Loading...
78-05 - Holiday Replat pt 2fflltl= Cab MAILING ADDRESS: 1a P.O. BOX 220 EXCELSIOR, MINN. 55331 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7610 Laredo Drive P. 0. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 LAW OFFICES JOHN E. LEE, JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW 17917 HIGHWAY 7 MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA April 9, 1979. Attention Bob Waibel Assistant Manager/Planner Dear Bob: AREA CODE 612 TELEPHONE: 474-5225 RESIDENCE: 475-1175 APR 197g Re: HAPPY CHEF (HOLIDAY STATIONSTORE)- Zamor Our file 3168-4a-L This will confirm our telephone conversation of 4-6-79. It is my understanding that you placed the above matter on the agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission on 4-25-79. I have instructed Zamor to contact both Holiday and Happy Chef for the following: Site plan; Construction plans (building plans); Landscaping plans; Lighting plan (exterior lights);Grading plans; plans for exterior "signs" and Sketch plan for replotting of Lot 1, Block 2, F.D.P. It is our intent to submit sufficient information, plans, and specifications to permit the City Council to direct the issuance of Building Permits at the meeting on 5-14-79, if it is so inclined, subject to completing formal re -platting, and other appropriate conditions. Our requests include, or will include, subdivision of Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, F.D.P. (into 3 lots), variance to"moratorium"Ordinance 47-k and Building Permit for the Holiday/Happy Chef projects.The requests should include a "conditional use permit" if such permit is required. Further, I assume that the Planning Commission will review the decision of the H.R.A. as to "financial participation" in the project. I assume that "site plan" review is a part of the request for building permits (conditional use permit). Craig Mertz indicated it may be necessary that a request for the subdivision of the lot be published in the newspaper prior to the meeting. Craig indicated he will investigate the matter and cause the notice to be timely published if required. It is contemplated that the information required by you for the making of a report to the Planning Commission will be furnished on or before Thursday, April 12th. I have further instructed our client to personally contact you for a meeting to occur between April 16th and April 19th^for the purpose of going over and coordinating the plans for the project. Don Ashworth stated there would be a meeting of the H.R.A. during the latter part of April or first part of May (prior to May 7th). I assume=.Craig will arrange for the notice to be published. Bob Waibel -2- April 9, 1979. I would appreciate a call when the date for the H.R.A. meeting has been determined. I will followup on the information we are to furnish and keep you advised. JEL:CL cc Craig Mertz Cordially yours, John E. Lee, Jr. 1. Permit not assignable. This permit is personal to said applicant, and shall not be assigned without written consent to the City. The purpose of the Conditional Use Permit is to permit the operation of a restaurant to be constructed on the premises described herein pursuant to plans and specifications on file with the City. The City agrees not to unreasonably withhold its written consent to a request for assignment of said permit for the continuation of the use of said premises as a restaurant pursuant to said plans and specifications or other permitted uses within the zoning district pursuant to a new Conditional Use permit. 4. No outside work. No work shall be performed on any vehicle while standing or located outside the Stationstore building. As used herein, the term "outside work" shall not include the dispensing of gasoline, oil or other automotive pro- s-, ducts or services for use in or on motor vehicles. Signs. 8•(9) Signage of the subject premises shall have the approval of the Chanhassen City Council. 14. (15 a) Reimbursement of Costs: The applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs, including reasonable engineering, legal, planning and administrative expenses incurred by the City in connection with all matters relating to the administration and enforcement of the within permit and contract and the performance thereof during the construction stage by the applicants. The developer has previously escrowed the sum of $2000.00 with the City for this purpose. The applicant shall deposit an additional sum.. of $ . The full amount of said expenses shall be paid on or before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy to the applicant. The escrow fund shall be applied to said expense. Any excess in the escrow account shall be returned to the developer upon completion of the project and payment of the expenses. 14. (15 b) performance Bond. In the event that work has not been completed for the blacktop parking areas, grading, and landscaping at the time applicant requests a certificate of occupancy then, in such event, prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall furnish to the City a cash deposit, -or -in lieu thereof, a corporate surety bond approved.by the City and naming the City as.obligee thereunder. The cash deposit or bond shall be in an amount equal.! to 110% of the cost of unfinished work at said time as estimated by the City Manager and shall be conditioned upon the full performance of said work within a time designated by the :-City. Additional Provisions...... Developer has agreed to subdivide and re, ---plat the property known as Lot 1 and the Easterly 50 fe6t of Lot 2, Block 2, Frontier Development Park, Carver County, Mi4nesota upon the terms and in the manner approved by the City Council. The issuance of a building -permits,.to 1 applicant - shall not be, conditioned on filing application and completing said subdivision action. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued to applicant prior to completion of the re -platting proceeding unless otherwise agreed to by the City Council Provision for immediate issuance of building permit. ,� MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 220 EXCELSIOR, MINN. 55331 LAW OFFICES JOHN E. LEE, JR ATTORNEY AT LAW 17917 HIGHWAY 7 MINNETONKA. MINNESOTA March 1, 1979 Donald W. Ashworth Chanhassen City Manager P. 0. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 From: City Administrator .l4trred Tc: 13nn?r ✓ - �1ail�fi,la AREA CODE 612 or TELEPHONE: 474-5225 I o r RESIDENCE: 475-1175 it �dt�tic;'^;lint. (i'tilsr Zi�/i • ____o__ ��.,..c,/ O..rc� 71 Re: Happy Chef/Holiday Station Proposal (Zamor) Our File 3168-41-L The matters to be heard by the City Council on March 5, 1979 include: (1) Site plan approval for the Holiday Stationstore and Happ Chef Restaurant; (2) Request for approval to subdivide Mre -plat Lot 1, Block 2, Frontier Development Park into two lots; Request for variance to Building Moratorium Ordinance. Part of our proposal is to re -plat said Lot 1 into Parcel Nos. 1 and 2. I enclose copy of drawing of proposed lot subdivision dated 2/2/79 showing the two lots, Parcel No. 1 on the drawing would be occupied by Holiday Stationstores and become Lot 1. Parcel No. 2 on the drawing would be occupied by Happy Chef and would become Lot 2. The subdivision would probably be called "Zamor's Addition". Following Council approval, we will retain a registered surveyor to prepare a new plat for final ap- proval by the City Council. We agree that any approval_ granted on 3/5/79 should be conditioned upon our client's preparing a final plat as required by the City Ordinance, the same to be approved by the City Council. As stated, the drawing for the Proposed Lot Subdivision shows the exact size and location of the two lots to be platted. Russ Larson in his letter of 2/1/79 states that the developer (Strong -Towle) as well as the Chanhassen Planning Commission and the City Council considered Lot 1 adaptable to only one principal use or structure. The property was platted during March, 1970 by Frontier Development Corporation. Strong -Towle was not involved in the platting and did not take title until October, 1973. The owner at the time of the platting did not intend that the lot lines as shown on the plat "be cast in concrete." I have been informed that the owner intended to retain "felxibility" as to the location of the lot lines the same to be located to suit the needs of the person who developed the property. I have considerable information regarding this matter and will discuss it with the Council on Monday. Donald W. Ashworth March 1, 1979 I have been advised by Wally Odell who was the attorney for the owner at the time of platting that there was a development con- tract executed by the owner and the City during March, 1970. It may be helpful if the City will produce its copy of the development contract for review by the Council on Monday. I will attempt to get a copy of the document. An issue has been raised as to the number of "off street parking spaces" required for the Holiday Stationstore. I am informed that a substantial portion of Holiday's business is of the "drive- in type" which requires one space for each employee per shift (not including outside service employees) in addition to required spaces for customers. I believe City staff has determined the minimum number of off-street parking spaces required for the Holiday Stationstore as being one space for each 150 square feet (area of building) required for "General Retailing". Holiday owns and operates approximately 250 Stationstores. Their actual requirement is normally 6 to 7 off street parking spaces. During the Christmas season their customers and employees will use up to ten parking spaces. Most of their customers use the parking area adjacent to the "islands" located in front of the Stationstore. The site plan filed with your office shows the entrances to the Holiday Stationstore at an angle to 79th street. Holiday will agree to amend the site plan so that the entrances are at a 900 angle to 79th Street. - As you know, this matter was continued at the meeting on February 5th to the meeting for Monday, March 5, 1979. It is important to our client that the matter be presented to a full Council. The Happy Chef people will drive up from Mankato. We will call your office Monday regarding this matter. Thank you for your cooperation. Cordially yours, JOHN E. LEE, JR. JEL/vb Enclosure CC; Larry Zamor Lawrence Land Company 6509 Walker Street Minneapolis, Nit 55343 CC: Russell H. Larson Attorney at Law 1900 1st National Bank Bldg. Minneapolis, lee 55402 -2- Phone 938-5522 ; - _gw;f,�,t- f. �rafftn9'- Supp[1,1 a.,1 Repror�ucftores 17 -10th Avenue South - Hopkins, Minn..55343' CUSTOMS 'S ORDER NO. DATE - ^ 49 NAME j `- 1 oF A� l� ADDRES SOLD BY CASH .O:D.- - CIII.R�E—'-6N"AGG`f MD.QET-_ PAID OUTI. V QUAN. DESCRIPTION PRICE AMOUNT i� - 4 Tax Total . ALL CLAIMS D RETURNSV� S MUST E ACCOMPA n°D BY THIS BILL R EIH D B 32076 RIPPE BUSINESS FORMS.- HOPKINS, MINN,-55343 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 220 EXCELSIOR. MINN. 55331 CITY OF CHANHASSEN P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MDT 55317 LAW OFFICES JOHN E. LEE, JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW 17917 HIGHWAY 7 MINN=TONKA. MINNESOTA November 17, 1978 Attention Bob Waibel Assistant City Planner; Dear Mr. Waibel: AREA CODE 612 TELEPHONE: 474-5225 RESIDENCE: 475-1175 Re: Happy Chef/Erickson Petroleum Property at State Highway 5 & 101 Planning Cases P-567 & P-568 Our Client Larry Zamor File No. 3168-4-L This letter is written following our telephone conversation wherein you informed me that the above matters would not be set on the agenda for the Council meeting of November 20th; that the matters would probably be set on the agenda for a Special Council meeting on November 27th. As stated, our client requests that the matter be tabled temporarily. I will contact you regarding a suitable date for Council action. It may be that the matter should be heard by the Council during December, 1978 or early part of January, 1979. Larr Zamor was not personally informed of the requirement of the 12,000.00 deposit until November 14th. I note from a copy of the Planning Report dated 9/11/78 recently received that you made a recommendation of an escrow deposit of $2,000.00 to defray. staff costs in processing the application. The Minutes of the September 13th Planning Commission_ meeting (page 3)-refer to the $2,000.00 escrow deposit. I do not know why this matter was not communicated to our client until November 14th. Mr. Zamor strongly objects to the requirement of and the amount. of the deposit. I will keep you advised. Cordially yours, JOHN E. LEE, JR. JEL/vb cc Larry Zamor 1978 CHAVHq SOP . RUSSELL H. LARSON CRAIG M. MERTZ OF COUNSEL HARVEY E. SKAAR MARK C. MCCULLOUGH LA.Rsox & MERTZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1900 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE (612) 335-9565 February 1, 1979 Donald W. Ashworth Chanhassen City Manager P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Happy Chef/Holiday Station Proposal Dear Don: You have requested that this office review and report on the Happy Chef/Holiday Station development proposal for Lot 1, Block 2, Frontier Development Park. Our report is as follows: Zoning. The property is located in a C-3 Commercial Service District and the uses proposed for the property are permitted uses under the zoning ordinance, except that any outside storage would require a conditional use permit under Ordinance No. 47-C. Section 19.15 of Ordinance No. 47 provides that only one principal structure shall be permitted on each zoning lot. In this case it is proposed that two principal structures be constructed on Lot 1, Block 2 of Frontier Development Park. It is our opinion that the proposal violates Section 19.15 and cannot be implemented unless Lot 1 was platted into two separate parcels. The use of a metes and bounds description in subdividing the lot for leasing and conveyance purposes would result in a most awkward legal descrip- tion, not acceptable to this office. In this regard, we believe that considerable weight should be given to the fact that when Frontier Development Park was platted, the developer (Strong -Towle), the Planning Commission and the Council obviously considered that this lot, located at the intersection of two busy highways and a city street, was adaptable to only one principal use or structure. The configuration of the lot, bordered on three sides by roadways, dictates that, in order to meet set back requirements, to provide an attractive entrance to the business heart of the City, to meet traffic safety and movement requirements, and to provide adequate parking, only one principal structure should be permitted at this site. Mr. Donald W. Ashworth February 1, 1979 Page 2 Accordingly, it is our view that to allow a replat of the lot into two separate parcels to accommodate two different principal uses is contrary to the spirit and intent. of the zoning ordinance and good planning practices, and is not in keeping with the earlier intentions of the initial developer and the City when the land was platted. The proposed landscaping constitutes, in our view, only a minimal amount of window dressing, not at all adequate considering the location of the lot at the entrance to the City, and will do nothing to shield from view the visual congestion which would be brought about by this project. It is our further opinion that to allow a replat of the lot for reasons not related to physical topographical constraints or severe economic hardship would be setting a precedent which could be difficult to overcome in similar cases. Ordinance No. 47-K Moratorium. A variance from the restrictions of Ordinance 47-K prohibiting new construction in the redevelopment area would be required before this project can be approved. Site Plan. An examination of the proposed site plan, identified in our files as the exhibit submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration at its meeting of September 13, 1978, discloses that the front yard set back requirement of 40 feet in a C-3 District has not been met in the majority of front yard measurements shown by the site plan. In addition, we note that the proposal calls for 90 degree parking. Section 9.07 (2) of the zoning ordinance governs the design and construction of parking lots in a C-3 District, and requires a clear aisle width of 24 feet on 90 degree parking. This side yard parking fails to meet this requirement. Section 9.07 (2) also requires that open off street parking which faces a public street shall be screened by either a solid wall or fence not less than 4 feet in height, or a screen planting approved by the Council. The berms and plantings proposed in this case fail to meet this requirement. We have not been informed of the proposed seating capacity or shift employees at the restaurant, hence we are not able to comment on whether the parking space allocation meets the ordinance requirement of one space per 3 seats and one space per shift employee. We have noted the Planner's comments on the four West 79th Street curb cuts and the inadequacy of stacking space off Highway 101, and Mr. Donald W. Ashworth February 1, 1979 Page 3 we cannot help but observe that an approaching driver intending to enter the site, particularly at night, could be confused by the curb cuts and cluttered scene, and could cause traffic congestion upon entering West 79th Street, especially at a time when Dinner Theatre traffic is leaving by its exit directly to the north. Conclusion. For the reasons set that the proposal does not meet achieve by its zoning ordinance recommend its disapproval. RHL:ms Manager's Comments: forth above, we are of the opinion the standards the City intends to and development plans; and we V ry rul yours Russell H. La son Chanhassen City Attorney The above report was requested by this office to insure that the over riding issue in this proposal - two principal structures on one lot and the problem created by such, is not lost in discussion of, important, but lesser points. Any variance request can be made. However, to approve a variance request, such as this, undermines the planning process and questions the integrity of city ordinances. If either use were to apply individually, T believe other issues could be resolved. Denial of the.variance request from applicable ordinance sections, subdivision regulations, and the building moratorium is recommended. CITY CIF CHANHASSEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVEOP 0 BOX 1470CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8885 PLANNING REPORT DATE: February 2, 1979 TO: City Manager, Don Ashworth FROM: Assistant Manager/Planner, Bob Waibel SUBJ: Subdivision Request, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan Review for Happy Chef Systems, Inc. and Erickson Petroleum Company. APPLICANTS: Happy Chef Systems, Inc., and Erickson Petroleum Co. PLANNING CASE: P-567 and P-568 Petition Happy Chef is proposing to construct a 3300 square foot restaurant and Erickson Petroleum Company is proposing to construction .a 3,900 square foot auto service and retail facility on Lot 1, Block 2, Frontier Development Park. Comments The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the subject proposal at it's regular meeting of October 11, 1978, and the planning commission passed their recommendation onto the council in the form of a failed motion to approve. In the subsequent planning commission meeting the motion was corrected to indicate that Tim Stone also voted against the motion to approve the plans. The attached planning materials summarizes the many issues upon which the subject plans were found to be deficient. Prior to this report, the planning department had interpretted that the 40 foot setback referred in the city attorney's report of February 1, 1979, applied to structures, and that parking required a 23 foot setback. The opinion of the city attorney on this matter has ray concurrence. Prior to the writing of this report, this office was not afforded the type of historical perspective on the initial platting of Frontier Development Park as that introduced in the attorney's opinion of February 1, 1979. Within this historical reference, I believe that the described philosophy behind the creation of lot 1, block 2 of Mr. Don Ashworth , -2- February 2, 19 79 Frontier Development Park is compatible with planning principals for urbanizing communities with respect to land use and community image. This relates directly to my previous opinions that the proposal was over developed, and sets precedent to ordinance standards. Although it is immaterial to my recommendation at this time, the initial review of the Happy Chef plans revealed that the number of parking spaces planned, far exceeded the ordinance requirements. Recommendation As per my previous planning reports, and the planning commission action, I recommend that the city council move to deny the site plan, subdivision, variance to ordinance 47-K and conditional use permit for planning cases P-567 and P-568. F V-67, WO!, a "emu - NO I mmema 4-&.JL W-4 23 m ED fin .Lake Lucy a 0 Lux WILa I't Lotus Lake k OF Tt M OF OF R8 P-r-, OF OF OF R9 OF RB pprnflcl f OF NO OF IC Lake Susan Rice Marsh Lake OF OF OF -1 1 OF OF OF OF L 34 =1 M34 340 0 OF OF F F F- LYMAN ED BOULEVARD NO F OF Af p Lake Riley OF -0 A CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVE*P.O. BOX 147oCHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8885 PLANNING REPORT DATE: October 11, 1978 TO: Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Assistant City Planner, Bob Waibel SUBJ: Subdivision Request and Conditional Use Permit for Happy Chef and Erickson Petroleum Company, Pub1JLc Hearing PLANNING CASE: P-567 AND P-568 APPLIANTS: Happy Chef Systems, Inc. and Erickson Petroleum Corp. Petition The petition before the Planning Commission at this time is to gather neighborhood sentiment for the subject proposal and to recommend action to the council. Planner's Comments Due to the existence of the building moratorium ordinance 47-K and being that this proposal was the first to prove to be a possible impediment to the downtown concept plan, there has developed several problems which have made the review of the proposal significantly more difficult than. .usual. At the outset of the subject proposal, it was my opinion that the development be looked at solely in the context of general land use and the intentions of the HRA keeping the green space as shown in the downtown concept plan. As you well know, site plan considerations had entered into the discussion necessarily to for the HRA to