05-4-88 Agenda and PacketCALL TO ORDER
PUBLIC IIEARINGS
AGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMIT{ISSION
WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 1988, 7:30 p.M.
CHANflASSEN CITY HALL, 590 COULTER DRIVE
Subdivision of 3.5
1 R & R Land Ventures, property zoned RSF, Residential SingleFamily and located on the south side of Woodhilt Roadapproximately l mile east of Nez perce (Lots 2773-2903 and2810-2847, Carver Beach):
a
b
acres into 7 single family lots
Permit to DeveLop wiEhin 200 feet of aWetland Alteration
Class B wetland.
Conditional Use permit for a private StableRSF, Single Family Residential and locatedTrai1, Dale Co11ins, appl icant.
Joseph Noterman, Brookside Motel,Flying Cloud Drive, property zoned.District:
located at 790 and 780BF, Business Fringe
Property Zoned
3931 Aster
on
at
3
Zoning Ordinance Amendment. to amend Section 2O-j73,BF District to allow recreational camping facilitiesconditional use.
theasa
b
4 Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Section 2Oi.25L 2(a) ofthe Zoning Ordinance to permit larger on-premise clirectionalsigns than the required four squara feet, DataServ.
NEW BUS INESS
APPROVA.L OF I\,IINUTES
OPEN DISCUSSION
5. Comprehensive Plan, Final Revielr of Transportation Chapter,
Mark Koegler.
6. BF District Discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
"ik
2.
a.
Conditsional Use Permit for four recreational camp,/trailersites.
CITY OF
EHINHISSEN
lIEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commiss ion
FROI!: Barbara Dacy, City planner
DATE: April 29, 1988
SUBJ: woodcrest Subdivision (Iten #l)
Staff has written t.he report for this item; however, thedeveloper submitted plans which do not accurately reflect ourrecommendations. The developer plans to submit correct plansMonday, May 2, 1988. Vle will deliver this item on Mondat.
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
on
CITY OF
EHINH[SSEN
P.C. DATE: May 4, 1988
C.C. DATE: May 23, 1988
CASE NO: CUP 88-5
Prepared by: Dacy/v
STAFF REPORT
Fz
()
=LL
!.(o
hJta
Conditional Use Permit for a Private Stable
3931 Aster Trail ( South l of Lot 8, Schmid's Acres)
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:Dale H. Collins
3931 Aster TrailExcelsior, MN 55331
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
WATER AND SEWER:
PEYSICAI, CHARAC. :
2OOO LAND USE PLAN:
RSF, Single Family Res idential
5.65 acres
N/A
N-
S-
E-
w-
RSF;
RSF;
RSF;
RSF i
s i ngle
lretland
single
vacant,
family residence & private st
family residence
single family residence,
Vi ctor i a
vlater and sewer is available in the area.
Site is dotted with occasional tree stand
and contains fairly level topography.
Lovr Density Resident.ial
bIe
-4200
4000
900
3800
3400
3300
3200
t
I
t,
i
ti\
F
\
\
,\
\
t
t
ri
\
L
q
\
'l
L
f,U
l,Ctl
If,
I
35
n!I
3500
c.
q
t.
I
,;
ffi*(n
TI
:
ANHAS
J)
Tl
I
CITY OF
(.otr
F\
r*
I
0
-
I
,A,,tlt_/(r\,
'l*-
..' t{.r
I
-
CA\2
I
I
I
i
I rlllll I l3r0 I I
Collins CUP
May 4, I988
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
The applicant proposes to construct an 1r800 square foot polebarn to act as a private stable for five horses. The applicantrssite plan indicates that the structure is to be Iocated ipproxi-mately L74 reet southwest from the existing house and approxi-matley 252 feeL from the existing creekbed in the southernportion of the applicantr s property.
At.t.achment #1 is an aerial photograph of the subject property.
A wetland area extends approximately 75 feet from the center lineof the creekbed. Separating the proposed locat.i.on of the barnfrom the wetland is a "L" shaped formation of existing trees anda slight hill blocking runoff from the north toward the rretland.Although the applicant indicates that 252 feex can be maintainedfrom the creekbed, a 200 fooL setback must be maintained from theedge of the wetland. There is adequate room on the property toshift the building to the north to accommodate this setback. Thesize of the site (5.65 acres) also affords good separation fromadjacent properties. Other stands of trees existing on isteserve as screens from the existing single fami.ly home on thewest. Another stable and pasture area is located directly northof the subject property.
The acreage of the property meets the minirnum lot area require-
ments for five horses. The site is served by Aster Trail, which
connects to west 62nd Street beyond the railroad right-of-wayalong the Vi ctor ia/Shorewood/Chanhassen boundary.
Section 5-104 staEes thaL accumulations of manure shall belocated at least 100 feet a$ray from any well and that the stable
must be locat.ed at least 100 feet from any neighboring residen-tial structure. The proposed location of the stable can meetthese requirements.
ANALYS I S
Section 20-614 requires private stables to receive a conditionaluse permit in the RSF District. Further, the stable must complywith Chapter 5, Article III (Section 5-86 through 5-106).
Section 20-260 requires that private stables be 1ocaLed a mini-
mum of 200 feet from wetland areas.
The City has a volunteer Horse Inspector (Dave Headla) &rho isresponsible for inspecting and making a recommendation on a1lprivate stables. A stable permit needs to be reviewed. on anannual basis. If the conditional use permit is granted by thecity, the owner will have to comply wilh the stable permitrequirements. Since Mr. Headla is on the planning C6mmission. hecan also report to the Commission his recommendations about thesite.
collins CUP
May 4, 1988
Page 3
The proposed site of the building is 18 feet. The size of thebuilding, 1,800 square feet or 36r x 50', is in proportion to thelot area size. The scale and character of the proposed structureis not out of cbaracter for the existing lot sizes and land uses
immediately adjacent to the property.
Pending the Horse Inspectorrs comments, the construction of the
proposed stable meets the requirements regarding installation ofprivate stables and the criteria established for conditional usesin Section 20-232 -
RECOMMENDAT I ON
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of
Permit #88-5 for the construction of a private
horses subject to the following conditions:
The stable sha1l be located
dential structures.
The private stable shall be located 200 feet from the edge of
the wetland.
Conditional Usestable for f ive
l-00 feet f rorn neighboring resi-
I
2
3
4
6
Land upon which horses are to be stabled and pastured must be
surrounded by a sturdy Eence which will keep horses confined.
The private stable sha11 be
keep the horses comfortable
constructed such that it will
and protected from the elements.
Accumulations of
from any we1l.
manure sha11 be located at least 100 feet
Accumulations of manure shalI be removed atwill ensure that no leaching or object.ionalthe premises sha11 not be allorved to become
such periods
odors exist,unsightly.
that
and
7 The applicant shaIl
procedure.
comply with Ehe annual stable permit
ATT ACHME NTS
1
2
3
4
5
6't
. Aerial photograph.
. Detailed locaLion map.. Proposed siEe plan.
. Cross section of building.. Copy fron Butler Building Publications regarding post framebuildings.. Application.. Section 5-85 through 5-106.
t
:-
t
\
*t
i ---.2-$,u'--...a.
!C H u
)
u)
'a,r
---a---_____,_
\
u)(,)
'o9
\
\^-
I
zo(/,
G
lrJOqZh.<(D
rat
oc;
zElrJ lr-FF(/, o
lrJJ
tNNrt
(L
o
Ycl
=o(/,
(r,
=
-
oE
caoF
9
o
F
IN
$:+-?
z?t a 'es xg
1UV3H-LVO l,lt SiilVc :
95a
gF
,is
@
-P?-
I
.J
'Ft
t
@
Sat/Th .,!/7 toT ?
sc-hsiDs ,BcR< TRqo|s
5t qcnes
N.
a
PAoFos. o
DL D7.g rf€-
/86
i Q")
llt b<
3ao
A<1
/7,
\
\
11
acAL<- I
ee
l az'
j
I
I
I
\
I
-----.=
t'-7-i-#(
{
I
I
I
;
t
. -1
i
I
I
I
I
o
=E
oi
E32it
oo
E .=g :EaEEy E:I-.d;!EEE:.EF:E6;.:gF irE;;E
!E!E*r iE:i?Ei p:t;: sEE *ii
i:EE;i i$;E:i
i5E*si;;gtE:
f,
ooo
;r*
9! J
;.6
IPE
:gf
5 iEs'EE!c'gg+r"
IEI 9F;iI ,
gE! iEI iiE"l E 3 e-! e J 5E3-:;3r7, u€ 5 i 3 E E.98.e9E3:Pa!3oEi€*.!?E
,gE*;,
EiEi;i "-s€:iE5E
E; EE;E i!:t liE!;EE:itE
€e; *ETE
,rEg!gg
A - Ee
E"EiE
ETEiE
€ E= s'i
!(;:;
E-='5! EEEFiE3;!-s I i
z
ou:ezo<2eU
EE
2
=a
o2
6fxh
\)
I
^St
0
v)(A
I
6
a
:\,
N
'.lr
!
I
R
q
tt
\rlt
S
" EF ,:EEA!i.9{iEiEi
iip:sXn6;9 E!.
Fi {:;; i
ETiEEi;
:iEsEi g
:3 Esjg
'
\
E\
0
\$
N
\
*
\
06
\l
E=e
:?+
3S!
Q'5
E9?
:9E
9P E
c5-
EEi
!E:'3 rE
i-"1 ;
-l'E6
E5 i;
E 3 :,'E
! EE I5 i€?
:=.I E
En(Jg
TFza
9H
ou
\s
2
5
5
E
l-i'r )
,ltiiE. + E {EEr8" E ;
IHE;; E*Il; C E '3 E +.t
BE;E E i:'
6 e; Y I o4:;;r::-..r!i;?!i? :E;
;EE;E [ =-i !iiE;EE:Ei
sEEsiE;EE:
i:i, s=
i;+E,E;E.i9sE-E E5i:Eii ii
iiiiS ri-
;i€ii !!i
E:i:i ii:
an
rqxp
H(
,rlh
>.H
}{(po
-1-
I
iEEl!==:t
t
f
iiiiil
iii
iril
it #{
t
I
J
a,r.-,l
I
I
!
J
'-
ti_
-l
. r-.
li
,l!{,
' l:):l
':!
' tl.'i'
r.:,
| :-,
rt
I
-
- >c <
:ticEii[E:i;Eo
:
:
2
:
!
:.
.it
I
aI,
IitJ
iI
t
:J.
T=
ea
air
oi
Es
EEELoz
(ol)
)t-
C(
'<YrL 7) o7.ur-5u
I.AND DEVELOPIIEUT APPLICATION
CITY OF CEANEAS SETiI
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhasseo, MN 55317(612) 937-1900
T APPLICANT: lZri /i y' (, /-/ r?tmn *, € t1 *t <)-
ADDREss SZqr lsk 'RTRatt ADDRES S
z/
TELEPEONE (Day
REOT'EST:
tinet474-zip code
.q 9z-.?lELEPHONE
Zoning District Change
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Variance
Zoning Text Amendment
Iand Use Plan Anendment
Conditional Use Permit
Site Plan Review
Planned Unit Development
_ Sketch Plan
_ Preliminary Plan
Fina1 Plan
Subdivision
_ Platting
_ Metes and Bounds
Street,/Easement Vacat ion
Wetlands Permit
PROJECT NA"UE
PRESENT LAND USE
REQUESTED LAND US
PRESENT ZONING
PLAN DESIGNATION
E PLAN DESIGNATION
. REOUESTED ZONING
{ uses PRoPoSED
1 srzn oF PRoPERTY f /)ctR.fs
: L S .'<T1*'rr,rv
22 ,+',5 /{R TR.nt't4' r.,ocArloN
REASONS FOR THIS REQ UEST
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary)
*b
Zip Code -
-L
a
_a Secs. 5-76-5€5. Reserved.
ANI},IALS AND FOWL $ 5-88
Sec. 5-74. Redemption.
(a) Any dog or cat may be redeemed from impoundment by the owner, within the timestated in the notice ofimpounding, upon payment ofthe ricense fee, a rate fee for the Iicense inthe amount established by resolution if unpaid, the impounding fees, and all other costs andcharges incurred by the city for impounding and maintenance ofsaid animar. The impoundingfees shall be as established by resolution.
(b) Upon the presentation of a correct license tag ana a receipt for an animar license feefor the current year and for the required fees, the animal control olficer shalr release to anyowner the animal claimed by him.
(Ord. No. 24-C, S $ ?, 8, 7 -L2_76; Ord. No. 24_D, i 2,8-2-82; Ord. No. 24_E, $ 1, 2-10-86)
Sec, i75. Disposition of unclaimed animals.
Any dog or cat which is not craimed as provided in section 5-74, within five (5) days afterimpounding, may be sold for not less than the u*o.rnt p.orid"d in section i_b4 to anyonedesiring to purchase the animal. Any animal which is noi"r"i."a ty the owner or sold shalrbe painlessly disposed of ant buried by the animal corrtror ofii""r. whenever any licensededucational or scientific institution shall request, O.,r.",ru.r, ,o state law, any impoundedanimal for research purposes' any such impounded animal remaining unclaimed for frve (5)days after impounding shall be sunendered to such institution.(Ord. No. 24-C, 5 tO,7-12-76)
ARTICLE UI. HORSES
DMISION 1. GENERALLY
Sec. 5€6. Definitions.
In this article ..horse,' includes colts, ponies or mules-(Ord. No. 56, $ 2, 2-|Z-ZS)
Sec. 5€7. Running at large.
.^ ,No horse shall be permitted to run at large within the city.(Ord. No. 56, $ 9, 2-17-ZS)
Sec. 5-88. Existing stables.
(a) Persons maintaining or stabling horses as of April 24, 19?8, shall comply rvith allprovisions of this article except the rcquirements ofsections 5-10.f, paragraph (aXl), (aX3) and(ax4)' The previou'e sentence notwithstanding, it shalt be unrawfur for such persons or theirheirs and assigns to:
(l) Enlarge, altcr or increase. the area of any horse housing enclosure not meeting thestandards set forth in section 5-10.1, paragraph (aXl); ora
#7
$ 5-88 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(2) Increase the number of horses beyond the number of horses stabled on the subject
premises as ofApril 25, 1975.
Maintenance, necessary nonstructural repairs and incidental alterations of such housing
enclosure shall nonetheless be permitted provided that such maintenance, repairs or alter-
ations do not extend, enlarge or intensity the housing enclosure.
(b) Any exemption under this section from the provisions of section E-104, paragraphs
(aXl), (aX3) and (aX4) is void:
(1) upon the subdivision, platting or replatting ofthe subject parcel of land for which a
stable permit is required; or
(2) In the event that the use of the parcel of land for the maintaining and stabting of
horses is discontinued for a continuous period of more than one (1) year.
(Ord. No. 56, $ 10, 2-17-75)
Secs. 5€9-5-100, Resen'ed.
DIVISION 2. STABLE PERMITS
Sec. &,101. Required.
No person shall maintain or stable horses in the city without a p€rmit issued by the city.
(Ord. No. 56, g 2,2-17-75)
Sec. i102. Application.
Application for the permit required by this division shall be made to the city upon a form
furnished by the city. A nonrefundable application fee in the amount established by resolution
shall be paid to the city when the application is filed.
(Ord. No.56, $$ 2,3,2-r7-75)
Sec. &103. Horse committee.
(a) The city council authorizes the establishment ofa horse committee.
(b) The horse committee shall inspect the premises of those seeking a stable permit and
recommend in writing approval or disapproval to the city council of all applications for
permits under this division.
(Ord. No. 56, $ 4, 2-1?-75)
Cross reference-Boards and commissions generally, $ 2-46 et seq.
Sec. Sl()4. Issuance.
(a) After recommendations of the horse committee have been received, a stable permit
shall be issued by the city clerk if the following conditions are met:
(1) Housing enclosures for horses shall be at reast one hundred (100) feet from any
neighboring residential structure used for human habitationi
o
o
274
o
-o ANIMALS AND FOWL $ 5-106
(2)Land upon which horses are to be stabled and pastured (hereinafter referred to as the
stabling area) must be surrounded by a sturdy fence which will keep horses confined.
No stable permit shali be issued for a lot of less than one (1) acre.(3)
(4)Minimum acreage for trvo (2) horses shall be one and one-half(1%) acres and for three
(3) horses shall be two (2) acres, and an additional one-third acre shall be required for
each additional horse.
(5) Housing or shelter must be provided which will keep horses comfortable and pro-
tccted from the elements, and the housing or shelter shall be so located as not to crate
a nuisance.
(6) Accumulations of manure shall be located at least one hundred G00) feet from any
well;
(7) AII accumulations of manure shall be removed at such periods as will ensure that no
leaching or objectionable odors exist, and the premises shall not be allowed to become
unsightly.
(b) The city council may approve applications for stable permits which do not meet all the
requirements ofthis article where such exception would not be inconsistent with the intent of
the article-
(Ord. No. 56, $$ 5, lL,2-L7-75\
Sec. 5.105. Annual registration statement.
(a) By June 1 of each year, the holder of a stable permit shall file, upon forms furnished by
the city, an annual registration statement lvith the city setting forth the current status of the
information required by section 5-102. The permit holder shall also give all information
required on the form. upon the filing of such annual registration statement, the holder shall
pay to the city a nonrefundable inspection fee in the amount established by resolution.
(b) Failure to file the annual registration statement as required will result in automatic
cancellation of the stable permit. The holder of a canceled stable permit shall be required to
make application for a new stable permit; the subject premises shall be inspected as provided
by section 5-63; and in no event shall the city issue a new stable permit to said holder except
upon city council approval as provided by section 5-104.
(Ord. No. 56, $ 6, 2-U-75)
Sec. 5-106. Revocation.
A permit issued pursuant to this division may be revoked by the city council if the
council hnds, after investigation by the horse committee and after holding a hearing thereon,
preceded by notice of the hearing to be given to the holder of the permit mailed to the address
shown on the application or most recent annual registration statement at least ten (10) days
prior to the hearing that:
(i) The permit holder has not maintained the standards set forth in section S-10{;
t
a
27s
$ 5-106 CHANHASSEN CTTY CODE o(2) The winter accumuration of manure is not removed from the stabling area prior toMay 1 of each year or as soon as is practicable thereafber;
(3) The permit holder failed to make a reasonabre effort to keep the horse, or horses,
under control and contained within the applicant,s stabling area;
(4) The horses have been treated cruelly or inhumanely;
(5) The horses are kept, stabled, boarded or harbored in such a manner as to constitute apublic nuisance; or
(6) The accumulation of manure present a hazard to public health.
(Ord. No. 56, $ 7, 2-1?-?5)
o
o
276
[The next page is 32?]
EIIINH[SSEN
S'liAFF REPORT
P.C. DATE: May 4, 1988
C.C. DATE: May 23, 1988
CASE NO: ZOA 8 8-5
cuP 88-6
Prepared by: Dacy/v
Fz
C)
=(LL
:s
hJFa
Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request to Amend theBusiness Fringe District to permit Recreational
Camping Facilities as a Conditional Use.
Conditional Use Permit for RecreationalFacilities.Campi ng
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
L
2
Joe Noterman
1205 west 6th Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
780 and 790 Elyinq Cloud Drive
PRESENT
ACREAGE:
DENS ITY :
ADJACENT
AND LAND
ZONING:BF, Business Fringe
Approximately 3 acres
N/l
ZONING
USE:N-
s-
E-
w-
BF;
A-2i
BF;
A-2i
prooosed contractor I s yard
Minnesota River ValLey
proposed contractorr s yard andBluff Creeksingle family home and vacant
comrnercial
WATER AND SE9IER:
PHYSICAL CEARAC. :Site is boundedthe east.
2OOO LAND USE PLAN:Agricultural
by Bluff Creek on
CITY OF
PROPOSAL:
No municipal services available tothe site.
'Hffit;:, . ";:#;i:;,-
*; ,,-.'?,.j.'t'.
,ou o
t?
-j! j ...
st{4
€j
a
I
A2 :!
*.
(.,,
a
a
L-e
A2
fTTg C
w4 GNF
=\
ltL (
7t
\
.2
ITY OF
i :.r 1- i'
i"
1.I
tr
-.4.
lioterman ZOA and CUP
May 4, 198 8
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The applicant operates the Brookside Motel and leasesrecreational vehicle sites. Originally, the site was zoned C-3,Service Commercial i.n 7972. The commercial district at that Eimepermitted motel and hotel usesi however, did not permit campgrounds or recreational vehicle parks. Upon affidavits receivedfrom adjacent property owners, the City Attorneyts Office in 1982determined that four recreational vehicles occupied the siteprior to 1972. It rras the cityts position at that time that theowner could continue leasing four recreational vehicle sites;however, it could not be expanded in scope. The applicant, overthe past four years, has been petitioning on a regular basis toincrease the number of sites to 8. (The file also shows thatincreasing the number of sites beyond 4 requires a state
I icense. )
The applicant was advised that there could not be an expansion ofthe non-conforming use. Therefore, in order to achieve theinstallation of four additional units, a zoning ordinance amend-ment v,-ould have to be processed to permit the use and then a con-ditional use permit issued to permit the instaLlation.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Typically, zoning ordinance amendments are evaluated to determineconsistency with the intent of the district and compatibilitywith ot.her uses permitted in the district anC finalLy, theirlocation within the city. Currently, recreational camp groundsare not permitted in any district within the city. It isapparent that this application is so1ely one Eo accommodate theexisting use in the district. It is doubtful whether or not onewould seek out a parceL in this district for a recreational campsiEe. However, the Commission and Council have to determinewhether or not such a use is appropriate in its current location.
The intent of the Busi-ness Fringe District is ,'to accommodatelimited commercial uses r^rithout urban services'.. Recreational
camping facilities depending on their size does d.emand disposalof sewage and provision of lvater service. Either on site treat-ment system must be provided or in some cases, the recreationalvehicles contain storage tanks $rhere temporary one night camperscan dispose of ser4rage at ilesignated sites in the metropolitanarea. Although seasonal in nature, this use can generate signi-ficant amounts of sewage use such that on site sewage treatmentsystems should be provided for those campers staying for fairlyIengthy periods of time.
Further, given the number of recreational vehicles entering andleaving the site (which are fairly large vehicles), and giventhat there are little turn Ianes or bypass lanes available, sucha use could cause an additional traffic hazard that is not
Noterman ZOA and CUP
May 4, 1988
Page 3
R ECOMMENDAT I ON
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
The applicant currently has six
Two of them are currently vacanti t.em.
Given our findings on thecannot recommend approvalshould the city amend thean approval be given, theof approval:
Should the Commission and Council amend the Zoning Ordinance, aconditional use permit is needed for the applicanL to installadditional recreational vehicles. The existing on-site septicsystem was upgraded after the storm in July of L9g7. The capa-
"-i!y gf the-septic system can accofltmodate ihe serrage generatedadditional four units; however, any further expanslon would notbe able to be accommodated.
RVrs existing on the property.awaiting Council action on this
necessary beyond the existing driveways and traffic conflictsthat currently exist.
As to compat.ibility with the other uses in the district, it isclear that such a use can be more intensive in terms of trafficand septic system use as we.L1 as a visual appearance. However,some uses such as automotive service stations would tend togenerate a more regular traffic pattern.
Based on the location of the BF District and because the proposeduse is not compatible with the intent of the district, it isrecomrnended. that the planning Commission deny Zoning OrdinanceAmeodment Request #88-5. Holrever, if the Commission and Councilwish to amend the ord.inance in order to remove the non-conformingstatus, specific conditions should be determined and estabrished.
by
A1so, existing on site is a mobile home which is currently beingrented to a tenant. The city has executed a number of inipec-tions of the property in regards to fire and building code viola-tions for the mobile home.
zoning ordinance amendment reguest, hreof the conditional, use pernit requestZoning Ordinance. Hor.rever, should suchfollowing are suggested for conditions
1. Compliance with al1 fire and building code requirement.s forexisting RVts on site including the .nobile horie.
2. No more than 8 RV's hookups will be permitted.
Noterman ZOA and CUP
May 4, 1988
Page 4
ATTACHMENTS
Application.
Letter from Joseph Noterman dated April 11, 1988.Site plan .Letter from Craig Mertz dated September 30, 1982.Letter from Don Ashworth dated October 8, I984.
1
2
3
5
rr
I"AND DEVELOPIIENT APPLICATION
CIry OF CEANE.ASSEIT
590 Coulter Drive
ChaDhassen, MN 553172) 937-1900
APPLI T
ADDRESS />)(r/
NE (Daytime ))-
zip code
TE
REQT'EST:
Zoning District Change
Zoning AppeaL
Zoning Variance
Zoning Text Amendnent
iand Use PIan Amendment
Conditional Use permit
Site Plan Review
PROJECT NAME
PRESENT I,AND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
REOTJESTED LAND USE PLAN DES IGNAT ION
PRESENT ZONING
OWNER:
AD RESS ,Sz-s77
TELEPHONE Vq(- a
Zip Codef 7 z
_ Platting
Metes and Bounds
Street/Easement Vacation
Wetlands Permit
x
x
o
REQUESTED ZONING
USES PROPOSED
/r-
LOCATION
REASONS FOR THIS REQ UEST
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legaL if necessary)
4)
Planned Unit Development
_ Sketch plan
_ Preliminary plan
_ Final plan
Subdivi sion
SIZE OF PROPERTY
?(
of Chanhassen
Development Application
2
iCity
Land
Pag e
FTLI NG TNSTRU CT IONS :
This application must be completed in futl and be typewriLten orclearLy printed and 6p5g U" i".o^puni.!-uy aLI information and
Siiii? :!nI:':i, ir"::ijl;tj:-:iii,$:i: :: :.,1#i;i:u," h:;;:.to det.ermine lie so"ciri.'..aiii"-;; ;;;'pro"edural requiremenrsapplicable to your applicat ion .
-"'- -"-
The undersiQned reoresentative of the applicant herebythat he is ianriliai ritn-[t"-i.;;.;;;.i"i.quirements oapplicable City ordinances.
certifiesf all
Signed By Date
Dat e
App I tcan L
?-r/ ' 8 t'Si Byn
Dat.e Application
Application Fee
City Receipt No.
-A..a.t-I, \
Fee Owne r
Re i ved
Pa
This Application wiIIBoard oE Ad j us tmen tsmeeting.
be
and
cons idered
Appeals at.
by thetheir Plann ing Cornmission,/
FII.ING CERTTFICATION :
.-..-.....-.....
The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicanc has been:::::il:;: ro make trris appric"ri""-i"."the properry herein
({
7,//,k,
/6
(
B
{ax-4tu 4,/4 ?a%.h*',
L.
4e
/
7//,
.1
/q
'7 7/,
@-v-
/b/*
.bqr
7J-
/14 x
,il<
/,-l
A/-..o(,/,r
2tz
I 1L/, fr-t4/'^-"4''
Cz-7-.1'
4
.{
a
s-@
d'cA " )
A-
/")a
t-<---Z ,-r--Z
,44-a
L/-4-'7
-!_d../
Z--
t7tr'
/)(v
C/,-^-,
o
7 qq
cl_4""4
/.*
\n,*a-
./*-o
d-JZ
'4'/t-n
a,*-40
al4-4
rl .l-il
-(^
{
o*-n
o
-
0q,/
2
W
\dJ\
+
\s
\J
-t-
I
t?
)
(
I
i
\.1
e.)>\
>--+-.t>
)
T5\'\5
ii+
/--
,a1l.--,-s-i'i
s)1* I
!,
.:
€
<r
q
tl
t\t>
'lQ-
-r-rq
,ti
:t^(._)-F
l-
o.o
)
\
.d
-1.s
I
I
-Jl
:*til
t
-+-
)
t\A
-K
\).rt_
{
_g
v\
q
CA
.,.:--:i-
\
?'\o
t>Z
*
I
I
I
'.u3e(
"?n -2,
*
,2
'€s.o;, t
*to 4.
.-2,
)
<_-.:P-"^ '
*
{'
g
A.
N,,.-..--.-.-.-.i t \'..A I|--, -.-.}
)
i--
I
(
-
\
:?
--)f
I2
l
ti
I
I
v
(r
FIUSSELL H, LAFSON
CEIAIG M. MERT:
HARVEY E. SXAAR
MARX C. T.iCCULLOUG}I
Mr. George Donnelly
chanhassen Building of f icial
Chanhassen City HaI1
chanhassen, MN 55 317
Dear George :
CMM: sas
enc
L.lnsox & Manrz
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
I90O FIRST BANI( PLACE WEST
MINN EAPOLIS, MINN ESOTA 55402
(612) 333-r5rr
September 30, I9 82
ery truly yours,
\[
CRAIG M. MERTZ
Assistant Chanhassen City Attorney
RECE!VED
As per your request, f enclosed the proposed text of a letter to
l,fr. Sch-neider it the State Health Department to utilize in response
to his request for city approval of the Notermann recreational
camping aiea application. If you have any questions, please caII
me.
0c1 0 1 1982
..crry oF .HANH ^#+
-)
(
September 30, 1982
Mr. C.B. Schneider, R.S., Chief
Section of Environmental Field Services
Minnesota Department of Health
717 Southeast De1a\"rare Street
P.O. Box 9441
Minneapolis, MN 55400
Re: Notermann License Application
Dear M!. Schneider:
This letter is written in response to yourthe City of Chanhassen approve the pending
Notermann, now pending in your office, forarea license. Please be advised that thisby the City of Chanhassen.
recent request thatapplication of Joea recreational camping
approval cannot be given
As we understand the history of the Notermann property, it was usedfor limited recreational camping purposes prioi to 1972 vrhen thecurrent zoning restrictions \4rere adopted. Ho\^rever, that usage neverexceeded. four individual camping sites. Because that limited camp-j-ng usage apparently pre-dates ahe adoption of the zoning restric:tions, the Notermann property has the legal status of a inon-conform-
ing use." Under Chanhassen ord,inances, i "non-conforming use,, maycontinue in operation, but it cannot be expanded in scop6.
Any j-ncrease in the scope of the Notermann recreational camping areabeyond the permissible four sites is not a11owab1e under existing
Chanhassen ordinances.
Inasmuch as one of the camping sites is occupied by a trailer homewhich Mr. Notermann is renting on a monthly basis, there are actuallyonly.three camping sites availabl-e on the subject property. Our in-vestigatj-on indicates that, historically, this camping area has beenoperated on a seasonal basis.
We note that in his license application Mr. Notermann is applyingfor a year-round license, rather than a seasonal license, ina- tfritthe license requested would allow for eight camping sites. The Cityof Chanhassen objects to the issuance of-anything broader than aseasonal (i.e., May 1to November 1) license for four camping sites,including the site of the rental trailer. Any broader usige-of theproperty would not be in complj_ance with existing zoning regulations.
(
Under exj.sting ordinances, the Notermann property, located near theintersection of U.S. Highways 169 and 2lZ, is zoned C-3. Commercialcampground.s and recreational vehicle parks are not allowed in the c-3zone .
(
Mr. C.B. Schneider -2-September 30, 1982
The Notermann application does not have an "approved zoning permit"
as required by Minnesota Statutes S 327.16(3) and such approval
cannot be given by the City under existing ordinances.
Very truly yours,
GEORGE DONNELLY
Chanhassen Buj-lding Official
GD: sas
(
EHfiNHISEEN
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
October 8, 1984
Mr. Tony Notermann
1100 Fourth Avenue
P-O- Box 158
Shakopee, Ir,lN 55379
Dear Mr. Notermann :
The cityrs prosecuting attorney, Thomas Grundhoeffer has notifiedthis office that resolution of the legaI status of the BrooksideltoteI facility should best occur through direct correspo.ra"ncefrom myself to you. Accordingly, I heieby state and "litiiy tt"tthe City of Chanhassen. officially recogni-zes that up to eouirecreational vehicle sites and one mobile home rentir unii t..r"g.xislgd on- the subject property for several years. accordingly,the City shal1 treat these uses as legal nonlconforming usesunder the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. In making such-cer_tification as to the legar non-conforming use status of the abovestated uses, both the City of Chanhassen and the owners of theBrookside Motel. facility are ful1y cognizant of the definition ofand regulations regarding 1egaI non-conforming uses und.erChanhassen Ordinance -
r would hope that the above statement is sufficient to resolvethe differences that have occurred during the past y..r=. in1ight of these differences, I would ask ihat viu acinowi"ao"receipt of this letter in behalf of your clieic, tt" "r".i'of tnuBrookside Motel facility.
S incerely ,
ilnO,tu'*'
Don Ash.rorthCity Manager
ooy'
CITY{OF
Re: Brookside Motel
Chanhassen, Minnesota
CITY OF
EHANHASSTlI
P.C. DATE: May 4, 1988
C.C. DATE: l(ay 23, 1988
CASE NO: zOA 88-4
Prepared by: Dacy/v
STAFF REPORT
Fz
()
=LL
ko
hJFa
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
PhiIip J. MartiniDataserv, Inc.
1900I Lake Drive East
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:N-
s-
E-
w-
WATER AND SEWER:
2OOO LAND USE PLAN:
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 2O-t255(2)a. On-Premise Directional Signs
APPLICANT:
PHYSICAL CHARAC. 3
The Planning commission considered a variance request for
Dataserv to permit the construction of 12 square foot directional
signs. The Planning Commission recommended denial at the January
20; 1988, meeting. The City council at the March 14, 1988,
meeting denied the variance request. Based upon the Planning
Commisiion and City Council cofiunents, Dataserv has submitted a
zoning ord.inance amendment application to analyze the alirectional
sign requirement.
Dataserv ZOA
May 4, 1988
Page 2
BACKGROU ND
ANALYS I S
The intent of a directional sign is to provide direction for
peilestrian or vehicular traffic. Typically, qilgttig"1l signs do'not contain advertising signage. Secti.on 20-1255 (2) dictaEes
that on-premise directional signs cannot exceed four square feet.
These arl Eypically exemplified by trentern or "exit" signs, e'g'
McDonalds tliiectional signage or in the case of larger sites'
"employees parking", "loading area", or "visitor parking" ' The
Datase;v application was discussed in terms of whether or not a
Iirger induitriat size property, in its case 69 acres, should
trigger larger directional s ignage.
Other communities regulate directional signs as folloi's:
Carver County - 4 square feet
Eden Prairie - No maximum number
cannot exceed 32 square feet
Minnetonka - 4 sguare feet
Shakopee-4squarefeet
of signs but total area or sLgns
As is shown, four square feet is a typical size requirement'
Strouttt the ilanning Commission consider amending the ordinance,
ii is r"com.encled that. the ordinance oe amended to reail so1ely
for industrial districts in excess of a fairly large acreage
threshold as proposed by the applicant. Amending the ordinance
to 12 square teet for all directional signage would not be.
appropriate for establishments such as fast food restaurants or
ol[,er- smaller cornmercial establishments that do not need larger
ilirectional signage. Further, the size of the property of
smaller establishments is such that a larger sign woulil cause a
greater intrusion.
one can assume that the larger the sign size permitted for direc-
cional signs, the more oppoitunity there wiIl be for advertising
or placem6nt of Ehe name of the company- The intent of the
airEctionaf sign should be maintained so that adveristing is not
lermittea. neiroving the area Eor "DataServ" on the sign would
ir...r. 9 square fooL sign rather than a 12 square foot sign'
The rationale that the applicant is
of che site would dictate a larger
propos i ng
enterpr ise
is that ehe acreage
with Iarger number
Dataserv ZOA
May 4, 1988
Page 3
of employees. Thus a larger sign size is needed to direct traf-fic. However, a larger sign size would be dictated if there is aneed to provide direction for several movements rather than toprovide a larger sign for more employees.
Tf the Planning Commission feels that a larger sign size shouldbe permitted for large industrial parcels whicn would be occupiedby larger buildilgs trith several access drives and turning move-ments, 9 square feet can be appropriate. The applicant his pro-posed a threshold of 40 acres. This would apply to not only theDataserv site but to.the McGIynn site and some of the largei par-cels south of the railroad tracks in the Chanhassen LakesBusiness Park.
The Pranning commission also discussed that the ordi.nance lackeda. regulation regarding the height of a sign. The ordinanceshould be clairified to provide for a maximum height. It isrecorumended that the maximum height of five feet be a11owed.This matches the maximum height pernitted for ground 1ow profirebusiness signs in the residentiar and neighboriood commerlialdistricts. This requirement would reep t[e sign from beintobtrus ive .
RECOMMENDATTON
Planning staff recorunends thefollowing motion:
Planning Commission adopt Lhe
"The Planning Commission recoflrmends approval ofAmendment Request #88-4 to amend Section 20-1255Signs to read as follows:
On-premise signs shalI not be largerfeet. The maximum hei3ht of the sign(5) feet. The number of signs shallunless approved by the City Council.
a
Zoning OrCinance(2) Di rectional
than rour (4) squareshall not exceed fiveirot exceed four (4)
Should the Commission feel that a larEercan be permitted for industrial districts
language is proposed:
directional
only, the
n area
owing
sig
fo11
c. On-premise signs for industrially zoned land in excess offorty (40) acres shaII not exceed th,elve (12) square feet.The maximum height of on-premise directional signs sha11 notexceed five (5) feet. The number of signs shali not exceedfour (4) feet unless approved by the Ciay Council,.
rt should be noted that the sign would not permiE identificationof the company name. Also, to clarify a previous question at thePlanning Commission rneeting, the squaie footage of the sign ismeasured by the perimeter of the extreme limiis of the actual
Dataserv zOA
May 4, 1988
Page 4
sign message surface and excludes any structural elements outside
the limits of the sign.
ATTACHMENTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Letter from Philip Martini daEed March 22, 1988.
Applicatsion.typical directional sign detail four square feet.
Site plan for DataServ.
Sign detail 12 sguare feet.
elinning Commission minutes alated January 20, 1988'
City Council minutes dateal !'{arch 14, 1988.
Excerpts from CitY Code.
March 22, l98E
- _$l_cla,ta,seru
(
Dear Ms. Olsen:
Enclosed is our application for a zoning text amendment. It is my understandins
l!"_,.!!ti:,lr:l ha^s been ptaced on the agenda for the April ZO, rfis ptinning'--"'commrsslon meet.lng.
1-"_:1*,i S.t -y. ul: requesting this amendment is to allow us to put signs on ourproperty la.rger than the four square feet that is permitted under thi woriins of the
::f1""::.9in?".:".. t. signs that we currently hive designed a.. tZ square ?J in
:L:a:. Ve. feel that this larger size is more appropriate fo-r a large land area such asour chanhassen site. sDecifically, some of ttre following facts iidicate the need fortarger signs:
l. The size of the site, being nearly 70 acres, indicates the need to be ableto see the signs at a treater distance.
2. There will be approximately 300 employees initialty assigned to the site,so it is obvious that larte and easily'vijible signs will *?.quir.J i" ----'
. maintain an orderly flow of daily traffic.
