Loading...
8. Consideration of Site Plan Application Fee Reimbursement for Chan Taco Shop 1 . ? 4 i CITY OF CHANHASSEN' \ _.) II \ I r k °1 `` ' *� 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 --\---7- '7 ^` ` (612) 937-1900 IMEMORANDUM ITO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner IDATE: June 7, 1989 SUBJ: Reimbursement of the Site Plan Review Fee of $150 1 for Expansion of the Chanhassen Taco Shop BACKGROUND II In December, 1988, the applicant requested a site plan review and variance for parking lot requirements for an addition to the Chanhassen Taco Shop. The Planning Commission reviewed the 1 application on January 18 , 1989, and recommended to table action on the site plan and variance and pass it on to the City Council for their recommendation on whether the subject property would be I affected by TH 101 and TH 5 (Attachment #1) . At the Planning Commission meeting it was determined that there was not enough information for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation since it was unknown whether the City was going to negotiate for I acquisition of the Taco Shop property for the realignment of TH 101. Staff then presented the request from the Planning Commission for input from the City Council on February 13, 1989 I (Attachment #2) . The City Council unanimously approved a resolu- tion authorizing condemnation of the property in connection with the TH 101 realignment. Further, the City Council directed the I City Attorney' s Office to obtain an appropriate appraisal of the property which can be used to negotiate acquisition. ANALYSIS 1 Since the site plan for the Chanhassen Taco Shop is tabled until the future of the property is determined, the applicant is I requesting the City Council reimburse the $150 site plan review fee. The site plan review fee is used to pay for staff time for preparing the report and presenting plans to the Planning Commission and Council. Since it was a site plan review, there I were no public hearing notices in the newspaper or notices sent to adjacent property owners within 500 feet. A considerable amount of staff time and preparation was put into the report, II including using Fred Hoisington as a consultant. The appraisal for the property has been completed and received. Mr. Knutson I IN I Mr. Don Ashworth June 7 , 1989 Page 2 has been authorized to meet with the owner and if agreement is reached to proceed with purchase. If not condemnation pro- ceedings should be started. Monies/legal authorization exist for such. RECOMMENDATION The City Council must determine whether the full, a portion or 1 none of the $150 site plan fee should be reimbursed to the appli- cant. ATTACHMENTS 1 1. Planning Commission minutes January 18 , 1989 . 2. City Council minutes dated February 13 , 1989. 3 . Copy of Resolution No. 89-21. 4 . Copy of applicant' s letter requesting reimbursement dated May 23 , 1989 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 18 , 1989 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, ' Jim Wi.ldermuth and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli ' STAFF PRESENT: Steve Hanson, Planning Director and Larry Brown , Asst . City Engineer (Due to technical failure of the audio equipment , the meeting could not be recorded. Therefore, the Minutes are summarized rather than verbatim.) PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW AND A VARIANCE TO THE PARKING LOT REQUIREMENTS FOR A 696 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE CHANHASSEN TACO SHOP ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 195 WEST 78TH STREET, GUY PETERSON. If Public Present : Mr . and Mrs . Guy Peterson - Applicants Steve Hanson presented the staff report on this item. The applicants , Mr . and Mrs . Guy Peterson, stated that the issue stated in the staff report that negotiations for acquisition of the Taco Shop due to ' the realignment of TH 101 , were unknown to them until they had received the staff report. They stated that the City had made comments a few years back but not recently. The Planning Commission discussed the item and were concerned about the lack of information provided to them and that they really didn' t have anything to react to . They talked of denying the item, as staff had recommended, passing it onto City Council without a recommendation or tabling the item so the applicants could provide more information. The following motion was decided upon after discussion with the Planning ' Commission and a recommendation from Councilman Jay Johnson. ' Emmings moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to table action on the Site Plan Review and variance to the parking lot for Chanhassen Taco Shop and pass it onto the City Council for their recommendation and to put a priority on whether this property would be affected by TH 101 and TH 5. All voted in favor and the motion carried . 