75-06 - Family Bowling Center SPR pt 1) Ik4a Y 3
4-8-81 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
aluminum sided building that would match the rest of the building
on their property. The building would be 24' x 60' and would be
used for short term storage. This building was not in the original
site plan because Lyman Lumber did not forsee the use for that
much storage space when the plan was first drawn up.
Mr. Waibel stated that the new building would be
totally screened, there is high ground in the East and the
other buildings are in front of this one. Mr. H. Noziska asked
if the building would be heated. It was answered no, the
building is just for storage and no heating would be needed.
Mr. L. Conrad made a motion to recommend approval of
this site plan request (Exhibit 4/8/81). Seconded by J. Thompson.
Motion carried, Ayes-6.
Easement Vacation Request, Lots _7_& 8,_ Block 3, Chanhassen
Estates:
Mr. Randy Trivolia explained that Lots 7 & 8 had
been replatted. There was a property line dispute that
is cleared up now but would like to ask . that the Com-
mission would approve his request to vacate the easement on this
property. Mr. A. Partridge explained some of the background
of this case. There is a building on top of the easement already.
The lot is able to meet all the setback requirements and would
still be a buildable lot. There were no problems with any of
the neighbors.
Mr. M. Thompson made a motion to recommend to the City
Council to hold necessary public hearings to vacate the ease-
ment on Lots 7 & 8, Block 3, Chanhassen Estates. Mr. H. Noziska
seconded the motion. All in favor.
Visitor Presentation, Mr. Rod Hardy, Lake Susan West:
Mr. Hardy, a representative for Lake Susan West, withdrew
their application for the Subdivision at Lake Susan, and requested
that this item be tabled indefinately. No action was taken.
Chaska Comprehensive Plan:
Mr. Waibel went thru the report of April 6, 1981
7610 LAREDO DRIVE • P.Q. BOX 147 A CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 -
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: April 6, 1981
TO: Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Land Use Coordinator, Bob Waibel
SUBJ: Easement Vacation Request, Lots 7 & 8, Block 3,
Chanhassen Estates, First -Addition.
APPLICANT: Mason Construction Company, Inc. and Vernon C.
and Barbara A. Huseman
PLANNINGCASE: e--3
Petition:
�t -
The -applicants are requesting the'`.Planning Commission to
consider a Vacation of the Utilities Drainage Easement.as
shown in encIos.ure.•2
Background-. w`
1 . Communtiy Location,:.' As shown i rr '_the- Community Location
Graphic, the subject property i s i located approximately 500 `.
East of the intersection of Dakata. Avenue and Cheyenne.
2. Existing ,.Z.oni,ng: ' The subject property and --its environs are
.presently',-zo-ned R 1, :Si ngl e: Family- _Resi denti al Di stri ct.
3. Uti 1 i t� es r ,-' Kuni�c.i pl e Water and - San-i tary�SeWer -ar- e presently
availa61e7ta,- he subject property.
Comments
The requested action is a formality to the replat of the seibject-
property carried out by the:.Fl.anning Commission last fall,
It has been discovered that the replat action, in and of itself, -
did not vacate the drainage and utility easements along the.
previous property lines and is thus the reason for this request.
Planning Report.
Page 2
April 6, 1981 - -
Persuant to Chanhassens administrative procedures and State .law,.
the Planning Commission is to determine through i:ts staff that
the proposal will not be detrimental butrather
be in the public interest. The Planning Commi ssi.on is to submit,
its recommendations to the Council who upon receipt_ of such shall:
hold a public hearing.
Recommendation:
Thi's office has reviewed the subject request with: the City
Engineer and find that there are no determents- associated with
tt. The Planning Commission should recommend that the City.
Council hold necessary public hearing to vacate the Drainage/.
Utilities Easements along the original property lines of Lots
7 & 8, Block 3, of Chanhassen Estates, First Addition.
Ie
p: 6� G o ✓ -A r'i e v
C. ew.1
v
i
Action by City MministrstOf
Endorsed
kkoditied
Rejected_ - -
Date_ ..y i r
Date Submitted to Commission r
glop/� I �,
Date Submitted to Council _`*=
twwt. ( .r r••� w f IC -r (.�^(_,t r•�" �._�: �o�r 1 ( s� df - :� ���_�� `-__ -_ -' ___' �•
_
�•- .ram f : c -�TM1 r.i o �` •\r �` i.•4- _ c T 7 �BQO
Li
XE' L(ici I-o r ysr _
rl (+. >tA _
Sr
- ' .. ��. i Ili: -tea`., r � -_ ��.✓3 - - �� -
LAME 7�,
LAME ANN ia� `� "( - 4/I---�---�•—�•rjoo.., '=�
to Y 4,..)-•a . �.w• sdU
j r �L^�7 •; i //ems
j i s•• .ti :o-..y �'� N. •x Iv1iV � _ __ ++
O FVAR -' TT ROW ! 1✓!
? "
p _ I ; .. E Fi1GMWaY r'• 1 / ./ ST'OrG3.l%�n1
� fil0d_
sxcc,:c: � 7 -
pa.Vi-
PE�
LAXF SUSAN-
- RIC IC " SI: LAX£
' - esi» si
TRAIL
Y�I.1 SOUL-VA40 " Nl I�. _--.-- .-90006
--qC ^l•`.`f� _ - •ate:;
1-3 t.J l0k, T A 5 R %.X JL %61..T %_41
13()9 NORTMEAS" F0tJBT t !SXREET
c ifYVV� '}1. •� )001 EASY Ctt :)AD
GRAND RAPfE7�-iti4NESOTA 55744
gUR:4SVtLLE, T` 41= TA 55337
PHONE- (512) 890•-7750 PHONE: (2t8):
Certificsie
. .t
Co. 41 lie
g34.4 � t �l .� g33 G - - uv�'-i2
1JE% • R3.3.ixcd � .:'s � acgiZ 7 ,'^�r7.1�7-•-i=�yz:i�`�
41
:34-l lt'y
tv
r 3. V'
V 1-
ri � _ ♦� - a3y�.. '. �7�0 z2•� • fp?��� tie ���' - s��a _
IN
�• Lino---
-�3 --,� .- �•
0 2 1� p3 �:." y• ! �3 HY f 72
t 7, 1> crc~.c INSt F.S i fir fi,--
MAZEt? ; .aeciztt�; Eo the pl�� t��ereof crr File
and s ecc•Y ' in Lise c.ffic a -of LY.r
: Cou.n t y alder Y,zareepirru:ity,. _
= .Minnesota; except. Lhat •part of said.
