79-03 - Burdick Office Building SPR pt 2B.C."Jim"BURDICK
426 Lake Street
Excelsior, Mn 55331
January 26, 1981
Chanhassen City Council and Mayor
Chanhassen,
Minnesota
Gentlemen:
There is a street in my development now listed as "Monterey".
This street, based upon various requests I received, was
originally named "MandanB. However, due to a duplication of names,
it was changed to "Monterey".
I have observed that "Alternate 101" has now been given what I feel is
a very appropriate name, "Kerber Blvd."
My suggestion is that inasmuch as Monterey, physically speaking, appears
to be a one and one-half block extension of Kerber Blvd. that its name
be changed to Kerber Blvd.
This matter isn't of great importance to me as an individual, but I feel
that it would be of assistance to the residences of Chanhassen and to
the many visitors merely because it is a simplification. A one and one-half
block long street can only lead to confusion.
I hope you will give this matter your valued consideration. If you wish
I will be willing to pay the charge for changing the street signs from
"Monterey" to "Kerber Blvd". I don't feel that we will have a great
deal of trouble plot wise, since plots and maps still show the street as
"Mandan" thus the change would only be from "Mandan" to "Kerber Blvd"
instead of from "Mandan" to Monterey" to "Kerber Blvd".
i
BCB/dab
cc to: Chanhassen City Planner
Chanhassen City Manager
Cordially yours,
B.C."Jim"BURDICK
CITY JF
CHANHASSEN
7610 LAREDO DRIVE • P O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Donald Ashworth
FROM: Jerry Schlenk
DATE: January 29, 1981
SUBJ: Monterey -Kerber Blvd.
In reference to B. C. "Jim" Burdick's letter dated January 26,
1981, pertaining to change of street name in Burdick Park from
Monterey to Kerber Blvd. I have talked to the owners of the
existing building and some of the renters. They are happy with
the name Monterey. They have had no problem with deliveries
and they don't want to change business cards,addresses, etc.
Neither the Fire Department nor Police Department have had a pro-
blem finding these places of business when called for emergency.
Further, Monterey is a dead end street which does not directly
align to Kerber Blvd. In light of the above comments as well as
dead end nature of the street, I would recommend that such be
left as Monterey.
7�
1A LARsoN & MERTZ f 6-;-)
%,V ATTORNEYS
AT LAW Y
1900 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
RUSSELL H. LARSON MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 / �r� TELEPHONE
C RAIG M. MERTZ (BIZ) 335_9565
June 10, 1980
OF COUNSEL
HARVEY E. SKAAR
MARK C. MCCULLOUGH
Minneapolis Tribune Carver County Herald
425 Portland Ave 123 West 2nd
Minneapolis MN 55488 Chaska MN 55318
Attn: Classified
Re: City of Chanhassen
B & L Chan Properties
Gentlemen,
Enclosed please find a public hearing notice on the B & L Chan
Properties application for industrial revenue financing by the
City of Chanhassen.
Please publish this notice in the June 18, 1980 edition of
your respective newspapers.
When publication has been completed, furnish this office with
your affidavit of publication and statement of charges.
RHL:ner
Enc
cc: Donald Ashworth
Leonard A. Champer
Briggs & Morgan, P.A.
Frank Kelley, Esq.
B & L Chan Properties
Very truly yours,
i
� SSELL H. LARSON
Chanhassen City Attorney
r
(cp1� J * . -/Qj
0 JUN1980
RECEIVED
CHANHASSEN,
i�. MINN.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
REVENUE BONDS TO FINANCE
B & L CHAN PROPERTIES PROJECT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the
City of Chanhassen will meet on Monday, the 7th day of July, 1980 at
7:30 PM at the Chanhassen City Hall, 7610 Laredo Drive, Chanhassen,
Minnesota, for the.purpose of conducting a public hearing on a
proposal that the City issue its revenue obligations (hereinafter,
the "Bonds"), under the Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 474, as amended, in order to assist in financing
the cost of a project on behalf of B & L Chan Properties, a partnership
consisting of B.C. Burdick and Richard Larsen.
Description of Project
The proposed project consists of the acquisition of land
at the Southeast corner of the intersection of 78th Street and Monterray
Drive in Chanhassen, Minnesota, the construction of an office building
on that site, and the leasing of office space to various parties.
A majority of the tenants are anticipated to be doctors and similar
professionals.
The estimated principal amount of the Bonds to be issued to
finance this project is $500;000. , The Bonds and interest thereon
shall be payable solely from the revenue pledged to the payment thereof
by B & L Chan Properties, except that the Bonds may be secured by a
mortgage and other encumbrance on the project.
The Bonds and interest obligations appertaining thereto
shall not in any event constitute an indebtedness of the City within
the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation and shall
not constitute general obligations of the City.nor a charge against
the general credit or taxing power of the City or the State of Minnesota.
No Bond holder shall have the right to demand payment of the principal
of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds out of funds to be
raised by taxation or from any source other than the Project.
A draft copy of the proposed application to the Minnesota
Commissioner of Securities for approval of the Project, together
with all attachments and exhibits thereto, is available for public
inspection at the office of the City Clerk, between the hours of
8:00 AM and 4:30 PM, each weekday (Monday through Friday).
All persons interested may appear and be heard at said
time and place to set forth their views with repsect to the proposal
to finance the Project.
Dated June 16, 1980 BY ORDER T
E CITY COUNCIL
Published in Carver County By a ,
_ Z- Herald and Minneapolis Tribune; City Clerk
on June 18, 1980
JURAN & MOODY, INC.
MUNICIPAL BONDS EXCLUSIVELY
114 EAST SEVENTH STREET
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
i TELEPHONE 612/298-1500
June 2, 1980
Mr. Don Ashworth
City Manager
Chanhassen City Hall
7610 Loredo Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Mitt 55313
Dear Mr. Ashworth:
From: City AdministralaT
Refdrred To:
Mayor
Council —
Planner+ ✓
Building -
Attorn9y
Engineor
Treasuror
Poii�a
PC. 7'' i1Gt
-
Pre
O►i�Ir _
In response to your May 14 letter regarding the B & L Chan Properties
proposed office building, please find enclosed the Chanhassen
Application for Industrial Deveopment Financing.
It is our sole intent to place the Note on a private placement basis,
to one or more financial institutions. We do not envision a public
offering. In addition, it is my understanding that Mr. Burdick is
sending directly to you the escrow deposit.
Presuming that everything is satisfactory, I shall look forward to
meeting with you and the City Council in the near future.
Very truly ours,
JURAN & MOODY, INC.
Leonard A. Champer
LAC/eh
enclosure
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Application I•'or.
Industrial Development Financing
1. APPLICANT:
a. Business Name - B & L Chan Properties
b. Business Address - 426 Lake Street
Excelsior, Mn. 55331
C. Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole
proprietorship, etc.) -
Partnership
d. Authorized Representative -
B C. "Jim" Burdick
e. Phone -
474-5243
2. NAME (S) OF MAJORITY STOCKHOLDERS, OFFICERS & DIRECTORS,
PARTNERS, PRINCIPALS -
a. B. C. "Jim" Burdick
b . Richard Larsen
C.
d.
e.
3. GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS:
A Real Estate partnership formed to -develop and own
an 8,000 sq. ft. professional office building.