1 City Council Meeting s February 13, 1989 4 171 - 13. That the developer work with staff and the DNR forester for replacing mature trees that are removed. All voted in favor and the motion carried. rrq/1° REQUEST FROM PLANNING COMMISSION FOR INPUT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL ON A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR EXPANSION OF THE CHANHASSEN TACO SHOP, 195 WEST 78TH STREET, GUY PETERSON. Steve Hanson: This particular request, the applicants are presently before the Planning Commission if you will. They had come to one of the last meetings for site plan review for an expansion of their business. Through that discussion as well as the staff report, there was one item that was mentioned in there as far as a potential for this site to be acquired as a part of the TH 101 and TH 5 improvements. The Planning Commission felt that rather than moving ahead with the site plan at that particular time, and I believe tha applicant concurred with that, was that it would be beneficial for this item to come before City Council in order to get some direction as to the potential for that area to either be incorporated into those improvements of the property acquired, or if that's not the case, that then they should go back to the Planning Commission with their plans and go through the site plan review process as well as the variance process that they will also be requesting. I think you'll find on the memorandum that Planning Staff had prepared, that the City Manager added some additional comments. Essentially suggesting that the City should probably move ahead with acquisition of this particular parcel as a part of those improvements. Councilman Boyt: Steve, would this be really an action, in terms of the appraisal and condemnation, be better considered by the HRA than the City Council? The reason I raise that is, if this is something that the HRA is going to fund, which it is, it would seen to me that they would be the ones that would need to direct that action to take place. ' Steve Hanson: You may be right. I'm not sure. I was looking for Todd. Councilman Johnson: Bill, I believe there is actually two issues in here. That and the expansion of the non-conforming use and how the Council would look at such an expansion. I guess the other item is whether we believe that this is a good action for HRA to do. Not necessarily that we would be doing it. Like Don mentions in his part of it, HRA would be the one making this acquisition. Councilman Boyt: Maybe we could recommend to them. ' Councilman Johnson: We can recommend to them. Actually there's no actual, this is a discussion item more than anything. I don't think we have any action tonight to actually take. The owner would like to hear our opinions, I believe, as to the probability of him expanding at this site and the probability of acquisition. That's how I understood this item coming before us. Mayor Chniei: It's clarification for the Planning Commission as to which way the Council wishes to go with this. 15 ' I II -.-City Council Meeting - 'ruary 13, 1989 1 ' Councilman Boyt: Okay. That answers my question. How would you like to proceed? Mayor Chmiel: I think what we probably should wind up doing is if this is going to fall under the realm of the HRA, I think it would behoove us to make that recommendation that this be sent to the HRA with review of that specific ' business and come up with a conclusion as to whether or not the property should be purchased and reach a successful negotiation with the property owner. If not, then go to the ultimate which is condemnation. ' Councilman Boyt: Well, I would make a motion that we refer this to the HRA with our recommendation that they continue, or begin to pursue the acquisition of this piece of property. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Before we move on, is Mr. Peterson here? Is there any comment that you'd like to make? ' Councilman Johnson: I'll second the motion and would like to have some discussion. ' Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded with some discussion. Councilman Johnson: The discussion I want to go on is really now what the ' future of that is, is even taken without the future action of that being acquired by HRA, if that does occur. If this were just a piece of property and we were looking to expand this. This is a non-conditional use. I have been ' very consistent I believe over the last two years of recommending against expanding of non-conditional uses or providing expansions to anyplace that don't [_ meet our ordinances. This would not probably meet the 5 conditions of a ' variance. It would be very difficult. He's got a business there. The expansion of it, I doubt if it would occur. If we were at a point of voting on this, I'd be voting against allowing a variance for expansion in this facility. Councilman Boyt: I'm impressed anytime a local business comes in and says, I'm ready to expand. That means you must be doing well. I'd like to think that you would do well in another location. What the HRA offers, hopefully, is a ' situation of which everyone wins. They get a piece of property that they seem to think they want for the development of the City. You get a chance to build a building located where you and the City would both like to see them. Hopefully it will be close to where you are now because you apparently built a pretty good ' clientele. From what I understand, you do quite a good business there. Especially at lunchtime as I understand you basically feed a big part of the City. I'm glad to see things going so well for you and I'm real hopeful that this works out so that everyone wins. Guy Peterson: .. .non-conforming use.. . Councilman Johnson: In that you don't meet the proper setbacks. I should say, maybe it's not a non-conforming. That might not be the right definition of it but you have a zero setback to the highway right-of-way where you're required a ' 25 foot setback. You have a zero setback in another area where you're required a 25 foot or 30 foot setback. Those non-conforming problems. Not necessarily, the use is not non-conforming. The site is in a state of non-variance. You don't have a variance but it requires variances