i.o raock 3
I "-3;olL of the. fol3o;�%ri� dezcribe3 3ir►e: `_
o �cNOT��r tK0l� i`hO I�[ t��hE%L'r aeginnzn at
pout oar the soi�tY� - lii
DEAiOTae7 -CO? OF Cs-3:t 6 CAs?HALE} of Lot %, distant 31 E�_ fxl feeC .azst as
g'-0� DFI�tC7TE`J E>CtS--F tt.(C� �L vATtDAt . the soxltbeast: corrkeT_ csfC l.ot 7; . rl•3e:sc�
�Ei�10jE5 P oP05- � ELEvA�tOl�i northeasterly to a paint- ore t"e easC
PKOPD�� IA5r_NAem� li�ne_a£ lot I, distari:: tl_CZf� fezt .ito
(q �� 2� PLO POSED vA�Av� o£ .said so{iLiteas tvrn¢r af_ lot
(q _c7?QSEp Isi FLOOZ there Cerin-Ittatin-__
of tr►a to;
certify that this is a trua and correct reprantationot a survyyof th9 bovrtttaris5oith-aaDoia C scriDec! lar,d_and
>
pti bu;1diings, thereon, and at; v'rs;bta encroachments, if any, irom or ore said [an:3. _ -
_Q
As surveyed by ma this•3— day-
c' Reg- NO
"�O—io7•• - - _
10,
4-8-81 Planning Commission Minutes - =
Page 2_-
al-umi num sided building that would match the rest" of the building
on ei r property. -The building would be 24' JC 60' and would be
used T short term storage. This building was not in the original
site pla because Lyman Lumber did.not forsee the use for'that
much stora space when the plan was first drawn up..
Mr--Wa 1 stated tha the new building would be
totally screened, t e is h" ground in the. East and the _
other buildings are in r of this one. Mr. H. Noziska asked.:
.6 i f: the building would `. b aced:. ---:It was answered no, the��
x F
r ".building is ,lust for: orag nd no heating would be needed.:
,Conrad made a ma n to recommend a
Mr.. approval of
this site pl request.. (Exhi bi t. �4/8/ Seconded by J .. Thompson
�' ' Motion ca led, Ayes 6.
r -
•
r Easement Vacation Request,,Lots -7 & '8, . Block 3, Chanhassen
-Estates: -
Mr.: -Randy. Tri vol i a exp"l ai ned that Lots 7 & 8 had
x been replatted- There was a property line dispute that
1s°1cl eared up now but.. woul d like ---to ask -that the Com-
mission would approve -his request: to vacate the easement on this
property. Mr.; -,A. Partridge explained some of the background
of this case. There 'i s:. a bui Ui ng on- top of the easement already...
The lot is ab1e to meet.all the setback requirements and would
still be'a buildable, lot. There were no problems with any of =
the -neighbors...
Mr. M. Thompson made a motion to recommend to the City
Council to hold necessary public -:hearings to vacate the ease-
ment on Lots=:7 & 8, Block 3, Chanhassen Estates_ Mr. H_.Noziska
seconded the. motion. _All in .favor.
_ r
Vi for Pre"sent'ation, "Mr. Rod Hard Lake Susan —Me s
Hardy, a representattve�i`or Lake Susan West, wi thdrew --'�
their appl i ca for the Sub.d--i--�ri si on at Lake Susan, and- requested
that this it
be le,d—tb efinateIy. No action was taken_
n
Chaska Comprehensive Plan:
Mr. Waibel went thru the report of April 6, 1981
WILLIAM D. SCHOELL
CARLISLE MADSON
JACK T. VOSLER
JAMES R. ORR
HAROLD E. DAHLIN
LARRY L. HANSON
RAYMOND J. JACKSON
WILLIAM J. BREZINSKY
JACK E. GILL
THEODORE D. KEMNA
JOHN W.EMOND
KENNETH E. ADOLF
DANIEL R. BOXRUD
WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT
- SCHOELL & MAOSON, iNc.
ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS
1612) 938-7601 • 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH • HOPKINS, IV INNESOTA 55343
OFFICES AT HURON, SOUTH DAKOTA AND DENTON, TEXAS
November 4, 1977
City of Chanhassen
c/o Mr, Don Ashworth
P. 0. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Attention: Mr. Bruce Pankonin
Subject:
Gentlemen:
Highway 5 South Frontage Road
Location on Outlot 2.
With placement of traffic signals at the Highway 5 - Dakota
Avenue intersection a virtual certainty, we feel the best location
of the frontage road immediately east of Dakota would be along the
south property line of Outlot 2.
We feel the location of a signal light at Dakota will divide
the usage of the frontage road east and west of Dakota and eliminate
the need of aligning the two sectors. Movement of the east section
of the road southward will provide needed stacking room for entering
and exiting the eastern sector.
The frontage road must have: a minimum right-of-way width of
50 feet, a mininum street gutter -to -gutter width of 26 feet (no parking),
9-ton capacity and B618 Concrete curb and gutter. The improved street
may be offset within the right-of-way, with a minimum 10-foot distance
between the back of curb and right-of-way line.
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Very truly yours,
SCC�H/OELL &r MADSON,1 INC.
�•��'
44W 117
WJBrezinsky:cm
cc: Mr, Robert F. Dill
�61
NOV1977
ReCEIV
ED Z.
'V[LLAGe op C
IANHAsag - r i
MINN. N,`�
April 27, 1977
City of Chanhassen V AfAY1977
7610 Laredo
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317„
Attn: Mr. Walter Hobbs
Dear Mr. Hobbs,
G`6�81L�
As concerned residents of Chanhassen Estates, we are writing to you to voice
our opinions on the proposed "Family Bowling Center". They are as follows:
The idea of a bowling center if fine, but this particular "commercial
development" should not border a residential area due to the liquor, noise,
hours of operation, and added traffic it would bring.
The construction of a service road between our home and any commercial
establishment is most upsetting to me. If a service road is indeed necessary
to lessen the traffic flow, why can't it be in close proximity to hiway #5?
Would you, Mr. Mayor, appreciate this facility and/or a service road
in your backyard? Please weigh your decision carefully.
Peggy Roos
8001 Cheyenne
I feel that the bowling alley proposed on the corner of hiway 5 and Dakota
Ave—n,e could be very detrimental to the families living in Chanhassen Estates.
? beiieve that the value of our property would greatly decrease, and that the
hours of o-oeration for the bowling alley would not be conducive to a residential
area. I do not think that our young people need a "hangout" where liquor is
served. I think it is a shame that almost every aspect of our American way
of life has to be connected with alcoholic beverages. I would also like to
point out the fact that a detox center is located across the hiway from the
proposed bowling alley. This certainly seems incongruous.