3. If large semi trairer trucks making deriveries to the site are not orooerlvdirected to the stripping areas, it i-s possible that the drir;.r;;;l'J;;;';;: in areas of the site where it ia-difficult or even impossiut" t" ir- " i"#truck around.
4. The number of emproyees assigned to the site could double or triole inthe- next few years if Dataserv decides to expand on ttre ctrannai'sen iiterather than the Eden prairie site. part of thl decision to erpana on tt.chanhassen site rather than the Eden prairie site wilr ue rasiJ on-ti,e -
convenience and safety of access whlch would be promoted by largersigns.
If Dataserv does expand on the Chanhassen site, the increase in size andnumber of buildings would also support the need'tor targer directional .i. .. i.,signs. Frr.cErVED
MAR 2 4 1988
CITY OF CHANI.ASSEN
Represe ntatives in London ' o ij sseldorf . M un ich . amsterda m ' Los Angetes . oa llas . Atlants a nd 37 olher crlres. ,l ,#l
PJMOO26
(
12125 Technology Drive. Eden Prairie. Minnesota 55344-7399 . U.S.A.
612,/829-6000
Ms. Jo Ann Olsen
. Assistant City Planner'': Clty of Chanhassen' :690 Coulter Drive l, ;
P.O. Box 147 ,:
Chanhassen, MN J5317
-'\
5.
(CMs. Jo Ann Olsen
Page 2
March 22, 1988
' For the above stated reasons of safety and accessibility, considering the size of the: site and the number of emproyee.s ur.ign;J
";*;; amendment to the zonins text' . as requested in the attached ipptic.tio'n *orij';; il;ic;l.'"ii#;;;:I;iJ
:::ff'ff :Ti,::*,:'l;,ffi li.""f *r"i:""i41"".-'."":1;ffi "i"*.r;:;:ffi il"
Should you require any additional information or if you wish to discuss the matterfurther, please contact me at g29-6653
Very truly yours,
DATASERV, INC
Phillip J. Martini
Counsel
PJ M:dkn
PJMOO26
I
Ptrt;f ( I,Affi;
't
{
LAND DEVELOPIIENT APPLICATION
CITT OF CEANEASSET
590 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317(612) 937-1900
x APPLICANT :
ADDRES S l90I I Lake Drive E.
Chanhassen MN
82 -66 3
__L
Zoning District Change
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Variance
Zoning Text Amendment
Land Use p.Lan Amendment
Conditional Use permit
Site plan Revi ew
_ Platting
_ Metes and
Stree t,/Eas eme nt
Dataserv an"r,nr""",,l]J"u ;".:tt"ut
Permi t
LEASEHOLDER
@Itr{ER:Dataserv, Inc.
ADDRESS 12125 Technolo gy Drive
Eden Prai.rie , MN 55344- 7 399
zip CodeTELEPHONE
Bounds
Vacat i on
Dataserv Inc .
Zip Code
x PROJECT NA.1UE
REQI'ESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
PRESENT ZONING
Pernlttilr
over 40 a
g on-P
cres.
renise d
of 12 sq
IOP pareelsj.i:ec t ional signs i'oruare fee t.X REOUESTED ZONTNG
USES PROPOSED
( sIzE o8 PRoPERTY 69 3 acres
X rocarron
r( REASoNS
19011 Lake Drive East
FOR THrs REQTEST Larger on-premise directional signs are necessarv forvisual effec ,
of the tract and the
thereon. coEparatively larger open spaces and buildings
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) Arrached
+v
t
TELEPHONE (Daytime )
REQT'EST:
Planned Unit Development
_ Sketch plan
_ Preliminary plan
_ Final plan
Subdivi sion
PRESENT I,AND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
r
1-
llr 1-ii,r ll1-c
- t\-
i- ,rl
i 4,i1-l4
'r
-t
Shipping & Receiving
Employee Parking
Visitor Parking
T+
)
b
4lP -'.
7;)-,
.',.-17)z;5,-
-l
RDs-;r--
'' ' j;::- :;7cr12
J
s..-\
.., -i .,
:.'. J f-t'' ; - -)ilV',,1-.'-
,ir'
I )_-'._a4 .{
I 2
2 -'zr/p {
I
-ii
B
0
(
,
l<)
\l
\i\
I /,-.t-- r -
a
frnctv
Ptsf:2.-11d-JAl--.
?totJ
i)
t
_t__
1",lt'""
Dakota Ave.
(N
t
e +EEF
3t
5-
l!.<s B-
f =-L3s >9<S
= r_E-9 *e
€* 3'
)z
il
ti
L.
..._-.....'..,..
'-:{::' r'.:-(': :'j::
..-.'.,......
CDol
3F
m
P
m
-.r..:
q-
il!l'ti
I
I
;l
I
il
:I
$
$l-
\n
--t
€D
-1,
!
.,I,-.
l':.--
ia
_(,--)
t'
-t .
!=t-:
1''
., l'
;l
I
\
Ilt
o
Z
:9-A6'J
B
,t./t
u'l
1
a
\l
li
1
i
i,i'\Fr/\i
)
I/...c,
I
:t
.i,
i,
T E' .',;l
6
I
6
Fg
EA
*+
i
i-. '.. - !
frm\,
i bq" -eZ, u{\qne lzEQ
(,Employee
Parking
c
,i,J
10? f,AR- ad,Rrvp tt9
a.t a)la?Lar-LrlxlETleer- qr, .EQ --..),a,tasery
VnfloYl otA- 15o'b-)-
R fllb Aeafnt
l/
l-al
xt-v$..ineP AulPt aqA
bt)ea- -2Ez QLtnLttf
4.2- ffi. L^!c/f, kXt-lL?
wn
a-cLo?
>ht4 t,-_L
e r?l<.2"1 l, ?r.VlA'lL
Aee.4ta$a-v q /'e.t?? VIHYL/te\,E 7x-t2.P1 2/'L]IJ ) l,7R Fttt4tr' GF'tn.lt.tit)
1.L,?. $7 LobP -2rJt ,1'.e ,/4 4 R frl r l.l
-=prf\l.l Aq Eeq ?L
Coute aolotz- 761tn
Lofi nt.? AboL q?e'(
H 0161A'2 At2t5 Fl.r J -
-1l|r"Jxfea
z,l< gN.', -.t l-a-ll.lt,A-
_l_t
P21 dlAEt2 --
f Xrll-.11 1:-r I i 1.1-'ll .lA;rt:
lrr=l otl
')/Q,t)l
-_lll_da,tasery
il
iogtt uare Drive East C
-_!ll_da,ta,sery
ii
),/
I
+
o
a
+
.lllrl I
0
_-l
E4 l1lr
-'/,l-- ii.t ll'i ' .i11'r-1..Y::
+
Visitor Parking +
CLA-a
r^t
Shipping and
Receiving
Employee
Parking
n
bbii ab22 aE
E=- 8t 6tr!i)*z a
t=3;;c22,a li-lE
Xtz,rt^;E.
I
3
L
{
4t+ (1)
ilF,
p
o
t
o. I E
3H!s$xst
kt
r2u
Ri
tE
Ep3!
,"\,u
I
tn
I
rllr
=,sr I
i5 -\-T-
tit
o
+
,/Att J4'2!t1..' .4:.ottc.r.Cl1t.)
)
b
o1.+r4lr *z
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
rI
CHANHASSEN PLANNINTJ COMMI SSIO}I
REGULAR MEETI NG
JANUARY 24, 1988
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m..
Emmings r Ladd Conrad, Annette
ALLOW A 12 SOUARE EOOT ON-SITEIOP, I IIDUSTRIAL OFEICE PARK
DRIVE EAST, NORDOUIST S IGNS
r\
MEMBERS
Ellson,
PRESENT: Tim Erhart, StevenBrian BatzIi and oavid Headla
MEMBERS ABSENT: James Wi ldermuth
VARIANCE TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO
DIRECTIONAL SIGN ON PROPERTY ZONED
DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 19611 LAKE
(DATASERV) .
PUBLIC P RES ENT :
Steve Hertz
Bonnie Wagner
Ann Rolling
Nordquist S igns
DataServ
DataServ
Jo Ann olsen preseoted the staff report on the sign variance request.
steve Hertz: rrm vrith. Nordquist signs. we have done past work withDataserv and r think the main emphasis here is, their intent to comein with a uniform sign. program._ They do have approval t"-fut up "freestanding.sign identifying their -corporation ;hict ".rries on their10go and their retter- sty1e. ?hey went so far as to take it one stepfurther aod rook at their directi6nal situation and design somethingthat would coincide with.that. This goes back to r,rhat t6ey have attheir main corporate offices which ar6 in Eden prairie. s6 rn takingover this site, they wanted to forrow through with that anJ create aylif"T* sign program. I.think you'll see ly the design of the signagethat. it is-not overpowering. t-he main intent is to mike somethinglhgl:". easily legible as people drive through Ehe site. Ag;in,r think it needs to be emphaiized i.s the falt that the si!6 is verylarge and there is going to be future development on this site.Presently the letter sizes there are 2 r/2 iirches on tn"-upp"r case sowe're.not rooking ro adverri.se. we're rooking to iJenfirf'Ira directtraffic. At this point, are there any questi;ns that i .'un-unsr"r:There are also representatives of oatiserv here that lrould rike tospea k .
Conrad: Maybe we'll have some questions for you later on Steve.
Bonnie Wagner: I,m representing Dataserv here tonight. I wonder ifwe could refer back to your oveihead of the actual iacifiiy ana ttreaccess, or the approach. to the buirding? rn viewing the access to thebuirding, we feel that this presents tJ'us ana our customers and toour shipping and receivlng peopre a haiaship in that you hive toby-pass. the building on rH S ana then you t,.re to iaeitify-how toapproach or to actuarly access the buiiding. so you p"""'tii" buildingon TH 5 and then you turn left and then just after HcDonalds you haveto turn into the left, rdhich is not visiUle to you. you have toEraver some q'ay towards the entrance of the tuiiainq and as you enterthe front of the building, the:e is u ,".y limited, small visitorparking lot. we do not wanr thar to be a'rt;;;u;h;atl'--w"'6o not lrant14
Conrad: Not yet. Thank you
company in Chanhassen. We' 1Ia comment on this subject.
we're pleased to have
up to anybody else who
Bonn ie.
open it
your
may ha ve
Headla: whatts the address of DataServ in Chanhassen?
Headla: So Lakeland Drive, if someday turns offgoing to '.nake a lef t hand turn at Lakeland Drive.
were finding io the other business.
of TH
The
5, they're
same as they
Bonnie wagner: f 'm sorry.
Headla: Wouldn't somebody corning in trying Eo find DaEaserv $rouldturn off of TH 5 and as they go down now Dakota, they're going to turn
on Lake Drive, since thatrs your address. So, the sheet f have here
has one directional sign there. Maybe they would make a turn there
which would be a logical thing to do. I think the sign ordinance isgood. I donrt see lrhere we're working a hardship and I do support theStaffrs position.
Batzli: I thinkAttorney for CPTto Dataserv.
I need to absta i n
anC worked on the
on this mattertransaction to
I was anthe facilitiessince
lease
ElLson: I rm correct in that we're just
looking at off-site talking about
which goes toones.
the
the
on-site
Counc i 1 ,right?They' re a 1so
' Planning Comniss i I r'teeting
January 29, 1988 - page 2
traffic to go through to the front of the office. That,s maintainedstrictly for a small visitor situation. So the traffic has to flowthrough the road, around to Ehe side of the building. At that point
we have to identify to them where is employnent parking. Where do yougo for shipping and receiving so we're proposing that thesedirectional signs are necessary to us and to the community because if
we don't direct this traffic appropriately, you have residential areasimmediately next to the property of Dataserv so rre want to eliminatejams, confusion and get the traffic in and out of there asappropriately as 9re can and as quickly as hre can, as a matter of fact.
We are planning to move our headquarters to the Chanhassen site in thenear future so we expect, we are experiencing a great deal of
employment growth. Vlerve outgrown the Eden Prairie facility in just ayear and a half so ere expect to move into Chanhassen, probably about
300 people immediately and then our future plans are to move ourexisting headquarter base into Chanhassen and builci and const!uct newbuildings and have a campus environment, if you will. So we feel that
these signs will be necessary and informational at this point and will
be utilized as $re gro$r. We're hoping, if it's possible, then we canactually utilize our existing signs yet out of the Eden Prairie siteif they coofor:n and if they are maintained along our identity. Any
quest i ons ?
Erhart moved, l{eadla seconded to close the public hearing. All voted
in favor and motion carried. The pu'olic hearing was closed.
Steve Hertz: 19011 Lake Drive East.
Planning Commiss id Meet ing
January 2A, L9Ag - page 3
(
Olsen: That's right.
Ellson: I agree that they.grobably do need signs but I think therecommendation of just. taking the lompany name and logo off andkeeping the. height of the a.iows una [t.-air."tion "*J"tii-tt" "",n"would probably accomplish the same- thing, so I pretty much agree withthe staff recommending to stay ritn It.'s.aIler size.
Enmiogs: I think the signs are not unattractive and they don,tparticularry bother me but they don,i .onro.. to the ordinance. r,mnot persuaded bv the notion th-at becaus. i! ," " r.ig.r-Iii!, yoo n..orarser sisns. i tnint rhat,s r<ina-oi-I-siily ;a;-i;-""i.ui,unordinance. So if vou.have smaII sit-s-you put up small signs and bigsites, big sisns. 'yoo may need more siins,-urt-i i"";.' aiilix you needbigger ones. r don'!t knoi ir you;;; ;;; a chance to roor'-t'trrough ourordinance and see what,s r"qui.i"a f;.--;; to find, in orae. fo grant avariance, but those factors -are raia-oul -and r aidn,t teai inytr,ingsaid that wourd convince me ir,"t-ii-r",iid u. uppropriate for us rofind that a variance :o..Ig. Ue .r"c"isiiV.' so I too vrould support thestaff recommendation on this
Erhart: The ordinance s ta tessigns no matter how big yourCPT building are 4 foot? DoNo signs at all? There mustdifferent than CpT.
Bonnie Wagner: They maybethe site at this ti.ne. I
Erhart: No I mean yourfor signage? Apparent Iy
that r.re're limited to four on prernisecampus is. CurrentLy, the signs ut ii,.they have signs at the existirig trifjinozbe a reason for your requiremeit"-;;i;;"'
had s igns prior butdo r:ot know if they
requirements are sonehowdramatically d i fferent.different than CpT
there are
were there
no srgns atprior.
Ann Rolling: We feel thethere is no direct accessproblems CpT had. . .
!o. !h9 building is confusingbui lding. We don' t know what
ACCESS
to the based on
Erhart: I guess thehave something, runtrould be the nunberany more guest ions.
only question I had wasit proportional to itrsof signs, not the square
maybe if we,re going tosrze of the facility,tootage. I donrE have
Conrad: I agree. I think I coul,l have been persuaded on the numberof sisns because of rhe size of rhe facility.'.i-;;;"; iir.'o'nry tningr rdould raise,4 square feet for directionar sign= is-"iiir prettysmall. rrd lay it our and look ar ir, "na r.o.'a-.;; ;;;';."m 40 feetae'ay' it's not a biq square footage for signage tor airectiJnar signs.r courd be persuaded to 100k at t6e ordinon.u and review-ttit ."p""tEo say 4 feet mioht not U9.t1S "n"ugh-in general for Chanhassen fordirectional but i don'r think thaa;3"Soing to help you in thisparticular case. r don,t think it ".EJ" to be 12. It could be G. Itcould be 7 but the 12. I know *nat y"Jir" doing. voo,*rl-iit "ign"thaE are usefur riohr now ana r uniei;;""d a;;;,in.i;J j=nlJupracticar business decision ""a tii"y;i-ie attractive signs. t{e havean ordinance that we've appli"a iJ-irr Jur current business park
(
residents and so far we haven't hearc, staff correct me, we haven't
!""I1 3lot of negative feedback about the sizing. Howevei, if we do,I think vre could take a look at that issue and make sure thatdirectional signs and the sizing is appropriate for the businessname- werre not trying to penal.ize anybody for trying to move trafficaround but in this particular case, my comnent would-be, I feelcomfortable with the ordinance. r think it could be aliered if youtold me that it's not big enough to rearly move the traffic but rdonrt think chanhassen would come back with a t2 foot size. That's mypersonal feeling.
Ann Rolling: I had a question. They layout of the sign would be,$rhat we have for the existing buildings, like a 4 squale foot sign,the actuar area that the sign takes up is the same irea that we have.We're just utilizing the face. The face carries straight do$rn to theground rather than two poles holding up 4 square feet.
Planning Cornmissior
January 29, L988 -
,leet i n g
Page 4
Conrad: What's the interpretation of that Jo Ann?
Olsen: You do the size from the face of the sign.from the highest point. Erom the poles you don,t
measure the face of the signs.
Not necessari Iymeasure. You just
Ann Rolling: I guess what I,m saying is, we,re utilizing that arearather than...create clarity and aesthetically pleasing.
Conrad: What we're trying to do in Chanhassen is, we certainly r.ran tto advertise the good rnembers of the business community. vlerre nottrying to restrict Ehat but we're also trying to keep signage frombeing everyplace and if we keep some kind of constraint on it, thenone-, aestheticalJ-y it Iooks better, but trrro, everybody's not competingwith everybody else trying to get bigger anC better signage. ecluallysaving money in the long run for our business friends. I thinL mygeneral feeling is Itm comfortable eritit the ordinance as it is.
Headla: I think we'd
qre a l lord one conpany.
rat i ona le.
be sending the
Then another
signals to those people ifcone in with other
these directional s igns?put up a 12 foot high orbe at 4 square feet.if they wanted. Thatusing the feet of
here with a 12 foot high
wrong
one can
Conrad: I think the Ceal is Dave, we'd have to tal<e a look at Eheordinance. I don't know that a variance is appropriate in this case.I think taking a look at the ordinance is the ooly thing and I thinkas our friends from Dataserv 9o to City CounciI, rnaybe the Council cangive you a feeling of whether they feel that a revision of theordinance would l>e appropriate. Werre always happy to take a look atthat. I think that's the solution.
Erhart: Do we currently limit the height of
On premise directional signs? Some guy couldperhaps even higher? Maybe even 18 and still
They could put it on the top of his building
Pertains to the guestion that was asked aboutsignage. The factisl somebody could walk insign and we wouldnrt need to look at it.
Headla: There would have to be a particular need for that though.
t,'r"et i ng
Page 5
{Planning Commi ss ionJanuary 29, lggg -
Erhart: But r{re couldn't deny it
Emmings: Why would somebody do
was a directional
though.
that to themselves ?
sign for a car, it'd be pretty hardEIlson: I f itto see it.
Emmings:it.They're trying to put it someplace where peopre could see
Conrad: I think the premise is it,s got to be a functionel sign.this way for shippins-: go that way ioi-re"eivi";.--;;-;;;I way tryourre an employee. We have to m"it-itrat.need so functionally, wehave to meer rhe nee'i of moving fr,"-ti.iti. tt.-iiir,'i-r.|.-^i tr,inrcase could be made to me that you nee<1 more than 4 square feet to dothat' r could relate to that -prorre--u"t r can,t relate to thisparticular situation.
Go
a
Erhart: I,m not trving to relate to this. I could agree that itmight be that it shtural ue a rit!re-rit-rriqg"r. The issue that comesabout is, on one hand the irt..t -i= Io-noa.make the sign any aroreobstructive than or aesthetical:.V-ai.pf"u.1ng as possible. !^le havethe ordinance altows rhem .o 9o,',r;-;;;;rly resrrict the size of asign but we don'r restricr tr,6-t,.iiti^Iiu ao ,n", rhe height is just asimportant as the "ir?..- .So aLI f i*-"uying ls, $re sort of have a holethere. ?here probabrl^i:-: couple go'ot"....ons to took at the erholeordinance. Size anct height and to ieview. tire guestion -oI-r"-ing
ti,eIegs and how does that relaie to tfre-fielqht ancl size.
Con rad :
that we
We re
9rere
we reviewing tiregoing to do that?sign ordinance? Wasn't there mention
Dacy: yes,
part of tha t 1 n the upcoming monthsrevlew.so this could be incorporated as a
Conrad: It doesn't help Dataserv right nohr. ft,s sortunfriendly r,relcome to the community-ii.,Jt' ynu, re hearingwill do thar. We will take a i;;k'.;";;.st as vre reviewordinance in the next couple months Io-i"r. sure that...
of a
but
the
maybe, we
s ign
Ann Rolling: Do you know when that,s going to be because for theamount of money that.werre spending, r-gu"ss Ird Iike to maybe holdorr on thar. we were_p.r.1nni;e ;;";;';";-;;;pi.-iii"=ti]t"'iilirains uythe end of February or March,-orr *.iiiig to see what happeos.
Conrad: We donrt have a specific time Eo review do we?
Dacy: After the meeting that will take place on Mon<lay, sEaff erillhave a better idea as-fir as ttr"-iire-'"chedur.e but theie $ron,t be apublic hearing ""h"d:,,_"-in-February-or-il..cn. rt woutd-prJ[aUfy Ue atthe end of March, besinning or apriI. w"-"ir-ouri-h;;;'"- Iili., ia.unext week on the schedule.
Ermings: Therers one thing you eluded to, and Irm not sureI understood it right- Do r ,ne"."t"na-trrat you -r.""a|-il"e these
PIann i ng
January
Cornmiss i oli. reet ing
29, 1988 - Page 5
{
signs and are using them at another facility and 'rant to mor/e them outhere? Are these brand new?
Bonnie Wagner: We are proposing brand yes .
there a motion?
new s igns,
Conrad: Okay, anymore comments or questions. Is
Emmings moved, Erhart seconded thatdenial of the sign variance requeston-premise directional signs. AI1abstained and motion carried.
the Planning Commission recommendto permit 12 square footvoted in favor except tsatz1i who
PUBLIC HEARING; SUBDIVISION OE 2.5 ACRES INTO FIVE
ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE EAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND
AND ADJACENT TO MINNET{ASHTA PARKI,IAY APPRCXIMATELY 1,/
HIGHWAY 5, SCHWABA-WI NCHELL , APPLICAN?S.
Public Present:
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
LOCATED EAST OF
2 I4ILE NORTH OF
Ellie Schwaba
Kevin Wi nche 11
EarI Hea ther i nton
Jim Borcha rt
App 1i cant
App I i cant
735.1, M i nneeras hta
7331 Mi nnewashta
Pa r kway
Pa r
'ir"ray
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this subdivision request.
Elli.e Schwaba: There is one other thing that I'd like to mention.
There is an existing home on the property and our intention is to domajor renovation to that home. It's in pretty much mediocre repairand...to upgrade that hone to the value of the new horiles that wiII be
bu i It.
EarI Heatherington, 735L Minnewashta Parkway: Yy property runs at the
complete east side of the property in question and also the north endof the property. It's interesting to note that the court here caughtthe fact that it is only 2.19 acres. It's not 2 L/2 acres. In the
Planning Commissionrs wisdom, frcn L986 until 1988, you have approveda total of 33 subdivisions in this area. iit these subdivisions thereare various nurnber of units and various gross acreages involved witheach. What I'd like to submit to you that in aLmost alL instances ofall of these units that have been appro,red since 1989, that the vastmajority in almost every case, the lot sizes that have been approvedare of a L/2 acxe or greater. I'd like to submit this is your
document and Irve done the mathematics and I'd Iike to submit it foryour review and to check these figures out. In the case of theproperty that has just recently been developed in the lasE couple ofyears calIed Maple Ridge, on f,taple Shore Drive, there are 13 singlefamily homes located on 7 acres which is an average layout per home of23,455 square feet. 21 ,780 feet is a half an acre and Ird like tosubmit these. I'm sure that the gentLeman that developed thatproperty sould have liked to put more lots in there. My point issinpLy that you've got a situaEion here lvith an odd parael of landthat's been obviously divided in such a manner as to meet theordinances period. Lot 1, L5,0I1 square feet. Lot 2. 16,80g. Lot 3,
{
City Council I',leetj.ng - I,tarch 14, I9g8
{
l4ayor Hamilton moved, counci rman Boyt secorded to approve change order No. 1 inthe arnount of $29L,2gr.GG as itqni zed in the l,tarch i, rgae "".i""p"na..[ r.*,PY *9 establishing a revised conrracr estj.rnared .=iling "t i,lii';til,gl.A11 voted in favor ard motion carried.
NORDQUIST SIGNS, DATASERVE TOCATD AT 1901I TAKE DRIVE EAST, OiI PROPERTY ZOND:IOP, INU'SIRIAL OETICE PARK DISTRICT:.,
A. VARIATiCE 10 1I{E SIOI ORDIMI,ICE 10 ALTPW A 12 SQUARE FOqT ON-PREMISEDIRrcTIOI\AL SIa{.
B. APPRO\AL OF SIZE (12 SQUARE E EgT) OF AN OFF-PRBTISE DIRETIOI{AL SIGII.
L
t-good job anJ they moved alorq extrqrEry $,"rl rast fall to get as far as theydid so t'd like to conmerd you 9n tl* Joo ttnt you're doin!. r thilk it's goodard r hoIE you can continue to do as good a job- for the reit ot tire froiect.
e.y o!'"ar rhank you. I,taybe the one thing I cluld add is that, how wearrived at vrhat you have seen tonight, BRW, r€ keep vrttat r€ call an itern recordaccrount. 0n this entire-job I can tell you where you s[Ent every singledollar. We keep track of every single. fitting. EVery single hldrant. EverysingJ'e. piece 9f pipe ard r..e saL down with shaier contractirg for about a dayand a half ard hanmered o_ut gyery singre one of these itsnsl lrnere ttrey rr_nt.shourd rre pay for it or shouldn'L 'e so r guess ir it,r-*v-.","ioii,1i| "i.,gr.courrci lmsnber can feel free _to. clontact ,o ina ""y r want you to terl ne r*rereIrm buyirg any sing1e one of these itqns ard I can do that.
Jo-Ann orsen: rtre apglr icant has requested that i tqn B be addressed first. rheordinance requires thaE the.City CdrciI "pp.or. the size of un oii_pi.oi""directional sign. rtre applicanE is proposint to rocate ttre sij. ju=[-sootr, orthe t'tDonalds site. Ttris is mr S ani 6pon.ia, ard they,re prop"ii"g io it "directionar sign approximately south of t-ake Drive East. the directlonal signwil,I be 12 square feet in sizl. Sbff ia.*o,ror"nai.,g that 12 square
- ieet isacceptable -for this E[rpose. lt* purpose of an off-pianise direJtionar signcan be confusing for [Eople utlo trave to turn off of TH 5 onto hkota and thenKnow wnere to turn so lre are reconmerd irg approval of the o ff_prerni sedirectional sign.
Counci lman Boyt: llhat I s our ordinance say about the size of the sign?
Jo Ann Olsen: It salE nothi.ng. It just sa!.s itrs for Council approval.
Courci hlan Boyt: Any size sign at all?
Dan ryerson: r represent Dataserv toni.ght. r don't have much Eo add tostaffrs report except a primary concern here, after discussing thii "itr, tn"other property owner, r,,fro I might add to staif I no$, have ttre-signature, hasbeen primary tl. anount of Eraffic that r€ feer probably wirl stiay Joil ouxotarrl end ug in the residenti.ar neighborhoods. soi. of uis rcurd 6 truck
1?7
t
c4 -lo
{
{
City Courcil I'leeting - l4arch 14, 1988
c-.1^):+f
traffic. A way of illustration, I guess this t"ould apply to the next itsn Eoo,
j"=t "..V Urieity a graph that shous t5e growth that v'e have experierrced ard
irojecea in oataserv's employees - As you gan. see frqo 1987 to 1990, that
ih6st iloubfes. Approximately one-fourth of these ernployees projections are
qoing to be in C*raihassen. Ii that 70 acre site is further developed it could
il.6r. so be.re looking at 750 qnployees alone on this site ard the need for
some traffic control starting out at the erd of Dakota...
Counci Iman Johnson: In t}le dravring of ttle sign they're Proposing, they utilize
ir-"Sr*. foot of signage. frbout 6 square foot of it arri the rest of it sesns
[o # j""t plain blank ;ign. vihy do re need -that muct! blank signage? You can
E t i"-u o -square root siin. rte lottcrn half of this is just plain e,hite.
DanRyerson:Ithinktheanswertotltatlardr'edohaveoneoftheartistsv'tp
,ras iivor"ea a ritH,e bit in the actuar design but r think the answer has npre
;;-d. *itl, the height of the sign to catch the attention of the driver' I
;pp.; that bottd could be simpty open air but the design of a1I of these
;iil th.t vre have asked approva-l tor, it. very similar in tle shape ard the
.oi"ta*tio. vririch would G' starxiard on tlese signs. the nrain reason is to put
the height of ttre nare ard the irdicational arrow'
Courcilman Johnson: Right, wtrich you do on the top 2 foot'
l4ayor Hartilton: But youtve got to get it up there sqreho$''
Councilrnan Johnson: lttere's lots of leays to get it up there without. Flting'
I'm not sure what color cr whatever I'd like the bottcm half to be that's
,rrottro"lrr" as possible. i'lhat I see is roorn on tltj s sign for future signage'
i-"* tl= whole- bottcrn half of this sign 1s sj.ttj.ng there. -Now-
this may be a
ooJ-added point for future businesses or vrhatever who rnay develoP out that
il; T-;;;"i.-; ah;a vrhar vxe need at rhar corner is a directionar sign ro
iil:'ur"i.."= Eix "r,i.n currenEry onry has Daraserv in j.t as Ehe only person in
it. lihat I see as every businesl thai ever establ ishes out there, werve got a
iot .ot" Iand that cou13 possibly be developed out there, is going to $'ant a
sign on this corner. ver! soon -this corner- is going to h"ut :1l.I2-square foot
"iiL-..1t-for the six giople tiving there. I.d rather see Busioess Park East
oi'"t.t""!. the name of the- Uusiness park 1s there pointirg that direction ard
then below that say Dataserv and havJ room for r*tatever as other cunpanies go
into there.
Mayor Hamilton: I like the design of your sign. I think Jay may have a good
point. If the bottcm part, Perh;ps ttre city at sc[le time cluld approach
Dataserv anf say, may r,,e p't- on tirere "OrivE Carefully" or "S6reed. Limit 30" or
.cto"ir,i.,g. "ca-uiion-, chiioren in the Neighborhood,,. scmething that lrould be
of a coniuni ty value rather than just leaiing it blank so that rnay be something
would be beneficial Eo ttle City as well as to your own clrnpany'
Dan Ryerson: Certainly l€'re not ruling ttrat out at this time' I guess lre
a."'ir*" .lght nov, wLt direction future develotroent might take '
l,tayor Hamilton: I just had a question on Ehe arrot, that you have on tlere.
Itis awfully gnall. Is that goj.ng to be big enough for sqneone to see?
f
Il
1
I
1I
It-
616.)
: ji,.:,i fCity Counci I l'leet ing - I,larch 14 , 1988
l6yor Hamilton: I'lhat coLor is the arroer? Doesdriver sees it?
Dan Ryerson: r guess wiser heads than r have decided it is. sqnebody designedthis ard r knor., they've done this in color. r ber ieve that the tetteiing ii inred and the sign itself is blue, is that how you describe it?
Ann Rolling: Ttre sigrn is gray. rte size of the arrow ard the size of theletters are according to specifications.
it kird of stard out so the
t-
t
IE
Ann Rollingi It's maroon.
Tim Erhart: , On_ttris pa.rticular $ring I was going to suggest to make the signtanporary.. -businesses dos,n the frontage road, rpu can put four signs like thiswith the business park sign. uake thit a Eenrlrcrary onJ feeling th6re are morebusinesses. . .
Mayor fhmilton: Tsnporarily pernanent sign.
councilman Boyt: First r agree with that. rt makes a lot of sense. The otherpoint is, you say specificaiions on the arrow. v&rors specification?
Ann Rolling: It's based on legibility of the sigrn...
Courci lman BoyE: The Uniform Sign Code salrs a 3 inch letter?
Dan Ryerson: That's what r€ understani.
Courci lman Boyt: t€t me-urderstand y-our logic. you,ve got a big sign, or willhave off IH 5 i.n front of your building saying oataserve similar to what,s inEden Prairie- rs that correct? okay, -thai,s-an easy to """ "itn
-.o -tir.y,,"
not going t9 havg any trouble t<19winS geographicallf uUoot wfrer6 yourie-located. ttren tlre reason for ttris sigi ii &ause -re in fact arr want to keepssni-trailers out of a residentiar neighborhood ard other busi.ness traffic sowe want tt*n to turn here. rhe snalleit thing on the sign is tire ariow. rhatd_oesnl! make any sense to me. rtre only r".soi *ue want tiat sign there is sothey'll lsloe, to Eurn.
Ann Rolling: tlcw big should the arrov, be?
Counci ]$an Bo!.t: I r.,ould say, if it was me, make tlp arrow the biggest thingon the sign.
Dan Ryerson: one other qins, ,u" actually rooked at the pLacernent of the signbecause as you are going down Dakota and take Drive is tlre way you,lr turn.the sign is on that side next to Lake Drive. rf the sign *"'u".o""-tt "street, then r rould agree that the arrow might be a lot more consideration butyou're going that vray, you see that road ard the sign is there on tr,ai sia". rthink the very placanent of it i.s a strong ird icatoi of thatis tL;; i" g".
Counci lman Horn: I think itrs their sign and itis their arrow.
{
City Courcil l4eeting -(rch 14, 1988
Courci Iman Geving moved, @unci lman tlorn secorded to approve the 12 square foot
size for the off-prsnise directional sign located as shown in Attachrnent *2.
Alt voted in favor except @unci tman Johnson and Councilman Bo].t. !'rtlo opposed
ard motion carried.
t
I
1
i
t
A. VARIAIICE 1O THE SIGN ORDIMIEE TO ALTOW A 12 SQUARE E1]OT ON-PREI'IISE
DIRECTIOTBL SIGN.
Jo Ann olsen: they are proposing three on-prenise directional signs. the
Zoning ordinance aUor.rs tltgn to be a nraximun of 4 square feet. Staff is
reccmending denial. ltre Planning ccnmission also reccnmerded denial. t€ felt
that a typical 4 square foot directional sign wiu stil1 be, even though it's a
Iarge siie, will s€il1 be able to be used because tlrere will be fi.qre traffic
thal's drivirg dovn the road anl it will be driving at a slower speed ani will
be able to see the parkj.ng to turn into. !{e felt ttlat the 4 square feet tmuld
stilt be appropriate for i Oataserv sign ard did not feel there was a hardship
to grant the variance.
Dan Ryerson: I think at this time, ard I don't know if this is t.]le appropriate
to do it or if r.re rrould have to go back ard nnke another application but I
think perhaps the original application l€s unfortunate in that it asked for a
variarie on- size which otherwise are autcmatically peEni tted up to nunber 4. I
believe that instead of asking for that variance, tlrat there's another section
of tle Ordinanc€ that tre would cqne under where lrle r.rould be allowed tto of
these signs as low grourd level business signs on-presnise. That is a
permitti use ard ii we would be so pemitted to amerd the application, I lrouLd
hrop ttre request for a variance ard simply ask the Council to grant at this
tini those ir,,o signs on-premise under the classification of the 1o$, business
sign. ltrese ,loutd qualify in size in every way. Actually they are considerably
*,,if t.t. The requirrcnenf of the actual sign surface starts 2 feet up ard goes
no more tian I feet high and r.re htculd be r,rell within that. I,le could Iive with
the tr^ro signs on-preniie. Again, on-pranise, although I don't knor" that the
sign categ5ry that I've just Cescribed i^rould Iimit us as to the content of the
siin but It is doirq scrne of the sanre Ehings that the directional sign vrould
aoi 1trere really doesn't seem Eo be any limit as to what we can p1tt on it. !€
do feel a strorg need because there are several roads going to employee parking
Iot, visitors parking lot, shi pping and receiving and nrany- of the -same corcerns
about not puttl.rq the business arxl Eruck traffic through the residential
neighborhoid may apply. Ihe safety c€ncerns of not having it 90 straight to
visitors parkirg ard anployees Parking.
l,tayor Hamj.lton: I just t,lanted to ask Barb, I don't have a copy of the
ord inance with.
Jo Ann Olsen: Ttre ground mounted is only one [Ermitted per street frontage.
Technicalty you jus[ have one on lTl 5. Also, that big sign that you do have in
the front, I know r"e r^ere discussing whether or not that rms a directional tn'rt
actually that's a grourd. ltrat was 80 square feet was the maximun'
Dan Ryerson: I thought thaE !',as a develo[ment identificatj.on sign.
(
Develogrcnt identificatj.on is more for like Chanhassen t-akesJo Ann Olsen:
Business Park-
Barbara Dacy: I,tr. l,rayor, ICouncil go ahead and act on
tnve the right to ccrne backproposal that the applicanE
appropriate but I think thefrom there.
trould suggest for ;rrrposes of this case that thetheir request. If it is denied, then you r,ouldanyway. staff feels uncqnfortable with the
F" *1!. tonight. At first lt ush it doesn,t ap1EarOouncil should make a decision ard then you cai- go
Counci lman Horn: Could.$,e further be rriu,ing to say that re rculd approve asigrn that does not requi re a variance?
Barbara Elacy: A sign that does not require a variance, we vrould just processit anla.ay.
CourEi lman fbrn: So as long as he,s got tt't, he doesn't have to cqne back?
Barbara Dacy: r don't want the appricant to be walking out of here with theirnpression that they're going to ue aure to have anoth;r sign because tue,rreading the oridnance the !r:ay he's proposing as he can't.
l"layor Hamirton: !& shourd act on i.t as they requested this evening and thenyou ard ttre appr icant can arm wrestre over how you're going to go iron therebecause if a var iance is not needed, you'IJ. hav6 your iigr,-uny#y.
Dan Ryerson: I€rlI be hapgf to ccrne back if this is too confusing.
I'tayor Hamirton: rt's just difficurt to change at the rast minute. hle have aproposal before us. ThaErs erhat re had prepared for ard to change at ttre lastrninute to. scrnething wtren ere don't have arl of us have an ordinanie in front ofus to review it ourserves, is not proper procedure as far as m concerned.L
{
-i1-A:,4)'-.
City Council lreeting - I4arch 14, 1988
I
Dan Ryerson: r understood that the permit, and that sign is under lErmit, rdasthe sign in that category.
{o Ann 9}?en:. Was the ground low. Actually r,ihen re ctrecked it out, the groundlow profile, it was.
Dan Ryerson: To the extent that r€rre asking for a variance, r guess r rouldask for the extra sign as a grourri low profile business sign.
Jo Ann Olsen: Brt then you r,rould only get one on_site diretional sign.
!,layor tlanilton: I think you have to decide $rhat it is you want ard thenperhape crqne back to us.