but you're grandfathered in 16 City Council Meeting February 13, 1989 ~� because the building was built before the zoning laws. It's comparable to the situation we had with the little cottage hotel, whatever you call it down at the junction of TH 169 and TH 101. There's a bunch of small cottages. They're all on a septic system. They wanted to expand last year and we said, no, you can't expand because you require too many variances to expand. This would just take a bad situation, as far as variances from our zoning ordinance and make it a little worse. If the lovely cement plant happens to also get taken over here, this would make a fairly decent retail spot if we could decent access to it but the road changes are an access problem. I think your business is going to suffer with the road changes there too when you end up with only right-ins so the only way to access your property is for people coming from the north going to TH 5 from the south. They won't be able to come off of TH 5 and get to you anymore so that's going to be a problem with this property anyway. The audio system could not pick up Guy Peteson's questions and comments from the audience. Councilman Johnson: Yes, if they can get the railroad to agree to another, what would that make, a fifth crossing in town? A fourth crossing in town. Guy Peterson made a comnent. Councilman Johnson: What about the other one that's further to the west? ' Gary Warren: The single access driveway. r Councilman Johnson: The single access driveway I think they're talking about is running through Jerry Schlenk's property or something. Just have him build a bridge or something at that point. Mayor Chmiel: I have a motion on the floor. Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, could I make a comment? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, go ahead. Todd Gerhardt: From what Gary has informed me, you were going to pass this back to the HRA for their review? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, that's correct. Todd Gerhardt: This is under special legislation and this is an economic development district. Those monies would be used for the acquisition of the Taco Shop and Redi-mix plant and the road construction. The City Council is the authority in charge of that economic development district. The HRA is in charge of a redevelopment district and you operate and control the economic development budget so you are the advisory board on that. Councilman Boyt: I have a question then. Now that you've got my interest. Todd, maybe you can briefly tell us where we get the money. Todd Gerhardt: The money is, that district collapses this year. After that, that district no longer exists. « have special legislation in that should be heard within the next 90 days that we extend that district for a 4 year period 17 ' mit , II ' .City Council Meeting - &ruary 13, 1989 of time. With that extension, those monies would be used directly for the (- II acquisition, road realignment and directly for that intersection. Councilman Boyt: It's your impression Todd, excuse me but it's your opinion that there are sufficient funds in that extended so that we're going to buy an apartment building, build a major portion of a highway and these other two acquisitions? ' Todd Gerhardt: That's correct. The taxes generated from Redman Products, Lyman Lumber, CPT, or DataSery now and the Press, those monies are within that district and would be used to pay for those costs. I don't know ' exactly what those numbers are but they are sufficient and from what our engineers have told us the estimate cost of the apartment and the acquisitions and the realignment of the road would be sufficient. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Would there be a problem though. .. Councilman Workman: That's what he referenced. The special legislation that's ' supposed to be renewed. - Todd Gerhardt: We've been meeting with Hennepin County, the State, MnDot.. . ' Councilwoman Dimler: What's the likelihood that they will give that up? Todd Gerhardt: It looks better almost... ' Gary Warren: Just to add, we did the trip origination study here and that was f_ missing information that was recently presented February 2nd and that's Don's last letter in the packet here to Mr. Garris. Basically, our results show that 50% to 55% of the trips out there were Hennepin County oriented. Earlier discussions with Commissioner Garris were that if we could show that say roughly 30% or 33% of those trips are benefitting Hennepin County residents, that he would have no problem supporting this legislation so we're optimistic I guess and we'll see when the final vote goes out for those but it would be appropriate I think to condition any action here on the fact that the City needs to have ' those funds or the District extended in order to make this all happen. We wouldn't be condemning this obviously if the project isn't going to go forward. Councilwoman Dimler: What's the ti.meframe then that you think you'll have that ' answer? Todd Gerhardt: Within the next 90 days. When the legislation, they have their ' hearings and we'll probably have to go to the tax committee and make another presentation as we did last year. To keep on our time schedule, if you would reference Don's memo in advising Roger to go ahead and have appraisals prepared ' so we can stay on that schedule. Councilman Boyt: I would modify or amend my motion so that we direct the City Attorney's office to obtain appropriate appraisals for the property and other ' documents necessary to begin condemnation with no action being taken to condemn the property until the district is extended by the State. Mayor Chmiel: Jay, would you accept that as an amendment to your second? 