Finally I would like for you to recall Mr. Robert Mason's comment that the
Prior Lake bowling alley previously owned by the developer of this proposed
Chanhassen bowling alley, had to be closed because of drug and liquor problems.
I feel that the same problems would exist here in Chanhassen. I appreciate
your interest and concern in this matter.
Anna Eastburn
8003 Cheyenne
I have nothing against a bowling center per se. It can be a good family
sport. My concern is why do we always have to promote liquor and drinking with
leisure activities? It's no wonder we have such a problem today with alcohol
and drug abuse. We are doing this to our children knowingly and unintentionally.
The Aqua Bowl does not serve liquor and they seem to be very busy whenever we
have been there. It's really pleasant bowling there as everyone is there to
bowl and not there to drink and hang around just to kill time.
The statement was made that the owner of this proposed center (in Chan),
recently sold one because of problems, (drinking and drug usage?). It can
happen here too. Right in our own backyards no less!
- 2 -
Allowing this type of establishment to be placed in an established residential
area is really being unfair to all of us as home -owners and Tax paying citizens
of Chanhassen.
Another interesting note. Can't you just see Chanhassen widely publicized
as that nice community down the road with a detox center on one side of the
street and a bar on the other side! They really complement each other, don't
they? Certainly we can give our city planners more credit than that.
The Margerums
8005 Cheyenne
It has been brought to our attention that a bowling alley to the north of
Chanhassen Estates has been proposed. When we purchased our home in a nice
residential development, we had hoped that is what it would remain.....
1. A bowling alley does not belong in a residential area.
2. It is added traffic that is certainly not needed with all
the children in this area.
3. It would also increase the noise level not to mention
taking away our backyard privacy.
4. We are sure it would increase vandalism or destruction of
private property and litter.
5. What will it do to the value of our homes? It certainly
won't help or increase it:'.:
We cannot believe in all the available space around Chanhassen, that there
is not a more suitable place for such a construction. We do not feel that the
exhorbitant taxes we pay would be used to promote this type of public respon-
sibility.
How would you feel if it was your backyard, your home, and your family -
I can't believe you could feel any different about it than we do.
Very Concerned,
R. David & Diane Quackenbush
8007 Cheyenne
I am a resident of Chanhassen Estates. My property is on the Northeast border
of the area so my home will be the closest one to the bowling complex. We built
in the winter of 1968-69. We moved in 8 years ago March.
At the April 5th council meeting there are two things I would like to
comment on.
1. Why did the people move into that area if they knew there was
commercial property next door?
2. Mr. Mason said that everyone he sold to knew it was commercial
and that the commercial sign had been up for 8 years.
Answer to question one. Eight years ago there were several builders in
the estates area. I would say that Mr. Mason has built less than half the homes.
None of the homes built adjacent to the property in question are Mason homes and
to best of my knowledge, none of the original home owners along the boundry were
told it was commercial property next door. I myself was told there would be
duplexes with there back yard next to my back yard. I went to city hall in the
fall of 1968, officials told me it was not commercial.
- 3 -
Comment to statement two. Mr. Mason probably told his customers that
he planned to rezone commercial for that area, but other builders did not give
that information to their customers. The commercial designation sign did not
appear on the property in question until all the houses along the border were
built. The sign was put up before the hearings and the rezoning of the property.
The sign has been up less than 8 years because I have lived here 8 years and one
month and it was not there when I moved in.
I am not opposed to good well run bowling alleys. It appears to me that
alcohol is more important to the establishment than the bowling alley. Seldom,
anywhere, do we find alcoholic establishments immediately adjacent to resi-
dential areas.
I am asking you to grant a liquor license only if you would want such
an environment in your own backyard.
Alex Krengel
8009 Cheyenne
I am opposed to any additional liquor establishment, and concerned about
the added traffic.
Pat Boedigheimer
8019 Cheyenne Spur
The intersection of highway #3 and Dakota Avenue is not controlled by
a traffic light and with the present traffic load it is difficult to exit
from the Estates to ff5. - bowling alley would increase this load and cause
an already difficult situation to become impossible.
The area in question would be better suited for an office building.
There are areas, such as the developed area northwest of highway 5 and 101
that would provide better access than would the one in an essentually resi-
dential area such as Chanhassen Estates.
R. Hoffman
8021 Cheyenne Spur
There is a need for recreational facilities in Chanhassen but it would
make more sense to me to keep late hour activities in our "center city" where
the police won't be spread out. Traffic for the residents of Chan Estates
is questionable now, but to introduce more cars, especially after drinking,
seems irresponsible. I will be following your actions closely.
Tom Krueger
8023 Cheyenne Spur
I think the bowling alley would be a good recreation area for all of us
if there was no liquor. With liquor, it will become another hangout for our
young people. We already have two hangouts where young people drink and smoke
dope. Lets not create additional problems. I would rather see an office
building or an 8 to 5 store front.
Mr. & Mrs. Dean Hermonson
8025 Cheyenne Spur
We oppose the bowling center that would go in behind the Chan Estates
area. It would create more traffic on highway 5 and Dakota and we have
a problem there now.
Mr. and Mrs. Vern Husemoen
8015 Cheyenne
My husband and I are very much opposed to a bowling alley with a restaurant
and lounge being built at the intersection of highway 5 and Dakota. We live
on Dakota Avenue and have two small children ages 4 and 2. I hate to imagine
what could happen if some of the people using the "bowling and liquor" facilities
came down Dakota Avenue instead of going back to the highway.
One of the reasons we purchased our home was that there were no businesses
in the area and the only traffic past our home would be the home owners of the
area who would respect our children and property.
With as many children living in Chanhassen Estates as there are, we can't
imagine why this facility is even being considered in this area. There is
enough exposure to liquor and drugs in the schools that we can't do anything
about without bringing it to our doorstep. Isn't there enough open area
around Chanhassen to find an appropriate spot without putting it near a resi-
dential area?
Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Wassink
8004 Dakota Avenue
As a resident of 8002 Dakota Avenue I feel that there are other and possibly
better properties available in the Chanhassen area for the proposed bowling
alley. Also I'm sure that there are other types of commercials that would be
more acceptable to the tax payers of Chanhassen Estates. I do not need the
problems that go with this type of establishment in my front yard. I am
absolutely against this proposal.
Please ask yourself, would you want this in your front or back yard?
