2.5 Audubon Road Utilities I . . ..
CITYOF ,:.2 . c
......_......._
1 : x
1 \ 1/4
�, f :_
, ,. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 (612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM Amon `s,. C,ty A, rnin`5tr,t,,r
IITO: Don Ashworth, City Manager ^':r` �� --
FROM: Gary Warren, City En ineer u� = T.;� D ��i73-e,
1 Y � Y g J �.L_.'_._4__._ ..Ate
DATE: October 20, 1988
1 SUBJ: Award of Bids, Audubon Road Utilities _ ��O _ �
Project No. 88-20A
1 On October 10, 1988, the City Council accepted plans and specifications for the
utility portion of Phase I of the Audubon Road improvements. In order to meet
the City' s obligations to provide utility service to the McGlynn Bakeries site
II by June of 1989, this portion of the project was authorized for bidding. We
have had an extensive amount of interest in the project by the contracting com-
munity and I therefore am very optimistic that we will receive very competitive
1 bids. Unfortunately, due to bidding requirements, the earliest we can open bids
for the project is Monday, October 24, 1988. As a result, we will not have a
bid tabulation until Monday afternoon. A bid tabulation and recommendation will
1 be available before Monday night' s Council meeting for review.
I apologize for the short time frame available in this matter; however, the two-
week delay in waiting for the November 14, 1988 City Council meeting could be
1 very critical to our construction at this time of the year. A specific staff
recommendation will be presented in the bid tabulation report on Monday.
1 Attachments
1 . October 6, 1988 Staff Report.
II2. Maps.
1
1
1
1
11
v G
CITYOF -I b
\N i-l'\'! 14 l:- t :. NBASSEN
1
. ` "` ` 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 1
:,ctron ; t,: ,t,dm!n;stratot
MEMORANDUM
Modt'ted
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
Rejected---
)L, cate_.,w/7/d r
FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer Date Submittdd t6 Commissiolf
DATE: October 6 , 1988 Date Submitted to Council
SUBJ: Accept Plans and Specifications for Audubon Road !°1b1,17 , 1
Improvements , Phase I and Authorize Advertisement for Bids
File No. 88-20
I
At the S
eptember 26 , 1988 City Council meeting , the City Council
accepted the feasibility study and authorized preparation of
IIplans and specifications for Phase I of Audubon Road improve-
ments. The site work for McGlynn Bakeries has been rapidly
moving along and foundation footings are currently underway.
Since McGlynn is targeting for a June, 1989 occupancy for service
II
hookup, we have broken the project down into two portions; the
first being the construction of sanitary sewer and watermain on
Audubon Road and into the McGlynn site.
The enclosed plans and specifications deal specifically with this
first element of the construction. The construction plans for
storm sewer and roadway improvements will follow at a later date.
The intent is to advertise for bids and have the necessary sani-
tary sewer and watermain constructed in the upcoming months in
order to not delay the McGlynn utility hookup this spring. The
II
engineer's construction cost estimate for this phase of the pro-
ject is $95 ,000. - - -.
As such, it is recommended that the attached plans and specifica- 1
tions as prepared by William R. Engelhardt and Associates be
accepted and staff be authorized to advertise for bids for the
utility portion of this project .
II
Attachment
I
1. Construction plans.
1
1
II
in
1 STATE HWY. NO 5 (ARBORETUM BOULEVARD)
I
IS OUTLOT A I PARK
ICOURT
I BUTTERCUP ROAD — 5Jp
D'
IOUTLOT B C _�p�
t� z J5� �15
SCALE: I"= 500' 'V Is
\t),\. I nflA
\NOJS McGLYNN D
BAKERIES PO
I Pp '
LOT I �/
BLOCK I 1 imp 1_:-
r 1
POND Z \
1 ' c /
/ 0�\`I`, POND
II ,_✓ / ' 5J GAF
I--- -- , I V- tOl°
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
J\'
MINNESOTA
�
e
P AUDUBON: ROAD•
FEASIBILITY STUDY
SANITARY SEWER
I C, 0 ) EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
J�� --
—I— T I— EXISTING WATERMAIN
0\V�
••--->----• PHASE I PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER
I 0---)--0 PHASE 2 PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER
_ _ _ PHASE 3 FUTURE
I WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318
, SCALE ' Iu = 500' DATE!AUGUST, 1988
DRAWING NO. 2
I [ , , 1
f STATE HWY. NO. 5 (ARBORETUM BOULEVARD)
I
INJ OUTLOT A
\>I BUTTE \_5 PARK I
UP RCA' i P
COURT 1
13
OUTLOT B m I .\PV , 1
I
GG `� ,o 'L
0
�._ �� 1
SCALE I"= 500' P� - / ��Cn
\t° McGLYNN 1 :c3).
