Loading...
HRA 1985 11 07SPECIAL MEETING HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NOVEMBER 7, 1985, 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes. 3. Evaluation of Bowling Center Construction, Authorize Issuance of Check per Loan Agreement - Fred Hoisington. 4. Review Contract Addendum - Broadened Study Area - Brauer and Associates, Ltd. 5. Old Business. 6. New Business. 7. Approval of Bills. 8. Adjournment. JOINT HRA /CITY COUNCIL MINUTES L OCTOBER 17, 1985 CALL TO ORDER Vice - Chairman Horn called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Members present: Commissioners Bohn, Swenson and Horn and Mayor Hamilton. Members absent: Councilmembers Geving and Watson. Also present: Fred Hoisington, Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, Herb Bloomberg, Brad Johnson and Larry Smith of Housing Alliance, Inc., and Barney and Wanda Schlender of Sunnybrook Development. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Swenson moved, seconded by Bohn to approve the minutes of September 19, 1985. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REVIEW PRELIMINARY PLANNING AGREEMENT, CHADDA Hoisington reviewed the draft of the proposed planning agreement. He stated that the document was prepared by CHADDA and submitted to him for his review. He stated that he met with represen- tatives from CHADDA to develop the proposed draft. He stated that the agreement establishes, CHADDA (Chanhassen Downtown Development Associates) as the "redeveloper" who is responsible to furnish the HRA with a planning document proposing a specific commercial, retail, and /or residential project within the plan area as designated in Exhibit A. Hoisington passed out an amended Exhibit A which designates much of the downtown study area as included within the plan area. Those areas that are excluded, he stated, are the lots immediately south of and adja- cent to Chan View, east of the existing residences and apartment building, and the area in the northwest corner of the Laredo Drive and West 78th Street intersection. Hoisington stated that the redeveloper has 180 calendar days to complete the planning document, during which time a market study will be completed to cost approximately $15,000. Hoisington stated that during the 180 day period, the City is agreeing not to approve any develop- ment proposal involving a commercial redevelopment in excess of 5,000 net rentable square feet within the plan area unless the Authority is advised by legal counsel that the Authority would be subject to legal liability. Hoisington also explained that the agreement will not apply to any current fee land owner within the plan area. Hoisington also stated that during the 180 day period that the HRA and redeveloper will negotiate in good faith to secure necessary approvals for a master redevelop -ment agreement which would designate CHADDA as the master redeveloper. Hoisington indicated that the master redevelopment agreement would be the second agreement in this process and that a third agreement could be devised for a specific developer for a speci- fic project. Brad Johnson, Housing Alliance, Inc. stated that CHADDA will report back to the HRA on a monthly basis at the regular BRA meetings. JOINT HRA /CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 1985 PAGE 2 Mayor Hamilton stated that the word "morals" should be elimi- nated from the second whereas clause on the first page of the agreement. The other members concurred. Commissioner Bohn asked if current owners are affected in any way by this agreement. Ashworth stated that the agreement specifi- cally excludes current fee owners from the provisions of the agreement. Commissioner Swenson asked if the agreement is in essence a moratorium on development. Ashworth stated no, that redevelopment can occur up to 5,000 square feet and again, any current fee owner is exempted from the agreement. Commissioner Swenson also wanted clarification on the liability clause in Item No. 4. Ashworth stated that the attorney's office did review the agreement and did not have concerns regarding the language of the agreement and noted that the agreement prevents the HRA from ini- tiating redevelopment with any other redeveloper other than CH ADD A. Commissioner Horn stated that the term "preliminary" in the title should be eliminated. Other members concurred. Commissioner Bohn moved to approve the planning agreement with the noted changes including the elimination of the word "preliminary" in the title, the elimination of the term "morals" in the second whereas clause, and the inclusion of the term "current" in the last sentence of Item No. 4. Seconded by Swenson. All voted in favor and the motion carried. IDERATION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REDUCTION 4� "i Barney and Wanda Schlender presented their slide show of the pro- posed country inn and restaurant complex to be located north of Lake Susan in the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park Third Addition. Sunnybrook Development is requesting a 108 reduction in special assessments as opposed to the now instituted 7% reduction for special assessments. Ashworth stated that this item should be tabled until more detailed information is made available regarding the project and so that staff can prepare an analysis of the financial impact. Motion by Swenson and seconded by Bohn to table action on this item until a future meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Motion by Swenson and seconded by Bohn to amend the agenda to allow Brad Johnson, Housing Alliance /CHADDA to make a brief pre- sentation. JOINT HRA /CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 1985 PAGE 3 CHADDA PRESENTATION Johnson introduced Larry Smith from his firm to make the presen- tation. Smith presented the flow chart for the team concept and discussed the timeline involved with such. Smith also presented an initial land use concept for the downtown area. Johnson stated that he has been meeting with a developer who would like to construct apartment units in the downtown area and has determined that mortgage revenue bonds may be necessary in order for the project to be completed. Johnson stated that the mortgage revenue bond process would have to be completed by the first of the year since legislation now pending at the state and federal levels may affect the municipality's ability to issue such bonds. Johnson stated that he would be present at the next City Council meeting to present more information regarding this issue. 1986 BUDGET AND CASH FLOW ANALYSIS REVIEW Ashworth presented the 1986 Budget which incorporates expenditure items such as the Broadened Study Area, Market Study that is a part of the CHADDA agreement, and the time involved for Fred Hoisington's work. Ashworth also presented the cash flow analy- sis document and explained the overall status of the tax incre- ment districts. Motion by Swenson, seconded by Bohn to approve and accept the 1986 Budget and Cash Flow Analysis. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VERBAL REPORT, HALVERSON LEASE AGREEMENT Ashworth stated that staff has been meeting with Dave Halvorson regarding another lease in the City owned portion of the HRA building. He stated that he felt the City will not be in a posi- tion to sell this portion of the building until mid - summer, 1986. Until that time, Halverson would be occupying this space for his business as well as a boat and RV storage area. Ashworth stated that the lease would be considered by the HRA next month. CHANHASSEN BOWL UPDATE Ashworth stated that before the $200,000 construction loan can be issued to the owners of the bowling center, the City has to - insure that all requirements of approval and City ordinances have been complied with. He stated that Fred Hoisington and appropriate staff members are reviewing the plans to determine items which have not been completed satisfactorily and developing cost estimates as well. He stated that the bowling center owners are anxious to receive the loan money in order that construction L JOINT HRA /CITY COUNCI MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 1985 PAGE 4 costs and bills can be paid. Because of their request, Ashworth stated that the item would be considered by the City Council on November 4, 1985 and a special BRA meeting could be scheduled on November 7th. The HRA members agreed that a special meeting could be conducted on that date. SATELLITE MEDICAL STATION Ashworth reviewed his involvement with the Waconia Ridgeview Hospital staff regarding a satellite medical facility somewhere in the downtown area. He stated that local physicians in town are interested in using the facility. Ashworth stated that although nothing concrete has been proposed, that he wanted the HRA to be aware that staff was working with the hospital to locate a possible site. The HRA recommended that staff investi- gate the Park - Nicollet facility as background information. Commissioner Bohn moved, seconded by Commissioner Swenson to adjourn the meeting at 9:29 p.m. Don Ashworth Executive Director Prepared by: Barbara Dacy on October 30, 1985 MEMORANDUM CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 TO: Mayor /City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager DATE: November 4, 1985 SUBJ: Chanhassen Bowl, Request to Finalize Loan Agreement Attached is a letter from John Dorek asking that the City /HRA authorize issuance of a check in accordance with the "Loan Agreement" between the HRA and Dorek /Baden (copy included in rear of packet - "Background Information "). The Loan Agreement required the developers meet the construction requirements of the City (subdivision and conditional use permit - see April 15, 1985 memo in attached "Background Information "), and the Site and Facia plans developed by the HRA (see "Purchase Agreement" in attached "Background Information "). In light of the above, both the Council and HRA must act on this item, i.e: 1. City Council action to determine compliance with sub- division /conditional use requirements; and 2. HRA action to determine compliance with Facia /Site plan requirements and authorization to issue a check in accor- dance with the loan agreement. The City Council's action on November 4, 1985 will be presented to the HRA for their meeting of November 7, 1985. In an effort to consolidate various aspects of the review process (engineering, planning, building, fire, etc.), I have asked Fred Hoisington to prepare a consolidated staff report and recommen- dation. As such, the attached report represents the recommen- dations of your entire staff including this office. I asked Mr. Hoisington to include salient documents given to the applicant during the review /building process. Approval of Mr. Hoisington's conclusions is recommended. i October 8, 1985 Chanhassen Bowl, Inc. 581 West 78th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Attention: Don Ashworth City Manager This is a request for the $200,000 loan per our agreement. Our building has been completed except for approximately $5,000 of landscaping and stucco. Because of the economic reality of dealing with various contractors, we would appreciate your expediting this as quickly as possible. Thank you for your usual cooperation. Sincerely, Cr MA H , /� John H. Dorek, Partner Chanhassen Bowl, Inc. RECEi r " "ED OCT 0 81985 City OF CHANHASSEN fib, MEMORANDUM To: BRA and City Council From: Fred Hoisington, Consultant Subject: Bowling Center Compliance with Site and Building Plans Date: 11 -1 -85 On June 7, 1985, Barbara Dacy and I met with John Dorek and Bill Baden to present the City's Site Plan Review requirements as they would apply to the Bowling Center. At that time the Brauer & Associates Master Site and Landscape Plans (Plans B & C) and the Freeberg Architectural Concept were presented to the proponents along with a Site Plan Review Checklist. After some discussion, it was agreed that all of the requirements of the City, as embodied in these documents, would be complied with by the proponents. The following represents our conclusions relative to compliance by Dorek and Baden: 1. CONSTRUCTION COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST City Plans /Checklist Complies Does Not Comply D & B Building Plans Complies Does Not Comply Did Not Review X g N/A X X X X X X X X X X X X N/A N/A Fire Marshall For notes, see following page. N/A X X X X X X Not Addressed Not Addressed Not Addressed Not Addressed X N/A N/A to provide report 1 7901 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 ❑ (612) 941 -1660 a. Dimensions b. Grading & Drainage 1) c. Access d. Circulation 1) Curbing 2) 2) Parking 3) 3) Sidewalks 4) 4) Pedestrian Ramps 5) e. f. Landscaping 6) Trash Enclosure 7) g. Rooftop Equip 8) h. Signage 9) 1) Wall 2) Free- standing 10) i. Lighting 11) j. Building Elev 12) k.,Utility Plan C3 1.:Hazardous Storage 'm. Fire Protection D & B Building Plans Complies Does Not Comply Did Not Review X g N/A X X X X X X X X X X X X N/A N/A Fire Marshall For notes, see following page. N/A X X X X X X Not Addressed Not Addressed Not Addressed Not Addressed X N/A N/A to provide report 1 7901 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 ❑ (612) 941 -1660 1) While the site is basically graded in accordance with the Master Site Plan, the unpaved parking areas should be treated to minimize erosion. 2) Improperly spaced from north and west walls; parking island was not constructed near west entrance. 3) Parking lot not striped in accordance with building plans or Plans B & C. 4) Sidewalks were not built at west entrance in accordance with building plans. 5) The building plans show a pedestrian ramp in conjunction with the easterly entrance on the south wall which is part of the building retained by the City. We are not sure why this ramp was proposed by the proponents for City property. 6) Trees are smaller than specified and five were eliminated or not constructed within the parking island and the slope adjacent to the Kirt property. Some of the vegetation also appears to be damaged and may not be alive. 7) Open dumpster at rear of building, not screened or enclosed. 8) No screening provided. Roof top equipment is visible not only from surrounding properties but from within the site's perimeter. 9) Plans were not submitted for approval with building plans. 10) Complies but the existing sign does not meet the intent of the City Council's approval on October 7, 1985. The Applicant has agreed to move the sign and frame it in a manner that is consistent with other signage in the community. This will, however, be delayed until the City installs a street light to provide secondary service to light the sign. The existing temporary pole and light will be removed at the time the sign is moved_. 11) Lighting is not at all in accordance with established performance standards. Plans were not submitted with building plans as required. 12) Facade treatment in the center part of the building is approximately in accordance with the City's suggested architectural concept. The back portion of the building (the north and west exterior walls of Filly's) does not comply with the architectural treatment proposed either by the City or the Developers. In this area, the proposed facade treatment was completely ignored. 2. OTHER CONCERNS a. Power Poles /Fire Hydrant: While the City's plans did not address the issue of relocation, good taste would have suggested a treatment other than to leave everything in place and simply pave around them. These facilities constitute an eyesore that detract substantially from the City's intent to redevelop the Instant Web Property. 