Mr. and Mrs. Orville Johnson
8002 Dakota Avenue
We moved into Chanhassen Estates two months ago. Our primary reason
for picking this place to live was that it was a quiet residential area close
to town, yet removed from the traffic and noise of a commercial area. We
especially appreciate the quiet, peaceful evenings. Therefore, we were
appalled to hear of the possibility of a bowling alley with a liquor license
in our immediate vicinity. We are especially upset at the idea of having the
traffic routed onto Dakota Avenue. Surely there are other more suitable
areas that are already devoted to commercial type establishemnts.
Roland and Anita Lownsbury
8000 Dakota Avenue
In talking to others in the Estates, they have shown the same concerns that
have been expressed in the preceding comments. If necessary, we know a petition
could be obtained from a majority of Chan Estates residents against the proposed
"Family Bowling Center".
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Roos
CC: Planning Commission members
City Council members
City Planner
April 27, 1977
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
We do not want the proposed bowling alley located so near the entrance of
the Chanhassen Estates for the following reasons:
Another liquor license is not necessary in this village. It simply encourages
youth in this neighborhood area to stay out late in the evening and over the
weekend which will be disturbing to the residents in the area. Since we do
not have the knowledge of regulations as the experts do, we were under the
impression that the zoned area applied to office type facilities which would
be usod during the work week only.
Many builders of recreation facilities state the best of intentions to maintain
the property and this well intended approach is supposedly supporting the
community, but in fact produces an eyesore and detriment to the area in which
it is located once the tax advantage to the owner has been reduced considerably
or expired. It also encourages the youth of our community to "hang outf on
the site and the exposure to liquor can and will encourage our young people to
early drinking habits.
The traffic and noise will be a terrible nusiance to the residents within eye-
sight and ear shot of the facility.
Any tax gain is more then offset by the increased services of the Police and
Fire Department and other tax supported protection.
We strongly oppose the issuance of a liquor license and the issuance of a
building permit to the bowling alley owners so near the residental area of
Chanhassen.
From: City Administrator
Referred To:
Mayor
Council
Piar:reru
SuilifiRg
Uiiiitcs � �'
Other i a:eT-
77
Si:.cerely
Richard H. Frasch
Beverly R. Frasch
8010 Cheyenne Avenue
Chanhassen, Minnesota
April 27, 1977
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
We do not want the proposed bowling alley located so near the entrance of
the Chanhassen Estates for the following reasonss
Another liquor license is not necessary in this village. It simply encourages
youth in this neighborhood area to stay out late in the evening and over the
weekend which will be disturbing to the residents in the area. Since we do
not have the knowledge of regulations as the experts do, we were under the
impression that the zoned area applied to office type facilities which would
be ust-.d during the work week only.
Many builders of recreation facilities state the best of intentions to maintain
the property and this :.well intended approach is supposedly supporting the
community, but in fact produces an eyesore and detriment to the area in which
it is located once the tax advantage to the owner has been reduced considerably
or expired. It also encourages the youth of our community to "hang outf on
the site and the exposure to liquor can and will encourage our young people to
early drinking habits.
The traffic and. noise will. be a terrible nusiance to the residents within eye-
sight and ear shot of the facility.
Any tax gain is more then offset by the increased services of the Police_ and
Fire Department and o`.her tax supported protection.
We strongly oppose the issuance of a liquor license and the issuance of a 5„
building permit to the bowling alley owners so near the residental area of
Chanhassen.
Sincerely,,
Richard H. Frasch
Beverly R. Frasch
801.0 Cheyenne Avenue
Chanhassen, Ydnnesota
,\NNESp�4
�O yp
n a
a �
O�
5Q
TOF T01
April 20, 1977
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Mr. Bruce Pankonin
City Planner
City of Chanhassen
Chanhassen City Hall
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
District Five From: Cilyt Administrator.
5801 Duluth Street Referred To:
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 Mayor
council _
Planner
Building.___ _
Attorney_
Engineor
Treasurer
Police
Parits & Rec.
Street maint.
Utilities —
Press
Other
Date
Re: S.P. 1002 T.H. 5
Proposed Commercial Development
in S.E. Quadrant of T.H. 5 and Dakota Avenue
in Chanhassen
Dear Mr. Pankonin;
As per your request, we have reviewed the above referenced develop-
ment as it relates to T.H. 5. We expect that the development would
increase accidents, conjestion and the need for a signal at Dakota.
If you recall when the Minnesota Department of Transportation const-
ructed safety improvements on T.H. 5, it was suggested that Dakota
Avenue be closed. However, due to strong local opposition and poor
access to the area south of T.H. 5, the safety improvement project
included turn lanes and a median opening at Dakota. Because there
has been no change in the access situation south of T.H. 5, we
anticipate Dakota will eventually have to be signalized.
Some specific items that should be considered by the City, if the
development is constructed, are as follows:
1. Dakota Avenue should be widened to two northbound lanes on
the approach to T.H. 5.
2. Access to the development off Dakota should be set back from
T.H. 5 opposite the proposed frontage road that was to be
constructed west of T.H. 101.
3. The development of frontage roads should be pursued along
the south side of T.H. 5 east and west of Dakota.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
AP'R 1177
RECOVED
VILLAGE dF
C:ilAAf!-IASSEN, v
Ik�tAtt�i. �y x.
Vf It F,f h '..,.
Mr. Bruce Pankonin
April 20, 1977
Page 2
4. Should a signal become necessary at Dakota Avenue, Mn/DOT
would not be able to install one until it ranked high
enough on our district priority list. We anticipate this
would be sometime in 1978 or later.
5. The City should also pursue additional improvements on
Dakota Avenue north of T.H. 5 that were studied a few
years ago. (See attached sketch).
6. Drainage of the area should be away from the highway ditch.
If you have any questions in regard to these comments, please
feel free to call me or Evan Green at 545-3761 ext. 150 or 119.
Sincerely,
J. S. Katz
Layout, Research Development Engineer
cc:
Pat Murphy
County Engineer
Carver County
cL
+s
April 27, 1977
City of Chanhassen
7610 Laredo
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Attn: Mr. Walter Hobbs
Dear Mr. Hobbs,
MAY 1977
Receiver)
>� LV"JmAG9 on
NN SXM
As concerned residents of Chanhassen Estates, we are writing to you to voice
our opinions on the proposed "Family Bowling Center". They are as follows:
The idea of a bowling center if fine, but this particular "commercial
development" should. not border a residential area due to the liquor, noise,
hours of operation, and added traffic it would bring.
