Loading...
9 Amend Hidden Valley PUDCITYOF CHANHASSEN £i{y Center Drive, PO Box 147 ~nhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.93Z 1900 :eneral Fax 612.937, 5739 ineenng Fax 612.93Z9152 lie Safe~y Fax 612.934.2524 b www. ci. chanhassen, mn. us MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Botcher, City Manager FROM: Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner I DATE: August4,1999 SUB J: Lot 1, Block 7, Hidden Valley Development Standards BACKGROUND On April 14, 1999, the Planning Commission reviewed the request to amend the Hidden Valley PUD to permit a church, office or assisted living facility on Lot 1, Block 7. The commission unanimously recommended approval of the church but by a.vote of 5 to 1, denied the request to permit office or an assisted living facility on the site. The City Council reviewed the amendment request on May 10, 1999. The request was tabled so that staff could compile additional information. Based upon the information and discussion at that meeting, the applicant submitted another use for the site, an office and medium density residential mix. The first reading for the rezoning was approved on June 28, 1999 by a vote of 3 to 1. (Note: The second and final reading of the rezoning will have to be approved by a 4/5 vote.) Specifically, the council approved the existing church as a permitted use and any expansion of the church, assisted living facility and office and medium density residential mix are conditional uses. As part of the rezoning/amendment approval, staff was directed to draft development standards for the potential future development of the site. The standards are shown in Attachment 1. The previous staff report was-utilized to draft the standards. The only new information included in the draft is the assisted living facility criteria and additional building material and design requirements. ANALYSIS The development standards allow the existing church as a permitted use, but require a conditional use permit for any expansion of the church, assisted living facility, or office in conjunction with medium density residential on the site. Any development will be required to proceed through site plan review. The uses that are conditional may have conditions that intend to mitigate any issues such as screening or limiting hours. ..%'ty of Chanhassen. A growing commum0 with clean lakes, quali{y schoo& a charming downtown, thrivin~ businesses, and beautifiul parks A ~reat place to live, work, and ~lav. Mr. Scott Botcher August 3, 1999 . Page 2 · Since the zoning ordinance does'not address an "assistedliving facility," staffhas prep-ared_~ definition. The definition is general. The development standards for Lot 1,Block 7, hidde~ Valley are specific in the required age served and maximum square footage of the individu~ units. The size of the units is based upon information supplied by the applicant. This ' information is in Attachment 3. ' ' - - During the May 10, 1999 City Council meeting, discussion surfaced about theanciltary use" church. The current definition permits classroom facilities but prohibits day carecenters. many churches have day care centers Or social or community programs operating in thebuil at some time during the week, staffhas amended the definition. Specifically~ the amendme! states that pre-schools, day care centers and cultural, social' and educationalPrograms are. customary ancillary uses. Italso states that the programs neednotbe operated by the chum~ Staff believes this definition is consistent wltlxthe true operat-ton ora church. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning and development standards.-. RECOMMENDATION '- Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motions: · · "The City Councilapproves the second and final reading forthe rezomng anddevelopment standards for Lot 1, Block 7, Hxdden Val ey. "TheCity Council approvesa comprehensivela,nd useptan amendment fr0m Publ ~to Mixed Use on Lot 1, Block 7, HiddenVa!ley." _ - _ _-. ~__-~f:~: Attachments ' - - - -- - 1. Development Standards - - . _ 2. Definitions '- _ -~ 3. Assisted Living Facility Specifics _ - _ 4. Minutes from t-he June28, 1999CityCouncil Meeting \\cfs l\vol2\plan\ck~foc pud amend memo.doe ATTACHMENT 1 LOT 1, BLOCK 7, HIDDEN VALLEY 275 Lake Drive East Chanhassen, MN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a mixed use PUD consisting of institutional, specifically church, health service, specifically assisted living facility, or office and residential use. The intent is to provide for public or quasi-public nonprofit uses, professional business and administrative offices and medium density residential at a maximum net density of eight dwelling units per acre. Any development on the site shall proceed through site plan review based upon the following development standards. If there is a question as to whether or not a use a use meets this definition, the Community Development Director shall make the interpretation. b. Permitted Use The permitted use in this zone is limited to the church (as it exists on the date of the adoption of this ordinance). c. Conditional Uses The following conditional uses may be permitted in this zone. Health Service: Assisted living facility, subject to the following criteria: Residents shall be 55 years or older Maximum of 60 units The area of the units shall be limited to the following: a. two bedroom 885 sq. ft. b. one bedroom 545 sq. ft. c. studio 350 sq. ft. Institutional: Establishments that are non-profit or have a public purpose. Any physical expansion of existing church Office: Professional and business office, non-retail activity. Development shall be limited to 15,000 sq. ft. of office space. Must be developed in conjunction with medium density residential. Finance, insurance and real estate Engineering, accounting, research management and related services Legal services Residential: Medium density residential, not to exceed eight dwelling units per acre Prohibited Uses: Any uses not included in this document d. Setbacks In the PUD standards, there is the requirement for landscape buffering in addition to building and parking setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply: Minimum Setback Minimum Setback Street Frontage Building (in fee0 Parking (in fee0 Lake Drive East 35 25 Interior Side Lot Lines 10 0 Perimeter Lot Lines 50 - office; institutional 30 30 - medium density residential Hidden Court 30 35 In the event the property is subdivided, there shall be a zero setback requirement for parking areas provided the requirements of the zoning ordinance are met either through access easements or satisfactory party wall agreements. e. Development Site Coverage and Building Height 1. The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 65 percent for the overall development. 2. More than one principal structure may be place on one platted lot. 3. The maximum building height for any one building shall be limited to 3 stories or 40 feet. f. Building Materials and Design The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. The intent is to create a residential feeling or character. The development shall be compatible with the residential character of the immediate neighborhoods and with the style and materials used in the existing church improvements. o All materials shall be of high quality, durable and compatible with those found in typical residential construction. Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall be face brick, stone, stucco, wood, cedar siding, vinyl siding with support materials, or approved equivalent as determined by the City. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material or camouflaged to blend into the building or background. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. The buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing compatible with the character of the immediate residential area. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. There shall be no underdeveloped sides of buildings visible from public right-of-ways. All elevations visible from the street shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities. The materials and colors used for each building shall be selected in context with the adjacent residential structures and provide for a harmonious integration With them. Extreme variations between buildings in terms of overall appearance, bulk and height, setbacks and colors shall be prohibited. Slope roof elements shall be incorporated in all structures. Residential roofs shall be pitched. Trash collection areas shall be screened and shall be considered an "accessory structure" as described above and shall not be permitted with the rear or side buffering areas. Space for recycling shall be provided in the interior of all principal structures or within the trash enclosure. Architecturally aesthetic parapets and sloped roofs, or the appearance of sloped roofs when viewed from the sides of the buildings, shall be permitted. Provided this requirement is met and provided all roof mounted equipment is screened, there shall 'be no limitation as to the amount of non-sloped area when viewed from above any building. Site Landscaping and Screening Landscaping along the eastern and southern perimeter property line shall comply with buffer yard "C". As part of the requirements, the applicant shall provide 100 percent of the landscape material required as part of the 20 foot wide buffer yard "C." All open areas shall be landscaped, rockscaped or covered with plantings or lawn material. o 4 5. There shall be landscaped, undulating berms along the eastern and southern perimeter lot lines. The height of the berming shall range from three to five feet. Loading areas shall be screened 100 percent year round from public right-of-ways. Storage of material outdoors is prohibited. Signage A sign plan shall be submitted as part of the site plan review process. One sign shall be permitted on Lake Drive. The sign shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area and five feet in height. Lighting Lighting of the parking and peripheral areas shall use shielded light fixtures. All illumination shall be directed away from adjacent residential areas. Light fixtures on poles shall be limited to 20 feet in height. Light levels shall not exceed one-half foot candle as measured at the property line. Access Access shall be as follows: Assisted Living Facility Church Medium Density Residential Office Lake Drive East Lake Drive East Hidden Court (if developed in conjunction With office use) Lake Drive East Pedestrian access shall be provided from each site to the public sidewalk and trail system. Parking Parking shall comply with ordinance requirements with the following exception: Assisted Living Facility A minimum of 0.5 stalls per unit, conditioned upon satisfactory proof of adequate parking ATTACHMENT 2 Section 20-1 Definitions Assisted Living Facility: means a facility for persons who may be semi-dependent on others for meeting their daily needs. A limited number of support services may be offered at these facilities. Such facilities may provide rooms, meals, personal care, and supervision of self- administered medication. Other services such as housekeeping, transportation and recreational activities may also be provided. The facility may include common dining, cultural and recreational areas. Church: means a building or edifice consecrated to religious worship, where people join together in some form of public worship under the aegis and direction of a person who is authorized under the laws of the State of Minnesota to solemnize marriages. A church may include living quarters for persons employed on the premises and classroom facilities. The following are considered customary ancillary uses of a church: pre- schools, day care centers and cultural, educational and social programs or activities which may be operated by another agency or non-profit group. The following are not considered as churches: Camp meeting grounds, mikvahs, coffee houses, recreational complexes, retreat houses, sleeping quarters for retreatants during spiritual retreats extending for periods of more than one (1) day. Bible camps with live-in quarters, publishing establishments, ritualo.,.,.~,-....°~ .... ~'~ ..u ..o.,~ ,*' ...... radio or television towers and transmission facilities, technological seminaries, ~, hospitals and drug treatment centers are not churches. Ju1-16-99 11:56A LotUs OUL--ZO--I~ JU~ JU;U! H~ Rea Ity ATI T 6 FAX NO, 612~429267 P, P.02 02 BI 15/97 Prel3ared by Information Systems ?'/12199 Page I SPACE ALLOCATION ANALYSIS FOR ASSISTED LIVING Description Number Net sq, Ft. Total Sq. Ft. Resident Areas "l'wo Bedroom One Bedroom St-,dio Activity Room Large Living Room (lst Flr) Housekeeping Lom~gcs Personal Lam~dty E/cctrlcal Closet Storage 95 885 42 60 545 3 32O I 625 3 30 6 6 80 3 30 6 130 7.965 22,890 4,068 960 625 90 1.,020 480 90 780 Subtotal 38,968 Office/A &nints(ratio. n Director of Nursing Activities Director I 120 120 I 120 120 Subtotal 240 Assiste. d=. Living Dining_ .. Din/ag Room Warming Pantxy Public Toilets 1 1,625 1,625 I 200 20O 2 50 100 Subtotal 1,925 'IDTALS Net Project Total xl. 2 Gross Project Total 41,133 49,360 49,3_60. R:\ ! 998',051016\pd\PROG RAM3.xls Ki~£ Architects Designs for the Aging Studio City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 able to do that and so the purpose of putting the stop sign is relatively ineffective. If we provide the increase in speed enforcement. We now have the crosswalk in place and really monitored at this point it would seem to all of us, and again add comment that we can't really enforce the stop sign as requested in that it is against municipal state aid guidelines as presented by staff. I guess I would just add that so that conversation is on the record. Acting Mayor Senn: Any other comments? Councilman Labatt: No. Linda has the same as I had. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay if not, could I have a motion please? Councilman Labatt: I make a motion to, according to staff's recommendation of May 7th memo. Attached on the back. Right before the map. Reinstall the double yellow line. The crosswalk's been installed, and the public safety department to increase enforcement of the 30 mph speed limit on the road. Councilwoman Jansen: I'd second. Acting Mayor Senn: Discussion on the motion? Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded that the city Council make the following recommendations for Lake Lucy Road: The double yellow no passing zone striping be reinstalled along Lake Lucy Road shifting it to the north to provide the 8 foot parking lane and 12 foot driving lanes. A crosswalk be installed on the east side of the intersection to.provide pedestrian access to the trail on the north side of Lake Lucy Road. 3. The Public Safety Department provide enforcement of the 30 mph speed limit on Lake Lucy Road. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE HIDDEN VALLEY PUD TO ALLOW CHURCH .F. ACILITIES~ ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES OR OFFICES AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AS PERMITTED USES AND TO INCORPORATE SPECIFIC DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF LOT II BLOCK 7, HIDDEN VALLEY; LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST AND EAST OF HIDDEN COURT; 275 LAKE DRIVE EAST~ FAMILY OF CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH. Public Present: Name Address Brad Johnson Dan Lorinser Jim Murphy P. Benjamin Gordy Nagel 8026 Erie Avenue 8020 Erie Avenue 8021 Hidden Court 7231 Minnewashta Parkway 514 Del Rio Drive 4 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Brad Johnson Jim Sulerud Steve Nornes Randy Koepsell Dawn & Les Dahlberg Bill & Pamela Franzen Rod Franks Chris Anderson Mark Spangrud Melanie Wegner Ronald J. & Elaine A. Larson Josh Nelson Sue McCarthy Sherol Howard Jean Mansini Dick & Pat Hamblin Paul Nicolai Tom & Kay Faust Karen Klinsing Brian Steckling Dennis Rakoer Dave Cameron Tim & Adell Glaser David Stason Shari Lindsey Greg Gmiterko Carol Watson 7425 Frontier Trail 730 Vogelsberg Trail 1451 Heron Drive 1110 Dove Court 1165 Wildwood Way 2370 Stone Creek Lane West 8694 Mary Jane Circle 16886 Hanover Lane, Eden Prairie 7487 Bent Bow Trail 8727 Flamingo Drive Waconia 566 Kassel Lane, Chaska 8001 Hidden Court 820 Santa Vera Drive 820 Santa Vera Drive 340 Sinnen Circle 8051 Hidden Circle 541 Mission Hills 8090 Hidden Court 8040 Hidden Court 7250 Greenridge Drive 8161 Hidden Court 8140 Hidden Court 250 Kirsten Lane 250 Hidden Court 8121 Hidden Court 7131 Utica Lane Acting Mayor Senn: On this item there have already been one public hearing before the Planning Commission. There's also been a public hearing before the council. The public hearing has been closed. We will allow some brief comment tonight on this item once the staff report is complete. However, that comment will be limited to about 3 minutes per person and will be limited in total to about a half hour at most. And then we will be going on. We have a very full agenda tonight and a lot of items for consideration so we'll do the best we can on that. Let's see here, let's start with staff report please. Cindy Kirchoff: Thank you. This item was reviewed and tabled by the City Council on the June 14th city council meeting to request information to further clarification on several