BAKERIES v -
�° 1
I ., + , R/1 LOT I
IlkA>C'
1 BLOCK I is _�
1
1
POND .` I
a )2' Q\\*" . 1
I Alj F� / ,.,;. 1
i
7 \J\5 i', POND
I .✓/ She° \0
--- -L7 I 111
1 , I
I ,
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
I 1
P\\- MINNESOTA
I k AUDUBON ROAD 1
FEASIBILITY STUDY
WATERMA IN
1 0--) EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
I
\NJ�'� - 1 - EXISTING WATERMAIN
‘\
••••••■1■• PHASE I PROPOSED WATERMAIN
i-±—;-t:-': PHASE 2 PROPOSED WATERMAIN 1
_ _ _ PHASE 3 FUTURE
WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES 1
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318
I , _ SCALE ' I" = 500' DATE'AUGUST, 1988 1
DRAWING NO. 3
' October 20, 1988
' Mr. Dale Geving
Councilman
7602 Huron
' Chanhassen, Mn. 55317
Re: Conditional use permit to David Stockdale for Contractors yard
I ar
De Mr. Geving:
' I am writing this as a follow up to the presentation I made before the City
Council on October 10, 1988. As you know, by the time my issue was
presented, it was 12:30 A.M. and as I stated then, I felt that my presentation
was subsequently both incomplete and lacking in preciseness. I therefore
asked the matter to be tabled and heard at the meeting on October 24, 1988.
In reviewing videotapes of that meeting, I wish to address several concerns
posed by the Council. Each and every member of the Council stated that they
' felt I deserved to have my permit reinstated, and expressed the desire to
find something in the history of my project that would imply that there was
' evidence of hardship, thereby providing a basis for granting a variance for
the permit. From reviewing Staff's recommendation and viewing the
videotape it appears that the major issue troubling the Staff and Council is
the one mile restriction , as my neighbors have already expressed their
approval of my plans.
' Since that meeting I have reviewed in depth the chronology of events that
occurred since the approval of the permit on March 18th, 1985. I feel that
' several events that were out of my control took place that firmly establish
that we do in fact have a case of hardship which merits granting a variance.
Following the approval of the permit, during the spring of 1985 I
commissioned further survey work from Hedlund Engineering. Their records
show that they in fact did more topographic field surveying and actual
staking of the building on the lot. I not only incurred additional costs
attributable to the project as approved, but in fact was proceeding towards
' my goal of constructing the building by drafting plans, working with
contractors and addressing all items required to be completed as a condition
of granting the Conditional Use Permit ("CUP").
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
IWhen I applied for a mortgage for the residence and building, I found that
it was not possible to procure a mortgage for a house on more than a 10 acre
I parcel due to Minnesota foreclosure and redemption statutes. Thusly, the
legal description of the property changed, thereby negating the conditional
I use permit. I feel strongly that this is a hardship imposed by FBS mortgage,
the lending institution, and the mortgage industry as a whole. I feel
confident a mortgage would have been given on the parcel containing the
I contractor's yard upon the submission of additional paperwork and my
personal guaranty.
I I was in the midst of building my residence and finalizing plans for the pole
building when I received notification from Barb Dacy that I would have to
re-apply for the permit because of the change in the legal description, and
Iwas given no indication that conditions for approval would be different next
time around, or that there was a time limit on which to act on such a permit.
I There was no mention made of the one year limit either from Barb verbally
or in the notarized CUP document. At this time my wife had just given birth
to our second child, I was running a business, contracting construction of a
I private residence and commuting from St. Paul. Needless to say, I was
emotionally and economically drained upon completion of the home, but was
proceeding regardless.
II previously stated that for personal reasons I was not in a position to
actively seek re-instatement of the contractor's yard until this summer.
IDuring the last two years I have experienced extreme economic hardship.
In fact my office manager was just recently convicted on embezzlement
I charges by Hennepin County for crimes against my firm. Specifically, she
embezzled more than $100,000 from my company, and it has taken all my
spare time and energy to bolster and revive my company to the point where
I I could afford to consider building the base that I badly need and have long
desired.
II also feel that it seems an injustice that someone like myself who has
respected the process and has tried to work within the system should be
I denied something that everyone within the system states that I deserve,
when in fact others who buck the system get what they want and if ever
confronted, have historically received approval by grandfathering. Also, it is
I my understanding that a variance was granted to Gardeneer after the
ordinance was amended to include the one mile restriction. I am unaware of
any hardship claimed by Gardeneer and I do not think they had ever
Ipreviously received a CUP as I had done.
I
- 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
In closing, I feel that I have presented several items that can be considered
' hardships, and by your very statements should provide grounds for
granting a variance on the ordinance. If taken together, these circumstances
clearly provide grounds for the granting of a variance from the ordinance. I
' understand the intention of the ordinance changes but feel strongly that to
deny my conditional use permit is a strong injustice to someone so willing to
work within the system. To deny this request for a CUP at this time would
' create an even greater hardship because in the future it is likely that no
more permits will be granted as future changes to the ordinance banning
Contractor's yards entirely appears likely, even if a "yard" becomes available
within the present one mile restriction.
' Considerately yours,
4 '4 5;
' David A. Stockdale
Property Owner
7210 Galpin Blvd.
Chanhassen, Mn. 55331
See attached:
1
1