The construction of a service road between our home and any commercial,
establishment is most upsetting to me. If a service road is indeed necessary
to lessen the traffic flow, why can't it be in close proximity to hiway #5?
Would you, Mr. Mayor, appreciate this facility and/or a service road
in your backyard? Please weigh your decision carefully.
Peggy Roos
8001 Cheyenne
I feel that the bowling alley proposed on the corner of hiway 5 and Dakota
Avenue would be very detrimental to the families living in.Chanhassen Estates.
I believe that the value of our property would greatly decrease, and that the
hours of operation for the bowling alley would not be conducive to a residential
area. I do not think that our young people need a "hangout" where liquor is
served. I think it is a shame that almost every aspect of our American way
of life has to be connected with alcoholic beverages. I would also like to
point out the fact that a detox center is located across the hiway from the
proposed bowling alley. This certainly seems incongruous.
Finally I would like for you to recall Mr. Robert Mason's comment that. the
Prior Lake bowling alley previously owned by the developer of this proposed
Chanhassen bowling; alley, had to be closed. because of drug and liquor problerad.
I feel that the same problems would exist here in Chanhassen. I appreciate
your interest and concern in this matter. Anna Eastburn
8003 Cheyenne
I have nothing against a bowline; center per se. It can be a good family
sport. My concern is why do we ,-.a.lwayn have to promote liquor and drinking
with
leisure activities? It's no wonder we lia ve such a problem today with alcohol
and drum abuse. °e are doing this to our children knowingly and unintentionally,
The Aqua Bowl does not serve liquor and they seem to be very busy whenever we
have been there. It's really pleasant bowling there as everyone is there to
bowl and not there to drink and hand; around just to kill time.
The statement was made that the owner of this proposed center (in Chan),
recently sold one because of problems, (drinking and drug usage?). It can
happen here too. Right in our own backyards no less!
Allowing this type of establishment to be placed in an established residential
area is really being unfair to all of us as home -owners and Tax paying citizen
of Chanhassen.
Another interesting note. Can't you just see Chanhassen widely m.publicized
as that nice community down the road with a detox center on one side of the
street and a bar on the other side! They really complement each other, don_'t.
they? Certainly we can give our city planners more credit than that.
The Margerums
8005 Cheyenne
It has been brought to our attention that a bowling alley to the north. of
Chanhassen Estates has been proposed. When we purchased our home in a nice
residential development, we had hoped that is what it would romain.....
1. A bowling alley does not belong in a residential area.
2. It is added traffic that is certainly not needed with all
the children in this area.
5. It would also increase the noise level not to mention
taking away our backyard privacy.
4. We are sure it would increase vandalism or destruction of
private property and litter.
5. What will it do to the value of our homes? It certainly
won't help or increase it!!!
We cannot believe in all the available space around Chanhassen;-, that there'.
is not a more suitab'fe place for such a construction. We do not feel _that. the
exhorbitant taxes we pay would be used to promote this type of publi.c,"respon-`
sibility.
How would you feel if it was your backyard, your home, and your f=JJy
7{9J
I can't believe you could feel any different about it than we do.
Very Concerned,
R. David & Diane Quacken.bu�s '
8007 Cheyenne
I am a resident of Chanhassen Estates. My property is on the Northeast b.orderY
of the area so my home will be the closest one to the bowling oomplex. 14e'bui;
in the, winter of 1968;69. Ide moved in 8 years ago March.
At the April 5th council meeting there are two things I would like to
comment on.
1. Why did the people move into that area if they knew there, was
commercial property next door? 4..
2. Mr. Meson said that everyone he sold to knew it was commercial,
and that the commercial si.�n had been up for 8 years. ..
Ans,v�er to question one. Eight years ago there were several builder's in
the estates area.. 1 would say that Mr. Mason has built less than half the hoze-s.:
None of the homes built adjacent to the property in question are Masort homes and
to best of my knowledge, none of the original home owners along the boundry w*re
told it was commercial property next door. I myself was told there would -be -
duplexes with there back yard next to my back yard. I went to city hall i'n.,the
fail of 1968, officials told me it.was not commercial. ''F
- 3 -
Comment to statement two. Mr. Mason probably told h.is customersthat
he planned to rezone commercial for that area, but other builders did not give
that information to their customers. The commercial designation sign did not
appear on the property in question until all the houses along the border were
built. The sign was put up before the hearings and the rezoning of the property`s,-
The sign has been up less than 8 years because I have lived here 8 years. and one
month and it was not there when I moved in.
I am not opposed to good well run bowling alleys. It appears to me that
alcohol is more important to the establishment than the bowling alley. Seldom,
anywhere, do we find alcoholic establishments immediately adjacent to resi-
dential areas.
I am asking you to grant a ]_i.quor license only if you would want such
an environment in your own backyard.
Alex Krengel
8009 Cheyenne
I am opposed to any additional liquor establishment, and concerned about
the added traffic.
R.tt .Boedigheimer
801y :;heyenne Spur
The intersection of highway #5 and Dakota Avenue i6 not controlled by
a traffic light and with the present traffic load it is difficult to exit
from the Estate: to ,T5. ,� bowling alley would increase this load and cause
an already difficult situation to become impossible.
The area in question would be better suited for an office building..
There are areas, such as the developed area northwest of highway 5 and 101
that would provide better access than would the one in an essentually resi-
dential area such as Chanhassen Estates.
R. Hoffman
8021 Cheyenne Spur
There is a need for recreational facilities in Chanhassen but it would
make more sense to me to keep late hour activities in our "center city" where,,
the police won't be spread out. Traffic for the residents of Chan Estates
is questionable now, but to introduce more cars, especially after drinking,
seems irresponsible. I will be following your actions closely. ,
Tom Krueger
8023 Cheyenne Spur
I think the bowling; alley would be a good recreation area for all of us
if there was no liquor. With liquor, It will become another hangout for our
young people. We already have two hangouts where ,young people drink and smoke
dope. I.,ets not create additional problems. I would rather secs an office
building or an 8 to 5 store front.
Mr. ,& Mrs. Dean Hermonson
8025 Cheyenne Spur
f
4
We oppose the bowling center that would go in behind the Chan Estates
area. It would create more traffic on highway 5 and Dakota and we have
a problem there now.
Mr. and Mrs. Vern $usemoen
8015 Cheyenne
My husband and I are very much opposed to a bowling alley with a restaurant
and lounge being built at the intersection of highway 5 and Dakota. We live
on Dakota Avenue and have two small children ages 4 and 2. I hate to imagine
what could happen if some of the people using the "bowling and liquor" facilities
came down Dakota Avenue instead of going back to the highway.