decide upon the extent of their green area. After reviewing the most recent plan presented to the HRA and the Planning Commission, I have serious reservations about my recommendation of September 11, 1978, concerning the entire development. Further study of the site plan, has revealed some glaring deficits -of the plan in it's relationship to the spirit and intent of the adopted city ordinances. First of all the proposed dual uses to be placed on what was originally created to be a single purpose property presents various problems such as .4 curb cuts in a relatively short distance which could initiate a disfunctional commercial strip development, the curb cut nearest to the intersection .Planning Commission -2- O.ctober11, 1978 of Highway 101 would allow for less than adequate stacking distance for cars at the intersection of Highway 101 which could create confusion among motorists, and that the plan proposes less than the setback as prescribed by ordinance for the parking area abutting the right of way of Highway 101,much less in an area which the HRA had proposed to be gateway green area to the downtown area. Other considerations are, the reality of Great Plains Blvd. staying "green" is highly unlikely and will probably encroach upon the subject property as necessary stacking lanes and turning lanes are added. It is hard to conceive that the sodded area as indicated between the Happy Chef development and the building on the Erickson property would remain sodded as indicated. I believe there is a strong . likelihood that there will be significant pedestrian traffic between the two facilities, and since no trash container area for Holiday is indicated, this would be the likely spot for the containers which in the end run would detract from both developments. The developers have made it clear that through their development plan, landscaping should not interfere with the visability of their buildings, with the result being (if approved) a development trend, in this area that is building intensive with numerous parking lots and curb cuts paralleling that of south Robert Street. With the significant dedication of land to parking and building, the developers may find that the lack of provision of open space may prove snow storage, outside refuge containers, signage, etc. rather difficult to accommodate. My notes made on the subject proposal further substantiate it as being over developed for the parcel in question, however, based on the content of this report, I would have to recommend that the Planning Commission encourage the applicant to acquire more land or reduce the magnitude of their proposal to place it more in line with the spirit and intent of the city ordinances, the downtown concept plan, and proper site planning practices. Planning Commission feting October ll, 1978 -2- SUBDIVISION REQUEST, DR. JAMES MEYER: Tim Stone moved to recommend the Council approve the su division and variances for Dr. Meyer and that the applicant work with staff to enter the conditions into the sale contract (road easement, proper elevation of new home to avoid drainage problems). Motion seconded by Dick Matthews and unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING SUBDIVISION REQUEST AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HAPPY CHEF AND ERICKSON PETROLEUM CORPORATION Roman Roos called the hearing to order at 8:40 p.m. with the following. interested persons present:L. Zamor, J. Zamor, D. Zamor, Charles Towle, Robert Frederick, Richard Rice, John,.Lee, Bill Brezinsky, and Craig Mertz. The Assistant City Planner read the official notice as published in the Carver County Herald. The Assistant City Planner gave his report dated October 11, 1978_ Bob Waibel - Due to the existence of the building moratorium ordinance 47-K and being that this proposal was the first to prove to be a possible impediment to the downtown concept plan, there has developed several problems which have made the review of the proposal significantly more difficult than usual. It was my opinion that the development be looked at solely in the context of general land use and the intentions of the HRA keeping the green space as shown in the downtown concept plan. As you well know, site plan considerations had entered into the discussion necessarily for the HRA to decide upon the extent of their green area. After reviewing the most recent plan presented to the HRA and the Planning Commission, I have serious reservations about my recommendation of September 11, 1978, concerning the entire development. Further study of the site plan has revealed some glaring deficits of the plan in it s relationship to the spirit and intent of the adopted city ordinances. First of all the proposed dual uses to be placed on what was originally created to be a single purpose property presents various problems such as four curb cuts in a relatively short distance along West 79th Street, the curb cut nearest to the intersection of Highway 101 would allow for less, than adequate stacking distance for cars which could create confusion among motorists, and that the plan proposes less than the setback as prescribed by ordinance for the parking area abutting the right-of-way of Highway 101. I believe that there is a strong liklihood that there will be significant pedestrian traffic between the two facilities, and since no trash container area for Holiday is indicated, this would be the likely spot for the container's which in the end would detract from both developments. My notes made on the subject proposal further substantiatE it as being over developed for the parcel in question, however, based on the content of this report, I would have to recommend that the Planning Commission encourage the applicant to acquire more land or reduce the magnitude °Planning Commissic Meeting October 11, 1978 -3 - of their proposal to place it more in lane with the spirit and intent of the city ordinances, the downtown concept -plan, and proper site planning practices. The Assistant City Planner read the-HRA minutes of September 28, 1978. Chuck Towle - I am the-fee,owner of the -property and much of the property,to the west of this. I entered into a contract to sell this property to Mr. Zamor who in turn, after discussing: it has dealt with Happy Chef and Holiday Erickson people. He went through various procedures and then took a-planto the HRA and spent up to two hours at a meeting with them in going through the plan and coming through with virtually trying. to meet every suggestion -and recommendation that they had relative to green area, berm changes, parking changes, many aspects of a plan that would be acceptable to them. The developers have agreed in.every instance to their suggestions and in fact they approved the plan provided they complied with everything that they had recommended. This was done and I believe it came back to your body and then was recommended back to the HRA for a second review. This meeting was held and a new plan was. presented relative to parking changes, the green area, and the variances that might he required, and relative to just how the property would be developed. As I understand it the plan was. approved -a second time by the HRA. Some. of the concerns that -have been_ expressed in the memorandum as was prepared for this meeting were total surprises to the developers of the project. It was the feeling that they had complied with everything. Roman Roos - I think we, at our last meeting,.were concerned with the width of the green way and the -over use of the land. You people have done an excellent.job in trying to rework the green area. Al Klingelhutz - How far is the first curb cut from Highway 101? Bob Waibel - The -.curb cut is actually -about 30 feet back from the right-of-way of Highway 101. Al Klingelhutz - What is the total square footage of the property? Answer - 77,000 square feet. Brad Steinman, Holiday - As far as, you mentioned about trash, if you recall at the_last-meeting that same question came up, where -are you going to put your .trash and I told this group that this building is so constructed that there is an inside trash room. We don't stack trash outside. -That's-one-error that: you have in your report. As far as snow removal is concerned, we have private property there that we can put snow on and in cases where necessary and it's to our advantage certainly and to the Happy Chef, if you have to haul snow out you get a place to haul it because you can't operate off of a piece of property that's full of snow. As far as -snow removal is -concerned or stacking„ if we don't have enough room here we certainly will haul ours Planning Commission .Aeeting October 11, 1978 .-4_ ., away and they have to have room to park cars, etc, so I am sure they would be doing.the same thing. Another remark was made.in there about this being kept green. If we put this in and we say it's going, to be'kept green, that's what it's going to be. We are going to sod it and plant it, etc. we are going to keep it green and if you think somebody is going to walk across there why I personally think that if people are going to go over here and,park to eat they are not going to park here and eat but if they do we will put up a barrier. . Roman Roos`- Those are all relavent'issues but I think the critical issue that we on the Planning Commission have to answer tonight is the use of that land, is it over used. Brad Steinman - I could make one other remark and that's in regards to whether -you are over using the property or not and,I assume the way to judge that is whether or not we are both meeting the requirements as far as parking. If we meet the�codes-for parking I assume that we -ate therefore and there is enough space for both of us. Richard Rice, Happy Chef = I guess our points of view at this particular point are; this is a much bigger site than we normally require for our restaurant and we have more than enough parking here according to our standards that we found successful with our restaurants. We still have the green belt space here. In all these discussions in regard to Holiday and ourselves, we have cut back on --the parking areas. We have moved back to try to create the green space that you wanted. We have what we feel in both places in a happy mix of the adequate parking plus giving you the desired green space. We did explore with Holiday the concept that was advanced here the other night with regard to combining this entrance And possibly moving this further away from the corner. It is both of our considered opinions that the internal traffic would be a disaster to do this. This way, having it separated with curbs, green spots, etc. they funnel their traffic in and out, our traffic separately and we don't have any cris-crossing.right here. We would have to put up a'yield sign and a yellow light and things like that in order to make it work. We collectively have agreed that we cannot live with a single entrance which would function for both places. We think we have worked with the city on this quite sympathetically.' We think -we have developed a landscaping plan that would be attractive and provide a good approach to the city. Tim Stone moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. Hearing closed at 9:09 p.m. HAPPY CHEF AND ERICKSON PETROLEUM CORPORATION: Dick -Matthews - I am not in avor o su ivi 3ng that piece of pro ertt . _.P And putting two businesses on there that require the amount of land use that they do. Jerry Neher - I haven't changed my feelings one bit. It is still too crowded as far as I am concerned, two businesses on one piece originally laid out as one business corner. Planning Commission xeeting October 11, 1978 -5- Dick Matthews - I would like to concur with them that they have worked diligently and they have tried desperately to satisfy themselves by trying to keep two businesses on that piece of land but they haven't in my opinion worked to solve the problem which is that we do not approve in the subdivision of that land. I would like to have more green way because the majority of that is provided through right-of-way. I would like a little more green way in there but I can't see how you can do that and put two buildings on there. It's the two buildings on that piece of property that bother me. Jerry Neher - I liked the green way as it was laid out originally. The Planning Commission went on record as approving the concept. I -have trouble .with the green way. I have trouble with subdividing the property. It's too much for -one small piece of property. Chuck Towle - Lot 1 which we are dealing with is 77,000 square feet. Roman Roos - The amount of -land, true it's 77,000 square feet, but I think what Dick is leading to is there is to intensified on that 77,000 square feet -for that corner piece of land. The green way; I have no problems with the green way as it is right now. How do we get that site from being so intensified? We have no problem with either the restaurant there or the gas station but the two -of them together presents too much intensification. Chuck Towle - The restaurant is 4,000 square feet. 'The gas station is 3,900 square feet. We are dealing with 8,000 square feet.. We -are dealing with 77,000 square feet. You are dealing with less than 10% coverage of the land. This is not .an intense development, compared to what you normally see -in commercial development.. Brad Steinman - We have used areas for stations of this size under 25,000 square feet, 22,500'is what we shoot for as a minimum. Roman Roos - We have heard a lot of comment, I want to know what you feel about the overall proposal. Mal MacAlpine --This is the first time I'have sat in on this portion of it. 'I think that's, commercial property obviously. I think -.the two uses it is being put to is basically compatible with the area. I think any of us would like a larger green area.but when you are talking about proper land usage and the cost of land today I think they have done a fairly good job with the green area and they also agreed to eliminate those parking stalls. The truth of the matter is, when you look at that and you tryy to envision 10,000 square feet being built on in an area of over 70,000 square feet, that doesn't seem to me an overintensification. Roman Roos - Is the placement of the buildings -a problem? Tim Stone - I think that's my concern. In our last discussion I really-reinforce.what you just said Mal, I have no difficulty with the intensity of the land but the actual physical planning is what's distressing me and I think Bob's report touches on some of the difficulties that I find myself having to deal with. My problem really has Planning Commissior 'Meeting October 11, 1978 -6= to do with the site planning itself not the land use or the subdivision of the parcel. Walter Thompson - I agree with the points that Mal has taken. The first two points particularly as to the intensity. I also look at that -corner and I see this green on this side and nothing but commercial on the other. I don't know whether.we are trying to penalize something here, concentrate it or what but I have no objection to the green way as shown. Roman Roos -.Is there any problems with the layout of the buildings on the site? Walter Thompson - No. Tim Stone - I. think Bob does a very nice job of.touching on what I think -is -significant. I don't see that they have been addressed. I heard some verbal conversations about curb cuts and why they wouldn't relocate them. I don't feel comfortable with what I heard. Mal MacAlpine - If they were to eliminate one curb cut for the gas station and the restaurant and the gas station were to share one I think that could create a more hazardous situation possibly than the curb cut closer -to -the corner which is not an ideal situation. Is this a 24-hour restaurant? Richard Rice - Yes - Tim Stone -My concerns -really are not with two buildings on one site but the.way the buildings are arranged, the actual site planning of the two buildings. I feel uncomfortable I see duplication of facilities, parking, potential difficultie with pedestrian circulation, trash removal,.curb cuts, f there are others. The question that Mal was asking is., are they resolvable within the current site plan and my answer -is I don't see that they are. That's a value judgment.. That's my value judgment. Mal MacAlpine - Have you ever gone into the auto shop and the barber shop, in that area? There is one .curb cut in there. That's a nightmare to get out of if there is more than four cars parked there. You can hardly turn your car around. It is more dangerous than there would be if there were actually two outlets for that piece of property. You talk about a small parking area for the amount of traffic they generate and the ease of getting in and out, that's a real traffic hazard. If there is only one curb cut on that property which I recall. is directly across, I think that makes this area more protective with the two curb cuts. I think you have got to be a little bit realistic.about it.. All of us have a different opinion as how you want to design a house or furnish a house or whatever and it's a difficult thing. Tim Stone - I am looking for a compromise solution here. I hear some objections to the intensity of the land development and I am looking for a way of trying to make two buildings on one parcel of land with a great deal of asphalt appear less intensified. Mal MacAlpine - You could say well what if the two businesses were side by side. That's a possibility.but then you are talking about building on a zero lotline. Dick. Matthews - I would like to pick up on a point of the 11% of the actual building area, that's a valid point but I am Planning Commission leeting October 11, 1978 -7- N I Mal MacAlpine - Dick Matthews - Mal MacAlpine - not just considering the building itself. Where is a lot of blacktop out there. That also is part of that visual affect that you are going to get. That is also part of my consideration in the subdivisi( of this•land. The other thing I would like to state is Bob's comments in going back over Bob's comments what he says is,"after reviewing the most recent plan presented to the HRA.and the Planning Commission I have serious reservations about my recommendations of September 11, 1978, concerning the entire development. Further study of the site plan has revealed some glaring•defects of the plan and its relationship to the spirit and intent of the adopted city ordinances. I am not sure that:I share that sentiment though. I am merely going back. and saying the Planner now has some reservations as to the spirit and intent of the development of these two buildings on that parcel. If it was just an 8,000 square foot building that I don't have a problem. It's the total project. You have to take that whole thing into consideration then your percentages go quite high. The concern I would have more than the green area would be; what type of a sign would be put up considering the fact that Highway 5 is going by and what sort of lighting is being planned for that particular area from a safety standpoint so there isn't excessive glare. Those things can be worked out. I guess I would have more concern about seeing how those were going to be addressed.- I have no objection to the plan is what I am saying. Mal MacAlpine moved to recommend to the Council approval of the subdivision and conditional use permit for Happy Chef and Erickson Petroleum Corp. in accordance with the division line indicated on Exhibit A, Planning Commission meeting October 11, 1978. The Council should recognize that the Planning Commission is not completely in agreement with the way the buildings -are presently laid out and there should be an alternative,plan at least considered. Motion seconded by Tim Stone. ;After discussion the motion and second were withdraim . Mal MacAlpine moved to recommend the Council approve the subdivision and conditional use permit as outlined on Exhibit A dated October 11, 1978, for Happy Chef and Erickson Petroleum Corporation.- Motion seconded by Walter Thompson. The following voted in favor: Walter Thompson, Tim Stone, and Mal MacAlpine. Dick Matthews, Jerry Neher, and Roman Roos voted no. Motion failed. Roman Roos - After looking at the land value and the land size and the area of your two buildings, that's totally within everything I.believe is correct but -again I see two buildings -,•two parking lots on that piece of land. If there is some way those buildings could be combined into one.unit or possibly, I don't know if.there has been another site plan ever considered -from ground zero, I just don't: know. This is what we saw initially and what we are -seeing now. I don't know if it's possible to combine the two buildings and get what you are looking for or not but I think it would answer a lot planning Commissior Seeting October 11, 1978 -8- of-questions. I don't think the land use would be that intensified then. - Mal MacAlpine - If you did combine the two buildings but both buildings stayed the same size you are not going to reduce the parking area one bit. Richard Rice - We can answer that question right now. Neither one of us is interested in combining our buildings into one. It would involve total redesign and the expense of that. They wish to maintain their own identity and they don't feel -that combining the. two of them gives them that freedom. Roman Roos - Our recommendation will be forwarded to the Council. 1-think we -have all raised some valid points. There are just some issues that we can't agree on. That's maybe healthy, maybe it's not healthy. That's the way the record stands at this point in time. It was requested that this be on the November 20th Council agenda. PUBLIC HEARING REZONING REQUEST BRUCE CAMERON, 6291.BLUE JAY CIRCLE Roman Roos called the hearing to order at 9:50 p.m. with the following interested persons -present: Wendell Gravlun -:6270 Blue Jay Circle Wally Peterson = 2240 Melody Hill Frank Kurvers Mr. and Mrs. Perry Willson- 1641 Koehnen Circle Mr. and Mrs. Willard Johnson - 1660 West 63rd Street Wayne Fransdal - 6291 Cardinal - Al Klingelhutz Mr. and Mrs. Dean Solum, 1630 West 63rd Street Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Cameron - 6291 Blue Jay Circle. Craig Mertz Bill Brezinsky The Assistant City Planner read the official notice as published in the Carver County Herald. The Planner recommended that the Planning Commission either grant the rezoning request from R-1 to R-2 or allow for the conversion of the property to a single family residence along with the deletion of one sewer and water assessment with reimbursement of assessment payments made to date. Wayne Fransdal - I need a definition of the term zoning because when I -think of zoning I .think of areas rather than individual lots. If it's not an area why is zoning even done. I was•under-the impression that duplexes were allowed in an R-1 District. Bob Waibel - First of all an R-1 District only allows for single family residential units. R-2 would allow for single family and multiple two family units. This structure was -built before the township merger and more or less were grandfathered in. Wayne Fransdal --They were zoned after the merger after the building was there also. Why were they zoned R-1? Bob Waibel - They were treating it as a general area. Wayne Franddal - That's what zoning is for. 3 September 28, 1978 Chanhassen City I. A regular meeting of the Chanhassen Housing and Redevelopment Authority was called to order on September 28, 1978, at 8:45 p.m. at City Hall. The fallowing members were present: Commissioners Niemeyer, Pryzmus and Whitehill. Absent were Commissioners Gullickson and Kl ingelhutz. City Manager, Don Ashworth was also present. The City Manager gave Mr. Whitehill the "Oath of Office." 