4. AMOUNT OF BOND ISSUE BEING REQUESTED:
$ 500,00.0
5. PURPOSE OF REQUESTED FINANCING:
a. New Facility? (describe) To finance the construction
of an 8,000 sq. ft. professional office building.
b. Expansion? (describe) -
6. HAVE YOU APPLIED FOR CONVENTIONAL FINANCING?
a. Name lenders contacted - The interest rates at
the present time and for the past several months have
been prohibitive.
7. BUSINESS PROFILE°
a. Are you located in City now? No
b. Number of employees, in Chanhassen -
i. before this project -
ii. after this project 25
iii. collective bargaining units (-unions ) representing
employees -
C. Approximate annual sales
$ N/A
d. Length of time in business -
N/A
e. Do you have plants in other locations? If so, where?
N/A
8. NAMES OF:
a. Underwriter - Juran & Moody, Inc.
i. Has letter of intent from underwriter or financial
analysis by your consultants required by Commissione
of Securities been completed and attached to this
application? (Application is incomplete if
above is missing.) yes
b. Bond Counsel - Briggs and Morgan
C. Corporate Counsel - W. Frank Kelley, Excelsior
- 2-
d. Accountants -
i. Have earnings statements for past 5 years and latest
balance sheet been attached? (Application is
incomplete if same are missing.)
Personal financial statements are available upon request.
9'. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN IN BANKRUPTCY? No
DEFAULTED ON ANY BOND OR MORTGAGE COMMITMENT? No
If so; give details.
10. WHAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR:
a. Construction start - July 15, 1980
b. ' Construction completion - November 15, 1980
11. FINANCIAL REFERENCES:
a. Bank - Minnetonka State Bank
b. Mortgage -
C. Other ID Bonds, if any (give name of Trustee) -
By the execution and submission of this application, Applicant
acknowledges that the City of Chanhassen reserves the right to
deny any application for municipal industrial revenue financing
at any stage of proceedings prior to the adoption of the resolution
authorizing issuance of industrial development bonds or revenue notes.
Applicant further agrees to deposit with the City at the time of*
making this application a sum of money, as determined by the City
Manager, to be used to defray all City administrative costs and
i
legal and consultive fees associ:aled with the City' s consideration
of the application. In addition, Applicant agrees to pay upon
demand such amount of City expense as shall be in excess of the
deposit.
Date .1 D Q
For further information contact:
City Manager
City of Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Phone (512) 474-8885 ,
-4-
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES s April 7, 1980
-5-
BURDICK OFFICE BUILDING, APPROVAL BUILDING MORAI_.{IUM VARIANCE AND SITE
PLAN: Jim Burdick was present to discuss this item. Mr. Burdick is
proposing to construct an 8,000 square foot office building at the
southeast corner of Monterey Drive and West 78th Street. Since the proposed
building lies within the tax increment district and the.building moratorium
area, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and Planning Commission
have -reviewed this proposal and find that the building is in accordance
with overall redevelopment activities. Additionally, the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the specific site plan.
A motion was made by Councilman Pearson and seconded by Councilman
Geving to approve the site plan and variance to the building moratorium
ordinance for the Burdick Office Building Proposal, subject to the
Planning Reports of April 4 and February 26, 1980, with the change to
eliminate 2 compact car stalls instead of 5; and as per the site plan
dated February 11, 1980. Motion approved. Ayes - All.
REVIEW COMMUNITY FACILITY BUILDING PLANS - CITY HALL/LIBRARY AND PUBLIC
WORKS FACILITY: A motion was made by Councilman Geving and seconded
by Councilman Swenson that due to the lateness of the hour that this
item be tabled to a special City Council meeting on April 12, 1980,
8:30 a.m. at the American Legion Club to review the proposed building
plans. Motion approved. Ayes - All.
1980 DISEASED TREE PROGRAM: The City Council generally discussed options
ranging from little or no diseased removal to little or no reforestation.
The primary problem is that State funding is totally inadequate to
insure that an effective control program can be established.
A motion was made by Councilman Pearson and seconded by Councilman Geving
to table this item to the April 14, 1980, City Council meeting.
Motion approved. Ayes - All.
CHRISTMAS ACRES PLAT, APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT: A motion was made
by Councilman Pearson and seconded by Councilman Geving to approve
the final plat, development contract and covenants amending the
development contract to delete the necessity of a letter of credit and
substitute such with a performance bond. Motion approved. Ayes - All.
The remaining items of this agenda were tabled to April 14, 1980.
A motion was made by Councilman Pearson and seconded by Councilman
Swenson that the meeting be adjourned. Motion approved. Ayes - All.
Meeting Adjourned at 12:30 a.m.
Don Ashworth, City Manager
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7610 LAREDO DRIVEoP.O BOX 147@CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 474-8885
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager, Don Ashworth
FROM: Land Use Coordinator, Bob Waibel
DATE: April 4, 1980
SUBJ: Burdick Office Proposal
APPLICANT: B.C. Burdick
PLANNING CASE: P-647
Please note from the attached materials, that the applicant is
proposing to construct an approximate 8,000 square foot office
building on an approximate 22,000 square foot parcel located in
the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Monterey Drive and
West 78th Street.
The Planning Commission and the HRA have both reviewed the proposal
with regard to site plan and building moratorium variance. The
Planning Commission at its regular meeting of February 26, 1980,
recommended approval of the site plan and variance to the building
moratorium and the HRA, at its regular meeting of March 20, 1980,
likewise recommended approval of a variance to the building moratorium.
In concurrence with the Planning Commission and HRA, I recommend
approval of the subject proposal with the exception that special
consideration be given by the City Council to possibly delete the
5 parking spaces referenced in the Febuary 26, 1980, planning report,
in order to expand the landscaped area on Monterery Drive.
Page 3jY
Jim Burdick, W. 78th Street and Burdick Park: Mr. Dick Larson was
representing Mr. Burdick and presented the plans for a small office
building to be constructed on the corner of Monterey and 78th Street.
He stated they would like to advertise rental space. Discussion
followed. Commissioner Whitehill moved that there be a variance
on that site. Seconded. Ayes all. Motion carried.
The second issue: office/warehouse. Commissioner Niemeyer moved
we waive the moratorium. The motion died. Commissioner Whitehill
moved the Commission table the matter. Seconded. Ayes, three..
Nay, one: Chairman Gullickson moved the Commission ask for a 90 day
moratorium after the City Council. Seconded. Ayes all. Motion
carried.
Policy Statements: Fluoroware; Don Ashworth went over the attached
letters regarding Chanhassen Lakes Business Park.
Next the policy concerning moving Instant Web was discussed. Commissione
Whitehill moved that the "whereas" statement stay the same and strike
items 2 and 3. Seconded. Ayes all. Motion carried.
Adjournment: 1-1:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerri Martin
r ,1
7610 LAREDO DRIVEaP.O. BOX 1470CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 474-8885
DATE: February 26, 1980
TO: Planning C mission and Staff
FROM: Bob Waibel, Assistant City Manager/WC
SUBOECr: Burdick Office Building
PLANNING CASE P-647
At the last Planning Gcmmission review of the subject proposal, the
applicant did not have on his plans the proposed grading, drainage,
lighting, and signage plans. The applicant has provided this
information on the plans dated February 11, 1980, and such is
essentially being presented to the Planning Ccmnission at this time
for informational and review purposes. With the exception of the
above items, the subject plan was found to be compliant with the
ordinance standards, however, upon secondary review, I find that the
subject proposal has a surplus of five parking spaces for the ordinance
requirements and would recaid that the northwesterly and southwesterly
most two spaces and the two ccapact car spaces be removed from the
subject plans in order to expand the landscaped area along Monterey
Drive.
