Letter from Bruce Odlaug 05-29-2012LINDQUIST
L I N D Q U I S T+ V E N N U M Minneapolis • Denver • Sioux Falls
Bruce G. Odlaug
(612) 371 -5792
bodlaug @lindquist.com
www.lindquist.com
May 29, 2012
Kate Aanenson
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Klingelhutz Property
Outlot E, Mission Hills Addition
Dear Ms. Aanenson:
Lindquist & Vennum PLLP
4200 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 371 -3211
Fax: (612) 371 -3207
We are in receipt of your letter dated May 23, 2012, indicating that you cannot recommend the
changes in the standards proposed in our letter of May 21, 2012. Your reasons for not being able
to make a recommendation is that you believe the requested changes exceed what have been
approved in the original PUD for Mission Hills, and that without a specific plan it is premature to
make changes in these standards.
However, we believe the City is doing exactly what you are objecting to and are changing what
has been approved in the original PUD development for Mission Hills. You indicate that you are
trying to clarify the term "neighborhood commercial" used in the original PUD by incorporating
the BN Neighborhood Business District regulations.
We do not believe that the original development approvals relating to "permitted uses" neatly
falls in to the BN Neighborhood Business District regulations. We believe the initial approval
was broader than this, and that some of the BH Highway and Business Service District permitted
uses should be included in the standards. We are not asking that the property be up- zoned, but
that the PUD standards include some of the permitted uses in the BH Highway and Business
Services District. We believe that this is consistent with the original development approval; and
since these are standards, they do not require that they specifically fit into one or the other zoning
district.
Our second request relating to the setbacks does ask for a change from the original development
approval. We are not sure when the original PUD approval was adopted, but it would appear to
be prior to the upgrading of Highway 101 and the construction of Highway 212 and the noise
wall. The setbacks, as explained in our prior letter, do not make sense when you actually visit
DOGS- #37001 80 -v1
Kate Aanenson
City of Chanhassen
May 29, 2012
Paqe 2
the property. Outlot E is in an approximately 8.5 acre parcel and the 50 foot setback along 101
and 212 exceeds over 20% of the area of Outlot E. In addition, along Highway 212, there is no
rational reason to require a 50 foot setback when the noise wall located up a steep slope is
already 50 to 70 feet from the property line.
The result is that the existing setback standards make it more difficult to sell or develop the
property. Buyers do not like uncertainty, nor do they want to waste their time in working with
the property if they are faced with seemingly unreasonable requirements.
We do not believe that a specific plan is necessary in order to determine that these setbacks are
not appropriate. We believe the setbacks in this situation to be arbitrary and should be modified
as requested in order to facilitate ultimate development of this property.
Very truly yours,
LINDQUIST & VENNUM PLLP
6 k 'W1 t5 ----
ce G. Odlaug
BGO /mlo
Cc: Mr. Al Klingelhutz
Mr. Michael Klingelhutz
Mr. Robert Generous
DOCS - #!3700180 -v 1