Dan Ryerson: r guess the qr:estion is, do ve have to cqne back or could wesimply ranove the variance part. of the request that's ccrne l4) here beciuse thegrouni level bJsiness sign is sirnply a tErmitted use...
(
Dan Ryerson: I think roe've addressed the questions on t}le requested variance
is that this particular signage, considering that thj.s is a 16 acre si.te, I
think that is an argunent in favor of having a slightly bigger ilirectional
sign, if INe went at it as a directional sign only, because itrs quite a long
clrive that goes in there. I think just as a EEtter of scale. Itis not as easy
to see a sign that's sitting in a big open area as it is to wtlere there may be
many btrildings or *rops or other driva*ays. Again, the [Erson entering on [ake
Drive covers quite a distance before he actual cqnes to the Dataserv parking
lot $fiere he turns. Again, this [Erticular signage is really quite unobtrusive
when you consider the size of Ehat parcel.
councilman Johnson: I'11 ccnment ard motion at the sanE time. I think the
request is totally inappropriate. Therers no other facility in the area.
There's only one building you're trying to get to. there are only t$ro roads
goi.ng in. You don't need 12 square feet of sign to get in there. Irm
surprised that they would even request it ctrning into town here.
Councilman Boyt: I secorded it for a different reason. I think you probably
have sqne very good business reasons for wanting those signs. Ird like to see
you try ard do thsn in the context of the ordinance for 4 square feet. I think
you can do that arrl I'd sure like to see you give it a try.
l,tayor Hamilton: I think if there's a problem with the size of the signs, rre
ought to take another look at our ordinance arrl see if it needs to be adjusted.
I have absolutely no problern with this as it's atEsnPting to advertise with
their logo on their place of business. wetre trying to encourage businesses to
cqne to town. If you can't put up a sign that says yourre here, whatrs the
sense of being here? It just reaLly kind of bothers me. I{a've gone through
this other tines when peopLe donrt want to put up signs. I^Ie ask a business to
corte into toe,rn and as soon as they say yes, we'll cone, $ie say but you can't
put a sign up. I donrt agree with that at all. I think if it's needed, v.e
should change our ordinance. r think tErhaps out of thj.s, thatrs tdtlat i.tre rrtay
do. Etd of my c-oment.
Courrci lman @ving: I certainly agree with you Tom. I don't wan! to frustrate
anybody that ccmes in here tryj.ng to build a business in Chanhassen.
l,tayor }ramilton: I,{e're happy to have you here.
Counci lman Johnson: By the way, the arrows on the tlPical 4 square foot sign
are bigger than the arrows on the off-site sign.
Counci lman Johnson moved, @unci lnan Bo).t seconded to deny the variance to the
Zoning ordinarce to permit a 12 square foot on-pranise directional sign for
Dataserv. AII voted in favor ard motion carried.
APPROVAL OE GRADING PERMIT, B.C. BURDICK.
Roger l(rrutson: Is this in Ele fonn set forth here in your Packet?
r
I
I
:_
1]L-
City Courcil }eeting - ldarch 14, 1988
$ 20,1 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
sdgn means any object, device, display, or structure, or part thereof situated outdoors, s1visible through a window or door, which is used to advertise, announce, identify, dispray.
direct or attract attention to an object, person, institution, organization, business, commoditl.,
product, service, event or location, by means, including words, letters, figures, design, sy1y1_
bols, frxtures, pictures, illumination or projected images.
Sig4 aduertising means any sign which directs attention to a business, commodity,
service, activity or entertainment not conducted, sold or offered upon the premises where sucha sign is located.
sign, bulletin 6oord means a sigTl which identifies an institution or organization on thepremises of which it is located and which contains the name of the institution or organization.
the names ofindividuals connected g'ith it, and general announcements, ofevents or activitiesoccurring at the institution or similar messages.
Sign, busizess means a sign which directs attention to a business or profession conducted.or to a commodity or service sold, offered or manufactured, or to an entertainment off.ered onthe premises where the sign is located.
Siga business directory means a sigtr which identifies the names of specific business..located in a shopping center and which is located on the premises of the shopping centre' sr,identified.
Sig4 campaign means a temporary sign announcing, promoting, or supporting politicalcandidates or issues in connection with any national, state, or local election-
Sig4 canopy or marquee means a sign which is mounted, painted on, or attached to an\.projection or extension ofa building that is designated in such a manner as to p.oride sh;;r..;or cover over the approach to any entrance of the building-
Sign" constructinn means a temporary sign erected on the premises on which construcriolis taking place' during the period ofsuch construction, indicating the names of the architecr..engineers, landscape architects, contractors or similar artisans, and the owners. financirrisupporters, sponsors, and similar individuals or firms having a rore or i.nterest with respect rothe situation or project.
sig4 develnpment idcntifiration means a pennanent ground row profile sign which idenri,fies a specific residential, industrial, commercial or office development and whlch is locate4 o.the premises of the development which it identifies.
)k , "*
d'irectilnar
-means
a sign erecred on private property for the purpose of direcrrnr7 l\pedestrian or vehiclular trafrrc onto or about the property upon which such sign is locatcd.including signs marking entrances and exits, circulation direction, pa.Li"g urou'". ,"ipl"tu,,and delivery areas.l.
*E - ""^,grYlay
area means the area within a single continuous perimeter enclosing the\extreme limits or the actual sign message surface, but excruding any structural elerientsoutside the limits of each sigrr not forming an intcgral part oi tle sign. The
"tiprJrt"amaximum sign display area for a sign refers to a single facing.
L752 #r
ZONING $ 20-1255
Sec. 20.1255. Signs allowed without permit.
The following sigrrs are allowed without a permit:
(1) campaign signs, not exceeding twenty-four (24) square feet in area. The sigrr must
contain the name of the person responsible for such sign, and that person shall be
responsible for its removal- Such signs shall remain for no longer than seventy-five
(75) days in any calendar year- The city shall have the right to remove and destroy
signs not conforming to this paragraph.
(2) Directional signs.
a. On-premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet' The number of
signs shall not exceed four (4) unless approved by the city council'
b. off-premises signs shall be allowed only in situations where access is confusing
and tralrrc safety coulil be jeopardized or tralrrc could be inappropriately routed
through residential streets. The size of the sigrr shall be approved by the city
council and shall contain no advertising.
(3) Signs or displays which contain or depict a message pertaining to a religious, nation-
al, state or local holiday and no other matter and which are displayed for a period not
to exceed seventy-five (75) days in any calendar year'
Informational signs not exceeding sixteen (16) square feet
Integral signs.
(9)
Motor fuel price sigtrs are permitted on the premises of any automobile service
station only if such signs are allixed to the fuel pumps or are made an integral part of
a ground low profile or pylon business sign otherwise permitted in that zoning
district- Motor fuel price sigrrs alfixed to a fuel pump shall not exceed four (4) square
feet in sigrr fisplay area. when such signs are made an integral part of a freestanding
business sign, the sign display area devoted to the price component shall not exceed
thirty (30) Percent of the total sign display area of the sign'
Nameplate signs not exceeding two (2) square feet'
Nonilluminated. construction signs confined to the site of the construction, alteration
or repair. such a sign must be removed within one (1) year of the date of issuance of
the frrst buililing permit on the site and may be extended on an annual basis. one (1)
sign shall be p€rmitted for each street the project abuts. commercial and industrial
signs may not exceed fifty (50) square feet in sign area, and residential construction
signs may not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet in sig'o area'
O.S.II.A. sigrs.
(10) Signs ofa public, noncommercial nature erected by a governmental entity or agency
including safety signs, directional signs to public facilities, trespassing signs, tralfic
signs, signs indicating scenic or historical points of interest, memorial plaques and
the like.
(4)
(5)
(6)
i,
!i
&i
F-i.
l$
*
*
*
*tt
',+
'#,
*#
5
(7)
(8)
1261
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.t
I
I
I
I
II
ooIm
c)o
='t
,{
=m
-i
C-lo!
Im
mImzc)m
{
s
n
x
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETI NGAPRIL 20, I988
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.n..
MEMBERS
BatzIi,
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Steven Emmings, Annette
James Wildermuth and David Headla
Ellson, Ladd Conrad, Brian
ABSENT: Tim Erha r t
STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FORA DOCK WITH THREE OVERNIGHT
ON LAKE RILEY, SUNNY STOPE
PubIic present:
Name
Joy TannerLucille Remus
Stephen C. S 1aq
Ken WoI terDick Nel son
Steve Burke
Mary Jo Moore
Ray Roettger
A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT WITH
STORAGE OE WATERCRAET ON LOT
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
A CANOE RACK AND
37, SHORE ACRES,
Addres s
9243 Lake Riley BIvd
9245 Lake Riley BIvd
Lake Susan
341 Deerfoot TraiI
360 Deerfoot Trail
340 Deerfoot Trai.l
3231 Dartmouth Drive
3221 Dartmouth Drive
Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on this iten.
conrad: we tabred this item rast time in case r{e didn't forrow theprocedures informing everybody involved that may have input. Wer reto open up the public hearing and if there are any other cofirments orthere are any comments fron peopre who would like to tark about thisparticulaE issue, we'lr open it up for those comments at this time.
Joy Tanner: Would you like my conments from two weeks ago?
Conrad: We remember them.
Joy Tanner: Theyrre stjlL valid. The Olsonrslet you know that they're still opposed.
Mary Jo Moore: I'm not totally familiar withobject to the recreational beachlots.
convey their wishes too Eo
this request but I do
right
going
if
Dacy: Correct.
Headla: Barb, is the very first issue if they should if they shour-d havea beachlot?
Planning Commission Meeting
Apxi.l 20, 1988 - Page 2
Headla:
d i rected
pos i ti on
I thi.nk some of the commenEs before I
at some of the other issues. Are the
they don't even want a beachlot?
heard was more or less
people still taking the
Dacy: The property owners?
HeadIa: Yes.
Dacy: Yes.
Headla: TotaIly? No beachlot?
Dacy: As I recallr Yes.
Emmings moved,
voted in favor
Headla: On i. tem
acquaintances isstrictly the way
Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearjng. A1l
and motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
l you said use of 12 households with friends and
too intense a use for such a small lot. You're talking
12 households would use that single lot?
was the Planning Commissionrs reasoning during the 1985
permit request.
Dacy: Yes,
cond i t i. ona 1
tha t
use
Headla: And what did we say could be done with that lot if jt didn't
become a beachlot?
Dacy: The applicants could potent j.a1ly apply for a 1ot area var j.ance to
construct a single famiIY home.
Headla: I really t.hought about these
and these others and I agree with the
beachlots. Thought about that one
staff I s posi tion.
wildermuth: I'm of the same opj.ni on I rras two l^reeks ago. I agreed $rith
the 1986 finding where the use of the beachlot by 12 houses was too
intense and I feel that our beachlot ordinance is a valid ordinance and
should be enforced.
Batzli: I haven't changed my mind from two weeks ago ej.ther. I think it
would be an incredible impact on the neighboring lots from the standpoint
of valuation and noise and j.ntens j ty Ehat that Iot would receive since
it,s such a small lot. r'm planning on agreeing with the staff's
recommenda t i. on.
:Ellson: Nothj ng new- I concur with Ehe rest of t.he
that
conun I ssloners.
have been made soE:nmings: Same thing. I agree with the comments
far. I don't have anything to add to j.t.
Conrad: I have nothing different to add. I agree.
Planning Commission Meet i ng
ApYl]- 26, 1988 - page 3
Conrad: I think in this particular case, the ordinance is valid.makes sense. r see no reason to change it myself. r ini"f'tnutownes of the property have other uses for thit.
Steve Burke: CouLd you define the other uses?
Headra: can r say one thi.ng? rf we use the rationare that it decreasesthe value of the surrounding properties, thatrs why lre vote against it,then r think we should be prepared to seriousry co-nsider approvar if,when they put in a beachlot it improves the va-Iue of the abjoiningproperties, I think the converse lhould be true.
Conrad: Valuation is one aspect. There are others.
Headla: If thatrs the dominant but I thj.nk you,ve got to thjnkconsistently. rf you vote no on decreasi.tg ior tna[ particurar iten,you've got to vote yes if it's increasing.
Ernmings: on. that point Dave, last time when we had the public hearing, rmade it a point to ask the neighboring homeowners if, in their opinioi, -
it would decrease the varue of their lroperty and they both said theyfelt i.t would. rn fact, some peopre -who e*ren didn't iive right next doorfelt that it $rould decrease the vllue of their property. i guess thesame question would be asked on anyone that wouid lo..- up. if somebodywas going to be next door to one and they fert it was goi.ng to increasethe value of their property, they'd have the opportunj [y t6 say tfrat.
It
the
Conrad: Obviously it's a small property and you,re going to need toseek, somebodyrs going to need to sEek -vari anles to ise [h.c prop".ty fo.those other uses. r think the city can not take that property and keepit worEhless. or keep it less of a iralue than it,s potenti.i buE I thinkin this particular case, my opinion is that it's n;t conroiming to theintent of the beachl0t ordinance and d raEher have it being pursueal asa use for other uses. ,More than likely we,re talking about pulting ahouse on there which wilt requi re variinces but in m! mind, lr,.t's morein conformance with the surroundings than would be t-ne impict of puttinga beachlot there. The beachrot ordinance is concernea wiin varuation ofproperty. rtrs concerned with having buffers and not funneling a whorerot of traffic next to people. on 56 feet, thatrs a short distance toput a fair amount of traffic on. That's a real quick, shorl synopsis of$rhat the intent of the beachrot ordi nance was bui tnul," -wny tne wiatrrrestrictions or limitations $rere imposed. Trying to ""puiit" the usersfrom the neighbors.
steve Burke: r know this is about the thi.rd or fourth time that thisbeen before the counci.l but you reari.ze that this rot has been ordnedsunny slope Homeowners since about r97g. werr before the beachrotordinance was enacted. werre prepared to go before the furr councilstate our case.
has
by
Conrad 3 And IAbsolutely and
think
there
need their input. you need theirother rememdi es, obviously.
you
are decisi on.
and
Planning Cornmi ssion MeeEing
ApxiL 29, 1988 - Page 4
Batzlj moved, Enm j.ngs seconded that the Plann j.ng Commission recommenddenial of Conditional Use Permit *84-5 for a recreational beachlot on Lot
37 of Shore Acres. AII voted in favor and motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-253 (6 & 7) OE THE
RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENT FOR A
DOCK AND THE ONE CANOE RACK,/DOCK REQUIREMENT, ROBERT PIERCE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Robert Pierce
Richard and Ann Zrre i. g
Annalee Hanson
Zoe Bros
Mary Jo Moore
Ray RoettgerMr. and I'1rs. Larry Wenzel
Stephen C. Slaq
Steve Burke
Barbara Dacy presented the staff report.
zoe Bros: Irm curious to know, someone
of property there. Depth. I live just
Irm contesting the fact that therers no
beach area.
Dacy: It is not Ig0
LgO feet and then it
Zoe BEos: How do you ProPose to get
AppI i cant
3601 Ironwood Road
6400 Greenbriar Avenue
56 31 Minnevrashta Pa r kway
323I Dartmouth Drive
322I Dartmouth Dri.ve
5900 Minnewashta Parkway
Lake Susan
340 Deerfoot Trai. I
has c 1a imed
a bi t north
land there.
that there is 50 feet
of Ehj.s property.
That there isn't any
Emmings: I th ink the map t.hat was Presented Eo us shorred a LAg f eet on
the north end from between the lake and the road. I don't knor', whether
i.t's there or not but that r s what tl'ley shovred us . I assume she's talki ng
about Stratford Ridge. What end wasnrt there a 100 feet?
Dacy: According to Ehe half section maPS that we have, this distance
from here to here j.s 100 feet. The proPerty orrner is here also.
Robert Pierce: I mi.ght just say that the survey that we had done are
done by SchoeII and Madsen who are a very reputable firm. They shoot the
elevations, the water levels, they know the mean rrater level and shoot
all that. I would be wi11in9 to say that their data j.s correct, probably
within inches.
feet aII the $ray down. In one certain area itrs a
taper s doern .
Robert Pierce: what we have here
putting a wal-kway, either stePs or
to th j s property?
a walkway. Wer re
slope dovrn usj ng
To thi s beach?
planning on
timbers and we' ve
1S
a
Planning Comm i ss j. on MeetingApriL 29, 1988 - page 5
designed it in such a way that we eriminate the need for removing anytrees. werve put a 10t of thought into trying to leave the bank and thearea along the beach there about as natural ai possible and to work ourwalkway around the trees. our intent is to pre-tty much leave thevegetation intact. Basically bring in a sand btanket because it shows onthe plan, r donrt know if you can iee but stretching from about here downto.here. Cleaning it up and just making it l-ook niie and leaving themajority of the front in it's natural s[.ate. we have roughry 550 feetthere and lve're only us ing approx jmatley tgg or plus feeti
Zoe Bros: For 15 families?
Robert Pierce: yes.
Zoe Bros: WeI1, I really disputeand there's no I0g feet.SchoeIl and Madsen. I r^ra s there today
Richard zweig: we rive on the north side of Lake Minnewashta. r haven'tbeen down there and measured. r drive by there fairry reguiarry but thequestion that I would ask, and I'm not necessarily goi ng [o doubt Ehesurvey but what r will say is that measured, Lgg ree[ rr6m erhere the sl.pegoes down and -then goes out to the rake or are we maybe talking 100 feeiup to the road because there's a big difference ther6. yo, iu. got a hirlsloping away, you might be tarking is re"t out before you actuarry get tothe base of that hill and then towards the Lake so thaf would be myquestion. What does 100 feeE realLy mean?
Robert Pierce: I would
Minnewashta Pa r kvray.
Richard Zweiqz I think that'sand I donrt know that I wouldwhat that amount would be, I'dvery small area then. you're
out -
assume that it's taken from the right_of_way from
probably where you don't see the 100 feeteither if I rrent over there. I donrt knowhave to go and measure it but that makesnot going to cut a bank straight down and
a
Zoe Bros: Most of it is straight up and down.
Robert Pierce: you might say that the right-of-way that is givenl'linnewashta, which the measurements have probabry ieen Eaken offmuch wider than that. The asphalt that you see there.
toof, is
zoe Bros: I donrt know what you're saying.
Richard zweig: For further widening of the road, is that lrhat yourresaying?
Robert Pierce:
wrong, it,s 50
r ight-of -$ray?
Dacy: It.s 55 feethorizontal d i stance
wide, the r i gh t -of-wa y
measured on the map.
The 100 di.stance is aabsolutely cor rect.
No. When you dedjcate a city road, not correct me ifnormal.Iy but Irm not sure, Minnewashta might be 60 foot I'm
ls.
You ' re A
Planning Commission Meeting
April- 29, 1988 - Page 5
significant. part of that distance is a sloped area. Thatrs not
d j.spute. we use the horizontal distance just as vre measure lot
lot depth and that's part of the issue that the Commission will
1n
width or
discuss.
Richard Zweig; I see that as a real problem if you're going to start
giving variances. If that variance was flat land, nor,, you might be
talking one game but if you see that piece of property, You'11 kno$,
exactly what she's talking about. There isn't very much that's down in
the sIope.
Conrad: Let me just jump in a litt1e bjt. The reason we have a depth
requirement, there are two reasons. one, we want room for people to use
it. werre concerned with safety. If you put a bunch of people on 12
feet of depth, there are some problems. Thatrs one of the reasons. The
other reasons we do want it buffered fron any neighbors. we want
beachlots buffered so that yourre not abutting a house and affecting
them. In this particular case, and we're looking at Ehe general issue,
you're obviously very interested in the specific and I understand tbat,
we have to be real concerned with what this ordinance says in general
because other foLks $rill want to take advantage of whatever we do- In
this particular case however, because you have Ehe buffer of the street,
we're really not impacting the immediate neighbors so that issue in my
mind is not there. The issue that is there in my mind is there really
enough room for people to be on that beachlot? Is there enough room to
satisfy their particular needs and uses of Ehat? I thjnk that's key.
That's important here but it,S also j.mportant that we make sure that our
ordinance considers that asPect of use. vie just want there to be enough
area for it to be an active area if Eherers a beachlot- Anyway, I just
r,ranted to jump in on that thought.
Ray Roettger: ...has an excellent pojnt. we come here and I thjnk we
may be against something just because we look at the piece of property
I think what could happen j.s it should be defined very well for us.
These people maybe are used to looked at thjs stuff. Are you talking
about ihe road right-of-way that SchoeII and Madsen submjtted...?
SO
Robert Pierce: To be very honest, I couldnrt answer that questjon.
Ray Roettger: You should know that is exactly what yourre talking about.
The others, you drawing lines, as Barb confirmed, a horj zontal line goes
from Point A to Point B but if that line is at a diagonal, you can have
LAO feet and end up really with I00 feet along the property line and end
up wj.th I0 foot of depth. The ordinance, is it lgg feet along the
propeEty line or is it 100 feet of depth perpendicular to the Ehjs
particular line?
Conrad: Barbara, are you comfortable that when lre say 100 feet, itrs
obviously perpendicular to something. Do you feel we have that control'?
Do lre think we know the specificati ons well enough?
Dacy: The ordinance even states that the beachlot has to be 2gg feet in
wi.dth along the Lake frontage and the depth shall be measured IOO feeE
back from the perpendicular line along the edge of the lake. TyPically
Planning Commission Meet i ngApril 20, 1988 - page 7
how you wouldfeet this way
measure it, if th j s j.s
and 166 feet deep.
Zoe Bros: Are you talk ing the edge of
Dacy: The ordinary hiqh $rater nark asDepartment of Natural Resources.
Dacy: Right, whenelevation is. fn
945 so we look for
the water or the high water mark?
established by the Mi nnesota
zoe Bros: Because we have lohr water right now.
they submit a survey they,II indicate where thatthe case of Lake Minnevrashta I think itrs elevationthat elevation and take our distances from that.
You seeto tha t my point. The property line there is running atroad and Irm just saying if that LOA foot is taken
rea I 1ythe lot
That I s what
satisfy
Conrad: No, it vrould be perpendicular to the r.rater. Barbara, maybe youbetter help. I guess I canrt interpret what the ordinance says.
Dacy: If this is the property lines here, you can measure perpendicularEo here. That'!s how you can measure it. ri there,s u Ji.pii" .. towhether or not this is rga feet or whatever, r determined that 100 feet
?:.::,|:"-T:^."::l"g from the harf section map. rhe issue is, and not onry!n Enls case but rn any other case that might occur, is the conmissionand city council satisfied with the LTg t.e-et in aepina ii-y;r,re nor,then you have the option to change it.
Conrad: But for this gentleman, what you just said, we're notconcerned $rith the lot line. vle're no! ruining it parallel toline. Werre-running it perpendi.cular to the hi;h ,.1". *i.X.I understand Barbara to be telling us, right? So that it.riOyour concern.
Ray Roettger:quite an angleat an angle.
Dacy: Itrs up toit. If you r.rant
Robert Pierce:
15 families.likelihood onwould be veryJuly and evenThere t s a lot
Ray Roettger: No, theyrre really not the same question. wer re oot justtarking. about this property but we're tarking ub-out..."ra ,.'re talkingabout changing the ordinance. I think how tnat js defined, the depth,if you. could get the condition in there... r think therers a r.ot ofvariation there. A lot of variation in depth
conrad: How vrourd you respond to that? Do you stir-r feel that the way$re measure that, hov, many feet is adequate Barbara?
the Commission. That,s the vray we've been measuringto further define it jn the ordinance, thatrs fine.
I feel like there js more than ample road down there forI thj.nk when you're lookj.ng at 15 families usjng it theany given day.that you have 15 families on that is ,".ilyunusual. If it happens it would probably be on the 4th;fthen, I doubt you would have afl 1S families down there. --
of room on that frontage. people who would be using it
the shorel ine, !,re t l1 measure ZO0
wouldnrt all be concentrated in one area ejther. They'd be movingaround. I think it will be a really nice frontage.
Richard Zweig: How many docks are you looking to bui Id?
Robert Pierce: We're Looking for right no}r, one dock with three slips
that will be for Lots 3,4 and 5 of Block l. The ones that face on
Minnewashta Parkway. That's the same useage for a dock that you would
have allowed by a single famj.J.y home. You can have one dock with three
boats on it. Werre asking for one dock wj.th three boats. Three boatsfor overnight storage. We have roughty a development of around 9 acres.
We feel thatrs a real light use of the beach. The useage of the lake
9owD1 the canoe racks, that type of useage that would be very easily
handled on the lake.
Richard Zweig: Hor., many canoe racks and how many canoes?
Robert Pierce: what ere're lookjng for is one canoe rack,
vre had requested, one canoe rack per lot which $rould be I
maybe 15 sailboats or something like that. Sailboards.
whi ch is what
5 canoes or
if r
cer ta in
Richard Zweig'. But they would definitely
not have a motor put on them.
be non-motor i zed. They couLd
Robert Pierce: That's the way I understand it.
Richard zweigi There wouldn't be a rovrboat on the rack and somebody
brings a 25 horse motor down and things like that?
Robert Pierce: Thatrs what I understand. AIso, I thj.nk that
understood it before that these are racks are designed to fit
si zes of watercraft.
Richard Zwei.g i The regulation
what I want perfectly clear in
Steve Burke 3
ord i nance .
such that iE. is non-motori zed. Thatis
mi ntl .
is
my
Conrad: That I s right.
Steve SIaq: I have some property on Lake Susan. The question I have is,
urhat about the. . .
Robert Pierce: No building.
Steve Slaq: Because there is a qualificatjon on a 75 foot setback.
beachlot ord i nanceSteve Burke: Are we discussing the recreational
amendment or discuss j.ng his particular one?
Conrad: we}l, his particular one is bringing the amendment to the
forefront. We are talking the amendment.
Okay, because most of the discussion is not germain to your
Planning Commission Meeting
Apxil- 29, 1988 - Page 8
Planning Commj.ssion MeetingApriL 2A, 1988 - page 9
conrad: we're using- it as a case study to make sure that we can modifythe amendment properly
Steve Burke: Let me ask a question then. As you know, I,m with Sunnyslope, why don't you reave the ordinance exactiy the way it stands andrequire them, this devetoper to come in wiin ;-;";i;n;;'r!{uest and tetthe city council determine whether or not they wish to allo'w a varianceto Ih: Lgg foot depth t.hen itrs not your deci-sion, it,s the Councildecision. The other.part of your amindment is to'change -ti" ..noe rackand give the discretion to tha city council. Now when we made theprovision we vrere tord, r was wondiring, this recreatio;;l beachrot seemsto be-amended every time a new deverop6. comes in and insiead of askingthat developer to come in with varianies, r'm just wondering what ismoving the councir to consj.der amending ir,. "n6i.-";;;;;;;;'rather thanrequiring just a variance application ind then retting ltre council reactto that.
conrad: r'11 try to answer that. variances are really tough to handle.we prefer not to have variances because theyr re hard t6 document thewhyrs and the wherefor.,:. .lf y9o grant a_ variance to one, then pret.tysoon everybody is there Iooking for a similiar typ" uu.ii"ce and yourearry do need some good rati.oiare to document that vari.ance and thereasons you granted that-. When we see, as a planning co*miision, a casewhere the ordinance can be revised beciuse in concept the or,ginarordinance may not have been perfect and r^re can see some modifications toit so we don't have to_go thiough a variance process, werd much preferthat. As long as the intent of the ordinance- is beinq upheid, we,regoing to nodify that ordinance so that it can incorporate uniquenesses.There are a rot of numbers in ordinances and we fini that they tend to bearbitrary in many cases but we do have ioaa "t.ndurds, we do i:ave anintent of the ordinance that we'ire trying to uphold and if we can makesure that that intent js still Ueinq uphefd, wi can """, iii" j.n thisparticular case, where in my personif lfini6n, the intent oi tneordinance is. being upheld. -wi are proilcti ng the neighbors. we areprotecting the people that are ,sini tr,e r.na. There is plenty of randrwhen we talk about this, there rs pien-iy of rand for a recreationatbeachlot. rtrs a crassic case of . go"i beachrot. rt,s what beachrotsare intended to serve and in thi.s caie, the ordinance had some numbers init that may be didn't ever consid";-thi" type of situation. I think inmy mind, I'm setting a precedent if we,-as-i group, decide to change it,we're setting a precedent that d feei real comfortable that we courdcarry forth and have future deveropments come in and be acceptable underthis particular change.
Steve Burke: I donrt.disagree with your statement that that particularbeachlot is, t think is probably a giod one. Irm not contending thatit's bad but it seems to me thai tnit one is a crassic for granting avariance_ in that yourve got the roaa anJ you cantt make the Iot anydeeper than r,rhat it is without rearigning the road so if your variance,through the process you can say the i".s5r_ it was .r.."i".i|-to grant avariance for this one vras we courdn't rearign the road. e'ut ,n"n yoohave a deveroper that comes in and uuys-a whore bunch, if you change theordinance and if your intent is to haire depth to beachrots'ina you have a
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 1988 - Page 10
Conrad: You make a good argument.
Steve Burke: My statement was, what yourre looking at in your beachlot
ordinance and if yourre allowing it to becone narrower and narrower, from
my perspective, from Sunny Slope, the ordinance was established in 1982
was one thing and werve been trying to work and werre still trying and
everytime rre turn around it seems that the City Council, for every
developer that comes j.n, is willing to modify, the Vern Gagne property
and you said they arenrt puttiog very many people within I,000 square
feet so leLts make a rural and urban beachlot and you expanded and
Iiberalized your language. Now another developer comes in and it seems
to me that a variance would handle this much better and yourre ready to,
it seems fron our perspective, at a drop of the hat, a new developer
comes in, sure we'll change it for you. I don't know if this is thej.mpetus for the City to consider a change to the ordinance, I would
recommend that the City council not change the oridinance but ask the
developer to come in with a variance because I thj.nk the City Council
Iooks very favorably, ...to meet the intent of the beachlot ordinance and
there I s a real hardshiP.
zoe Bros: I stiII maintai.o that there isn'E 100 feet there.
Steve Burke: The question is not not there I s 100 feet.whether or
j. s a goodZoe Bros: He keePs on saYing this example, itrs not.
Steve Burke: But they're not ruling on his development.
Conrad: Werre making a statement t.hat 100 feet should be there, where
the dock is placed. That's what we're looking at. If there isnrt 109
feet, their application vrould not be accepted. werre not ruling on their
appl j.cation. werre looking at the ordinance j.n general.
Larry wenzel: I kind of agree with the gentleman that thj.s particular
instance, the fact that because of the road and the fact that the square
footage, even if he only had 50 feet, still is way in excess of the
ordinance as far as the number of square foot Per house. It doesnrt seem
to me that other than the fact, probably roughly four properties in whj ch
there is going to be somebody, at least 100 feet away, as a buffer comes
into play in this particular instance because people don't, from a
practical standpoint, the use from the beach, t.hey donrt sit 100 feet
away from the rrater. Theyrre up high and if you wenE to the beach and
developer coming in and buying a large tract of land and placing hisroad, now yourre alJ-owing him to have a narrower beachlot by just
changing the ordinance and he can realign his road wherever he wants itto be on undeveloped property whereas thj.s developer, it rrould seem to methat he should get a variance. If you're addressing that particular
one, if you donrt change your ordinance, you're going to have to come inwith a variance and I would say that the City Council is probably going
to look favorably on it because theytre probably not going to require the
developer to realign the road because he can realign it on his property
but he can I t. ..
Planning Conmission MeetingApriL 29, 1988 - page Il
you can only get within L6o feet you r.rouldnrt go there anyway so thatdoesn't make a whole lot of sense. r guess, r had some olhei questionsthat may not necessarily in reration to this particurar property but theordinance...and that is with rake property and the way ii mlanders, whenyou're working with a depth and then you come along uid ,.y well, ihedock is going to be at the deepest po-int of that r6t at la'g feet and thev,ay- rots are joined, it seems to me that what yourre pushi.ng is for docksto be put in a specific position on a rot r.ine where inerer6re you get aconcentration of docks- from. property to property more so than slreaiingthem out- The other thing is as those things, ind r don,t think thattl?!:" necessarily a good practical thing to have happen from autilization standpoint. The other thing is, if you'iL urio.uting wherethat dock goes fron the depth of the property in relation to where thelandowner_ or the peopre would want it in rerition to what the beachfrooris, the froor on the bottom of the rake, you might have to lut your dockup in an area that was marshy where you don't hive. p.op..'beach withrespect to x number of feet over where you've got a Uottom thatrsbeautifur so that doesnrt make a rot of sense. The next thing is that,if you've got the beachrot and there are x amount of dock spaces forboats and r donrt know the 1a$, today but it seems to me thii propertywill come into the water r0 feet fr6m the existing ,ut".-,nuix .o that ifthe water drops, the randowner can stilr go out 16 feet if the rraterrises- you stilr have access to the rake. you can't 10se your access tothe lake. Then enters another situation as to whatever thit is,5 feetor Ig feet, whatever turns from private property to public v7ater.whatever the state laws and who contrors- the moiring-of uoais if theyrreproperry identified and requested in public waters?- so ii-you say youcan.only have two boats on this property, why wouldn't f j.ve'peopre moortheir boats in pubric waters becf,usi yoii.. -.""tri"[;..,g-lt,"i. normaldockage? Just by putting it in public waters, you hav6 basical.J.y nocontrol. That would create even a greater problem, it would seem to me,as far as the water useage of getting in ani out. rspeciaiiy if yourrein a restricted area. you "ooid h.u6 a particurar beichrot ihat wourdhave the Lgg foot depth and 206 foot widlh and x nunber oi peopre usingit according to the -ordinance ot e-io"i-per home and the square footagerate- A11 of a sudden you have x number of boats *oo..d ",ii i. op"n --
water in front of that piece of property and nov, yourve goi anotherproblem.
Conrad: Ho, do we regulate the rights for mooring Barbara?
Dacy: The ordinance regulates overnight storage. rt says that no morethan three boats can-be. stored overnight at the dock. ai any Lake thereis a pubric, r shouldn't say any rake in chanhassen but at iakeMinne$,ashta, at Lotus. Lake there is a public access. paopra can raunchtheir boats through that public access and yes, outside oi tte beachrot,maybe 100 feet on the rake, you courd have 5 or 6 boats there skiing,fishing or whatever. The. ordinance regurates overnight storage. Theordinance-also regulates the number of sairboat .oori.rg" that can belocated off of a beachlot. The term overnight is defiied -iio.
" periodfrom 2 2go a -t\. to 5.q6 a.m. in the morning. The lake is pruti" r^,ater andpeopre can operate their boats, if they'16 licensed by the c..rr". countyBoat Patror enforces the license as werl as DNR so th; key for the
Planning Commission Meeting
April 2q, 1988 - Page 12
beachlot ordinance is the overnight storage at
Larry wenzel: You stiII havenr t answered, who
rrra ter s .
Dacy: The DNR and CaEver County Boat Patrol .
Larry wenzel: I guess the question is, what is
Conrad: If you didnrt own lakeshore, you could
lake.
the dock.
controls the publ ic
the rule on. . .
not moor your boat in the
Dacy: And conversely, if you were a member of his subdivision and wanted
to use the lake, you would go to the Lake Minnewashta area, you can boat
around the entire Iake. You could come to that beachlot dock. Play on
the beachlot but if he was not authorized to store that boat overnight,
you'd have to take it back out through the boat access.
Larry wenzel: okay but how do they handle on calhoun for
3atzli: That's Hennepin County Sheriff that patrols Lake
instance?
CaIhoun.
water andLarry Wenzel:
that I s what I
who has the actual
don't understand.
control over the publ ic
Conrad: The DNR does.
Larry Wenzel: Okay, lvhat is
public water? Do you have to
vrater? I donrt think You do.
identified as far as traffic
reflectors, it can be moored.
their ruliog as far as mooring a boat in
be a landorrner to moor you boat in public
I think as 1on9 as the boat is properly
hitt j.ng i.t, especially at night wiEh the
we're not restricting. lle I re
Batzli: I dontt believe thatrs right. I wonrt disagree with you because
I donrt know that's a fact but Itm under the impression that there are
definite rules about where and when you can moor various objects and I
think that you can not just go moor a boat in public waters. I would
wager small sums of money that you canrt do that.
Conrad: Irn sure you can't but what's your Point? werre not really
talking about mooring boats tonight. Is this relevant to anythj.ng?
Larry wenzel: I'm worried about if
people can store on the property...
Conrad: werre generalizing tonight.
opening it up.
you regulate too constrictively what
Batzli: Your point though is that
merely moor thej r boats off-shore
different problem.
if
and
we
you
res tr ict
believe
it too far, they will
have created a
Larry wenzel: Sure, why wouldnr t they and now youive got a different
Planning Commission Meet i ngAgriL 20, 1988 - page 13
problem which is a
know what the ru les
Conrad: But rememberright now you've got
case...
Mary Jo Moore:that land for
canoes.
bigger problem than the one you started with. I donrt
Dacy: The City arso has a water surface useage ordinance which appriesto this lake. r can provide a copy of that to you. That has not been anissue during previous ordinance amendments.
conrad: The moorings on a beachlot, we do have restrictions on hord manyboats can be moored. Now rrm going to say this tongue in cheek a rittrebit but the DNR, r assume that ordinance has been r6viewed and the statefinds it satisfactory so we are controlling the number oi-moorings on abeachlot. However, there have been recent cases when we found tiat maybein the wetlands case where we didn't have authority.
Headra: r think that'!s the key thing there. we didn,t have authorityand I really question on the mooringi.
conrad3 rnteresting to forrow up, however r donrt want to get hung up onthat. one issue tonight. r think wetre rooking at some ottrei thin96. 'r
think we will follow up your comments because they're of interest and Ithink we'11 direct staff to herp us struggre throigh that ai some pointin the future. Barbara, can you do that?
Mary Jo Moore: r would.5ecgmmeld if you're going to nake any adjustmentsin the ordinance, that the roo foot d6pth be useable rand at a maximumerevation. _ The property that has uroulnt this before the councir is not100 feet of useabte rand. rtrs not ev6n 80 feet. Therers a very steepembankment with very little f)-at ground. r think there shourd be aneLevation requ i rement
the 100 feet is really a buffer. Itrs aa hiII and a road as a buffer so in this
Itrs not a buffer, it,s whether theya recreational beachlot which means a
buffer andpart icular
can actually use
swimming beach,
Conrad: yourre right. They have hundreds ofthis particular case where they can use it.feet on the lake where in
Mary Jo Moore: you have to pin down that number too.
Conrad: Itrs something we have to resolve in our minds. Evenhow wide is this room? 50 feet? 6g feet? Is that enough tofamilies? your 1,1 never get 12 families dor.rn there at on6 timechance if they did go, is that enough room? More than likely.
Hary Jo Moores If it was useabLe land.