2 b. West Entry; This area appears to have been designed to serve as a loading zone rather than an exclusive pedestrian entrance. As such, it detracts substantially from this as a pedestrian entrance. If sidewalks and curbing are constructed in accordance with building plans, this problem will be substantially resolved. c. Occupancy /Parking• Unfortunately, the use of the building was never totally disclosed by the developers and was in a constant state of flux. Originally, plans were not available upon which to base parking demand computations. It was not until the April 10th Planning Commission meeting that we learned that a second bar and banquet hall were proposed. These substantially increased parking requirements resulting in a 66 car deficiency without occupancy of the Community Center (see Site Plan Review Checklist). Since that time, what was believed to have been a bar /lounge has turned into a nightclub (Filly's) and the result is the further exacerbation of the parking problem. It is almost certain that the 225 -250 seat capacity used to compute parking demand is far below the occupancy actually being experienced at Filly's. The result can be seen in the substantial areas that have been graded for overflow parking adjacent to the paved parking lot. 3. CONCLUSIONS a. Overflow Parking Areas should be treated to minimize erosion. This would include temporary control measures this year and sodding, plus topsoil, year. of the fringe next b. Curbing in the vicinity of the west entry should be reconstructed in accordance with building plans (10 feet from the north wall and 20 feet from the west wall). The parking island should also be constructed near the front entrance in accordance with site and building plans. c. Parking should be restriped in accordance with site and building plans. While approximately five parking spaces will be lost, with construction of the island, it should be rioted that the overflow parking which is allowed on City property accounts for an additional 40 spaces. The recommended method of eliminating the present striping is to sealcoat and then restripe the surface near the west entry after all construction is completed. d. Sidewalks should be constructed in accordance with plans at the west entrance. L .3 r. e. Pedestrian Ramps We defer to the Building Official regarding access requirements. f. Landscaping should be made to comply with the Master Landscaping and Building Plans. This will include the planting of three (3) trees in the island and two (2) on the slope adjacent to the Kirt property. We are not concerned about the sizes of existing trees but suggest a condition that any trees that do not survive after one year be replaced by Dorek and Baden. g. Trash Storage is difficult under any circumstances primarily because an acceptable solution now will be unacceptable when the Community Center is occupied. We recommend only a temporary solution which includes the provision of an enclosure within the parking lot. This area should be screened to a height (8')appropriate to eliminate all views to the dumpster and trash therein. It should be located to allow easy access for garbage vehicles. A joint trash storage facility should be considered when the Community Center is designed and constructed. h. The Screening of Rooftop Equipment provides a real challenge due to the elevation of the building relative to public streets. There are several refrigeration and other units on top of the building plus a satellite dish. To screen them completely is virtually impossible. We recommend that screening be done to reduce the visual impact of this equipment from the north, west and south exposures. A screen fence three to four feet in height is recommended. i. Wall Signage Complies. j. Freestanding Signage corrections have been agreed to by the City and Dorek and Baden. k. Lighting At a minimum, lighting should be converted to high pressure sodium fixtures as is required by the City for the rest of downtown and for commercial and industrial properties throughout the community. r- i 4 1. Architectural Treatment While the west exterior wall of Filly's is not at all in accordance with the Freeberg proposal, we are not convinced that the Cedar board fillers within the old loading bays, as proposed by the Dorek and Baden Building Plans, is a good solution either. At a minimum, we recommend that the old bay numbers be removed and the west wall be repainted. m. Power Poles /Fire Hydrant The overall plan and SPR Checklist indicated the need for considerably more parking than is presently available and the need for the City to play a role in providing such additional parking. The downtown plan also recommends a north /south roadway west of the Instant Web property line to provide entry to the Bowling Center. We believe the power line can be relocated in conjunction with the construction of this north /south street. The fire hydrant is, however, another matter. To avoid inadvertent damage, the hydrant should be protected from automobiles or relocated. We recommend, at a minimum, that curbing be provided and that the island be minimally landscaped to improve its appearance. We further recommend that it be relocated at the time of construction of the north /south roadway, with consideration given to putting it nearer the building, and that the owners, Dorek and Baden, enter into an agreement with the City, now, to participate in the cost of the relocation of the power poles and the fire hydrant. n. West Entry All improvements should be made in accordance with the building plans. o. Occupancy /Parking We strongly recommend the continuous monitoring of occupancy at Filly's.- We further recommend that consideration be given to providing additional hard surfaced parking to minimize parking deficiencies. 4. RECOMMENDATIONS It is the recommendation of the Consultant and the Staff that the HRA authorize payment of the loan to Dorek and Baden subject to the withholding of sufficient moneys to accomplish the construction and reconstruction corrections outlined above. A cost estimate will be available on November 4, 1985 for consideration by the City Council and HRA. E HISTORY 1. Original Plan with the Bowling Center on east side of the building had a parking demand of 355 with the Community Center and a supply of 417 spaces. One bar /lounge was proposed. Plans were very preliminary. 2. Second Plan with Bowling Center on west side had a parking demand of 301 without Community Center occupancy and a supply of 354 spaces. One bar /lounge was proposed but plans were not available to review for specific facility locations and sizes. 3. Banquet Hall Addition. We found out about the banquet hall (300 seats) and a second bar (125 seats) at the Planning Commission meeting on April 10, 1985 and recalculated parking demand at 420 spaces without the Community Center (supply was 354). 4. City Council Meeting April 15 Presented recalculations to City Council (420 vs 354). 5. Plans B & C. In June we developed more specific site plans and the site plan checklist as part of the SPR process. Barb and I presented these to Dorek and Baden on June 7, 1985 where it appeared we agreed on all items in the checklist. 6, Filly's. Instead of a bar /lounge we have a fullscale nightclub which has a capacity far exceeding 250 seats. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Barbara Dacy, City Planner FROM: Jim Castleberry, Public Safety Director C\ DATE: October 30, 1985 SUBJ: Chanhassen Bowl /Old Instant Web Building Fire Protection This memo is in response to questions you raised during a recent conversation concerning the Chanhassen Bowl and fire hydrant placement. In addition, I am including fire code compliance con- cerns with regard to the bowling alley and addressing the need for fire lanes as it relates to the old Instant Web building in its entirety. 1. In response to your question concerning the fire hydrant located just west of the Chanhassen Bowl entrance and the viability of screening the hydrant with landscaping; a. The hydrant needs to remain visible and should not be covered by landscaping, etc. b. The hydrant would be more adequately protected by providing curbing around it. C. From a tactical standpoint, it would be advantageous to move the hydrant closer to the west end of the building. 2. Chanhassen Bowl Fire Code Compliance: a. If flammable liquids are to remain in the back room adjacent to the pin machines, a flammable liquid storage cabinet will be required. b. One ABC entinguisher must be added to this work room. C. Occupant load signs for the banquet room and Filly's Bar must be posted. L I-= Ms. Barbara Dacy October 30, 1985 Page 2 3. Fire Lanes: a. To insure immediate accessibility for emergency vehicles in the event of a fire, fire lanes should be marked: 1) On the west end of the building by the entrance 2) On the south end of the building by the rear exit 3) Next to the Animal Fair entrance as we prev- iously discussed. 4. Future Fire Hydrant Placement: a. Currently there is a hydrant on the northwest portion of the parking lot. It appears that additional parking spaces are planned for the area immediately adjacent to it. I would suggest that the contractor consider moving the hydrant closer to the building next to a fire lane so that we do not run into a problem with it being obstructed. CHANHASSEN PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT 690 COULTER DRIVE • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 October 17, 1985 Mr. William Baden Chanhassen Bowl, Inc. 581 West 78th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Baden: JAMES D.CASTLEBERRY Director I would appreciate your assistance in posting the following occu- pant loads in the appropriate areas in your establishment. This posting is required by the Minnesota Building Code and the Uniform Fire Code. Area Filly's Lounge Meeting /Banquet Room Maximum Occoant Load 420 persons 250 persons If you have any questions, please feel free to give either George Donnelly or myself a call. Thanking you in advance for your cooperation. ju:K L t C c INSTANT WEB BUILDING SITE PLAN CHECKLIST 1. GENERAL a. Project Name: Chanhassen Mall and Bowling Center b. Applicant Name: Dorek & Baden /Kirt c. Legal Description: See attached survey d. Date: April 10, 1985 e. Vicinity Map: N/A f. Project Description: Use Retail Restaurant Office Grocery Store Bowling Center Bar /Lounge /Banquet Community Center (future) Bldg. Sq. Ft. 14,200 4,300 2,800 10,000 35,575 300 seats banquet 350 seats bars (2) 23,000 g. Existing Zoning and Land Use: COX). Existing building is used for limited retail and storage. h. Tabulation: 1. Parcel Size: 3.81 acres 2. GFA: 90,000 sq. ft. 3. Building Lot Coverage: 54% 4. Impervious Surface Coverage: 94% 5. Parking Coverage: 40% 6. Number of Employees: N/A 7. Number of Seats: a. Restaurant: 135 b. Banquet Hall: 300 c. Bars (2): 350 8. Number Parking Spaces Required: 420, 6 -9 pm, not including community center occupancy. This was computed on the basis of peaking factors and reductions for multiple use. 9. Parking Provided: Phase I - Plan B 354 Phase II - Plan C 390 10. Building Height: 1 Story Front 2 Stories Rear 2. SITE PLAN a. Dimensions: See Site Plans Attached (bpi Granding and Drainage: To be sheet drained. Grading plans to be provided by owners. c. Access: See Site Plans Attached d. Circulation: See Attached Site Plans. Parking lot curbing to be provided in all areas adjacent to building_and_at entrances to public streets. R. Landscaping: See Attached Site Plans. Owners to provide detailed landscaping plans which comply with � attached Site Plan. Y. Trash Enclosures: To be enclosed or screened from view _ from public streets and adjacent properties. g; Roof Top Equipment: To be screened from view from public streets and adjacent properties. �h1 Signage: Detailed signage plans to be provided by owners. Ii. Lighting: Detailed plans to be provided by owners. Should comply generally with the following preferred performance standards: 1) Average minimum 1/2 foot candle 2) Sharp cutoffs 3) Maximum 35' mounting height 4) Decorative poles 5) Shoebox type fixture preferred �. Building Elevations: To be provided by owners. Shall comply generally with master concept attached. k. Utility Plan: Utilities in place. 1. Hazardous Materials to be Stored: None m. Proposed Fire Protection System• Sprinklers required. To be included with Building Plans. April 25, 1985 r CITYCOF 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 Mr. John Dorek 4749 Beard Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55410 and Mr. William Baden Baden's Stadium Bowl 815 East 78th Street Bloomington, MN 55420 Dear Messrs. Dorek and Baden: The City Council unanimously approved your request for sub- division and conditional use permit approval at the April 15, 1985 meeting. The approval was on the basis of the site plan, facia plan, and landscaping plans presented that evening. During the course of the discussion, you asked that each of these be modified slightly to represent your current thoughts. As of right now, I think I know of each change you presented. Unfortunately, my memory will not be that good in six months - the date we certify that you have completed work in accordance with the approved plans. For this reason, and recognizing that I can- not treat you differently than any other developer in our com- munity, I must document each change. Neither one of us need surprises and the only way to avoid such is to modify the site plan, grading plan, and facia plan to represent exactly what is to be done. In this effort, I offer to have Brauer and Associates complete these work functions. Barbara Dacy will establish a meeting between yourself and Fred Hoisington to review work he is to complete. Please do not change the scope of the project from that already approved; but, on the other hand, make sure that all changes are brought out as I will ask that you sign each of the revised plans. As I previously stated, the State requires detailed building plans certified by an architect. I have no authority to waive this requirement. Attached is a checklist for items needed for just site plan review. On the "Statement of Estimated Application and Permit I f �Y I Messrs. Dorek & Baden April 25, 1985 Page 2 Fees ", please fill in information indicated by the blue check - mark. This sheet will then be completed by our staff to inform you of the amount of fees required for processing the various applications. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, -� Don Ashworth Ashworth City) Manager DA ,k Enclosure 1 2. +Jir COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SI'PE PLAN ELEMENTS GENERAL: a. Name of project b. Name, address, and telephone number of the applicant, engineer, and owner of record. C. Legal description (certificate of survey may be required) d. Date proprosed, north arrow, engineering scale, number of sheets, name of drawer. e. Vicinity map showing relationship of the proposed develop- ment to surrounding streets, rights of way, easements, and natural features. f. Description of intended use of the site, buildings, and structures including type of occupancy and estimated occupancy load. g. Existing zoning and land use. h. Tabulation box indicating: 1. Size of parcel in acres or square feet 2. Gross floor area of each building 3. Percent of site covered by building 4. Percent of site covered by impervious surface 5. Percent of site covered by parking area 6. Projected number of employees 7. Number of seats if intended use is a restaurant or place of assembly. 