many months you know, trying to get a handle on where Highway 5 is going. Trying to do the best job we can ' within the existing ordinances. (Paul Krauss, November 18, 1992.) ° Now we're going to have McDonald's and the test station and this ' building and this building, and it is the entrance to Chanhassen from the east, and it doesn't seem to be going very well. But I don't know how to change it. You know these kinds of businesses ' are businesses we all use, and it's not the kind of situation where you want to say, well, they can be in somebody else's community or something. And there ought to be a solution in it, ' but I don't know what it is. The way the land is zoned now, it's an appropriate use I think for the area. (Commissioner Emmings, November 18, 1992.) ' ° I think the applicant has gone quite a long way in this process, and I'm sensitive to that, too. He spent a lot of time and money in developing many different concepts. I would have hoped ' that we could have zeroed more into what we really want at this point because there has been a lot of effort on both sides and I know that. (Commissioner Ledvina, December 2, 1992.) ' ° We're playing around with architecture, we're doing a lousy job, folks. We don't have standards to apply. (Commissioner Conrad, December 2, 1992.) ' ° I was hoping we could zone and limit fast food and auto centers and kind of centralize their automotive centers, and not spring ' them up on a strip basis, running out to our east and right down our gateway. So I guess I'm recognizing that this is meeting our standards and maybe there's very little to be said or done and my voting "no" would not even be a legal vote "no," if they're meeting our ordinance guidelines. (Council Member Wing, January 11, 1993.) ° I'm not sure at this point that we have much choice. I agree with your comments, but I wish this was coming six months later because I suspect we'd be done with our Highway 5 overlay. ' (Council Member Mason, January 11, 1993.) II. REASONS TO NOT IMPOSE A MORATORIUM ON THE PROPERTY A. The City Should Not Enact an Interim Moratorium Ordinance to Delay or Prevent the Project. I The Minnesota Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the principle that a municipality must exercise its authority to enact a moratorium for the purpose of protecting the planning process, not to delay or prevent a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. I/ City Council Members February 5, 1993 Page 6 single project. Medical Services, Inc. v. City of Savage, 487 N.W.2d 263, 267 .(Minn. App. 1992) (citing Almquist v. Town of Marshan, 245 N.W.2d 819, 825 (Minn. 1976)) (municipalities may exercise police power to adopt moratorium ordinances provided the ordinances are II enacted in good faith and without discrimination). In the Medical Services case, the court concluded that the City of I Savage acted arbitrarily in adopting the moratorium ordinance because the applicant had filed for a special use permit, requested a building permit, and commenced a declaratory judgment action (regarding ' interpretation of the zoning ordinance), all prior to the City Council's adoption of the interim ordinance enacting the moratorium. The Medical Services case is analogous to the Goodyear and Abra I proposals for a number of reasons. The Applicant has been discussing the Project with the City for almost ten months. Applications have been filed and public hearings have been held. The staff and Planning I Commission have recommended approval based upon the Project's compliance with standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. A citizen task force for the Highway 5 corridor study has been II underway for well over a year. Now that the pending application has been heard by the Planning Commission and City Council, imposition of a development moratorium directed to halt the final approval of the I application is inconsistent with the City's statutory authority to enact such measures (Minn. Stat. § 462.355, subd. 4). ' B. The Imposition of a Development Moratorium on the Property May Result in a Compensable Regulatory Taking, Especially in Light of the Previous Moratorium on the Property. II The Supreme Court of the United States set down guidelines for regulatory taking jurisprudence in its 1987 landmark decision First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County I of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304, 107 S. Ct. 2378, 96 L. Ed. 250 (1987). A land use regulation, even a temporary moratorium, may result in a compensable taking. Id. "The general rule at least I is that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking." Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 67 L. Ed. 322, 43 S. Ct. 158, 28 A.L.R. 1321 (1922); See also Lucas v. South II Carolina Coastal Council, 112 S. Ct. 2886 (1992). The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently applied the Supreme I Court's regulatory takings holdings in the case of a moratorium imposed by the City of Woodbury. Woodbury Place Partners v. City of Woodbury, N.W.2d (Minn. App. 1992) (C2 -92 -670). While • the Minnesota court acknowledged that the United States Supreme 1 1 LA WON, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. City Council Members y mbe s February 5, 1993 Page 7 1 Court's holdings apply to development moratoria, it distinguished the Woodbury case because of the limited duration of the moratorium. II The Woodbury holding is distinguishable from the current application, because the Property, as part of the larger Mason Parcel, has undergone a ten -year series of moratorium II restrictions, lawsuits, zoning studies, and zoning changes, which, in effect, have delayed, limited or restricted proposed uses of the Property during this period. ' C. Denial of a Conditional Use Permit Is Arbitrary as a Matter of Law. II Minnesota courts have consistently held that zoning decisions at the local level must be supported by legally sufficient reasons for approval or denial. "Where a zoning ordinance specifies I standards which must be applied in determining whether or not to grant a conditional use permit, and the applicant fully complies with the specified standards, denial of the permit is arbitrary as a matter of law." Scott County Lumber v. City of Shakopee, 417 N.W.2d 721, 727 (Minn. App. 1988); Hay Township v. Grow, 206 N.W.2d 19, 22 (Minn. 1973). II The Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance sets forth detailed criteria for issuing conditional use permits (general standards for issuance of conditional use permits, Section 20 -232); (conditions of I approval imposable on issuance of conditional use permits, Section 20 -233); (special standards for conditional uses located in business, office, institutional or industrial district, ' Section 20 -281). City staff has opined that the Project meets, and in many cases exceeds, the standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The City does not have discretion to deny the Project given compliance with the rigid regulatory regime to which the II Project has been subjected. D. Community Opposition to a Project Is Not a Legally ' Sufficient Basis for Denial. It is well settled in Minnesota that denial of a conditional use I permit must be based on something more concrete than community opposition. Northpointe Plaza v. City of Rochester, 457 N.W.2d 398 (Minn. App. 1990) Chanhassen Estates Res. v. City of Chanhassen, 342 N.W.2d 335 (Minn. 1984); C.R. Investments, Inc. 1 v. Village of Shoreview, 304 N.W.2d 320 (Minn. 1981); Northwestern College v. City of Arden Hills, 281 N.W.2d 865 (Minn. 1979); Inland Constr. Co. v. City of Bloomington, 195 I N.W.2d 558 (Minn. 1972). Under Minnesota law, community opposition to the land use, especially when the use is clearly allowed under the Zoning II Ordinance in compliance with applicable standards, cannot be the basis for denial. 1 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Lm. City Council Members February 5, 1993 II Page 8 1 E. Minnesota Does Not Support Denial Based Solely on Aesthetics Considerations. Minnesota is one of the jurisdictions which will not decide a case "solely on aesthetics." County of Pine v. State Dep't of Natural Resources, 280 N.W.2d 625 (Minn. 1979). In City of Bemidji v. Beighley, 410 N.W.2d 338 (Minn. App. 1987), the court 1 stated, "Historically, courts have hesitated to allow cities to base their zoning regulations on aesthetic considerations alone. . . . Instead, courts have struggled to find other ' legitimate purposes to uphold zoning ordinances." Id. at 340. The developer has made several revisions to the site plan to I address aesthetic comments made by the City. Landscaping has been expanded, screening increased, signage area reduced, and building roof lines redrawn. The Project meets applicable written standards. ' F. The City's Failure to Act on the Preliminary Plat Within the Statutory Time Period Results in Its Automatic ' Approval. The statutory deadline for acting on a preliminary plat is clear. Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd. 3(b) states, "A subdivision I application shall be preliminarily approved or disapproved within 120 days following delivery of an application completed in compliance with the municipal ordinance by the applicant to the I municipality, unless an extension of the review period has been agreed to by the applicant. . . . If the municipality or the responsible agency of the municipality fails to preliminarily I approve or disapprove an application within the review period, the application shall be deemed preliminarily approved, and upon demand the municipality shall execute a certificate to that effect." 