issues. Namely the definition of assisted living facilities. The traffic that is generated by church and the secondary uses, among other issues. The applicant has provided a definition of assisted living facilities and that is located in the staff report in Attachment # 13. They also have supplied traffic estimates for the church uses and secondary uses and that is also located in Attachment #12. And their information indicates that the estimate would generate more traffic than an office use and staff has compiled a table of the proposed uses for this site, church, office, residential and assisted living and that is located in Table 2 of the staff report. Staff would be happy to answer any questions about that table if you have any. Since the last meeting the applicant has supplied, or has indicated that they have a third requested use and that is an office residential mix. Essentially what they would like is 2 one story office buildings on the northern portion of the site and medium density residential on the southern portion of the site. This mix does offer a transition between the single family homes to the south and the proposed office to the north. Staff does support this use basically because it is a transition and their other use, which was mentioned at the last City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 meeting is an assisted living facility. Staff does support this use because again it offers a good transition. The applicant has indicated they would like another use. A office use which would be up to 25,000 square feet of office and staff does not feel this is compatible with the single family residential to the east and the south. When considering these uses the city council could consider the assisted living facility and the office residential mix as a conditional use and the church as a permitted use under this PUD. The applicant has revised the development standards and based on the staff recommendations from the City Council meeting. However, based on the new proposal the office residential mix, staff has revised the standards. Most importantly the landscaping requirements. Staff would like the buffering to be increased to Buffer Yard C. This is required by ordinance between a residential and a mixed use development. And also staff would like to see the buffer yard maintain a 20 foot width around the perimeter of the site. Staff does recommend approval of a church, assisted living facility and office in conjunction with the medium density residential on Lot 1, Block 7, Hidden Valley. And also a change in land use plan from public, semi-public to mixed use. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Kate Aanenson: I want to add one other thing. Again the objective tonight is to look at the land uses. We'd have to, this is the first reading. A rezoning takes a second reading and we could come back, whichever direction the council goes. If you need that, we would come back with the specific PUD ordinance at your second reading. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay. Just so the audience understands on this one. parliamentary procedure wise so to speak, this is first reading tonight. First reading just simply requires a simple majority to go to the second reading. But once it gets to a second reading, this particular item will require a 4/5 vote to pass, regardless of how it's passed. So just to clarify that for everyone. Let's start first if we could. Are there any questions from council on staff's report and staff's updated recommendations?_ Councilwoman Jansen: I guess I just pose one question and that being within the recommendation. On the assisted living, are we adding to that, that it specifically be senior assisted living .versus it just being an open ended assisted living? Kate Aanenson: Yes, I think looking at the senior. Councilwoman Jansen: That it being senior. Acting Mayor Senn: That's basically guidance the council would have to give staff tonight as it relates to the final action, correct. Councilwoman Jansen: I think they meant to put it within the recommendation which was why I was asking. Kate Aanenson: Well we just left it assisted living. That was your direction at the time. Acting Mayor Senn: Yeah, they're looking to Council for direction on that. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. That was it. Acting Mayor Senn: Councilman Engel? Councilman Engel: Nothing yet. 6 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Acting Mayor Senn: Councilman Labatt? Councilman Labatt: On Attachment #6. Amendment to existing PUD. Under the residential. Under residential A. Assisted living density of not to exceed 60 units and a maximum size of 500 square feet per unit. What potential could be the minimum square footage? Kate Aanenson: Well if you look in the surveys that we have, the neighbors had put together, there was a range of some of the surrounding communities. Councilman Labatt: Right. That's what I'm basing my question on. Kate Aanenson: 400 to 750 1 guess we kind of looked at the average in that. That was the applicant's desire. The 500 square feet. Councilman Labatt: That's their desire for a maximum. Kate Aanenson: Right, but I think we may want to put a minimum. 350 at least. Councilman Labatt: Your recommendation. Kate Aanenson: At least a 350 minimum. Councilman Labatt: That's all I had for right now I think. I'll find some more here. Acting Mayor Senn: Alrighty. Alright, so no other questions from council? Councilwoman Jansen: Not at this time. Acting Mayor Senn: We'll open it up for public comment on staff's recommendation of staffs report. Please limit your comments to new information. We've already had two hearings on this. We do not need to repeat old information and your comments need to be confined to 3 minutes. So is there anybody here who would like to offer comment on this item? Jim Sulerud: My name is Jim Sulerud. I'm with the Building Committee at Family of Christ. We earlier decided amongst ourselves that we're not going to have multiple presentations and so I would indulge you for a couple more minutes beyond the 3 minutes and we'll respond to questions on the issues that you might raise. Acting Mayor Senn: Yeah, try to limit your remarks if you can, as close to 3 minutes and then we'll go to questions anyway. Jim Sulerud: Okay. Our theme on May 10 was changed and our theme tonight is compromise. We thank the staff and the council for their patience in the past and for their diligent pursuit of a mutually doable and community compatible solution. Thanks also to the neighbors for their input in our zoning process. Usually zoning and rezonings are barraged by citizens who want to exercise their own control over a neighbor's property for their own benefit. Here however we appreciate the input that these neighbors have offered towards this compromise solution. That recognizes not only their interest but also the interest of the whole community. As the applicant our role is to be the presenter. While some time ago we started out with a somewhat different proposal. We're now before you with an application City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 that represents not only our interests and ideas, but the interests and ideas of many. The proposal is a composite of compromises resulting from weeks, months, and even years of listening, fact finding and deliberation, formulation and reformulation. So while we now appear as the advocate of the proposal before you, you have seen in your materials that there is also, that this is also the same as the staff recommendation. And I'm moving on here. Earlier tonight you did approve in the consent agenda the construction of Stone Creek Drive, which is the drive that goes by our new church facility. So the church has been moving on in it's move toward it's new facility. A full seven years ago this congregation began the analysis for our decision to sell. After being unable to secure a purchase offer from any church, about a year ago we began discussions with the city staff for this rezoning solution. And only this last year did we retain Lotus Realty when it was our recognition that we'd exhausted the possibility of our sale to another church in the foreseeable future or by any time line that would not dramatically hamper our ability to serve our current members and welcome the new folks wanting to join. We were fully expecting that one of the variety of congregations in this area, all with whom we had made contact and that are worshipping in temporary quarters, would see our facility as a similar stepping stone for their growth as a congregation. We met with the neighbors individually, collectively. Sometimes in their