Recaryiendati on
I recamiend that the Planning Ccmii:ssicn end that the City Council
approve a variance to Building Moratorium Ordinance 47-K and approve the
site plan contingent upon the City Engineer's approval of the grading and
drainage plan and the City Council's approval of the sign plan based upon
the recommn ndations of the Sign Committee.
i,ake Ann PUD, Lake Susan Hills West PRD, and Lake Susan Hills South PUI
Bob Waibel stated that upon City Council, Planning Commission
and -Staff consultation, the public hearing scheduled for this
meeting has been cancelled and tonights session will be an imfor--
mational meeting.
Upon 'Motion by Tom Hamilton, seconded by Art Partridge,
the public hearings are hereby scheduled as follows:
Lake Susan Hills West.- Parch 26
Lake Ann PUD - April 9
Lake Susan Hills South - April 23
Informational Meeti
Ed Dunn gave a history of the projects. He reported on the
acreage, park and lake shore areas, he illustrated the sewer systems
and showed the density allocations of each project.
Jack Anderson addressed the transportation portion of the
projects.
At t�iis point, the Planning Commission left the meeting and
returned to City Hall. Residents and concerned parties were welcome
to remain at the School for questions and continents.
The Planning Commission resumed at 10:40 P.M. at City Hall..
Site Plan Review -Burdick Office Proposal
Bob Waibel explained the secondary review and presented
Chanhassen's comments and recommendations. There was discussion
on the right-of-ways, and the number of spaces needed in the parking
lot. Points of concern were vacation of the road and future uses
of the road.
Art Partridge moved, Jack Bell seconded, that the City Council
be recommended to approve the variance to the building moratorium
ordinance and the proposed site plan.
Site Plan Review - Burdick Office/Warehouse Proposal
Bob Waibel explained the proposed facility. There was discussion
on the uses and how this project will relate to the Downtown Redevelop-
ment Plan. Craig Mertz discussed the zoning and variance ordinances
and informed that this proposal should be reviewed by the BRA.
Tom Iamilton moved, Jack Bell seconded, to table this matter
until completion of the BRA review. motion carried.
Approval of Minutes
Art Partridge moved, Tom Hamilton seconded, to note the
City Council I'linutes of February 4, 1980. Motion carried.
E
C I TY
7610 LAREDO DRIVEoP.O. BOX 147 a, CHANHASSEN, 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: Burdick Office Building
PLANNING CASE: P-647
As noted in the previous planning report on the subject item, the
applicant is proposing to construct'an approximate 8,000 sq. ft.
office building on an approximate 22:000 sq. ft. parcel located in
the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Monteray Drive and
W. 78th St.
The subject property is zoned C-2, commercial district, towit the
permitted uses per Ordinance 47 are as follows:
.1. General retail sales and services, but not including automobile
truck tractor, trailer, boat, or other mobile power -driven equipment
sales or services, building material yards, or automobile car crash
establishments.
2. Financial institutions.
3. Business and professional offices.
4. Restaurants,'theatres, and taverns, but not including the drive-in
type.
5. Dry cleaning and laundry collection stations and self-service
laundries.
6. Mortuarys.
7. Government owned and operated civic and cultural institutions
including but not limited to administrative offices, libraries, public
safety buildings, and places of assembly.
Section'7D.06 subsection 4 of Ordinance 47, states that within a C-2
district proposal, "an off-street loading facility shall be provided
with an area of not less than 12' in width and 65' in length, exclusive
of aisles and maneuvering space. Such facility shall be at the rear of
•PLANNING REPORT
-2-. . November 13, 1979
l /
the principal structure and shall be used exclusively for the loading
and unloading of merchandise. All such facilities, aisles and maneuvering
space shall be surfaced in the same manner as that described for parking
areas.
This office finds that the use proposed, is in fact a C-1 type use with
great differentiation between the general retail and restuarant permitted
uses of the C-2 district. In reviewing the off-street loading provisions
for the C-1 district, the off-street loading facility is only required
for buildings of greater than 20,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. This
figure far surpasses the gross floor area of the proposed structure and
thus this office would recommend that the subject proposal not be bound
to the off-street loading requirement.
The following information is needed for a complete site plan review:
1. A sign plan, lighting plan, landscape plan and schedule, and a
grading and drainage plan.
Recommendation
I recommmend that the planning commission find that the subject proposal
is in compliance with the provisions of zoning ordinance 47 if the above
recommendation of deletion of the off-street loading requirement is adopte
The planning commission should direct the applicant to prepare and submit,
a lighting plan, landscape plan and schedule, sign plan, and grading and
drainage plan for planning commission.and/or staff approval_
Roman Roos
Ism
a use that would not have the impact and visual qualities
of the nursery that did operate there. They thought it would
be a less intensity use overall: The property of the operation
that was there at the time had the right of contingency. As
you recall from the analysis that went through, we tried
to figure different land uses that might go in there and
based upon that sinarea decided by the Planning Commission
to recommend that Baltic be considered in some sort of
fashion.
Let's go on to item #3. Site plan for the Burdick Office
proposal. Do we have someone in attendance on that particular
proposal? Yes, Dick Shaefer.
Bob Waibel The applicant is proposing to construct approximately 8000
square foot office building on the property of about 22,000
square foot parcel located in the SE quadrant of Monterey
Drive and West 78th Street. This presently zoned C-2
Commercial district to what the permitted uses of Ordinance
47 are as follows:
General retail sales and services but not including automobile,
truck and tractor, trailor or boats or other mobile powered
equipment and sales and services, building material yards or
car washing establishments, financial institutions, business
and professional offices, restaurants, theathers including
the drive-in type, dry cleaning and laundry collection
stations and self-service laundry and government and institution,
operated facilities not limited to administrative offices.
A portion of Ordinance 47 relating to G :' 2 district requires
off street loading facility shall be provided within an area
of not less than 12 feet width and 65 feet in length, exclusive
of aisles and maneuvering spaces . Such facility should be
located at the rear of the principal structure and shall be
used exculsively for loading and unloading of merchandise.
All such facilities and aisles shall be surfaced in the same
manner as the parking areas.
I find that the use proposed is in fact Cl type of use with
great differentiation between the general retail and restaurant
permitted uses of the C2 category, which is presently zoned
and in reviewing the off street loading provisions of the
12 foot wide with and 65 foot length at the rear of the
building, this is in the C1 district. This is only required
for facilities over 20,000 sq. feet in size, whereas the
building proposal is only 8000.
Based upon that finding I would recommend that the off street
loading area requirement be deleted from this proposal.
IClark Horn
-4-
The following information is needed for completion of the
site plan review. It would be sign plan, lighting plan,
landscape plan as scheduled and grading and drainage plan.
I recommend that the Planning Commission find the subject
proposal in compliance with the provisions of Ordinance 47
if the above recommendation of deletion of off street loading
requirements is adopted. The E.1 I Commission should
direct the applicant to prepare/ a ig ting plan and landscape
plan a- schedule.. Sign plan and grading plan and drainage
plan for Planning Commission and/or staff approval.