8:45 p.m. - Call to Order Commissioner_ Whitehill moved that dike Niemeyer be Acting Chairman for this sleeting. Motion seconded by Commissioner Pryzmus. ,ayes - All 9:00 p.m. - Building Moratorium Variance'Request -- Holiday/Happy Chef, Review Planriknq Commission Action: The following persons were present: Richard Rice, Architect, Happy Chef; Robert L. Frederick, Vance President, Happy Chef; and Jerry Jensen, Holiday. Summarization of discussion was as follows: Commissioner Niemeyer presented action taken by the Planning Comission in referring items back to the' HRA and previous HRA action. Representatives of Holiday/Happy Chef presented a revised plan, considering landscape concepts. Commission members noted that, in.regards to the moratorium ordinance, that they could not speak to detail development plan items or whether such was in accordance with planning cosrauission and city standards. Concern was reflected in regards to the type of plantings and parking area of Holiday adjacent to Great Plains Blvd. The developers noted their willingness to work with the cormission on a specific development plan if the moratorium variance were. granted. Moved by Commissioner. Whitehill to approve granting a moratorium variance. to Holiday and happy Chef as presented. Seconded by John Pryzmus. The following voted in favor: Commissioners Whitehill and Pryzmus, Voting against: Commissioner Niemeyer. amotion carried. A motion was made by Commissioner Pryzmus and seconded by Commissioner White�:ill to. approve the supplementary contract with BRIO as per the memo of September 25, 1978. Ayes - All. Propcisal to Ih-crease flax Increment District: The manager presented his report dated September 5, 1978, recommending that the'HRA consider expanding the existing Tax Increment District to encompasses -those properties south of Highway 5 planned as business/commercial. After discussion, the commission acted to request this item be placed on the next agenda together with a report from the attorney's office regarding legality of such. The manager will also discuss this with representatives of BRIV, if possible. Theicommission acted to set their next meeting date as November 25, 1978. Don Ashworth, City Manager CITY OF CHANHASSEN �I VC, �610 LAREDO DRIVEOP.O BOX 1470CHANHASSEN, MINN ESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8885 PLANNING REPORT DATE: September 11, 1978 TO: Planning. Commission, Staff and Jerome Jensen, 4567 W. 80th Minneapolis, Mn. 55437, Happy Chef Restaurants 500 S. Front Street, Mankato, Mn. 56001 and Lawrence Zamor, 170 Birch Bluff Road, Excelsior, Mn. 55331 FROM: Assistant City Planner, Bob Waibel. SUBJ: Happy Chef/Erickson Petroleum Site Plan Review and Variance Request PLANNING CASES P-567 and P-568 APPLICANTS: Happy Chef Systems, Inc./Erickson Petroleum Corporation Petition The petition before the Planning Commission at this time is to consider a variance request to building moratorium Ordinance 47K and if a positive reaction to variance recommendation is forthcoming, then consideration of the site plan review should be carried out. Planner's Comments 1. The attached minutes of the Chanhassen Housing and Redevelopment Authority, indicate the authority gave conditional approval to a joint proposal of Happy Chef and Erickson. Petroleum. 2. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority had mentioned several ways in which landscaping could be met to reflect their intention of having a green open space as indicated in the downtown redevelopment concept plan. If this landscape included on the plot plan presented in this evening's exhibit is deemed to be adequate by the HRA then the Planning Commission should make its recommendation on variance to the building moratorium. If the Planning Commission should have a positive consensus to the building moratorium issue, then the following portions of this report should be discussed in terms of site plan review. Site Plan Review 3. Zoning Ordinance 47 requires that parking be set back 25 feet off of public street. The hard surface parking area setback proposed in a easterly direction along W. 79th Street from the western boundary of the Happy Chef are 271, 211, 161, 7' and 5' respectively. A zero setback PLANNING REPORT -2- September 11, 1978 is proposed for the 3 stalls of parking on the Erickson site north of the pump islands and 19' of setback is proposed along the eastern border of the Erickson property. In considering these proposals, the variances to the parking setback requirements can be looked at subjectively as either being an over developed proposal or a compact utilization of the land. In light of the relative acceptance of the proposal by the URA with respect to open space for the property, the parking setback requirements can feasibly be waivered. From a planning perspective, it is my obligation to state that the Holiday proposal is significantly deficient to the parking requirements of Zoning Ordinance 47. Should the Planning Commission decide to maintain the parking as proposed by the Erickson Corporation, then I strongly urge- that definitive reasons be entered into the record for any such allowance. 4. The Planning Commission at this time should express their sentiments towards the two truck parking spaces shown in the plans for Happy Chef. 5. The Holiday sign is shown to be on the HRA open space area. The City Sign Ordinance does not permit billboards and requires that all commercial signs be located on private property. Planner's Recommendation I recommend that the Planning Commission recommend the Council approve the variance to building moratorium Ordinance 47K for Holiday/Erickson and Happy Chef with reservation to the parking issues. This recommendation of approval is conditioned upon grading plan approval by the City Engineer, signed approval by the Sign Committee, and that the applicant place an escrow deposit with the City Treasurer's office in the amount of $2,000.00 to defray staff costs in processing this application. Planning Commission Meeting September 13, 1978 - 2- Frank Burg - If I might respond to the Planner's concerns about a grading plan, I. think if the City will check its files we have already submitted the grading plan for the entire area. The topography on this map is. from Mark Hurd aerials and due to the relative elevation differential from point to point Mark Hurd will not make a two foot contour interval map of this steep of an area. What they produce is a 4 foot, 5 foot or a ten foot increment. We chose to take a four foot because that was the closest contour interval we could get. We submitted four sheets of the same size, two of them were existing conditions'and two of them were the grading plans and proposed developments and then the street plans went along with them. If staff would like we could go ahead and put additional contours on. We would like to have this public hearing continued to some other time for the consideration of a minor revision of the road system. Mr. Hesse has indicated that the people that own this particular piece of property are rather concerned with the entrance road right adjacent to their particular property. He has asked that we look at the feasibility of another point of entrance rather than in this particular area. We haven't had enough time to evaluate what type of grades we are going to have coming through. Before we come back to the Planning Commission we would like to have an opportunity to meet with staff and to discuss the new proposal. We have the 28 lots within the development which 18 of them are really in the north half which we call phase II and the balance of them were in the south half which is what Mr.. and Mrs. Hesse have planned as what they would like to do for the first phase. Regarding Lot 20 which was the one that had the significant amount of soil within the Glencoe horizon, that lot while it is a lot it is a part of the Hesse homestead.This is the area that the Hesse's would like to retain as their own personal holdings within the developr_ment. We have no immediate plans for building anything this year due to the rains. We are looking at early spring construction on this. We would like to work with. the City. Tim Stone_ moved to continue the public hearing to October 11, 1978, at 7:45 p.m. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews and unanimously approved. HAPPY CHEF/ERI-CKSON PETROLEUM SITE PLAN: The petition before the Planning Commission is to consider a variance request to Building Moratorium Ordinance 47K and if a positive reaction to variance is forthcoming, then consideration of the site plan review should be carried out. The HRA gave conditional approval to a joint proposal of Happy Chef and Erickson Petroleum. The HRA had mentioned several ways in which landscsping could be met to reflect their intention of having a green open space as indicated in the downtown redevelopment( concept plan. If this landsQape plan is deemed to be adequate by the HRA then the Planning Commission should make its recommendation on variance to the building moratorium. Planning Commission eeting September 13, 1978 " 3- mike Niemeyer, HRA, was present. Our recommendation was that if the minimum approach and depth of landscaping was taken that there is a compensation intensity of landscaping in order to get that feeling of green space at that intersection. We were talking of some hedging materials and berms and things of that nature. The City Planner recommended that the Planning Commission recommend the Council approve the variance to the Moratorium Ordinance for Holiday/ Happy Chef with reservation to the parking issues. This recommendation of approval is conditioned upon grading plan approval by the City Engineer, sign approval by the Sign Committee, and that the applicant place an escrow deposit. with. the City in the amount of $2,000 to defray staff costs in processing this application. Dick Rice, representing Happy Chef - 2n going through the plan with the HRA, trying to work within their concept of developing a green landscaped area it became apparent that we could move this back and enlarge this space here which is down by your public sign and by doing so get more landscape area and place to berm. The HRA also was looking at two plans. They were looking at our plan and they were looking at Holidays plan and they wanted them consolidated into one, and so we got their plan from them and developed it l,nto this.one. The setback requirements on parking are 25 feet minimum here in front.: There is only one place here where we actually would be 25.feet to the property line here. The other thing that was expressed by the HRA was.that.rather than just have a piece of grass here that it would be much more in keeping with their idea of a park like entrance to.have a landscaped area rather than bare grass that somebody had to.mow and they talked in terms of landscaping, berms, shrubbery trees and so we developed this plan more closely,to try -to conform with their thoughts. Putting in clumps of evergreens and small trees along these berms, berming.the almost the entire Holiday property and two.large.berms in our front area and side area. The other thing that was also discussed was in this idea of a,green area this.whole thing is going to read - as parking lot and street nobody is going to see the property This is all contributing to_the greenery, the openness of this corner whether it be public land it's all going to be mowed; green,landscaped and is going to read as your park entrance. We also developed quite a bit of interior landscaping and screening of our utility areas as has Holiday. We think we have a very well landscaped very sympathetic approach to the green park concept that you are hoping to get. We originally had three parking stalls for trucks thinking both Holiday and ourselves are going to be drawing trucks to a certain extent by the very nature of our business. We did create two truck parking stalls here. This is entirely arbitrary as far as we -are concerned. We thought we would be doing a service to the adjoining property owners and everybody else if we did bring them in, park them on our lot and they do conform to the spot in the zoning restriction that we don't drive trucks through pedestrian car parking areas. Planning Commission '-�eting September 13, 1978 :X1= Mike Niemeyer - What we had were two documents, one from Holiday and one from Happy Chef and we have had two fairly lengthy meetings with these gentlemen. We discussed, our intent of what we were after and then we asked that they put together a joint situation attempting to illustrate what a general understanding of our intents were and in order to save time since there was a great concern about a ping pong game between all the agencies in Chanhassen, that we decided to have them make a presentation back to you and members of the HRA would comment if you asked us to. Brad Steinman, Holiday Station Stores - As far as the number of parking spaces is concerned, we feel this is even more than adequate because most of our customers are in and out. We do not cater to trucks. It is not our intent. -to invite trucks. excepting our own trucks which come in and unload merchandise for the store -and also unload gasoline for the tanks. A remark had been made about out sign being on HRA property and actually this sign is not on HRA property but it is on Happy Chef's land. Roman Roos - In reference to the overall project, given the condition they can meet or present. such as 'the;i' have, the greenway entry and what you see now, -is the HRA still consistent with what they stated in their letter? Mike Niemeyer - Yes. I would have to say that what they have demonstrated here this evening is in our opinion it's a good step above where we were and in the right direction. With out intent of that being a soft space entering Chanhassen, we have no difficulty with those two uses happening on this piece of land if they can develop an intense soft area or landscaped area. We don't like the term park because that has connotations 'of . children_ -playing and things of that nature, this is a visual amenity more than anything else. Roman Roos - So then the HRA is solely in favor of the granting of a variance to the building moratorium. Mike Niemeyer - Yes.. As our minutes indicate if they have provided tonight as they have done we see no reason why we would desire to keep the moratorium in effect reference this piece of property. Roman Roos - I would like to address the commission, each of the members, in terms of feeling out what they think in terms of the greenway as presented, if it is within what they feel it should be -in respect to the HRA plan. Do you feel that parking spot should remain there? Should it be wider? I would like to have this from the Planning Commission members so that the Holiday/Erickson people can get a feel as to what we think so they know where they are at. Dick Matthews - My feeling is that for that parcel, those two proposed buildings on there, it's to highly intensified for the proposed soft entrance into Chanhassen. I don't feel that taking four parking places out there will make any difference whatsoever. There. is not enough open green space on that piece of property Planning Commission Meeting September 13, 1978 -5- and I would not recommend a variance to the building moratorium. Tim Stone - I concur with Dick. I am not sure that I think that the parcel is to intensely developed but I don't think it's developed in a manner which would allow the amount of green space that could possibly be generated,so while I have no objection to the two facilities, the two land use types on the plan,I do have some objections to the way they have been arranged. Jerry Neher - My feeling is that it's too-much.for too little. Roman Roos - Chanhassen is a community that's trying to groTAT and we need businesses, businesses like the Happy Chef and Holiday. It's an awful small parcel -of land. This is where my concern is. Granted the amount of parking that Holiday needs is not great also with respect to our ordinance we should require ample parking there. I guess I would be much much more in favor of the overall combined project if we could somehow see some more land. I realize that might be a problem in terms of.the development project there. At first I was going to say, no I don't want a gas station there because it -really detracts from what we are trying to portray for an entry into Chanhassen. I. don't believe that but I do believe we have to have some more land there. What are your feelings to these people as to what they could possibly do to make it more favorable to the planning Commission and to the overall project? Dick Matthews = First of all I am not in favor of subdividing that -piece of land. It's to small for subdivision which means that one or.the other or only one goes on that parcel.- I don't know how you could put those two pieces. --on there -and not have it congested. It's not enough area.for the type of businesses that are going in.there and -what we envision that corner. Roman Roos - What you are.saying is.the only recommendation you could make to them is to increase the land size. Dick Matthews Yes. Roman Roos - Then would you.have any.questions with a gas station and/ or Happy Chef restaurant in that location? Dick Matthews - No. I would -definitely not be in favor of subdividing that land.. Tim Stone - My'concern really has to do with the way the land is proposed to be subdivided and the way the buildings and the parking are arranged on each of the two parcels. I sense that there are ways of subdividing this parcel to get -both facilities, to resolve some of the parking difficulties that are alluded to in here, perhaps generate a bit more green space or at least a more intensified green space tosatisfy the HRA but it would require some joint planning. Jerry Neher - My only suggestion would be that they need more property. Brad Steinman - I might add one thing. There was more land to start .with and there is more land and.there is a lot more private land there but because of the requirements of the entry -,way into Chanhassen a lot of that private land had to be used for the green strip that you are asking for. When you look at it now it looks. small Planning Commissior-`!leering September 13, 197F -6- but in reality in the first plan that we had where we didn't have all the berms there is a lot more land involved here. Dick Rice - My only comment in regard to the joint entry is that I thi�. you lose green area by doing it. It .might work to your advantage somewhat in traffic rflow but I think that would be pretty insignificant. There was.an awful lot of discussic at these last meetings with the HRA as to moving the whole parcel westward and creating a piece of housing authority land as a park and then the cost became an issue. There was an awful lot of discussion at that point, is -it better for a private development. to come.in and intensely landscape.the area and berm it and maintain it or have the city buy an extremely expensive piece of property and have them have to maintain it and not probably have the money to landscape it but just have.it bare grass. There was an awful lot of back and forth there as to which would look better, a bare piece of grass or an intensively landscaped piece that somebody else would be responsible for. That's the choice that has to be made I think. Some where along the line if you people insist on the space, the price has already been established because we already have made offers to the developer for this piece of property. The landowner is. not extremely interested in donating something,to Chanhassen to put it bluntly. I don't even know the gentleman. Roman Roos - I think where it sits right now, the developer will have to go back and try to work out some of the problem areas that we have reiterated, whether they can be resolved on that parcel of land with that amount of land with those two buildings, I don't think so. I think it is going to require more land. Speaking,for myself, I don't feel that we need for greenway here than we have right now. Dick Matthews - Let.me make.myself clear with regard to the acquisition of that land, who pays for it. I agree with you and the Happy Chef people that it is not your responsibility to buy that land and donate it or the landowner donate it. If the city is serious about having that a green way a nice looking entrance then it is up to them to acquire the.land. If they are.not and they don't want to spend the money, then.it becomes a whole different matter. That's my.point. I am at a point where somebody has got to make a decision, are you willing to pay for.that to.keep it the way you want it or are you just throwing out a bunch of ideas? I am not asking anybody to give up or spend extra money for something that they are not going to be able to use. Mike Niemeyer - We.raised the same question about whether they could acquire land to the west and I believe that one of of the gentlemen,at our land meeting was the current owner of that land and he was strongly urging that we find some way that these two developers could work on this parcel because he felt that in moving their total situation west that his remaining parcel that was left would become more difficult to market. Roman Roos - I would like to see that drawing go back to HRA for all members to see. Planning Comrnissior 'flIeetin.g September 13, 1978- -7- Dick Matthews - I also would like to have their comments on whether they feel that they are willing to acquire. Mike Niemeyer - We have discussed whether we should acquire that. Would that be the best expenditures of whatever tax increment monies we may have.available to us or would it ,be reasonable to ..attempt to find a developer or that parcel that would be -able to maintain the green soft. -image. The ready. -buyer; willing seller concept of Happy Chef and Holiday Service -Station is currently available, something.that we have got to consider today so we then said alright, Are these two uses in their nature automobilerelated functions that we said we could accept and we said yes, then the question was -can-they jointly work on that piece of land and we said. possibly, if they can get an impact of green and we then began to recognize we didn't have to have the 300 feet necessarily but that the intensity of development of that landscaping would have to really be hipped up. It bridges on some of the oriental concepts of being able to take a very small piece and doing a fantastic landscaping job with it. Tim Stone - If it's going to go back to the HRA for all the members.to look at, I would ask the HRA tore -address the intensity issue not so much with an eye towards --increasing the size of the land but whether or.not it's possible to rearrange within the existing parcel -to accomplish what these gentlemen want to accomplish.