8. Number of parking spaces required. 9. Number of parking spaces provided including handicapped. 10. Height of all buildings and structures and number of stories SITE PLAN: a. Property line dimensions, location of all existing and proposed structures with distance from boundaries, distance between structures, building dimensions, and floor elevations. b. Grading and drainage plan showing existing natural features (topography, wetlands, vegetation, etc.) as well as proposed grade elevations and sedimentation and storm - water retention ponds. C. All existing and proposed points of egress /ingress showing widths at property lines, turning radii abutting rights -of -way with indicated center line, width, paving width, existing and proposed median cuts, and intersec- tions of streets and driveways. i d. Vehicular circulation system showing location and dimen- sions for all driveways, parking spaces, parking lot aisles, service roads, loading areas, fire lanes, emergency access (if necessary), public and private streets, alleys, sidewalks, bikepaths, direction of traffic flow, and traffic control devices. CONCRETE BOX CURBING IS REQUIRED ALONG THE PERIMETER OF ALL PAVED AREAS e. Landscaping plan detailing location of proposed visual screens, walls, fences, buffer strips, landscaping, greenbelts, recreation areas, and lighting. Planting detail should also be included indicating plant species, size at planting, and size at maturity. A TEN FOOT LANDSCAPE STRIP BETWEEN THE PARKING LOT AND BUILDING IS REQUIRED. LOW MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPE TREATMENT IS ACCEPTABLE. f. TRASH ENCLOSURES MUST BE SCREENED. Location, access, and screening detail must be provided. g. ROOF TOP EQUIPMENT MUST BE SCREENED. Detail must be provided. h. Location and detail of signage. i. Lighting location, style and mounting. SHIELDED HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM FIXTURES REQUIRED j. Building elevations from all directions. k. Utility plan identifying size and direction of existing water and sewer lines, fire hydrants, distance of hydrant to proposed building. 1. List of proposed hazardous materials, use and storage. M. Proposed fire protection system. 3 SU MISSI a., App b. App C. Twen ON EQU :E,11E TSica ion ign d b ap lica t a d o ner of rop rxy_ ica ion fee f $ 50. 0 (/ ty- fight cop es o si e p an i 1 rge than 81 x 11. -2- G i CITY OF CHANHASSEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED 690 COULTER DRIVE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION & PERMIT FEE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 - AND RELATED CHARGES (612) 937 -1900 Date Project Date Pans Name Received Name w Address z 3 ° City Tel. No. z Name r M, .;.; .. n . Vr Address J d c° City Tel No. rrojecL Address i `!'£� • "'.: > Subd.. I Lot= LBlk.�_ Section N3 G S# Parcel No. 012n�.. u'YJ Res. comm. i( Ind. NewAlteration_)L Addition Repair Est. Bldg. Valuation Kind of Construct n No. of Stories �/ I hereby acknowledge that I have read this ,,,,- Total Floor Area Sq. Ft a document and have provided the information No. of SAC Units to the City of Chanhassen upon which the •\ estimated City fees and related charges) Est. Project Completion have been determined. I understand that all such fees and charges are subject to change and are identified on this form for _ �y informational purposes only.o� Signature of Applicant DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FEE ** DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ESCROW ACCT. * ** BUILDING PERMIT FEE - PLAN CHECK FEE STATE SURTAX PLUMBING PERMIT SEWER HOOK -UP PERMIT WATER HOOK -UP PERMIT WATER METER PRIVATE SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT PRIVATE WELL PERMIT SIGN PERMIT *All fees and related charges are payable upon application for a building permit unless otherwise noted. * *Fee shown represents sum of all application fees collected at various planning review phases. ** *Escrow account established at time of initial application for development plan review in order to cover estimated City costs for consultive services (legal & engineering) related to application. Balance remaining at completion of project is refunded to applicant. CITY PARK CHARGE(_per acre /unit) METRO SEWER AVAILABILITY CHG.(SAC) SANITARY SEWER TRUNK CHARGE SANITARY SEWER LATERAL CHARGE WATER TRUNK CHARGE WATER LATERAL CHARGE STORM SEWER CHARGE STREET, CURB & GUTTER CHARGE INTEREST LETTER OF CREDIT Req'd._Not Req'd._ (Amount based on cost of public improvements related to project and private exterior on -site improvements required in plan approval.) REMARKS THE COST ESTIMATES CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROVIDED FOR GENERAL INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AS A SERVICE TO THE APPLICANT. ACTUAL COSTS MAY VARY DUE 10 CHANGES IN DEVELOPMENT" PLANS, INCREASES IN CITY AND METRO FEE STRUCTURES, AND INCREASES IN CONSTRUCTION COSTS. THE APPLICANT IS ENCOURAGED TO REQUEST AN UPDATE OF THESE ESTIMATED COSTS IF THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE PLANS UPON WHICH THESE COSTS ARE BASED, OR IF A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME HAS LAPSED SINCE THIS FORM WAS COMPLETED. THE COST ESTIMATES PROVIDED IN THIS FORM WERE DETERMINED BY CITY STAFF,WITH GENERAL STAFF COORDINATION PROVIDED BY: NAME GATE: ; ICouncil Meeting, April 15, 5 _6_ C. Councilman Geving moved to table this item directing the City Attorney, Roger Knutson, to prepare written. Findings and Facts and a conclusion denying the building permit and street frontage and lot area variances and bringing that infor- mation back to the next City Council meeting so the Council can vote on the Findings and Facts. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. ilkOLD INSTANT WEB BUILDING. 581 WEST 78TH STREET: J a. Subdivision Approval (Preliminary and Final) i b. Conditional Use Permit Approval. Fred Hoisinoton: What I would like to do is to background you just a little bit as to where we've been and then present the plans as they currently exist. We are really presenting two different plans. We did a site plan initially, that I believe everyone has received copies of. The first one that we prepared had a considerable amount of open space within the parking lot. What we were proposing was that in all of the areas throughout the entire parking lot, that there be islands, and landscaping, being organized the best that we could with the circulation system of parking within the parking area. This will always be the case when you have to deal with real situations, and not with an ideal situation which was more of what we were dealing with when we were trying to put together that plan. Is there a compromise that needs to be made. In the real world there are certain parking demands that are put on the site that simply do not allow for all of the things to be accomplished that we were proposing in the initial plan. What we did is we went back and revised the plan to reflect a bit more parking than what was available on the prior plan. Not as much as you think, but still some additional parking. I eliminated some of the inefficiencies, and when I talk of inefficiencies such as snow plowing inefficen- cies it would be inherent with a plan that had as many islands as the prior plan did. What we have done is we have really shifted the open space, the green space, that existed on the site plan from out in the parking lot itself to a place closer to the building. In a sense, as a planner, I have difficulty with that and, in another sense we really have better spaces within which to accomplish landscaping now than we did on the initial plan. What I am talking about is all of the green spaces that are in a very close proximity to the building. In our prior plan, we were actually cutting into these to within ten feet of the building in all cases. In this plan, in order to keep the amount of work done to use the existing parking lot within the front area and still allow for some additional construction in the back, we are not now needing to cut as deeply into those areas and still are providing more parking than we were on prior occasion. When we calculated the parking before, we were figuring something in the neighborhood of 380 spaces as being required at full occupancy of the building including the community center. We had a very close balance between the parking that is available and parking that was demanded by the users for the occupancy of the building. We have learned some things since that meeting. We understand that there is a bit more going on in the bowling center than we had anticipated when we did the original calculations. So the numbers have changed some. We are not real concerned about that because I think there are ample opportunities to do things to resolve those type of problems. I only want you to be aware that you will be a bit deficient in parking and that as all Councils and HRAs must do in the course of dealing with downtowns, where you must play a roll in provisions of parking, is you are going to have to keep tabs on it. You may not have an immediate problem at all, but on the other hand the potential exists to have a problem. These are the numbers in what we can provide and what we are proposing here with again minimum development and some rather substantial development of a portion of the property. A total of 354 a f Council Meeting, Apri(_�, 1985 'C spaces being provided immediately with this plan. .A total of 390 spaces with the land as it currently exists. A total demand, initially for parking without occupancy (- of the community center, if given with the full occupancy, which may not occur imme- diately, would be about 420 spaces. If you have the building totally occupied, which is not a certainty, what we suggested to you is that you look in the meantime in ways to solve drainage problems, that you know that exist, a parking problem that you also know that exists, that you continue to look at how the roadway or access leads and all of these things can be satisfied in conjunction with one another. If everything were to be occupied in this building, assuming that you were right, assuming that the i bands for parking will be as you think they are, then you could be looking in the neighborhood of a 100 car deficiency on the site. I do not want to get you concerned about that, I would like to just throw it up so you understand that you do have a continuing roll to play in this case to make sure that overtime things will work out. The most important part of the recommendation or our review has to do with the recom- mendations that exist on the back portion of the report, one of which had been con- sidered in great length, the gerrymandering of lines which Don Ashworth has been in the process of doing for quite some time. It has created another lot which, I think, will benefit the City and with regard to patrol over what happens to the additional parking. The City should definitely hold off on the development of lot 3 until we know what the history is and we know how this thing is going to function and other- wise full development; that the owner of the building, Mr. Kirt, somehow balance i usage of the northeast corner of the building with the available parking, we are re- questing an ajoining parking agreement with the ajoining owner or a usage that would ! have a lesser demand for parking in that particular part of the building; we suggest that you at least consider a pedestrian connection to link the new mall with the Frontier and Dinner Theater buildings; alternate ways of providing initial parking be considered and that you do, as soon as possible, a feasibility study to decide and determine what your greatest needs are and what your drainage needs are and what your access needs are and how they are going to be satisfied, which will be on both the west and south sides of the property, and also how much additional parking will be satisfied in fact that it is needed at a later date. We recommend that you consider that Mr. Kirt considers an alternate location for his dumpster. It is hardly appropriate in front of the building; that every effort, and Mr. Ashworth has been struggling with this for a long time and he has some ideas about how the building could be internalized, we think that is extremely important to this development and its viability and the quality of the development as far as downtown is concerned; that as much as possible, the parking lot be curbed and guttered especially in the areas of the closest proximity to the building; that the landscaping plan be sub- mitted for approval by the City Planner; that the variance be approved for lot 3, which does not have street frontage; and that you continue to work with Carver County for the purchase of land shown as excess right -of -way for County Road 16. With that we would suggest that you approve two staged site plans subject to the conditions and recommendations. In addition to the site plan itself, something has to be done to knit this building together. What Mr. Ashworth has asked us to do is to at least look at how that can be accomplished. I do not mean to suggest that this needs to be accomplished in absolute accordance with what I am going to show you here but the type of materials we are talking about are generally used so there is some consistency and compatibility between the issues. You are all familiar with the building, we have a wooden front, the grocery store has a plywood elevation with a mansard roof, the area in between is the cement block portion of the building that is the worst part of the building in terms of its appearance and probably in terms of the quality of the wall itself, and finally the fab -con portion of the building, which is not at all unattractive. It does rather look industrial, but it is not terribly an unattractive type of facing. How do you get all of these things together so it somehow looks like - one building and not a one that's been added to which you all know is exactly what we I I —� Council Meeting, April 15 � 985 have. The first plan we tried to accomplish some way to relate this to the rest of downtown and carry out the theme that Mr. Bloomberg has had for years and to do that relatively inexpensively. The front of the building is going to be simply stained and the materials will remain basically the same. We have a couple options with the grocery store part of the building. We can either develop it with a sort of canopy effect, which does carry out the western theme or we can eliminate that and use a 1 board and batten approach. But we are suggesting a wood material in this portion of the building. The center portion, or the cement block portion of the building is rather a critical one and we see a stucco type treatment there, yet showing a remarkable change from the front of the building to the back portion of the building. There are canopys over the entries. In this plan we happen to have an overhang, which would be a covered walkway. This is simply a stucco effect with a ceiling in the center and some posts drop down. When we got it done, we didn't like the looks of that particular elevation. We went back and took another look at it then and we cut off