You have given here the uses that are allowed under C2 and the
third item is called business and professional offices. Why
isn't this conforming to C2?
Bob ,•,aibel It is the permitted use, but if you go further on the C2
district it doesn't require the loading area which would
really be unsuitable for this type of architecture.
Clark Morn So, C2 is because of the type of use. You're just saying it
requires you to have this loading area and it isn't appropriate
for this type of building.
-b ;Jaibel This would be inappropriate in a situation requiring a 209-000
ft requirement found in the Cl district for office buildings.
.roman .Roos Can that be handled by a variance situation?
Cram hertz Yes.
Roman Roos Since we're in the phase of site plan and review on this
proposal that we'd like to know generally what the recommendatic
were and what their feelings were on the project.
Don Ashworth I do not have minutes of that meeting. They are not completed
as of yet. The HRA only reviews the three proposals from the
basis of whether or not the variance should be granted to the
building moratorium. They did not have copies of the specific
plans. They made no review of the site plan as it would relate
to set back parking, access, any of the planning type of the
consideration. The only issue they considered was whether or
not the proposed uses were in line with the overall redevelopmer
plan and whether or not those uses would in any way hinder their
ability to carry out that plan. You will also have to make that
finding as part of your action.
You will have to determine whether or not the variance should be
granted to allow construction during this moratorium period.
Mis
Secondary to that, any specific site plan considerations that
you may have. I guess that points to a question. Should you
be going through site plan review process, I don't know how
to answer that. There are pros and cons both ways.
You spend a great deal of time going through site plan reviews
to find that a variance will not be granted, you waste a great
deal of time. On the other side of the coin, you are hindering
the applicant during his process if you make him go through
variance process and come back and go through site plan review.
They only looked at variance process. They stated that for the
office facility based on the conformance with the overall
downtown concept plan, both from a land use and not hindering
the ability of the HRA to carry out redevelopment activity in
the downtown area.
They made the same findings with the warehouse facility. They
did find that to be in compliance. They looked at that one in
a little more depth because there was the office/warehouse
concern, primarily the one of off street parking requirements
and outside storage. That should be discouraged.
They did look to the type of uses that are occurring at H & K
or at least at one and considered that a warehouse/retail type
of use where a major portion of the facility would be devoted
to warehousing activity, but a lesser portion of the building
is retail, generally meant the overall categories that they were
looking for in that area.
They did find .that to be in conformance of the activities. One
of the things they were looking to .......... were to remove the
lumber uses from the rear portion of the lumber companies
and to consider the westerly portion of this development as
local retail/commercial use.
There was discussion as to Bloomberg Companies have and still
are proposing a home center generally in this area (map). There
was concern as far as outside storage of lumber, etc:, but felt
that their decisions to date in this use that the lumber facilit;
is a proper use in this area.
It was finally determined to be reasonable again under the auspi.c
of this general area known as retail. That of course led to the
question of what type of uses would occur in this area? Strictl;
commercial may not be beneficial if you have do have the rear
portion of this as the rear portion of a home center, no matter
how well you landscape it and try to detract from the detrmental
portion of it. They generally felt that the industrial zoning
SPE
that exists in the area today is improper, but the land uses
of an office/warehouse in this area would be reasonable. The
professional building in this area did not interfe r with the
overall plan portion.
I would hope that the Planning Commission -would look very hard
at those type of land use considerations, especially recognizinc
that the HRA did not.
The restaurant facility they find to be premature. They
recommended that no variance be given for this.
Clark -'orn One of the things that we have talked about for our next sessior
is to get some type of a layering from the staff as to what is
appropriate as you layer away from a central area, what is a.
good sequence of events? I guess that appropriate use -as a
home center, I cannot accept as yet.
I think a more appropriate use would be the continuation of
professional office buildings, but I think regardless of whether
we leave it that way or change that and the use of an office
building -in the next corner over wouldn't be affected by that.
7 Ashworth The HRA will be meeting this Thursday. One of the items that
. will be on their agenda will be the continuation of the contract
with BRW and the ring road. They are now really going into a
second phase and working with Kraus -Anderson. They are going to
need professional help in reviewing those plans.
The state requires a very specific process in actually amending
the plan. This represents a concept plan. The actual plan that
was adop''ed simply adopts the boundaries of the entire area.
It real-LTf establishes the framework of the plan.To actually adopt
a redevelopment- plan you must ahi i.z e x a c t i y what businesses
are to be relocated, where they would be relocated to, etc.
There has to be a number of requirements in dealing with
existing owners, you have to be able to inform them exactly
what they are entitled to under the law and if you are unable
to reasonably negotiate with them about proper procedure about
notifying them so that they have normal court processes to
occur. The HRA will need help within the next week.
Part of the proposal I will be dealing with the HRA on is a
redefining, refinding is better, of some of the original
concepts.
We also have a chore during this time to determine what we want
to do and the capital improvements that would be necessary,
etc.
ME
This ring road is generally a concept, but not engrasred in
stone. I think we have to look at alternatives that can
actually work in line with specific development proposals.
I"m hoping that the HRA will approve that subsidiary contract
and that we can move into that area. If we do, it will involve
the Planning Commission.
Roman Roos The distance fro-R 7Qth Street down to Topeka is roughly.600 foot
Topeka on the/eirro. d'st1blished road by the city map.
Walter Thompson We have had this concept that there will be a super market
down in that corner and as I see it the proposed home center
would be across the street from that, which I think ties in.
Take a look at Warner's. They have a lot of lumber on the
inside. I don't see any on the outside, but what is Frontier
going to do? Are they still going to be heavily involved in
the building materials that normally are stored outside or is
it a conventional home center where they will keep lumber
inside?
If they're going to move the hardware and the lumber and they're
going to maintain what they have presently, they certainly are
going to have storage out there. Whether or not that is
detremental to the building backing up to it, at this point
I wouldn't make a decision.
Roman Roos If it would be that way, it is u.) against the railroad tracks.
Walter Thompson In looking at some of the developments around they have a unifor
building situationbut I think they've got manufacturing as well
as office building interspaced with it and there again I think
whoever is doing the development, he has to know ghat the
economics are, whether that's logical office space or not.
I'd be inclined to think if he thinks its satisfactory, to
probably go along with it.
Tom I guess I'm not real excited about warehouses in the center of
Droege.-queller the city area. I think professional office buildings make
sense, but I don't think the area that we're talking about
is very large and my personal feelings are that the number
of warehouses in the area, I don't like.
Clark I think I have more problem with other areas, such as the
Morn Super Valu and the hardware concept going into that area
than I can find with this. The term warehouse use bothers
me somewhat. I think the plans I've seen here are somewhat
more attractive than what I usually subscribe to warehouse.
Roman Roos
You'd like to leave it status quo in terms of the concept
plan or you just don't want the expansion of warehousing
in that area?
Tom Oroegomaeller I guess I'm just not very excited about this.
Roman Roos I guess what I'm searching for is a general feeling that
perhaps a motion to modify the concept plan in that area
to at least accommodate different uses than what the original
area. If I can get that motion on the floor or denied, then
at that point we can proceed with the various Issues here pro or
con. If it's negative, then we will draw the line right there.
Clark Horn Are we reviewing these as a pair or are we strictly dealing with
the office proposal right now?