One of the reasons we purchased our home was that there were no businesses
in the area and the only traffic past our home would be the home owners of the
area who would respect our children and property.
With as many children living in Chanhassen Estates as there are, we can't
imagine why this facility is even being considered in this area. There is
enough exposure to liquor and drugs in the schools that we can't do anything
about without bringing it to our doorstep. Isn't there enough open area
around Chanhassen to find an appropriate spot without putting it near a resi-
dential area?
Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Wassink
8004 Dakota Avenue
As a resident of 8002 Dakota Avenue I feel that there are other and possibly
better properties available in the Chanhassen area for the proposed bowling
alley. Also I'm sure that there are other types of commercials that would.be
more acceptable to the tax payers of Chanhassen Estates. I do not need the
problems that go with this type of establishment in my front yard. I am
absolutely against this proposal.
Please ask yourself, would you want this in your front or back yard?
Mr. and Mrs. Orville Johnson
8002 Dakota Avenue
Wb moved into Chanhassen Estates two months ago. Our primary reason
for picking; this place to live was that it was a quiet residential area close
to town, yet removed from the traffic and noise of a commercial area. �We
especially a-.preciate the quiet, peaceful evenings. Therefore, we were
appalled to hear of the possibility of a bowling; alley with a liquor license
in our immediate vicinity. We are especially upset at the idea of having the
traffic .routed onto Dakota Avenue. Surely there are other more suitable
areas that are already devoted to commercial type establishemnts.
Roland and Anita Lownsbury
8000 Dakota Avenue
m
- 5 -
In talking to others in the Estates, they have shown the same concerns that
have been expressed in the preceding comments. If necessary, we know a petition
could be obtained from a majority of Chan Estates residents against the proposed
"Family Bowling Center".
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Roos
CC: Planning Commisoi.on members
City Council members
City Planner
0
6
CITY OF
C8AN8ASS8N
7610 LAREDO DRIVE • P. O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 • (612) 474S885
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Manager, Don Ashworth
DATE: April 4, 1977
SUBJ: Liquor License Application, Concept Approval, Bowling
Center, Highway 5 and Dakota Avenue
The City Planning Commission is presently considering a proposed
bowling center/food-liquor establishment to be located south of
Highway and east of Dakota Avenue. Concern relative to traffic
generated by this use on Dakota has already been identified by the
Planning Commission. Traffic studies have been requested to
determine the effects of proposed traffic on this intersection,
necessity of signalization, necessity of access road, etc.
Additionally, the Planning Commission is requesting site and
development plans prior to further consideration. The developer
is willing to comply with all requirements of the Planning Commission
and recognizes that no guarantees are being made that proposed
plans or reports will be accepted. However, Mr. Badden has stated
that the proposed bowling center is not feasible unless liquor can
be served. In essence, he is stating that favorable approval of
development plans is important, but if the City Council has no
intention of approving liquor sales for the establishment, the time
spent by the Planning Commission and monies spent by him for meeting
development requirements will be of no avail.
This dffice sees this request as similar to that of Mr. Beiersdorf.
Mr. Badden is asking the. Council for general comments as to whether
they would consider a liquor license for a bowling center. The
City Council could deny making any comments on this issue until such
time as development plans and planning issues were resolved, or the
council could respond to Mr. Badden's request. Should the council
determine to comment on the issue, such should only be done with
the applicant realizing the council comments would not be binding and
would in no way influence development plan requirements or normal
liquor license review processes. Additionally, if the council desires
to make comments to Mr. Badden, such should be done on an individual
basis without action by the Council as a whole.
Mayor and Council -2- April 4, 1977
Mr. Badden was made aware of the fact this office would present the
issue of serving liquor on the bowling lanes to the City Council.
He is stating that this will, additionally, be a critical factor.
I have seen several bowling alleys which operate a lounge operation
that do not allow liquor to be served outside of the designated
lounge/dining areas. This office is confident that serving liquor in areas
open to minors causing increased policing for both the operator
and municipality, and, I believe, increases the incentive/opportunity
for illegal consumption. I would recommend that the council
sincerely consider these factors. The City Attorney may additionally
care to comment on this issue.
The Council may desire to withhold comments in this area and have
the Planning Commission grapple with this issue in reviewing the
design of the structure, i..e. location of game areas/rooms, ingress -
egress from dining/lounge areas versus areas open to access from
minors, etc.
APPLE,
14719 GARRETT AVE.
PHONE (612) 432-1515
March 22, 1977
11r. Don Ashford
City of Chanhassen
Chanhassen, lHinnesota
RE: Bowling Center / Liquor License
Dear Don,
PLACE
APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124
As per our meeting of March 18, 1977, I am asking if you would take our project
to the council for conceptual consideration.
We are planning a bowling center/food-liquor operation in Chanhassen. We would
be renting the building from the land owner, represented by Gene Reilly and Bob
Mason. Our plans would be for completion by September 1977. In our discussion,
several questionable items came up and, thus, the letter.
Breifly, I will try to explain our center. We would have twenty-four lanes, a
pro shop, dual nurseries, a lounge, and a supper/night club. We would seat
several hundred for the food operation; however, we do not plan on opening
with a full food operation. This is something that we would decide as we oper-
ated. le would have the facilities to be anything from a pizza operation to a
full-menued supper club. We don't want to guess as to which at this time.
Thus, a limited menu, at least at the beginning, would be our plan. Food would
never be the major part of our operation in regards to volume. Bowlinca and
liquor will be the major part of our volume - understand, even if we did the
business of an Eddie Webster's, food would still not be the major part of our
volume. We will want Sunday liquor, and also plan on liquor service to the
lanes.
I think that I have covered the basics of our operation. I can but refer you
to my establishment in Apple Valley - we have what I feel is the area's finest.
This, basically, is what I'm proposing.
Thank you in advance for your consideration; I will await your reply.
Sincerely,
MAR 1977
R>ECE
MLAGE ON
Bi 11 Baden `�'' CHANHASS06 r
MINM g~ ;
BOWL DINE DANC �IWU.61
CITY OF
CHANBASSEN
7610 LAREDO DRIVE • P. O. BOX 147 0 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 •
April 12, 1977
Apple Place
Attn: Bill Baden
14719 Garrett Ave.
Apple Valley, MN 55124
Dear Mr. Baden:
(612) 474-8885
Pursuant to our discussion the other day, I would like to reaffirm
my belief that the liquor license request placed before the City
Council represented a sincere concern by yourself and was not
presented as a "threat" or "dictum". Based on your concerns for
a liquor license, this office had requested you prepare the letter
as considered by the City Council. Additionally,,I believe the .