setting. Sometimes at our church and over the phone. They were very helpful to us in thinking through our zoning issues. The question was, if not our church, then what? Land screening and berming would respect the neighbors desire for visual and sound privacy. Proposed uses and design standards that would not reach as high as the permitted 40 feet of a sanctuary or church gymnasium also respond to the neighbors desire for a diminished visual impact. Similarly a use that would not have such an aggressive build out as our own church future plan would provide for a neighbor, provide for the neighbors a development of a more neighborhood scale. Low intensity uses would respect the neighbors desire for moderate to low income traffic volumes and directing non-residential traffic only to Lake Drive East would reflect it's collector status and not reroute traffic to the residential street. We backed down from many of what we initially considered office institutional. We looked at high density residential that was early permitted, or was early guided for the site. We looked at many of the uses within office institutional and backed out of many of those as considerations. We settled on a recommendation that we made before you, before for you. Only three uses. Church, office, and a narrow slice of the residential market that was assisted living. That led to our meeting on May 10 when you listened to us. We listened to you, and we all listened to the neighbors. This parcel has served our church well for a particular period of our history and could have served, similarly served another congregation at that same location at that same time period. However, this site has not yet been found to match up with the present circumstance or for future plans of any other congregation. The site was our appropriate choice at that time considering MUSA, roads, and available land for sale. It is not a site that is appropriate for the presently known circumstances of any church today, yet it continues to be our priority to sell it to a church. Similarly, we do not have in hand a proposing for assisted living. We're experiencing some hesitancy due to site configuration. Therefore we've come up with a proposal that you see on the table here which is a compromise directed from the council to work with staff and it's for the mixed use. This is in addition to our request for the, still for the church and assisted living. You've seen and heard the recommendations of the staff. We see this as a compromise position for the church. It is an important part of this whole process. Compromise process. The church concurs in the recommendation set forth by the staff in the recommended motions and design standards with one exception. In design standard, on page 4, number 7 where it indicates no access to Hidden Court. The proposal obviously for the residential use anticipates that there would be access to that site. Otherwise we, in the mode of compromise accept the other suggestions from the staff. Even though we in the city have responded to the objectively stated concerns of the neighbors and others with descriptions that are appropriate to this formal planning process, we do not mean to imply that every single neighbor or every single member of our congregation is supportive of this proposal or compromise. In fact the disappointment of some who wish for no change is a disappointment that compromise cannot satisfy. So with all of this information City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 behind us... private and institutional interest, what is it that stands out for me as the clearest indication that we are right on the, that we are at the right time and have the right, appropriate uses in place. The staff report highlights that if the city looks at this site as a bare piece of land today, one would be led not to siting of a church, a church school, a church gymnasium and related services, activities and offices, but one would most likely be led to what we're asked, what we were asked by staff to consider and that's the mixed use as you see before you tonight. A stepping and a transition from single family residential to the nearby larger office by way of medium density residential and small, low profile office. It's the right thing to do in the absence of the parochial issues and it's the right thing to do after the public process we've all been through. Thank you. Acting Mayor Senn: Thank you. Since Mr. Sulerud offered to be the only speaker from the church, if' there's other people here advocating the church's position, if you'd please stand. And if any of you would like to come up to the microphone and give your name and address to enter it into the record, that be fair. If you want to do that. If you don't, we see that you're here. Audience: Does signing the paper also enter the name into the record? Acting Mayor Senn: Yes it does. Okay, thank you. Okay is there, I hate to break things down this way but I'ln trying to be efficient so. Sue McCarthy: I'm Sue McCarthy, 8001 Hidden Court and I represent the neighborhood I guess if you want to put it in that respect. We also took a vote and we felt that it was easier if one person spoke so I will try to be concise because a lot of this has already been put into print through e-mails, letters and reports but there's certain things that I want to stress because things have changed since the last council meeting and I want to make sure that we address them publicly. First of all I want to say thanks. For all of your efforts. For listening to us and answering our questions. On weekends, Sundays, etc. I also want to thank city staff for going above and beyond in supplying us with copies of more zoning regulations than I ever care to see again so one of the things we really want to put forth tonight is that our focus is on... Chanhassen City Code. That a PUD should provide a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than the use of standard zoning districts and development which is consistent with a comprehensive plan and that's City Code 20-501. With that in mind we have come up with a list of comments and recommendations on this proposal because that is our goal. We want to make sure that the PUD does have substantially higher quality than any other type of zoning because that's the whole definition of why a PUD exists. Number one, we are in favor of this property retaining to be a church. That has been said over and over again. I don't think you need to hear that in much more detail, except that I think probably the most important point is that the residents really bought their property with that aspect in mind because they liked the feeling of church, and that's just an unbelievable statement. Number two. We are opposed to the office use only which amounts to spot zoning. In that sense we are in agreement with what the city staff has come forth in their report regarding the use of office only as a permitted use on this PUD. Basically it's not consistent with the comprehensive plan for Chanhassen. It was never anticipated to be part of this PUD and as several people have cited as an example of why it should be, we don't think that the Northcott Office Building on the north side of Lake Drive is an appropriate example as to why we should continue to increase having an office use only in our neighborhood. Number three. Third use. The mixed office residential. We feel that that is problematic for this particular site. This is, as it was proposed to us in this concept plan that you have just seen, we feel that the density is too great to allow for proper buffering with the neighborhood. For example on the concept plan that we saw there is no buffering or berms. They have been deleted. An entrance has been added to Hidden Court, which was not currently discussed with the neighborhood. And we believe that there should be compliance of this particular example with the city codes as it relates to high density and City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 medium density housing. Actually medium density housing for half of it. We feel that the combination makes townhomes too compacted on the amount of land that has been attributed to them and we feel that this will be less desirable to potential buyers on the market. We are concerned with the access to Hidden Court because we do feel that will create traffic problems on Hidden Court. Not even to begin to address the type of concerns that will increase on the Lake Drive intersection with Hidden Court. That's another whole story, especially with Northcott going in this year. Two smaller office buildings are not better than one. We cite the example in Eden Prairie near the SuperAmerica. We