Roman Roos I think we can deal with them one at a time, but. they're really
going to fall in the same pattern.
Clark Horn You probably wouldn't have a problem with the office park, but
the warehouse is a problem.
Walter Thompbon The definition here is pretty broad. Warehouse is a pretty
R general term covering a building. Really, the uses that come
out of it are various. I'm not really uptight about it'if the
building design is incorporated into the situation we have here.
Roman Roos I don't think, Walter, we can look at the modification of the
area. I'm talking about generalities in that area.
Bob, give me the definition of the list.
Tom Droebemueller One of the things that concerns us is the kind of traffic that
is generated in the city. I'm just not excited about seeing
trucks, etc. as far as traffic in the city.
It's an entertainment/shopping area the way I visualize it.
Roman Roos On a sight plan review you should be able to control what you.
can put in there.
Toni Droegemueller For the most part, when people come in, it's hard for us to
say we don't want that type of use. It seems we don't have
a very effective means of controlling it.
Clark Horn We wern't sure we could control that much anyway. We were prett,
much at the descretion of the developer that was here. Our big
objection at that point was to the super market going in. To
me that's the pivital point how this corner goes. I find the
MR
super market inappropriate there, but if the super market has
to go in the whole downtown plan, in all likelihood it will go
in. To me, that changes the whole concept of what we're doing
here. I don't think we can change the super market thing.
It frustrates -me, but I think that's reality.
Roman Roos We have to look at them one at a time. There are really two
issues. One would be to modify the plan and the second would
be a variance. Those are the two steps we're looking at.
I guess my comment was that the general business zone, zone 10,
covers a multitude of land uses (Roman lists them).
Again, based on the H & K warehouse, you have a large type of
businesses in the building. From that standpoint, zone 10 woulc
pretty much fit in that category.
Clark horn The thing I noticed in that list of _uses is I don't see any that
would have large shipments and deliveries and semi -trucks.
Keep the heavy truck traffic out of there.
Roman Roos I don't think we can look at those I think it's irrelevar
to the discussion.
Clark Korn Well, I think it is. The question is whether traffic is going t
be brought into town. I would feel very uncomfortable trying to
keep truck traffic out of area 10 when it's in area 6.
Roman Roos The general concensus should leave the concept plan pretty much
as it stands right now.
Walter Thompson The HRA has indicated satisfaction with this.
Roman Roos
Craig Mertz
Bob Waibel
0
They're looking at the downtown development area. That is their
charge. There would be no need for motion.
The action item needed is whether or not to recommend variance
to the downtown moratorium.
February 20, 1980 is the expiration on the moratorium. The moti
is that the recommendation that no variance be granted and you
have to decide are you just going to table this item and wait
for the City Council's decision or do you want to hedge your
bets and make your comments on the site plan not withstanding
your motion?
On the recommendations that I made for the office building and
find out that set -backs for parking, numbers the physical lay-ou
for the plan is adequate in Ordinance 47. The grading plan -
I don't know if the Planning Commission would be interested in
reviewing that in any detail. Landscape plan, lighting plan,
etc.
-10-
As far as the office/warehouse building. Their recommendation
was at that time the recommendation will be forthcoming for a
variance to the moratorium.
A variance would be recommended this evening contingent upon
either staff or Planning Commission review them. Then it could
be submitted direct to the Council after that..
As far as the office/warehouse building, I found the deficiencie
in the plan to be significant enough that the applicant go back
and correct those before he comes back to the Planning Commissio
again.
Roman Roos If we can't come to an agreement here in terms of the use of tha
area, I'm sure it's difficult for us to even take a look at a
variance at this point in time. I hate to get bogged down in th
one area, but I think it's very critical. Once we ascertain
what the use of that area would be, then we can go ahead and
look at the situation in respect to the office/warehouse.
I don't think we can get a motion until we get to that point.
Clark Horn I have no trouble with the variance with the office building,
it's the office/warehouse I have problems with.
man Roos I would entertian that a motion be made such that there will be
no variance to the moratorium in respect to the office/warehouse
Clark Horn I would so move
Tom Droegemueller Second that.
Clark Horn: The first proposal is the office building.
Roman Roos I've got the two turned around.
There is a motion on the floor then Yt at the variance not be
granted to the moratorium in respect/item #4, which is the
office/warehouse Lot 1 ?-2,block 2. Is there any further discussior
on that motion?
Walter Thompson Restate the motion.
Roman Roos The motion is to deny the variance to the moratorium with
respect to potential construction of the office/warehouse,
south of Peca (sp.) Drive and Item #4 on the agenda lot 1 and
2 block 2.
Walter Thompson This is contrary to what the HRA indicated.
Roman Roos The Planning Commission's concern about the evolution of the
traffic area and of course, the retail and what the traffic
will be down there.
CITY-bF
CHANHASSEN
7610 LAREDO DRIVE*P.O. BOX 1470CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 474-8885
DATE: February 26, 1980
TO: Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Bob Waibel, Assistant City Manager/LUC
SUBJECT: Burdick Office Building
APPLICANT: B. C. Burdick
PLANNING CASE P-647
At the last Planning Cannission review of the subject proposal, the
applicant did not have on his plans the proposed grading, drainage,
lighting, and signage plans. The applicant has provided this
information on the plans dated February 11, 1980, and such is
essentially being presented to the Planning Canaaission, at this time
for informational and review purposes. With the exception of the
above items, the subject plan was found to be ccmpliant with the
ordinance standards, however, upon secondary review, I find that the
subject proposal has a surplus of five parking spaces for the ordinance
requirements and would reed that the northwesterly and southwesterly
most two spaces and the two compact car spaces be removed fran the
subject plans in order to expand the landscaped area along Monterey
Drive.
Recommendation
I recommend that the Planning Cammission recaYarield that the City Council
approve a variance to Building Moratorium Ordinance 47-K and approve the
site plan contingent upon the City Engineer's approval of the grading and
drainage plan and the City Council's approval of the sign plan based upon
the reccmTendations of the Sign C nni.ttee.
LETTER OF
TRANSMITTAL
DATE 2'I?,-SO
COMM. NO.��
,�,NETONKA, MN 55343 16121933- 8111
cf)
Z
}
3
Z
a
=
N
J
a
Ln
LARSEN ASSOCIATES ARCHITIP
JOe GHPJ,1WMA� 0r'Y►er, �U I Ll +ntL'�2
TO r10V WAc lV%A/
(i t-T'C FL a,w-mk
G t -r-s OF
SHEET NO. DESCRIPTION COPIES
?IZonx52D fpLwt-Di N L.0
REMARKS ti0� !7 t i �1'��v � V � W1LT/e1
MF, If -670 F{ ACE A"
BY w Y 2C"
ITL Report No. 22381 ISOLUX LINES OF HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES
Date: B-24.77 Values based on 20 foot mourning height
Preparedfor: STERNER LIGHTING SYSTEMS, INC.
3 Catalog No.: UBR-200CL
Metal outer housing. One-piece
aluminum reflector, ribbed
top portion; semi -diffuse
2 finish. Flat clear cover glass.