the canopy from the front of the building and simply ran it around the corner and ended it at that point. Board and batten stucco with no overhang at all, very simple and clean effect and probably much better than the prior plan. In the final back portion of the building leaving the back with stucco with wood on the lower por- tion of the building with a wood band along the top, in this case to take away from the top portion of the building and still to create a border for it. We prefer this kind of treatment. We are not suggesting at all that you apply this absolutely literally, only that you consider and look at the kinds of materials that we are suggesting. Don Ashworth: Brauer and Associates was hired by the City to insure that we looked at the total site that any of our clients were taking a look at what we were going to be accomplishing as part of this overall development. I think it is very important ((( to remember that the only thing that we are approving this evening is the building plans for the bowling center. In terms of any of Mr. Hoisington's comments regarding the site plan, dumpster, and the layout, what we are doing here is setting a tone for how we want this section to develop. It is going to be up to Mr. Kirt to submit his plans and get approval from the Council before he can do one thing. Two to three weeks ago we had Brauer and Associates review the plan at that point in time. They identified that there were some serious problems with potential circulation. At that time we moved the bowling center people from one side of the building to the other, based on Brauers comments. We maintained a corridor section through this entire por- tion of the building so that we could accomplish that mall atmosphere as a part of any type of future plans. Similarly, every review by Brauer, we have modified what we are doing to make sure that we are going to be able to accomplish what we want to in the future. They have identified a parking problem. In the plat we have retained a portion of the property ownership to insure that we have adequate parking asso- ciated with the site. At the current time, if there is a developer who has a poten- tial problem, it would be Mr. Kirt, if he would walk in tomorrow. If the bowling center is approved this evening, which we are recommending, it should be in reaso- nable shape as far as parking for a temporary period of time. When Mr. Kirt comes in, we must resolve this road issue and the access as it leads into the site. I think we have used all of the input from Brauer to guide each of our decisions to make sure that we know, in advance, what it is we want to do tomorrow. I feel very comfortable with that. Going back to the parking problem again, the agreement with Mr. Kirt says �- that he cannot put any use in his portion of the building if he does not have suf- ficient parking for that use. So before he comes back with a restaurant, he would have to either develop additional parking in conjunction with Mr. Bloomberg or to change that use to one that would conform with the parking that he has here. I don't know of any section of the agreements that you have already signed that do not try to address, not only the current problem areas as well as the future. I feel Ir- Council Meeting, Apri(_ �, 1985 C' _9- very comfortable with those. You must recognize that you have an existing building, and therefore it becomes difficult to have everything done tonight. What we can do is to develop through those agreements how it is that we are going to take and insure the green areas that are developed. We have addressed that again through those agreements and through recognition of the new north -south road. We have addressed the issue of parking in those agreements, Again, I feel very comfortable that the concerns raised by Brauer have been addressed in the plans that are in front of you right now. The last one on the facia, and Mr. Hoisington did not really stress this point and I feel that it is a major one, in that Mr. Dorek k Mr. Baden have agreed to fill the existing area adjacent to this building three to four feet and bringing that grade out, similarly the height of that wall, this is that loading dock area, that is a lower elevation. At the current time we are looking at a 24 foot high concrete block wall. It's not very attractive. By removing the top eight feet off that wall and bringing it down to the height of this loading dock and by filling adjacent to the building and bringing that up you have a treatment on this side that signifi- cantly reduces the amount of concrete block. It gives it more of an appearance of a commercial building rather than a warehouse. Councilwoman Swenson: I was over at the Prairie Mall and noticed something that I think would really look very nice here too. On the east side of the parking area in plat four, I think it would be very beautiful there if we had about a four foot curbed in area with about a 2 -inch tree in each one of those things. That would also help to put in a lighting system for the parking aisles. I think that would really help to bring in the greenery and the outside attractiveness of the building, Mayor Hamilton: I can understand what you are saying, but my only problem is that it tt does cause problems plowing. Also, garbage also tends to collect in these areas and } the wood chips seem to deteriorate fast. L Councilwoman Swenson: That is just a matter of g ickin the garbage u P 9 9 P. This also gives us exterior lighting for the parking area. Mayor Hamilton: Maybe we should ask Mr. Baden what his plans are for the lighting. Mr. Baden: I can't tell you just where, but Mr. Henning has talked about certain "candle lights" for the parking lights. In regards to the greenery close to the building, this creates a problem for us and that has to do with signing. You have to go 50 feet up the roof to be seen, that means 74 feet up to be seen. We do not want to do that and I am sure you do not want us to, so we are going to use part of the wall to designate what it is. If we have got trees and shrubs around that wall, then our only alternative is to go up because we have to identify ourselves. The sign would be located on the wall that goes back from the loading dock, which runs east and west. On the south wall we would probably have the word "BOWL" on the wall, illuminated. We do want to keep some of the trees away from the signing area. As far as the exterior is concerned, the only thing that we had planned different than what was proposed is that we are planning on a heavier wood beam and we would like to break up the stucco with vertical wood sections, oC uncllman Geving: Have you done this type of building before some other place or is this entirely new to you? 1 Mr. Baden: No. This building is entirely new for us. IIj Councilman Gevino: How do you feel about the islands that are being presented for the parking area. What is your experience with islands? Mr. Baden: We have never had islands before. We did all of our shrubbery on the C perimeters and by the building before. Council Meeting, April 15,( 85 -10- Councilwomen Watson; I have a concern with our portion of the building. I am interested in that somewhere it is in writing that we cannot develop our portion of the building until the road is built. In putting this in writing, it would prove that we are complying with \the rules as any other person has to comply with. Councilwoman Swenson: What do we figure as a time schedule for the road? Don Ashworth: I would hope that we could move into that in 1986. The feasibility studies would begin in 1985 and ready for construction in 1986. Councilman Horn; Isn't part of what you are looking for here was to get rid industrial look of the building? of the Mr. Hoisington: The back portion of the building is inordinately tall, as all industrial building must be. Ideally, you would either by cutting the building down in size, which will be done in the center of the building and by filling you would diminish the .overall size of that building accordingly. By the time filling everything, you end you get done up with a tremendous amount of cost that simply does not allow you to do this. You have to deal with ramps to get around that. Councilman Horn: Isn't one of the schemes that architects use to make something look shorter is to use a horizontal type of finishing method. Does a vertical tend to make it look taller? Mr, Hoisington; Yes, you can do that. It depends on what Mr. Dorek and Mr. Baden decide to do with wood. The wall is going to be much lower in any case. It is going to look like a very ordinary commercial building at that point and it is going to increase the attractiveness immensely there, Councilman Horn: It seems to me that your horizontal roof line that you proposed will make the building look much longer and the stucco type of treatment is fine. What I am concerned with is a vertical type look. Councilwoman Swenson: What is your opinion, Mr. Hoisington, about having the islands in the parking lot with the light structures there? Mr. Hoisington: I have learned to like islands a great deal. One of the reasons that we included them in the prior plan was that we wanted to define the roadways and to provide parking spaces. Councilwoman Swenson: It does seem to keep you parking area in a more orderly fashion, Mr. Hoisington: Prairie Village Mall is maybe not the best example but they do do that there. The problem with it is, as it is with all shopping centers in Eden Prairie, they tend to run the door right by the shops and unfortumately you take your life in you hands when you cross the street. With each island that you put You have to weigh the benefits in here of the aesthetics versus the utility of the parking spaces. If you were to do that in this four bay area you would lose eight parking spaces minimum. Councilwoman Swenson; Would the lighting from an area like that be somewhat more aesthetic rather than flood lights coming off of the building, Mo. Hoisington: As I understand it, they may flood the buildin lighting up close to the buildin wall itself for some g. As far as into the lot itself, I am not quite sure as what will be done. Mo. Baden: There will be high level lighting that will be shining parking lot, down onto the L. �- Council Meeting, Apr,\ '_5, 1985 Councilman Horn: Will there be curbs between each of the double rows of cars? Mr. Hoisington: The plans show no curbing at all. Councilman Horn: One of the things that I have seen with 1 whenever there is an open space, people tend to cut through pretty soon you have a traffic area that is out of control. Mr. Hoisington: I don't know if there is any real solution begin to build curbs in the center you really have problems would rather have the good striping and maybe have the ends necessarily have the curbs in the center. ots like this, is that those spaces and then for that. When you for snow plowing. I marked but not Mayor Hamilton: One of the things that we are going to have to think about here is that we are already short on parking. I would rather wait until we have developed the area a little bit more. You can always go back and take a parking spot out and put in some shrubs on the ends. Rather than doing it now when we are partial on the parking, we should wait so as we develop it south and Mr. Bloomberg does something with the development to the south, that is going to alleviate that problem. Councilman Geving: That is the way I feel. I would rather go with a plan that shows eventual trees or curbing. Until we know what the market is and how many people are going to use this area, we would be better off with an open parking lot and build it from there, but, have the plan show it as an option for potential growth. Councilwoman Swenson: If we lose the shrubbery in the wall plantings that Mr. Baden suggests, we are going to have an awful bare area there. Mr. Hoisington: I think one of the things that you have to be concerned about is the parking lot coming up to the property line. What I would suggest to you is that over time, when this road is built that you give consideration on how you can provide a bit of a boulevard or a space between the parking lots. This way we would have an easement to plant some greenery. Councilman Horn: I think the concern is for tall shrubbery next to the building. Mayor Hamilton: You are still going to put low growing shrubbery next to the building, just so you are not blocking the signing, right? Mr. Baden: Yes, I believe there is even going to be a tree, but it is not going to be where it is shown there. Councilman Horn: What we want is something to highlight the entrance. The trees will suppliment that, not interfere with it. Councilman Geving: Mr. Baden, do you have a landscaping plan available. Mr. Baden: I do not have a plan as of yet. L: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the preliminary and final subdivision for the Chanhassen Mall, 581 West 78th Street, as presented by the Planning Department described and dated April 15, 1985 and approval of the building permit in accordance L with the site, grading and facia plans as presented by the Planning Department as described and dated April 15, 1985. No conditions are being established other then the plan documents presented. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The Council Meeting, April 15,( 35 C -12- following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Matson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried, Councilman Horn: I have a question about the negotiations with the County on the right of way on County Road 16. Don Ashworth: We have contacted the County Engineer. Our general discussion with the County is that they consider a vacation. There is a question in there that they purchased it through the ownership position, The County would like to see this transaction completed between the County and the City or the County and the HRA. They do not want it as an application between the County and the developer, Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit solely for the Bowling Center, Old Instant Web Building, 581 West 78th Street in compliance with the site plan presented by the Planning Department, Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson, The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Horn: I would like to make one comment about the extra space in the building, what we keep calling the community center. I think what we really need to do is to get our community facilities moved back together again. I would not move to put any type of community facilities in there without a referendum. I think we need to find out where we stand on that relatively quickly. If I were to guess at this Point, I would guess that a referendum would not pass for a community center. I think we need to know that as quickly as possible and know what we are going to do and make plans for the remainder of the building. I would like to know what the intention is because the type of road and the whole parking plan is keyed on what the use is in the whole building and we need to find out what that is going to be. Mr. Baden: I would like to know what we are limited to using in the building. As you know, there is a community center in the building with banquet facilities, there is some office space upstairs, and they are not part of a bowling center. I think that you are aware of what we are planning to use in there. Mayor Hamilton: These things pertain to your entire operation, Councilman Geving: I would like to see a project manager selected or appointed by this body to follow this project all the way through on a day to day basis, to report periodically to the Council with problems and resolution problems. We have some very tight deadlines to get Mr. Dorek and Mr. Baden down the road with the bowling center as well as Mr. Kirt. This person should be a HRA person, a Council member, or a staff member, and this being a full time job. This is a very important project for the city, Mr, Baden: I have been invloved with other bowling centers, none quite as complex as changing plans and so on, and it really has been difficult. I would like to thank Mayor Hamilton and Don Ashworth for being very patient. We thank all of you for you cooperation. We are putting in a first -class facility for you, Councilman Horn: How man leagues do Y 9 you have signed up right now? Mr, Baden: We are about at projection, We had a late start, but at this point we have about two full leagues a day. We are organizing leagues from the grass roots and it is much more difficult, but in this case it may turn out to be better, We are ahead of where we thought we would be. BACKGROUND INFORMATION i LOAN AGREEMENT Agreement made this LM day of MAY 1985 between The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Chanhassen, hereinafter referred to as Lender and John H. Dorek and William N. Baden, hereinafter referred to as Borrower. WHEREAS, Lender has this day sold to Borrower certain real property located in the County of Carver and State of Minnesota as described on the attached Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, in connection with the sale of such real estate the Lender has agreed to lend such sums to Borrower up to the amount Of $200,000.00 to be used as needed in the construction of building improvements necessary to construct a bowling center in the subject property. The money may not be used for the purchase of bowling equipment or fixtures; WHEREAS, the Borrower shall sign a mortgage deed and a mortgage note of even date in favor of the Lender to evidence and secure said construction loan from Lender; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements of the parties herein contained, and as a part of the mortgage note and mortgage deed to be signed by the parties concurrently herewith, the parties agree as follows: 1. Lender shall make available to the Borrower sums up to a maximum of $200,000.00 to be used solely in connection with the construction of certain building improvements described above on the real property described in the mortgage deed. Such sum shall be advanced by the Lender only upon completion of the building improve- ments and issuance of a certificate of occupancy. r3/29/85 (16) 2. As indicated in the corresponding mortgage note terest will be figured at in- 3% per annum by the Lender, from the date such sum is advanced. 3. This agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. However, the Borrower herein shall have no right to assign its interest without the prior written consent of Lender. THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN BYE , .,,,d i rman By--&Z-", _ - -'.' �ccretary - -- r� C J nn H Dorek "lam N. Bade ard� 8� -2- e c PURCHASE AGREEMENT r MAY Agreement made this 1O7}{ day of 1985 between The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Chanhassen, hereinafter called the Seller, and John H. Dorek QQ }yj== his_wife and William N. Baden and Geraldine D. Baden, hi e wife, hereinafter called Purchasers, upon the following terms and conditions: 1. SALE OF PREMISES. Seller hereby sells to Purchasers and the Purchasers hereby purchase from Seller certain real property in Carver County, Minnesota described as: All of Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Mall according to the plat thereof now on file and of record in the Recorder's Office in and for Carver County, Minnesota Except the Westerly 110.00 feet thereof, and Except the following described parcel: Commencing at a point on the South line of said Lot 2 a distance of 110.00 feet Easterly of the Southwest corner of said Lot 2; thence continue on said South line a distance of 147.00 feet more or less to the most Southeasterly corner of said Lot 2; thence North 00 03' 20" West a distance of 71.94 feet; thence South 890 56' 40" West to a line parallel with and 110.00 feet East of the West line of said Lot 2; thence southerly along said last described line to the point of beginning. as shown on and outlined with a solid red line on attached Exhibit "A ", subject to the following terms, conditions and contingencies hereinafter provided. 2. PARKING. Subject to approval of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, the Seller shall obtain the two parcels of property marked with a hatched red line on the attached Exhibit "A" and described above as the two excepted parcels for parking and transfer it to the Purchasers. The Seller shall make every reason- �6('e If the title is not marketable and it is not made so within 120 days from the date of written objections as received by the Seller as provided herein, then this agreement shall be null and void, at the option of the Purchasers, and neither party shall be liable for damages hereunder to the other party. All money heretofore paid by the Purchasers shall be refunded by the Seller without in- terest. If the title to the property is found to be marketable or so made within said time, and the Purchaser shall default in any of the agreement and continue in default for a period of 10 days then, and in that case, the Seller may terminate this agreement and on such termination all the payments made under this agreement shall be retained by the Seller as liquidated damages, time being of the essence hereof. This provision, however, shall not deprive either party of the right of enforcing the specific performance of this contract provided such contract shall not be terminated as aforesaid, and provided action to enforce such specific performance shall be commenced within 60 days after the right of action shall arise. Specifically, the parties acknowledge and agree that this purchase shall be subject to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions,I Restrictions,, Easements and Party Wall Agreement to be filed as to all property described on attached Exhibit A, and attached hereto as Exhibit E. 7. TAXES AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. The Seller shall pay the real estate taxes and installment of special assessments therewith due and payable in the year 1985. The Purchasers shall pay all real estate taxes and any unpaid installments of special assessments due thereafter. -4- ,i/ i i'/ Such room shall be fully insured for personal injury and property damage at Purchasers' sole expense, with such policies of insurance to be in an amount and written by such companies as are approved in advance by Seller. 11. SITE AND FASCIA PLAN. All construction by the Purchaser , shall be according to the Site and Fascia Plans developed by the Seller at Purchasers' sole cost. THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY Clifford Whitehill, Chairman BY James R. Bohn, Secretary J hn H. Dorek E M ywlnll-� %- Baden, Geraldine D. i r� CITY (_OF_ CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager DATE: April 15, 1985 SUBJ: Subdivision and Conditional Use Permit Review for the Reuse of the Existing HRA Building, 571 -581 West 78th Street The Planning Commission met on Wednesday, April 10th and acted to recommend approval of the proposed subdivision of the Instant Web Property and site plan for the bowling center. Although approved, it is reasonable to state that the Planning Commission did have a number of concerns with the procedures that were being followed to achieve reuse of the building. Although these con- cerns were not included in the final motion, I am disappointed that I did not take a lead position in setting the stage for the item as it appeared on the Planning Commission agenda. It was and is my belief that as both Barbara Dacy and myself had become so involved in the negotiated sale of the building, it was imperative that a second party (Braur and Associates) review the plans to assure conformity to City ordinances and to provide fresh professional input. Again, although my intentions were admirable, I believe that the consultant's report, without first addressing HRA /Council directives, could reasonably be misin- terpretted. Before we go through this type of process again, I believe it is imperative that we: Adopt a Specific Redevelopment Plan: A redevelopment area must and will be different than building permits issued in new subdivisions. The business park was designed for and is a business park. Zoning is in place to guide uses. Utilities are in place to serve the proposed developments. Each applicant has the ability to achieve the standards we have set as a part of his proposal. The same statements are not true in a redevelopment area. Redevelopment would not be necessary if all of the land uses were in accordance with what is currently desired, if all of the previous public improvements would have been installed to meet current needs, and each of the lots met commercial standards. The only way to insure that the final puzzle produces the overall results desired is to have in place a specific redevelopment plan. Mayor and Council April 15, 1985 Page 2 Through the adoption of such a plan, each piece of the puzzle can be examined to determine whether it conforms with the larger picture. In almost every instance, it will be beyond the ability of any one developer to meet the overall plan. He is solely purchasing one -third of a larger lot or three smaller lots from the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. He can only work with the land that is being sold to him. He cannot purchase the additional lands that are proposed to be added to his property to create green areas, nor can he construct streets that are proposed to provide the street frontage and access typically provided in a before the fact manner. It is these issues which created the greatest concern for the Planning Commission - and rightly so. Again, what was missed is the fact that the City Council and HRA have stated their intent to construct a new north /south road linking West 78th Street with West 79th Street and poten- tially Highway 5. Additionally, both the HRA and City Council were aware of the fact that parking was a problem. The Instant Web building, as an industrial site, has suf- ficient parking for industrial needs. However, to upgrade the property for commercial use provides insufficient parking. The HRA and Council authorized, to the limits of monies available, the acquisition of additional land to both the west and south for parking. Additionally greenery was to be provided as a part of the street project. The developers are solely developing to the extent that they have control over. As stated earlier, it is imperative that we adopt a specific redevelopment plan as quickly as possible. Through the adop- tion of the plan, we can assure that all groups reviewing a particular development are aware of the committments we are making to that plan. Secondarily, we must be willing to make a committment to the plan. By doing such, we are in fact stating that the responsibility to carry out the plan is with ourself and are our belief in ourselves. Phasing: Unlike new development wherein the developer is solely responsible to himself to insure all standards are met, a redevelopment project will require phasing. Again, any one developer can only do those things on the lands being made available to him. He will be dependent upon other owners and the City to insure that his piece of the puzzle develops into the ultimate picture and, accordingly, each development must have a phasing plan. The initial phase will typically include temporary accesses, using existing public improvements, etc., until ultimate standards can be completed by the City or others. This concept also produced concerns with the Planning Commission. I do not know how else to resolve the issue, but I do sympathize with the position of Mayor and Council April l ', 1985 Page 3 each of the three developers, i.e: Gary Kirt (Upper retail developer): Mr. Kirt has stated his willingness to purchase the property and to develop it in accordance with a specific retail development plan. Once the HRA /Council have approved the subdivision, he will sign the purchase agreement and be bound to submit detailed site plans /building plans within a reasonable time frame. He believes he has tentative leases, but will not further explore those until he knows that the purchase has been consummated. Until we have consummated the sale with him, he does not believe it desirable or prudent to develop the specific site plans and be bound by such without knowing exactly what type of tenant mixes and tenant needs exist for the property. He is willing to be bound by recourse clauses reasonably assuring the City that he will submit his plans and carry out the redevelopment within a specific time frame after the sale occurs. Center Dorek /Baden must nave the bowling center open for fall leagues. Installation of the bowling equipment must occur by the end of May. To do this, they need immediate access to the facility and want to consummate their purchase /building plans /site improvements immediately. They are willing to live with temporary access across someone else's property until such time as the City can complete permanent access through a new road system. They are willing to complete both the temporary as well as ultimate development plans as a part of their purchase agreements. The only action which is being sought at the current time is approval of the conditional use permit for the bowling center (not other portions of the building) with the overall site planning /facia designs solely being presented to insure that the larger picture is being looked at. Dorek /Baden will complete their por- tion of the site /facia in accordance with the overall site plan. City of Chanhassen: The Housing and Redevelopment Authority is retaining two lots as a part of the sub- division. No plans are being proposed for these two lots. It is our intent to complete the committments being made to the other two developers before initiating any development activity on the remaining two parcels. It was the belief of the Chanhassen Housing and Redevelopment Authority that the above concerns by the three different owners could reasonably be met through development contracts. The contracts were prepared in such a manner so as to insure that the immediate needs of one owner were met while allowing C � Mayor and Council April 15, 1985 Page 4 other owners to delay their plans to some future date. The agreements additionally set forth penalties if any one developer does not meet the committments set forth in the agreement. Summary /Recommendation: I believe that the plans being presented for the aubdivision and redevelopment of the Instant Web building are in accordance with the parameters set by the HRA and City Council when negotiations commenced several months ago. Brauer and Associates will be prepared to go through their report Monday evening. As stated at the beginning of this memorandum, if I have but one concern it is that we were unable to put all of our parameters into place, i.e. a redevelopment plan and phasing plan into final form prior to starting the resale process. I firmly believe that we must get these documents into being before any further redevelopment activities are commenced. Note: Final plat copies will be distributed at the meeting. cc: Chanhassen Planning Commission r L Hoisington Group �nc. i Land Use Consultants Land & Natural Resource Analysis • Planning Project Management To: Barbara Dacy, City Planner From: Fred Hoisington, Consultant Subject: Instant Web Retail Mall Site Plan Review Date: April 5, 1985 Plan Proposal The revised plan calls for the conversion of the old Instant Web building to include the following uses: USE Sq. Ft. Retail 14,200 Restaurant 4,300 Office 2,800 Grocery Store 10,000 Bowling Center 30,575 Bar /Lounge 5,000 Community Center 23,000 90,000 + /- A total of 335 parking spaces are proposed to be available. The initial demand for parking will be 301 spaces during the evening hours of 6 to 9 pm. A total of 389 spaces can be constructed after a new north -south street is constructed west of the site. The total demand at full occupancy of the building will be 382 spaces during the same 6 to 9 pm time frame. Based on the present lotting scheme, parking supply and demand will be as follows considering peaking factors and reductions for multiple use: Supply * Demand Initial Total Day Evening Late Evening Lot 1 164 193 157 133 76 Lot 2 115 140 86 168 204 Lot 3 56 56 56 81 41 Totals 335 389 299 382 321 Assuming some grading on adjoining property and the installation of a limited storm sewer system. Approximately 10 -12 spaces will be lost if these assumptions are incorrect. 