are very concerned that our neighborhood does not become like that, which is a small clustering of medical office buildings that have grown and grown in size and it's very unsightly in how it's being put together. We also are probably one of our major concerns and why we want to make sure that this is in public record, is that this is a last minute change and it has not been reviewed by the Planning Commission and therefore has not followed proper procedures and processes within our town codes. We're very concerned by that. But we're also concerned that a vote is taken so we just want to publicly say we want to go ahead with it tonight but we don't appreciate the fact that this has not gone through the Planning Commission, as any other particular property would have to go if it was in this state. Number four, assisted living. We feel that assisted living may be compatible under certain conditions. If it is determined that one, there is a market need within Chanhassen and number two, which is probably even more important, that this is the best possible site within Chanhassen for assisted living. Today there is a loose definition as Steve pointed out on what assisted living is. And therefore leaves for appropriate development in qUestion. There is no minimum size defined. Only a maximum. There is no definition on how much percentage of common area should be included. There is also no evidence of market need presented by the applicant as to why assisted living is needed in Chanhassen. The proposed density is too great for this site and overpowers housing based on the plan that's put forth today. The proposed density is 60 units by 500 square feet maximum per unit. Plus 40% common space for a total of 42,000 square footage. This is twice as large as what the church's original site plan, which was approved by the city of about 25,000 feet was planned to be. What do we recommend? As you've heard office we oppose. Mixed office, medium density we oppose. Trying to keep this quickly. Assisted living we opposed but with the following recommendations. One, density. Limit it to 12 units per acre which is approximately 44 units at a maximum 500 square feet per unit to keep with the consistent city code 2671 regarding high density residential standards. Or limit the total square footage to 25,000 square feet, which is part of the original church site plan, which has already been approved. Unit size. Make sure that there is a minimum unit size of no less than 350 square feet, or 70% of the minimum square footage established by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development for a one bedroom apartment. Why is that important? Because you don't want nursing home rooms and it's very important that we see that actually articulated. We're concerned about building height. Limit it to two stories and versus what the city staff says, it should be two stories and 40 feet, consistent with residential building heights. Not or 40 feet. Setbacks. Increase side lot setbacks abutting housing to 50 feet... Increase setbacks from Hidden Court equal to the building height which is 40 feet, which is the distance from streets suggested by the PUD standards. City Code 20-505(0. Buffer yards. Require Buffer Yard D with primarily or at least approximately 80% conifers landscaping for good year round buffering where the applicant provides 100% of the landscape materials. Again, citing City Code 20-505(m). Market needs. There should be a moratorium on development until independent market feasibility studies show evidence of market need and this isn't in compliance with what the Minnesota Department of Health and Alliances said in the fact that they feel this market may be over saturated. Regulation. In order to ensure that the public health and safety require that the State registration of housing with services establishment, quote unquote, and any necessary state home healthcare license obtained be assisted living home health care licensing.. And that is to make sure that it does not become a health care agency for the rest of the city. It is just for that particular building. And finally that the monument sign should be limited to 15 square feet located on Lake Drive only. In 10 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 conclusion, we feel that we want to make sure that we continue to fall within the city code for PUD's as it relates to this particular proposal and again thank you for your time. Acting Mayor Senn: Thank you. Like with the church side, who else is here from the neighborhood? If you'd like to stand. And additionally if, I assume you've all signed in. If you haven't, please sign in and we'll have your names as part of the record. Thank you. Okay we'll bring it back to council for discussion. If we could let's try to maybe break the discussion down into, let's call it two phases because I think it will be a lot more understandable to everybody if we do. First phase of discussion would be over what council feels should be from an overall framework standpoint permitted uses versus non permitted uses versus conditional uses. Just so people in the audience may understand. We do have a vehicle available to us which is called conditional use which means we basically say that that type of use is okay in that zone. But it has to come back to council with a specific plan and everything in the future at which the council can put very specific parameters and requirements on at that time. I think that's an accurate explanation... I don't try to say it like Roger does. Roger Knutson: You did just fine. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, so let's deal with that first and then the second part of discussion we'll go to after that would be discussion of particular, depending on what happens in the first One basically then discussion of particular parameters as it would relate to any of those permitted or conditional items. So let's start from there. Councilperson Jansen. Councilwoman Jansen: I guess first of all thank you to everyone for bearing with the process. Staff as well as the neighborhood and all the work that you've put into this and the church. It's certainly been a long process. Looking at the proposal as it stands before us, I guess I keep coming back to the original premise for why all of this was being considered in the original guidelines that were posed to us for considering a rezoning. And I'll just read those right from the original staff report that we were given. And in there it's noted, in order to justify the amendment to the PUD and comprehensive plan it must be shown that the parcel has not been given special treatment. The changes are for the benefit of the entire community and the action complies with the comprehensive plan. If the action or request does not meet the three criteria, it can be deemed a spot zoning. Spot zoning is zoning for a lot or parcel of land to benefit an owner for a use incompatible with surrounding land uses and that does not further the comprehensive plan. So in trying to apply that condition for being able to consider a rezoning, I certainly applied it the first time through to the senior assisted living concept in that we have identified even within our strategic plan that that is a housing need that as a community we have scheduled for next year to do a feasibility study. So that's an identified and I certainly think then it fits the criteria as far as the whole rezoning concept, though I would go to the next step to say we would definitely have to get very specific with the guidelines and that is what we're hearing staff say we can do as far as trying to guide that to what we need. I keep falling back to wanting a feasibility study to be able to make sure that we are doing those guidelines properly but there's been some conversation over whether we can generally approach those guidelines and still protect the interest of the city and we're trying not to give up the controls that we really need of this property because we do need to protect the interests of the city and without a site plan and without a specific proposal for this property, we're a little out of control on it so that's where that second reading would come in as far as being able to put any specific parameters around it. Where I'm having some difficulty is on the new proposal for the office/medium density. HoW does that fit under the rezoning guidelines. I haven't heard that addressed as a specific need within the community beyond what our comprehensive plan has designated as far as land uses. That availability is out there so as we're discussing this, if we could maybe have that conversation and I'd like to hear maybe other comments as to how this