__ It Dick Matthews moved to hold-.a.public..hearing.on October 11, 1978, to consider the resubdivision of this parcel of land to encompass the Happy Chef and Holiday Service Station and also a -public hearing to consider'a conditional use-permit.for the.outside display of items for retail sales: :The --developers will.meet with the HRA prior to th.e.public hearing. :Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. Tim Stone moved to table the request for a -variance to Ordinance 47K. Motion seconded by -Dick Matthews and --unanimously approved. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:--DAVID-ADAMS:..Mr.'Adams is -proposing to esta is -a plating aci ity.in.a-portion of the Hanus Building on West 78th Street. This activity will not increase any parking or traffic over the previous use. The Planner recommend the Planning Commission recommend the Council-approve.the-request-conditioned upon the applicant's ability to..furnish:proof of compliance to any State or Federal EPA or-PCA regulations regarding the control of these types of operations. Dick Matthews moved:to recommend the -Council grant a conditional use permit subject to_an_approval.letter from the State PCA. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher..and-unanimously approved. DAVIS/BLOOMBERG PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANS: The city has received a petition dated August: ,. 7 ec aration of opposition to entrances connecting to West 77th Street and Erie Avenue - petition cover letter, date August.31; 1978,•from Clark Horn and Curtis Robinson - letter dated August 29,.1978., to Planning Commission and City Council from Curtis Robinson. -an --undated petition from several residents on the east side of Lotus Lake and.aletter from.Mr. and Mrs.. Wes Arseth. Housing and Redevelopment Authority August 24, 1978 Chanhassen City Hall Tom Klingelhutz was appointed Temporary Chairman. A regular meeting of the Chanhassen Housing and Redevelopment .Authority was called to order by Temporary Chairman, Tom Klingelhutz a' 8:00 P.M. on August 24, 1978. The following members were present: Tom Klingelhutz John Pryzmus, and Mike Niemeyer. Absent was Bill Gullickson. The minutes of the August loth meeting were not available. The first item on the agenda was the continuation of thediscussion regarding development at the northwest corner of Highways 101 and 5. Jerry Jensen representing Holiday Stations and Dick Rice, Architect for Happy Chef individually described their developments. Both presented a desire to work with the city in arriving at an attractive gateway to Chanhassen. The following motion was made by Commissioner Niemeyer and seconded by Commissioner Pryzmus and unanimously approved: 1. It is the intent of the HRA that Chanhassen have soft or green entrances reflecting our agricultural environment and base. This can be accomplished either with a large (200 feet) sparsely landscaped area or a smaller (40 to 100 feet) intensly developed landscaped area. 2. The HRA recommends to the city council that they approve a waiver from the moratorium to these developers providing they prepare a joint document describing in detail; size, shape, material of all signs, buildings, paving areas, trash storage areas, property lines, highway edges, proposed contouring and landscaping. 3. The HRA further recommends that the Planning Commission and city council reduce the required parking for. these developments down to 13 stalls off the pumps for Holiday and a 4 or more reduction for Happy Chef - the intent of this is to provide more landscape space at the edges without going below the parking the developers claim they need. 4. In order to save time, the HRA recommends that the developers. present to the next group in the process, but that the HRA be represented at that meeting to assume conformity with the intent. 5. If these conditions cannot be met, then the moratorium not be waived until a satisfactory course of action can be found: The second item on the agenda was to accept unanimously Clifford Whitehill's application to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority dependent upon city council action. The city should thank Jerry Oltman for his application and strongly request he maintain it on file . for the next opening. :i CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVE*P.O BOX 1470CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8885 PLANNING REPORT DATE: July 11, 1978 TO: Planning Commission, Staff and Dick Rice FROM: Assistant City Planner, Bob Waibel SUBJ: Site Plan Review, Nappy Chef APPLICANT: Happy Chef Systems, Inc. PLANNING CASE: P-567 Pa4-4 -F-4 nn The petition before the Planning Commission is to consider for site plan review the proposed plans of Happy Chef Systems, Inc. to construct a restaurant. Background 1. Community Location: As shown in enclosure 1, the subject property is located on Lot 1, Block 2 of Frontier Development Park. 2. Existing Zoning: The subject property is presently zoned C-3, Service Commercial District. The property immediately north of the subject property is zoned I-1, Industrial District, and that to the south is zoned R-lA, Agricultural Residence District. 3. Utilities: Sanitary sewer and municipal water are presently available to the subject property. 4. Comprehensive Plan Proposals: a. Land Use: Pursuant to the adopted comprehensive guide plan, the subject property is to assume and maintain a industrial identity. Planner's Comments 1. Happy Chef is proposing to construct a 3,316 square foot restaurant facility on all but the northeast 1/3 of Lot 1, Block 2, Frontier Development Park. As shown in the attached site plan, Lot 1 is proposed to be split in use with a proposed Holiday Service Station. PLANNING REPORT Happy Chef Systems, -2- `lady 11, 1978 2. The applicant has -proposed 55 car parking spaces and 5 truck parking spaces. Ordinance 47 requires one space for eacli employee per shift and one space for each 3 seats in the dining area. The zoning ordinance requires that parking areas adjoining all other districts (not C-2 or C-3) shall not be located closer than 25 feet to the side or rear property line. This necessitates the applicant to revise the site plan to accomodate the 25 foot setback along the south and southeast property line. 3. The City currently has a sign easement at the southeasterly most portion of the subject property with -the application of the above stated parking requirements, the purpose of the sign easement should be intact. 4. The screening of the service area of the proposed facility should be further demonstrated by the applicant. 5. This plan with revisions and Planning Commission comments are scheduled for a Board of Adjustments and Appeals Hearing on July 18, 1978 for purposes of variance to the tax increment development project area. As you know the HRA concept plan shows this area to be open space. The Council shall receive input from the Planning Commission, HRA, Board of Adjustments and Appeals, the Sign Committee, and the CBD Committee. 6. There is indicated a flow through access between the Holiday proposal and that of the Happy Chef. This access does not appear on the plans submitted by the Holiday representations, and they have indicated no intention of using such an access. 7. Upon conferring with the other Staff, it has been determined that the tower like structure used for signage purposes be classified as a free standing sign because of its relative lack of integrity with the enclosing walls of the restaurant and absence of mechanical function, Section 4.03 (b) states that one free standing sign for each building frontage shall be permitted. The total area of each sign shall not exceed 80 square feet with a maximum height of 20 feet. Section 3.04 Ordinance 36 prohibits the use of chaser lights as indicated on the applicant's plans. 8. The plans submitted show the use of cedar siding as an expression of the western motiff concept of the CBD Ordinance. 9. A legal description of the proposed use split of Lot 1, Block 2, Frontier Development Park should be submitted to the Planning Office along with an escrow deposit in the amount of $350.00 to defray staff costs in processing this request, on or before July 17, 1978. Planner's Recommendation Although I have some reservations as to the appropriateness of the accomodations for semi trucks and the facing of the service entrance onto West 79th Street. I believe that with the modifications as mentioned in this report, the plans of Happy Chef will be consistent with Chanhassen's plans for zoning, land use, and utilities. PLANNING REPORT Happy' Chef 15y t;ejns; f 'TAq -3 - July 11, 1978 I recommend that the Planning Commission move to recommend that the City Council approve plans with the modifications as requested by the Planning Commission and other concerns of the HRA, Sign Committee and the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. OF 1.7 o Lake Lucy L PK OF take Ann OF PX C cc 'IF X x Lotus V ILI I OF I Lake OF ,PL LLLJ . . . . . . 24U pa C, " � I OF OF ET JM 80 LEVARD cZf. OF t: OF OF 9 OF b cc C; J�jc 10-A OF YOWE AfAPEC7 Y OF px Lake Susan Rice Marsh Lake OF OF OF OF OF OF I OF 34 a4= OR 34 OF LYMAN BOULEVARD OF OF J, j Lake Rile), OF CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVE*P.O. BOX 147*CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8885 PLANNING REPORT DATE: July 11, 1978 TO: Planning Commission, and Staff FROM: Assistant City Planner, Bob Waibel SUBJ: Site Plan Review, Erickson Petroleum Corporation APPLICANT: Erickson Petroleum Corporation PLANNING CASE: P-568 Petition The petition before the Planning Commission is to consider for site plan review the proposed plans of Erickson Petroleum Corporation to construct an automobile service station/store. Background 1. Community Location: As shown in enclosure 1, the subject property is located on Lot 1, Block 2 of Frontier Development Park. 2. Existing Zoning: The subject property is presently zoned C-3, Service Commercial District. The property immediately north of the subject property is zoned I-1, Industrial District, and that to the south is zoned R-lA, Agricultural Residence District. 3. Utilities: Sanitary sewer and municipal water are presently avail- able to the subject property. 4. Comprehensive Plan Proposals: a. Land Use: Pursuant to the adopted comprehensive guide plan,_ the subject property is to assume and maintain anindustrial identity. Planner's Comments 1. Erickson Petroleum is proposing to construct a 3,920 square foot combination automobile service station/store on the approximate northeasterly 1/3 of Lot 1, Block 2, Frontier Development Park. - Again, this is a part of a lot use split with.H.appy Chef Systems, Inc. Accompanying the proposed store are 21 proposed parking spaces and two refueling islands. Erickson Petroleum Cc -2- July 11, 1978 2. The provisions of Ordinance 47 parki'n.g requirements present a major problem with. this proposal.. The application of the.25 foot parking setback provision effectively eliminates-13 of the proposed 21 spaces-. This -particular lot is -a corner lot and subsequently has two front yards -which further reinforces -the need for the 25 foot parking setback. Before any further consideration for planning can be carried out, the applicant must arrange his plans- through the purchase of land or other means and meet the required number of parking spaces. At this point the plan can only be construed as an overdeveloped proposal until the required 19 parking spaces at the prescribed setbacks are included. The 3. The issue of signage is to be taken up by the Sign Committee, howeve it is feeling of this planner that the sign should be placed further from the city identification sign, and be reduced in height to 20 feet as per ordinance 36. 4. The Planning Commission should use its discretion in the plan compliance to western motiff,i.e. architectural treatment. Planner's Recommendation I recommend that a deadline be established, whereby Erickson Petroleum state its intentions or methods of resolution for that portion of lot 1 block 2, that they interid to be involved with, so as not to unduly delay the planning process of the Happy Chef proposal. The position should be taken by the Planning Commission that any and all action. taken by Erickson , should and will have major ramifications for the Happy Chef and the City of Chanhassen. Planning Commission 'Teeting July 12, 1978 -3- Jerry Neher - I think the ordinance the way it is set up right now is ridiculous. The $35.00 in my opinion is excessive. You are dealing with personal property. In 99% of the cases you are not dealing with real estate. I agree we have to have some sort of control and the ordinance should be aimed at that and not a catch-all. It could get us in the same bind that we who own recreational vehicles are in right now where somebody in the city all of a sudden wants to send out a blanket enforcement of the ordinance. When the thing was originally written as a complaint type of deal. Bob Waibel - I -would say that the three main reasons for dispute over the.-existance of these storage sheds seems to be either they become. to large for the portion of land that they are on, they obstruct visual distances or sites or they become unduly blemished. Maybe if we set criteria or standards those are the -things we should look at. Hud Hollenback moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews and unanimously approved. Hearing closed at 8:20 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING FRANK METZIG SUBDIVISION Roman Roos called the public hearing to order at 8:20 p.m. with the following, interested persons present: Mr. and Mrs. Frank Metzig,.64O0 Chanhassen Road Art Kerber, 511 Chan View The Assistant City Planner read the official notice as published in the Carver County Herald. The purpose of this hearing is to consider_'silbdividing a.350 x 211 foot parcel into three residential lots. -The property_'is-located at the southwest quadrant of Chanhassen Road and Pleasant View Road. The property is zoned R-1 and sanitary sewer and water are available. Jerry Neher moved to close the public. hearing. Motion seconded by Hud Hollenback and unanimously approved. Hearing. closed at 8:30 p.m. FRANK METZIG SUBDIVISION: Members noted that the Kartak property to the gout, could e landlocked for future development. Access could. be obtained through the Ecklund and Swedlund property. Hud Hollenback moved to recommend the Council approve the subdivision request for Mr.'Frank Metzig. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and unanimously approved. HAPPY CHEF SYSTEMS, INC. This restaurant is proposed for the western portion o Lot B ock 2, Frontier Development Park. The HRA Concept Plan shows this area to -be open space. -The Planning Commission has endorsed the HRA Concept Plan but has not received any further guidelines from the HRA. ERICKSON PETROLEUM CORPORATION - HOLIDAY SERVICE STATION: Jerry Jensen was present seeking approval to construct a service station on the eastern portion of Lot 1, Block 2, Frontier Development Park. The HRA Concept Plan shows this area to be open space. The HRA has not defined the size of the open space. Planning Commissior' 'eeting July 12, 1978 -4- Jerry Neher moved to table action on the Happy Chef and Erickson Petroleum and instruct staff to set up a meeting with the HRA, City Attorney, City Manager, -and Mayor Hobbs -at the earliest possible time. Motion seconded by Les Bridger and unanimously approved. Les Bridger-moved that the President of -the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce receive-a_copy of the Planning Commission agenda. Motion seconded by Dick -Matthews and unanimously approved. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Commission members noted that no progress has been made toward completion of the city comprehensive plan since the City Planner resigned-: Some of the funding of this project may have to be forfeited if some progress is not shown. . DISEASED TREE BURNING SITE - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE P IT: Hud Hollenback moved to hold a public hearing August 9, 1978, at�� p.m. to consider an -ordinance amendment and conditional use permit. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and unanimously approved. RESIGNATION: A letter of resignation was xeceived from Les Bridger as he is moving out of the City. The Assistant City Planner will advertise for a replacement and contact persons who had previously: applied DEAN DEGLER - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: Mr. Degler is seeking a conditional use permit to erect a singe aml y-home on his farm for his son. This is a father/son farming operation. Les Bridger moved to hold a public hearing August 9, 1978, at 8:15 p.m. to consider a conditional use permit. Motion -seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE•47STORAGE SHEDS IN R-1 DISTRICT: Members discussed the following. criteriafor staff to Judge -eacindividual application so the. -applicant does not have to go through the conditional use process-. Location - Back Yard. Rear of rear house line from side lot line to side.lot line: .Size -150 square feet maximum. Maximum height 8 feet. Material - Prefabricated metal or wood. State of Repair - Consistent with Ordinance 22. Visual— Consistent with Ordinance 22., Any storage shed not meeting the above requirements would go through the conditional use process. Dick Matthews moved to table action to.'receive an opinion from the City Attorney as to what procedure is needed to -implement these standards. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. Les Bridger moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews and unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Don Ashworth City r-tanager Housing and Redevelopment Authority Q September 28, 1978 Vic' SC tl Chanhassen City Ha n M u Y . 1 A regular meeting of the Chanhassen Housing and Redevelopment Authority was called to order on September 28, 1978, at 8:45 p.m. at City Hall. The following members were present:. Commissioners Niemeyer, Pryzmus and Whitehill. Absent were Commissioners Gullickson and Klingelhutz. City Manager, Don Ashworth was also present. The City Manager gave Mr. Whitehill the'"Oath of Office." 8:45 p.m. - Call to Order Commissioner Whitehill moved that Mike Niemeyer be Acting Chairman for this meeting. Motion seconded by Commissioner Pryzmus. Ayes - All. 9:00 p.m. - Building Moratorium Variance'Request - Holiday/Happy Chef, Review Pl:anriinq Commissions Action: The following persons were present: Richard Rice, Architect, Happy Chef; Robert L. Frederick, Vice President, Happy Chef; and Jerry Jensen, Holiday. Summarization of discussion was as follows: Commissioner Niemeyer presented action taken by the Planning Comission in referring items back to the HRA and previous HRA action. * Representatives of Holiday/Happy Chef presented a revised plan, considering landscape concepts. * Commission members noted that, in regards to the moratorium ordinance, that they could not speak to detail development plan items or whether such was in accordance with planning commission and city standards. Concern was reflected in regards to the type of plantings and parking area of Holiday adjacent to Great Plains Blvd. The developers noted their willingness to work with the commission on a specific development plan if the moratorium variance were granted. * Moved by Commissioner Whitehill to approve granting a moratorium variance to Holiday and Happy Chef as presented. Seconded by John Pryzmus. The following voted in favor: Commissioners Whitehill and Pryzmus, Voting against: Commissioner Niemeyer. Motion carried. A motion was made by Commissioner Pryzmus and seconded by Commissioner Whitehill to.approve the supplementary contract with BRW as per the memo of September 25, 1978. Ayes - All. Proposaltto :Iricre'ase 'Tax Increment District: The manager presented his report dated September 5, 1978, recommending that the-HRA consider expanding the existing Tax Increment District to encompasses those properties south of Highway 5 planned as business/commercial. After discussion, the commission acted to request this item be placed on the next agenda together with a report from the attorney's office regarding legality of such. The manager will also discuss this with representatives of BRW, if possible. Thelcommission acted to set their next meeting date as November 26, 1978. Don Ashworth, City Manager CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE OF HEARING STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) Don Ashworth , being first duly sworn, on oath deposes and says that he is and was on October 2 , 19 7 8 , the duly qualified and acting City Clerk -Administrator of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date he caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of hearing on a Happy Chef proposed conditional use permit in the City to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mails with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer of Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of Notary Public VO CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED CONDITION USE AND SUBDIVISION FOR NAPPY CHEFS SYSTEMS, INC. AND ERICKSON PETROLEUM CORPORATION. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Chanhassen will, meet on Wednesday, the llth day of October, 1978 at 8:15 p.m. at City Hall, 7610 Laredo Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota for the purpose of holding a public hearing to consider the conditional use permit subdivision proposed on the following described tract of .and: "Lot 1 Block 2, Frontier Development Park." A plan showing said conditional use and subdivision is available for inspection at City Hall. BY ORDER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Bob Waibel, Assistant City Planner (Publish in the Carver Co. Herald on September- 27, 1978.) 11 Happy Chef M. J. Ward Box 213 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen Legion Post 7995 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Anna Sinnen Box 21 Chanhassen, MN 55317 American Oil Company 4940 Viking Drive Minneapolis, MN 55435 Daniel Klingelhutz Rt. 2 Chaska, MN 55318 Franklin Kurvers 7220 Chanhassen Road Excelsior, MN 55331 I; Chicago, Milwaukee,- St. Paul & Pacific Railroad 3rd Ave. So & Washington' Minneapolis, p'IN G. Molnau 116 W. First St. Waconia, MN 55387 Strong & Towle, 320 Midland Bank Minneapolis, MN Leslie Renner 1200 Cargill Minneapolis, Inc. Buildini; 55401 Building' MN 55402 I Happy Chef Systems, Inc- Edward Howard 500 So. Front St. Rt.5 Box 6 5 Mankato, MN 56001 �� Excelsior, IIN 55331 Erickson Petroleum Corp —Clifford Woida 'Peu r j 6398 Murr-ly Hill Road Excelsior, MN 55331 t Phillip ' onthius kt obert Sommer P.H. i 2300 McTody Hill Road f Exce,lsibr, P?n 55331 F Joseph see f t.. 5 Box 7 C ' Elizabeth Sweiger Excelsior, 55331 ( 2300 Melody Hiil Road ( E celsior, fiMN 55331 r 4 Rob er t Amara 51'3 Elliot Ave. So. !°nneapolis, MN 55417 Richard McFarland Rt. 5 Box 65 P?r. Nikolai Excelsior, MN 55331 \2280 Melody Hill Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Walter* Cleveland Wallac 'Peterson 6261 Murray Hill Road Box 53 Excelsior, MN 55 31. Excelsio Mn 55331 I , � E. Wayne Fransdal George Baer. 6291 Cardinal Rt. 5 Box 96 \' Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, P?n 55331 /l ;Louis An Rt. 5 /' j I. & J. Reed Excelsior/` Rt . MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55 1 ' i F, f Mr. Ha gdahl ` t Gary Reed i At. 5 Rt. 5 Box 257—X Fxcel•5ior, MN 55331 ' Excelsior, MN 55331 j b i � � r iIEdg'r Graupmann i! Robert Reutiman 62JO Murray Hill Road ' Rt. 7 Box 496 Excelsior, NN 55331 Excelsior, r?n 5533 �, 1 � k / CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE AND SUBDIVISION FOR HAPPY CHEFS SYSTEMS, INC. AND ERICKSON PETROLEUM CORPORATION. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Char.hassen will meet o Wednesday, the 11th day of October, 1978 at 8:15 p.m, a City Hall, 7610 Laredo Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota for the purpose of holding a public hearing to consider the conditional use permit subdivision proposed on the following described tract of lend; "Lot 1 Block 2, Frontier Development Park." A plan showing said conditional . use and subdivision is available for inspection at City Hall. BY ORDER OF THE P'.ANNING COMMISSION Assistant (Publish in the Carver County Herald on September 27, 1978) Affidavit of Publication Sate of Minnesota ) ) ss. County of Carver ) William McGarry , being duly sworn on oath says he is and during all the time herein stated has been the publisher and printer of the newspaper known as Carver County Herald and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (1) Said newspaper is printed in the English language in newspaper format n column and sheet form equivalent in printed space to at least 900 square inches. (2) Said newspaper is a weekly a distributed at least once a week. (3) Said news paper has 50% of its news columns devoted to news of local interest .e community which it purports to serve and does not wholly duplicate any other publication and is not made up vly of patents, plate matter and advertisements. (4) Said newspaper Is circulated in and near the municipality which xports to serve, has at least 500 copies regularly delivered to paying subscribers, has an average of at least 75% of its 1 circulation currently paid or no more than three months in arrears and has entry as second-clawmatter in its local m0ce. (5) Said newspaper purports to serve the City of Chaska in the County of Carver and it has its known ce of issue in the City of Chaska in said county, established and open during its regular business hours for the t hering of news-, sale of advertisements and sale of subscriptions and maintained by the managing officer of said Aspaper, persons in its employ and subject to his direction and control during all such regular business hours and at ich said newspaper is printed. (6) Said newspaper files a copy of each issue immediately with the State Historical ciety. (7) Said newspaper has complied with all the foregoing conditions for at least one year preceding the day or dates publication mentioned below. (8) Said newspaper has filed with the Secretary of State of Minnesota prior to January 1, 38 and each January 1 thereafter an affidavit in the form prescribed by the Secretary of State and sighed by the Inaging officer of said newspaper and sworn to before a notary public stating that the newspaper is a legal newspaper. He further states on oath that the printed H e a r i n - hereto attached as a part .ereof was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published therein in the English language, once each week, for One }successive weeks; that it was first so published on Wed ._ the 2 7 t h day of c' e r t • 192�d was thereafter printed and published on every to and including the day of - 19— and that the following is a printed copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication of said notice, to wit: abcdefghijkhnnopgrstuvwayz Subscribed and sworn to before me this Jday of (Notarial Seal) LORRAINE LANO �3! I NOTARY PUBLIC — MINNESOTA CARVER COUNTY ,.+ My Comraission E-pues June 29, 1982 Notary public, (210� Countyr My Commission Eirpires 19 Housing and Redevelopment Authority September 28, 1978 Chanhassen City Ham... A regular meeting of the Chanhassen Housing and Redevelopment Authority was called to order on September 28, 1978, at 8:45 p.m. at City Hall. The following members were present: Commissioners Niemeyer, Pryzmus and Whitehill. Absent were Commissioners Gullickson and Kli ngelhutz. City Manager, Don Ashworth was also present. The City Manager gave Mr. Whitehill the"Oath of Office." 8:45 p.m. - Call to Order Commissioner Whitehill moved that Mike Niemeyer be Acting Chairman for this meeting. Motion seconded by Commissioner Pryzmus. Ayes*- All. 9:00 p.m. - Building Moratorium Variance Request - Holiday/Happy Chef, Review PlAnninq Commission Action: The following persons were present: Richard Rice, Architect, Happy Chef; Robert L. Frederick, Vice President, Happy Chef; and Jerry Jensen, Holiday. Summarization of discussion was as follows: * Commissioner Niemeyer presented action taken by the Planning Comission in referring items back to the HRA and previous HRA action. * Representatives of Holiday/Happy Chef presented a revised plan, considering landscape concepts. * Commission members noted that, in regards to the moratorium ordinance, that they could not speak to detail development plan items or whether such was in accordance with planning commission and city standards. Concern was reflected in regards to the type of plantings and parking area of Holiday adjacent to Great Plains Blvd. The developers noted their willingness to work with the commission on a specific development plan if the moratorium variance were granted. * Moved by Commissioner Whitehill to approve granting a moratorium variance to Holiday and Happy Chef as presented. Seconded by John Pryzmus. The following voted in favor: Commissioners Whitehill and Pryzmus, Voting against: Commissioner Niemeyer. Motion carried. A motion was made by Commissioner Pryzmus and seconded by Commissioner Whitehill to approve the supplementary contract with BRW as per the memo of September 25, 1978. Ayes - All. Proposal to :Increase Tax Increment District: The manager presented His report dated September 5, 1978, recommending that the HRA consider expanding the existing Tax Increment District to encompasses those properties south of Highway 5 planned as business/commercial. After discussion, the commission acted to request this item be placed on the next agenda together with a report from the attorney's office regarding legality of such. The manager will also discuss this with representatives of BRW, if possible. Theicommission acted to set their next meeting date as November 26, 1978. Don Ashworth, City Manager -61- SITE PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. SPR City of Chanhassen Carver and Hennepin Counties, Minnesota APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Date of Application Escrow Paid Date Received by Applicant Name: Happy Chef Restaurants Last First Initial Address: 500 South Front Mankato Minnesota 56001 Number and Street City State Zip Code Owner: Zamor Laurence N. Last First Initial Address: 170 Birch Bluff Rd. Excelsior Minnesota 55331 Number and Street City State Zip Address of property in question: Legal description of property in question: Part of Lot 1, Block 2 - Frontier Development Park, Carver County, Minnesota Present zoning of property: C-3 Present use of property: --- Proposed use of property: C-3 The following documents if appropriate shall be attached to this application: Date Received Initial 1. Site development plan 2. Escrow Deposited -62- I hereby declare that all statements made in this application and on the attached documents are true, and that I shall reimburse the City for all expenses incurred in processing this application for conditions use. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner Date Received by Title Date (Following to be completed by Zoning Administrator or City Official) CHRONOLOGY Date B A lication on Industrial Commission a enda Application on Planning Commission agenda Planning Commission postponed to Planning Commission action Application on Council Agenda Council postponed to Council Action Hscrow Returned Amount PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On this day of 19 , this site plan was recommended for (approval), (disapproval subject to the following conditions Chairman of Planning Commission .-. -63- Action by City On this day of , 19 , the Chanhassen City Council, Carver and Hennepin Counties, Min en rota (approved), (disapprove( this site plan subject to the following conditions: By order of the Chanhassen City Council Mayor Attest: City Administrator sC 7 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE OF HEARING STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) Donald Ashworth being first duly sworn, on oath deposes and says that he is and was on July. 6 19 78 the- duly qualified and acting City Clerk -Administrator of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date he caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of hearing on a construction of a restaurant and service station (Happy Chef & Holiday, Inc.) inthe City to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mails with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer of Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of = .. Notary Public CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE OF HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS An appeal has been filed with the.Zoning'Administrator for a variance of Zoning Ordinance No. 47.. The Board'of Adjustments and Appeals will conduct a hearing on, this appeal on:.Tuesddy, -July 18th' at 1 c:00 p.m. at 74510.' Laredo• -Drive. - City Hall All interested persons may appear and be heard at said tirte-and. place. APPLICANT: Happy Chef, Inc. & Holiday; -Inc. PLANS: Construction of a -restaurant and service station.on Lot`1 Block-2 of Frontier Development Park. The subject proposal requires a variance:. .to Ordinance 47K which prohibits construction -in the1H.R.A. tax increment district until December 31, 1978.- W Dick Pearson 7307 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, Mn. 55317 M. J. ward Box 213 Chanhassen, Mn. 55317 T. S. KUrVer$' 7220.' Ch6nhasseri Rd. Excelsior, Mn. 55331 American Oil 49_49.Viking Dr- Kplsl. , Mn 55435 AMericah Leglon' H119rhway- 5 and 1.61 Chanhass-en, Mn. 553.17 Mike '$..'Oreinaon' 760=6 Erie 'Avenue. Chanhassen, Mn. 55331 4 Ralph_ G. molnau IT 6. W. -1 s.t 5t . Waconi.a, Mn. 55387 t. $.trong Towle..' Inc., 329 Midland Bank'Bldg. bjpIsz. , Mn. 55401 Les -lie Renner 120G Cargill Bldg. Mpls., Mn. 55402 Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacif is R. R. 3rd Ave. S. & Washington Nplp., Mn. 55401 Dick Matthews 8017 Cheyenne Ave. Chanhassen, Mn. 55317 Willard Johhs-on 1660 W'. 63rcl St. Exc., Mn.. 55331 T Corp. S/W EASEMENT TIAS INSTRUMENT, lvlade this - -- day of -- --_--- _ -, 19 Z6 by and STRONG-TOWILE, INC. between ----------------- --------_-_ ------- - • a corporation organized and existing under the Iaws of the State of Minnesota, party of the first part, and the CITY OF CHANIiASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation, party of tiie second part; Ve,ITNESSETri, Tnat the said party of the first part, in consideration of One Dollar and other good and valuable consideration to it in hand paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, does hereby Grant, Baroaln, Sell, Convey and Warrant to said party of the second part, its successors and assigns, the perpetual right and easement to construct, maintain, operate and repair signs-.-- _ over, under and across the premises described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, ttx�tfit�sx�aixts�C�rx t7;3t�xx$�, and together with a perpetual easement for ingress and egress. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the said party of the first part has caused these presents to be duly - xecuted- as of the day and year first above written. In presence of: STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF } ss. STRONG-TOWLE, 11I-4 . _ By Its And Its On this -_-- day of 19-76 _, before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared _ and to me personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn, did say that the are res e tivel the and the of Sytrong-Towle, Inc. - -- --- the corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation, and that said instrurr:ent was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors and said _—_ _ and acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. Notary Public. A 6 t� ORDER NO. 9086 SCHOELL & MAOSON, INC. REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER MINN. NO. 2265 ENGINEERS 6 SURVEYORS SO. DAK. 755 SO NINTH AVENUE SOUTH WIS. NO. E-6176 HOPKINS. MINNESOTA 55343 FLORIDA NO. 6271 PHONE 93B-7901 NO. DAK. 623 MONT. NO. 1616-E IOWA NO. 5923 pQ�y ®`p}. S■M-'PT ■' TEXAS NO. 3565-3 �7 V CITY OF CHA^IHASSEiN CARLISLE MADMON REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR MINN. NO. 4374 SO. DAK. 791 WI4. NO. S•674 IOWA NO. 370S NO. DAK. 1106 MONT. NO. 1742-3 Pro:osed Si,n Easement across Lot 1, Block 2, Frontier Develo ment Park 6-10-76 An easement for sign purposes over and across that part of Lot 1, Block 2, Frontier Development Park, according to the recorded N 112, Sec. 13 plat thereof, described as follows: Commencing at the most southerly corner of said Lot 1; thence northeasterly, along the southeasterly line of said Lot 1, a distance of 20+0.00 feet to an angle point in said southeasterly line and the point of beginning of the easement to be described; thence on an assumed bearing of North 26 degrees 06 minutes 27 seconds East, along the southeasterly line of said Lot 1, a distance of 25.00 feet; thence North 63 degrees 53 minutes 33 seconds West a dis- tance of 20.00 feet; thence South 44 degrees 52 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 34.33 feet; thence South 25 degrees 58 minutes 52 seconds East a distance of 20.00 feet to the southeasterly line of said Lot 1; thence northeast- erly, along said southeasterly line, a distance of 25.00 feet to the point of beginning. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Scott A. Martin, Community DevelopmentDirector FROM: George Donnelly, Building Official " ", DATE: March 30, 1983 SUBJ: Prairie House Restaurant As per your request, please find attached a "Fee Disclosure" form for the proposed Prairie House Restaurant with pertinent numbers filled in. Development Review Escrow Account, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan Review Fees were supplied by Bob Waibel. GD:v cc: Bob Waibel, City Planner CITY OF � *z CHANHASSEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Bob Waibel, Planner DATE: April 2, 1981 SUBJ: Replat Request, Lots 2 & 3 Block 1, Zamor Addition APPLICANT: Cannonball Kitchens, Tri:_,. PLANNING CASE: P-567 In order to assure that all parties involved with this proposal have a clear understanding of its review status, I submit the following. The development at hand has been subject to conditional use permit, building moratorium variance, site plan reviews. The replat request at hand is quite separate from the items mentioned above with the exception that the site plan has been changed to include the 21 westerly, most parking spaces as shown in enclosures 2 and 3. The applicant, however, should be advised that before a building permit will be issued, a conditional use permit draft must be reviewed and approved by the city council and additionally, all the prior conditions set forth by the council in the site plan review must be satisfied. The currently proposed change has increased the total number of parking spaces from 66 to 81. Albeit that the city council in a site plan review of December 17th, 1979 felt that adequate parking would not be a problem, this office feels that this change will provide additional assurance that parking problems will be minimal or nonexistent and thus constitutes a significant improvement to the plan. Should the subject request be approved, the lot immediately west of the subject property would have approximately 210 feet of frontage on West 79th Street which should pose no difficulty to future development of said property. Recommendation I recommend that the city council approve the request as proposed. Additionally, since the request does parallel existing platted lot lines, the applicant should be allowed to exercise the option of conveying the additional property through a metes and bounds lot split. Page -2- Applicant should be advised that since the site plan review, the city has developed plans to achieve uniform street and site lighting utilizing shielded amber sodium fixtures. Thus the applicant should incorporate this concept into his final construction plans. P.S. The secretarial service that transcribed the public hearing minutes indicated, and as evidenced in the minutes themselves, that there was considerable interference on the tape. ' However, the Planning Commission moved to approve the subject request as proposed. MINUTES OF THE CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 25, 1981 at 7:30 p.m. Members Present: J. Thompson, Ladd Conrad, Carol Watson, Art Partridge, W. Thompson, Howard Nozistia Members Absent: None The Chairman stated that the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for April 1, 1981 is cancelled. He also urged Commissioner's attendance at next week's Solid Waste Committee meeting at the Court House. Agenda Item #1: Public Hearing - Zamor Addition Replat B. Waibel Report - The Planning Commission did approve a site plan for Cannon- ball Kitchens to construct a resturant on the property approximately a year ago. The facilities showed an arrangement for parking. Since that time they have proposed to add additional parking space. Ordinance 47 requires that there be a 24 tier aisle width behind 90 degree parking. They were short 5 feet of land to do this. and still maintain a 5 foot buffer from each side. At the request of staff and Planning. Commission they had submitted a plan to replat and the public hearing has not been held until this time because the applicant had not provided a certain document until recently. I think it is an overall improvement in the plan and I recommend the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the replat as requested with the condition does not exceed the capacity of 225 Also the applicant should be advised since the state plan reviewed the city has developed plans to achieve uniform street and site lighting throughout varies commercial and industrial portions of the community utilizing shielded amber sodium fixtures. The applicant should incorporate this concept into his site plan. If agreeable to the applicant and the City Attorney that they might accomplish the replat through a simple It is another way of saying they have an additional 5 feet of land. I don't see where we could limit capacity. Council Meeting December 17, 1979 -2- Counci 1 man Pearson moved to note the December 11 , 1979`,, Park --and Recreation - - Commission minutes,.- Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative"votes-:­�'- Mot ion carried: COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PARK -ORDINANCE: Several members of -the ::Park and Recreation Commission and businessmen were present. -The business"commun-ity has asked the - Council to reconsider -the park ordinance and suggested a fee of $750 per acre. Park and Recreation Commission members presented a proposed o-rdi.nance amendment in the amount, of $875'per net developable -acre: Councilman Neveauxmoved to reconsider the­Commercial/Industrial Park Ordinance. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen -Pearson;'Neveaux­ Geving, and 'Swenson-. No negative votes: Motion carried. - Councilman Pearson moved to set 'the park dedication -fee'at $875.00 for commercial/ industrial property.- Motion seconded by Councilman Swenson.. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Geving, and Swenson. Councilman Neveaux voted no. Motion carried. - Councilman Geving moved to place the- Commercial/Industrial-Park°Charge Ordinance - on first reading.- Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted.in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. Staff will clarify 4.09- (4).. 'i. FINALIZATION -OF PLATTING REOUIREMENTS'AND%OR PARK'CREDITS "CHANHASSEPd LAKES BUSINESS PARK:' 1r. Dunn is requesting that the -Council `determine- whether' the -public dedication previously given by him'within-th'e busin-ess-park-is -accepted -as meeting. requirements of -the park -dedication 'ordinance.