10334 Balsam Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (612) 941 -8044 / 941 -6258 L The plan proposes the major access to be at the northwest corner of the site. The driveway along the west property line is intended to serve literally as a street in the initial phase. Later, 90 degree parking can be constructed on the west side of this drive, thus increasing the availability by 54 spaces. Approximately twelve (12) spaces will be lost to isles connecting to the future street system. A sixty (60) foot easement is being retained by the City over the north sixty (60) feet of Outlot A. Parking in the south lot will eventually have access to this easement which is intended to insure acess to properties easterly of the Instant Web Building. Site Plan Review The Site Plan provides for a very well defined and understandable circulation system and affords a comfortable but not sumptuous margin of separation between the building and all parking areas. It provides for the highlighting of all entrances to the building except for the Community Center. This could be corrected with the loss of approximately four (4) parking spaces. Internally, the Plan provides adequate opportunity to interconnect all of the uses. The center of the building should become the hub of the mall and be designed to unify the space. We cannot emphasize enough the importance of internalizing the building to facilitate use synergy. While the total parking provided is adequate to satisfy the demand, parking distribution is obviously a problem unless reciprocal parking agreements are required, lot lines are gerrymandered or additional parking is provided. The largest deficiencies are those related to the bowling center and the northeast corner restaurant. The restaurant requires approximately fifty (50) spaces but offers only about half that amount. Restaurant patrons will be required to park on lands owned by others. The bowling center and lounge together will have a peak demand of 204 spaces during the late evening (after 9:00 pm). Even without the Community Center this exceeds the initial parking available on Lots 2 and 3, where a reciprocal parking agreement already exists, by about thirty (30) spaces (171 vs 204). If the Community Center was built immediately the deficiency would occur during the early evening and would amount to approximately 76 spaces (171 vs 249). The result will be a significant use of the parking on Lo-t1 where reciprocity is not contemplated. Incidentally, Lot 1 has considerably more parking available than will be required by the uses thereon. i li Preliminary Plat Proposal The proposed preliminary plat encompasses three parcels described by metes and bounds which will be combined administratively and then platted into three lots plus an outlot. The City and Mr. Bloomberg are the owners. The plat combines the Instant Web property with a 110 foot strip of land to the west and a variable width parcel (60 to 71 feet wide) to the south. The area and ownership of lots are as follows: Area Lot 1 96,246 Lot 2 102,753 Lot 3 44,553 Outlot A 73,600 Owner City of Chanhassen /Gary Kirt City of Chanhassen /Dorek -Baden City of Chanhassen Herb Bloomberg The City intends to retain Lot 3 for a future Community Center and sell Lot 1 to Gary Kirt for a retail mall and Lot 2 to Dorek -Baden for a bowling center. Plat Review Because the property is already developed, it is not essential that all of the data for preliminary plat (Section 5) be submitted. Such information can be waved by the City Planner. While there are currently no lot area or setback requirements within the CBD, the Ordinance does require that a lot front on a dedicated public street. Lot 3 does not have such frontage but provisions are being made to provide an easement that will abut Lot 3 and essentially satisfy the Ordinance intent regarding access. There are two areas of concern that are worthy of mention. The first is the lack of parking correlation on Lot 2 with the parking demand of the uses on said lot. THe second is the peculiarly shaped County Road 16 right -of -way which encroaches on the site. Recommendations The Consultant recommends approval of the Site Plan and the Preliminary Plat subject to the following: 1. That consideration be given to gerrymandering the north line of Lot 1 to provide 20 to 30 additional parking spaces for the bowling center and lounge. We understand that this is currently under consideration by the City Staff and may have already been accomplished by the time the Planning Commission reviews the plat. 2. That the City hold off on the development of Lot 3, except for proposed parking improvements, until a number of issues related to access, drainage and parking can be studied. 3. That the developer of the northeast corner of the building (restaurant) either balance usage of the space against available parking or acquire a reciprocal agreement with Mr. Bloomberg to allow for shared parking. 4. That an enclosed pedestrian connection be considered to link the new mall with the Frontier and Dinner Theater buildings. 5. That alternative ways of providing additional parking for the Community Center be studied including the use of a portion of Outlot A. 6. That a drainage study be initiated for the downtown area in conjunction with a study of the feasibility of a new street just west of the subject site. While runoff from the Instant Web site can probably be accommodated now, this is the time to assess area —wide drainage and ponding needs. 7. That a new location be found for the restaurant's dumpster. The proposed location is extremely poor from both an access and visibility standpoint. These should be completely screened or enclosed within a building. 8. That every effort be made to internalize the mall by the establishment of interconnecting corridors and the creation of a centrally located unifying hub or focal point. 9. That the lot be curbed and guttered and at least a limited storm sewer system be installed to control surface drainage, minimize water damage and maximize parking. The drainage plan should be approved by the City Engineer. 10. That a landscaping plan be submitted for approval by the City Planner. 11. That parking spaces be striped (9' x 20'). 12. That a variance be approved to permit Lot 3 without dedicated street frontage. 13. That the City negotiate an agreement with or purchase the land from Carver County which is shown as excess sight -of -way for County Road 16. We understand that this may already have been accomplished by the staff prior to the Planning Commission meeting. 14. That an appropriate amount of signage be allowed including one (1) area identification sign and one (1) directory sign plus the allowable wall signage for individual tennants. A signage plan should be prepared by the developer. No roof signs should be permitted. Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Page 12 PUBLIC HEARING tional Use Permit Review for the Reuse of sen, Gary Kirt -David C. Bell Investment Public Present Bill Baden 6116 Park Ave. S., Mpls, 55417 John Dorek 4749 Beard Ave. S., Mpls, 55410 Jack Henning Barbara Dacy: Mr. Fred Hoisington is our Project Manager for the Downtown Redevelopment planning process and the reason why we had Fred and Brauer and Associates analyze the subdivision and the site plan is the City Manager and members of the staff have been intimately involved in the negotiations of the sale of the building. We felt that it would prudent to have Mr. Hoisington provide an analysis of the plan and subdivision based on our ordinances as done for any other development. Fred Hoisington: All of you have a copy of the site plan and floor plans for the building. What we are going to be doing this evening is showing you a different plan but in order for me to be able to do that, I have to explain where we have been and why you have the plan you have currently. What we were asked to do by the city was to take a good look at the Instant Web building and to determine a couple of things, one of the most important is obviously parking. Whether the demand that would be there for parking could be met on site and secondly how we could make it all work so that the lot circulation could work and the parking would be reasonably well distributed and so forth and considering the aesthetics as best we could. We prepared this plan very hurriedly because the deadlines have been hurried all the way through this process. Our first charge was to do the best job we could at putting together a site plan that would make sense for this development. I would like to just highlight some of the things we found. If you are familiar with the site the way it currently exists and the way the site plan was originally put together for the plan where the arrangement of uses was bit dif- ferent within a building. What was intended, the first effort, was the parking lots be used in as much as they could be used with the present surfaces, everything, including the present accesses to the parking lot. We do have some concerns about those kinds of things. For example in the northwest corner of the site there is really two accesses. Originally those accesses, one was for trucks and the other was for automobiles. It was intended that those two types of vehicles be separated and f for very good reason. Obviously with the bowling center and L Planning Commission Minutes April 10,1 985 Page 13 retail and that sort of thing, we don't have the demand for separating those different types of vehicles. It would be very confusing to have two different accesses. Some of the other things that were proposed with the original plan was the use of the alley between the two buildings, the Frontier building and the Instant Web building, for circulation purposes and we had some real concerns about that because sight lines are very poor in that location. So the parking for the Instant Web building depended on the use of other people's properties which in essence means that they are not legitimate. There were a number of things needing to be resolved with regards to the site and secondly one of the biggest concerns we had was the lack of internalizing the uses so the uses themselves would be intercon- nected and we strongly emphasize the need for that and still do as you can see by the recommendations. We put this plan together then, in response to some of the problems with the prior site plan, and this plan works very well except in a couple of instan- ces. The one that is of primary concern to us as indicated in the staff report is that of parking distribution. We have a restaurant or what we think will likely be a restaurant in the northeast corner of the building that will require about 50 parking spaces and only about half that many spaces are available without using someone else's property to satisfy that need. The bowling center itself has a demand for even more parking spaces then we felt was necessary. We can not satisfy that entire demand on the lot. So while the overall supply is sufficient, we felt at that time was sufficient, to accommodate the demand for parking was not very well distributed, even with this parking plan. It suggests to us that joint parking agreements, in other words, various owners using other owners' property for parking purposes and we found that is not likely to happen here because some of the uses require very independent parking. After we completed this and sent it out, we continued to look at the information. Having actually sat with the would be owners of the property since we submitted this plan, we have been trying to work out some of those problems, with the joint use of parking, trying to get distribution better and we developed another plan. In fact we have developed two different plans and I would like show these to you this evening. As you can see, there have been a number of changes made from the plan you have been reviewing over the weekend. In order to be able to accommodate the parking demands that are put on this site by the bowling center espe- cially, we have had to do some gerrymandered boundaries and that is one of the recommendations we suggested in the staff report. What has happened is that we have moved this north line of Lot 2 in order to get better distribution of parking on the site. The supply of parking initially would be 338 spaces and the demand as we calculated it is 301 spaces if the community center space was not used. We recommend to you that at least until some addi- tional study can be completed, that you not use the recreation L_ L r � � Planning Commission Minutes April 10. 