Lamp: One S55(150w high-
pressure sodium, rated
16,000lumens)
IFS Classification; Type II,
1 1 \ medium, cutoff
di
1'
2
1 3
4
5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Longitudinal Distance in Units of Mounting Heights
SCALE: 1" = 40'
0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
X------------------------------------------------------
0
100. 0 + 1. 3 1. 1 97 49 .29 17 .08 02 . 01 . 01 . 00
0
0
90.0 + 4. 2 3.5 1. 9 .86 . 41 23 09 .03 .01 01 .01
0
0
80. 0 + 7. f 5. 8 2. 8 1.2 .61 32 13 05 . 02 01 . 01
0
0
70. 0 + 4.9 4.2 2. 8 1.8 1. 1 .58 . 25 11 .05 02 .01
0
.0
60.0 + 1.6 1.4 1.0 85 .88 60 .35 16 . 08 04 . 02
.O
.O
50.0 + 66 62 46 36 .35 .31 22 13 08 05 .02
.0
.0
40.0 + 28 .29 25 18 . 15 .14 .10 07 .05 .03 02
.0
0
30.0 + 12 14 12 .09 .08 .06 05 03 . 02 . 02 01
.0
0
20.0 + 05 .06 .06 .04 03 .03 02 .01 .01 01 01
0
0
10.0 + 02 02 .02 .02 .01 01 .01 .01 01 .01 .00
0
0
0 + 01 01 .01 .01 01 .00 .00 .00 00 .00 .00
.0
X------------------------------------------------------
10.0 30.0 50.0 70.0 90.0
SCALE: I" = 30'
UBR-15OS-11
COEFFICIENTS OF UTILIZATION
AND FLUX DISTRIBUTION
0.6
0.5
u
0.2
0.1
0r
0 1 2 3 4 5
Street Width/Mounting Height
PERCENT
LUMENS
OF LAMP
Downward
Street Side
6,779
42.37
Downward
House Side
4,565
28.53
Downward
Total
11,344
70.90
Upward
Street Side
0
.00
Upward
House Side
0
.00
Upward
Total
0
.00
Total
Flux
11,344
70.90
MOUNTING HEIGHT
CONVERSION FACTORS
121k' - 2.56
15' - 1.77
20' -1-00
25' - .64
30' - .44
35' - .32
Consult your Sterner representative
for:
• Multiple luminaire printouts
• Other scales
• Project printouts
ITL Report No. 22381 ISOLUX LINES OF HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES
Date: 8-24-77
Values based on 20 foot mounting height
Prepared for:
STERNER LIGHTING SYSTEMS, INC.
3
Catalog No.: UBR-200CL
Metal outer housing. One-piece
- -
aluminum reflector, ribbed
top portion; semi -diffuse
finish. Flat clear cover glass.
Lamp: One S55(150w high-
-
'.
�.• 1
pressure sodium, rated
16,000lumens)
r �
IES Classification: Type II,
rn
m
medium, cutoff
2 �
C
C of 1
7
�
G � ,
o 2
1
D
0
C
2
-
.2
W
4
.05+ -/02
3
i
4
5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Longitudinal Distance in Units of Mounting Heights
SCALE: 1" = 40'
0
20, 0
40.0
60. 0
80. 0
100. 0
X--+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-
0
100 0 +
1.3
1.1
.97
.49
29
17
08
02
.01
01
00
O
0
90, O +
4. 2
3. 5
1. 9
86
41
23
09
03
01
01
01
0
0
80. 0 +
7. +
5. 8
2. 8
1. 2
. 61
32
13
05
02
01
. 01
u
70. 0 +
4. 9
4. 2
2. 8
1. 8
1. 1
58
25
11
05
02
.01
0
0
60. 0 +
1. 6
1. 4
1. 0
85
as
60
35
16
08
04
02
0
0
50. 0 +
66
62
.46
:36
35
31
22
13
08
05
02
O
0
40.0 +
28
29
25
18
15
14
10
.07
05
03
02
0
0
30.0 +
12
14
12
="09
.08
06
05
03
02
02
01
0
0
20 0 +
05
06
06
04
.03
03
02
01
01
01
01
0
0
10.0 +
02
02
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
.01
00
0
0
i_) +
01
01
01
01
01
00
00
00
00
.00
00
0
X--+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+.
10. 0
30. O
50. 0
70. 0
90, 0
SCALE:
1" =
30'
UBR-150&11
COEFFICIENTS OF UTILIZATION
AND FLUX DISTRIBUTION
0.6
0.5
° C3`f_ R_tFSIDE
0.4
N
i
m0.3 _�-
� - FIOUSE SIDE
U r
r
U 0.2 1 /'
rl
0.1
r
Or
0 1 2 3 4 5
Street Width/Mounting Height
PERCENT
LUMENS
OF LAMP
Downward
Street Side
6,779
42.37
Downward
House Side
4,565
28.53
Downward
Total
11,344
70.90
Upward
Street Side
0
.00
Upward
House Side
0
.00
Upward
Total
0
.00
Total
Flux
11,344
70.90
MOUNTING HEIGHT
CONVERSION FACTORS
12%' - 2.56
15' - 1.77
20' - 1.00
25' - .64
30' .44
35' .32
Consult your Sterner representative
for:
• Multiple luminaire printouts
• Other scales
• Project printouts
d
ITL Report No. 22381 ISOLUX LINES OF HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES
Date: 8-24-77
Values based on 20 foot mounting height
Prepared for:
STERNER LIGHTING SYSTEMS, INC.
3
Catalog No.: UBR-200CL
Metal outer housing. One-piece
- - -
aluminum reflector, ribbed
top portion; semi -diffuse
2.__
° finish. Flat clear cover glass.
Lamp: One S55 (150w high-
-�
`
1 pressure sodium, rated
1
c
16,000 lumens)
•�_
r
IES Classification: Type II,
d
`
medium, cutoff
z
d
019 c L
�
b
0
5
1
y 2 �..