- The Park and -Recreation, Commission - recommended acceptance of -the dedi-cation of Outlots- J -"H E," C, `-and"B, -in' Chanhassen Lakes Business Park except the west-333 feet of Outlot B and adding a trail segment on the east and north line of Lot 1, Block 3 and a temporary trail easement on the east line of Lot- l; Block 5. This- represents a total of -46- acres. - - Staff recommended a 50% reduction in -the park charge as ..a_ credit -for the park land. Councilman Neveaux moved .to table action until- a'meeti g'in Januarji arid-`instrcrct = ` staff -to .set- up :_a -dour -far __ be:.Couh=cil.and The Park an•d Recreation Commission will prepare suggested -percentages for Council- consideration: Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes-. Motion carried. GEORGE WAY ESCROW ACCOUNT: Louis Zakariasen was present ,representing.Mr.-Way, questioning a bill Mr. Way received from the City for costs incurred in subdividing his property. This- item-wi,il,-be an ­ agenda item -on January 7; .1980. ` - DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLANS; HRA:- C1'iff Whitehill, Jim Bohn; Mike Niemeyer,. and Bill Gullickson of the HRA, Bill McRostie and Herb Bloomberg- of -Bloomberg 'Compani6s-,­ Jerry Korsunsky-, Architect, and Dennis Spalla, Kraus -Anderson were present. Dennis Spalla and. Bill McRostie presented redevelopment plans for the downtown area. No action was taken: SITE PLAN REVIEW AND BUILDING MORATORIUM VARIANCE CONSIDERATION`; ' CAI�FNOMBALL KITCHENS: The applicant is proposing to` construct an approximate 210 person capacity restaurant/ banquet facility on Lot 2, Block 1, Zamor Addition. The Planning Commission recommended the Council approve the site plan as presented with the understanding Council Meeting Decemb 17, 1979 -3- that the banquet facility will be self-limiting and not continuously pose a problem with the number of parking spaces available.-- The Planning -Commission re commended the following conditions: 1. That the perimeter of all maneuvering- and -parking areas 'be lined with concrete curb. 2. That the City Engineer approve the -grading, drainage, -utility,- lighting, and parking subsurface preparation plans. 3. That the proposed signage--be- reviewed -by- the -Sigr Committee -and approved- by the City Council. 4. That the final plans include the landsc-ape'recommendations"of the H RA.-" Councilman Swenson moved to accept the recommendation of the'Planning Commission incorporating the four items-. so listed and -approve the site plan' as -shown on -Exhibit A dated December.17, 1979, for the Cannonball Restaurant. .Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving and Swenson.: No negative.votes. Motion carried. Staff will prepare a conditional use, permit `for a January Council -Agenda. RECONSIDER..DELETION OF MAINTENANCE, POWERS BLVD. NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL: Mr. Frank Fox presented a petition signed by abutting property owners requesting the City continue maintenance on the road. Councilman Geving moved that on the basis that this road no longer serves a public function the Council determines to discontinue- mainten°ance-of-Powers-'Blvd. north of Pioneer Trail. Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. RECONSIDER DELETION OF MAINTENANCE, WEST 86TH STREET: Al Klingelhutz was present requesting the Council reconsider the maintenance of West 86th Street. No action was taken. BILLS: Councilman Pearson -moved to approve the bills as presented, checks #11316 through 011362 in the amount of $14,207.52, checks #11247 through #11315 in the amount -- of $1,086,522. 35, and checks-47986 through #8054- -in- the -amount of ` $27Y,195.45. _,. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson;"°Neveaux, Geving, 'and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT: Councilman Swenson moved to atcept the recommendation of the -Planning Commission and appoint Arthur, Partridge to fi11 the position vacated by Pat Swenson. Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. LAND PURCHASE AGREEMENT - CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK: A closing date will be set when soil tests have been completed, the title is cleared and the resolution of a snowfende -easement., No action"was taken:' NORTHERN CONTRACTING COMPANY ;'ARBITRATION` AWARD: 'Councilman Pearson moved to -pay-. Northern Contracting Company .fl 5,476.18. Motion'seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson.---No-negative votes. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Hobbs -'asked if -any--council member wished to discuss any items on the consent agenda. Item a. Budget Adjustment - Fire Department and Item e. Street Light Standards, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park were removed from the consent agenda. LA Ke LUCY 1 r T 9 A Ro w u iJ { � I \ LAKE ANN c , 0 0 o z ' J SAHTA•V 4 r L z E 4 I � WES o a U 1 w I � ^NTY ROAD ULEVAR N .j 16 WEST 8 PARR !I CT. 49 P A R� aD ppCIF ea — � SrA7E HIGHWAY 9 QD'J\•� C.�' I L F ORIVE AXE CIR. - DRIVE LAKE SUSAN 66 TH ST I PpYD II a v 0 1 >` r 0 I f i 'ONSET TRAIL t LYMA 1 BOULEVARD 231 t j � { 1 t t� I I s' y C TAW Z 6800 C, L 0 %Us 6900 j R HOO _ -7000 3 - s 7200 LAKE w r —7300 T� - a 9tltAHi+ l —7400 0 0 0 2 f C, — 0 .7500 T. �I ut-7600 w — En TT � LIL1rU ST. II '/ Q ={Z=7700 / {Q U ul I'14 ----7800 p O I I `' -7 3 7900 U o o 0 0 I 8000 5 —8100 m m 3 —e200 3- T y R/CE MARSH LAKE '. t E I Sao 8900 �hU\J _9000 4 t r 9{Oo J { 9200 4 • / LAKE 9300 RILEY �'JtJC LOSC>�P� r Z 9400 All I CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 November 5, 1981 Mr. Larry Zamor c/o Lawrence Land Company 6509 Walker Minneapolis., MN Dear Larry: Attached please find the inquiry of November 3, 1981 from Craig Mertz to myself, regarding the Cannonball Kitchen Conditional Use Permit. In response to Mr. Mertz, I am recommending that the matter be put on hold until such time as I am notified that development is imminent. Please notify me if you have any comments regarding the above or the attached. Sincerely, Bob Waibel City Planner BW :bf CC: Craig Mertz, Assistant City Attorney Scott A. Martin, Community Development Director Enclosure RUSSELL H. LARSON CRAIG M. MERTZ OF COUNSEL HARVEY E. SKAAR MARK C. MCCULLOUG:-i Bob Waibel Land Use Coordinator Box 147 Chanhassen MN 55317 Dear Bob: LARSON & MERTZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1900 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 November 3, 1981 Re: Cannonball Kitchen TELEPHONE (5.2) 333-I5 II Progress in the Cannonball Kitchen development appears to have stalled. Should this office proceed with the preparation of the conditional use permit? Or should we put this matter on "hold" until such time as the developer notifies you that he is ready to proceed with carrying out the construction? If we are to proceed with preparation of the permit, I recommer-d that an escrow of $500 be established for legal expenses. CMM:ner Very truly yours, CRAIG M. MERTZ Assistant Chanhassen City Attorney CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED NOV = 1981 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 PLANNING REPORT DATE: March 20, 1981 TO: Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Bob Waibel, Planner SUBJ: Replat Request, Lot 2 and 3, Block 1, Zamor Addition APPLICANT: Cannonball Kitchens, Inc. PLANNING CASE: P-567 Petition The applicant is requesting to replat the western property line of the subject property in order to expand for additional parking spaces for the design capacity of the proposed Cannonball Kitchen Restaurant to be located on Lot 2 of the Zamor Addition. Backaround 1. Community Location: As shown in enclosure 1, the subject property is located approximately 600 feet west of the intersection of Great Plains Blvd. and West 79th St. on the south side of West 79th St. 2. Existing Zoning: The subject property is presently zoned CBD, Central Business District. 3. Utilities: Sanitary sewer and municipal water are presently available to the subject property. ('nmmonf c As shown in the attached planning materials, applicant had gone through sketch plan review for the subject replat approximately one year ago. For certain reasons, the applicant had not submitted necessary documentation for this public hearing ordered by the planning commission until recently. As brought forth in the April 16th, 1980 planning report, this replat is to provide an extra four feet along the westerly property line for the westerly most parking spaces. - Zoning Ordinance 47 requires that a 24 foot clear aisle width for 901 parking wherein the previous plan indicated 20 feet. (Reference enclosures #2 and 3). . Planning Report — March 20, 1981 Recommendation I recommend that the planning commission recommend that the city council approve the replat as requested with the condition that the proposed facility not exceed a capacity of 225 persons. The applicant should be advised that since the site plan review, the city has developed . plans to achieve uniform street and site lighting utilizing shielded amber. sodium fixtures. Thus the applicant should incorporate this concept into his site plan. I A 0 pr R 0 tit CA 104 t2 a. PC V ps on IV ;s 0 4-6 0 LAI lk let �'f IN, .0 -hr _5 TA- TE HIGH W4 /01 fvc6m c2 CONDlITIO114AL USE PERMIT REQUEST, 421 W. 78th St. Planning Case: P-673 Applicant: John Przymus Bob Waibel reported on the recreational/amusement center and. equipment proposed and gave his concerns and recommendations. John Przymus explained his intenions in regards to the parking, use by minors, and general use of the proposed center. Discussion on parking for general usage and handicapped, along with -the need for public hearing. Art.Partridge moved, Bill Johnson second, that a. public hearing be held after the Assistant City Manager /Land Use Coordinator is satisfied that all the requirements have been met concerning requested documentation. Motion carried.. REPLAT REQUEST, .LOTS 2 & 3, BLOCK 1, ZAMOR ADDITION Planning Case: .Applicant �Cannonball.Kitchen,.Inc. Bob-..Waibel gave his comments and recommendations on the request to acquire more land for additional parking spaces. Jim Thompson moved, Art Partridge second, to submit this request for public hearing on the additional 44 feet contingent upon Mr. Waibel's recommendations. Motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR DISEASED -TREE UTILIZATION SITE Planning Case: P-674 Applicant: Earl Holasek. Bob Waibel gave a report .on the amendment and request. He addressed his comments and recommendations. Pollution from burning, regulations .on usage of site, methods of debarking and the capacity of the operation was discussed. Bill Johnson moved, Art Partridge second, that a public hearing be ordered when P,Ir. Waibel has sufficient information and documentation on the proposal. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Bill Johnson moved, Walter Thompson second, to approve the March 26, 1980 Public Hearing Minutes. Motion carried. ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS Bob Waibel reported on the 1980 organizational items as follows The Planning Commission replacements for Roman Roos; Tom Droegemueller, and Jack Bell are William Johnson, James Thompson,and Michael Thompson respectively. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVEOP.O BOX 1470CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8886 RT TO: Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Land Use Coordinator, Bob Waibel DATE: April 16, 1980 SUBJ: Replat Request, Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Zamor Addition APPLICANT: Cannon Ball Kitchens, Inc. PLANNING CASE: P-567 Dcf-i+h- ,n The applicant is requesting to replat the western property line of the subject property in order to expand for additional parking spaces for the design capacity of the proposed restaurant. Comments Specifically, the replat for expansion consists of extending the existing property line 40 feet to the west wherein an additional 21 parking spaces are proposed bringing the total parking up to 82 cars. As brought out in the Planning report of December 12, 1979, to the City Council on the subject proposal brought up for initial approval by the City Council, there was a deficiency in the number of parking spaces allocated relative to the capacity of the restaurant at approximately 210 persons. The addition of the 21 spaces as shown in the attached exhibit, would bring the overall capacity of the restaurant to approximately 225 persons which leaves 7 parking spaces for employees. Recommendation This office whole-heartedly supports the applicant's proposal to acquire more land to assure the parking needs are adequate and thus recommend that the Planning Commission order a public hearing to consider the replat request conditioned upon: 1. That the applicant submit a public hearing exhibit plan showing an additional 4 feet of acquisition to the west in order to comply with the ordinance standard of 24 feet of clear aisle width for 901 parking areas. 2. That the restaurant facility not exceed a capacity of 225 persons. 3. That the applicant post the necessary escrows with the City treasurer to defray staff costs in processing this application. ow N 1sa3473 tab tp -a +• \ 5o'G��T mJ N 0 f d0 r ;I D I+ ! J. C A < If CANNIONbALL KI I CH 'I-:7N T STA.T� 'E•� 1Ce c-+4JAY :� � 5 I�ND 57Ai =�, H xKIGHw4`s. N� ioi �HANHASS��•1 � NllNt� CA:> abALL ►:!-cCH �� xN-TL.� INC. - ST CLOOD, MINN. (8581 Official Publication) CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR A REPLAT REQUEST FOR CANNONBALL KITCHENS, INC., CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN That the Planning Commission of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota will meet on Wednesday, the 25th day of March, 1981 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall, 7610 Laredo Drive for the purpose of holding a public hearing to con- sider the replat of the property known and describ- ed as Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 of Zamor Addition for two commercial building sites. All persons interested may appear and be heard at said time and place. A plan depicting said proposed replat, is available for inspection at City Hall. BY ORDER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Byb Waibel, Land Use Coordinator (Pub. Carver County Herald March 4, 1981) Affidavit of Publication Sate of Minnesota ) ) ss. County of Carver ) Stan ftol_isrud all the time herein stated has been the publisher and �� duly Worn, on oath says he is and during knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (1) Said new of the newspaper known n Carver County Herald and has full newspaper is printed in the English language in newspaper format and in column and sheet form equivalent in printed space to at least 900 square inches. (2) Said newspaper is a weekly and is distributed at least once a week. (3) Said news paper has 50% of its news columns devoted to news of local interest to the community which it purports to serve and does not wholly duplicate any other publication and is not made up entirely of patents, plate matter and advertisements. (4) Said newspaper is circulated in and near the municipality which it purports to serve, has at least 500 copies regularly delivered to paying subscribers, has an average of at least 75% of its total circulation currently paid or no more than three months in arrears and has entry as second-class matter in its local post -office. (5) Said newspaper purports to serve the City of Chaska in the County of Carver and it has its known office of issue in the City of Chaska in said county, established and open during its regular business hours for the gathering of news, sale of advertisements and sale of subscriptions and maintained by the managing officer of said newspaper, persons in its employ and subject to his direction and control during all such regular business hours and at which said newspaper is printed. (6) Said newspaper files a copy of each issue immediately with the State Historical Society. (7) Said newspaper has complied with all the foregoing conditions for at least one year preceding the day or dates of publication mentioned below. (8) Said newspaper has filed with the Secretary of State of Minnesota prior to January 1, 1966 and each January 1 thereafter an affidavit in the form prescribed by the Secretary of State and signed by the managing officer of said newspaper and sworn to before a notary public stating that the newspaper is a legal newspaper. He further states on oath that the printed_ Le g-a.1 # 85 81 hereto attached as a part hereof was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published thereip in tk�e English langUN once each week, for successive weeks; that it was first so published on Ir eC1 the (� Il day of MA__?^-yyh19Abnd was thereafter printed and published on every Wed11P.S�to and including the t�8ay of March MAIM that the following is a printed copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication of said notice, to wit: abcdefghi jklmnopgrstuvwxyz Subscribed and sworn to before me this /__vl y of 19 CYNTHIA A. NOLOEN nE ARY PUBIC - MINNESOTA ARVER COUNTYssmmission axpoos Oct. 28. 195� Notary public, ` - County, Minnesota My Commission Expires _ 19/' 6SELL H. LARSON GRAIG M. MERTZ OF COUNSEL HARVEY E. SKAAR MARK C. McCULLOUGH Bob Waibel Assistant City Box 147 Chanhassen MN Dear Bob: LARSON & MERTZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1900 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 January 17, 1980 Manager 55317 Re: Cannonball Restaurant TELEPHONE (612) 335-9S65 On December 17, 1979 the City Council acted to approve the substitution of Cannonball Restaurant for Happy Chef Systems, Inc. on Lot 2, Block 1, Zamor Addition. Mr. Lee has asked me to temporarily defer the preparation of the conditional use permit and other documents necessary to wind up the tax increment aspects of the project. Apparently the developers wish to have further discussion among themselves as to which of their interrelated corporations will actually be the permitee. In any event, when the draft of the conditional use permit is finally tendered to the City Council for approval,the following items should also be submitted to the City Council as action items: 1. Ordinance 47-K Variance 2. Approval of sign plan, if any 3. Approval of substitution of Cannonball Restaurant for Happy Chef Systems, Inc. in'. the previously approved project for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Zamor Addition. Very truly yours, L CRAIG M. MERTZ Assistant City Attorney CMM:ner cc Don Ashworth CITY Or 7610 LAREDO DR1VEeP.O. BOX 147*CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8885 January 10, 1980 Mr. Alan Rothe 750 Vogelsburg Trail Chaska, MN 55318 Dear Mr. Rothe: During City Council discussion of the Schoen variance request it was noted that in addition to your driveway connecting to Vogelsburg Trail, you have additionally constructed a driveway accessing directly to Highway 101.. As a part of the City Council's approval of the original plat for this area., the City Council was deeply concerned with the potential traffic hazards associated with connections to Highway 101 and. li-iited such connections to Vogelsburg Trail only. This letter is to notify you that the construction of the driveway, on your property, connecting directly to Highway 101 is illegal and must be removed. If you desire, this item will be placed on a City Council agenda to appeal this notice. Should you fail to remove the driveway or fail to appeal this notice to the City Council, this notice will be forwarded to'the City Attorney's office for prosecution. Should you. have -,-any. questions, please feel free to: contact me. Sincerely, / Bob Waibel Land Use Coordinator CITY OF CHANHAS:SER 7610 LAREDO DRIVE&P.O BOX 147*CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8885 February 15, 1980 Mr. Allen Rothe 750 Vogelsburg Trail Chaska, MN 55318 Dear Mr. Rothe: I was unable to schedule your driveway connection as a part of the Chanhassen City Council action for. February 18, 1980. I will place this item on the March 3, 1980,-City Council agenda, unless I hear from you to the contrary. Please notify me if you will be unable to attend on March 3rd. Sincer yy Don Ashworth City Manager ;7 4 C 17 0 X� 9�e 0 -AV ............. s, 7— Y Cashier's Check BANCQ T 206201 NOMMESTERN Northwestern National Bank West Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 BMK 75-161 ALUm Rothe 9-10 Remitter Date_ Pay A: 11141jr.1010 k 1! ".1 To The Comodsaloner Of. Transportation Order of NOT NEGOTIABLE An Authorized Signature 100 16 101: 11 rm 73 Li r, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS - APPLICATION FOR ACCFQP, DRIVEWAY PERMIT Section Hwy. �JlQVJ // NotrlC'— q Neormit Print or type application. Fill out 3 copies, sign and mail to Minnesota Department of Highways. ATTACH TO ALL 3 COPIES, A SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY, PRESENT AND PROPOSED DRIVEWAYS AND RELATION TO TRUNK HIGHWAY, SUCH SKETCHES SHALL BE DRAWN TO SCALE WHEN REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEER. T.H. I [lI in L ,;7j�j�c%y` County Yq MileAD-S—E—Wof 1J.2 ar� Purpose of Driveway Residence 1.Is ❑ Commercial (Specify Type) a Building to No be Constructed Yes (Type) Will the Building be ❑Temporary or IC �ermanent Property I is in 1� :Platted or -- ❑ Unplatted Area Distance from center of highway to front of building, or front of pump island is feet. Land is higher? Show feet & inches lower?'=' ' ` '10 Level with highway No. of Present Driveway to Property I Date DrivewayJ is needed Give Exact Location of Proposed Driveway to Property 150CI EatC CC,� ?i' �p�.,�: l.e.' D.r: T. �lif Give Exact Location of Present ) b Driveway to Property / THIS PERMIT IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.) The applicant is subject to compliance with the -rules and regulations of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Council and any other affected governmental agencies. 2.) Provided the access can be constructed without interference with or removal of State Highway signs and markings. 3.) The applicant shall maintain the access from the shoulder of Trunk Highway 101 to his property line. 4.).The access is approved for one-way "Exit Only" traffic. The location of the access is approved.as shown on the attached drawing. The dimensions of the access are approved as shown on the State's attached driveway construction form. 5.) The access shall be bituminous surfaced within the State's.Right-of-Way. All bituminous surfacing shall extend'to and match the existing bituminous roadway. 6.) The attached "Special Provisions" shall be a part of this permit. 