18 City Council ;'meeting (_'cbruary 13, L')39 Councilman Johnson: Yes, as long as you're re also including negotiation of tha acquisition rather than just condemnation as in the last paragraph of page 2 there. The entire recommendation. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I have a motion on the floor and a second. Is there any further discussion? ' Resolution #89-21: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded a resolution authorizing condemnation of property in connection with the TH 101 realignment. Further, to direct the City Attorney's office to obtain appropriate appraisals for the property which can be used to negotiate acquisition and, therefore, potentially avoid condemnation. Also, that no action be taken to condemn the property until the district is extended by the State. All voted in favor and the motion carried. LAKE LUCY ROAD TRUNK WATERMAIN: A. ACCEPT SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT NO. 1 TO FEASIBILITY STUDY AND SET DATE FOR ' PUBLIC HEARING. B. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZE TAKING OF BIDS. ' Gary Warren: As summarized in the staff report, the December 12th Council meeting, staff was authorized to have plans and specifications prepared for the project and also in light of the importance of getting this trunk watermai.n completed in anticipation of our peak water demands this July, we also were directed to prepare a policy document that would reflect the cost associated with connecting, the costs and the policies associated with connecting any interested parties along the alignment of this trunk watermain on Lake Lucy Road. The addendum report that's before you tonight under item a is the document that was prepared to reflect the connection policies that we're recommending and has the input of the City Attorney, myself and the City Manager in bringing these items together. It's basis is primarily founded in the existing City Ordinances. This we found to be the most sensible way to our thinking of allowing a lot of flexibility for anybody who wanted to hook into the system but also for not requiring people to hook into the system but if they did at some later date, that we have a vehicle for establishing a reasonable cost for the residential benefit of having water available. If you'd like, I can go down and itemize the specific elements of that policy or if everybody, if there's questions, depending on how you'd like to handle it. Mayor Chmiel: Why don't you go through that for clarification. Gary Warren: I'll put it up on the overhead. I brought some projections along. These are right out of the Addendum Report so if you want to follow along. The basic premise that was agreed to as part of the overall, that we looked at as part of the overall policy.. .part of the plans of Lake Lucy Road..proceeds would be utilized that are available from the 1986 general obligations funds that were used for the trunk improvements. We talked with Mr. Andy Merry and he said that those bonds were justified based on the trunk needs of the six water systems and reservoir, Chanhassen Hills and Kerber Blvd. trunk watermain. .. So this would allow us, we wouldn't have to take any funds out of our water expansion fund 19 ' • 1 1 FY. CHANHASSEN TACO SHOP 195 West 78th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 May 23, 1989 1 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Attn: JoAnn Olson Re: Site Plan #88-19 This is to request that the City of Chanhassen refund our site plan deposit of $150.00 due to letter attached dated February 13, 1989. Sincerely, 1 4). -� ' Guy S. Peterson GSP:lp 1 1 1 1 I MAY 2 6 1989 CtTI OF CHANHASSEN 1 - " 1 CITY OF 1 • '\ • G cBANHAs ! EN i 1 �_ � 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937-1900 ` 1 February 27, 1989 1 1 Mr. Guy Peterson 195 West 78th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Site Plan #88-19 Dear Mr. Peterson: This is to confirm that the City Council on February 13 , 1989 , adopted the attached resolution. Should you have any questions , please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, , ,,,,OL Stephe Hanson Planning Director 1 SH:v 1 1 1 i 1 1 RESOLUTION CITY OF CHANHASSEN ' CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES , MINNESOTA Date: February 13, 1989 Resolution No. 89-21 ' Motion By: Boyt Seconded By: Johnson ' A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION OF PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH HIGHWAY 101 REALIGNMENT WHEREAS , The City has determined that it is in the P ublic ' interest to acquire the. property known as the Chanhassen Taco Shop , located at 195 West 78th Street , Chanhassen, Minnesota , in connection ' with the Highway 101 Realignment project. NOW, THEREFORE , be it resolved by the Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota: ' The City Attorney is hereby authorized and directed to acquire the property known as the Chanhassen Taco Shop , located at 195 West 78th Street, Chanhassen, Minnesota , by eminent domain proceedings , including the quick-take provisions of Minnesota Statutes , Chapter 117 , unless acquired by negotiation or otherwise 1r- before the proceedings are complete. CITY/OF CHANHASSEN BY ,/ / - �� .- ' Donald J.,C m - , ayof, ' ATTEST• Ca25111 Don Ashworth, G4-ty Manager 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I