.2'
.05
<0
3 �. �`
4
5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Longitudinal Distance in Units of Mounting Heights
SCALE: 1" = 40'
0
20. 0
40. 0
60. 0
80.0
100.0
X--+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-
0
100. 0 +
1. 3
1. 1
97
49
29
17
08
. 02
01
.01
00
0
0
90. 0 +
4. 2
3. 5
1 9
86
. 41
23
09
03
01
01
01
0
80. �I +
7. +
5. 8
2. 8
1. 2
61
32
13
05
02
01
01
u
u
70 0 *
4. 9
4. 2
2. 8
1.8
1. 1
58
25
11
05
02
01
O
0
60 0+
1 6
1 4
1 0
+
Y
60
35
16
08
.04
02
V
O
50 0 •
66
62
46
:36
35
31
.22
13
08
.05
02
0
0
40 0 +
29
29
25
18
15
14
10
.07
05
03
02
V
O
30. 0 +
12
14
12
09
08
06
.05
.03
02
02
01
u
0
20.0 +
05
06
06
04
03
03
02
01
01
01
01
0
U
to.0 +
02
02
02
02
01
01
.01
01
01
01
00
0
0
0 +
01
01
01
01
01
00
00
00
00
.00
.00
O
X--+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-
1 o 0
30, 0
50. 0
70. 0
90. 0
SCALE:1"
30'
UBR-750S-II
COEFFICIENTS OF UTILIZATION
AND FLUX DISTRIBUTION
0.6
0.5
° 0.4 si.•--STREET SIDE
N-
0
w 0.3 / __
m ' = FIOUSE SIDE
V I I
C0 0.2 /
0.1
i�
Of
0 1 2 3 4 5
Street Width/Mounting Height
PERCENT
LUMENS
OF LAMP
Downward
Street Side
6,779
42.37
Downward
House Side
4,566
28.53
Downward
Total
11,344
70.90
Upward
Street Side
0
.00
Upward
House Side
0
.00
Upward
Total
0
.00
Total
Flux
11,344
70.90
MOUNTING HEIGHT
CONVERSION FACTORS
12 % ' - 2.56
15' - 1.77
20' - 1.00
25' - .64
30' .44
35' - .32
Consult your Sterner representative
for:
• Multiple luminaire printouts
• Other scales
• Project printouts
go a-eaa au-4 qp aq TT'su.s A-4TTToPJ uanS • aoads buT.zannoupuz pup saTsTP 30
anTsnToxa 'ugbuaT UT 99 Pup 7-14PT14 UT jZT upuq ssaT -.ou 90 paap UP IMTM
papTAOad aq TTpus AgTTToeg buTpaOT -4aaags-JJA up„ 'Tpsodo.zd q.OTa-4sTp
Z-O u uTggTM gsuq SiDgPgs ' LV aouauTpaO 90 V uOTgoasgns 90'GE. uOTgD;9S
•A�TqutassU go saovTd pup 'sbuTpTTnq Agagps
aTTgnd 'saTavagTT 'saoTJJO anTquagSTUTIUPV Oq p04TuiTT qou qnq buTpnTOuT
suoTgngTqsuT TpangTno pup OTATo pogvaado PUP pauMO quauzua9no0 •L
• sAaan-.aoN • 9
•saTapunpl
aaTnaas-jTas pua suoT4Pgs UOTgoaTTOO AapunaT pua buTuaaTo Aaa •5
•adi�q
UT-OATap aq4 buTpnTOUT qou qnq 'sUaGAU-4 PUP '.s8a4P;@lq . 'squpanpgsag • �
•saaT990 TPUOTssa-4oad pua ssauTsng •£
• suoTgngTqsu C TPIOU uTA' Z
• SquauzusTTgpgsa
gssM aPO aTTgouzognU ao 'spav K TaTaOgrtU buTpTTnq ' SOOTAaas aO saTas
quauzdTnba uanTap-aaMOd aTTgoui aau-4o .zo ' gvoq ' aaTT'ea". ' aogoeaq 3[ona-.
aTTgouIO4nP buTpnTauT qou 4nq 'saoTAaas pup saTPs TTP4aa Tvaau90 •T-
: sMOTTOJ BP aav Lip aouruTpaO aad sasn paggTmiad
auk. 4TMoq ' gOTa4sTp TPTOaaunuoo ' Z-0 pauOz sT i�gaadoad goa[gns aqs,
'4S ug8L 'M
pup anTaa A�aaaquoW go uoTgoasa,aquT aqq go quvapenb gspagqnos aqq
UT paqaoOT Taoapd -qj •bs 000'ZZ a4UuiTxoaddp UP uo buTpTTnq aoTjgo
•qj •bs p0O'8 agPUITxoadds us gonagsuoo o4 buT_sodoad sT '.uPD.Tddp
auk. ' uzagT qoa Cgns aqq uo qaodaa buTuuaTd snoTnaad au-4 uT pa-.ou sV
LV9-d :RSVO ONTNNVUd
bUTpTTng aoTJgo NOTpang :faaS
TagTPM qog 'aogvuTpaooO asn puaq/aabPUPW �qTO 'q,ssV :WOUJ
JJagS Pup UOTssTunuoO buTUUPTd :01
6L6T 'CT aagivaAON : aIVG
,BdOdS2i JNINNK'Id
9888-VLV (Z 19)
LLE99 ` iOS3NNIN 'N3SSVHNVHO*Lt L XO8 'O'de3AIHG 043UV'l OL9L
1:00YENYHO
�177Y-fr&4
•Tpnoaddp gjrgs ao/pup'uOTSSTI=00 buTuupTd aO,J upTd abpuTpap
PUP buTppab pine 'uuTd ubTs 'aTnpauOs pup upTd adpOspupT 'upTd buT4ubTT p
'gTuigns pup aapdaad oq qupoTTddp auq gaaaTp pTnous uOTssTunuOo buTuu'eTd auy
•paqdopp sT quouiaaTnbaa buTppOT g99a4S-JJ0 aqq 30 uoT4aTap Jo uoT4ppu9unuOOaa
aAogp auk 9T Lv aOupuTpao buTuoZ go suOTsTnOad auq ugTM aOupTTduzoO UT sT
Tpsodoad goaCgns aqq 4auq puTJ uoTssTuwOO buTuupTd auk 4pu,. puaunuuioaaa I
uoTp.puaunuoOag
•upTd abpuTpap pup buTppab
p pup 'aTnpauOs pup upTd adpOspupT 'upTd buT4ubTT 'upTd ubTs v •T
:MaTnaa upTd ogTs agaTduzoo p aog papoau sT uOT4PUlaOJuT buTMOTTOJ aus
•quauzaaTn.bOa buTppoT gaaags-,;Jo aqq 04
punoq aq qOu Tpsodoad goolgns aqq qpu-. pu0U=0Daa pTnoM aoT;gO sTuq snuq
pup aangonags pasodoad auq 90 paap aOOTJ ssoaB au4 sasspdans ap; aanbTg
stun •paap aOOT; sso.zb 90 •49 •bs 000'OZ upu-. aaTpaab 90 sbuTpTTnq jog
paaTnbea ATuo sT A4TTTDPJ buTppOT gaaags-,J30 auq 'gDTagsTp T-0 auk- Jog
suOTsTAOad buTppOT gG9ags-JJ0 9u4 buTMaTAea uz •goTagsTp Z-0 aqq go sasn
pa'4gTuiaad qupapngsaa pup TTPgaa Tpaauab aq4 uaaMgaq uOTgPTgUGaajjTp gP@ab
ggTM asn adds. T-D p gOPJ UT sT 'pasodoad asn aqq gpuq spuTJ 90TJJO sTus
•spaap
buiXapd jog pogTaosap gpgq sr aauupux auzps aqq uT paopgans aq TT'eus aopds
buTaannaupui pup saTsTp 'saT4TTTOPJ eons TTV •asTpupuOaauz 90 buTppOTun pup
buTppOT auq aOJ 4TanT5nTox8 pasn aq TTpgs pup aanganags TpdTOuTad 9q4
6G6T 'ET aagtU-klA -Z- luodau DNINNvgd
CITY( -,OF
7610 LAREDO DRIVEOP.O. BOX 1476CHANHASSEN, MiNNESOTA 55317
(612) 474-8885
October 22, 1979
Duran & Moody
Attn: Len Champer
114 East Seventh St.
St. Paul, Mn. 55101
Dear Mr. Champer:
y�
Enclosed please find a copy of the Jetter received from the
City Attorney, Russell Larson, in regards to your application
for industrial revenue bond financing. I have delayed forwarding
this item to you in an effort to determine whether all or any
of the development requests will be considered by the City Planning
Commission (should the Planning Commission determine that one or
more of the facilities is "premature", such may be determined by
you to be deleted from the industrial revenue bond request).