50 feet,put 12but, by
Conrad: Letrs say they only have 50 feet dolvnsomething we have to resolve up here.
there but I guess that's
Planning Commission Meeting
Apxil 29, 1988 - Page 14
Mary Jo Moore: ...instance where we have this neasuremenE of land, I am
next to an outlot, on this lot they've got 5A feet of lakeshore. However,
the land is at an angle and 60 feet is out into the hrater. Actual,
Iakeshore is 30 feet. Nor., it depends on what measurements you use right?
If you're going to take schoell and Madsenr s with 50 feet of lakeshore,
letrs go out here... As far as a canoe rack goes, I think that should
definitely be restricted to the number of families that are using the lot
as opposed to how many docks you can have...
Mrs. wenzel : You I re
square feet for each
by his 550 feet Long
It's still that much
looking at this on a square footage basis
of the 15 houses, he could have a strip 12
and it would still be adequate for those I
square footage.
and 4OOfeet r,ri de
5 houses.
Conrad: And your point is?
Mrs. Wenzel: My point is that it doesnrt make,
iE LOO feet wide, Ehen it could be less length.
Iength and it could be 12 feet wide by the 550
requirements tor 15,960 square feet.
if you're going to make
He has 550 feet in
and that would meet the
zoe Bros: Last spring there
aI1.
would not have been any property there at
Robert Pierce: I guess I'd have to totally disagree. Every tjme Irve
been down there and I have gone down there, Irve taken my kids down and
there used to be a dock there and there hasn't been for a period of time
since they moved out and it's been used and all I can say is, on this
particular project and maybe some of the other projects coming along that
bray, I dontt believe that when they made the ordinance that they hrere
able to look at every type of useage. we've worked very hard to watch
the impact on t.he neighbors, the impact on the lake and feel that wetre
doing a good job and our request is extremely reasonable.
Ray Roettger: I live on the north shore of Lake Minnewashta and I know
exactly what she's talking about because it's a piece of property that's
defined by Schoell and Madsen Engineers. It vras surveyed in 1960 or
thereabouts. There is no more Iand there. It was surveyed, stakes
pounded in, dredged and it has it do$rn something like 35 feet. Irm kind
of, with my engineering background and r've done some surveying, Barbrs
defined the horizontal marks but I can make you a sketch on that board
and I think yourll see erhat the probLem is that I'm talking about. If
you took a piece of proPerty like this and there's a road there and you
took an exaggerated deal like this and the property just happens was laid
out somevray and you met these requirements but thj.s dimension here is I0
feet. If this dimension becomes long enough or this dimension, depending
on how you measure it, along the shore, you can get a very minj.mum
dimension here and I thj.nk that.i s what your ordinance should take a look
at. What the minimum depth is perpendicular to this surface.
Conrad: Staff is telling us that thatts hor,, they do it. That's what
I heard our staff say. Staff is not saying we do that. Staff is saying
we measure it Perpendicularly from...
Planning Commission MeetingApxil 26, 1988 - page t5
Ray Roettger:
Conrad: Tha t I s
Can you tell us then irhat that minimum dimension is?
what vrerre looking at tonight.
about theHeadla: That really isn,t pertinent now. Werre talkingordinance, not approving that particular one.
Ray Roettger: But that should be put into the ordinance
Conrad: There are some good points being brought up andEhem aII. Anything else?
though.
I appr ec i ate
Richard Zweig: What
amending this thing,think you should evervariance but what is
are we amending this to? If yourre talking aboutI agree with this gentleman over here. I donrtchange the ordinance and that there should be ait being amended to?
Conrad: The beachlot o rd i nance .
Richard zweigz From rrhat to what? What size?
Conrad: Right now we,re looki.ng atrequirement depth wise is 190 feet
two things. wetre saying the minimumall the vray through the beachlot. Thewerre reviewing is, it doesnrt have torecommendation or the thought thatbe lOO feet all the way through.Iooking at.
So in other words, the amendment isPlanning Cormtission to decide whetherYou're not going dovrn to 75 or you'reby case bas i s?
Conrad: No. There are a lot of siEuations, if we change it, the l0gfeet is an absolute. It's easy to measure. It's easy io look at. wecan arways terl. rf we change it, there are other siiuations where oneend of the beachrot couLd be l0 feet and where the dock is it could belgg feet and thatrs the only place where we have I00 feet and lre may nothave a good beachlot. That's the situation that we,d have to considerthat might ro11 in. r'm very confident that this particular ordinance aswerre looking at it and the changes to the languagi would, thisparticular request that we're noa looking at t5nilrrt but as an exampre,m comfortable that this request is not abusing fhe ordinance and anychange that weire rooking at wourdnrt have an i.ipact. However, i.n thefuture is what we're Looking at. werve got to b6 real comfortabre that$rer re not changing the language where we get a different set ofcircumstances that we didn't anticipate. And maybe, as some peopre havebrought up, maybe the variance in this case mi.gh-t be the way lo ity.
Mary Jo Moore: My understanding was that a variance request was putthrough on thj.s property and everything was approved buC the OocX.
R j.chard Zweig zitrs up to theis necessary.itts on a case
Dacy: That I s correct.Attorneyr s opinion was
Only at the dock. Tha E's what rrre' re
up to the Counc i I ,or not the lg0 feetnot going down to,
The applicant filed a variance. The Citythat the City should not consj.der a variance for
Planning Commission Meeting
Apxil- 20, 1988 - Page 15
that parEicuLar case. The applicant consequently filed the zoning
ordinance amendment appl ication.
Dacy: No, no variance
a recreational beachlot
was
was
approved. His conditional use permit to allow
without a dock.
denied he comes
doesn I t need a permit
Mary Jo Moore: Okay, so then because the dock was
through on a request to change the ordinance so heto get the var iance?
Conrad: Herd Iike to have a dock and werre just taking a look at the
ordinance to see if that ordinance was too hard and didnrt consider all
the circumstances. werre looking at this one but werre really looking at
the ordinance. He's obviously interested in changing it so he doesn't
need a variance and werre obviousLy not proned to having variances. we
really don't like variances because t.heyrre hard to defend and vre r.rant to
make sure that if ere change this ordinance that it's in the right
d i rection.
Mary Jo Moore: But I don't think it should be self serving.
Conrad: It's not. werre not doing it for him. we're smart enough to
know we're doing it for whoever comes in and applies and thatrs why werre
looking at it right now. We're looking at it to see if our intent of the
ordinance is being upheld and will be upheld in future beachlots that are
applied for.
Ann Zweig: ALI I want to say is what happened to
that have been denied docks then? There are also
and rdest side.
Conrad: It
beachlots.
has nothing to do with beachlots. werre looking only at
the ord inance.
of docks.
the residential Io ts
those on the north side
lots
!le t
Ann Zweig: This is a beachlot. Residental neighborhood group, 15
families that have a beachlot. Is that what werre looking at?
Conrad: If they have been denied and we changed the ordinance, they can
come back in and aPPlY.
Richard Zweigz Don't change
Ann zweig: Then vJe get lots
Conrad: No. I think you're wrong on that. The ordinance is very
restrictive and you don't get lots of docks. You simply donrt get
of docks. You may get one and if they have enough frontage you may
tvro. what is it Barbara, after every ZUO feet, for every 2OA feet
additional you may be a dock? And thatrs less dockage than most
residential people have on the lake. Thatrs Less dockage so yourre not
Mary Jo Moore: So in this case, his variance was approved except for the
dockage?
Planning Commission Meeti ng
ApLiL 29, 1988 - page 17
getting rots of docks. r don't r.rant you to think that ererre out heregranting docks willy ni1ly. It,s quiLe restrictive.
Batzli: Hov, many beachlots are there anyway?
Conrad: On all lakes?
Batzli: on the rakes that they're concerned about. How many beachrotsare there on your lake?
Dacy: Therers at leasE 5 or 6.
BatzIi: Do
beachlots?
Batzli: I know butand if the rules areadditional docks?
if they were denied a dock beforerelaxed under the new ordinance,
we know if we change the ordinance how it would affect those
Dacy: The existing beachlots wourd be grandfathered in as they
under
wou 1d
are
the old
there be
now.
rules
any
Dacy: There has not been any other recreati onar beachlot request on LakeMinnewashta since rrve been i:ere so r don't know "t"t on""-iheyr rereferring to thatrs been denied.
Richard zweig: There are some there without docks. There are some therewithout docks right now-and thatrs why when you relax tt"-oiainance,rather than keep the ordinance, Irm don,t know yhy, f,m not a citypranner and r don'!t know. why you don't give "..ii'n"." t-"I-it seems to methat you would keep a rure sound rather than amending tnut-una then gofor a variance. r don't. have a prob,-em vrith this piJ". -tn.u,s not hrhatrrm having a probrem erith. r'm latisf ied here but-r donri'-iix. the ideaof amending an ordinance rather tnan doing a variance because Ehere aresome beachrots, r know one in particurar ind r rno, tn"-peopre wno aothis, that's on the north$rest ir,o.. inJ-they have no dock no$, and rrmsure theytve got enough, I.was going to may6e they,u" go[ )SS feet, tdonrt know, but if the ordinanc6 is-changei, they'rn.v ir"t-"o." in andsay vre had a beachl0t before but no!, $re \dant a dock ,i[tr z or 3 boats. rEhink thatrs a real problem.
Conrad: And vrhy would that be a problem?
Richard Zweigz Because there are no boats there now and they were notauthorized to have any before.. r just donrt understand. r think therure that's up here is great that'; set up noh, and r think thaE if hersgranted a variance, r.can see where that makes sense but why amend whatrsaLready there, which is very good and reave it that ,.y "na-then have himfile for a variance on-that? -r.ike you !ay, r don,t see a probr.em withthat- Therers all kinds of square tootage there. H"'" oniy asking forthree_boats. why is the ci.ty wanti.ng to do that? rrm at u'ro"". Like rsay, Irm not a city planner but I donrt understand.
Plann ing Commission MeetingApri]- 2A, 1988 - Page I8
Ann Zweig: What erould be the language of the ordinance? What are you
changing it to?
Conrad: We donrt know. That's r.rha t we're trying to decide. The concept
would be, vre naintain the I00 feet but only where the dock is placed,
with or without some other comnents. The current language says you have
to have 16g feet throughout the beachlot. We're considering having that
Lgg feet be maintained only where the dock is placed so the rest of the
beachlot could go down to less footage and depth.
Ray RoeEtger: sir, I'm going to have to insist on that location of that
dock at a 100 foot depth, you can force someone to put a dock in the
worse possible location on that piece of property. I donrt think the
dock really would be significant as to h,here that depth would occur.
would it not be better to go to some minimum depth anywhere on the
property?
Conrad: Herers what you have for a beachlot ordinance. You have 200
frontage feet. Yourve got to have the 2OA feet and you have to have
3A ,qgg total square feet.
Dacy: 3g,gqT for the first dock and 2g,gOO for the second dock plus 200
feet of additional Iake frontage.
Conraal: So you have those restrictions. That's giving us some kind of
control. Just generally, the 3A,OOT is a good tool to use- whether that
lgg feet is a good Eool is realty. That 30,09a laLks to me about buffers
and enough size. The IOO feet doesn't say much other than it's an
absolute rule and there are exceptions to thaE. 98 feeE, 94 feet. Geez,
but werve got the 3TrggT in there, werve got enough feet. There is
enough square footage with ot;;cr ..rrts of thjs ordinance to protect the
citizens so Irm realIy comfortable that there are those elements Ehere-
we're just debating whether Ehat I00 foot is an absolute and whether we
should change it or whether te should communicate Ehat we donrt want to
change it and recommend a variance in thjs case because there arenrt that
many other alternatj.ves and I don't know what we're going to do.
Anything else thatrs new? Is there a motion to close the public hearing?
wildermuth: Before you close the hearing I think maybe you shouldnr t
explain what the undesirability connected with variances is and the
problems that the CitY has?
Conrad: I tried to do that before.
Wildermuth: They seem to have a lot of interest j.n variances and
handling thj.s situation with variances.
conrad: Let's close the Public hearing and I'11 mention that Jim. I'11
go through it again and maybe Barbara can help.
Batzli moved, wildermuth seconded
in favor and motion carried. The
t.o close the public hearing.public hearing was closed.
AII voted
Planning Commission Meet i ngApril 29, 1988 - page 19
conrad: BasicaLly, in terms of going through this again, and Barbaraherp me if you can because rrm not that astute on arr the ramificationsof variances but basicarry our Attorney says variances are tough to dealyitl . when you grant a variance you s6t a precedent and you r6alry haveto document why you set that precedent real-ly precisely. 'ReaIly
precisery and many times that's not easy. ttany times |ou use generarranguage to document that and most of the time, when y-ou grant thatvariance you have a rot of.other people coming'in ana-ina't.r.ingadvantage of that same variance that you just granted because you haventttotally documented that and Barbara help rne out. rrm sure if we had thecity Attorney here he'd be kilring me o-n this o.,e. The other thing is,you try to make ordinances as good as you can. you grant a variance itmeans hey, who cares about the ordinance, it must be lousy and we used tohave many variances in the ord chanhassen days 3-4 years igo ana it meantthat the ordinances meant nothing. what werre tryiig to d6 now is makesure that the ordinance means something. lie can stand behind them. wecan terr people that. they mean somethinq and they mean somelning ro. areal good reason. That's why $rer re rooiing at clranging itr"-orai.,an"etonight is saying hey, does it make sense io change thit ordinance andthatrs what we're doing- !.'re trying to make the ordinances the vali.dones that rule the City-and. you reaft! don't like to ruie [he city Uyvariances- you rearry donrt because it's rear difficult. it,s costly.As- taxpayers you spend legal fees, Artorney fe"" =;p;;;iing-i.t. rrts notonly the one issue, itrs the next five issues that iome up-and typicarrythey break down that ordinance. Therefore, our directi.on here on thePlanning commission is to make sure that the ordinance is right in thefirst prace- There are times when variances make sense and they areappropriate but $re choose to make sure that the ordinances are right.
Batzli: Therers a second aspect as well. I think he spoke mostly of theprecedence and the poricy. There's also a city ordinaole u" to "h"., youcan find a variance which has strict guiderinei ." ""it-=o-|ou,re notonry looking at it fron a precedent standpoint but you're aiso rooking atmeeting specifications on the ordinance to grant the variance in thefirst place.
Emmings: With the 3g rAOg square foot area, minimum requirement and 200feet of shoreline, if-you've got only t:he 2og feet your-ve got to have anaverage depth of r50_feet already so that does affoid anotier protection.Just the area and width requirement gives you some protection iightthere- r've got some rear uncomfortibJ,e f6erings aiout this for t$roreasons. r guess the horns of the diremma for me are, r feer rike we'rereacting to one proposal 319 *".t re changing the ordinin"" to f"t in oneproject here and r don't rike that. ttrit ieets rike spot zoning. ri--feels like a bad thing to do. On the other hand, f liie hi.s proposal. Ithink it's appropriate. r -have no probrem_ hrith erhat n";"'fioposing to doand r live on that rake and rook at that shore too. Befor! r came heretoniqht r had resolved in my own mind that therers nothing wrong with ourordinance and that this matter should be handled through i variance. tthink that the comments. of the gentleman from sunny srope are werr taken.r think he said everything that r thought of and then s6me. we did see asurvey done by staff as to \.rhat prop"rfi". are left in the city which
Planning Commission Meeting
ApriL 29, 1988 - Page 20
could become beachlots and the only ones that would require a depth
variance are along that shore of Lake Minnevrashta and it's Daversproperty, these folks back here have some property and this one and I
don't know, there might be a couple of others. The reason they don't
have the depth is because of the road wh ich makes it to me a very clear
cut case for granting a variance because it's a thing thatrs there that's
imposed on them. Itrs not something they imposed on themselves. I donrt
think that granting a variance in this case would set a dangerous
precedent for those other cases lrhere there's potential for beachlots and
I donrt see any reason to dispense with the 100 foot minimum requirement.
The other thing about this one is that even if we approve these
amendments, he's still going to need a variance because hers going to
need a variance under Section l3that Barbara brougi'tt to our attention
tonight. We're looking at amending two sections that would get our
ordinance in shape for him to be allowed to do rrhatever he hrants to do
but he's still going to run afoul with Number 13 isnrt he?
Dacy: If the Planning Commission and Council $ranted to change the
ordinance to reduce the lot depth, they would also have to amend number
13 as weII.
know but aII thatrs been proposed tonight,Emmings: I
proposed so
amend three.
var i ance .
we
alI that I s been
really have tofar is the anendment of two sections and
Otherwise he's still going to have to apply for the
Dacy: Yes and I would follow that by saying that because we are under
Iavrsuit from the sunny slope Homeowners Association and because the city
Attorney looked at this case and felt and went through Ehe criter j.a and
said no, a variance would not be justified and said that the Council
should amend the ordinance rather than granting variances. Thatrs why we
vrent back and initiated this application-
Emmings: My own Personal opinion on this, my position on this matter is
this. They should leave the ordinance alone. There's nothing wrong with
it. I want him to get what he wants and I Ehink he should be granEed a
variance for the dock. I donrt think it creates any kind of a bad
precedent or anything else. The onl-y other specific comment I have isjust probably a lot more trivial, is that r think j.n the section of the
ordinance that's number 6 that we're looking at amending, there's a
sentence that startsr I think $re oughE to get canoe racks out of there.
In a couple of sentences it talks about racks and then io another
sentence it talks about canoe racks but werre really talking about
storing a 1ot of different kinds of watercraft on these racks. calling
them cinoe racks I think just adds confusion to th j.s. I think therers a
sentence that begins with the word canoes and it's about the sixth line
dovrn and I think $rhat $re ought to do is say that starting there it should
read, non-motorized hratercraft such as, and then just Pick uP the
sentence where it starts, canoes, windsurfers, sailboards and small
sailboats may be stored overnight on any recreational beachlot if they're
stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose and then just take
the word canoe out of the next sentence so it trould just say, the number
of racks shaLl be determined as Part of the conditional use permit
process. Just eliminate the word and then it tells them bothgenerar, that werre talking about non-motorized watercraft andspecific examples of canoes, windsurfers and so on and ," g"tconfusion away from the canoe racks. Other than that, f d6n,tother comments.
Planning Commission MeetingApxil- 29, 1988 - eage 21
ElLson: Yes, those made more sense3q,g0g, that made sense but the I00do that.
feet for fami I ies andacross didn't necessa r i ly
thegiving
the
have any
Ellson: r looked at this from the standpoint of the ordinance change andI think-rdhen they wrote the yourre trying to think of the differentpossibilities. r don,t see i reasoniig behind Lgg feet. i tninr it wasjust a number that was pulled out of a hat and everyone say yes, thatsounds. okay and until you get- something like this tfrat uriigi ii to yourattention, you realize you pulled it orit of a hat u"a-vor-Jian't reallyll'inlr u: thoroughly as you can so r can see changing tirat because r don,tthink that Lo6 feex was something that was realt! w6rr thought out andthought of arl the possibilities. r don,t see wiry Ma teei' is so magic.
Emmings: How about the 2A6 and 3O,A6O?
to me.
all the
2ga
!ray
Batzli: r think I'1r - wenzel brought up a 10t of good points. r think inparticular, arthough r hras the one ttrat recommenaed tirat the r00 feet bewhere the dock was located, r will admit that r think a rot of goodconcerns, varid concerns were raised about why we're doing that but itsti11 concerns me rhat r don,t know, r thini ir,"r.-"n.Jii'n" u minimumlot footage. I think a 109 feet is probably a good .,u*U"r-ior tteimprementing of a barrier both from ih" sur-roun,iinq p";pi" and the peoprethat are at the beach, for their safety. I. think it'".I-. |retty goodnunber that was purled out. I think tiat the mooring .i in! docks in thepublic vrater would be an interesting question to aii6ct-siuir to roo*into- The variance issue, r donrt [no, that r agree with steve that thisis the prime candidate for a variance. r think [.h.t ,h.t rre saia, hecontradicted himself when he said it was in tn.t-i-"r*uyJ iiougnt thatthe hardship vras not characteristic of or appricabre to other rands orstructures in the same district and it sounds to me r.ike he said there,sa bunch of 10ts that 3re simirar. r don't know that granting a varianceis ttrg right thing to-do here. I guess r,d rather poi in-oiai.,un."together that everybody can live with that had some good numuers in itand that the people in. the community want and can live with. r don,tthink necessariry granting a varianle in this instance solves anything atarl and especialry if there are other pieces of property that have thesame problem rrith the road. The interesting thiig it.t'f startedthinking about the minute we raised subsection 13 was the rqs feet thathas to be landward of the ordinary high $rater mark, or $rhat does thatsay? The width measured at both tne 6rdinary high water mark and at apoint 100 feet randward from the ordinary niln witer mark oi not r.essthan 4 rinear feet for. each dwelring unit. The current one that. werrenot considering tonight--but werre uiing as our model, how many linealfeet do they require? How many famiIi6sZ
Dacy: It would be 50.
Batzli: So they have at least 60 feet worth 100 feet back from the
ordinary high $ra ter mark?
Dacy: Thatrs the issue. In some places there is nol- lqg feet depth
Iandvrard to measure back from the ordinary high. Thatrs why Irm saying
if you amend the lot depth requirement in the other section, that
shouldnrt conflict with 13...
Batzli: So they didn't meet 13 either?
either? They donrt even have 60 feet of
ts'nmings: If
square feet I
They donrt currently meet 13
L06 foot depth?
llildermuth: The thing is, Section 13 wasn't designed for a 15 family
beachlot. Itrs meant for the 40 family beachlot.
Batzli: I also had a question for Steve, I didnrt want to interrupt
because you were rolling but I didnrt understand your corunent about
average of 150 foot dePth. I didn't catch trhat you were saying, why
would have to have 159 foot dePth.
the
you
you had 2qg feet on the shore and you have to have 3g,Ogg
you have to have 150 feet in depth.
Batzli:
average,
then...
Yes, average but you would rather
you could have I square foot that
think of mean dePth
goes back 2 million
because
feet and
Emmings: I give up. Maybe I used the wrong word. f,q times 200 is
30 ,agg.
Batzli: I understand vrhat you were trying to say. You were just ilrawing
a straight diagonat line and saying thaE's going to be- Itrs not
necessarily the middle but you could have I square foot. I think stevets
amendment. I don't know that I'n ready to approve at least the
reconunendat i. on by staff at this time. I think that we may want to put a
maximum number on the racks that we allord in the event something about, I
think someone in the public hearing mentioned something about one
rratercraft per family maximum or something and I might go along with
something like that or a maximum of l0 racks or some such thing. I also
think that trying to clean up this Laa feeL, I think $re do at least want
to make Sections 13 and 7 consistent. I know that staff is measuring
them perpendicular and landward _ and everything else but I-think we should
clean- up- that language as weII if and when we get to amending the
ord i nance .
wi ldermuth :
this case orThat's r,rhy we
sense.
I favor an ordinance amendment because I donrt
other cases $rould meet the hardship test for a
get into trouble defending our ordinances from
think that
var iance.
a legal
Planning Commission Meeti ng
ApriL 20, 1988 - Page 22
Robert Pierce: I think we do. I think we can contest to that.
Planning Commission MeetingApril 26, 1988 - page 23
Conrad: Are you comfortable withpossible amendment?
the way that staff has worded the
Wi ldermuth: I find itevening because I th inkordinance amendment buton a variance basis...
acceptable. I
there I s goingI donrt think
think we ought to table it thisto be some language problems inwe should handle these case by
our
ca se
some conments that hrere brought up in thethe 100 feet to another numbei? 9-0 feet inminimum depth that should be mainta j.nted?
Wildermuth: I $ras thinking about this.feet minimum. A minimum of 2gO feet ofdepth requ i rement?
If you look at 3A,Ogq squareshoreline. Do you rea11y need
Conrad: A while back it was hopedthings but we found that a case in
Conrad: I heard
would we changeyou feel it,s a
WiLdermuth: On Mi nnewash ta ?
that we wouldn'tpoint...
audience.
total. Do
because of those two
a
Conrad: In this particular case.10 feet, which is not the case, itthat a beachlot could shrink to 40said, it may have even disappearedyou care?
concerned that if it shrunk toskrink to 40 feet, do you feelLike some of the audi6nce havethe ra j.nstorm Iast year. Do
Wi ldermuth :
have a ha lf a
use.
I guess itrsmile of l0
Are we
cou 1dfeet.
dur i ng
a problem as far
deep beach, tha t
not
foot as Irm concerned. If youcertainly is not j. ntense
Headla: I hear a lot-of comments tonight and I think they,re... Thepeople have their stuff and they want [.o cut it off. r rea]-ry believethat the people of chanhassln -a1a the public have a .igtt-t. the rake andto alr the recreation provided it doesi't. hurt ttre nei{nuoii or aamagethe lake and I didnrt- see us protecting that. Thatrs one comment.Another one is I think the people who irote the original ordinance...Ithink they did a good job then... r th j.nk now hre hive a chatlenege... Ithink rre ought to rewrite it to fit the situation. I haven,t heardanybody disagree r^rith.$rhat Mr. pierce wants to do so letrs $rrite aoordinance that r,rirr fit this situation. we had another situation wherethe council approved something ttris iiit time. tt"v nuan;t..tt,. uoitaingwas there. We didntt-d9. ? good.job of wording and i think ere,ve got toimprove the wording of this ordiiance and we,ve got a good opportunity.
Conrad: Let me take you up on that. Staff has drafted some language andyourre not comfort"bl: ylah that language is what you,re telling us.what would you rike to see changed u6.ii" their language of saying eitherL0A feet at the dock or 30 feet surrounding the docf oi U"ing I00 feet.Do you see other things that we should be ionsidering?
Headla: yes.
Planning
ApriL 2g
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 24
Conrad: And $rhat might they be?
Headla: Barb,
Dacy: I have
of my head.
but I j ust
Headla: Is it more than 20?
Dacy: Yes I would say so.
Headla: More than 30?
Dacy: Probably.
Headla: Ladd, you voted no last time I mentioned this and I thj.nk you
probably... Did you notice the distance from the parking lot to the
lakeshore and thatrs the land that's being used. There are probably over
30 families and thatts the place thatrs being used. 35, maybe 40 feet.
Wildermuth: I think that's the problem with requiring that the dock go
in the area of the I00 foot minimum. The very thing that you were
talking about. That may be the worse place to put the dock where you
happen to have LAU feet of dePth.
how many people belong
it upstairs in the file
Acres beachlot?
donrt know off the top
to PI ea sant
Headla: Let me
complaints from
go on with some other points here.
Pleasant Acres or I4innewashta Creek
Have you had any
beachlots?
Dacy: From those two, no.
Headla: But if they would apply Eoday, they wouldn't get them.
Dacy: That I s correct.
Headla: I think werre screwed uP if we think we can cut out those
They serve the Public vrelL. They haven't had complaints. I think
o,.rg-ht to rea),Iy seriously consider rewording that - Another point,
plice, if I wai to sell half my place to my daughter a1! we -I"antedLeachl,ot, you're telling me I need 3q,qgT feet of beachlot for two
families and neither one has any kids. I think itrs screwed up.
that I s an incorrect requirement.
soon as I
beachlot
sel l a
for my
lots.
$re
on my
a
I think
part of
daughter
Conrad: Thatrs not the point of a beachlot though. Yourve distorted
what a beachlot is in your definition.
Headla: No. I want to get a beachlot but
it, all the rules have changed. changes,
and mysel f.
AS
Conrad: You also Dave, canrt let friends store boats on your proPerty
either. There are a lot of good thj.ngs to Protec! the lake.
Headra: r donrt go arong r.ri th that at all. Like one radar run on thelake_, they can improve that rake a whole rot more tnan prouauLy rg ox 2gbeachlots. With aII -thgse. cars driving around and all ihose people...r do ]-ike the rure of thumb you have. r think 3g,ggg anJ minimum wiatnso you protect peopre from north and south, r think that hits the veryfoundation. r think there's a rot of rogic in ."g"iiing so mucrr taxewidth per family. That. kind of gets down to us".ge and are you reallygoing to--. should it be 35 0r i5, r don't know but those are the ruresr really think we shou-Ld be rooking at- The ro0 root Jepin, from what rread in all the notes here, was deiermined because that'i the setbackrequired for a home. we don't have any homes. you can,t have abuiJ'ding- ,To me, you've got to treat that as an outr,ot or if r sord Mr.Pierce 50 feet of property by 50 feet, there "..n;t-.nV i.g,ii."...rt" onthaE.. r.rearry wourd like to see those parameters considered in thedescription of the beach lot
Batzli: whatrs the setback from the rear of the house to the back rine?
Planning Commission MeetingApril' 29, 1988 - page 25
Dacy: 30 feet.
Batzli: And whatrs the side setback?
Dacy: I0 feet.
Batzli: So a minimun setback in the normal requirement hrouldAre you comfortable vrith that? 30 and 1g, thai," .= "fo""-.sfrom house to house. Do you like that as a setback?
Headla: I think there,s- some logic !o that. I think i.t shoul-dbecause that's srhat the house is required. r it,i"[ ""-"uiiii roIogic for the number of feet set dorin and I haven,t heard that.
be 40 feet.you can get
be 3g
have
conrad: Dave, you'lr be out there a rong time. There isn,t any.Therers-no logic to r0 feet sideyard set6ack. Therers no--rogic to :orearyard setback. you find- some logic that says ah;y-";; iJcx in :.gpeopre or $rhatever and r wirr be amized. They are uiuiii.iy numberstypicarry dictated from one_ city to the next and so you looi< at city tocity. rtts going to be.rear to-ugh to iina real numb6ia rh;f you canjustify based on economics or baied on solid rationale. ft,"y u."ballpark estimates. _Il:I'19 best guess.. Theyrre gtobat to."""" in manycases and we,re not going to come ip with somithini tfrai,!-Ieaffyparticular. rn this case, Barba.u ihe -ity atto.r,ey said no variance.Did you talk to Roger?
Dacy: Yes.
Conrad: And orhat was his comment?
Dacy: He did do a erritten opinion. r canrE remember the exact text ofiI bo! to summarize, he felt that there was not hardship here in thestratford Ridge apprication. That it did not meet th. ?i.r" criteria thatthe ordinance sets out for granting a variance.
Planning Commission Meeting
ApriL 2A, 1988 - Page 26
Conrad: Inright S teve?
your humble opinion you thought there was a hardship, is that
Emmings: I think therers a hardship for that entire
where it gets narrow and then goes do$rn to the point.
Cove. That strip of land is different than any otherthat can have a beachl.ot. It may be ovrned by 3 or 4it's just one piece of land.
narrow strip of Ia nd
Down to Red Cedarplace in Chanhassendifferent peopLe but
Conrad: Are you persuaded?
Batzli: Am I?
Conr ad :
here.
These tr./o are attorneys so I'm using them as a little mi.ni-court
Emmings: Neither one of us practice this kind of law.
Dacy: Just a point of clarification, the wenzel and the Headla proPerty,
these properties vrouldnrt be eligible for a beachlot anyway because they
couLdn't meet the Iot area. They can't make the 30,006 square feet so
you could be talking about this Stratford Ridge case and you new
applications that vrould occur on the east side of Lake t'tinnewashta when
that area becomes sewered or developed or on the west side of Lake Ann.
Emmings: But there are no roads there now that create thj.s condition.
Dacy: Right. I just get
issue because the Counc i I
different road here.
real concerned about debating the
has denied that variance and the
var I ance
ci ry 15 On a
conrad: If we vote the ordinance amendment down and we leave the
applicant up to a variance request.
Ellson: Hers already had one.
Dacy: The Attorney's going to come back with the same thing- The
crucial part of the variance application is that you're saying that there
is something r,rrong with the ordinance so what Ehe Attorney is saying is,
if you don't Like the rules, fine, change the rules but you shouldnrt be
granting variances which do not meet the established criteria in the
ordinance. It's his opinion that said the Stratford Ridge application
dj.dn't meet those criteria so as our legal advisor he said, donrt grant
the variance but if you feel you want to change the rul-es than change the
rules. If you donrt r.rant to change the rules, then fine and thatrs the
purpose of the zoning ordinance amendment. To go back and change the
course, everybody's just wasted the lasE three months.
conrad: we may have wasted the time and I apologize to Mr. Pierce for
this but we want to do the right thing-
Ellson: If
the Counc i I
they ereren' t thinkinq in
or the Attorney before.
terms of hardshipr...has gone before
Planning Commission MeetingApxil 2A, 1988 - page 27
Dacy: Eor the
Emmings: There
cha r acter i stic.
Headla: On an
and that is theIook at it case
Stratford Ridge appl ication?
arenrt that many pieces of property that have this
some reaIly good
anything eI se.
like it but I think hismost sense. Take a looktime. f don't see there
Wildermuth: Except forwell es tabl i shed .
the north end of Lotus Lake and I think thatrs
overall basis, I think Stevers gotvariance is more defensivible thanby case if it doesnrt make sense.
Conrad: Are you saying we should grant a variance?
Headla : Yes. That t s an idea. I don, tis the most defensivible and makes thecase by case. Donrt change it at thisgoing to come to a mutual agreement.
po i nts
Take a
pos i tionat i t
werre
Conrad: I'm also uncomfortable that r.re have the right words inordinance amendment right now but r don't know that-we,i"-loin9,we're going to come up with mumbo_jumbo therefore *y "o.."ii" .minutes ago.
wildermuth: Take the depth requiremen. out of it entirely. 206 feetwide minimum. 30,AgA square feet minimum. Where are you going to runinto a problem? There isn't an undeveiopea prop"rty left on any lakeexcept on the one side of Minnewashta and *olt or t-hat is park. Thereisnrt enough land reft on Lotus. ir,"r.--i"n;t-enougir-i""a i.it on Rirey.
the
I think
few
yourve just beenit anyway.
l11lson: Yousaying about
guys have to be really confident that vrhatthe Attorney is well, that,s okay we'Il do
Headla: He's going to give an opinionhimself on that.to save himself anyhray. Cover
Robert Pierce: The parcel to the north, the Larson property, forinstance right now they live there. she.rs an elderly ruav-'"na they mightdevelop that parcel someday and it probably would be . "iigi. familyhome- The way the ordinance reads right n6r, ir we cnanle'lne ordinancein the depth, r think that wourd .orei the. ract tnat-ftt"i-""" nor put adock on their rand- As it is right now, they can't even'lave a dock fora single family home. rf rhe dock is left oit, as r unaeisiano it, youcan not put it back in. For instance if it wasn,t grandfaihered inbecause they didn't have it in at the time. That's-stri-iiy because theywere erderry peopre or someone might get sick and not put it i" .na yoo-'canrt get a variance. r rrourd think if you do away with the oepth andhave--.on this particurar side of the l.ie... r *iri-g;"iaitee tnat theLarsonrs erirr sell that property and hrlthout a doubt tn.t-rii""u.r comesthere. thinks they're going to have lakeshore ana ttrey;ie-going to findout they donrt will be a little irritaEed
Pl ann ing
Apr.il- 2S
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 28
Conrad: Irm a little bit concerned with lot depth because, and I'11 give
you an example of Lotus Lake Estates. Where property, you've got 960
feet of a beachlot and you've got parcels, and again, werre kind of
beating this into the ground when we don't have too many things going to
come before us but again, let me just give you an example that I could
create. Lotus Lake Estates t 9OA feel-. of beachlot and houses coming down
to that beachlot, we potentially, if we take away the depth requirement,
and theytve got tons of feet. This is small compared to what they have
there. If you take away the dePth requiremenE, you Potentially could
have a beachlot that is a 19 foot strip in front of somebodyrs house.
Batz1i: Under section 13 you couldnrt. Yourd need whatever the lineal
footage is and at least IOO feet back. Hets talking about a dock by
amending this one section correct?
conrad 3 But you,re saying that a beachlot can be configured differently.
yourre saying no longei does a beachlot have to have I00 feet in front of
everybodyi s hous". It can be 10 feet. only rvhere the dock is you've got
Eo have 100 feet but it can be la feet in front of 15 houses and thatrs
what Lotus Lake Estates did. They have, I dontt kno$, how many houses but
they have a Iot of houses abutting the beachlot. werre not talking one
o. t"o so you basica),ly can set a walking Erail doern in. front of the
people. wlfXing trails arenrt bad but again,-we're lTyi"S to buffer so
we'ie talking distance between space for people and distance between
where People actually, other lot o$rners have their residences ' That's an
extreml eiample but it,s a case where if we took the dePth out of there,
you potentially could have that situation.
Dacy: May I summarize your options? oPtions on the first issue about
the dock. You can deny the proposed amendment all together '
Conrad: And then what would hapPen?
Dacy: The ordinance vrould remain
Conrad! And then what would the
AS IS.
Dacy :
werre
Batzli:
Conrad:
applicant do?
He can reapply for a variance but based
still going to recommend den j.al. He may
Thatis always uP to the City Council '
Ho$, many additional steps are there in
the Attorney's opinion 'get that variance.on
not
Dacy: we would have to reschedule a hearing to the
i.nd Appeals and probably at this point would not be
of May. Thatts one oPtion.
Conrad: Brian your feeling was
not permit a variance. Is that
that process right now?
Board of Adj ustment
heard unti. I the end
that the language of the ordinance would
r ight?
Batzli: That was mY feeling, Yes.
Planning Commission Meeting
April- 20, 1988 - Page 29
Conrad: Okay, second option.
Ellson: What if we reword the ordinancethey went through we worded it. In otheryou know what Irm talking about?
Dacy: section option is, you can establish no depth whatsoever. Thatwourd also mean that you shourd amend section 13 loo. Third option wouldbe to keep it at the rog feet, which r guess is realry the same one aslu*!". 9!"1 Eour, you could establish i smaller deptir. 25 feet or 50feet. 75 feet is consistent with the structure setback for arecreational development lake. staff has said, if youtre toing to reduce]t' dgn't go as smalr as 50 feet. you need area to move around in on thebeachlot- The fifth option is the one that you talked rast time and thatis, requiring a certain amount of area of thit beachlot be ro6 feet wherethe dock is located.
and list thewords, word
hardship so that ifthe hardship. Do
Dacy: If you wanted to say that a beachlotx amount of feet. Has an average lot depthThatrs an option. you can do that.
have an average lot depth ofof 75 feet or whatever.
we had an option toallow beachlots.a1l our troubles.
Emmings: The Attorney, in the letter also suggestedjust knock out the whole beachlot ordinance and not.Simply just repeal the lrhole ordinance and just end
Headla: No, I think you,d have some trouble.
Emmings: I don't think Ehat,s a good option.
Board of Adjustment and Appeals wilIConrad: Thoseget it nex t?
are four options.