rezoning serves the best interest of the entire community if we're truly 11 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 sitting back and looking at the big picture and what we're trying to accomplish with the rezoning. Like I said, I can certainly see how we can apply that guideline to the assisted living and to that need but have we identified that we have a shortage of office and medium density locations? And I guess at this point that's the crux of where I am at looking at this and again really feeling like it's ambiguous at this point to be committing to a rezoning and leaving that open to definition at a later date'. Acting Mayor Senn: Councilperson Labatt. Councilman Labatt: I think some of the questions I raised up earlier. The assisted living. The size of minimum square footage for the units. I had a question for Kate real quick. On Attachment #7 under permitted offices. Pull up 15,000 square feet on the southern portion of the site is improved with blank or 12 is X'd out. So is it going to be 12 or 12 is slashed out. What number should be in there? Cindy Kirchoff: Actually we'd rather go on the density. That it meet the medium density requirements of 4 to 8 units per acre rather than specifying a certain number. So you just have to meet the medium density requirements. Councilman Labatt: Okay. And then the follow up question is, what's the amount of acreage for the southern site? Cindy Kirchoff: They haven't subdivided the property. We're just saying that if it is subdivided, that site could only accommodate medium density residential and that's 4 to 8 units per acre. Kate Aanenson: ...line up to then. _What we're saying is this would be:..density. Wherever that line falls and how they lay it out. Councilman Labatt: Let's see office zoning in conjunction with the medium density housing and typically what type of businesses would be incorporated? Kate Aanenson: That was one of the instruments. Councilman Labatt: I have so many attachments. Kate Aanenson: Number 4. Office institutional .... business, administrative office. Based on our current codes... That is a broader term and that's...administrative office and general business office. That's an issue that was raised, or if you had a medical office expanded and a wide range in there of one that's more...as opposed to one that might have more extended hours. That was one of our concerns in looking.., shorten that list. Councilman Labatt: But we could shorten the list to. Kate Aanenson: You directed us to say specifically non... Councilman Labatt: 8:00 to 4:30. Kate Aanenson: Well that's hard to say something like that but again there's certain uses that have different hours. Roger Knutson: You'd exclude all offices if you did that. 12 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Councilman Labatt: So 10:00 to 2:00 or something like that. Kate Aanenson: ...we could address or mitigate those impacts by saying the traffic will not be...and some of the hours of operation. Those are the conditions that were attached to mitigate. What we're looking at is you don't want a use that might be more like 24 hours which would definitely be in conflict with the neighborhood. That's where you can attach conditions that would, if they impact noise, lighting, that sort of thing. Councilman Labatt: Okay. And then, I suppose it's too early to talk about the medium density housing as far as market value. Kate Aanenson: As planners we can address that issue. I guess we just looked at straight rental. We asked whether they'd be owner occupied or rental units. Again the zoning ordinance doesn't address that. We just look at unit, per unit basis. Acreage. We did ask the neighborhood to look at different types of products that are out in the city right now. Whether they're zero lot line. I guess that's something, smaller lots with attached. There's different products out there with different densities. Even within 6 units per acre such as North Bay, those are detached products so there's different things out there. I guess what we asked them to look at was some of the height consideration and materials. I guess that's how we would like to see it in institution. That was an issue. Kind of... Something like north, Walnut Grove. Again, the Craftsman Homes. And that's a detached type product and that's close to 6 units per acre. I guess what I'm saying is it doesn't have to be a detached product. It can be a medium density. Councilman Labatt: And then as far as assisted living. I'm pretty much with Linda on that. I'm fine with that. As long as we're, kind of to find where we're senior assisted living. Minimum 350. Maxinmm 500. Acting Mayor Senn: Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: Well I'm not going to try to give a mind dump on everything I've thought of about this thing but the assisted living is almost a no brainer. It's good for the community. I can see that for the same reasons that Councilperson Jansen stated. So I won't develop that thought any farther. I have a little more trouble with the office and medium density residential because it doesn't meet the standard or the legalese of the guidelines for a zoning change but I'm less concerned about the legalese than I am a compromise solution. And if a compromise solution's better than legalese, then heck with the legalese. And I live near office and townhomes and if they're market rate, you'd be surprised how attractive and expensive they can be. I found them to be pretty good neighbors so I don't have a problem with it from that standpoint. Under the condition that a conditional use permit can be attached which we've discussed that helps to meet all the concerns of the neighbors and the McCarthys put together a very good packet on those concerns and that's a part of the form so. If we could work out the CUP's, if I've got my acronyms correct. Conditional Use Permit as part of the PUD, if we get to that point, I would like to see all the concerns they had addressed in the conditional use permits and conceptually I'm not opposed to the rezoning if we can meet all those requirements. Acting Mayor Senn: Let's see from my perspective the church use would be fine as a permitted use and the assisted living as well as office residential would be fine as far as I'm concerned as conditional usesD But have very specific parameters attached to them. To the point that we would go to the second phase 13 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 or to a site plan review. So with that could we maybe have a motion on the first element of this which would be to outline what would be permitted and non permitted and conditional uses. Councilman Engel: I'm not quite sure that, can we break this up into two votes? Acting Mayor Senn: Yeah, because the second part will be direction basically to staff and to the city attorney as far as drafting the actual document for second reading. Scott Botcher: Do you want to vote on the uses separately though Mark? Is that what you're saying? Councilman Engel: I'm questioning if we're going to vote conceptually on the rezone and then move to the basis of the CUP, the conditional use permits. Acting Mayor Senn: What I'm trying to get to is if we just do it as a permitted use then there's no real further discussion needed on parameters. If we do it as a conditional use, there is. If we do it as a non permitted use, again there isn't so it's just kind of break it to a point that we know what we need to discuss further on. And I don't think that's a problem as far as the action, is it Roger or is it? Roger Knutson: If you do it that way or maybe what you'd like to do is, assuming, I hate to put words in. If there's a consensus that the church will be a permitted use, assisted living of some form would be a CUP within the PUD and office medium density would be a CUP within a PUD. If that's the consensus then you might want to just start going through for the assisted living and the office/medium density with directions to staff and at that point just pass it on for second reading and tell us to draft a document in accordance with your instructions. Scott Botcher: The only thing I might give caution for you all to think about is that while I think all of us have been supportive of the church use, I think and I think Kate's probably the one who brought this up to me first. Everyone is, I shouldn't say this. There's an assumption out there that the church use is peaceful, quiet, whatever else. The approved plan for this church when fully built out are not unsubstantial. So, and I think this was said at the last meeting I was at where they talked about change and what happens if the church has to stay here and what are ultimately