City Council perceived your request in this light. 'However, you
must recognize that legally the Council could not act as a body
on this request, and, without knowing the exact nature of the
proposed development or its impact on Chanhassen, it was difficult
for the Council to give you concrete answers.
Attached please find a copy of the current fee schedule for liquor
licenses.
Should you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact
me.
Sincere,ly),
DonAshworth
City Manager
DA:k
RUSSELL H. LARSON
CRAIG M. MERTZ
RussELL H. LARsoN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
1900 FIRST NATIONAL BQNK BUILDING
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
March 9, 1977
Mr. Bruce Pankonin
Chanhassen City Planner
Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Re: C-2 Commercial District
Permitted Uses
Dear Bruce,
AREA CODE 612
TELEPHO74E 335-956S
You have requested an opinion from me whether a bowling
alley with a restaurant and lounge as accessary thereto would be
a permitted use within the C-2 Commercial District.
It seems appropriate at this time to review what I consider to have
been the intent of the City Council and Planning Commission in
establishing the "C" districts at the time of the adoption of the
zoning ordinance in 1972.
The C-1 Office Building District was "intended to provide a district
-----for the location and development of administrative office build-
ings and related office uses and which are subject to more restrictive
controls than allowed in other commercial districts. The office uses
permitted in this district are those in which there is limited contact
with the general public and in which no ----- direct selling of merchandise
from the permitted use shall be allowed". It is a district designed
to accommodate office complexes with the necessary supportive service
uses within the office structure itself. By the process of elimination,
general retail sales and services offering a wide range of goods and
services would not be permitted uses within the C-1 District.
The C-3 Commercial District is designed to furnish areas served by other
retail business districts with a wide range of services and goods which
might otherwise be incompatible with uses permitted in retail business
district (C-2 Commercial Districts). The C-3 district, in my view,
contemplates the larger commercial uses, -in other words, those requiring
larger land areas such as auto sales and services, "drive-in" type sales
or service uses, and the like. The C-3 district can be used to compliment
or fill out the demands which may be generated by a C-1 or C-2 District.
It is also structured to accommodate highway service types of uses.
Bruce Pankonin March 9, 1977 Page 2
While a bowling alley with restaurant and lounge could be situated in
a C-3 District, the same facility can be a permitted use within a C-2
Commercial District as it is a use which falls within the purpose clause
of Section 10.01 under the classification of retail sales and services
offering a wide range of goods and services. However, as is the case in
all land development proposals and particularly those of a commercial
nature, the City Council and the Planning Commission prior to the issuance
of any permit for construction, shall review and approve the site plans
and the peripheral issues of access, traffic generation, landscaping,
grading, drainage, etc., as these considerations may have an impact on
the neighborhood..
This review process is clearly mandated by Section 10.06 of the Zoning
Ordinance which refers back to the design review process of Section 9.06
which, in turn, provides as follows:
"1. Design Review
a. No building permit for a principal building
or buildings accessory thereto, in a C-1 District
shall be issued without having first been reviewed
by the Planning Commission and approved by the Council
following the procedures set forth in Section 23,
Conditional Use Permit Procedure, except that no
public hearing need be held on any application for
a permit. The Council may attach such conditions
and guarantees to any such permit as it deems
necessary to insure compliance with the provisions
of this ordinance."
Section 23, Conditional Use Permit, sets forth the standards of Section
23.06 which must be met prior to the issuance of a permit under Section
9.06 or 10.06. In effect, these cited ordinance sections provide the
Council with broad authority to review all aspects of a development prior
to the issuance of a permit. Stated in broad terms, it is my opinion
that Council is charged with insuring that the use will not be detrimental
to or endanger the pu blic health, safety, morals, comfort and general
welfare of the community.
This duty imposed by the
should be made to measure
and under the provisions
Administrator may require
conduct such studies.
RHL:sh
ordinance directs that all necessary studies
the impact of the development on the community
of Section 19.18 (Ordinance #47-A) the Zoning
the applicant to deposit funds necessary to
Very trul yours,
RUSSELL H. LARSON
Qj
Q
,�OWTION B
1776-1976
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7610 LAREDO DRIVE•P.O. BOX 147oCHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317•(612) 474-8885
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 5, 1977
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Bruce Pankonin, City Planner
SUBJ: Locational Requirements for Bowling Alleys
On Thursday, March 3, 1977, I met with Gene Reilly, from M.B. Hagen
Realty to discuss possible construction of a bowling alley on
Outlot 2, Chanhassen Estates. As you know, commercial recreational
facilities (bowling alleys) as a generic land use category are not
a permitted or a conditional use in,. -any of the commercial use
districts in the City of Chanhassen. Since Mr. Reilly's proposal
would require an ordinance amendment, and since the proposal is in
its preliminary planning stages, I requested that Karen gather
certain background data about other city's locational requirements
for the siting of bowling alleys. This survey was to include asking
all cities with a population base larger than Chanhassen's the following
questions:
1). Are bowling alleys permitted in your community?
2). If yes, in which general commercial land use districts
do you permit bowling alleys? (For this catagorization
I wanted it broken down into either limited business,
retail business, or general business use districts. For
Karen's background I said that limited business districts
were districts which allowed predominahtly offices, retail
business district is self explanatory and general business
districts are districts which allow.uses such as lumber
yards.)
3). What are your community parking standards regarding bowling
alleys? Under this tabulation I wanted answers expressed
as numbers of parking spaces per alley or numbers of parking
spaces per seating capacity of the building.
pDon Ashworth -2- March 5, 1977
For Karen's convenience, I listed all the communities I wanted
surveyed, prepared a survey form and provided her with understandable
directions. Further, the time table for completion of this survey,
was to be prior to the Planning commission meeting on Wednesday,
March 9, 1977. I estimated that it would take approximately an hour
to an hour and a half of Karen's time to complete this survey for
me.
on Friday, March 4, 1977, Karen informed me that you suspended this
survey. I would like the opportunity to talk with you about this
suspension at your earliest convenience.
Thank you,
March 5, 1977 MAR 1977
RECEIVED
vu.aaE OF �I
CHANHASSUR,
i 1 City of Chanhassen r' �VIINN.
7610 Laredo Drive
M.B. HAGEN P.O. Box 147
REALTY Chanhassen, MN 55317
Attention: Bruce Pankonin
City Planner
Dear Bruce:
I am writing in regard to your letter of February 23, 1977
in regard to our proposed bowling center to be constructed
on the southeast corner of Dakota Avenue and State Highway 5.