Dacy: Right.
conrad: r guess m uncomfortable with the ranguage of the proposarright. now- rhe onry thing rhat r can think .i 6ii3iry, ,ilr,o"t a ror ofthought is to take it down to 75 feet in depth. rnst;ad of the r00 takeit down to 75. Therefore, werre not tarkin! about the Jo"x u.,y.or.,where the dock is located.. r'm assuming, I donrt want to take depth outof the ordinance. r think we need depti in there r""uuie i can,t imaginearr the different scenarios Ehat -may io,n" to play and I don't even erantto set up a committee to try to figure out the scenarios and vraste stafftime because I don't think we're s6lving too many peopre,s probrems rightno!, but r guess r'm saying, rrm not saying tnat itris i" *y ia"u and rrmgoing to vote for it. rtm saying that r can see an arternative ofchanging the 100 foot depth to be 75 foot depth.
wildermuth: Look at the rast page of thj.s thing. rf John ziegrer Jr.,John ziegler, Lawrence wenzer and Barbara Mae Headla got together anddecided- to deverop that piece of property as a parcel , they woutd have aIot of lineal shore footage. they would have, I guess at some pointthere's 80 feet but if you made the 75 foot minimum, therers a rot of itthat i'rould be 50 feet. That would mean that that whote stretch there,
Planning Commission Meet i ng
April- 29, 1988 - Page 30
which wouLd probably be over 1,006 ]-ineal feet of
have a beachlot. I think that's the problen r^rith
you put it? Where you cut it off.
shore I ine ,the depth.
Conrad: I lras persuaded by Steve in terms of variance. I
a good candidate for the variance because I donrt think we
enough to figure this out. I tell you Barbara, the more I
it.
think this i.s
can be smar t
think about
Dacy: The issue is, what you're saying, is the City satisfied with only
one part of the area meeting a certain amount of lot depth and having a
narrower part. Do you feel that thatrs appropriate for a beachlot or do
you want a consistent straight 75 feet?
Wildermuth: I think it. is.
Dacy: Thatrs the issue and if you feel it should be L06 feeE or 75 or if
you want to use the term average depth of x amount of feet.
Wildermuth: The area that I live in has probably got the most odd shaped
ridiculous beachlot on any of the lakes. That one on Colonial Grove,
that is really a little odd. That thing is only about 25 feet wide
going down to the lake but it works well.
EIIson: Are we talking about two-thirds of it or an average?
Dacy: That's the issue there and we pointed out these other properties
to let you knoe, that hey, some of them do get really narrov, and where do
you stop and feel uncomfortable that a beachlot should be Iocated on that
area?
Conrad: We have to rnake a recommendation to the CiEy Council- We can
table it for more study. We can react and send j.E up to City Council who
will probably have Ehe same amount of comment as we do. I guess if they
would like more study, I think I'd rather have them ask for it than us at
this time. I think vre should make a move on this and I think the power
may be in the person who makes the motion.
Dacy: On the second issue on the racks, the way that staff has
recommended it, I think is what Mr- Batzli you're talking about,
intent of it was to allow one slip per lot on the rack sj tuation
was also suggested by the Public.
the
which
Batzli: was that in your sentence that reads, the number of racks shall
be determined as part of the conditionaL use permit Process?
Somehow hopefully that got copied right. My
Emmings: why is that one repeated?
from page 4 to page 6Batzli: Irve got repeated
could not
where do
Dacy: No, it's on page 6.
pages were rearranged.
Planning Commission MeetingApxil 29, 1988 - Page 31
Dacy: The staff reportoriginal recommendation
recommendaEion for this
reads page 5,for la st times
meeti ng .
page 4 and
meeting.
page 6
Page 6
Page 4 was theis the
Conrad: There are two issues.depth. Anybody want to make a
the first one out first, theLetrs talk
motion?
Batzli moved, Errson seconded that the pranning commission recommend toamend Section 20-263 (7) of the City Code to read as follows;
No dock shalr be permitted on a recreational beachlot unress it has atLeast 200 feet of Lake frontage measured at the orai".iv-trigh water markand the rot contains at reast 75 feet of rot depth measirea' ranawardperpendicularly from the ordinary high water mark for at least 50 feet ofwidth where the dock is to be focate6.
(Forlowing is the discussion pertaining to this motion which was raterrrithdrasrn. )
Ellson: Say that again, the part about the 50 feet.
Batzli: We donrt even have to have that but.Irm throwing something outso we can talk about something. 75 feet minimum a"ftn i6.-"t least 50feet somehrhere around where the dock is going to be located. Do ire needany requirement in any motion that we do, uniess $re throw the thing outof course, as to erhere a minimurn o. ..*i.r. linear ro"iite wourd bea rguess r can picture a l,.foot strip of sand going in rroit of a couple ofhouses and r don'|t know. if that'" i"uiry the int6nt of wtrit we.re tryingto do and r don't even know if tirat rris'anything to do witrr a rot,sabirity to have a dock and r thi.nk r ieep on roling sight myserf of we,renot necessarily even talking here about whether or.ir" illoring tnebeachlot so nuch ,= .,": the dumb. thing have a dock on it. It appears tome that there's probabry a certain am6unt of square footage that you needto have a dock and r don't know rearry ih"t ,r. need a minimum other thanwhat the lot wourd already have to trai,'e-in subdivision 13. To be abeachl0t. r'm kind of being svrayed that way other than your commentwhere retrs say the guy does havi a 10 foot strip of lani ana thatrswhere. they're going to put the dock ina-tnat's ,irere arr the activity isand they've got this big hunk of rand over here that nobody r= u"i"j'unitheyrre right in front of everybody's house. r guess that's the onryreason that I can see where you would want the minimum footage aroundwhere the dock is- r guess ihat's kind of why r kept iE in my motion totake care of that situation where you've got trre rg- foot strii "t reactr,that's. where they \.rant to put the aocX an,i they,ve got this big hunk ofland that they got the beachlot because they had this lot of land overhere and nobody's using that- They're alr in front of the neighbors. rguess thatrs kind of why r propose- the motion and take it from there.
Emmings: r bave a different idea to thror., out. what if we essentiarryreft it as it was or -we said that youtve got to have 2aq feet of rakefrontage, 100 feet of.depth, vgu'y6 got-to have the 3g,oog square feet ofrand and then just said that the rot-depth, in u particuiir case, as rong
as the area and the frontage requirements
varied if it can be demonstrated that theproperty owners has been met.
are met, lot depth can begoal of buffering adjoining
Are you talking about just forgetting the dock or are you
about to get a beachlot?
Emmings: Irm talking about this particular section
BatzIi:
talkj.ng
Batzli: Okay, so
Lgg foot min imum?
thatts just to have a dock? So
right here.
you already need the
Emmings: AIl those things
guess what I'm saying is..
are in this section related to a dock. I
conrad: Dock or no dock.
BatzIi: It's two different considerations though. Whether you have a
beachlot or not and r.rhether it has a dock or not.
Ernmings: But theyr re a1l contained in the same section of the ordinance
that wetre now amending that you just made a mot ion on.
Batzli: This amendment is only as to whether a dock is permitted
recreational beachlot.
on a
Frmings: But it lays out when a dock is permitted and it has aII those
numbers in it. uy note says this, if the depth requiremenE is in there
primarily for buffering this activity from other ad joinJ.ng properties,
then if they met the frontage and the area, we could be forgiving on the
depth as long as werre satisified that the thing is adequately buffered
from the neighbors. That h,ould allow his project and doesn't tie us down
to any arbltrary number for depth. It makes it a Iittle vague.
Batzli: Other than Ehe LgA foot minimum in section 13, per family being
served by the beachlot.
Emmings: WelI, wetd have to take a look at Ehat. I think you've got to
do one section at a time and then Ehey can all fit together-
Batzli: Irm looking at that as thatrs an initial threshold that you have
to get over and I $rouldn't necessari.ly adjust that.
Conrad: I think there has to be a minimum footage. Yourre talking about
3g.gTg square feet but if yourve goE a 50A foot lot line, itrs easy to
make up jT,ssT square feet if you've got sag feet and it doesn't have to
be very deep. I think thatrs a mistake. I think the intent of the
ordina-nce i! to give distance between the beachlot and the neighboring
houses and thereiore, I can vacillate the 100 feet a f.ittle bit.
Headla : Maybe thatrs how you l,vant to erord it then. That you want
distance between that lot line and the neighboring house, 75 feet. Do
you want that type of setback? That r,rou Id answer your concern.
Planning Commission Meeting
ApIiL 29, 1988 - Page 32
Planning Commission Meeting
ApY. iL 2A, 1988 - Page 33
wildermuth: But Dave, courd the dock be in the middre third of the1i neal shoreline I eng th?
Headla: werre on a different point here. Ladd had the concern that r.rewere really trying to define. If we put a 75 foot setback.
Conrad: Erom the closest property Iine.
Batzli: r think he was talking about from the nearest house, not fromthe nearest property line. Therers a big difference ttrere.
HeadIa: Not real Iy.
eonrad: r think property line is the intent. r think Dave would agreewith that.
Headra: Maybe therers something here. wha!is a setback requirement rikefor Pierce on Minnewashta earkwiy? '
Dacy: 30 feet.
Headla: 30 feet from the road?
Dacy: Rig ht .
Conrad: If we kept it al Lfr6 feet from the closest property line, inthis case, because we have a street and there's G6 feet of iight-of-way,we got Ehe 100 feet.
Headla: I think you,ve got something.
Dacy: you,!e measuring the setback from the dock?
Conrad: No, werre not. even talking about the dock anymore. We,retalking about the depth on any plaie on that property'. w";r. suying youneed 100 feet of depth.
Batzli: From the ordinary h j.gh water mark.
Conrad: To Ehe closest property line.
Dacy: !'lhich is hor^, the ordinance is written now.
conrad: No. werre saying it requi :-es lgg feet in and of itself on the
'o!t we'!re not saying the rot rris to be 100 feet. we,re saying from theordinary high water mark to the first prop"ity ii"" .tn.r Iian tnisproperty.
Batzli: But private property so yourre not counting the street.
Dacy: Yourve lost me. Here.s the water and here's the road.
Planning
April 2g
Commission Meet j. ng
1988 - Page 34
Conrad: There's the roadr and here's the right-of-way on either side ofthe road and therefore, herers the property line for this house thatrs
across the street. we'rq saying from the ordinary high water mark, we
want I00 feet from here to that property line. Not 100 feet here. We
v'rant I00 feet from here tq the closest property line other than theparcel itself. In this Slarticular case obviously what we're doing is
we're saying the street has nothing to do $rith vrhat we're doing. The
street is a buffer in and..of itself.
conrad: Right. our asswnption is the road right-of-way wilI be
enough in the future, any other parcel . Thatrs our assumption.
this is accomplishing thq,-intent of the ordinance as a buffer and
that other.
Dacy: What you're saying.then is that you
betlreen the edge of the !6ke and the roadfeet but theyrd have to npke up the rest.
Conr ad :
feet.
BatzIi: Assuming
property line and
have no minimum di stance
right-of-way. This could be I0
bu f fer
Tha tall
a proper Ey Iine.
our i ntent.
standpoint when a beachlot
we haven I t
width
you have a
Dacy: What happens if you wouldnrt have a road right-of-$ray here and
let's say on Kurverrs Pohtlt, they have Lotus Lake here and the beachlot
is something like thaE and the private lots are over here. In this case,
there is no dimension? Ithat happens if there is no road?
wetre measuring.,to the next lot line. That sEill has to be LgU
that that point you just drev, the line to is another
not like- a cul-de-sac.
Dacy: This road right-of.;way line Ehough is
Conrad: We have to get ltre wording to meet
Dacy: Hoi,, about if you approach it from the
directly abuts a road rigit-of-way...
Emmings: The road right-of-way can be counted...
Dacy: In the determinatiqn of 100 feet.
Ray Reottger: You could .end uP with l foot wide strip band.
Ernmings: No because ther\ you'd need a 99 foot wide road and
got a Iot of those.
Mary Jo ttoore: Using the,,road with the consideration in the
beciuse of the safety hazErd. You have a road there and then
I0 foot lot where kids are playing. It's a safety hazard.
Emmings: I think it'sa separate issue.
a terrible traffic problem there. I think thatrs
Planning Commission Meeting
Apri]- 2A, 1988 - Page 35
Dacy: Your concern Mr. Chairman though about Lotus LakeIong strip of land, the Ig ot 20 feet not having adequatestill addresses in your mind then?
Estates having aarea, is that
even go Ing
Conrad: Yes. Very defi ni tely.
Ellson: Because that road wourdnrt be there to the next line.
conrad: so you stirr have r00 feet. yourve got L00 foot rot depth untilyou hit the first property r-ine. private property. r think we shourdmake.a motion very similar to this to bounie it ri, una nave fegafopinions and Barbara do some research and city councii tare a roox. As afootnote to whatever we're doing r want to make sure that Mr. pierceknows-we're 100king at the ordinance (r) to make sure itrs solid aslrselt. we arso feer that you have a good beachlot and werrl be making,at least r will, be making that c1ear. Anybody feer comforiabre withmaking a motj.on that we can kick out of here?
Headla: Werve got one on the floor.
Conrad:
Batzl i :to garner
Ellson:
Thatrs right itts still under discussion.
In view of the circumstances that I don't think I,mmy own vote on my motion Irll withdraw my motion.
I withdraw my second.
wildermuth moved, conrad seconded that the pranning commission recommendamending section 2g-263(7) of the city code to r".6 .= forrows:
No dock -shalr be permitted on a recreationar beachrot unress it has attldo-hundred (2oa) feet of lake frontage and the lot has at least onehundred (100) feet depth measured perf,endicular landr^rard from tneordinary high water mirk to the fiist intersecting lot line excrusive ofthe street right-of-way. No more than one (1) docr may be erected on arecreational beachrot every t$ro hundred (2ga) teet of iake frontage. inaddition, thirty thousand .(3g,ggT) square feet of land is required forthe first dock and an.additionar twerity thousand (2q,ggoi "qru.. feet isrequired for each additional dock. No more than three (i) docfs,however, shalt be erected on a recreationar beachlot. ati votea in favorexcept David Headla who opposed and motion carried
Headla: You want the rest to read the same?
Wildermuth: yes.
Headla: Irve got a big question on the other. I donrt like t]ne 3q,0gqsquare feet. r think yourve got to give them incentive. ii someuody isdeveloping their propeity, yo9 really want more vrith a ninimum number ofhomes on that property. -r Ltrint< ttre-area on a beachlot shourd be tiedinto the number of homes that are going to,be o"ing thut-u"lcnrot. Mydaughter and r, tlro peopre and we ieed 36,006 .qo.i" i""t.--rn"t.s at he
Planning Commission Mee t j. ng
April 20, 1988 - Page 35
extreme end but thatrs the point. Maybe you ought to require x numberfeet for a home. Or maybe it's so many feet of wjdth but I think there
should be a ratio there and thatts going to be the incentive for thebuilders not to bring in the absolute maximum number of homes.
Conrad: Do you want to change your motion at all Jim?
wildermuth: I donrt think so.
Headla: I'm opposed and the reason being,
is ludicrous. I think the square foot area
number of homes using that beachlot.
of
t}re 30,609 square feet
be tied into the
I think
should
wildermuth: Remember we talked about this last time, this sticker and
number business. I guess the reason my canoe and sailboat always had a
number on it was it has a motor on it so why don't we define the type of
rratercraft that can be put on these racks to grant them vrith a sticker,
State sticker.
Emmings: Do you have a sticker on a sailboard?
Conrad: we have a second item in terms of the overnight storage on the
proPerty. Anything sEeve?
Emmings: Irm not sure about, one says 6 and one says ?. rrm not sure
which one.
Conraal: Seven racks but 6 boats per rack. The thought there is
basically the maximum number of boats at one per house would be 42 based
on some of sarb's calculations. This would be the maximum number.
Emmings: In the proposed language, I'm looking at page 6. Is that lrhere
I should be? Okay, so it says no more than six (6) watercraft are stored
on any racks. The number of racks shall not exceed the amount of storage
necessary to permit one s).ip Per lot served by the beachlot. Thatrs
fine.
A motioo iras made at this point with the following discussion.
Enmings: I donrt see any problem with rowboats. If somebody's got a 12
foot boat with oars in it, if they can get it on a rack and they can take
it out and row around in it to go fishing or something, I donrt care.
Batzli: I think you'll get PeoPIe bringing their motors down and taking
them on and off the motor. If t.heytve got a small motor, and I sti1L
don't knoe, if thatrs a Problem.
Etrmings: You can get it on a canoe.
Batzli: I knor.r, then I donrE think thatrs a problem anytray-
Planning Commission Meeting
AprIL 29. 1988 - eage 37
Batzli: You need one. uostcitizen and have one. A lot
Enmings: Irm not goingcarry a motor down.
Batzli: I think I have the sameused that yet and I knor., that weindicates something in the water.
people donrt but Irm actually a lawof hrindsurfers don't have them.
abiding
to sto re
they
Dacy: And therers a number on the sticker. Then if they wanteda life raft, one of those big ones, doesnrt require on" 6ot-y.tcould store it so thatrs why I kind of stayed iway from.
Batzli: Requiring the licensing.
to put that in. I don't care if people want to
a4Conrad: I like the language as is worded. If people can constructstory tall canoe racks that can support. put a boit in, carry it,donrt think anybody's going to te Lriticking that. r Jo iir." tt.language of this. It talks about the more passive uses. When you42 boats, that's stirr pretty riberar. r rike you. ,oii i.,t --s t"r" .
I
problem with the
mean one slot on
ha ve
$rord sIip. We haven'tthe rack but slip to me
Dacy: Do you vrant to use space.
Emmings: I know r.rhen I did some work in orono,storage racks, we called those slips too but itdefine the term. The term hasn,t Leen definedone space. One rack space. Is that clearer?
when we had
all depends
so maybe you
those dryon how you
vran t to say
Batzli: I thought it eras because Ias to r"rheEher we r.rere talking about
Emmings: tetrs say rack space.
Wildermuth: Where did you
Iooked at the slipboats in the r"ra ter
come up with the number 7?
for that.
and
or
got confused
not.
Conrad: Therers rationale
Enmings moved, Errson seconded that the planning commission recorunend toamend Sectioa 26-263 (6) of the City Code as follosrs:
No recreational beachlot shall be used for purposes of overnight storageor. overnight mooring of more than three (3) molorized or nonmotori zed$ratercraft per dock. If a recreational beachlot is allowed more than one(l) dock however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up tothree (3) saiLboat moorings sharr arso be arlowed. Nonmotorized!,ratercraft such as canoes, windsurfers, sailboards ana smaii sairboatsmay be stored overnight on any recreationar beachlot if th;t are storedon racks specifically designed for that purpose. No more than six (G)watercraft may be stored on a rack. the- number of racks shall not exceedthe amount of storage. necessary to permit one (t) rack space per lotserved by the beachlot; however, in no case shari there ie more than
Planning Commission Meeting
April- 29, 1988 - Page 38
seven (7) racks per beachlot. Dockingis permissible at any time other than
motion carried.
of other watercraf t
overn j.ght. A11 voted
or
in
seaplanes
favor and
Emmings: Should we look at 13?
Dacy: Actually, yourre keeping that 190 feet consistent with the nextproperty line and yourre just only excluding those rights-of-way.
Batzli: I like 13 in there stitl, personally.
Emmings: So therets no conflict with what rre've got?
Conrad: I donrt knolr.
staff to make sure that
have been made tonight.
rather than rev iewing
L3 is in concert with
it, maybe instruct
the motions that
I guess
Section
Emmings: It does say from the ordinary high water mark to a point 100
feet landward and it doesn't tie it to anything else so I guess maybe it
does. I think the one odd thing that werve created here is, the onepotential problem I see is yourve got LQO feet back from the ordinary
high water mark and you'Il be in a situation where you have 2q feet and
then a road and now you pick up 66 feet so now you're back 85 feet, you
need another 14 feet and it winds up being on the other side of the road.
Because the developer comes in and has to put his lot line for his firstproperty t4 feet back from the road in order to get the I00 feet of depth
and that is providing the buffering and maybe that's okay but... f
Conrad: I'm sure that city staff wiII Iook into this before iE gets to
the City Council and Board of Adjustment and Appeals.
Dacy: It would go on l{ay 9th to Council. You're just amending the
Zoning Ordinance so it does not need to go to the Board of Adjustments.
Einmings: I think someone should volunteer to be at the
to explain all this stuff.
Council meeting
Jonrad: I thank you all for attending tonight because you did bring up
some really good points. Hopefully we paid attention to them. I think
we changed our feelings quite a bit so thank you for staying with us this
Iate hour and maybe you can attend the City Council meeting when this
thing comes and they have their crack at it.
Ray Roettger: Do I understand it correctly?
ending up going with 100 feet vrith a 56 foot
and you would be al,lowing 34 feet.
Are
road
you saying
which could
that you are
be widened,
Conrad: Right.
Ray Roettger: I canrt believe it. Yourre going into a real bad
si tuation.
Planning Commissj.on MeetingApril' 2A, 1988 - Page 39
Emmings: They stiIl havefind one in this city and
3g,Ogg square feet. Don't forget. youto me. You can I t.
the ordinance for the purpose one
to have
show iE
Mary Jo Moore:
developer . . .
You do not comply
Conrad: We really feel that hers got a good parcel .changed the ordinance to be good for Chanhassen andChanhassen's intent is in thit ordinance.
Ray Roettger: Why didn't you use an average depth?
Conrad: Because that didn't make sense either. Therethings. Stick around with the issue. I think !,re couldways. There were a lot of ways to do it.
We feel that we'veuphold what
are a
ha ve
lot
cut
of
this 109
l'lary Jo Moore: r think after a study of 2 years for this ordinance $rhichgot pubric opinion and resolved. . . there $ras a 2 year study before thisordinance was drawn up and now because a develop-er has coie in and isgoing to cause more probrems for the existing h6meowner associ.ations.
conrad: r donrt know that. city council has their rook at this. Theymay be advised that a variance i! ttre right way to go but i ,unt you topay attention to what, I was around for Lhose 6rdininces.
Mary Jo Moore: So was I. frm a member of a homeowners association.
Conrad: I think it's real important that the inteot bethink thatrs lrhat we $rere
_ trying to do tonight. If youway before. the City Council meeling that satisfies thethey'd be interested in your opini6ns, as we were.
Ray Reottger: rs Mr. pierce involved with the condominium devreopnentdown there? Whoever iE was, I don't know but whoever ie was vre !,reretalking about tasE time, power boats were moored out there. r \,rou l-d liketo find some vray of enforiing whatever guiaefines-t;r-;;;:'
Enmings: what should he do Barb? what shourd he do to enforce it? rfpeople are parking po$rer boats out at sailboat moorings, "nut can he do?
Dacy: There are a certain number of moorings permi Eted arong with thatbeachlot request - we'd have to go out and tee- how many ui"--.oo..a.
Emmings: But arenrt they for sailboats?
carried out and Ican think of aintent, I thi nk
up Cj.ty HaIl.
these.
Dacy: I canrtcheck it.
recall off the top of my head. I'd have to go back and
Ray Roettger: you know what happens, nobody vrants to caII
Dacy: you should. Thatrs the only way we can follovr up on
Conrad: We need those comments.
Planning Commission Meeting
ApriL 29, 1988 - Page 40
Ray Reottger : You create bad feelings wi th
choice of e i ther
choice.
people.
Iiving with it or creating a
our case and we live across the
docks has this man got?
Emmi.ngs: But you have a
bad feeling so make your
Ray Roettger: tord
way also. It's not
Conrad: No, it
which is in the
knows
clear
werve
to me
tried in
how many
Ray Roettger: You said two.
I,lary Jo Moore: The residents of the lake don't
these all the time aod that's what it's turning
There's one dock. Hers got three boats
want to
out to
be monitoring
be.
s real clear.
ordinance.
Ray Reottger: I would Like to see that cast in iron.
Conrad: It is.
tinmings: They're impossible to police. They
should probably not have beachlots at aIl.
just are. Thatrs why we
Ray Reottger: Brian, so you know wha! werre talking about, we ended up
traving 5 boats on one dock wj.th Iike she said, 35 foot frontage. Right
next to homes and they never clean it. They never cut the grass. They
don't do anything. So I'm up to here.
PUBLIC HEARI NG:
SIGN PERMIT VARIANCE TO PLACE AN OEE-PREMISE SIGN FOR HERITAGE INN MOTEL,
DONALD KRUEGER.
Public Present:
Name Address
Donald and Phyllis Krueger Applicants, Heritage Inn Motel
Barbara Dacy presented the staff report.
Dooald Krueger: I've read the entire report, whoever wrote it and they
say tha! there needs to be an economic hardsh j.p- weII, thatrs the onl-y
reison I want to put up a sign is because we are so located that rder re
behind Super value's buildings and property so aoy traffic coming can't
see us until they're past. we have one small sign at the entry of the
cline Brickyard development. That's the only sj.gn we have outside of our
road sign 30 mj.Ies west. We feel that we need a sign east of Chaska so
Conrad: One.
Planning Commission Meet i ngApril 20, 1988 - page 4I
Phyllis Krueger: How many of
Batzli: I thinkbuildings.
people know werre in town. We get aThey finally have found us and theycan people find you? I cited in mybring us some more business to helpnot asking for a sign to enhance ourbusiness Lo run and be a success.
Iot of comments, people comingsay, trhy donrt you have a sign,Iittle note that we need a signpay the taxes of our business.personal benefit. We just want
in.
how
to
Werre
the
you know r^rhere the
told it was beh i nd
Hertiage Inn is located?
the Super VaIuewe were j ust
PhyIIis Krueger: Have you driven TH 2L2 and TH 4I, any of you?
Conrad: yes.
Wi ldermuth: yes .
PhyIIis Kruger: Do you know where itrs located?
Conrad: yes.
Phyllis Krueger: Do you agree that we are handicapped by our Location?
Ellson: As far as visibility from the road? yes.
Phyllis Kruger: Very muchoccasionally that have maderoad for a year and a halfa need.
thi sit's
Conrad :
PhyIlis
Mal1 has
Conrad:
Do you have any
Krueger: yes, wea host of signs
So itrs close to
as Don said, the Brickyard
Ige are in there-
so and we
comments
and I just
signs in Chaska?
have a lighted sign,inbetween two pi I Iars.
your proper ty?
have customers that come inlike, my god I've been drjvingnoticed you,re here. We feei
Donald Krueger: Itrs about three-quarters of a block away.
Conrad: Any other property in Chaska that you can put a sign up on?
Donald Krueger: No, because they have the same ordinances that you have.
Conrad: Naegle has signs there donrt they?
Phyllis Krueger: yes, but r don't think a business like ours can affordNaegle. Naegle's, you have to be a cigarette company.
conrad: There are other sign owners besides Naegre on that same stretch.Not just Naegre. They are more expensive but it-is an uilJ.nutir".
Donald Krueger: But you canrt get those signs because theyr re taken.
Planning Comrnission Meeting
April- 2A, 1988 - Page 42
Conrad: No, you can get them. I get them all the time for advertising
so they're there. Your point is theyrre more expensive than this butitrs not that youtre restricted, you just chose to have a less expensivesign on a more permanent basis is what you're asking but there are signIocations available aIl up and down. Even though the Flying Cloud Drivethere are more and more restrictions applying to signage and billboardsthere, they sti1l are there and you still have those alternatives.
Phyllis Krueger: As we understand, that piece of property that werre
Iooking at has been designated for signs. Is that not correct?
Dona ld
ta l ked
to put
littLe
Kruger: No, itrs a little piece of ground thatrs there and I
to the realtor that had it for sale and he says, sure if you want
a sign, I'I1 work out a lease with you to construct a sign on thatpiece of property.
Headla moved, Batz1i seconded to close the public
favor and motion carried. The public hearing was
hear j. ng .
closed-
AlL voted in
your end. Are you Eempted to change theconrad: Dave, werll start at
sign o rd i nance?
Headla: No. we've come up against different
I'm in agreement with the sign ordinance. I
arg urnents with staff's recommendation.
one s
still
on the sign ord inance.
donrt have any
Wildermuth: Barbara, this means that
an application, we would not grant a
Dacy: That I s correct.
Wildermuth: How many existing
allowed in Chanhassen along the
somebody Iike Naegle came in for
billboard loca t i on?
if
ne v,
signs, do we keep a record of what we have
TH 2L2 corridor?
Dacy: Yes we do have a record. We do have a sign permit
there is one existing billboard that is within Chanhassen
I know that's been Ehere for a number of years.
file. I think
city Ijmi ts but
wildermuth: It was probably grandfathered in before the sign ordinance.
Dacy: Ri ght .
Wildermuth: I can certainly symPathize with the applicant- on the other
hand I think there's a real need for the ordinance and I would agree with
the staff reconmendation.
Batzli: I
cons i. de r ed
was
an
cur 10us
economic
Barbara, the economic
hard ship?
hardship thing, r^rha t is
Dacy: Itrs my understanding from the State Statute that an economic
hardship vrould be that jf the variance isn't granted, that the applicant
is claiming that there is either some type of monetary loss if itrs
Planning Commission Meet i ngApril 20, 1988 - page 43
NEW BUSINESS
denied. What lhe Statute is saying, you can't grant a variance justmonetary reasons. you have to rook at the ordinance and the int6ntthe ordinance rather than the particular financiar situation of theapplicant.
Batzli: So our variance ordinance of course applies and werre looking atthe same type of ranguage where the variance hal to be due to the lot andthe unique nature of the rot and that therers no other simirarry situatedlots. I guess from that standpoint, f agree. I think it,s kind of atough case for this applicant but r donri ttrinr a variance is appropriatein this case.
Ellson: I $rould vote against it also. Same reasons.
Enmings: Same thing.
Conrad: I donrt have anything ne$, to add. I appreciate yourcircunstance and being riaaen. obviously bir"rboards .." ir,it you need.Signage direction, signage whatever, thai certainly vrould help. From aconsistency standpoint, r think a ciaim could be made by almost everycompany in chanhassen that their business. would be improved if they hadTH 5 visibility and you'd have. to agree with them. i'i".i-.o^rortablewith our sign ordinaice as it is. i feel that i;* "ot-p.i"Jaded that avariance needs to be granted here. r arso think there li"-otn..alternatives signagewise that could help you out. Maybe not aseconomical as th j.s one but I knor^, that in Chasfa i tsei f , you t,.*r" "o*.options. Even arong the corridor coming arong Elying cioia-o.ive, thereare other options so my reconrmendation is to turn-this request down andkeep the ordj nance as it is.
HeadIa moved, Wildermuth seconded that Ehe planningdenial of Sign Variance Request #88-2 to install aiadvertising sign on ,fH 2L2. A1I voted in favor and
for
of
Commission recommendoff-premise
motion carried.
Headla: Did you notice where the Council approved that 5lots onMinnewashta parkway? r don't know how crosi- you ,.iiiy ioJi"o at tharproperty but the property drops off real fast on each '"iJ".'- we wereuncomfortable with it. The. Council appeared to be uncomioit.Uf. with it.Their only rationaLe was,_it tnet the li,sog square feet. r don,t know ofanybody who is rearry. comfortabre witn ihat w6rding but'we-arr, approvedit and it makes me think. that wordinj piobaury realry isn,t what we thinkit shourd be. r wonder if we shoulan'l ue rooking at that to see if erecould do something to make it say what we really hrant it to do. Irm notready to make a suggestion what J.t shourd say uit when r .."-"o ,nu.,ypeople feel uncomfortable but $re all approve it.
Wildermuth: Do we have criteria for a buildable lot?
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 1988 - Page 44
Dacya Lot area, lot
of sewer and water.
Ellson:
five?
Dacy :
Conrad:
Dacy:
for two
Dacy :
feet.
L5 , gqg
Dacy :
30 foot
I thought you said that they changed that. This is going to be
width and
Septic or
ability to be served by some type of meanswell.
Iots to be served by an internal street.
lre sae, it, it had two streets didntt it?
driveways, thatts correct so they eliminated the need
we really wanted to do that.
maybe you didn't drive out to each
Itts five
And t hen
I t had tvJo
drives.
Which is
AIl of the five lots, the one flag
The extra 3,000 was the handle of
and I would say buildabLe.
Yes,
rear
was actually L8,Agg sguare
flag but aII of them were
Conrad:what we wanted.
Headla: But the other one was, and
side but it dropped off so fast.
Ellson: Like no yard at all there.
Headla: Yes, there's no yard and I remember Ladd you
more about it. weII, what does it really do? we were
rrith it but we didn't really know how to handle it-
questioning meof strugglingwer e
kind
conrad: so you'd like to take a look at the ordinance that talked about
street frontage or rrhat Part of that ordinance?
Headla: No, the l-5,ggT square feet. rt seems Iike it should
area. Useable is goj.ng to mean different thj.ngs to different
be useable
people.
lot
the
Headla: But on the east side i! dropped off so fast.
line. Besides they have thatbut that was along the east lot
setback anyway.
Headla: Itrs
at the Counc i I
thing.
just when we request and then the comments that were made
meeting made me think, are vre really doing the right
Dacy: The council was consistent hrith the Plannjng commission I s intent.
APPROVAL OF M I NUTES :
Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to
Commission meeti ng dated APril 5,
8. All voted in favor and motion
approve the Minutes of the Planning
1988 as amended by Brian Batzli on page
carried.
Pl, ann i ng Commission Meeting
April- 29, 1988 - Page 45
BUSINESS FRINGE DISTRICT DI SCUSS ION.
ElIson: ExactIy.
someplace.
Batzli: Can we have t$ro seconds of discussing this issue?what to think. I,d like to hear vrhat Tim, weil, t alreadyTim's tlloughts are but is it everybody else.s understandiigdoesntt like that as a business fiinge area because of the
s i tua ti on?
I donrt know
know whatthat hetraffic
Batzli: So vrhat a solution may be, and of course werve got handcuffs onbecause of the Department of Transportation but basicalr! it we vrant tomake that a business area or business fringe area, put ii service roadsone way or another. That gets rid of all the conceins.
Dacy: Also with the land useand the outdoor d i splay.
perspective. It was the contractor's yards
Headla: I thought that was the major concern.
I think Tim thought as youoff the hill on TH 212 indpretty much just bare tand
Emmings:
come down
Tap itrs
Batzli: I think thatwhere, at least thatconcerns. Itts kind
wi ldermuth: I thinkinevitable. I thinkthe more congesti on
have to go.
co mets
I
down, asall that,think...
you ' re going west, youexcept for the Lion r sit
and
Batzli: He $rants to keep it there. Agriculture.
Emmings: Just because itrs a nice place.
one corner is already been developed tocorner may not be such a nice place dueof a hodge podge of things right there.
business frj.nge development down there j.sitrs a good land use. probably the morethere is in the area, the slowei Eraf f ic i
Dacy: Did you want me to give my report or did you want to postpone it?
conrad: Letrs wait- r want rim here. rtts his deal. My feeling is, rthink it should remain fringe. r think it was intended t3 accomodatelrhat was there- rt was intended not to intensify and thatrs the way rfeer comfortabre erith it. r thi.nk $re can tet rellacement busine"".'"
"o,n"in,_ in my perspective. - weire not goin! to clean it up. ri;s not goingto be a pure countryside drive. rt,s just not going lo happen. r thinkitrs probably a waste to make it a reai businesi ar6a. ro'i"t infrontage roads and arl that so r guess my perspective is to'ret it beused by low intensive use businesses aown itrere. we,re not escalating itand we're not creati.ng traffic hazards. rf we can get by with that.
Batzli: I guess I think if it contj.nues to be developed and it,sinevitabte, r think that a service road wilr eventualiy tur" to be put in
the poi ntto the
activity,s going to
Yourre going 55 mph and you can stop and turn into
Planning Commission Meet i ngApril 20, 1988 - Page 46
because I think there is too much traffic down there to support cars
turning in and out every lA0 feet.
Batzli: Is there any
Iike four-Iane road?
hilr.
plan at all, do
It kind of goes
you know Barb, to
back and forth up
expand that to
and down the
Dacy: New TH 2]-2 is to replace, not "replace" but the ne$, TH 2I2 is
designed to remove some of the traffic from in-place TH 159/2L2. There
are some proposed improvements up in Eden Prairie near Hennepin County,
up in that area but not any PLanned improvements in Chanhassen.
Batzli: That we know of at least?
Dacy: Riqht. Another reason to get TH 2L2 buiIt.
conrad: I have a different issue. Irm just curious about the wetland
j.ssue Barbara in terms of our control. ReviSiting the wetland ordinance
based on the last piece of information that we got trhen we said we could
not regulate wetlands below the ordinary high water mark and if that be
the case, rterve got to look at the wetland ordinance because itrs
invalid. I guess what I,d like you to do is to prePare a review of that
ordinance and pres".rt to us the Attorney's comments and what oPtions we
have to either make the ordinance valid again, without changing the
language. what alternatives do we have? To either striP Ehe ordinance
of wtral is invalid or how do we change State Ord j,nance to accomodate h,hat
v're $rant to do?
Wildermuth: Whatr s the minimum eretland that the City considers a
vret 1a nd ?
Dacy: what l^re vrould caII Type I or Class B-
wildermuth: Whab is the minimum si.ze?
Dacy: It could be a half acre or an acre. We have no minimum size. we
go by identification.
wildermuth: But if the property has been platted, then the ordinances
donrt apply?
Dacy: Must be talking about those lots in Colonial Grove?
conrad: Then thatrs the decision that we have to make. If itrs
inevitable and you erant it to happen in 3 or 4 years, then letrs go ahead
and make sure that we put that in the Comprehensive PIan or else we say,
no, we don't want aoy further traffic problems. we are not going to
allow intensification, any intensification of use of that property dolrn
th=re. So r,rhen the garbage haulers come in and they have 12 trucks and
vre say $rhat did it have before? It had tto trucks. we say no, you can't
have 12 trucks because the intent is no intensification.
Planning Commission Meeting
ApxiL 29, 1988 - page 47
Wildermuth: Yes, exactly.
Dacy: Yes, thatrs true. when the plat was filed on thatvrhatever, that was prior to the enactment of the r^retlandplat wasnrt designed with the 75 foot setback in mind andthat time said these lots are buildable.
wildermuth: Canrt we do something about thosebuilt on yet to prevent them being filled in?
Dacy: The best thing that you could do wouldamount of intrusion into the wetland that theydeny buildability aII together.
back in 19 70ordinance so thethe City at
lots if they havenrt been
be to try and minimize thewould incur but we can't
to
Batzli: You could if the City was willing to buy the Land probabty?
Dacy: ?hat I s true.
wildermuth: Or ind ividual s.
Dacy: you could minimize italloh, them to be closer thandistance between the edge of
wi ldermuth: That's a shameand they wiII be.
by granting a frontyard setback variance30 feet to the road so they maximize thethe $retland and the house.
that those wetlands are going to be fjIIed in
Dacy: If that plat
There I s no question
Wildermuth: Because
been sold, that wiIl
came through
about that.today, it would be completely different.
I think that aIlall be fiIled in.those remaini.ng Iots that havenrt
Conrad: Anything el se?