the choices that all of us face. The ultimate build out for this church is going to have impact on the property in the neighborhood as well. That being said, you may want to give some thought to making a church use a conditional use within this zone if that passes muster with Roger. I mean if we talk about, we talked about traffic standards not less than Level C, D, whatever you want to pick. A church use at specific times certainly can impact traffic standards, ambient lighting standards and noise standards, whatever else to certain levels that you may find acceptable. Unacceptable, I'm sorry. It's just a thought. I'm not bent out of shape about it. Acting Mayor Senn: Those are good points but I think... Roger Knutson: Say what's there is permitted and expansion is a conditional use. Scott Botcher: Or a change in the function. Acting Mayor Senn: Increase in density or increase. Scott Botcher: Or you know what if the church wants to get more into the education business? What does that mean in terms of traffic patterns and time of day business standards, that sort of stuff so I don't 14 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 think, I mean I'm unaware of any complaints we've had about the operation of the church to date. These folks you know tl~ey don't want to be in the church business at this site. We may have a whole other congregation at tl:at site that may not be as responsive to staff as these folks have been, and you know if you're at this point now, now is when you really have the opportunity to place some conditions on there. Roger Knutson: As far as the existing church, I mean you could say permitted church is the church, the footprint that's there today. If that's what you wanted. If you want to expand it, if you want to do this, change functions inside, then you need a CUP. But what you have there today you can keep if you don't change it. So then any changes, your condition is must remain is or get a CUP. Acting Mayor Senn: Let's go back to if there wasn't any proposal before us other than an expansion of the existing church. Under this PUD. Is that something that we have governance over or not? Roger Knutson: Yes, you could require them to get a CUP to expand the church. Acting Mayor Senn: Yeah, you could do the CUP to every use except the existing use. Councilman Engel: Right, any expansion. Roger Knutson: You wouldn't want to give a CUP to the existing church. Scott Botcher: I i~ersonally don't. Could you? Roger Knutson: Yes you could. Scott Botcher: I ~:hink you probably could but I don't think it serves any function at this point. Acting Mayor Senn: So what's the consensus of council? Do we have a consensus on this as far as use of the CUP vehicle and maybe looking at that method to go to the next step? Councilman Enge[: I would support that. Councilman Laba:t: I would. Councilwoman Jansen: Meaning for the church? Councilman Engel: Everything. Acting Mayor Sern: Everything. Councilman Engel: Any expansion should be subject to a conditional use permit so we can bring it back and put any kind of conditions on it that the groups might want. Councilwoman Jansen: I don't know if you're going to actually call for a vote on this. I would be fine with that on the church as a conditional use. And the senior assisted living as a conditional use only. Acting Mayor Sern: Okay. Councilwoman Jansen: If you'd like me to phrase that as a motion I could do that. 15 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Acting Mayor Senn: Well in that we have consensus from 3 out of 4 basically for the, for all the conditional use permits why don't we just jump to the next level of discussion and take on the issue of what or specific parameters we want to give direction or see staff and council address as it relates to going forward on this. So if we could do that, okay? Councilperson Labatt. Councilman Labatt: With the assisted living, obviously I'd like to attach a condition of minimum square footage of 350 square feet per unit. Okay, with the square footage of 350 minimum and maximum, I'm fine with the staff report of 500. Do we need to get as specific as each unit has it's own bathroom or? Scott Botcher: Let me take a shot at this. Do you guys want us to take a run at putting this, these conditions together? Councilman Engel: I think that wouldn't be a bad idea. Scott Botcher: I'll be candid and I know some, most of you weren't at the work session, haven't been at the staff meetings but, and Roger is probably aware of this. I'm the one who's been pushing as hard as anybody else for maintaining as much control on the city's part as ever and the folks at Lutheran Brotherhood and such probably aren't going to like to hear that but my line is so sue me. We represent the citizens and they can just sue me if they don't like it. But I think that for you guys to really reach a consensus on the infinite numbers of conditions that you could possibly come up with, you know if for expediency sake, you know give us the hot ones maybe Mark and let us flush out a balance of an outline Kate I think is a very good point. Kate Aanenson: ...got the neighbors is a very good point. I think there's a lot of concurrence... We'd like to take a stab at drafting that. Work with the neighbors... If it takes a draft by you and then come back with a final... Scott Botcher: We're willing to do that. Acting Mayor Senn: Is everybody okay with that? Councilman Labatt: Oh yeah. Councilman Engel: I think having the neighbors with the concerns is probably the starting point. The biggest one I saw is I can't recall if I read it in a report and there's so many pieces of information. Did you look at moving the access from Hidden Court back onto Lake Drive East into the medium density component? ! know it'd be. Kate Aanenson: ...point on that but I think this, as the neighbors put together, there's some very good points...I think we can work with all of these. I don't know how effective it is to try and go through all that right now but I think we're in concurrence. Scott Botcher: And understand that once we get to the point, if we get to the point that there actually is a site plan before the city, it may look nothing like this. I mean that's part of the crux of this whole issue. We don't really have a firm site plan upon which to base a review. So your point is well taken. If that's a condition you want to place that you'll have no access on Street XYZ, that's fine. This may or may not be the site plan that ultimately ends up there. 16 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Acting Mayor Senn: But what people need to understand is the CUP gives us that control when the site plan does come in. Scott Botcher: Correct. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, well if that's the case then could we possibly have a motion then ifI was hearing the consensus correctly earlier to pass on first reading of this with the use, the church use being a permitted use as it exists. CUP, conditional use as expanded. Assisted living as a conditional use and define medium density residential office as conditional use. Councilman Engel: With the, do you have to put an addendum or addition in there per CUP? Acting Mayor Senn: With the direction that the staff and council come back with a specific list of parameters for second reading. Do we have a motion to that effect? Councilman Engel: Okay, ! thought you were just wording one. That wasn't a motion? Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, motion that, I don't care. Councilman Labatt: I'll second it. Councilwoman Jansen: Did you say senior assisted living at the start of?. Acting Mayor Senn: Assisted living. Councilman Engel: You've got a motion and a second. Acting Mayor Senn: Motion and a second. Any discussion? Acting Mayor Senn moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve an amendment to the Hidden Valley PUD #85-1 to permit church as it currently exists as a permitted use, any expansion of the church facility as a conditional use, senior assisted living as conditional use, and office and medium density residential as conditional use on Lot 1, Block 7, Hidden Valley, with direction to staff to come back with a specific list of parameters for the conditional use permit for second reading. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Jansen who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. Acting Mayor Senn: Alrighty, so this will be back on. Kate Aanenson: We'll try to have a draft within two weeks. It may take a little bit longer. Can we also get a motion on the land use amendment? Can that wait until the second reading? Roger Knutson: I think you might want to wait until second reading on that. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, so we don't know if it will be back in two weeks for second reading? Kate Aanenson: We'll be working with the neighborhood... 17 City Council Meeting - June 28, 1999 Councilman Engel: When's the next scheduled meeting though because we're at the end of a month here. Scott Botcher: The 15th, 14th. Something like that. The task before us is substantial so I don't know if it will be two weeks or not. Obviously we'll get the neighbors involved and a representative of the church and try to pull it together but. Acting Mayor Senn: So it may very well be the 12th. It may very well bc the 26th. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it might be a rough draft to... Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, but you'll keep both parties informed. Scott Botcher: Right. And please keep sending your e-mails. I originally I tried to respond in writing to every one of them. I gave that up. Acting Mayor Senn: But they do get read. Scott Botcher: They do get read. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, thank you all for coming. ~ INTERPRETATION OF PUD DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ARBORETUM BusINEss PARK TO DETERMINE IF AN OFFICE/ASSEMBLY-WORSHIP SPACE IS A PERMITTED USE AS DEFINED BY OFFICE USES, STEINER DEVELOPMENT. Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, council members. This is pretty straight forward. The applicant · has a lease agreement with a church in it's building. It's for office and assembly use. We've interpreted the code to mean that assembly's not permitted. They are requesting that through the PUD they can go to council and have our interpretation appealed...and that's their request. Staff believes that the assembly is not listed or permitted in the PUD standards. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, and if my recollection is correct and I think we have two new council people here since this came through, but if my recollection is correct in relationship to setting up the PUD, we were very specific as to each use for each parcel. Bob Generous: That's correct. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay. So there was a fair amount of discussion and thought that went into that at the time and stuff so, fi'om there are there any questions of staff from council first? Councilwoman Jansen: No. Acting Mayor Senn: Okay, if not would the applicant like to elaborate on their request? Fred Richter: Councilman Senn, I'm Fred Richter with Steiner Development. Here tonight are Don Finger of the New Life Christian Fellowship and our leasing agent Joe Smith with Steiner Development. Basically, let me just give you kind of the background. This is a 4,400 square foot space within a 115,000 square foot building. So it's about 4% of the building and from our viewpoint it's an interim 18 Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® DONALD SMITH 8012 ERIE AVENUE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 WILLIAM WEBER 8034 ERIE AVENUE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PAUL & MICHELLE HAIK 261 HIDDEN LANE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 C. SENN & M. SHEA 8014 ERIE AVENUE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARY & ROBERT HARREL 8036 ERIE AVENUE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TOM BOTAMER 8020 HIDDEN COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JENNY PETERSEN 8016 ERIE AVENUE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GARY OLSON 8038 ERIE AVENUE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JEAN & BRIAN STECKLING 8040 HIDDEN COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEVEN M. WENTZEL 8018 ERIE AVENUE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CLAY UHLENHAKE 8040 ERIE AVENUE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KEVIN BECKER 8060 HIDDEN COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DANIEL LORINSER 8020 ERIE AVENUE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GERALD L FISCHER 8042 ERIE AVENUE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JON STECKMAN 8080 HIDDEN COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 HAROLD HERRMANN 8024 ERIE AVENUE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SHANNON & SHERRIE MCCLARD 8030 HIDDEN CIRCLE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 KAREN & STEVE KLINSING 8090 HIDDEN COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BRADLEY J. JOHNSON 8026 ERIE AVENUE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LAUREN KOPP 8020 HIDDEN CIRCLE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAIME DRAHOZAL 8091 HIDDEN COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARTIN WADE 8028 ERIE AVENUE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TONY PAVLOVICH 8010 HIDDEN CIRCLE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT W. STOFFER 8081 HIDDEN COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JANE H LOOS 8030 ERIE AVENUE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DAVID JOSSI 250 HIDDEN LANE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STAN LESTER 8061 HIDDEN COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BRUCE & DONNA KIRKPATRICK 8032 ERIE AVENUE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 KEITH & DELORES BLATZHEIM 271 HIDDEN LANE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LANA & JOHN BERGO 8041 HIDDEN COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® PROPERTIES-GARY KIRT SHELARD PARKWAY, SUITE 500 4EAPOLIS, MN 55426 WALKER DAKOTA AVENUE NHASSEN MN 55317 RLES HUNTSBERRY DAKOTA AVENUE ~HASSEN MN 55317 _D. PUNT DAKOTAAVENUE ~HASSEN MN 55317 _ C ODELL DAKOTA AVEN U E ~IHASSEN MN 55317 RENT RESIDENT DAKOTA AVENUE ~HASSEN MN 55317 (BACHMAN DAKOTAAVENUE ~HASSEN MN 55317 ,1 & DONNA SOLBERG DAKOTA AVENUE ,IHASSEN MN 55317 :~LD WASSINK DAKOTA AVENUE dHASSEN MN 55317 AEL KRAINES & JULIE SONDERUP DAKOTA AVENUE IHASSEN MN 55317 RAYMOND JEZIERSKI 8013 DAKOTA CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RONALD OLSON 8015 DAKOTA CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHARLES H. ANGELO 8017 DAKOTA CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CLARK E CUMMINGS 8019 DAKOTA AVENUE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 AMY & GERALD KVANT 8036 DAKOTA LANE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DANIEL HELD 8038 DAKOTA LANE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GERALD CARSON 8039 ERIE AVENUE CHANHASSEN MN .55317 MARK LAASER 8037 ERIE AVENUE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL BRINDISI 8035 ERIE AVENUE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID KAWLEWSKI 8033 ERIE AVENUE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEPHANIE/DAVE HATTEBERG 8031 ERIE AVENUE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PATRICIA PETERSON 8029 ERIE AVENUE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RONALD A. JENSEN 8027 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ALLAN NELSON 8025 ERIE AVENUE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ANNE THOMPSON 8000 DAKOTA AVENUE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TERRANCE THOMPSON SR 3820 LINDEN CIRCLE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 TERRANCE THOMPSON 3820 LINDEN CIRCLE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 LYNETTE ROSS 8004 ERIE AVENUE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BOB PAULSON 8006 ERIE AVENUE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CRAIG KESSEL KPM CORP 7300 METRO BLVD SUITE 560 EDINA, MN 55439 Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® JAMES F MURPHY 8021 HIDDEN COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 FAMILY OF CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH P.O. BOX 388 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DOUGLAS B. McCARTHY 8001 HIDDEN COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 AMERICAN LEGION POST 580 7995 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DAVID NEWMAN 8000 HIDDEN CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES COOK 260 HIDDEN LANE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Current Resident 280 HI-DDEN LANE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LEE & MARY KAUFMAN 300 HIDDEN LANE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFF & KAREN HONGSLO 310 HIDDEN LANE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TODD MICHELS 320 HIDDEN LANE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JULIE & DAVID LYONS 330 HIDDEN LANE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MORTENSON DEV COMPANY ATTN: JACK POINTER 700 MEADOW LANE N MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55422