1985 Page 14 space because there are a number of things that need to be resolved some of those being parking and drainage and until those are satisfactorily resolved, I simply recommend that you hold the space. What we learned today was that there is really a great deal more going on in the bowling center than we had expected. What happens is we can just about satisfy the demands for that parking lot on Lots 2 and 3. It comes extremely close to what the bowling folks feel they need and what the actual computation of parking would be there (238 spaces there and 240 spaces required). By moving the lot line to the north, we have slightly diminished the number of parking spaces on the north portion of the site and at the same time attempted to respond to the space or parking areas that currently exist so that a great deal of new construction would not have to occur immediately and then looked at a second option. A second plan that would simply, I guess what we could say is a future plan for the total utilization of the site which then provides all of the parking that we see as needed for the bowling center and for the Kirt portion of the building. It would be extremely close at that point. In order to be able to accomplish that; however, you sacrifice some of the green spaces and some of the vegetation. I guess all I can say is having been involved with this kind of thing in a number of occasions in the past, when you get down to the real world situation where you have to deal with developers and the developers have real needs, sometimes the grand plan concepts don't work as well as they need and all of a sudden you don't have developers looking or willing to put uses in the building. So we have made some compromises in this plan in an effort to satisfy those parking needs. One of the things we would encourage the city to do however, would be to continue to look for additional parking opportunities, either to the west or south of the site in an effort to continue to keep tabs on how you are going to satisfy the overall future parking demands for the building and we are confident that the space and the land that is available where you can do that. Bill Ryan: Is the traffic pattern still all the way around the building, the trucks that service the back of the building? Fred Hoisington: There are a couple things happening. The city is retaining an easement south of the property in question and ultimately what we try to do is relate this to the overall plan as well. Eventually there will be some sort of an access here and we know at least based on the way the downtown plan is evolving currently, there will be road someplace over here. So in the long run we will be able to bypass this site. Susan Albee: Your comment #13 about the city negotiating an agreement with Carver County for the right -of -way. Has this been accomplished yet? L C Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Page 15 Don Ashworth: The City Engineer is working with Carver County to effectuate that. In my discussions with Murphy, he feels as though a forty foot distance is necessary. Bill Ryan: What sort of development agreement as far as some kind of certainty that something is going to be done with the landscaping and the architecture of the building is there? Or are we just looking at plans and they are going to do the bowling alley but do nothing with the front half? Don Ashworth: The agreements are completed and have been approved by the Council and HRA. The building has two separate owners, and the timing for each of the two varies. For the bowling center people, it is very critical to be in this building as soon as possible. The Brunswick people who put in the lanes are scheduled for May 15. If they miss that two week period of time to get in, they literally will have missed this bowling season. There are two separate agreements, the agreement with Kirt calls that he must develop this space within a three year period of time or basically loses all interest in the building. He must submit plans and have those plans approved by the Planning Commission both for facia, building, site plan as we would require for any other developer. That is basically his restriction. For the bowling center, the city is actually par- ticipating as part of the inducement of getting them into the community. As a part of that they also have to submit all plans, have them approved by Planning Commission and City Council. The monies that we will be putting into this project literally are the last dollars in, it is a loan. Those dollars will assure that this work is in fact completed. If it is not the monies basically are used either for completion or not at all. Whatever is approved through this process will be their responsibility to complete. As part of that loan agreement they do not get any of the loan dollars until they have received an occupancy permit. They will not receive an occupancy permit if improvements have not been completed. Bill Ryan: We all want to see the bowling center, but are we going to see two - thirds of the building developed and all of the parking in the back is developed and there is not going to be any street to get back. Nothing in the front is going to be dif- ferent than it is now? L Don Ashworth: I am assured that the individual who would be purchasing this, Gary Kirt of David C. Bell Co. has purchased the materials that would be used for interior walls. He is simply saying he is not ready to commit to improvements at this time. j He came to agreement with the HRA in terms of the price. We have l yet to carry out that closing. So therefore, although he has tenant agreements for about 508 of the retailers who would go Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 j Page 16 into this facility, he has not finalized any of those nego- tiations until he in fact knows that he does own the structure. He is looking very much for a grocery store being in this loca- tion. The grocery store may place additional demands as far as what they want for access or the structure itself. For him to make committments to sidewalks or curbing may be premature. It may not be in accordance with the tenant needs. Again, I am con- e fident that within the next few months that he will be completing his plans. He is not going to allow his cash payment to the city plus the supplies /materials that he has purchased simply sit there. Bill Ryan: Is the city going to make that access road for 300 cars a day or whatever has to go back there? Don Ashworth: It is not feasible to accomplish that this year. Both the Council and HRA have made a priority of the construction of this north -south road that would link 78th Street and 79th Street and hopefully, make a connection to Hwy. 5. Mr. Bloomberg would like to see a road that would come through this way to serve the back portion of his property. He wants to put smaller shops along this backside and provide adequate parking for those buildings. He is very interested in doing that but such could not occur until the spring 1986. Bill Ryan: By putting in the bowling center back there, the city is committing at some point to put that street in. Don Ashworth: The HRA and City Council understand that. They understand that the road in here is necessary and that the only way I see we can take care of a portion of the parking problem, will be in the construction of this road. Instead of acquiring the typical 50 or 60 foot right -of -way, we would literally be looking at the acquisition of a 100 foot would be looking at the acquisition of a 100 foot right -of -way with the placement of the road in the westerly portion and using the eastern portion of for additional parking. We can not accomplish that this year. Fred Hoisington: Don brought up the facia treatment. We have been meeting with Dorek, Baden and Henning to try to resolve this. The first plan is an indication of what exists there i currently. For the most part you have a wooden front part of the building or least it is covered with wooden siding, followed on the west side by cement block walls which is the worst part of that building in appearance and probably in terms of construction the wall itself has been deteriorating for some time. Then the back portion is fabcon which is not at all unattractive but it not the most appropriate kind of material used for a center of this type. What Don asked us to do was to look at something that would somehow unify that west elevation of the building. I have L_ C � Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Page 17 l got just a couple of alternatives that we would like you to look at and then we will take which is you feel is most appropriate. �. The first one is an effort to extend the western theme along the north face of the future grocery store and along the west side of the grocery store with a canopy and wood posts. It would then breakway to some type of stucco that would cover the existing cement block wall. That stucco treatment would continue back over the fadcon portion of the building only on the west facing. It would include an overhang over that portion of the bowling alley where the walkways and so forth would exist. Then we did a second one. The second one is kind of a scale back version of using the same materials. I think the important thing about materials is the real contrast of the front and back of the building, in an effort to tie things in with the front of the building using wood and still contrasting the both in terms of color and texture as we move toward the back of the building with very light colors as opposed to the front being considerably darker. It rather remarks two different uses but at the same time we think provides good continuity between the various uses. What we found when we got them all done was that we liked the second one better than the first one, primarily because it's cleaner and really cost has little to do with it. It seems to be a better treatment then the one with the canopy and so forth along the west wall of the grocery store. We talked with the developers of the bowling center and they are very agreeable with the materials we are proposing. They might wish to do a little bit more with wood, kind of interlaced with the stucco on the block wall, both in terms of vertical dropping wood down between some of the We see no problem with that, we are thinking more in terms of general pattern and the use of materials that would be compatible with one another. Ladd Conrad: The grocery store is locked into 10,000 square feet. So based on this, what are we saying about grocery stores in Chanhassen? Based on the plan, there really is not room for expansion. Fred Hoisington: I am not sure we are talking about the same grocery store. We understand this to be more of a convenience type of grocery store not the full service kind of grocery store you might expect near downtown. This site would not accommodate that. There is some expansion capabilities, but it would be very limited. L Ladd Conrad: What is the size of our current grocery store? Don Ashworth: About 4,000 square feet. Jack Henning: I have had 7 or 8 different grocery chains out in Chanhassen over the last year and a half and they all come to the L I Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Page 18 same conclusion. Because of the Cub Foods and SuperValue down the road, Chanhassen would support a 10,000 square foot store. They are saying that it would probably be 10 to 15 years before they could expand to something larger. We do have some people interested in coming out here but they are looking more for an upgraded Kenny's type, where they specialize in meats and the stuff that people buy everyday but not to do their weekly shopping. Ladd Conrad: My concern is looking 10 to 15 years from now that L grocery store cannot expand. Ten thousand is a big convenience store. Convenience is what we have got already and a convenience store is not much bigger than that. We are talking about more than a quick stop. That will satisfy a need for a while but then there is going to be another need. My concern is the expansion. We are eliminating all the green space already. We are dealing with property that was intended for something else. I feel it is unfortunate that we are getting rid of the green space. We are forcing this thing to work. I am having real difficulty following alot of the stuff presented tonight. Mike Thompson: Can you answer some of Ladd's question about green space? Are we eliminating all of those things? Fred Hoisington: I have alot of the same feelings as Ladd does. I am always torn with how to accomplish economic development and at the same time aesthetics. I think what we have done is to shift the open space, it isn't as nicely distributed as I would like it to be but there is quite a bit of open space still there. I think the capability exists to do a reasonably good job. On the other hand you could make it a very attractive building and a very attractive site and do everything possible and you won't have those users. I guess you really have to struggle with that. It is not everything we like to achieve. Bill Ryan: What we are really looking at here is a situation where we are relaxing a standard in a central business area that's the heart of our community that we don't relax in industrial areas. We make The Press, the mail handling outfit, when they put a parking lot in, we make them berm, landscaping, they can't start their parking 25 feet off of the right -of -way line. But when it comes to us, the standards are gone. It doesn't make alot of sense. If I were a developer, I would say the city has a two very distinct separate standards. Don Ashworth: I don't agree. The 25' boulevard is a part of the street improvements project. This is exactly the same construc- tion standards as exist at the dinner theater, or the Press. You have maintained green around this entire area here. Yes there is a relaxation in terms of one plan shows green in this section. I L M c � Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Page 19 The only way I can reasonably respond to that is say that the Council and HRA have made a committment to the construction of this road and the improvement of the boulevard area to provide those same standards that exist somewhere else. I believe that the green area in this plan is no different then the amount or percent of green area for Instant Web. Bill Ryan: Didn't I here you say though that you were talking about a 100 foot right -of -way from the road and you were going to shove the road to the west side of it and use the east part of the right -of -way for additional parking. Don Ashworth: Yes. An additional forty feet will provide an additional 4 to 5 parking spaces for the lane in here and ultima- tely provide 40 -50 additional spaces. Ladd Conrad: Don't we have a standard of 308 green space for commercial. Barbara Dacy: The building coverage in commercial and industrial can cover 70 %. Ladd Conrad: Parking in front of the restaurant doesn't look like alot of spaces for retail access and restaurant parking. Are there problems parking in front of the hardware store, is that unacceptable? Fred Hoisington: Parking on the adjoining property is an accep- table place to park. It would require as far as I can tell should be a mutual agreement there and I think that would cer- tainly satisfy the needs. The only conflict would be probably on Friday or Saturday nights between 6:30 or 7:30 where there would be a conflict with adjoining parking. But the commercial peaks usually during the day time, where the restaurant peaks at noon and the evening dinner hours. Susan Albee: What would one do, lease the space? Don Ashworth: From Bloomberg, there would have to be some sort of an agreement. So that you aware, the sales agreement between the HRA and Mr. Kirt simply states that he cannot put any use into this portion of the building unless it meets the parking standards under the ordinance or he has to demonstrate that he has come to an agreement with Bloomberg and that Bloomberg would then also meet the parking standards. He cannot simply put a restaurant in here and expect to park on someone else's property. Jim Thompson: I think the greenery next to the building is more appropriate than in the parking area. Maybe there could be some trees on the west end of the lot there depending it may make a whole lot of difference. r C � Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1985 Page 20 Don Ashworth: It would have to be done as part of the street improvement and if the Planning Commission has concerns in that area please put them in your motion as a condition. Jim Thompson: Even if you had to dig them up and replant them you could put some in there in the meantime. Don Ashworth: They would be going outside of land that they own. For the construction of a road you would have to go through a typical 429 procedure, where we would carryout a feasibility study. Then the acquisition and then the actual construction.What I am saying is that there has to be a recogni- tion that the green area along here has been given up temporarily. If I am hearing what you are saying, you want to re- emphasize that the green area does occur on the west side of the property. Bill Ryan: Who owns that property? Don Ashworth; Herb Bloomberg. He owns the property on all three sides; west, east and south. Bill Ryan: Once we put a street in, we open up a fair size of business /commercial property. Jim Thompson moved, seconded by Mike Thompson to recommend the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit request subject to the following: 1. That consideration be given to gerrymandering the north line of Lot 1 to provide 20 to 30 additional parking spaces for the bowling center and lounge. We understand that this is currently under consideration by the City Staff and may have already been accomplished by the time the Planning Com- misssion reviews the plat. 2. That the City hold off on the development of Lot 3, except for proposed parking improvements, until a number of issues related to access, drainage and parking can be studied. 