Dacy :
that I s
can. I
had t.o
I have a map here of a subd j.vision that,sdirectly adjacent to Chanhassen. If yout r^ras on the Council agenda last Monday.put it on Council first.
going on in Chaska
want me to rev j.ew it,
The timing was that r
I
Conrad: Itrs a subdivision in Chaska?
Dacy: Right, directly adjacent to Chanhassen.
Uonrad: Anybody rant to see it?
Batzli: Sure.
Dacy: r think you'd be interested because itrs supposedry a puD. Thisis Audubon Road right here, pioneer Trai1 goes around here and then thisis the new TH 212 corridor, Hesse Farns in chanhassen is over here andBluff creek Drive comes out right here. rn total they have about 350
Planning Commission Meeting
Apri]- 2q, 1988 - Page 48
acres proposed and they have a combination of single family,family in the orange, commercial site and single family and
Average lot size is approximately 12,500 square feet.
multiple
open space.
Wildermuth: Chaska doesnrt have a minimum lot size?
Dacy: Yes they do and as a matter of fact they are considering changing
Eheir ordinance to require a minimum of LSTOOA square feet now because,
as you did a couple years ago, they feel that they've done their share
for the smaller lots so they're looking at changing that. 7 L/2 acres ofparkland. A lot of this is steep slope, Bluff Creek. The commercial Ifelt was a good idea because it's in their urban service area. It
relieves pressure from locating commercial in our rural area and itrs at
a major j.ntersection. However, obviously that's a long term situation
and it hrould serve a neighborhood function for all of the plats in south
Chanhassen so what the Chaska Council" is doing is they're just going to
approve the first phase of the development rdhich is about 5g lots here
and therers a proposed church site down on Audubon. The rest of lhe area
is going to be postponed for action until they can decide on some
transportation issues. One being access to TH 212. Theyrre looking at
adding a separate interchange there as well as, if you remember from the
transportation plan, we're talking about a new highway TH 41. That runs
right through the middle of this so the Chaska Council is gripping with
this issue of, herers the site here and this long term corridor runs
right straight through the middle of it. They have no official map.
They have no means to acquire the property. They have no means to
preserve the corridor and this improvement is designated for sometime in
the year 2050. Thatrs what the Chaska Council is deal-ing with. Shoul-d
we prioritize the TH 2L2 corridor and potential access to that right now?
Do we look at preserving this corridor knowing that for long range
planning purposes that rre are going to need some tyPe of reliever to
existing TH 4I and we're going to need another bridge across the
Minnesota. They've just approved the first phase and now they're going
to be grappling with this transportation issue at their next meeting.
Conrad: Directly east of where the high density is goi.og, on the other
side Barbara, what is there?
Dacy:
Conrad 3
Dacy:
to be
Hesse Earms.
And vrhatt s the average lot size there in Hesse Earms?
Dacy: one unit per 5 acres. originally they proposed a development
density of 12 units per acre and I know itrs hard to see but therers a
huge rivine and wooded area between the Hesse Farm lots and the multiple
family area. I rroul,d think from the peoplers second story, they will
probably be able to see the development in the winter but there's a
significant amount of space and a lot of slopes inbetween there.
conrad: Like how much sPace between?
I would say at least 100 feeE
clustering these units and the
in this area. They're going
chaska staff is recommending
to have
tha t
Planning Commission Meeting
ApxiL 29, 1988 - Page 49
they reduce the densi ty.
Wi ldermuth: Those folks inreduction of assessments.
Hesse Farm are going to be coming in for a
Conrad: Or just
orange section,City Barbara tori th?
ad j acentthat j ust
somethi ng
to TH 212, I could buy that but that entiredoesn'E make sense. How do we respond as athat one person, maybe myself, doein't agree
Dacy: Thatrs the reason we scheduled it for the councir on Monday night.They reviewed a proposed letter. one of the comments in there was thatwe vrere concerned with the impacts of multiple family against HesseFarms. we donrt have any specific prans yel but we'i rike to be madeaware of those. We sent those comments down to Chaska.
conrad: r know we're negotiating for land s$raps and arr sorts of stufflike that but r guess if.you can relay my comments to the city councilthat r think thatrs terribre in terms of planning. Now I haven't rookedat the site so Im doing it sight unseen but in ferms of putting highdensity next to Hesse Farms, thatis not neat. Especiarry that amount ofhigh density and r think the city council shourd L*pr"s.-ttreir reetingsdirectry to chaska in regard to hJgh density next t6 one of very ro\.,density for now and werr into the iuture. irrat lust doesn't make sense.r want to quarify that by saying rrm not sure whit that buffer reallydoes do. Iid have to take a look at it. I don'E like that.
Batzli: Does anybody on the Commj.ssion I j.ke that?
conrad: rf they want to put small lots in, that,s fine with me. That,stheir business. rf they $rant to estabLish a L2,ouo square foot lot inthis puD but r think when you start putting high density, li units peracre next to Hesse Farms.
Emnj.ngs: It kind of brings up what Dave said earlier tooSchvraba-Winchell thing and werve talked about it from timeyou blend these smaller lots in against bj.gger lots and rretalk about that weren't we?
about thatto time.
were going
Ho e,
to
Dacy: werve made then aware of this. Therei s been a presentation madeto them- Havenrt heard one adverse comment. Maybe they have them andthey just havenrt expressed them.
conrad: Thatrs lousy. Even though therers 10g feet there, thatrs notmuch.
Dacy: The topography is, straight line distance again. The topographyis_so severe though. Therers a physical barrier b6tween them and therersa lot of trees back there.
Conrad: I canrt agree with high density there at aII.
Dacy: when you look at it you think why not up in this corner.
Planning Commission Meeting
ApriL 29, 1988 - Page 50
Dacy: That's stiII on our list.
Conrad: Werve still got to talk about that. We really do have to talk
about that issue. I'm still bothered that we have no control when a highdensity area bounces into the middle of a Iohr density area. we really
have no control .
Dacy: Wer re really not bouncing into it. There is a separation there.
Conrad: Irm not talking about anything in particular but I've seen too
many cases recently $rhere vre take lot sizes that are 36 rOOA aod 4A,AA0
square feet and we put L5,040...
Dacy: I thought you were Ealking about this.
Conrad: No, Irm generalizing Barbara. That real1y bothers me that all
of a sudden, plop, there goes a L5 rLgg and here we are Planners and we
say we like transition and $re Like this and that and the neighborhood's
all screwed up because werve got a L5,Ogg versus a 50,000 and you sit out
there and say, it meets the ordinance. I'd sure like you to talk to us
about that.
Headla moved, Enmiogs seconded to adjourn the meeti.ng.
favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at
A11 voted in
I0:50 p.m..
Submitted by Barbara Dacy
city PI anner
Prepared by Nann OPhe i m
CITY OF
CHINHISSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE . P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 553.17
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE :
SUBJ:
Planning Commiss ion
Barbara Dacy. City Planner
April 29, 1988
F inal- Review of Transportation
Attached is the draft of Transportation Chapter which incor-porated the corMnents made by the planning Commission at theFebruary 3, 1988, meeting. Mark will attend Wednesdayts meeting!o present this item.
The remaining chapters to be reviewed by the Commission ar etheImplementation and Utility Chapter. This will be presented atthe the June and July meetings.
PlannJ.ng
February
Commission Meeting3, 1988 - Page 26
(
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER, MARK KOEGLER.
Mark Koegler: Werve got a few items to dj_scuss tonight on thetransportation section of the Comp plan. They are fairly brief. In the
memo I outlined essentially there's going to ten major components of thetransportation section, just to give you a little idea of what we're$rorking on no$, and what werre working towards. They are largely eitherpulled Eogether or information is coming together on Iiterally every oneof them. At our last meeting we talked about item 7, functionalclassification. Tonight we.re going to review items 1 through 3 andthen the next time the balance of the items will be incorporated in Ehedraft. Prior to going to talk about some of the new text thatts beengenerated for the Plan, Barb and I talked abouC it might be adviseableto real quickly give you another chance to review the goals and policystatements as they exist right now for Eransportation in thetransportation section of the plan. Being that this is the firstsection of the plan, I know just a couple of you have gone through, Idonrt know what chance yourve had to look at the draft as it existstoday but there are goals and policies pertaining to each section of thePIan. Land Use, Housing, Recreation and so forth. These are the ones,obviously,.for the transportation section. We thought we would simplyput those in the packet and give you a chance to look at those again losee if there are any additional comments or modifications that you r.rouldLike to see. I don't think j.trs necessary for me to read through thoseby any means. Perhaps any comments that anybody night have, this wouldbe an appropri.ate Eime to make those known. To be honest you, we lookedat these so Long ago, I donrt really recall what modificaEjons the
Commission made initially, if any, to the transportation items. Therewere changes that were made to some of the other goals and policy
staternents pertaining to other sections of Ehe pIan. Do you remember
Barb?
Dacy: In my notes, I didn't note any particular ones.
Mark Koegler: I suspect it may be .oossible that when vre get intotalking about some of the plan sectj.ons tonight, and again next tj.me,that may spark interest you might have and if we nissed something.
Part j.cularly on thi.s topical area that you had interest jn or if somepol!.cy on some type of use of facility, that may really come to light infurther Ciscuss j.ons so again, this Iike everythj.ng eIse, j.s not a deadissue after tonight. Eeel, free at any time to make any comments you$rant. Moving along, if we can then j.nto the new text thaE's beenprepared for discussion this even j.ng. The transportation chapter isgoing to be completely reworked so you can Iiterally take all of Ehe oldpages and toss them asj.de and replace them nov, wj.th material that you9e! 1! a chronological sequence. The part Ehat's before you tonight, asI _ i.nd j.cated earlier, j.s the first three sections dealing with lust somesimple introductory text. Some strajght forvrard descriptions of theexisting system. Then, laying erhat we think j.s a fairly J.mportantcomponent of the transportaEion plan and that is, an outline of some ofthe system's deficiencies and major issues that are present. The intentobviously being plan, through a variety of measures, both in text and
f sraehics, we'rl address each of those points and be posing in the long- term and short Eerm, various sorutions that are appripriate. rn ternsof introduction, the only commenE that r think r wint- to impress uponthe Comnission, so that you're aware of it, which is somerrhat aninteresting point., is that again, thj.s plan has to be prepared inaccordance with the overall framework that the uetrpolita; councilestabri.shes. That regional framework says that the goar is to maintainthe same revel of accessibility that is present righ[ now in the entiretransporation system. That'!s not to say that there aren,t targetedareas that are going to tly and get Ehrough but r think it,s i.iportantto realize the congestion that exists now, to some degrae, will be afactor in the future as well as a part of the design 5r tne system.Theyrve done that for a variety of reasons. Eirst of all, I ltrint freferenced there isn't enough money you can throw at the problems tosorve it. ...in order to keep transit systems viable in itre area forthose segments of the popuLation that rely on that. They don,t want tomake it too convenient for too many people to have easy privateaccessibirity rdithout mass transit. Eor a variety of ieasons, that ispart of the regional policy. It's clearly deLineated in all of theMetrpolilan Council's plans. That they plan to have coogestion as apart of the future system because they con't think it can be eriminated.
w Commissioner Keefe spoke to some group, that r.ras abouttransit, and said the same thj.ng. It was Ehe sames on everything inside the MUSA and I think is what he wasard it right. I was wondering what it meant, when yourvelI policy that they,re going to naintain approx j.rnat6ly theregional access j.bility and then you've got thj.s data 6verthat on TH 5 you've got '7,6q9 to 7,500 veiricles per day.-lane facility, they aim for TH 5 at 2q,g06. Almost thieeknow they do plan to upgraCe TH 5, but when they say youlevel of accessibj. Iity as you did when? Or as thing-s -
is year to 5 years from now?
Pl ann i. ng
Eebruary
Bmmingsr I sthe Iight rai
message. Focsaying if I hgot that over
same level ofhere. On T-9
To justi fy atimes that.
have the same
change from t
Commj.ssion MeeEj.ng
3, 1988 - Page 27
a
I
u
e
a
4
I
h
Mark Koegler: ThaE a real general, regionally orl ented statement. rtrsIike any large parameter. you can,t take it and focus it on TH 5. TH 5is an example of that. There wirr be situations ri.ke TH 5 that will beimproved and hopefurly we'rr have better accessi.birity. r think if youread in the text, without .IH 2L2, TH 5 isn't going to be a lot betteioff 10 years from now than it is right now. Despi.te Ehe constructi.onthat will hopefully obviously is going to occur. So I don't think it'sfair to focus on an individual 1j.ttle spot. yes, there will bei.mprovements but overall, the regjonal perspectj.ve is that as a whole,the system vrilt be operating essentially the way it js now. When youcoflpare the Twin Cities to a lot of major metropolitan areas, it's-pretty favorable. You look at the maps of h,here the signif i.cant trafficdelays occurs, metroarea!'ride, and how ext.ensive those aiea and how much
ihey probably are, there might be 70 miles of congested roads, soundsrike a lot but when you compare it to other areas, it's not that severe.
Emmings: Under the descripti.on of exi.sting systems, it starts out onqage.2 there, this may be Erivial but thaE first sent.ence says thatchanhassen's existing street system consistents of a series of local
T.
Planni.ng
February
Commission Meet i ng3, 1988 - page 28
streets, collectors, minor arterials. fsintermediate arterial and major arteriats?
there a different betr.reen
Mark Kcegler:arterials.
Emmings: And then I didntt understand
I under issues and system deficiencies in'- problems. yourve got north/south accesshalf of lhat I didn't undersEand. The
!{ha t does it mean?
The new verbage that's being used goes to minor and major
Enmings: We've got intermediate.
Mark Koegler: yes, vrer re going to update that language. Werre in aperiod.of time right now when ihere is a draft, which-was just preparedwhich is not even fully circulated yet, of the Metropolitai councit'sTransportation chapter of.the Deveropment Guide. s6 tney are revisingtheir _transportation section of theii comp plan, if you wilt. That hassome different language in it than the tgbs arait, wii"i, is the mostrecent one to date- The current now is prefacing major and minorarterials and the highest category will ;ither b6 a ireeway orexpresshray. what used to be princi.ple is now either interirediate orexpresseray and what used to be inEermediate arteriars is now majorarterials, essentially. Just some renaming.
Enmings: TH 7 is the only major arterial?
Mark Koegler: Correct.
at all, the comment on T-5 andthe second paragraph. Generaldeficiencies and then Ehe lastlast half of that paragraph.
Mark KoegLer: That,s an example which comes from the previous plan.Thatis ranguage rearly that !,ras modified sr-ightr,y from the 19g0 pran andthatrs !}mp1y pointing out that when you look at- the standards tirat theMetropolitan Council or anybody else puts out, say yourve got acolrector route or if you. have any mi.ior arteiial'r6utes, idealry thosehave design standards. They are ipaced r mile i,n frequency, L L/2 mirein- frequency.. you have conlrorr.ed intersecti.ons. you- have no privateorlve$rays. The list goes on and on and on and it focus's on speedrimits and ADT numbers and so forth. what that,s essentialry iaying is,if you look at those kind of ideal situations, there are areas i.nchanhassen where that physically is not going to be possible. Thatrs anexample. Normarry you wourd have major facilities spaced roughry a mireapart and here we've got a space that's 3 L/2 to 4 miles ,r,".e riteriiiybecause of topography and belause of the raies, and because of existint'development patterns, thatrs as good as jE's going to get. The areathat I guess would like as much comment on toiighl us inytfring,particurarry if uhere are thi.ngs that have been left out'becaise as rwas pointed out in the text, as residents and as peopre who drive to andfrom work each day or to and from events in other p"ii" ot the metroarea, you experience the road system. !.Ierve gone Lhrough and
, iil"i!l?IIv idenrified and kind of combined t6 a cerraii d.g."", some ofL Ene def ici.encies and issues that were presented in the rast plan that- has rearly kind of surfaced since ttren-and have categori--eo them with
Planning
February
Commission Meet i ng3, 1988 - Page 29
three major headings. Either intersections, access problems, roadcapacity or connection problems and jurisdictional continuJ.ty.starti.ng on page 5 then, there's an outrine of some of the riarry primeexampres of existing problems or existing deficiencies or existi-ng-.r..sthat fall under each of those three categories, Again, I don't knowthat r need to go through arl of them. r think you'." familiar withmany of Ehem. You're probabry famiriar with some of them i-n greaterdetail as a resurt of.the broaden study area report that vras done a yearand a half ago. Particurarly some of the intersections rike TH 5 andWest 79th, TH 101, West 78th and Dakota and so forth. I guess as aprimary interest, are there other i.tems that yourre aware of that shouldbe included in some of those categories that have not been covered inthe text that's been put together right now. Or are there specificproblems there that you don't think have been identified enough.certain aspects of intersecti.ons or streets or whatever that aren,tcovered there and if so, we would certainly like to include those.
Emmings: I don't know what criteria you used. To me one of the erorsethings in Chanhassen is getting of TH 7 into the roads that I have touse to get access to my house. It,s dangerous and there's screechj.ngtires and collisions up there all the Eime and that's TH 7 going int6Minnewashta Heights and Lows and shores and that whole stretch. some ofthat is actually j.n Shorer.rood f think. That,s a real problem. Thatrs aproblem that I experience everyday but I don't know j_f it rises to theIevel of being a problem that needs to be identified in the
Comprehensive PIan.
Mark Koegler: I think it does and I think that's an example of onethat, quite honestly, I overlooked. you,re aware that the TH 7 corridorstudy took place 2 years ago now, maybe plus a little bit, and that has
some definite recommendations on some intersection closures and somethings up in that area to help remedy tltat. It's our intenE, I thinkI had one of the items, the outl j.ne it.em 5, J.s actually talking about
some of what are the existing def ic j.encies. The text wi 1l move into asection thatrs goj.ng to talk about some of the planned improvements andthat would be an example of the reference to the TtJ 7 corridor study.I think that is a point that we need t.o jdentify in the def ici.encysection. Right now it only identifies one or tr.ro intersections wjth TH
7 and it doesn't really focus on the corridor.
Emmings: I found out just recently, and I was tempted to get it, the
State does keep, you get a computer printouE for an intersection and the
number and types of accidents thaE occur at the intersectjon. I didn't
know that until about 3 or 4 months ago but I was kind oE curious, I wasthinking about gettj.ng one for our area up there just to see what therecord shows. I always feel , the pile of bodies has to be so highbefore they do anything and I was wondering how hi.gh it is already.
l,lark Koegler: we' ll add some text on that . TH 7 corr j.dor and
Minnewashta area. One of the th j.ngs, again to give credit where creditjs due, the assembly process of putting some text together, the graphicthatrs on page I0 that shows some of the growth along TH 5 corridor,which I thought really laid out very niceJ,y what has taken place over
\
PIann i ng
February
Commj ssion Meeti. ng3, I988 - Page 30
f tne tast 6-year period in terms of the volumes that have increased and- tor each ot those segments, what kiod of percentage increase has beenhappening on an annual basis. It drives home the need for thoseimprovenents. rt is particularly i.mportant to reference that in termsof the deveropment as commerciar and industrial expansion'andresidentiar growth- continues to happen in chanhasil" ..g..or"ss of,hopefuJ-ly the TH 212 construction oicurs, TH 5 soon will be a veryheavily used route and therefore it.s importance i" iire City,s role inmonitoring lvhat Eden prairie is doing. r think it,s extremeryimportant and there are jurisdictioni probabry to the wesi or here thatfeel the same way about chanhassen. TH 5 obviously is vital as you headon out to victoria and waconia. Are there any othir items that inybodynoted that were not addressed at alr or not addressed thoroughly eioug6in terms of problem identification?
Enmings: I im just looki.ng at this arror,r, theon the map on T-6, it extends CR 17? Maybe Itext.
Mark Koegler: The intent of the graphi.cs is simply to indi.cate that cR17 has. the potentiar to be extended to pioneer trait ana there i.sspecific reference in the text. That essentially is i" t". soutrr asreasonably that road is going to go. Therefore, if Chanhassen hasinterest in making sure it has at-least one north/south minor arteriarthat has some hope of being functional, it is TH 16l, rather than cR 17.; Wfat vre're trying to stress TH LgL for a variety of reasons. One ofi them j.s the interchange aspect wj.th the proposed TH 2L2. UnderMetropolitan Council's criteria, interchingis o""u. "iitr ut least ininorarteriars or better, in terms of their functional classification sothat's to some degree in support of Ehat al-so.
Emmings: Does anybody else have any questions?
Mark Koegler: The only other j.tem, and I don't know that it,s reallynecessary to 90 through it- r thi.nk ar-r- of you probabr-y have had coiiesor currentry have copies of Ehe broaden study arla wrrich aia focus oi --
some detailed recommendations for interseceiSns. specif i.carry, areworking of the interchange at TH rdl and west 79ti and TH 5, I thinkis.probabry the most major item and Dakota. Dakota is probabry themajor one $rith Tgth street. There,s TH 101 as a part of that arso andthe new interchange west of TH 10r that wilr go into r.ina -or a rniddre ofdowntown area. Those $rill .J} !. a part of fnis plan ana tnat text isbeing worked i.nto this. . r think. you probabry, at reasi most of you, hada chance to go through that in the pait. rf-you haven't you,rr see thatin two forms- you'rr see it.in the irrao of initeriar that'you get nexttime, or you can read abour it, perhips i" .;;;-;;r"iil-in'the broadenstudy area's report.
black arrow that appearsdidn't connect that to the
that interchange of
recommended systems ?
I Mark Koeqler: rr rdould come under two thi.ngs. r think that,s going to'- be primaiiry opened ended to whatrs now considered pranned improvements.
Dmmings: What does that come under? Eor example,TH 10I and West 79th Street. Does that come under
Pl ann i ng
February
Commissj.on Meet i ng
3, I988 - Page 3t
i elannea improvements is going to realry look at the irnprovements that- nave essentrally been generally agreed upon or generally planned by avariety of jurisdictions.- The city, county and state. - cLrtainty thisis one that the city no', has had planned. - rnterestingry enouqn though,the way Ehat process rvorked, t don't believe that has g6ne to publichearing yet- rt wirl do that as a part of the compreh6nsive pran so rdon't know that the general pubric has had the chaice to criti.que someof these things to the degree that they wilr have when this d6cument ispulled together. rt wilr be crearry identified in there that this iswhatrs being planned, in general, for that area.
Emmings: what is the status of that? rs that intersection, that rreirdintersection with the rairroad running through the middle of it.
Dacy: That rrill be part, as Mark mentioned, of the planned systemsection on the transportation chapter and that wirl lrobably be the mostcontroversial part of your public hearing process to adopt the plan.You will hear from chanhassen Estates. iou wirl hear f r-om McDonards.You will hear from rvan sincrai!. you wilr hear from the people inHidden Va 1I ey.
Emmings: And several planning Commissioners.
Erhart: For or opposed?
,- Dacy: l'lcDonalds will be opposed. Staff is planning to conduct somei neighborhood informational meetings prior to an official public hearingon thj.s matter but the first step is getting it considerea by tnecommunity as a pranned i.mprovement. you reiarl a year and a hal-f ago wehad joint meetings with the Council and we looked it that year 2Oq5transportation pIan. You really looked over that intersection quiteclosely. We have had BRt{ Iook at Ehat alignment and make somerefinements so that there isn't such a curve coming south on TH l0r sowe are getting to the point that we are refining the geometrics of thatintersection and getting down to specific ,listances, iight-of-ways,widths , etc . .
Emmi.ngs: One of thea railroad goes r ight
Ellson: Do we have a
Dacy: In your orientation packet, I put the yearIt's figure 17,
interesting things about that jotersectjon is thatthrough there.
picture of thj.s somewhere in this packet?
2005 study in there.
Mark Koegler: Therers a lof of detaj led background material in therealso which l think wi II give you nore of an overview to see what theth j.nking was behj.nd that. Ouite honestly, the transportatj.on element,to be one of the focal points of the public hearing on the Comp plan. Idon't th j.nk any of you were on the Comm iss ion back around 1980 but vrhenthe Plan went to hear ing in 1982r it was hard to muster anybody to haveany interest in the thing and I suspect some of Ehese kinds of thingsvrilr generate a rittle more enthusiam this time around. whether th;t be
3030 Harbor Lane North
Bldg. ll, Suite 104
Minneapolis, MN 5947-2t 75
612/55$1950
'IEITORANDUIIT0: Planning Commission and Staff
FR0ll: Hark Koegl ""V
0ATE: Aprii 28, 1988
SUBJ: Transportation Section - Comprehens i ve plan
Enclosed' please find the final draft of the TransportationChapter of the Comprehensive plan update. This'materialincorporates all of .the chan_g-es tnat have been [revl-ousiyidentified. Please discard arl other draft texr pe?tiininq t6transportation.
Please note
meet i ng.
any final comments for discussion at I,lednesday's
APR 2 B 19BB
CITY OF CHANi'A.or-t
t- 1
II{TRODUCTIOII
Transportation is an issue that faces almost al I Chanhassen
L::jd.llr.9n a. da.i)y basis. Most of the community,s resiOeniiworK our.st0e Chanhassen,s boundaries. Virtually ill residentsrely -on personai automobiles for daiiy i"unspo.tifion.Therefore, travel to employment combined widh shoopino trios-entertainment and other iravel needs ,esriti ii-;;..r; ;;;;experience and knowledge of the local and regional ;;.;;;;system.
gy.l lhg palt -5 -.7 years, this first hand knowledge has resultedrn rncreased frustration with the road network. Trunk Highways5, 7 and 169 lZlZ currently have alignment deficiencie, anJf5. ii.operating .in excess of ieasonable capacity. The so.lution toChanhassen's concerns lies w^ith a variety 6i agencies inciudingthe City, llnDOT, Carver.County, Hennepin Lounty unO-1 nElletropolitan councir. chanhassents transportation prin seets iocoordinate the efforts of these agencies' and outl ines a rocai
t]:.1_-?l j-he_" ilorovement of t6cat and regional ilrin[inqperrarntng to the transportation system.
The overa'l.l objective of the regional highway plan as identifiedrn Ine netropo Ii tan Development Guide is to maintainapproximately the same leve-l'of regional accessibility thalexists. at the present time. Congestioi which is a part trf itreexisti-ng -system wilI .also be -present in the tutlre system.Removal of congestion has been determined to be economical.l vlll:l:]o]: d1e .!o capital and sociar coris. - ih" -r,,;i;6;j;;;;
uounctI also beiieves that a congestion free system would ilroaucelggglir-q.impacts on transit usage which iould make jt moredifficult to serve the transit depen?ent population.
?9 I..C]gll] p^o1ic.ies preclude future transportation improvementsrn Lnannasseni the answer to this question is no. Thd basis ofthe lletropolitan Counc i I 's Transportation plan is thattransporta.tion priority must be to maintain those facir.ities thaiserv.e existing development in the urban service area. fnenorthern portion of Chanhassen I ies within lhe urban servicearea. AdditionaIly, the plan recognizes that funding will benecessary to improve the minor arteiial system (T.H. 51 in tfreregion.
The transportation system is inseparable from Chanhassen,s landuse pattern. The development of commercial, industriai andresioential areas must be integrateO Oy ttre transportationsystem. As new development_ contjnues to -take place,' traffiCimpacts will need to be closely monitored and analyzed.
Alth.ough the primary mode of transportation for Chanhassenres-idents is the private automobiie, other modes are alsoutilized. As a result, the transportation section addresses masstransit which includes .ride sharing, van pooIs, busses andpossibly light rail transit. Non-motoiized m6oes, 'specificaliy
t-2yralking and bicycling are addressed in the trail section of thisplan which is found within the recreation chapter.
DESCRIPTIOII OF EXISTI]IG SYSTE'I
Chanhassen's existing street system consists of a series of localstreets, collectors, minor arterials and major arterials.Exhibit 1T portrays the road syst em and functionalclassifications that existed in 1980. This information was
derived from a 1971 update of the city's 1968 Comprehensive p'lan.
Exhibit 2T shows the current roadway system, specifically notingthe improvements that occurred from 1980 to 1987.
The existing street network includes approximately 75 miles ofroads. 0f this total , 95% are paved with a permanent surface.
Figure 1T indicates the distribution and location of the existing
system surfaces. These figures do not include the 30 miles oiState and County roads which are maintained by jurisdictions
other than the City of Chanhassen.
Figure 1T
Existing Arterial & Collector Streets
St reet Fro.n To Cl ass Rol.l
Lanes
Trave I ed
Hwy. 7
Hwy.4l
Hwv.4I
Hwy. 5
Hwy. 5
Hwy. 5
Hwy. 212
Hwy.'169/212
Hwy. l0l / 159
Co. Rd. 'l I 7
Co. Rd. l7
Co. Rd. 17
Co. Rd. I7
Kerber 0r.I. 78th st.t{. 78th St.
Hwy. l0l
Lynan Bl vd.
l,lest Limi t
l{orth Limit
Hwy. 5
Hest Limi t
Co. Rd. I7 t{orth
E. Border Sec. '13
Hest Lini t
l0l-169 South
212
North Limi t
l{orth Limi t
Kerber Dri ve
Greenwood Dr.
Co. Rd. I7
Co. Rd. l7
Laredo Dr.
l{orth Limi t
Co. Rd. l7
l{orth Limit IAHwy.5 tlA
South Limit itA
Co. Rd. 17 t{orth l.'lA
E . Border Sec 13 l.,lA
Henn. Co. Line HA
l0l -169 South tlA
East Limit MA
South Limi t I'lA
Co. Rd. 17 C
Kerber Dr. C
Greenwood Dr. C
Hwy. 5 Cr{. 78th st. c
Laredo 0r. C
Hwy. 5 C
Hwy. 212 C
East Limit C
150
150
66
150
200
150
I00
90
100
66
I00
83
100
100
I50
65
65
65
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
(to be upd ated)
t-3
I
a
-q.
aa\
=--.-i5---
c
,:\.\
,a
o |
,a a
Oso...aaa.o
ao
o
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
M INNESOTA
Existing (1980) Functional
Classification
f II lntermediate Arterial
OOO MinorArterial
-
Collector
FI
_--G---
Exhibit 1T
=:-
oaa
a
,
aaa
-*-
{
!
-+l
E
I
D
1
A ltl B
--r
tt I rl ll l!
c ,t!!l ll
t-4
6
t-I I ! ! I
?
e I-T T
ll
ctff ff
c}iluu{Asgv
! --..1
--.1
4
Exhibit 2T
Existing
Road System
-
lmprovements - 198O-1987
-l
,I
I
I
$
I
I:T
-rg
7
?
j
r
I
h
f I
Iri
F
5
I t
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
t
!
3
I
,
t-5
Chanhassen has different poiicies pertaining to construction
standards for urban versus rural streets. Urban roadways arerequired to dedicate 50 feet of right-of-way for local streets
and a 28 foot wide paved area is required. Rural roadways arealso required to have bituminous surfacing in a 24 foot- widthcontained within a 60 foot right-of-way. Current city po1 icyalso allows the construction of private driveways providini suc-hdrives do not serve more than four single family rlsidencei. Insuch.cases, 60 feet of right-of-way is required- with the roadwayconsisting of a 28 foot wide gravel surfacd.
ISSUES/SYSTEII DEFICIEl{CIES
The function of .a transportation plan .is to not only accommodatefuture needs but also to analyze existing problemi and to poseappropriate solutions. Freqlen y, existing problems are cloielyrelated to future needs. As a iesult, a -siecific action .in igiven area. can remedy existing deficiencies 'whi le providing forfuture needs.
In examining Chanhassen_'_s existing transportation system, ageneral problem is readily apparent. The system frov:lesadequate north/south access in terms of facility locations but'is deficient in east/west routes. In the north6astern part ofthe city, T.H. 5 is Iocated 3.5 miies from T.H. 7. This comparesto maxinum spacing of one mile for north/south routes in the samegeneral area,
Issues and system deficiencies can be categorized into threetypes of conditions: I ) i n t e r s e c t r' o n s , 2) roadcapacity/connections and 3) jurisdictional continuiiy. ' Each ofthese topics are addressed individually.
Intersecti ons /Access :int er sect i ons that curren
summary of these occurs as f
Chanhassen containst1y are experiencing
ollows.
a number ofproblems. A
1. Central Business District Access - Downtown Chanhassen has anidentity problem due to a lack of coordinated visual and
veh icular access from T.H. 5, which serves as the primary
connection to/from the metropol itan area. This probiem iiparticularly important due to Chanhassen,s role as a major TwinCity entertainment center. Improvements currently underiay wilIsignificantly alleviate this situation. The add-.ition of-a newnorth/south entrance into the downtown area west of existing T.H.I01 will greatly improve access.
2. T.H. 5/l,lest 79th Street/T.H. 101 - Traffic forecasts wereprepared for the intersection of T.H. 5/[est 79th Street/T.H. 101
( s e e.
_
a p p e n d i x ) . At the Uest 79th Street intersection,significant turn movemenls include: exiting traffic from 79th
I
D
:
1
I
E
-to
B
I
c
t-6
3
t!lr rt lrltE F?t I !-
I
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
2
4
--t-
e
T
l
trl
T-
dff oF
GIAT+iASSEN
Exhibit 3T
System Deficiencies
O lntersections/Access
-
Qsps6i1y/Connections
A UurisOictional Continuity
l
5
6
lJ
,
A
III!-,I
l
I
!li I !
i
I
fr' - - - i
-.--r------r
I
?
I
Iti rtt tiitl ltjl
7
t-7
Street, through volumes on T.H. 101 and leftto [,rest 79th Street. The capacity analysis
indicates that it would operate at a level
represents stabl e operation.
At the intersection of T.H. 101 and T.H.5, significant
movement volumes include left turns from the north to T.H
through traffic on T.H. 5 and left turns from the east to
south on T.H. 101. The intersection is expected to operatelevel of service E with both the proposed upgrading of T.H. 5the provision of double left turn lanes on the north and
turn. 5,
the
approaches. Level of service E indicates that the traffic
volumes through the intersection are at capacity. Specific
problems in this area include the fo1 lowing:
I ntersect i on spacing
Usage of T.H. 5 by T
location.
101 through traffic.
turns from the southof thi s intersectionof serv ice B which
place in
probl em
stack i ng
blocking
ata
and
east
- Limited weaving distance for vehicles coming from the east on
T.H. 5 turning left into l,lest 79th Street.
3. T.H. 5/Dakota Avenue - I'lest 78th Street/T.H. 101 - Ananalysis was conducted of the Hest 78th Street/T.H. 101intersection which assumed a minor realignment to provide a moredirect movement from north T.H. 101 to T.H. 5. Significant turn
movements include Ieft turns from 78th Street to the north onT.H. 101 and through volumes on T.H. 101 , Approximateiy 65percent of the through volumes on T.H. 101 at this location aretrips passing through Chanhasssen. This system would operate ata leve.l of service E which represents a capacity condition.
Specific problems in this area include the following:
Capacity probiems at T.H 5/T.H. 101.
- Potential diff icult'ies for selected turn movements at T.H
101/|,rlest 79th Street in light of overall traffic volumes.
Capacity problems at T.H. 5 and Dakota Avenue.
Limited stacking distance on the north approach.
The need for condemnation for the realignment of T.H. 101 .
Tight curvature of T 101 north of T.H. 5.H.
and
H.
4. T.H. 5/CSAH 17 - As continued development takes
downtown Chanhassen, projections indicate a significantat the intersection of T.H.5 and CSAH 17. Limited
distance on the north approach could result in queues
the intersection of l,lest 78th Street and County Road 17.
5. T.H. 7/l'1innewashta Parkway - The major problem with this
intersection is the angle with which northbound l,l.innewashta
Parkt'ay joins -T.H. 7. As a result, it is difficult to identifyeastbound traffic on T.H. 7 and turning movements from eastbouni7 to southbound l'linnewashta Parkway are cumbersome.
7. T.H. S/Lake Ann Park Access - The access to Lake Ann park isdirectly off of the north side of T.H. 5. Left turn movementseither into or out of the park are hazardous due to the volume oftraffic on T.H. 5. Park users frequently encounter significantwaiting ,periods in exiting the park, parficularly at peik hours.In the future, access to the park may be real.ig:ned off of CSAHL7.
6. T.H. 5/Lone Cedar Lane -traffic on Lone Cedar Lanerestricted by a hil l.
The sight distance for southboundIooking west along T.H. 5 is
Sight distance problems occurto the vertical curvature of
8. T.H. 101/96th Street - At this intersection, a blind curveexists due to the vertical curve of T.H. 101.
9.
for
T.H.
Pioneer Trail and T.H. 101 -traffic on Pioneer Trai I due
101 .
10. T. H. 101/Chicago Northwestern Railroad Tracks - At thisintersection, the roadway passes beneath the railroad tracks,however, the width and angle of the bridge make it hazardous foi
oncoming vehicles.
11 . U.S . 2L2 /I .H. 101 - Thi s intersection is hazardous
southbound T.H. 101 traffic desiring to turn eastbound onto
due to heavy traffic volumes.
12. U.S. 169-212/T.H. 101 - Recent improvements to thisintersection have significantly improved safety. Heavy traffic
volumes continue to pose problems .in this area.
13. Bluff Creek Drive/Chicago and Northwestern Railroad Tracks-Bluff Creek Drive was improved by the City of Chanhassen in1987._ This improvement along with the addition of l ights andwarning arms has greatly improved safety in this arel. Theintersecting angle of the roadway and traiks still limits clearsight distance. This situation may be completely resolved in thefuture if the railroad either discontinues use of the tracks oris abandoned.
for
212
14. T.H. 7/Lake llinnewashta area - T.H.7 in northwestern
Chanhassen along the north side of Lake l.linnewashta intersects anumber of Iocal streets. Due to heavy traffic volumes,particularly during peak hours, turning movements in this areaare difficult. In this area, T,H.7 does not contain lanesspecifically designed to accommodate free flowing traffic.
Road Capacity/Connections :Deficiencies in this category are
t-8
evident due to capacity prob)ems created by excessive volumes or
due to connection problems. Capacity problems are also caused bya iack of proper lane channel ization, lack of signal ization or
due to the frequency of accesses. Specific examples of such
circumstances include the fo1 lowing:
1. T.H.5 - T.H.5 is the transportation backbone of Chanhassen.
Users of High[ay 5 are aware that excessive congestion on this
route does not occur only during peak hours. portions of T.H. 5are overloaded for up to-8 houri ier day. Approximately 7,000 to
7,500 vehicles per day is used to justify a four lane fac.i lity.In 1986, T.H.5 carried 20,500 vehicles per day at Chanhasseniseastern border. T.H.5 is also unique because it carries"reverse commuting" patterns. Employment opportunities in
Chanhassen attract workers who travel westbouid during themorning hours and eastbound in the evening. This movementcounters Chanhassen residents who work in othei locations in theTwin City area, most of which lie east of Chanhassen.