7.) The applicant or his contractor shall notify Mr. Gordon McKinnon at 545--3761, one week before starting work so State inspection may be arranged. 8.) The applicant has furnished the. State with $100.00 surety. All work to be completed / 4 ! � State to furnish�� x culvert and aprons. After Permit is approved: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS ❑_ White to Applicant EJ Pink to Dist. Maint. Office Q % ❑ Green to Mvnicipality or Sec. Crew /� /✓ / ' / �%- Date " 101 3 I,y We, the undersigned, herewith make application for permission to construct the access driveway at the above location, said driveway to be constructed to conform with the regulations of the Minnesota Department of Highways and to any special provisions included in the permit. It is agreed that all work will -be done to the satisfaction of the Minnesota Department of Highways. It. is further agreed that no work in connection with this application will be started until: .the application is approved and the permit- issued: It is expressly understood that this permit is conditioned upon replacement or restoration of'the trunk high- way to its original or to a satisfactory condition. It is further understood.that this permit is issued subject to the approval of local city, village or borough:. authorities having joint supervision over said street orhighway. And subject to the applicant's compliance with the rules and regulations of the Minnesota-, Evironmentai Quality Council, and any other. affected governmental agencies. ; go /179 Date- DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE SigrVatureofApplicant - <w ACCESS DRIVEWAY -OR ---ENTRANCE PERMIT } NOT VALID UNLESS SIGNED AND NUMBERED. Cashier's Check No-. 62110 f Or certified Check No No Deposit Required- A deposit of $ ZOO . � , payable to the Commissioner of Highways, in the form of a Certified or Cashier's Check, shall accompany the application.. This Deposit Made by - t t /,Z= For NAME ADDRESS District Deposit will be returned to applicant upon completion of item 5 (reverse side.) Use Only Special Provisions: ' *` `GENERAL INFORMATION- t To minimize site plan changes," it is desirable that preliminary driveway layouts nor proposed driveways at commercial sites be submitted by the applicant to the District Engineer prior to making the permit application. By this means, con- struction and maintenance plans for the portion of the trunk highway under consideration may suggest alternate or improved methods or standards of construction or reconstruction to the property owner and/or lessee. Commercial and industrial driveways should generally be wide enough for two-way operation on two-way streets. The use of design vehicle templates to check the plan layout is recommended. The driveway dimensions listed in Table I, .__Highway Regulation 36 should .generally be adequate, but variations in. width of the. buffer area, driveway angle, radii„ and _ site characteristics suggest -that careful attention be"given to selecting the correct combination of dimensions for the specific site., Inadequate width is hazardous to vehicular traffic, and excessive width is hazardous_to_pedestrian traffic. z Generally, near left and near right corner driveways should be opposite each other. Where property corners on opposite, sides of the street are located such that the corresponding corner driveways would not "be located directly opposite each other (skewed intersections and/or varving R/W widths), the near right side property corner should' be used.for locating both driveways. ____ REQUIREMENTS. 1. No work under this application is to_be started until application is approved and the permit, issued. 2. Where work, on travelled roadway is necessary, traffic must.be protected, and.flags, flares and proper -barricades-must - r_- be placed in accordance with the standards -of the Minnesota Department of Highways. 3. No foreign material such as dirt, gravel, or bituminous material shall be left or deposited on the road -during the con struction..of-driveway or. -installation. of drainage. facilities. ___ _._.__ ___ . - �•=^4x :: - �.: 46.. Roadside. must be cleaned up after work-is_completed. 5.-. After driveway: construction -is completed.the'permittee shall --notify-* the. District Office that "the- work has been completed and is ready for -final inspection; and -approval by the Minnesota Department of Highways 6. No changes or alterations in entrances may be made at any time without written permission from the Minnesota Depart__- ment of Highways.., " - 7. Driveway fill- slopes shall be:constructed 6:1 (6' horizontal to 1' vertical) where existing road side slopes art- 4:1 or-"` better and shall be hand finished and seeded. 8. Driveways shall be so constructed as to slope down and away from the shoulder line of the Trunk Highway for a distance of at least 15 feet with a fall of at least 3 inches. - Permission is hereby granted"for the construction of the driveway as described in the above application, said drive -- way to be constructed in accordance with 4IINNESOTA REGULATION HIGHWAY 36 and subject to the above requirements and the special provisions. If the work is not completed by date given'on-'this application, then the cost of completing unfinished construction by State forces may be deducted from required deposit. In the event that the construction has not been started by this date, this permit becomes null and void and deposit refunded. a a 7-1 N !�l n. U a� (3, t� t-s U ►� t [] N ►. ] 0 > U, H x A E is to U-1 U-1 }1 r .Z x. :} u F-i V) H -,- U • H a L� i-- Y Cl t=: W � X f a { fs E- l O [ U E- r Li _ _Q cn ��o u rl /� t-i • -i N � r t2 ^U Q fr to to N iu ir H t'] E e C E� 4J v U ,1 fif Ql }•{ i ,I11 l 1 1 1 SPECM PROVISIONS The pektfiit will state whether the State or the applicant shall furni-ah a culvert, and also the required size and length. The culvert shall be placed in the center of the ditch bottom with the aprons,. -attached, if required, and properly centered at the location of the approved access. The culvert shall, have a_minimum o;E two (2) inches fall for drainage. After the culvert has been properly.placed, sand and gravel material, free from large rpcks and bould- ers, shall be placed in the highway ditch over the cul- vert. Road approaches shall drain away from the highway shoulder for a distance of twenty --five (25) feet with a fall of six (6) inches. Agricultural and other entrances shall drain away from the highway shoulder for a dis- tance of.fifteen (15) feet with a fall of six (6) inches. 2. Unless otheniise stated on the permit application, the driveway shall be surfaced with a mini►num of two (2) inches of 3/4 inch crushed or screened gravel, spread evenly over the entire surface of the driveway after which it shall be compacted. 3. The Aide slopes of the driveway shall be constructed on a- At--AIope-U feet horizontal to 1 foot verEicle) . A "minimum of three (3) inr-hes of topsoil shall be placed unifbrmly over both side slopes for the full width of the State's Right of Way and seeded or sodded according to number 4. 4. Qi.aht of ylav Restoration Disturbed grass ar-eas shall be resotored as follows: A. A miru.,,r of three (3) inches of topsoil shall be unifor-mly spread over disturbed areas and properly compacted. 8. Between JAp_it I -Tune 10and July 20 - Sep-- ter,ber 15 he applicant may use a seed.:mix- turo as de.x---ibed below: In Urban Areas In Rural Areas Specification-3876 = Specification-3876 Class 5 Class 7 405a -Park Ke^t'� �rl. B'' e.. 20�a - Timothy .. grass 42.9% - Smooth Bromegrass 14 . - Smooth Brune. • ;, .. grass ._ 28.6�5 - Perennial Ryegrass 6;; - Red Top 8.5i5 - Birdsfoot Trefoil, SOA - Ti-othy Empire 20% - Perennial ''re- Rate of application at least 35 lbs. per acre,. 6% - Mute Clover 6;S - Birdsfoot Trefoil, Empire Rate of application at least 50 lbs. per acre. Sheet 1 of 2 C. _The a�1icant May sod the distrubed grass areas, .only when the ground is not frozen. Sod shall consist of primarily bluegrass, free, of nox- ious weeds, substantially free of other weeds, iindesirable grasses and foreign matter. Binh the beedbed and the sodbed shall be maintain the applicant until the grass i� s 1.,;e1-1 established. .. D. D. The applicant shall obtain written permission from the Minnesota Departrenk of Transportation to remove shrubbery, trees, or other planterys within the State Right of Way. Shrubbery,, trees, or other planterys disturbed by the operation, shall be replaced in kind and size, in a ,annex satisfactory to. -the Department of Transportation.. 5. The applicant may not remove or disturb traffic signs, 3#4 posts, dummy posts, sgevey.markers or monuments, or guardrail sections along the State Highway without written permission from the Department of Transportation. 6. All work authorized by the attached permit shall be come• pleted within one (1) year from the date the permit was approved and signed by the Department of Transportation. 7. See the reverse side of the Access Driveway Permit App.- Ueation for additional requirements, numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 add 6. S. After the applicant ­has completed all.the work authorized by this permit, he must contact the Department of Trans - request a zinal Inspecion.p Allo;j at least two (2) Vas four -a :EEn- l inspection to be performed,_ If the Mork is unsatisfactory, the applicant urill be required to make the necAssary corrections within a dine Zi.mit set by the De- partment of Transportation... If the corrections are not per.. formed within the prescribed time limit, the State re- serves, the right to perform the work and charge the cost Of such work against the applicant and his deposit. If the work is • oa'tisfs+ctory, the deposit will be released to the applicant. CITY "OFIn CHANHASSEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVEOP.O BOX 147eCHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8885 PLANNING REPORT DATE: December 12, 1979 TO: City Manager, Don Ashworth FROM: Asst. Manager/LUC, Bob Waibel SUBJ: Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Building Moratorium Variance for Cannonball Kitchens, Inc. Lot 2 Block 1 Zamor Addition APPLICANT: Cannonball Kitchens PLANNING CASE: P-567 As shown in the attached planning materials, the applicant is proposing to construct an approximate 210 person capacity restaurant/banquet facility on the property on which the Happy Chef was proposed approximately one year ago. As you recall, the subject property was zoned to CBD, Central Business District at the time of approval of Happy Chef and Hdliday to wit discussions on the Cannonball Kitchen proposal had brought forth the possibility of shared parking in the future with the property to the west. Albeit that the property was rezoned to CBD, the parking criteria for restaurants in a C-3 service commercial district requires that one parking space for each employee for a major shift plus one parking space for each 3 persons be provided. From the standpoint of practical design, if shared parking is ever to eventuate, such should be largely in compliance with the C-3 parking criteria. It was the feeling of this office,'that the criteria for the C-3 zone could be ultimately applied within the shared parking parameters of the CBD ordinance with the property to the west, however, such would be the realization that until the extra spaces were available to the west, full use of the proposed facility might not be possible. With this in mind, it was felt that the applicant would take into account the risk of availability of the parking to the west and possibly exclude the lower level banquet facility from the construction plans. At the public hearing, there was considerable discussion regarding the shared parking, the impact of full utilization of the facility at the outset, and the problems of enforcement should the lower level banquet facility be opened but on a limited basis. From the information available to date, it is not certain whether or not '~1 Mr. Don Ashworth -2- December 12, 1979 limited use of the banquet facilities is feasible with regard to enforcement of the limited use or the ability to correct parking problems once they arise. Presently, the 65 spaces provided represent a surplus of approximately 10 parking spaces for the requirements of the upper.level. Taking into account the ultimate capacity of the lower level of 60 persons, these 10 spaces would be able to accommodate approximately 18 of those 60 as per ordinance standards leaving 4 pparking spaces for additional employees for the banquet facility. Witli this - in mind, thi.-9 office feels that an initial banquet eapacity of 25 persons could be considered leaving 1.5 spaces for employee parking for this facility, however, such would be contingent upon the applicant demonstrating this in fact would be limited, i.e. interimlowerlevel floor plan, so as not to present any enforcement problems should the overall parking facilities be found.to be over taxed on a regular basis. The Planning Commission had discussed the possibility that this apparent shortfall of spaces could be offset by the fact that banquet activities would generally not overlap the peak hours for the upper level and that parking availability itself may deter potential customers from using the facility. The Planning Commission additionally mentioned that if full use of the facility was approved at the outset, the applicant should be prepared to obtain the additional shared parking as needed. The Planning Commission recommended the city council approve the site plan as presented,iwith the understanding that: -.the planning commission feels the banquet facility will be self-limiting and not continuously pose a problem with the number of parking spaces available. In addition, the planning commission recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. That the perimeter of all maneuvering and parking areas be lined with concrete curb. 2. That the city engineer approve the grading, drainage, utility, lighting, and parking subsurface preparation plans of the applicant. 3. That the proposed signage is reviewed by the Sign Committee and approved by the city council. 4. That the final plans include the landscape recommendations of the HRA. Staff Recommendation This office concurs with the recommendations of the Planning Commission on the subject proposal with the exception that the banquet facility, if permitted at the outset, be so only on a limited capacity basis. The capacity limitation recommended for this facility is 25 persons until additional cross easement parking is available on the property to the west. This is additionally contingent upon the applicant sub- mitting construction plans thAt would demonstrate how this limitation will be effectuated. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVEeP 0 BOX 147#CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8886 PLANNING REPORT DATE: December 10, 1979 TO: Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Bob Waibel, Asst..Manager/LUC SUBJ: Site Plan Review/Conditional Use Permit/Building Moratorium Variance, Cannon Ball Kitchen, Lot 2, Block 1, Zamor Addition, Public Hearing APPLICANT: Cannon Ball Kitchens Inc. PLANNING CASE: P-567 Attached please find a revised site plan for the subject proposal. The essential change is the deletion of the 11 spaces previously located east of the proposed structure. As was brought out at previous discussion on the item, using the parking criteria of one space for each three persons the subject proposal was limited in capacity, however, the applicant had also indicated that since the property was zoned CBD, there would be consideration for postponement of utilizing the full proposed capacity of the restaurant until a neighboring development occurred wherein cross easement shared.parking could be incorporated. With the above in mind, this office would be ameanable to the concept that shared parking be in place before ultimate facilities are in operation, i.e. banquet area, however, the applicant should be advised that the feasibility of shared parking is contingent upon the type of land use which eventuates on the property to the west. An example of land use which is incompatible for cross easement parking is found in the holiday station to the east wherein this land use is not able to afford any shared parking. In order to assure the city that the shared parking will work on properties to the west, the city attorney should investigate the possibility of incorporating into the development contract, that the applicant may be responsible to help furnish additional parking spaces to the west at the time that that property is preparing for site plan review. The oversizing of the parking on the property to the west may possibly be established at a fraction of the one space for every three persons ratio. Planning Commissioral--) -2- December 10, 1979 The Housing and Redevelopment Authority reviewed the subject plans at their meeting of November 29, 1979, and found the plan to be acceptable. The HRA has suggested that some low lying shrubs be planted on the berm in front of the trash enclosure, that a couple more deciduous trees be added along the western property line, and that a couple ash trees be added on the northern property line. Recommendation I recommend that the Planning Commission recommend the city council approve the site plan, and building moratorium variance for Cannon Ball Kitchen with the following conditions: 1. That the capacity of the facility not exceed 195 persons until shared parking in line with the CBD District is available and that such be entered into the development contract with possible further consideration for the applicant to aid in the construction of any oversized parking needed on the westerly property. 2. That the perimeter of all manuevering and parking areas be lined with concrete curb. 3. That the city engineer approve the grading, drainage, utility, lighting, and parking subsurface preparation plans of the applicant. 4. That proposed signage is reviewed by the Sign Committee and approved by the City Council. 5. That final plans include the landscape recommendations of the HRA. CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE OF HEARING STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) Don Ashworth and says that he is and was on being first duly sworn, on oath deposes November 20 r 19 79 , the duly qualified and acting City Clerk -Administrator of -the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date he caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of hearing on a Notice of public hearing on Cannonball Nitchens in the City to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of. said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mails with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer of Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of �,. 1s tj*_'(4Qk— Notary Public -mow KAREN J. LN'ELHARDT ,3NOTARY PW`'L!C - MINNESOTA CART= COUNTY My Commission E r.rzs Oct. 11, INSW Don Ashworth, City Mgr. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLhC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND BUILDING MORATORIUM VARIANCE FOR CANNONBALL KITCHENS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT The Planning Commission of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, will meet on Wednesday, the 12th day of December at 7:45 p.m. at the City Hall, 7610 Laredo Drive, for the purpose of holding a public hearing to consider a conditional use permit, and variance to the building moratorium for the construction of a restaurant on the following described tract of land: Lot 2 Block 1, Zamor Addition A plan showing said proposal is available at city hall for inspection. A11 persons interested may appear and be heard at said time and place. BY ORDER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ob waibel, Asst. Manager/Planner (Publish in the Carver County Herald on November 28, 1979). 4940 Viking Drive Minneapolis, MN 55435 -, t Mr. Michael Sorenson 7606 Erie Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 i Mr. Daniel Klingelhutz ` Rt. 2 Box 95 (' Chaska, MN 55317 i' i, i Mr. Frank Kurvers I! 7220 Chanhassen Road ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 r; Frontier Development Corp.;; c/o Bloomberg Companies Chanhassen, P-IN 55317 [E Chicago, Milwaukee Railyd. 3rd Ave. So. & Washington Minneapolis, 1-4N k 4! •' t Minnesota Highway Dept. ;t 2055 North Lilac Dr. !t Golden Valley, MN 55422 f` ` i ! i. - f ! k! ff �l �f F1 1� f! �i i 1 C 1 f; ! t Ralph G. Molnau 116 West 1st St. Waconia, MN 55387 Strong -Towle, Inc. 320 Midland Bank Bldg. Minneapolis, 14N 55401 Leslie R. Renner Rt. 2 Box 307 Exc6lsior, MN 55331 American Legion Post 580 Box 264 Chanhassen, 1-IN 55317 Mr. Martin Ward Box 213 Chanhassen, MN 55317 CITY OF CAANH�g CARVER AND HENMa NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND BUII DING MORATORIUM VARIANCE FOR CANNONBALL RITCHEM NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Corn_ mission of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesrka, will meet the La Wednesday, the day of December, at 7:45 p.m. at City Hall, 7610 Laredo Drive, for the p holding a public hearing to urpose of consider a conditional use permit, and variance to the building moratorium for the construction of a restaurant on the following described tract of land: Lot 2 Block 1, Zamor Addition A. Plan showing said proposal is available at city hall for inspection. All persona interested may appear and be heard at said time and place. BY ORDER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Bob Waibel, Asst. Manager/pimmer (Pub. Carvpv County Herald November 28, 19M) Affidavit of Publication Sate of Minnesota ) ss. County of Carver . ) Stan Rolfsrud all the time herein stated has been the publisher and --- . being duly swom, on oath says he is and during printer of the newspaper known as Carver County Herald and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (1) Said newspaper is printed in the English language in newspaper format and in column and sheet form equivalent in printed space to at least 9W square inches. (2) Said newnews spapeof local interest r is a weekly and is distributed at least once a week. (3) Said news paper has 50% of its news columns devoted to to the community which it purports to serve and does not wholly duplicate any other publication and is not made up entirely of patents, plate matter and advertisements. (4) Said newspaper is circulated in and near the municipality which it purports to serve, has at least 500 copies regularly delivered to paying subscribers, has an average of at least 75% of its total circulation currently paid or no more than three months in arrears and has entry as second-class matter in its local post -office. (5) Said newspaper purports to serve the City of Chaska in the County of Carver and it has its known office of issue in the City of Chaska in said county, established and open during its regular business hours for the gathering of news, sale of advertisements and sale of subscriptions and maintained by the managing officer of said newspaper, persons in its employ and subject to his direction and control during all such regular business hours and at which said newspaper is printed. (6) Said newspaper files a copy of each issue immediately with the State Historical Society. (7) Said newspaper has complied with all the foregoing conditions for at least one year preceding the day or dates of publication mentioned below. (8) Said newspaper has filed with the Secretary of State of Minnesota prior to January 1, 1966 and each January 1 thereafter an affidavit in the form prescribed by the Secretary of State and signed by the managing officer of said newspaper and sworn to before a notary public stating that the newspaper is a legal newspaper. He further states on oath that the printed__ _ L e al hereto attached as a part hereof was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published therein in the English language, once each week, for 1 successive weeks; that it was first so published on Wed -the 28th day of 4ovember1979and was thereafter printed and published on every Wednesday ��}} to and including the 2 O thy of November 19-72d that the following is a printed copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication of said notice, to wit: abedefghijklmnopgrstovwxyz Subscribed and sworn to before me this _J'-- —.