In light of the above, I would suggest that you forward a check
to the City in the amount of $750.00. This check will be placed
in a.special escrow account.for attorneys services in reviewing
your application. Additionally, I will not instruct the attorney's
office to begin work on this application until I receive confirmation
from you of your desire to proceed. As was originally noted, City
Council consideration of"this request should parallel.their decision
in reviewing rezoning and/or other development plan considerations
(assumes that the Planning Commission has completed their reviews
and is in a position to forward such to the City Council).
Should you have any -questions in regards to the above letter, please•
feel free to contact me.
Sincere y,
l
Don Ashworth
cc: City Attorney, Russell Larson
Land Use Coordinator, Bob Waibel
City Treasurer, Kay Klingelhutz
RUSSELL H. LARSON
CRAIG M. MERTZ
OF COUNSEL
HARVEY E. SKAAR
MARK C. MCCULLOUGH
L ARSO` & 1'1'11F,_RTZ
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1900 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
Donald TV. Ashworth
Chanhassen City Manager
Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
September 13, 1979
Re: Blaine C. Burdick
IDR Bond Application
TELEPHONE
(612) 335-9565
Dear Don:
Reference is made to your letter of September 4, 1979, relative
to this matter.
in reviewing the application in the light of the City financing
criteria of December 18, 1978, we note the following:
1. Juran & Moody, the underwriters, advise that the
loan will be placed with a qualified lending institu-
tion " a private placement lender.
2. Under II B 3 of the criteria, the financing policy of
the private placement lender may be considered
acceptable to the City.
This raises the question of whether the Council will accept the
financing policy of the private lender as demonstrating the financial
feasibility of the project and the applicant's ability to meet the
debt service, or whether the City wishes to make'its own independent
analysis through the services of Joe Froehling and this -office.
If the latter, this office will require the following additional
information:
1. Legal description of site proposed for the project and
the availability of sewer and water to the site.
2. Resume of properties developed by applicant.
3. Copies of all letters of intent to lease by prospective
tenants.
SEP 1979
RECENVED
VILLAGE 09
CHANHASSEM,
MINN.
Donald W. Ashworth -2- 9/13/79
i B.C. Burdick IDR Application
4. Proposed rental rates for office building, office -warehouse
building.
5. Proposed rental rates for restaurant facility.
6. Names and addresses of five dry cleaning plants owned
by applicant as described under 7(e) of the application.
If we are to proceed with the financial analysis, we suggest an
escrow deposit of $750.00, and we reserve the right to request
further financial documentation.
It should be noted that the escrow deposit is a reserve against
charges made only for the financial review,. and is not intended to
cover document review, conferences with bond (lender). counsel, the
underwriters, and applicant's counsel in arranging the financial
details_ and closing the loan, in the event the preliminary authori-
zation resolution'is adopted by the Council. These supplementary
charges are customarily paid from the loan proceeds and form a part
of the debt to be repaid by the applicant.
We'await your further advice.
L
Very truly yours,
F
RUSSELL H. LARSON
Chanhassen City Attorney
RHL:mep
STRUT' AR-11(1SCOE, INC.
0979108
October 11, 1979
Mr. Bill Magnuson
LARSEN ASSOCIATES, INC.
15612 Highway 7
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343
re: DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FOR LOTS 1 AND 2
BURDICK PARK ADDITION
CARVER COUNTY
ro
Dear Mr. Magnuson:
As per your request, a drainage analysis was conducted for Lots 1 and 2 of
Burdick Park Addition, Carver County. These lots constitute the site to be
developed for industrial use. The site is located on Figure 1, attached,
for your convenience.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this drainage analysis is to determine the impact of directing
the runoff generated from the proposed site into the existing drainage system.
The direction of flow is shown on Figure 1.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
A local ponding area lies north of the Milwaukee Road Railroad approximately
100 feet east of the site and is bounded to the north by a landfill area.
Runoff from the site drains to this pond the elevation of which was determined
to be 948.5 on October 9, 1979. The pond drains to a pond lying south of the
Milwaukee Road Railroad via a 24 inch concrete culvert. The south pond eleva-
tion was determined to be 947.8 on October 9, 1979. (The difference in eleva-
tion of these ponds can be attributed to the constriction on the connecting
24 inch culvert by sediment and debris from the landfill area). The south
pond outflows overland to the south approximately 300 feet and there enters
the 79th Street storm sewer. The 79th Street storm sewer is composed of 18
and 24 inch concrete pipe and directs flow easterly and southerly to a ditch
along State Highway 5. Flow is conveyed by the ditch easterly to a 24 inch
concrete culvert that connects to a 42 inch trunk storm sewer on the south
side of State Highway 5. Flow from the 42 inch trunk storm sewer discharges
into Rice Marsh Lake.
Mr. Bill Magnuson - 2 - October 11, 1979
CONCLUSION
The runoff generated from the site as proposed would not necessitate provision
for increased capacity of the existing drainage system., The north pond has
adequate capacity for the additional runoff generated from the proposed site.
The volume of runoff entering the north pond from a ten year frequency storm,
using the Rational Method, would increase the elevation of the pond from its
present elevation by no more than 0.1 feet. The ponds should buffer any up-
stream discharge and thus reduce the impact of a critical storm on the drain-
age system downstream from the ponds. Of concern is the reduced capacity of
the 24 inch culvert connecting the ponds. Continued deposition of sediment
and debris into the north pond from the landfill area could eventually block
flow to the southerly pond. This condition should be corrected and preventa-
tive measures taken to avoid reoccurrence.
Please call if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
STRGAR-P,OSCOE, INC.
Michael R. Bond
Project Engineer
Robert B. Roscoe, P.E.
Vice President
1RE/sg
C I TN OF
CHANHASSEN
7610 LAREDO DRIVEOP.O BOX 147*CHANHASSEN, 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: Burdick Office Building Site Plan Review
APPLICANT: B. C. Burdick
PLANNING CASE: P-647
Pen. -1-i +i nn
The applicant is proposing to construct an approximate 8,300 sq.
office building in Lot 1 Block 1 of the Burdick Park Addition.
Pursuant to Ordinance 47, site plan review approval is necessary
any building permit is granted.
Background
ft.
before
1. Community Location: As shown in enclosure 1, the subject property
is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Mandan
Drive and W. 78th St.
2. Existing Zoning: The subject property is presently zoned C-2,
Commercial District.
3. Utilities: Municipal water and sanitary sewer are presently
available to the subject property.
4. Comprehensive Plan Proposal:
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 Transportation and
Thoroughfares Plan, W. 78th St. is to function as a major
collector.
rnmmr-ntc
For scheduling purposes, this office had indicated that a site plan
review for this proposal would be carried out at this time, however
Planning Report -2- October 9, 1979
at discussions on the staff level it was recommended that the Planning
Commission receive this item for informational purposes only at this
time and defer comment until the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
has made comments with reference to their redevelopment concept plan.
In concurrence with staff, I recommend that the Planning Commission
advise the applicant to present this proposal at the next regular HRA
meeting.
P
.. rain
�-
:_-
i
LAXE LUCY ' " ` �� L O rMs ,
u
I
0O' Gi. 1
LAKE ANNf r ml LANE
= a I
0
a
SL GT
U VAR NTY ROAD
PARK
LT. f
~9t P
op `
R• {
PAC
0
�VV f• a
DPoVE I LAKE CIR.
`RZv,
LAXE SUSAH
a
of
0
n
�. LYMA BOULEVARD
' f
RICE Mo RSH L
POND
!
��• CAXE
j O
O
�• U