Problems along T.H.- 5 will be compounded in upcoming years due togrowth pa-tt,erns along the corridor. Exhibit 4T- portrays thegrowth of 24 hour traffic volumes aiong T.H. 5. it.ittrin
Chanhassen, the_ average annual rate of daily traffic growth by
segment ranges from .6 to 4.5 percent per yeai.
At-the present time, T.H.5 is being improved. By 1990, T,H.5will exist as a four lane divided highway from a p'oint g6OO teeteast of Chanhassen's east border to T.H. 494. 'A 1991 lettingdate is scheduled for replacement of the C.[1. St.p & p. Ra.ilroaibridge south of the Chanhassen CBD. Also scheduled is thewidening of T.H. 5 to four lanes from west of CSAH 17 to thepoint 3,000 feet east of Chanhassen's eastern border.
Improvements that are currently underway w.i I l significantlyimprove conditions on T.H. 5. It is extremely impoitant in th6future that the City continue to monitor funding levels to ensurethat current plans are implemented. Additionally, the futurefunction of T.H. 5 is dependent on the construction of new T.H.212. t,lithout new 2L?, T.H. 5 will again be quickly overcapacity, even with the implementation of planned impiovements.
Z. T.H. 101 - Trunk Highway 101 is classified as a temporarytrunk nighway and as such, .it has not received appropriations foiany improvements with the exception of absol ute minimumnecessities. Recent State legislation calls for Hennepin Countyto accept jurisdiction for T.H. l0l within County boundaries.
Since a substantial portion of T.H. 101 is in Carvir County and
Chanhassen specifical ly, jurisdictional and functional continuityare major concerns that could have major consequences for thLcity, The jurisdictional problem is further compounded by the
need for T.H. 101 improvements. The highway has significant
al ignment and geometric problems particularly iouth of l.H. 5.
3, Pleasant View Road - pleasant View Road serves as the only
t-9
IU
E
(!I
@cc
5
o
6!
c
:a5r!oIF
N
I
a(J
oc!.L
EE(,.D
o
co()
G,'Io'6.=
(Lo
E(U
oE
c)Eo
=
o'='a
drr
EETD O(,
lr.t E orU
oJ(l,o
r 0,30 0
r9,6001
lt0,to0l
!E_S9
tt,500
I lt.200l
Ir0.7001
t2,500
Tll 5
12, '10 0
l lr,500t
1t|,00nl
t2,800
Ir,000
ll2,r00)
I t2.^ool
r3,800
tH 5
12,200
I r3,o00l
lr4,t0ol
'r5,500
?4,500t----l
l33,2ool
3!,90016,000
( r7,700)
ltc,tool
20,500
2*l yr 1.1*l yt O.C*Iyt 1.2*t rr 1.5)L I yr 3.6)(l yr 3.3t6/y? 4.O)atV?
TH 5 Av. Drlly Trlttlc
000 - t98 0
(000) - t98 2
[000] - i984
000 - 1986
}l
TH 5 Z4-Hour Traffic Volumes West of Mitchell Road
Exhibit 4T
I
Source: Barton-Archman Arloclates, lnc. - SW Corrldor Transportatlon Coall on
tllttlttlltt
o
2 r,000
r 2 r,0 001
123.2001
25,500
ttt
east/west connection between CSAH 1i and T.H. 101 .in northernChanhassen. The existing roadway al ignment is inadequate inseveral .aISas.. Sharp curves, garages located at the right_of_way1ine, hidden driveways and frequent vistas of Lotus Like wh.ichserves as a distraction, all combine to create potentially
dangerous conditions. previous efforts to improve pliasant ViewRoad have been unsuccessful . As a result, iire inaOequaciei oithis route will cont inue to intensify .in Ihe future as trafficvol umes continue to increase.
4. . CSAH 17 _- County Road 17 currently extends south to Lyman60utevard. In the future, it will be possible to extend theroute south to Pioneer Trail. South of pioneer trail, turtnerextension is not feasibre due to existing deveropment anl extremevariations in- topography.. Therefore, Cninnasseni only reasonabieopportunity for a functional northTsouth minor artirial routelies in the improvement of the T.H. 101 co."iOor.
5. Lake Riley Boulevard and Kiowa TrailLake Riley-, two neighborhoods developedsacs 400 feet apart. This situati6naccess to the area as wel I as theservices.
- 0n the western side oftrith terminating cu1-de-
comp licates both genera )provision of emergency
Jur i sd icti onal Contin ul Chanhassen contains a number of roadt Swhtcpassr0uge c omm un ty and into other municipal it.ies.Because these routes fa lI und er a variety of jurisdictionsconti nui ty problems can occur.Routes of parti cular interest toChanhassen include the following:
t. . CSAH 1.7 - County Road 17 serves as one of Chanhassen,s majornorth/south routes. I,tith.in the city, this route has aOetuiieright-of-way,_ sight distance, grades ind setbaiks to mainta'in i45 to 50 m.i1e per hour speed- I imit. North of Channjisen,however, this road takes a different form as it enters Shorewoodand Excelsior.
In.Shorewood, Carver County l7 becomes Hennepin County g2. Tightsetbacks, poor sight distances, .individual driveway accesses andreduced speeds exist in ihis area. As a result, theeffectiveness of CSAH 17 as a northern access to T.H.7 isdiminished once it crosses Chanhassen,s border.
2. CSAH 117 - CSAH 112 is very similar to CSAH 17. The routefunctions effective.ly until .it reaches the northern portion oiuhanhassen where it,s alignment restricts traff.ic movement.
3. T.H.5 - Issues pertaining to T.H.5 havepresented. . The jurisdictional iontinuity of T.H.important to Chanhassen. Chanhassen wi I I needmonitor l,lnDot plans for this route as weli asadjacent municipal ities to ensure that T.H.function at the highest feasible tevel of service.
been previously
5 is extremelyto continual lythe desires of5 continues to
t-11
t-124. T.H. 101 - T.H. 101 is discussed extensively in othersections of this chapter. It has significant jurildictional
contiunity problems within Chanhassen,s borders.
TR FFIC ASSI6t{iEr{T Z0r{ES
Chanhassen is contained within al I or part of seven differenttraffic assignment zones. Zones 538, 848 and 852 contain smallportions of Chanhassen and relate primari ly to Chaska and EdenPrairie. The remaining four zones 539, 540, 541 and 547 pertain
excl us i vel y to Chanhassen.
The analysis and projection of regional traffic condit.ions isconducted
-u-t_i
I izing a technique known as traffic assignmentzones. Traffic assignment zones (TAZ,s) are defined geographicalareas within which data such as population, employhent andhousehold information is col Iected. This dtta is -analyzed
through computer modeling techniques which results in forecistsof traffic movement between zones. Utilizing this technique, itis possible to project travel demand such as persoh-tripproductions, person-trip attractions, intrazonal person tripi
and motor vehicle data such as average daily trips and peak hourtrips. This data is valuable in both Iocal and iegional
tran s portat ion planning.
Figure 2T contains traffic assignrnent zone information compi ledby the tletropolitan Council. The projections are inconsistent
with those completed by the City of Chanhassen. As was noted in
the Land Use chapter of this plan, the City does not agree withthe l\letropof itan Council's projected population for 1990 and
2000.
.Figure 2T
BASSEX S 0-Ec0r0HIc
539
Sllo
54t
5r7
?9.!9,
2360
75?o
2t't0
_19
IE 1980
r 360
lr33
556
0
20c0
rBr0
6590
r590
t0
r980
m
t?30
2E
_4.
r 300
2000
240
39r0
280
l0
1500
3919.
t00
5200
!50
50
5r00
goosEE0LDS
r98o 2000 zoto
120 610 7t0
1!78 6\5 3110
177 510 5!5
0105
HPL0tt{t
tolrl. 6359 t00oo l2ooo 2st5 ,00 l5o0
In order to better quantify traffic assignment zone information,the Year 2005 Land Use and Transportation Study prepared in l9g6subdivided Chanhassen's four major traffic assignment zones into33 subzones. Boundaries of subzones are consistent w.i th the
POPOLTTIOf,
INI'Sl.l!t lossY, lo0Hslrl8
'lN I 'd00ut N0.t9N I sl0H
'011 sl.tYI lossv I uSnvus
NlssvHNvHl l0 l1l l
l0nls rJ0l1v1u0dsr,lv!-(
0[v :lsn 0 vl
g00z uv3l il3ssvxlvHl
slt uv0Nn08 liJ02-8ns
J.9 lqlqx3
t_.,=,;-\=\
--r1
':i(
.00it 0
--r I
N
I
/
1
o
o".
I
a,
o-
!
t,.
@ Z
J
(
-r\
*"1
@
@
@
@
@
@r.;
i- \
I .-.,* -...-
@
c-[.+'l
)
I
-{
"t!
z
1.J'
)
I
@88
(
I
r
@
0-
IIIIIIIIIIII,IIIII
t-14
Figure 3T
YEAR 2OO5 SOCIO ECONOIIIC FORECASTS FOR CITY GROI{TH SCENARIO
Sr rh Tnnc
Nurnber of
HorJseholSs
393
1033
38
6?7
555
555
528
I l9
t29
589
609
?38
57r
35
100
55
186
175
79
515
57t
191
490
t 595
PnpU l.t- i6^
I t62
2792
I l4
l7l3
I t45
1397
t 408
Number of
Fmn I oveec
820
300
t3l0
45
280
t50
2000
l2l0
160
55
1000
77
l3l
954
Percent Serv i ce
Eno I ovment
151
t 001
t 001
1001
t 001
01
01
l1
1001
1001
01
I 001
t 001
391
r 001
I
2
3
5
5
7
8
9
l0ll
t2
l3
l1
l5
l6
l7
l8
t9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
25
27
2A
29
30
3t
3?
33
30
0750
70
I 001
t?7
356
380
r 055
t278
7t3
l2t I
105
302
t65
62t
t622
265
I tl73
t120
t 539
1511
53 44
I
Note: lnf ormation excludes area west o, T.H. 41.
Source: Benshoot & Assoclat€s, lnc.
P|'l Peak Hour
l-o Out
ADT Pll Peak Hour
Tno Pav LO Out
t-15
lnternal - Externa I
ADT Pll Peak Hour
Tyo Hav I-A oug
Figure 4T
Gross Trips lnternal - I nterna I
S' rb Tnne
AOT
Two lJay
I
2
3I
5
5
7
I
9
l0
ll
t2
r3
l4
t5
l5
l7
l8
t9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
?6
21
2A
29
30
3l
32
33
3370
8t 50
645
1996
3/t30
4t644 4
2540
3158
13785
474
8850
440
4434
2784
27t4
t 786
2298
3?02
381 4
2066
35r0
268
772
770
t712
5132
711
5174
4432
3250
3452
13942
195
170
?9
288
r96
238
237
a2
98
126
t5
26t
l8
t52
95
tt2
85
7A
l8l
2t8
t20
205
t5
14
35
t0l
242
11
272
360
187
199
729
r08
263
29
t5l
I t3
137
t33
t17
187
8t5
28
499
22
217
r55
133
76
t29
t 07
t?6
66
lr9
9
25
33
56
t80
24
t94
399
t06
tt2
525
505
t222
96
750
514
6?4
618
380
171
2068
72
112
65
656
418
408
268
314
480
57?
310
512
40
lt6
I l6
252
170
tt2
776
1261
488
518
?092
2864
6928
550
1215
29t5
3540
3495
?t 50
26A4
lt7l8
102
2501
374
3758
2356
23 05
t 5l8
1954
272?
3?12
1755
3058
228
556
554
t480
4362
63?
4398
7168
2762
2931
I1850
179
431
?5
?61
t79
2t7
2t7
72
85
372
l3
80
l5
t33
83
98
84
58
165
199
n0
t88
l4
40
3r
93
255
40
243
3t5
l7t
ta?
550
92
?21
25
137
96
I t5
I l3
t37
t73
761
26
t63
t9
228
t43
I t9
65
l19
9l
t07
55
l0l
8
2t
28
48
153
20
165
354
90
95
146
t5 1539 3914
21 2117 t72t 2t20 20t0 l0l2 t254 5122lt tl33t9 19t2 l2ll t4Il llt0 l016 t6t9 t9l0 l0t8 l8
I
I
5
I
27
I
I
4
5I
27
1
29
15
t6
t7
79
29
15
t6
t7
79
Note: lnformation exctudes area west of T.H.41.
Source: Benshoof E Associatss, lnc.
YEAR 2OO5 SUB ZONE TRIP GENERATION FOR CITY GROI{TH SCENARTO
t- 16I'letropol itan Counc i I ,s TAZ boundaries. Subzones andcorresponding trip generations are shorvn on Exhibit 5T andFigures 3T and 4T. Detaiied informat.ion on trip generation, tiip
d istribution and traffic assignment can be found in year 200bLand Use and Transportation study.
PLAI{IIED IIIPROVETEilTS
Previ.ous planning efforts by various jurisdictions have focusedon Chanhassen. The result of these efforts is a series ofplanned impr.ovements, .many of which will help solve thedeficiencies identified in the Issues/System Def.iciencies sectio;of this chapter. prior.to making any additional systemrecommendations, it is important to nofe existing p1ans.
The -followr'ng major improvements are proposed within or aroundthe City of Chanhassen:
T.H.5 - As was referenced previously in this repor"t, T.H.5 isc-ITFent ly. being- improved' by the'Uinnesota 'Depirtment ofTransportation. By approximateiy 1993, T.H.5 wili exist as afour lane road from west of CSAH 17 in Chanhassen to T.H.494 inEden Prairie. This inprovement wh.ich will include turn lanes
I.i I I heip mitigate peak hour traffic congestion in both
Chanhassen and Eden Prairie,
Crosstown Hi hwa / Town I ine Road
enston Town lne oa r0m
- This improvement will entail
I-494 west to T. H. 101 at the
Chanhassen-Eden Pra i ri e-l,li nneton ka border. The extension of thisroute wil I have a major impact T.H. 101 which serves as the
coflrnon Chanhassen/Eden Prairie boundary north of T.H. 5.
S!qte TrunI Hjghway 212 - Construction of T.H.2l2 along a new
a I ifnmEnt--ha s 6EEn-uO e-r consideration since the early 1950,s.Cities along the corridor have recen y cooperated in providinqfunding to prepare an environmental impact statement (flS1 foithe project and are beginning officiai mapping proceddin{s tosecure right-of-way within the corridor. plans call for f .H.ZLTto be built as a four lane freeway faci'l ity. As presently
conceived, two )anes would be constructed throJgh Chanhassen froiT.H. 5 to T.H. 41 during the early 1990,s. Uhile programmedaccordingly, the project is not yet funded.
0ell Road/t,est 184th Avenue - Deil Road in Eden prairie parallelsffid by the City oi- Eden prairie as acollector roadway north to T.H.5 and a minor arter.ial south ofT.H. 5. It wiil provide a connection from Townline Road on thenorth to Pioneer Trail on the south and wi 1l be phased inconjunction with area development. Depending upon its design andaccess to the State Trunk Highway system, Dell Road could fllay agreater or 'lesser traffic roie then envisioned by the City-ofEden Pra ir ie.
LAKE DRIVE Lake Drive is a pianned east/west collector street
r-17
FE9(o3'
rl =5x ;=
uJ *33
t t
i\ \l
r'Alt
)- (i
\)r. .a-'
\-
:Illl
rll
t.'
.',\
Ti
qi
I
k
I
I
l
t---J-
,;
!
I
I
(
tl
rt
Jl
xi
I
I
I
ta
I
(-)
rl/')
t'
t
,o
r/ I
li
ii
I
t
ti I\?(ii;-a
\
)
l_
I
I
I
I)
J-
))
)
I
j.-
4 !\
,l
,0
t---
I
!it
,-\-r,-
I
t
I
t- 18located south of T.H. 5. Lake Drive East was improved in l986from T.H. 101 to 0akota Avenue. ptans iitt 'for evenfuiiextension east to Dell Road and west to CSAH 17. This route wi.l Iserve as an important col lector for Chanhassen,s industrial uses.
T. H. 101identified
improvement
and real i'intersect io
better traf
- . Planning efforts since 19g0 have consisten ythe need for improvements to T.H. 101. planneils north of T.H. 5 consist primariiy of reconstructiongnment of the route immediatily north of then of T.H. 101 and hlest 78th Streei to effectuatefic fl ow.
South. of .T.H.- 5, major improvements are planned. The 19g0Comprehensive Plan and the 2005 Land Use and Transportation SiuOycalied for the total realignment of T.H. 101 between T.H. 5 an6Lyman Bouleva.-d.. .In. preparing a corridor study specifi.jiti i",I0i to be included in this plan, the City recirgnized that 'sin;e
the realignment will involve total reconstruition, " ,niqreopportunity exists to create T.H. 101 as an attractive upp.oiit
lo.. t-E- community. The planned interchange of T.H. Zl'Z andT.H.101 wil'l provide downtown Chanhassen ani tne industrial areawith a new entrance. In order to maxim.ize visual and functiona.lconcerns, T.H. 101 is pl anned for reconstruct.ion as aboulevard/parkway with a laridscaped median area from new 212 toT.H. 5.
q0!INT0!JN - In 1987, major street improvements were begun indowntown Chanhassen. Improvements included reconstruction ofl^lest 78th Street and the realignment of T.H. 101. Additionally,a new entrance into the downtown area west of existing T.H. 10iis also planned. These improvements will significantiy i;pr;;;both functionai access and the overali appeara-nce of the arei.
T. H. 5 FRONTAGE ROAD CSAH 117 TO CSAH 17 A frontage roadong the nor h side o ghway 5 et ween SAH l7 and CSAH 117Ha
T.H.7
is planned to serve sh ort term and eventual I y long term
d eve l opment in the area. Once the fronta ge road is con str ucted ,the access into Lake Ann park at T.H.5 wil l be closed.
- A study of the entire T.H. 7986. Various alternatives were
NORTH I.IINNElJASHTA AREAcorrlor y{as comp eted in ate I
identi fi ed to improve the corridor along the north s.ide of Lakel'|innewashta.The alternat'ives involved a variet y of st r eetclosures and re-routings in the resident.ial ar eas east ofllinnewashta Parkway. The goal of the recommendations is toreduce the total number of in tersections along the route thereb vimproving traffic fl ow.At the present ti me, Chanhassen and tneother communiti es along the corridor are reviewing therecommendat ions for future implementation.
T.H. 41 - The l\1innesota Department of Transportation has had ahng-Ttanoing interest in rbal igning -uro ;lJn-iing T.H. 4I southto and across the Minnesota Rivir. - To date, howdver, there areno plans to actually implement a new road aiong this-a1 ignment.
t- 19This alignment is identified on the Carver County TransportationPlan as a "study and/or reserve right-of-way,, coriidor.
- A portion of Pioneers sc e u e or real ignment in l9g8,existing curves Iocatedproject w'il I removefeet east of T.H. 101
Tra iI east of T.H.
The improvement
approx imate ly 1500
CSfl l7\PR0PqSED T.H.21Z INTERCHANGE - ptans for new r.H. Zt2call for an@ Chanhassen. Chanhassen'stransportation plan calls for the eventual construction of anrnterchange at County Road 17 and I.H. ?LZ.
CSAH 14 (PIONEER TRAIL)
t-2 0
Traffic on Chanhassen,s roadway system will continue to increasedue to new commercial, resideniiai and industrial development inJchanges in socio economic conditions. The impact of aOaeJtraffic will be most ev.ident- on the City,s ma;or streets;primarily minor arterials and collector routes-.
Exhibit 7T identifies both existing and projected traffic volumesfor ma j o_r thoroughfares. In some initances, increases aierelatively -minor and are with.in the capacity of existing roads.In other instances such as T.H.5 and 1.H. 101 (n-orthernportion), increases of 150% to ZOO\, may occur over thi next 15years.
In order to ensure that traffic concerns are addressed thoroughly
and comprehensively, the Transportation Chapter of the Chanhaisen
Comprehensive Plan contains a recommended ioadway system for theyear 2000.-- This .system is the result of both Curient and pastplanning efforts including the 1980 Chanhassen Comprehensive hlanand the Year 2005 Land Use and Transportat.ioi Study. The
recomnended system is shown on exhibit 8T.
RECOII}IEI{DED SYSTE'I
T.H. 101 N0RTH 0F I.H.2l2 - T.H. 101 between T.H
The Year 2005 Land Use and Transportation Study contained
deta iled analyses of many of the routes and intersections
contained in the Recommended System. I,lith the exception of theintersections along T.H. 5, al1 intersections in the recommended
system are expected to operate at a leve1 of service C or betterduring peak hour conditions in the year 2000-2005. Specific
components of the system include the following.
T.H. 101/T.H.212 INTERCHANGE - Exhibit 9T presents the year 2005ffi the proposed T.H. 101 /T.H. ztlinterchange. The capacity analysis of the ramp intersections
indicates that they are expected to operate at ievels of service
A.
The llinnesota Department of Transportation has reviewed the
proposed loL/212 interchange and has found that it is acceptable
because it provides irnproved access to Chanhassen and ri:duces
volumes on Dell Road and T.H. 5. The exact configuration of theinterchange will be determined when layout alternatives areprepared and fully reviewed by MnDot.
.212 and T.H.5is currently inadEquatE -o accommodate expected traffic in tneyear 2000-200! ( up to 15,000 vehicles per day) . Based upon
est imated vol umes , a 52 foot roadway wi I'l ' 'be requ.ired toeffective ly accommodate traffic flow and wou ld al Iow theflexibility of either a 4 lane roadway or a 3 lane roadway with acenter two way left turn land and wide shoulders. If aboulevard/parkway is to be constructed, additional space will berequired to accommodate a landscaped median.
t-21
j
N3
x-i
luJ 53
)
r),l
,,i
ll
il
ll
,1
,}
la
i---.,-
'1.
\{
)\
ffi
1-r
I
s\-l
-1
_-)
I5
\.-
I
It
t
o
r
.1
)
I
I
i ,1,
J
,t
\
arI
,
\:
I
I
)
t"
i
I
I
\
\Ii
I
( ;\ \l'*.i i tlt
\ / \ ItL' i:,
I
I
I
I ,i
il
:l
l
-.E
l
)
I
I
6AI
L
t-22
ttr
cIff oF
o{ArfiAssEt{
Exhibit 8T
!t rl !t-I I !?r !l II L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
frl ll
I
3e
il
Recommended
System
-r.-
Maior Routes
O lntersections
OOOO Study Corridor
fr
,
7 D
-/
-l
Ir
$
h
oo
oo
!
J
-n-
I
I
I
ri ttt iI
ri
!
!
I
t-23
o
F
llal+
.t
:3
It
HT
)I
J10
l9 2.214I
T.H. 2t2
t29s l5 31
o
t(
Note: this 0rawing Is A Schematic To lllustrate
The Traffic Projections. Decisions 0n The
Design Type (e.9. Diamond 0r Folded Diamond)
And Layout Are Subject To Further Engineering
Anal ys es .
I
N
I
l{o Scal e
*1122
tt
YEAR 2OO5 P.H. PEAK HOUR
FORECASTS OI{ PREFERRED
ROADI.IAY SYSTEH AT T.H.
LoUr.H.212
Exhibit 9T
CHANHASSEN YEAR 2OO5
LANO USE ANO
TRANSPORTAIION STUDY
CITY OF CHAIIHASSEII
BRAUER T ASSCCIATES LTD.
HOISINGTON GROUP, INC.
BENSHooF & ASSoCIATES, INC.
lra:
t-24T.H.5/T.H.101/tlEST 79TH STREET - Exhibit 10T presents the pltffiintersections. lti tt the 79thStreet connect.ion to T.H.5, the intersect.ion of T.H. 101 andT.H.- 5 can operate at a level of service C/D with the provision
9f foul lane approaches on T.H. 5 and three lane appr6aches onT.H. 101. The intersection of t,llest 79th Street and'i.f. 101 isexpected to operate at a level of service A with two lane
approaches on each l eg,
At the intersection of the 79th Street connection with T.Hthe capac'ity analysis indicates a level of service C withlane approaches on T.H.5, a two lane approach on the south
and a three lare approach on the north leg (exclusive 'left
1ane, through-left Iane and right turn lanel .-
Exhibit 11T presents a conceptual layout of a new connection toT.H. 5. A decision on the acceptability of such an alignment has
been deferred until additionai downtown development occurs and amore exact verification of the forecasted traffic volumes .is
determined. MnDot has ind icated that at a minimum, right turnsin/out onl y are acceptable and could be constructed .in
conjunction with the T.H. 5 upgrading.
The- proposed nevt T.H 5 connection requires a railroad crossing.Preliminary analyses of this roadway indicate that a grade
separated crossing is not feasible due to topography andavaiiable land area. Therefore, an at grade crossing will be
necessary which will require the approval of the Commissioner of
the Department of Transportation.
Preliminary design details of this intersection call for a 36 to
40 foot wide roadway to accommodate traffic flow. A 36 foot wideroad creates one wide lane in each direction, allowing throughvehicles to bypass turning vehicles. A 40 foot roadway would
allow a center two way left turn land.
. 5,
four
leg
turn
CSAH I7lT.H.5 & CSAH 17lI.IEST 78TH STREET - Exhibit 12T presents
th e 2000-2005 Ptl peak hour forecasts at these two intersections.
The intersection of CSAH 17 and T.H. 5 is projected to operate ata ievel of service D/E with four lane approaches on each leg. Itis expected that refinements to the signai timing, signal phas.ing
and lane assignments will allow jntersection operation to remainwithin the ievel of service D range.
At the intersection of CSAH l7 and l,le st 78th Street, theintersection is expected to operate at a level of service C w.iththree Iane approaches on CSAH 17 (left turn lane, through lane
and through/right on the south leg) and two lane approaches onI'lest 78th Street. A queuing analysis was performed at thislocation to determine the necessary spacing between l,lest 78thStreet and T.H.5 to ensure that queued vehicles would notinterfere with intersection operations. This analysis indicatedthat the current separation of approximately 350 feet should beincreased to 600 feet from the center line of T.H.5 to the
-25
co
o,cEoc)
q'l
EH
It
72
-,
215E:lI
ii
l(
'll
LA
It
:E
It
19!h 5l'
5
50
,t- l9Z
65
-
t52a
/- Lr
$
1.$
,!
087
5
N
No Sca le
!
aa
c
4lot-o
CHAIIHASSEI{ YEAR 2OO5
LAND USE AND
TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Exhibit 1OT
YEAR 2OO5 P.I.I. PEAK HOUR
FORECASTS ON PREFERRED
ROAD}IAY SYSTEH AT T.H.
5,/GREAT PLAIils BLVD./
t{.79TH ST.
CITY OF CHANHASSEII
BRAUER & ASSOCIATES LTD.
HOISINGTOII GROUP, IIIC.
BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
F
.o
!x
ut z;a I
I
)
I
I4
II
3
li
\
I
i
t
r{l
. (.-l
-(.'.)-t\
::9..:. .
'J0
I
,l:l
Fl
rl
I
I
I
$
f
g
t.
//
r-26
i'.
\
I
<::t(::.
r-:)
(,:'
r,:)
(1)
_-._ IE- rql
I
I
I
IAt
t---
l
I
a
I0t.l.i.
I
I
1-l
I
r11ll
.H
ll .- 1,.
lr - '-l:
Ii"11,
t
\
\
t8
t-27
I
o Boral gtlIFrontage Road l{. 78th st.
125
Level 0f Service = C 5
8
50 -/
+-t5y-rto
!,
@
Lotoo-
4
(J
)r ro
c0
tI T.H.5
377
Level 0f Service . D/E tzs -/,75+
+-1335
/-L3t
l5 )t.E
N
I
No Scal e
CITY OF CHANHASSE|T
BRAUER & ASSOCIATES LTD.
HOISINGTOTI GROUP, INC.
BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CHANHASSEN YEAR 2OO5
LANO USE AND
TRANSPORTATIOI{ STUOY
YEAR 2OO5 P.M. PEAK HOUR
FORECASTS ON PREFERRED
ROADWAY SYSTEH AT C.R.lTlI .H 5/U. 78TH ST.
Exhibit 127
7 -t
\I
t-28center I ine of l,lest 78th Street throughStreet north of its present I ocat ion.
schedu'led for the 1988 construction season.
real igning l.,estThis improvement
7 8rh
is
p
T.H. 5/T.H 101 INTERSECTION REALI GNI,IENT - The transportation
sect i on to modify the
The new intersection
an ad voca es the creat ton 0 fanew nterfunction of two existing intersections.
Exhibit 14T presents the P}1 peak hour forecasts for the three
nerl intersections in this area. Based upon the lane assignments
shown on the layout (Exhibit 13T) , it is expected that the Lake0rive East/T.H. 101 intersection will operate at a level of
service A, the tlest 78th St./T.H. 101 intersection at a level of
service C and T.H. 5/T.ll. 101 will operate at a level of service
D/E.
Iayout of this new intersection
A four way intersection at tlest 78th Street with therailroad tracks traversing the .intersection at an ang1e. Thislayout provides a desired connection to 78th Street east of T.H.
101 (avoiding circu'itous routings and use of T.H.5 for localtrips to/from the industrial area to the east). This angledrailroad crossing, while not typical, does occur at ofherlocations in the state and is conceptual ly acceptable to the
llinnesota 0epartment of Transportat ion.
A full right turn Iane with a protected
would relocate north bound 101 traffic away from the existingintersection and it would remove the intersection at Dakoti
Avenue in its present form.
The conceptual realignment of the T.H. 5/T.H. 101 intersection is
shown on Exhibit 13T. The real ignment of T.H. 101 provides threedistinct benefits. It preserves an adequate level of service atthe intersection of T.H. 5 and T.H, 101. Secondly, it improvesthe north-south continuity of T.H. 101 . Finally, it alleviatesthe impacts of through traffic on T.H 101 on the downtown area.
approach
weaving
Street.
of T.H. 5 is not included in order
and stacking problems between T.
island on the eastto avoid potential. 5 and l,Jest 78thH
Right in/out only access is proposed at
movement access is infeasible due to the
location and the new intersect'ion.
Rea sonab l y straight
78th Street and T.H. 5.
Dakota
spacing
Avenue.
bet ween
Ful I
thi s
approaches to the key 'intersections with
The proposed new
concept form.
llnDot staff will
opera t ion .
intersection exists at the present time only inAdditional refinement of the design involving
be necessary to ensure effective, safe traffic
Key elements of the conceptual
incl ude the following:
t-2I
Hddd\
ccq
g
oo
@Ioooo
o
@(D
o
@
@E
E I
I
-
74OO
-8tOO
- 8200
f
rE
t
TTITII
@E
ffi
3
s
HIG i.rw AY
I
8500
Exhibit 137
t
llll!ll 2
STTX
r.i
IFl'-
I
I a )
H I
L
qacLtat!lt{
!l!llllurnl
6IE
f,:
I-
I
Conceptua! Realignment of T.H. 101
v
I
.l
I
I
I
l
t-30
!o
ro(D
tIll. 78th st.
?4
Level 0f Service ' C 284
-/l
+7
/-75
7
4
----+
I lt
o
F
'€oN
tI T.H.5
154
Level 0f Service = D,/E u7 -/1513+
+1739
/-57
0 It-€=c0
No
1
fl
I
Sca
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BRAUER & ASSOCIATES LTD.
HOISINGTON GROUP, INC.
BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CHANHASSEN YEAR 2OO5
LAND USE AND
TRANSPORTATION STUOY
Exhibit 147
YEAR 2OO5 P.M. PEAK HOUR
FORECASTS OII PREFERRED
ROADIIAY SYSTEH AT T.H.
5/T.H. l0l (NEr,r rNTER-
sEcr I0il)
I
t-31
T.H. 5/DELL RoAD - Peak pll hour forecasts for the intersection ofT.H. 5 and Dell Road are presented in Exhibit l5T. By the year
2000-2005, the intersection is expected to operate at a level ofservice E. The major factor in keeping the level of service at Erather than D or betteris the amount of through traffic on T.H.
5.
T.H. 101 SOUTH OF PROPOSED I.H. 212
north sou access t roug ty o
- T.H. 101 is a key
Chanhassen. North ofe
proposed 2L2, the route either functions at a acceptable level oris planned for improvement over the next l0 to lb years. Southof new 212, however, the fate of this road is much iess certain.
If T.H.101 is expected to function effectively in the year 2000and.beyond, major improvements wi Il be necessaiy. Functional andjurisdictional issues are addressed in subseriuent sections ofthis p1an. Pol itical and design related bbstacles must beovercome if T.H. 101 is to remain a viable route through thesouthern portion of Chanhassen.
T.H:.41 - -Long term .plans ca1 1 for the eventual realignment of aportion of T.H. 4l in southern Chanhassen. This impiovement ispart of the reconrnended system, however, it is not anticipatedthat construction of this segment will bc completed by 2000.' TheCity of Chanhassen will work with Carver County and
-the City ofChaska to furtner define the need for the reai ignment ot ffr +fincluding. the. possibility of a new river c-rossing. lfappropriate, the city will participate in official -mapping
procedures to preserve land with.in the i:orridor.
LAKE LUCY ROAD
and CSAH 117 wasthe further extplanned. Alt
improvement is
san itary sewer a
RIGHT-OF-'JAY',{IOTHS
- The portion of Lake Lucy Road between CSAH 1ireconstructed and realigned in 1987. Long term,ension of this route westward to T.H.41 ishough part of the recommended system, thisviewed as being post 2000 due to the lack of
vai labil ity in the area.
The Ci ty of Chanhassen
and some col.lectors and
these routes to fulfill
been establ i shed for
recommendat ions will be
improvement projects.
has direct control of all local streetsminor arterials. In order for each oftheir function, right-of-way widths haveeach type of faci lity. These widthused in the revievi of ali new street
Roadwa y
Il i nor Arterial
Col l ector
Local (Rura l)
Right-of-Wa v
100-150 feet
60-100 feet
60 feet
Roadway Riqht-of-t.,a v
Local (Urban) 50 feet
The. selected right-of-way width for any street improvement
?i9i::! is dependent upon. existing and future traffic .apucfiieiano [ne desrre for amenit.ies along the route such as a lahdscaped
med ian area .
STREET IIIPROVEIIEI{TS - ATIEI{ITIES
The- City- of Chanhassen has established an overalI goal ofimplementing a transportation system which is both functio-nal andaesthetically- pleasing. Aesthetic enhancement of roadways -ii
being accomplished through unified signage, t igntin(-and
Iandscaping_ of riglrt-of-way areas. Lanosiapi-ng- or ilght_6f-wiiareas should be included in new construttion projects anireconstruction of existing streets. A mix of plint-materialsshould be used to provide variety and color aloirg right-of-way
aneas.
LOCAL STREETS
In prev ious planning efforts, Chanhassen has considered I ocalstreets as those primarily serving iow traffic residential ar"eas.
Due to decreases in State and Federal highway funding in recentyears, local streets have begun to play a role in handlingtraffic tha_t previous-ly may have utilized State and Count!roadways. Examples of this situation are trunk highways 5 and 7which carry significant traffic volumes, particularly diring peakhours. Due to congest ion, motorists seek alternative rout6s'forall or part of their journeys. At times, these r"outes involvelocai roadways.
Funding for new highways and the upgrading of existing facilitiesis not expected to significantly increase in the near-future, Asa result, the local circulation system is l ikely to experienceadditionai traffic, an increased percentage of which js non-
1oca1 origin and destination trips. As local street .improvements
are considered in the future, capacity projections shouid reflectthe possibi.l.ity of increased traffic .if they have the potentialto serve as "relievers" for higher classification roadways.
t-32
t-33
!
o
c,o
ItT.H.5
106
il
-Jl1388 -+
+1715
/-56
240 'l I
=3Level 0f ServJce = E
t{
I
No Sca I e
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN YEAR 2OO5
LAIID USE AND
TRANSPORTATION STUOY
Exhibit 157
YEAR 2OO5 P.H. PEAK HOUR
FORECASTS ON PREFERRED
ROADI,.IAY SYSTEM AT T.H.
s/DELL ROAD
BRAUER & ASSOCIATES LTO.
HOISINGTON GROUP, INC.
BENSHOOF I ASSOCIATES. INC.\-t
r \-!
I ./
t-3 4
FUIICTIGIAL CIASSIEICATTCTI
Functional classification involves the definition of roadrays bt, function,prior to i&ntifying &sign characteristics such as pavement widths, speedlimits and access controls. It is a valuable tool in cunprehens ive planning
because it ensures that land use decisions are considered in the
transporta t.ion planning procEss.
The t{e tropol i ta n Council uses functional cLassification to define those roltes
thae are part of the rEtropolitan roadray system. They also use it to relatetransit service to roadways. Functional classificat.ion is important to
Chanha ssen for planning purposes and because it relates to jurisdictional
cl-assification whictr is subsequently discussed in this plan.
rhe functional classification system breaks roadways ibetn into a hierarchy of
five ca tegories. As the least intensive classificatiqr, local streets provide
acc€ss to property and as such, are intended to serve limited geographic
areas. collector streets connect neigti:orhoods within and bet{een subregions
ard provide nobility between residential ne i gtborloods anl other lard uses.
Three classifications of arterial roadnays exist. In a general sense, these
roadways carry higher volumes of traffic at greater speeds uith fewer
interruptions. Roads with an arterial designation frequently are used forlntra=*Ee travel as well as for rore regionaliy or sub-r6gionilly oriented
clcrn nuter trips.
Figure 5T depicts the Metropol i ta n Council's ttnctional Classification System
&iteria for Road{ays.
In addition to Hetrcpolitan counci I Criteria, Chanhassenrs Cornprehensive Plan
also analyzed the follo$ing factors ln defining fmctiqtal classification:
1. current functional and jurisdictional plans and policies of the
City, Carver Cotntyr and IthET.
2. Forecasted average daily trafflc volurcs on the roadray system.
3. Function of the roadways in meetlng regional needs versus loca I
needs; for example, how much traffic on a particular roadway is
local traffic versus traffic throlgh the City of Chanhassen.
4. tibeds anj abilities for fmding capitat and opera ting expenses.
r-3 5
Figure 5T
FUI{CTIONAI. C!ASSIFICATION SYSTEM CHARACTEAISTICS FOB AOADWAYS
lEr..it lt Fr.* y M.jo. Aii.ri.t Ui.o. Arr.i.t Colt dd
35 mil.t d.g.ndi.g 06
hino. ..r€.i.r rFci.rg,
.nd loc.non o, .rttinq
l-3 hit.. d.p..ding on OS.2.Ohir6.
riri.l3.rd diM.nfii.k,
tr.6tir. trip d.niiry,.nd
ln n.iur.l cohmu^iiy
deY.room. .od not
l^ ^ator.l comtu.ity
de!.looment and nor
O. .dq"t ol dleloorunr Wirhi..!'girbo,hoodi
.^d oth.r homoq.neou3
0-25 1.0 mn4.
