pf_03199 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Thomas Paschke April 21, 2000 Page 2 It is Mr. Van Landschoot's belief that parking for the entire center (Shopping Center and Office Building combined) was designed to meet complementary needs of only those two uses. Based upon the limited information available to him it appears to Mr. Van Landschoot that not only will there be increased demand for parking spaces, but that the new proposed uses actually will require removal of a significant amount of parking on the Shopping Center site. In addition, there will be heavy parking and traffic demand at precisely the times of day when the office occupants are coming and going from work. He has been told by a Kraus-Anderson representative that there are anticipated to be as many as 275 students at the school, coming from all over the Twin Cities. Thus, it would appear that there will be large numbers of cars dropping students off in the morning and sitting in the parking lot at the end ofthe day waiting for-student pick up. In addition, it is his belief that charitable gambling parking needs will far exceed those for a shopping center. He believes that the resulting congestion could interfere significantly with parking and access, not only on the Office Building site but on surrounding streets, significantly impairing the value of the Office Building. Mr. Van Landschoot also believes that the Partnership has certain rights under the Declaration of Easements and Covenants which should be considered in evaluating parking as part of the planning process. We believe that the Declaration was intended to permit parking and access on the Office Building parcel only for a Shopping Center and that the language of the Declaration clearly supports this position. Thus, to the extent that any new use by Kraus-Anderson is not for a Shopping Center, we have advised Mr. Van Landschoot that the scope ofthe original easements may not include parking or access rights for that different and new use. In addition, the Declaration states that if the property is not used for a Shopping Center for a period of one year, then the right to use the Office Center Parcel for parking automatically expires. We have also advised Mr. Van Landschoot that it may be that uses which require re-zoning are not Shopping Center uses, and that conversion of the Shopping Center to a school and/or a charitable gambling establishment almost certainly will not constitute use as a Shopping Center. Finally, we are exploring the rights and remedies of the Office Building owner if there is diminished availability of parking and access on the Shopping Center parcel itself. Kraus-Anderson does not agree with Mr. Van Landschoot's position as to application ofthe Declaration and has threatened the possibility of a suit against him for tortious interference with their proposed change from the Shopping Center use. Application of the terms of the Declaration, of course, is dependent on the precise facts of each situation. Mr. Van Landschoot is hampered in evaluating the situation by the paucity ofinformation provided to him and the extremely short notice. Consequently, we request that any and all City actions on the proposed re-zoning be delayed to allow all parties to obtain and have reviewed by professionals customary and appropriate information about the proposed project, such as a site plan, engineering plan, drainage plan, parking plan, traffic study