1 The plat application was filed with the City on September 19, 1992. The City had until January 17, 1993 to act on the I preliminary plat. Since it has not done so, under the subdivision statute, the preliminary plat must be deemed approved. III. CONCLUSION If the City adopts a development moratorium, it should exempt the II Property. The Project fully complies with all City standards. To place the Property under a moratorium will result in a I substantial detriment to the property owners and the Applicant. The Project should be approved. ' LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. City Council Members II February 5, 1993 Page 9 1 Thank you for your time and consideration in reviewing this letter. i Sincerely, 1 Robert L. Hoffman and 1 William C. Griffith, Jr., for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. 1 cc: Jeannie Mason Vernelle Clayton Don Hagen Al Beisner Don Ashworth, City Manager Roger Knutson, City Attorney Paul Krauss, City Planner 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WCG:BBSA 02.05 %95 11:52 $612 452 5550 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 44' CHA! . CITY HALL Z002 /004 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. At t mlcys At Line Thom;:, 1. C:amrl ell (612) 452 - 5001 • 7 NI. SCt1(t au). FuL :11 Limes R. Witiston Elliott 13. Kn r;t h R t t i v) A, einksr February 5, 1993 Rtatat: h, titt:inir Ms. Karen Engelhardt Chanhassen City flail 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Minnewashta Parkway Reconstruction Project (Parcel 11B - James and Ruth Boylan) Dear Karen: ' Enclosed please find resolution authorizing the acquisition of the Boylan easements for the proposed Minnewashta Parkway Recon- struction Project. It appears that the Boylans are now unwilling to sign a waiver of trespass /right of entry prior to settling the easement acquisition. Therefore, please place this matter on the next City Council agenda for approval. ' Very truly yours, CAMPBELL, 'A TSON, OTT ' & FU - f ' BY: James Walston JRW: srn Enclosure cc: Don Ashworth Charles Folch ' Suitt; 317 - Eagandale Office Center • 13S0 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121 02.05/93 11:53 $812 452 5550 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 444 CHAN. CITI' HALL 6/003 %004 I/ CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA REBOLUTION ' Date Resolution 1 Motion Ey Seconded By RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, does hereby determine that it is necessary and for a public use and purpose to acquire the easements described on the attached Exhibit 1 "A" for the proposed Minnewashta Parkway Reconstruction Project; and 1 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk /Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute all documents necessary to effect the acquisition of the aforementioned ' easements, and that the City Attorney be, and hereby is, authorized and directed to effect negotiations and /or, if necessary, institute 1 condemnation proceedings and to do all things necessary and incidental thereto to acquire the easements pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 117 under the "quick take" provisions of the statute. ADOPTED this day of , 1993, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen. ATTEST: 1 Don Ashworth, Clerk /Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor 3098 02/05.93 11:53 'x`612 452 5550 CAMPBELL KNLJ'SON 444 CHAN. CITI HALL 004/004 11 EXHIBIT 11Au 1 (Parcel 11B - James and Ruth Boylan) A permanent easement for roadway, drainage and utility purposes over and across the following described property: ' Beginning at a point 594.2 feet East of the southwest corner of Government Lot 5, Section 5, Township 116, Range 23 West; thence North 100 feet at right angles to the South line of said Government Lot 5, to the place of beginning of parcel of land to be described; thence continuing north 162.5 feet; thence East and parallel with the south line of said Government Lot 5, 766.9 feet to the shore of Lake Minnewashta; ' thence southwest along said lake shore 187.0 feet more or less to a point 674.28 feet East of the place of beginning; thence West 674.28 feet to the place of beginning. Said easement being 22 feet to the left and 28 feet to the right of the following described line: 1 Commencing at the southwest corner of said Government Lot 5, thence easterly along the south line of said Government Lot 5 a distance of 594.2 feet; thence northerly deflecting to the ' left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 10O.feet; thence easterly parallel with the south line of Government Lot 5 a distance of 504.23 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence northeasterly deflecting to the ' left 53 degrees 57 minutes 45 seconds a distance of 3.92 feet; thence northeasterly, along a tangential curve concave to the northwest, having a radius of 829.04 feet, to the north line 1 of the above described land and there terminating. The side lines of said easement are to be prolonged or shortened to terminate on north and south lines of the above described land. 1 1 1 1 1 1 3098