R.!r.i.r.d.3 ^e.iirry. F..rract.<t .. nE3!.y
R.tticr€d.r ^ecfinry. R6trict.d .3 me3$,y P.,mitt.d ar r...tr!.y
To ma^or .rt.nak. oih.r
coll.crori, toet rt..ri.To colhcro.s oth.r to.at
collecrron.nd d'rrlb!.
li@j rhorr t,rpi.r tow
Maior lr.tti. 9...rator!Lirniled dnlct r.nd .cee. Som timir.lio^ on dnecr
t.hd .cc!.r.
C€.r.rr.od Ru.atTown
Cohm.rc'.|,indu ,rat. AN3ito.sl,clttur.tu?!
.nd hiqhd.nriiy r.s(hnr'.t w(h Lhrr!;n t@a!n$ry
u!.r- l{o...$t ro .r69t!- ,..(r"^r,.t.
Gr.d. i.Dar.rld oi high.
c.p..,ty conrrolld.t.gr.de
Tt.iric ai9n.rl ahd cro$tl.w.v rr0o3:^d om
namo mt..'n9, rr.lric
ngn.l r'h'.q, no l.nd
r.eat6.nt ior rr..rn,
B.ma' h.r.nn9, r,.tl'.
rigGlr.m'.9, nag'ng ot
reco.ttr0cl'o^. l.nd .ccert
Tr.trr aign.l r'hi^0. t.nd
..c"33 !p.ch9, p..ler.nrral
lr.rlmenr lor ranrn
Contrnui?y, numb.r ofl.n.i, rallic ri9.at r'minq.
Srop r'0n3. tuld..oct
Sugg€rred tid.,.l spp.r timits tor inierstate fr.€w.yt
.nd m.ior a'r!.r.lr @mbrmd.
Urb.o l0 o.rc.nr
Fur.t it pErc.nt
lih,rrr'o^i Urbin 5.10%
Aur.r m-351_
l,hftr.o.! Urb..65
80"". R!,at63.75".,
Con.ec$ rwo o, ore
*con(r.ry conecr'o^t
@rr.r., 6mot.men8
hieh volum. cor'do,t.
Conn.crr ne€hbor hoodi Conne.s bb{*! *'th'n
tp.c't'c..rrr,r'.i *.rn,n
homoq.naour land 0r€
Prov'der hrgh tevetot
mob,l,tv wnh,^ urban
.rd rsr.l serv'.. are.t
and ro h.ror oul5r.r.
b.rr.e. n..!hbqhoodi
P.ovidei mobiliry *,rh,n
.E'shbo,hood. and orh.r
honoO..@3 l.nd.!i.
lr.ew.yr. major r ri.h,
.nenalar no dirlct tand
To 'nt.6r.r€ lr..rayi,
orh.r ma,o..^.r'.1s,nr@r.'rei.rr.nd hqar.
volu,r|. 6tte.ror3: no
dner l.nd a.c.rs .repr
majo, r.rr,c aene,ro,3.
To inreErar. ,raw.vr.
lrban.id rur.l rrvice
lifr ar.rionj lor,nrailar
i.aw.yr, Nio. r.trn.t3
cohbimd: Urb€n 15,25*
Bur.r 6.l2%
Lonq ripr.r hlgh tg.e<,
rrrhrn 3nd lh.ough lhe M.d,!m ro tho r'pr.r
modar.re ro low sp€d,l
M.d'umn'5rane ro bnoript at hEh to mo.rerar.
3peed wfhin rh. urb.n.,e.. Erpre$ r..n.rr r,g!
Pr'D.nly {,@r.olt..tor
.nd d'trribur|on tuncr'on
lor rh..rr..'.t sysr.o rtlo* ro.edi: l@l rr..r,r
t-3 6
Exhibit 16T presents the recqnrEnfu functiornl classificat.ion system. lrltrilea few minor inconsistencies between designations of roadldays as eithercollectors or minor arterial.s occur between City and County plans, this
recqrarcnded system is generally clnsistent with ctrrent Carver Courty and Cityplans with one major exception - T.H. 101. T.H. 101 is currently designa ted aminor arterial by the City of Eden Prairie and a local roadiay by- Carver
County.
Based upon the analysis of the Me tropol i tan Comcil criEeria, the projected
volunes, ard the functions T.tl. 101 performs, lt is recqnrEnded that T.H. 101
be &sigrnated a minor arterial. ltre principal reasons for this recsm€nda t im
are a
I The projected year 2005 daily volumes are aE the upper llmit or
exceed the recommended guidelines for volumes carried by acollector. This limit is 15r000 daity vehiclesi the forecasts onT.H. 101 north of T.H.5 indicate daily volumes up to 20,000
vehicles.
2.The roadway performs an important regional function connectirE sub
regions ln the area. This is evidenced by the forecasts rrhich
lndicate approximately 40-45f of the daily vehicles are traffic
passing ttro:gh the study area.
3 T.H. 10I is recommended to have access to T.H. 2L2, a naTorarterial. The Metropolitan Council generally recommends that
intercfranges ocarr at minor arterials, not collectors.
4 The City has historically timited direct access to T.H. 101 ard will
continue to do so. fhrough the City of Chanhassen, T.H. 101
lntersections are generally controlled by eitlrer traffic signals or
s top controls on the crcs streets.
The folloring is a brief revie$ of sonre of the rBjor roltes tha t. are part of
Chanhassen's roadway qtstem:
IIAJOR ARTERIALS
Higtnray 7
Highway 7 serves as one of Chanhassenrs nujor links to the Metropolitan area.
The roadvray carries subsEantial vehlcular traffic irith movement generallyuninhibited by signals or ma jor street crossings hrithin Chanhassen,s limits.
To the east, tE^rever, Highray 7 passes tlEqrgh llinnetonka ard northern Hopkins
where significant congestion occurs durinq peak hours due to frequentsignalized lntersections and commercial development. Recently, a
comprehenslve plan for the upgrading of T.H. 7 was prepared. To dat.e,
Implerenta tion efforts have been hampered by disagreements between various
communities along ttre corridor. fn Chanhassen, the plan calls for turn lanes
ard minor local street closures.
t-3 7
A B
I E
I
c F!l lt llr
I
2
3
e at
tt!i I I t!
_ Functional Classifica-l r:rr 6I ofirlrassav
tAsE ljrP
I I Major Arrerial
-
Minor Arterial
I o.... Collector
4i
5
j
T
T
I
I
Gn xrasDt trEGErp tsPr.attra {r,-,
Exhibit 167 6
,
7
ri,,'ri
- --t
-l
o
II
a
n)
ao
oa
tltt
!I
/
ta
;F I\^(
I
Itl ir
Fr--_lJ
t-38
T.H. 212
T.n. 212 is a planned maJor arterial which is proposed to run
diagonally through the southern port ion of'Chanhassen. The route which runs
from Norwood to T.H. 494 will be a four lane divided facility with clntrolled
access. Plans call for trro in tercha nges in Chanhassen, one at T.H. 101 and
the other at CSAH 17. At the present time, crrnmun i t ies along the corridor are
beginning official rnappirE preeedings ard an environmental impact statement.is be ing prepared.
[ItiDR ARTERIATS
Higtrway 41 - Hazeltine Boulevard
The western portion of C-hanhassen is bisected by nighr^ray 41. Ttris route is an
important link between HigtHay 212 aLorq the tlinnesota River ard Highway 7 to
the north. Higtiray 41 passes through the unse"rered portion of the city where
Iittle developflEnt Fresently exists ard no significant further development is
anticipated until after 1990. Ttpre are no significant safety or clrEesticn
problems along the existirg roadray.
Hiqhray 159-212 - Flyinq Cloud Drive
For discussion purposes, High{ays 169 and 212 lr6ve been gnouped togettler since
they form one continuous roadway. T.H. L69-212 is a tuo lane undivided
highway erith no access control on the seglrEnt within Chanhassen. This road
carries substantial nfarm to market" truck traffic originating in western
t{innesota ard bo:nd for &stinations throughout the rnetropol i tan area.
CSAH 17 - Povrers Boulevard
powers Boulevard has been designated as a minor arterial. csNl 17 clnnects
northern Chanhassen and B<celsior to T.H. 5 and eventually to new T.l{. 212.
Extreme topography and existing &veloEnent precludes the further southerly
extens im of this route souti of County Road 14.
T.H. lol rras discussed previously in this section. Since it will not be
feasible in the future to extend CSNI 17, T.H. 101 remains as the Cityrs only
reasonable alternative to maintain one full north/south arEerial.
T.H. 101 - Grea E Plains Borlevard
CSAH 14 - Pioneer Trail
Pioneer Trail serves as a minor arterial connecting Chaska to
existing 169 in Eden Prairie. l'linor arterial status is
consistent with the designation of this route in Eden Prairie.
Chaska presently classifies Pioneer Trail as a collector- Chaska
does, however, ieei that their is a strong possibility that this
route will be upgraded to minor arterial status in the near
fut ure .
t-3I
Carver County presently classifies County Road 1O as a minorarterial . Chanhassen's Comprehensive Plan has classified thisroute as a minor arterial consistent with the county p1an. Inthe future, however, this route may change. Chanhassdn will workwith Carver County and the City of Chaska to determine if theclassification of County Road 10 should be downgraded. If a
downgrading occurs to collector status for example, jurisdiction
of this route may go to the cities of Chanhassen and Lhaska.
County Road 10 ( Stoughton Aven ue
T.H. 5 - Arboretum Boulevard
lisl*uv 5 is the nl)st important. rgad'/ray in chanhassen. rt sewes as the rna jorlink to the rE tropoli ta n area and beciuse of its location aajacenE-io tn.popula tion c€nter, it. provides access to g-larS9 nunber of people cunmuting toempLoynrent in other cities. Because of this, niqhray s ca*ie! ruiF vtrr*e=of traffic ard at peak hours, is frequently coogesteC ard ineffectiie.
within Chanhassen, the fl.o* of traffic along Highway 5 is rerativelyundisturbed. The roadtday which consists of t\ro tanes wi $r the exceoiion oftte tggr lane porr.ian ar rhe inrersection with Higtrway ar, is lnteirriiea uvtraf.f-ic signals at 41, CSAH 17, 101, and Dakoti Avenue. There are nosignificant cqmnercial 0r residential uses accessing directly arto nilrrway s.To the east. in Eden prairie, tbwever, this situatioi is sonre,^*u t aiifl'i"nt.
Eastbourd traffic on T-H. 5 typicaLry connects r{ith either 494 or Hennepincounty 62. Etqn the chanhassen border to 494, Higtnray s cont"ins-"iq;rs andseveral direct accesses by commerciar and indu!trial land us"=".- Thi=situation, combined with higher traffic volumes in Eden prairie, causessignificant traffic delays dr:ring peak hours.
|1 19-87r ltnET began a series of improrements which wilr siqnificantry enr'ncethe function of Highway 5. ttre iirst stage improv"..it" caif'ror trreconstruction of four ranes fron lilarlac.e Road to *airie center Drive in eaenkairie. The second phase calls for construction of " i"ri rine olviaearoadway from west of CSAH 4 to lrhllac€ Road. T?re final p]ase of the projectwhich should be completed by 1993 calls for construetion or a-iou? taneroadmy frcrn west of csM 17 in chanhassen to $est of csNt 4 in Eden prairie.
CDT,TECIORS
Collector streets serve as connections between neighborhoods ard ororrideaccess to minor arterials, other collectors, and t5cal streets. hitfrinchanhassen, Bluff creek Drive, r,linnewashta parkrray, 1011 vrest Tgth street,Lyrmn Bo..rlerraEd, Comty Road ll?,--take tmcy- Road, Lake Drive East, frontageroads in eastern Chanhassen, and Kerber eo[levard are ca tegoriz"a i" corl.ctorstreets. Each of these roadwa)6 contains two travered llnes and have somedirect land access. These ioutes, as relr as additional ones desiqnated inthe futtre, are likely to carry higher traffic vorumes as urban a"u-.iop.entcontinues.
t-40
JURISDICTIOIIAL CLASSI FICATION
Functional classification is a significant criter.ion .in theanalysis of jurisdictional classification. In general , majorarterials are under the jurisdiction of the -State; minorarterials are either State or county roadways; collectors aree'ither county or municipal roadways and local -roadways are underthe jurisdiction of the applicable municipality. 0ther cr.iteria
which affect jurisdiction include historiCal jurisdiction,provisions for local access, continuity and funding for capitai
and operating expenses.
In general , the current jurisdictional responsibil ities (state,
county and Iocal) are general Iy consistent with the abovecriteria and with the recommended roadway system. The exceptionto this is T.H. 101.
T,H. 101 in Hennepin County has recently been part of a
discussion of a comprehensive jurisdictional trade between
Hennepin County and l,lnDot. Essentially, one half of T.H. 101north of T.H.5 is in Hennepin County, the remaining half is in
Chanhassen which is part of Carver County. The roadway south ofT.H.5 is entirely in Chanhassen (Carver County) . T.H. 101 is a
temporary state trunk highway rrhich means that it wilI see oniy
minimal funds for ma i ntenance.
The recommended roadway system calls for substantial improvement
and realignment to the T.H. 101 corridor and it designates the
road as a minor arterial. As a result, it is appropriate that
T.H 101 be a County or State roadway. Recent discussions with
the State and County have not resolved this issue.
t-41
AIRPORTS
There are no -existing- or- planned airports within the City ofChanhassen. Commercial air service is available at Twin CitiesInternational Airport and general aviation .is available atFlying C1-oud Airport in Eden prairie. Flying Cloud isapproximateiy 4 miles from Chanhassen.
Despite the lack of airports in Chanhassen, the City has twoprimary_aviation concerns: first, that physiial obstruitions arecontrol led . and secondly,. seaplane operations. At the presenitime, the tallest man made structures within Chanhassen ire theCity's water towers which average 135 feet. Structures under 200feet are not considered obstruitions under State rules. Radiotowers.are.the only-potential structures that may exceed the 200foot -threshoid... If proposals for towers occur, the city willrequjre that they comply with all State, Feileral and' Iocalrequrrements.
Lakes l,linnewashta and R.i ley are used by seaplanes at the present
!ir9.-. To.date, there have been few conilicts betweeh boattraffic and seaplane usage. Continued usage in these areas iinot. viewed as. a.major issue due to the smail number of aircrafiand ott- peak hour operation by their owners. If in theTuture,lt the number of aircraft increases or the potentiai forserious-usage confl icts occurs, the City may work with State andregional authorities to limit or ban sedpl an'e usage.
TRAI{SIT
Jh. preced ing sections of this pl an have consideredtransportatio-n primarily in the iontext of the piirui.automobile. Although private cars comprise the most iommonlvused mode of transportation for Chanhassen residents, forms oimass transit are also important. Two forms of masi transii,busses and light rai1, are specific components of this plan.
g$jE,S - In I ate 1986, Chanhassen joined the c.it.ies of EdenPra.irie and Chaska in the creation of -the Southwest Area TransitCommission to provide transit service known as the SouthwestHetro. At the present time, the system offers basic levelservices. Service includes f.ixed schedule routes and a dial_a_ride. program. Dial-a-ride services are presently unavailable inChanhassen. Chanhassen,s fixed schedule route,' labeled Sll53J,fol lows T.H.41 from Chaska to T.H.5 and foliows T.H.5 easiinto Eden Prairie with a pass through the downtown Chanhassenarea.
Chanhassen's contract w.ith Chaska and Eden prairie is apowers agreement renewable on an annual basis. The Citycontinue to monitor the effectiveness of the Southwest-program in providing cost effect.ive transit service to theof Chanhassen.
joint
wi I I
l.,letro
C ity
t-42
I
r
l-t
,1
to
o
trl
Seaplane Operations
Exhibit 177
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
II
rQilt
-.:-.:==-
XINNESOTA
L)
t...^E (
LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT LRT Light rail transit is a mode ofranspora0nCILs currently bei ng cons idered forconstruct ion in the Twi n Ci t ies l\letropol i t an Area. In 1987Hennepin County received aut hor i zat ion fr om the State Leg i slatureto prepare a Comprehen s l LRT System Pl an for Hennepin Co unt v.The Hennepin Co unt y Board intends to im p1 ement I ight rail trans t,Iin the county b y 1990. Toward that e nd the County establ i shedthe H ennepin County Regional Rai I road Auth ority to admin i ster ,atleastthe in itial stage of the s ystem. Hennepin Co unt y ownsrailroadri ght-of-way from downt own I'linneapolis to Vi ctoria.0ther coun ties in the metro po1 i tan area have fol Iowed Henne ptnCountys I ead and have al so establi shed rai l road author.ities.
Early system olannino has ident.ified two routes, one or both ofwhich. may ultimately-be extended inio-if,anniii.n. These routesare shown on Exhibit 18T.. 0f the two, thJ'no-r ,e.n a)ignment hasreceived- the highest priority. ntilrdugh loitr -afign,ienis
pioviiepotential benefits to'chanhaisen ..iio.-n:it,-n.iin.i iig.ltii,iriiyimpacts the citv in terms.of iano- use unO' jir..t accessibility.There are no proposed station tit.t *r ,l, c-nar'nusr.n's borders.
The northern al ionment which has an identi f.ied station inExcelsior provides- the most benefit io c-t un-nurr.n since thecity's.population resides primariry-in-inJ"iortnern harf of thecommunity. The southern
.a I i gnment' t.ave i's at-onq the bluff areain southern chanhassen wiricri ii prer"iiiy lririoe of the tlUSAI ine - area and not I ike)y
. to .;. ';;b;;" o'ev".iopment within thetime-frame of. this plan.. 'ns-a result, 'it-'li'vieweO
as somewhat0t a commuting route from Chaska to' downtown flinneapoii;- ;;;various stations along the route.
If the northern route is .eventual ly implemented, Chanhassenresidents wishing to use tie systeri *iii;;;. to rely on bustransit connections to Excetsoir'(ii a;;iiabiej or witl requirepark and ride sites in the vicinity oi'ti,e 'iiation.
The Citvwill.continue to monitor tne impr#entiti;; ;;-i;;;t ..ir "iiistation plans to asse-ss ttreif ioequa;y-;r; illei. irpuit -on
existing private patterns and bus t;;;;i-;y;;;r.
t-43
t-tt ir
r-44
r!ff frl ll
3
1
1
I
1
I
I
t
I
t
t
L
L
L
L
e
lr
df.l, oF
CF,AifiASSEI'J
LRT Corridors
ttt North Route
aOO South Route
,
r
$
L_
I
'I
I
l!ir
I ,
li. i - - Ir--i
t-4 5
9!l!!.:r:l':. tran.sporrat-ion system has been the subject ofvarrous studies since 1968. Since that time, the system fias seen
:igl]l]:1ll improvements such as the constiuctiori or csan-ii,
.ll?l9y:r.!!.of Lake Lucy Road, construction of Kerber Bou)evard,reconstruction of downtown streets and the upcoming improvementito T.H. 5.
I Y-e-l tqe..past few. years, however, implementing planned
llllseo1,tltign projects has become an incr'easingly U.i ificultlask. this has occurred primarily due to reductioni in federalspending which means that state and rocar goveinments have feweravailable resources. This pattern has p1aled aOaeO presiure 'on
the budgets of the l,linnesota Department of Transportation and theCity of Chanhassen.
The planned improvements to T.H. 5 and T.H. ZL2 ate evidencethis trend. Chanhassen along- with adjacent municipa.l itiesappl icable counties has recen[ly funded-a portion of the costthe preparation of the environriental jmpait statement (ElSfI.H. 212. Additionally, the City allocated $50,000 over iyear period to expedite the design and eventual constructionthe T.H. 5 improvements. Chanhassen also contributed topreparation of the T.H. 7 Corridor Study that was completed
1986 .
of
and
of
for
two
of
the
in
The City of Chanhassen r-e_cognizes that transportation projectsover the next 15 years will Continue to require local resouices.lnrs raises two immed'iate. collcerns: l) that local money be usedto .fund projects that principally seive local residents and 2)what s0urces of additional funds will be available?
Chanhassen's roadway system can be fairly easily class.if ied intoroutes that serve primarily local r6sidenti such as Kerber
Bou levard and routes that serve regional and statewide travelersin addition to Iocal residents. T.i. 5 and T.H. 101 ur" .rurpi.iof routes in the second.category... Routes that ,..re iiif.vol umes. o-f- regional and staleviide traffic are the p.incipiiresponsibility of the l,linnesota Department of Transportition indin some cases, Carver County. Therefore, City pariicipation infunding improvements to such-routes will U-e finiiteO.
!]mited,narticipatr'on in regional routes and total participationrn local routes will cont.inue^ to requi-re additiona'l funding bythe City of Chanhassen. Sources 'of such funds may inciua6Chapter 429 assessments, the general fund, tax increment
1!nllginS and impact fees. Impact fees which iequire na;or newdeve.lopers to fund portions _of d.irectly related 'transpoitation
projects.. are beginning to. be.--used by Twin Cii, a;;;municipalities. This .concept wil l be ciosely rev.ie'*eJ iodetermine its applicability to Chanhassen.
I IIPLElIEITTAT IOtI
t-46
The overall general recommendation of this plan is to implementthe Recommended System found on Exhibit 8T by the year 2000. A
number of specific tasks will be followed in order io accomplishthis task.
Implementation of the Recommended S ystem
Intera enc Coo eration - Chanhassen will continue to work with
he tnneso a Department of Transportation,the l,,letropol i tan
Counc i I Carver County and adjacent municipal ities to implement
roadway and tran s
T.H. 212 - The
it i mprovem ents including a l ight rail system.
City will assist the Hinnesota Department ofto facilitate the timely completion of this
continue to work with the State and Counties to resolve thejurisdiction issue and upon adoption of the Comprehensive plan,will assume a lead role in discussions.
In conjunction with the development of specific plans for the
upgrading of T.H.5, the City will work with HnDot to ensureconsideration of the real ignment of T.H. l0l and its newintersection with T.H.5. !,lnDot should take a lead role in
securing approvals for the new rai lroad crossing necessitated bythis realignment. The City will take appropiiate efforts t6ensure that rights-of-way for the real ignment and liest 78thStreet connections is either acquired or reserved.
The eventual improvement of T.H. 101 south of proposed LIl. Zl2should be the responsibil ity of either the State or CarverCounty. This route has been designated as a minor arterial sinceit serves an important regional function. The City willcooperate with the State and County in upgrading this routethrougfr the reservation of right-of-way and funding wherepossible.
ranspor ation
proj ect .
T.H. 101 - Two important aspects of T.H. 101 need resolution:tion and realignment/reconstruction. Chanhassen willjurisdic
I,le st 79th Street Connection - The construction of l,lest 79th
Fund i n Sources Chanhassen wi lI continue to .investi gate al lsources o ederai, state, regional, local and pri vate sources oftransportation funding. Additionally, the Cit y wi 11 support andprovide funding where possible for local lobbying groups seekingtransportation improvenents provi ding such improvements are
Street will be a City pioject with the exception of theintersection with T.H. S. fne C'ity will work with'l.lnDot as plansfor T.H.5 evolve to ensure installation of, at 1east, a iigtrtin/r,i9ht out access at this location and to make provisions ioran ultimate full movement access. 0btaining approvil for the newrail crossing will be the responsibility of the City.
identif.ied in thi s plan and are cons'istent with City priorities.
t- 47
l{:1.!,1!!ito.i1g - Transportation .improvements need to keep pacew'rth urban developm^ent. T.H. 5 is a current exanple of a'rilutethat is operating far beyond- reasonable capacity. This impactsthe residentia l , comrneicial and industr'ial iegments of the
:gyinit{.. In- an attempt to a.void aggravating exiiting proUtemsand crea_ting future deficiencies, the city will closeiy'mon.itor
3.]1,d.I:lopl.nt proposats. Detaiied circul'ation anO accirsi-ptini
I].1^,,-?! _l.quired .to .assess. the impact of proposed maSoi newoeveropments on both the existing and futuie transpoitationsystems ,
APPENDIX
DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE F
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ?R INTERSECTION
Level of Servlce A. No loaded cycles and few are evenclose to loaded. No approach phase ls futty utll lzedby trafflc and no vehlcle lralts longer than one redlndlcation. Typically the approach appears quite open,turning movements are easlly rnade, €nd nearly alldrlvers f ind freedon of operatlon, thelr only concernbelng the chance that the I lght wl I I be red, or turnred, when they approach.
Level of Servlce 8. Represents stable operatlon.occasional approach phase ls fully utlllzed and asubstant la I nurdcer are approach I ng fu I I use. l,lanydrlvers begln to feel somewhat restrlcted wf thlnplatoons of vehlcles.
An
of Serv I . Stable operatlon cont I nues -Loadlng ls still lntermlttent, but more frequent.
Occaslonal ly drivers may have to walt through more thanone red slgnal lndlcatlon, and back-ups fllay developbehlnd turnlng vehlcles. l,tost drivers feel somewhatrestrlcted, but not obJectlonably so.
Level of Serv I ce 0 . Encompasses a zone of lncreas lngrestrlctlon. Oelays to approachlng vehicles n|ay besubstantlal during Short peaks withln the peak period,but enough cycles wlth lower demanct occur to permlt-perlodlc clearance of developing queues, thus prevent-lng excess i ve back-ups.
Adapted from "HIghway Capaclty l.lanuaI", Highway Research
Eoard Speclal Report 87, Hlgh\.ray Research Board, 1965.
Level of Service E. Represents a capaclty condltion,the most vehicles that any partlcular lntersectionapproach can accoflfllodate. There may be long queues ofvehicles waitlng upstream of the lntersectlon anddelays may qe great (up to several signal cycles).
Level of Service F. Represents Janmed condltlons.
Back-ups from locatlons downstream or on the crossstreet may restrlct or prevent movement of vehlcles outof the approach under consideration; hence, volumescarrlecl are not predlctabl e. Speeds are reducedsubstantlal ly and stoppages m€ty occur for short or longperlods of tlme because of the downstream congestion.ln the extremer both speed and volume can drop to zero.
EHINHISSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE . P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUI{
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Barbara Dacy, City
DATE: April 29, 1988
SUBJ: BF, Business Fringe
Planner
District Discuss ion
This item was tabled from the April 20, 1988, meeting. Attachedis a letter from Commissioner Erhart regarding his aguments to
rezone the current land zoned as Business Fringe District from TH
10I on the west to the eastern property limits of t.he former
Mobil Station on the north side of TH 212. The following analy-
zes the uses currently existing and proposed in that area.
BACKGROUND
The subject are was rezonetl to the BF District al-ong with the
effective date of the new Zoning Ordinance on F'ebrualy 19, 1987.
Originally, this area and the area to lhe east was zoned C-3 by
the former 1972 Zoni.ng Ordinance (where Moon Valley Excavation
ancl Rifle Range exist). Therefore, the city upon adopting the
new Zoning Map realuced the originally considered commercial area
to its current size. There is only one other BF district area
farther to the west on Tll 212 immediately adjacent to Chaska nol4,
occupied by Gary Brownrs mini-warehouse units. The existing uses
on the south side of 'lH 272 are zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate
and are consiilered non-conforming. The 1972 ordinance did not
include this area as commercial and had been zoned R-1a,
Agricultural Residence. In the BF District area on the north
side of fH 212 east of TH I01, there are currently eight property
ownerships: 1) Brookside Motel, 2) the former Lydia Teich prop-
erty now approved for Admiral waste llanagement contractorr s
yard, 3) BrambiIIa's property now authorized for outdoor clisplay
of landscape products, 4) the Sorenson/Jed1 i cki property
authorized for cold storage warehouse units, 5) the vernon Teich
property which is currently in sma1l agricultural usage, 6) the
former Mobil Station site, 7) and 8) two single family homes.
ANALYS I S
The City Attorney cautioned that upon rezoning from Business
Fringe to the A-2, Agricultural Estate District, the city would
CITY OF
Plann i ng
April 29,
Page 2
Commission
r988
have to show that rezoning would not be denying the individual
property owner reasonable use of the land. If the property can-
not be used for agricultural or residential purposes, the
property owner may have a claim for a taking.
The Brookside Motel is currently non-conforming. The contrac-
tor's yard and cold storage sites are consistent with the current
uses permitted in the BF', Business Fringe District as well as
Brambilla's outdoor display of landscape products. Of these
four parcels, only the contractor's yard property could be con-
sidered for an agricultural use because approximately 8 acres of
the total 13 acres could be farmed. The rear of the Brambilla
property is less than an acre in size. It is dubious as to
whether or not a reasonable agriculturaL use exists on that pro-
perty. The former Mobil Station and the Brookside Motel property
have no potential for agrricultural use.
Except for the Brookside Motel, the existing and approved uses
require little demands as to septic system and welI use because
of the Iow number of employees needed to run the businesses.
However, in the case of the contractorrs yard, in order to build
a substantial building the property owner is faced with reguire-
ments for sprinklering, installation of adequate well reservoirs,
holding tanks for pumping, and access improvements.
WhiIe it is true that non-conforming uses shoulil be discontinued,it should also be ensured that the property can be used for some
other type of use. Given that the city established commercial
zoning for the properties on the north side of TH 2!2 and has
authorized a minimal amount of use in that area, removing the
Business Fringe District, if pursued by the Commission orCouncil, should be analyzed thoroughly by the Attorneyrs Officebefore final action. The properties on the south side of TH 212
have not had any type of commercial zoning placed on the property
and have existed as non-conformities. The city is in a betterposition in this manner in that it is not removingr any develop-
ment rights previously established.
As is pointed out by Commissioner Erhart, there are advantages to
removing any conunercial activity along this corridor given thesafety issues involved with TH 212 and I59. It was estimated by
MnDOT that in order to construct a bypass lane in front of thesubject area, it could cost up to $500,000. Further, as pointed
out by Commissi.oner Erhart, there are visual impacts that doarise from commercial enterprises in this major corridor into the
community. Eden Prairie so far has been successful in preventing
commercial development along its corridor except for the Lion's
Tap which was previously established. However, as one enters
Chanhassen, because of the existence of these buildings and uses
for several years, a commercial pattern was created.
Planning CommissionApril 29, I988
Page 3
RECOMMENDAT ION
These issues should be discussed by the planning Commission forfurther staff direction. This office firmly believes in theintenE. of Mr. Erharc's comments and concurs with the generalprinciples of limiting access onto a major arterial srich as TH212 and preserving a pleasing landscape through this area ofChanhassen. Hoirever, there are potenlial legii imptications fromLhis action thaE upon planning Commission diiectioi should bepursued in more deta j.1.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location map.2. Proposed corridor study and proposed transportation elementof the Comprehensive plan.
3. Letter from Tim Erhart dated April 26, 198g.
T-!"y. a larger scale. land use and property ownership mapwill be presented aE Che meeting.
NOTE:
which
i.).q(r
I
A2
e
q+
A2
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
tk
I-r
1
5
LAKE
tcER
I
c:3
:r-
NE
)
I r
(
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9
:E
bB
k!
Br
z
(tt
19
d
)\
I
':g-i',
..s$
:.2
e:
-----
!-
-.
-'..:,i;-'-'
:')
1I
,l.rAlJ
.,.>.;'
\.\.
i)..
\l
)
I
I
I
(
\
,T
-!',--
iii:.I o4
\.\
.)
\
\
Z
;
cl
\
\
\(n
\
\
!
i
I \
\
\
\
.,19 \
+
1,..'
o
\1
o
\r
x\.
I
Vq ,s
.y\
4l
\"
%,,
""b
oi
td
e,
2e
:\
t 9.
1*
95
I
i,t
e6I
1t
ri-
5.a
a-
*
u
o6
a6
,l
.rft$
fr
{,
b)
E L
+p
,4...
!
i
:
I
,.:
.-.
..j;-
' ';.' '
;-.+.
i **o
i::.:::i
'., i
l-
1
*\
E i\NoU@ov
To:
Subj ect :
Date:
Plannins Commission RaW .at4 Afl$*TZf
Minnesota Rj ver Valley PIan
, ?|\larnt-S .tr. .
April 26, 1988
Ib,4b
,' ,.tt la"
4Pq ly*
Being on the Planning Commission and living close to the Minnesota R'iver
Vailey area, I have begun to appreciate the unique resource which exists in
our city. Unfortunateiy, our current approach to planning in thjs area
guarantees both a missed opportunity and the creation of dangerous traffic
conditions by encouraging commercial development within this area.
To the south of IH 2l?, the area in the vaiiey from Flying Cloud Airport to
Chaska has already been designated . The north side consists
of severe terrain w'ith bluffs and wash outs as you go up the va11ey wa1 1.
The severe erosion and cl iffs give the area both a unique appearance and
environmental quality unique to this area. It also poses substantial danger
of additional erosion when development occurs.
The City of Eden Prairie has seen fit already to preserve the va11ey by
maintaining the entire area north of TH 212 in Eden Prairie as Aqricultural .
The Eden Prajrie ordjnance a1 lows only oo, ornl ks,dtria!,Xvin this
district. The only non-conforming structure-in Eden Prairie is Lyon's Tap.
The valley in Chanhassen for the most part is classified as BF (Business
Fringe) which is a commerci al use. 0ver the years, a few businesses have
sprung up in this area. Hany have gone out of business due mostly to the
fact that the area reaily doesn't Iend itself to a business environment
being just across the bridge from Shakopee. In addition, the heavy traffic
and high speeds discourage stops by motorists along this route.
The remaini ng businesses include:
l. Hotel
2. S,/A gas stat i on
3. Junk yard4. vali_r# rufiryatf Wri lr^-t0
5.
llhich are located withjn the designated
con formi ng .
and are therefore non -
No sewer and
uses. )
un i que
If we
I'luch of
a1 ready
Businesses on the north side of TH 212 include:
I . Shooti ng range
2. Hotel
3. Seasonal retail nursery
4.
5.
These are also non-conforming in the BF district. (Note:
water exists or planned for this area thus Iiniting potential
lle have unfortunately now allowed two new bus.iness in this area: Garbage
truck cleaning and storage and a retair nursery. Fortunately the garbage
truck business is not located direcily on TH 212. Additional ly, the nurseryis not necessarily incompatible with Agricultural areas although a severetraffic problem wilI have been created when this nursery opens.
There are a number of issues which cause me to urge the members of the
Planning commission to recommend that the zoning in this vicinity be changed
from BF to A-2 Agricultural Estate. (I am not suggesting we change the BF
area existing next to Chaska.)
The opportunity to provide for future generations a truly
green area within the metropolitan area exists today.
delay, we will probably miss this opportunity altogether.
the area (south of TH 212 and all of Eden prairie) is
restricted from devei opment.
a The landscape is delicate and surely doesn,t allow itself to
devel opment.
2
A-l.-
I
lle are encouraging business to develop along a highway where a
long downhil l run causes traffic to travel at speeds ranging from
55-70 nph. 0n the one hand, the city is taking the
responsibil ity to encouraging the growth of a commercial area but
rle are not providing the access roads which are required for safe
ingress and egress from these businesses. I have voted aga.inst
each of the two proposals because I cannot in good conscience
agree to creating such a dangerous situation.
A commercial area requires sewer and water. Sewer and water is
not planned for this area for any time within the next 30 years.
Designating the area A-2 is totally appropriate in that a certain
amount of agriculture use occurs in the area today. In addition,
the area includes +1ilO homes which would conform nicely to the
allowable uses in the A-2 area. Lastly, the one unit on 10 acre
restriction on residential development in the A-2 district would
conveniently Iimit the growth of homes preventing increased
density, further erosion and traffic problems.
I believe the urgency of this matter should cause immediate passing on this
recommendation to council before any additional plans are submitted for
busi nesses in the area.
4
q
?
{
U.S. 1691212 (Flying Ctoud Drive)
Corridor Stud
IOCATION AND LENGIII: Frqn Ctanhassen,s easEern border (Eden prairie) to thewesEeEl border (Chaska). Approxima tely 2.7 miles.
t
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION :
Plan ) .
I,rinor Arterial (1987 Chanhassen Ccrnprehensive
A\TERAGE DAILY IRAFEIC: 20,000 (1984) east of T.H. 1.01
19,d00 - 35,400 (2005) Depending upon Construct.ion of
Nec T.H. 212.
ataa
DESCRTPEoN: u.s. 169/u.s. 272 is a combined roadway traversi4g the extremesouthern section of chanhassen. The two lane, undivided fiiqhlray carriessubstantial traEfic since it is a segment of a route connec[ing westernMinnesota to the I\din Cities.
PRoPoSED LAND USB: southern chanhassen is not. served by sanitary se,rer.consequently, no netr urban-scale developnEnE has occurred in 'r.c"nt -vl'".=.
A
:g!lg-s- of 'grandfa thered" businesses exists east of the intersection oE u.s.169/212 and u.s- 169n-H. r0l. of these uses, some are conforming Eo t.hebusiness fringe (BF) zone while others are non-conforming
The lard use elerEnt of the l9g7 Ccnp:ehensive plan acknorledges the existenceof the crcnforming uses, rnwever, Ia nir use policies aiscorrige't[eir'"ipun"i*.Non-con form i ng uses by ordinance are protriLiced rrom enriiLiG oi eiTenaingEheir opera tions.
t
{a
Proposed lard uses a).orq tle u.s. 169 & u.s. 212 Corridor have been ident.ifiedas a statenEnt of lorlg term city policy. In this case, long Eerm is definedas being post 2000, possibly 2020 or beyond. Ttre ciEy of chanhassen does notplan to expard the business fringe (Bp) zone, hence, development wilt notoccur prior to the avaiLability of sanitary secer senrice. tong term la nduses follow a theme of diversity in order to ensure a future balance of
f tnct loo arrl aesthetics.
PRoPoSED TRANSPoRTATToN rltpRovBtrtENTS: currently, there are no majortransportatidl improvements planned for existing 169 /212. Topography indfloodplain areas in eastern chanhasseo and western Eden prairie irecludesignificant future expansicr. The pending improvenent rGt affecting LxistinglJ.S. 169/272 is the p1anned consrtnction of nev, T.H. 212. !{hen the nen routeis built, it will substantially eliminate increased traffic alorq the existirgroute. Exist.ing 169/2L2 is not adequate to handle existing traffic flors.
fmprovements will be needed to reduce accident rates ard lnhance publlc
safety.
When urban services become available, the nort.h side of the U.S. 169/212corridor is expected to develcp as medium &nsity ard high densi ty residentialnith the exception of the existing commercial area. keerty on the southsi& of 169/212 is within land designated as part of the Min;esota valleyNational wildrife Refuge. one small existirg area of cqnnercial (businesl .
fringe ) exists at tte Chaska border.
o
I - --{ _
larC glsafl
$\
\
_t
J
Ltte
,ILEI
,tct
)
I
I
I
j
T
I
I
Proposed Land Use
Late
I
,rce a
I
-rO
!
,l
-HD
R
R-MD P/S
P/S
r-
Ii/
I
I
I
l
I
I
F
I
I
I
I