3. That the developer of the northeast corner of the building (restaurant) either balance usage of the space against available parking or acquire a reciprocal agreement with Mr. Bloomberg to allow for share parking. 4. That an enclosed pedestrian connection be considered to line the new mall with the Frontier and Dinner Theater buildings. 5. That alternative ways of providing additional parking for the Community Center be studied including the use of a portion of Outlot A. N •• , Hoisington Group Inc. Land Use Consultants Housing & Redevelopment Authority City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 HRA Boardmembers: At the joint meeting held on October 16, 1985, we reviewed with the City Council, HRA and Planning Commission, information that was uncovered by the Consultant team during the initial data collection task for the Broadened Study Area pertaining to population projections and preliminary plans for Trunk Highway 212. While our intent was /is not to sell the City additional services, we felt it imperative to share the information so that the City could decide whether or not it wanted to expand the study's scope. What we were suggesting for consideration by the City on the 16th was 1) the testing of two additional land use scenarios (the current contract calls for two) to correlate with a low MnDOT population projection and 2) the expansion of the study area to include TH 212 in order to determine the appropriate alignment, interchange locations, and local access needs relative to TH 212. At the joint meeting, the direction seemed to indicate the scaling back of the number of development scenarios. There also seemed to be a feeling that the expansion of the study area to include TH 212 would have merit. Our conclusion from the meeting was to prepare a proposal for consideration by the HRA which would include TH 212 plus the testing of one additional development scenario. This would bring the total to three as follows: 1. A Saturation Scenario (based on City projections). 2. A 2005 MnDOT Scenario. 3. A 2005 City Scenario. CITY OF CHANHASSEN WT201 wnuKA N DER Suite 525 FLANNINQ Edina. MN 55435 (612) 835 -9960 7300 Metro Blvo w L 7 .1 .J I want to make it clear that we can live within the contract as originally presented. We can do that by simply accepting MnDOT's preliminary TH 212 plans and by eliminating the saturation development scenario. For the purpose of allowing the HRA to consider these independently, the cost to test one additional scenario is- $4,000.00. The cost to include TH 212 is $12,500.00. I hope this will be useful to you in deciding whether or not to expand the original scope of services. If you have questions, give me a call at 835 -9960. Sincerely, Fred H vooJi'ss ngton Enclosure October 24, 1985 Housing & Redevelopment Authority City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Contract Addendum - Broadened Study Area HRA Boardmembers: This contract addendum outlines a scope of additional ser- vices and fees as would be required if the HRA elects to expand the original scope of work for the Broadened Study Area to include 1) the testing of one additional land use scenario as necessitated by the MnDOT population projec- tions, and 2) the expansion of the study area to include proposed Trunk Highway 212. The HRA and the consultant agree as setforth below: A. Scope of Additional Services The Consultant will: 1. Expand the base mapping task to include areas adja- cent to TH 212. 7901 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 ❑ (612) 941 -1660 2. Collect and review such information as will be appropriate to the expansion area. 3. Develop population and employment information/ allocations for an additional scenario based on MnDOT projections. 4. Formulate, prepare traffic forcasts and test a third development scenario. 5. Define the appropriate alignment, interchange loca- tions and local accesses to TH 212 to ensure that this future roadway will effectively serve the City of Chanhassen. 6. Meet additionally with effected public agencies as necessary to seek agreement /concurrence on TH 212 recommendations. L° 7. Incorporate the above within the final report. r 7901 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 ❑ (612) 941 -1660 B. Fees For Additional Services For the Consultants additional services as described in Paragraph A above, an hourly not -to- exceed fee of SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($16,500.00), plus all direct expenses. C. All Other Contract Terms All of the terms and conditions of the original contract dated August 5, 1985 shall continue in effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the OWNER and the CONSULTANT have made and executed this Agreement, This CHANHASSEN HRA Chanhassen, Minnesota BRAUER & ASSOCIATES LTD. Eden Prairie, Minnesota yge w. watson e President day of In presence of: In presence of: , 1985 August 5, 1985 Chanhassen HRA 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Contract Proposal for Professional Services - Downtown Study Area LHRA Boardmembers: This letter proposal outlines a scope of services, fee sched- ule, and other elements which will serve, if approved, as an agreement between CHANHASSEN HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHOR- ITY (hereinafter HRA) and BRAUER & ASSOCIATES LTD. (herein- after CONSULTANT). The HRA hereby retains the CONSULTANT to provide land use and traffic planning services for the area surrounding down- town Chanhassen and adjacent to STH 5 from Eden Prairie to Old 17 hereinafter referred to as the PROJECT. A. SCOPE OF BASIC SERVICES The Consultant will: 1. Pre are Base Documentation and Define Objectives RU H% _ a. Base Mapping b. Preparation of a work program and schedule. c. Refinement of work program and project parameters. 2. Collect /Review /Map Background Information including- a1{ m a. Soils and other natural features. b. Topography. c. Surface water. 7901 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 ❑ (612) 941 -1660 Chanhassen HRA -2- August 5, 1985 d. Drainage. e. Land use and zoning. f. Comprehensive plan. g. Streets and access. h. Traffic information requirements, State and Metro Council traffic forecasts, street volumes and capacities. i. Proposals for street and highway improvements. j. Pending development proposals. 3. Develop Plan Alternatives including alternative land use configurations and roadway systems. 4. Design Traffic Forecasting Model including- a. The definition of a strategy for traffic forecasting. b. Calibration of the traffic forecasting model. C. Preparation of forecasts for alternative land use /roadway systems. 5. Test Two (2) Plan Alternatives including- a. An analysis of the roadway system and forecasts including capacity, safety, and land use com- patibility analysis. b. Development of preliminary findings and recommendations. c. Review of recommendations with public agency officials. 6. Refine Plans and Seek to Gain Public Agency Concurrance This task entails the modification of plans to reflect public agency input (MnDOT, County, City) and the establishment of agreement on a single plan. 7. Prepare a Written and Graphic Land Use and Traffic Report including a summary of- a. The process. b. Background information. C. The analysis. d. Findings and recommendations. e. Funding and implementation. 8. Present the Plan and Findings to the City Council/ HRA at intervals which correlate with the completion of several of the above tasks. In addition, one public hearing on the final plan as proposed. Six (6) such meetings are estimated. Chanhassen HRA -3- August 5, 1985 9. Work with the City Staff as necessary to solicit input and review plans and findings throughout the process. RESULT: A camera -ready final written and graphic report document which is able to be reproduced by the City for distribution. B. ADDITIONAL SERVICES 1. Public forums or public meetings in addition to those listed in paragraph 'A' and specifically authorized by the owner. 2. Traffic or land use alternative studies requested by the City or other agencies in addition to those listed in paragraph 'A' and specifically authorized by the owner. C. FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1. For the CONSULTANT'S Basic Services as described in Paragraph A -1 through A -9, an hourly not to exceed fee of FORTY FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS ($44,000.), plus all direct expenses. 2. For the CONSULTANT'S additional services as described in Paragraph 'B', an hourly fee based upon the following hourly rate schedule, plus all direct expenses. Hourly Rate Schedule Senior Professional ................... $60.00 Professional III ...................... 45.00 Professional II ....................... 35.00 Senior Tech ........................... 28.00 Tech III .............................. 25.00 i Tech II ............................... 22.00 D. PAYMENT TO THE CONSULTANT 1. Statements will be submitted to the HRA on a L monthly basis in proportion to the completion of the PROJECT schedule. I Chanhassen HRA -4- August 5, 1985 2. Payments on account of CONSULTANT's services are due and payable upon receipt of CONSULTANT's statement of services rendered. E. HRA RESPONSIBILITY 1. One staff person designated to act as CONSULTANT con- tact. 2. Provision of and access to all data and mapping which may be pertinent to the project. 3. Reimbursement of all direct project expenses including mileage, advertisements, printing, and reproduction. F. TERM, TERMINATION, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS 1. The Term of the Agreement /Contract shall be con- current with the work authorized and shall be ini- tiated at the HRA's direction. Work will be completed with 150 to 180 days from the date of authorization to proceed. 2. Termination may be accomplished at any time by writ- ten notice. This shall not relieve the HRA of its obligation to pay for the full value of the services performed to the date of termination. 3. The HRA and the CONSULTANT each binds itself, its partners, successors, assigns and legal represen- tatives to the other party of this Agreement, and to the partners, successors, assigns and legal represen- tatives of such other party with respect to all cove- nants of this Agreement. 4. Neither the HRA nor the CONSULTANT shall assign, sublet or transfer his interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other. G. CONSULTANT'S RECORDS, DOCUMENTS AND INSURANCE 1. The CONSULTANT shall maintain time records for hourly fees, design calculations and research notes in legible form and will be made available to the HRA if requested. L I Chanhassen HRA -5- August 5, 1985 2. The CONSULTANT shall carry insurance to protect him from claims under Workman's Compensation Acts; from claims for damages because of bodily injury including death to his employees and the public, and from claims for property damage. 3. The CONSULTANT reserves the right to secure and main- tain statutory copyright in all published books, published or unpublished drawings of a scientific or technical character, and other works related to this PROJECT in which copyright may be claimed. The HRA shall have full rights to reproduce works under this Agreement either in whole or in part as related to this PROJECT. H. NONDISCRIMINATION The CONSULTANT will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, reli- gion, sex, national origin, physical condition or age. The CONSULTANT will take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, physical condition or age. Such action shall include but not be limited to the following: Employment, upgrading, demotion or trans- fer, recruitment, advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation and selection for training including apprenticeship. I. EXTENT OF AGREEMENT AND APPLICABLE LAW 1. This agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the HRA and the CONSULTANT and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, whether written or oral, with respect to the PROJECT. This agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both HRA and CONSULTANT. 2. Unless otherwise specified, this Agreement shall be governed by the law of the principal place of busi- ness of the CONSULTANT. Chanhassen HRA -6- August 5, 1985 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the OWNER and the CONSULTANT have made and executed this Agreement, This day of �44jovl 1985. CHANHASSE Channh/hass BRAUER & Eden Pyd :N HRA en, inn ota In presence of: SOCIATES LTD. e, Minnesota G.e'or a W. Watson Vi e President In presence of: CHANHASSEN HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY '-' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 L0 1 (61 2) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Housing and Redevelopmen ity FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner DATE: November 5, 1985 SUBJ: November 7th Meeting Since preparation of the agenda for the November 7th HRA meeting, two additional items have been added for discussion: 1. Prairie House Land Sale 2. Halverson Lease Agreement Information regarding these items will be available at Thursday's meeting. BD:v 501 WEST 79th STREET P.O. BOX 418 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 OFFICE PHONE: 612 - 934 -0441 r I� c Jam.' � et� RECEi-JED OCT 2 5 1985 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 119.9 ' �✓ Z� �. �. 1Sl.ss E17'zo'zo' f. ��5•Bu 5o ,• sl 4ft Y � / Paicc a :, ro 9 5 ari i ev ti i p- = A lA, 1A .� AA _ f R` t �f O 50 /00 SCALE - / /NCH =. SO FEET SEAR /NGS r � SHOY/N ARE ASSUMED, F Cry, $ude ,�06 Vd�.L. NaI!h Pruh`��r JA 'T F1 Sr W GAZ 7� 7 tt 14- uw CONDITIONAL USE - NO. Slip F e v A r r r r r O n r r r r O r CHANHASSEN H.R.A. A C C O U N T S P A Y A B L E 10 -21 -85 PAGE 1 CHECK i A M O U N T C L A I M A N T P U R P 0 S E 025620 33.41 ASHWORTH DONALD TRAVEL + TRAINING 025621 5,269.25 BRAUER 6 ASSOCIATES FEES, SERVICE 025622 73.00 GRANNIS, CAMPBELL, FEES, SERVICE 025623 1,157.75 HOISINGTON GROUP, INC FEES, SERVICE 025624 2,120.00 MARSH HEATING 8 AIR COND REP. + MAINT.,BLDG + GND 5 8,653.41 CHECKS WRITTEN TOTAL OF 5 CHECKS TOTAL 8,653.41