— oay of —ZLi C% 19 �L : (aim( I'MIA A. NOLDEN ,�elm a NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA kW CARVER COUNTY y Commission Expires Oct. 28, 19000-000 86 Notary public County, inngCat My Commission Expires 1rrYr, CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVEOP.O BOX 1470CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8885 PLANNING REPORT DATE: November 13, 1979 TO: Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Ass't. City Manager/Land Use Coordinator, Bob Waibel SUBJ: Restaurant Proposal, Powers Blvd. & Mn. Trunk Highway #5 APPLICANT: B. C. Burdick PLANNING CASE: P-628 As per the previous planning commission review of the subject item, the applicant has gone before the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for consideration. Although the minutes of the HRA meeting are not available at the time of writing this report, it has been indicated to this office, that the subject proposal review is considered premature until the findings of the sewer feasibility study for this area is completed. It is anticipated that said feasibility study will be completed within the next few weeks. Recommendation In concurrence. with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, I recommend that the planning commission defer further consideration of the subject proposal until sanitary sewer- service is imminent, and I also recommend that the planning commission advise the applicant that before further site plan consideration, a floor plan indicating capacity of the structure, architectural rendering, and drainage plan should be submitted. Additionally, the applicant should place an escrow with the city treasurer's office in the amount of $700.00 to defray staff costs in processing this application. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVEOP 0 BOX 1470CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8885 PLANNING REPORT DATE: November 13, 1979 TO: Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Ass't. City Mgr./LUC, Bob Waibel SUBJ: Restaurant Site Plan Review zamor Addition APPLICANT: Cannonball Kitchen, Inc. PLANNING CASE: P-628 Petition The applicant is proposing to construct an approximate 7000 sq. ft. restaurant at the property approximately 500' east of the intersection of Mn. Trunk Highway 101 and W. 79th St. on the south side of W. 79th St. Comments As you know, the city council moved to approve the plan to construct a Happy Chef Restaurant on the subject property last summer. Since that time, events have come to pass whereby that site is now being chosen for the location of a Cannonball Kitchen facility. Additionally, as you recall, the proposal with Happy Chef met extensive review and consideration for providing for "soft entry" in Chanhassen being that it is situated at a major entryway into the community. The proposal at hand differs from the .resolution of the Happy Chef plan for the soft entry as shown in enclosure 1. You will note that the major difference is a far greater encroachment upon the open space area to the east of the Cannonball Kitchen through the provisions of the parking spaces for 11 cars. The southerly setback of the Cannonball Kitchen has been increased with a building setback of 55' versus the parking setback of 25' as found on the Happy Chef plan. In this respect, this office finds the Cannonball Kitchen proposal to be an improvement, however, serious consideration should be made regarding the easterly parking area encroachment. At an estimated upper level seating capacity of 162 customers, the required number of parking spaces would be 54. The subject plan indicates the provision of 75 parking spaces or 19 above the ordinance requirements for the upper leve. The removal of the 11 spaces on the ` PLANNING REPORT -. -2- "Tovember 13, 1979 eastern side of the Cannonball Kitchen, would have the effect of limiting the lower level banquet capacity. to 30 persons. The planning commission should obtain the banquet capacity information from the applicant at this time. Another differentiation between the present proposal and the Happy Chef proposal, is that a 5' buffer area between the Cannonball Kitchen facility and the Holiday Station store is- being proposed wherein the previous plans,a 10.' buffer has been indicated. This office finds no problems with this 5" buffer with. the understanding that it provides for the additional maneuvering area needed for the parking lot.. Recommendation I. recommend that the. planning commission approve the subject plan contingent to the following conditions and possibilities of reconsideration 1. That the applicant present the subject proposal to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for comments regarding the landscape plan, the 5-foot change.in the buffer between the subject site and the Holiday Station, and the soft entry area encroachment. 2. That the planning commission recommend, to the HRA, the deletion of the 11 spaces east of the proposed structure. The applicant should be aware that said deletion would limit the capacity of the facility to 192 customers including the banquet facility. If'any problems arise due to this capacity limitation, such would need to be reconsidered providing the applicant submit alternative plans consistent with the guidelines of the planning commission and housing redevelopment authority. 3. That the . lighting plan, grading and drainage plans. meet the approval of the city engineer. 4. That the applicant submit for subsequent reviews, rear elevations of the proposed structure. 5. That the applicant post an escrow with, the city treasurer in the amount of $70.0, to defray staff costs in processing this application. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVE*P.O. BOX 1470CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8885 PLANNING REPORT DATE: October 9, 1979 TO: Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Ass't. City Mgr./Land Use Coordinator, Bob Waibel SUBJ: Site Plan Review, Cannonball Kitchen APPLICANT: B. C. Burdick PLANNING CASE: P-628 Petition The applicant is proposing to construct a restaurant in the north- east quadrant of the intersection of Powers Blvd. and Mn. Trunk Highway #5 towit rezoning, site plan review, subdivision, and sewer extension approval is necessary. Background 1. Community Location: As shown in enclosure 1, the subject property is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Trunk Highway 5 and Powers Blvd. south of W. 78th St. 2. Existing Zoning: The subject property and its environs are presently zoned R-lA, Agricultural Residence District. 3. Utilities: Municipal water is available to the subject property. The nearest sanitary sewer is located approximately 800' east in Burdick Park. Comprehensive Plan Proposals: a. Land Use - Pursuant to the adopted City Comprehensive Guide Plan, the subject property is to assume and maintain a general commercial identity. b. Transportation - Pursuant to the adopted City Comprehensive Thoroughfares and Transportation Plan, Powers Blvd. is to function as a major collector, and Trunk Highway 5 is to function as a express- way. Planning Report -2- October 9, 1 979 Comments The proposal at hand has been reviewed for site plan by staff, however these comments are being withheld at this time due to the uncertainty of the future land use zoning for this property, and the feasibility of the sewer service. Presently Schoell .& Madson is carrying out a sewer feasibility study for this property and other properties in the general vicinity. This feasibility study is to be completed shortly, however until such time decisions regarding land use and site plans would be premature. Additionally, the HRA concept plan proposes the subject property to be utilized as open space as a gateway to the downtown area, and subsequently this proposal has been scheduled for review at the next regular HRA meeting. Recommendation I recommend that the Planning Commission defer comments on the subject request until the proposal has been reviewed by the HRA for land use issues, and until more definitive information is available regarding this sewer service to the subject property. Additionally, I would recommend that the Planning Commission advise the applicant that before any further review, information regarding the drainage, architec- tural treatment and customer capacity of the facility be provided. RARR/SON Will 11111% �a�I.� 41 y' LAKE LUCY O T m s •� I 1 ' ti _ �ucl, Br"' GS. £ III LAKE ANN I mI LAKES �s u,SFc T 'Ito furl x � VAR F4RK CT. • 99 f Op pad PA B mil^ 01cS,R G\R FJF DRIVE clpE 0 Q 0 1 u 1 LARECIR. + LAKE SUSAN Lam' RICE MO RSH LA) LARSON & MERTZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1900 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING RUSSELL H. LARSON MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE CRAIG M. MERTZ (612) 335-9565 September 25, 1979 OF COUNSEL HARVEY E. SKAAR MARK C. McCULLOUGH Hon. Walter Hobbs, Mayor, and Chanhassen City Council c/o Donald W. Ashworth Chanhassen City Manager Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Holiday/Happy Chef Conditional Use Permit Gentlemen: The City Manager has provided us with a copy of Lawrence N. Zamor's letter of September 21, 1979 concerning the above referenced matter. The following are our comments on the arguments made in that letter. Mr. Zamor comments on the preparation time for the permit. Mr. Zamor's attorney first provided us with their proposed legal description for the conservation area in a letter dated June 14, 1979. The proposed permit was delivered to Mr. Waibel on June 29, 1979. Formerly, the City practice has been to release a proposed permit to a developer only after the planning staff has had a chance to review the document. The fact that only fifteen days elapsed in the preparation of this document indicates that the Zamor development was given the highest priority in our office. Mr. Zamor comments on the fact that the proposed conditional use permit calls for the signature of both the long-term tenant (Happy Chef) and the landlord. It seems to us that in the case of a gross violation of a conditional use permit, the City should have enforce- ment remedies against both the operating entity and against the landlord. It seems somewhat cumbersome to establish an enforcement mechanism whereby the City would bring enforcement proceedings against the landlord, who would then in turn sue the tenant. We are surprised by Mr. Zamor's request that he be solely responsible for Happy Chef's compliance with the permit's terms. In our private work, we note that landlords more typically take the position that long term tenants should share in the legal responsibility to observe the terms of a contract affecting them both. ,e�23425���2$�9 sEP 1979 j �cC N CN.4 `lac. Ml�►N. SIN'_ 0�� Hon. Walter. Hobbs Chanhassen City Council -2- 9/25/79 On September 17, 1979, the Council tabled Mr. Zamor's request to delete Happy Chef as a party to the permit. If the Council ultimately grants this request, the permit language can be readily revised to make Mr. Zamor the sole signatory. Section 9 of the permit provides that the developer will reimburse the City for the "reasonable engineering, legal, planning, and administrative expenses incurred by the City in connection with ... administration and enforcement" of the permit. Mr. Zamor comments that under this section, he must pay even if the City wrongly brings enforcement action against him. We disagree with this interpretation. The key word in §9 is "reasonable". The permit provides three remedies if the developer will not voluntarily cease activities which violate the permit. Those remedies are: (a) treat the City's enforcement costs as a special assessment and bring fore- closure proceedings in court; (b) commence court proceedings against the developer's bond; and (c) petition the court for a restraining order. All three remedies of last resort involve court proceedings. The court simply will not award the City its costs if the City's costs are unreasonable, or if the City has acted wrongly. Further- more, if the developer believes that the City is wrongfully adminis- tering any aspect of the permit, the developer is free at any time to take his grievance to District Court. It seems to be assumed by Mr. Zamor that the City Council would arbitrarily enforce the permit. Past history indicates that if enforcement mistakes are made in zoning enforcement matters, those mistakes are made on the side of leniency rather than on the side of stringency. Mr. Zamor argues that §23 of the Zoning Ordinance does not include authority for the collection of enforcement costs against a condi- tional use permit holder. This argument is proper. However, §19.18 (Ordinance 47A) provides that a zoning applicant must reimburse the City for all City expense "in processing the application, including ... City Staff administration costs, and engineering, planning, legal and soil consultant fees." This section applies not only to initial planning requests but also to "any determination relevant to the administration, application or enforcement of the zoning ordinance." Next, Mr. Zamor objects to the rezoning of his property from C-3 to CBD. This office recommended such rezoning, as did the planning department, as did a unanimous Planning Commission. The City Council unanimously approved the rezoning on May 14, 1979. An unwarranted reflection on the integrity of the Planning Commission and City lies hidden in Mr. Zamor's comment that the City Attorneys, rather than the City Councilmen, were the policy makers in the rezoning matter. Hon. Walter Hobbs Chanhassen City Council -3- 9/25/79 Mr. Zamor comments concerning the amount of legal time being expended in connection with this matter. Our charges have been substantial. This was not the usual commercial building proposal. In addition to the usual subdivision and rezoning time expenditures, there were extensive meetings with the Planning Commission, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and the Sign Committee. There were tax increment financing issues. Formal amendments to the HRA plan were needed. Public expenditure of funds (i.e. the $15,000 discount) require strict compliance with the enabling statutes. The 1979 legislature enacted extensive revisions to the tax incre- ment laws. Past HRA actions on Holiday/Happy Chef and future actions had to be carefully reviewed in light of the 1979 statutory changes. Public officials are personally liable for expenditures made in violation of the statutes. Many documents were drawn: conditional use permits, HRA guarantee agreements, public hearing notices, conservation easements, deeds, and formal resolutions. Numerous changes in documents were made at the request of Mr. Zamor's attorney. During the September 17, 1979 meeting, this office advised the Council that the Happy Chef conditional use permit is substantially similar to other permitspreviously approved. We stand by that position. In the term "permit", we include conditional use permits, development contracts, and variance contracts. Attached to Mr. Zamor's letter of September 21 is a list of ten items which supposedly distinguish the Happy Chef contract from permits previously approved. We comment on those ten objections as follows: Objection No. 1. The Happy Chef permit (HCP) is differ@nt in format as to the Frontier Dodge permit. This, in effect, is an objection to the numbering system utilized in the Frontier Dodge Permit (FDP). Frontier Dodge involved a development contract for the project itself and a conditional use permit for the outdoor display of automobiles. In the FDP, the development contract issues and the conditional use permit issues were segregated into separate sections of the FDP. Prior to Mr. Zamor's letter, we had heard no objection to the numbering system utilized in t he proposed Happy Chef permit. If, however, Mr. Zamor requests that the HCP be reorganized so as to place development paragraphs in one section and operational paragraphs in another section, this can be readily done. In short, we believe that objection No. 1 is unfounded. Hon. Walter Hobbs Chanhassen City Cou,icil -4- 9/25/79 Objection No. 2. Section 3.02 "Standards of Construction" is not found in other permits. Mr. Zamor does not accurately paraphrase this section, which only requires that improvements be constructed in accordance with plans and specifications. Similar sections are found in the following permits: Chaparral 1st Addition, Lotus Lake Estates, Hesse Farm II*, Minnewashta Creek 2nd Addition, Trolls Glen IV, Sunny Slope Addition, Roos Office Building, and Santa Vera Apartments. Objection No. 3. Section 4, "Materials and Labor" is not found in other contracts. This section requires that materials utilized and labor employed in making improvements (other than the building) be of good quality and good workmanship in accordance with the plans and specifications. Similar clauses are found in the following permits: Chaparral 1st Addition, Lotus Lake Estates, Hesse Farm II, Minnewashta Creek 2nd Addition, Trolls Glen IV, Sunny Slope Addition, Roos Office Building, and Santa Vera Apartments. Objection No. 4. Other permits do not require the Developer to submit a completion schedule. Sections 5 and 15 require the.developer to submit a work schedule which is to form a part of the permit. These sections do not set forth a City -mandated schedule; they merely require the developer to disclose his schedule. These clauses are important inasmuch as the HRA quite reasonably expects that its development discount will be recouped in the form of tax increments within a certain time period. Similar clauses are found in the following permits: Frontier Dodge, H&K Warehouse, Chaparral lst Addition, Lotus Lake Estates, Hesse Farm II, Minnewashta Creek 2nd Addition, Trolls Glen IV, Sunny Slope Addition, Roos Office Building, Saratoga Addition, Santa Vera Apartments, Lyman Lumber, and The Press, Inc. Objection No. 5. Other permits do not require the Developer to reimburse the City for enforcement costs. Mr. Zamor states that the sentence in §9 concerning a "continuing obligation" to reimburse the City does not appear in other permits. This observation is correct. However, our interpretation of the standard clause on this topic was always that the Developer's obligation to reimburse the City for enforcement costs continued throughout the life of the permit. The final sentence in §9 was added, not for the purpose of changing §9's meaning, but rather to contradict a contrary interpretation given to §9 by Mr. Zamor's attorney. * While the Hesse Farm II contract has been approved by the developer, it has not yet appeared on a City Council agenda for approval or disapproval, Hon. Walter Hobbs Chanhassen City Council -5- 9/25/79 Similar clauses are found in the following permits: Frontier Dodge, H&K Warehouse, Chaparral lst Addition, Lotus Lake Estates, Hesse Farm II, Minnewashta Creek 2nd Addition, Trolls Glen IV, Sunny Slope Addition,.Roos Office Building, Saratoga Addition, Santa Vera Apartments, Lyman Lumber, and The Press, Inc. Objection No. 6. Other permits do not require the Developer to pay off special assessments''and taxes prior to issuance of a building permit. This provision was included .for two purposes: (a) to insure that the City received clear title to its conservation easement, and (b) to short circuit any future claim that some portion of the 1979 or 1980 taxes should be abated because of the existence of the conserva- tion easement. Mr. Zamor's attorney has previously indicated to us (a) that his client had no objection to this clause, and (b) that these taxes and assessments have been paid in full anyway. Similar clauses are found in the following permits: Frontier Dodge and Roos Office Building. Objection No. 7. That the "Disclaimer by the City" clause does not appear in other permits. This clause provides that the developer will hold the City harmless in any lawsuits brought against the City by third parties concerning matters arising out of the conditional use permit. Similar clauses are found in the following permits: H&K Warehouse, Chaparral lst Addition, Lotus Lake Estates, Hesse Farm II, Minnewashta Creek 2nd Addition, Trolls Glen IV, Sunny Slope Addition, Roos Office Building, Saratoga Addition, Santa Vera Apartments, Lyman Lumber, and The Press, Inc. Objection No. 8. The "written work order" clause does not aiTear in other permits. This clause merely states that the developer should do not work or furnish no materials for which City reimbursement is expected, unless a written work order has been signed by the Manager. Similar clauses appear in the following permits: H&K Warehouse, Chaparral lst Addition, Lotus Lake Estates, Hesse Farm II, Minnewashta Creek 2nd addition, Trolls Glen IV, Sunny Slope Addition, Roos Office Building, Saratoga Addition, Santa Vera Apartments, Lyman Lumber, and The Press, Inc.