I also appreciated the opportunity of meeting with you on
Thursday, March 3 and discussing our plans and specifica-
tions, along with parking requirements for the proposed
bowling center. I appreciated your comments in regard to
the allowable uses under the existing Chanhassen Zoning
Ordinance.
I am sure you are aware that the 10 acres zoned C-2,
Commercial, has been owned by our company for approximately
12 years. The existing C-2 zoning has been the same zoning
during this period and hence all of the homes in our sub-
division of Chanhassen Estates have been well aware of the
possible commercial use of this site. We have also had
4 x 8 signs advertising the property "For Sale" or "Build
For Lease" on this commercial site for approximately 10
years. We also have attempted to buffer the residential
area from the future commercial development by planting
evergreens and other landscape shrubbery on the south edge
of the commercial property. We have also been concerned
with the quality and architectural style of the commercial
developments in this area by requiring Texaco to upgrade
their normal gas station exteriors when they purchased
their existing site on the southwest corner of Dakota and
State Highway 5.
HOPKINS OFFICE
1014 Excelsior Ave, We have also over the years attempted to work with the
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 State Highway Department on ingress and egress for Dakota
Phone 938-7681
Avenue. I am sure you are aware that two or three years
St. Louis PARK Office ago Mr. Robert Mason and I did attend the public hearings
6010 Highway No. 7 held in February, 1975 in regard to the State Highway 5
St. Louis Park, Minn. 55416
Phone 929-5511 upgrading. The State Highway Department at that time mod-
ified their highway upgrading at Dakota Avenue to allow
Real Estate, Insurance, both right and left turning motions at this intersection.
Mortgages, Appraisals,
Commercial and Industrial Sales
Kim---
REALTOR }
City of Chanhassen
March 5, 1977
Page Two
The City of Chanhassen, the residents of Chanhassen Estates, and
ourselves as developers all went on record as desiring the above
turning motions. The general thinking of the above was that due
to the large number of homes in Chanhassen Estates some sort of
direct access to State Highway 5 was imperative, along with the
desire of the existing commercial development, Texaco, and the
anticipated future commercial development, required a right and left
turning motion with stacking lane for this intersection. The State
Highway Department did modify their original car stacking lane to
the existing design in anticipation of same.
We as developers of the proposed bowling center will be interested
in hearing any problems at this intersection anticipating the in-
creased traffic anticipated by our proposed development. You can
be assured that we will attempt to work with the City of Chanhassen
and the State Highway Department if any anticipated problems are
caused by the proposed development. I personally feel that the pro-
posed development should not adversely affect this intersection, but
definitely would encourage signalization of same if studies by the
City Engineering Department would anticipate a need for same.
I would next like to direct my comments to whether bowling alleys
are permitted or not permitted in the C-2 commercial district. The
intended purpose as I read Section 10, Item 10.01 entitled "Purposes"
clearly states "The C-2 commercial district is intended to provide
compact centers for retail sales and services offering a wide range
of goods and services" and would assume bowling centers of the nature
we propose constructing would follow under same.
The bowling center, as shown in the preliminary plans, is a building
of approximately 25,000 square feet with parking on site for 229 cars.
The building encompasses a 24 lane bowling alley, a sit down restaurant,
lounge, child care nursery, and locker rooms. The nature of the im-
provement is such that the bowling center will appeal not only to local,
but state and national bowling tournaments. The bowling center is
being constructed with anticipation of said state and local tournament
needs, which is primarily electronic scoring computers, which are
required for large tournaments. The site in Chanhassen was selected
by the tenants over a site in Eden Prairie or in Jonathan due to the
highway exposure, plus the historical appeal for Chanhassen as an
entertainment area.
The developers have a timing schedule which requires the above center
to be open and in operation no later than September 1, 1977, the basic
reasons being:
1) Bowling leagues normally are open at this date;
2) The Brunswick automatic pinsetters and bowling lanes have to be
pre -ordered from Japan and installed at approximately this date;
City of Chanhassen
March 5, 1977
Page Three
3) The concrete underfloors for the bowling alleys have to be poured
four to five weeks prior to the installation of the alleys due
to moisture affecting the above bowling beds.
The combination of the above, therefore, requires that construction
commence no later than April, 1977. I hope that we will be able to
proceed with this project on or before said date, otherwise this
development will be lost for the City of Chanhassen. The developers
are prepared to meet the time schedule outlined above if we have the
cooperation of the City.
I believe you have had the opportunity to meet with William Baden and
William Drouches and are familiar with some of their existing bowling
center developments. They have a combined experience of 46 years in
the bowling industry and I think run extremely successful bowling
centers. I would suggest that you might visit their most recent bowling
center, which is Apple Square at 42nd & Cedar Avenue in Apple Valley.
The proposed development will be upgraded somewhat from their existing
facility and slight modifications of the physical structure is also
anticipated.
Again, Bruce, I would like to work with the City of Chanhassen in
regard to this development and hopefully will move along in the time
framework outlined above. I do not concur with your suggestion that
the existing Chanhassen zoning has to be modified to specifically state
bowling alleys as an allowable use under the C-2 zoning ordinance. I
believe the intent of this ordinance is clearly stated, especially in
that said ordinance does state restaurants as an allowable use. I feel
that bowling alleys are definitely covered under the intent of this
ordinance when it states general retail sales and services. The bowling
alley portion of the above, in my interpretation, is a retail service.
The exclusions "but not including automobile, truck, tractor, trailer,
boat or other mobile power driven equipment sales or services, building
material yards or automobile car wash establishments" are not what we
are proposing. If the interpretation of the only allowable uses under
this section of the ordinance has to be stated then there are only six
other uses allowable under the existing zoning. I do not feel that
current zoning ordinances state specific uses as the only uses allowable,
but generally if the use falls within the perimeter of the intended use,
the use is allowable. Bruce, I would appreciate your reviewing the C-2
ordinance to see if you do not interpret this ordinance in the manner I
stated above. I also might suggest that you would contact our attorney,
John B. Keefe, who is with the law firm of Vesely, Otto, Miller, Keefe &
LaBore, to talk with him about his interpretaion of the above ordinance.
Their law firm is the attorneys for the City of Hopkins and have worked
with other municipal zoning ordinances. Mr. Keefe's opinion is that the
proposed use could very definitely be interpreted as being an allowable
use under your existing zoning ordinance. Mr. Keefe can be reached at
938-7635.
City of Chanhassen
March 5, 1977
Page Four
Bruce, I appreciated the opportunity to discuss this matter with you
in detail last week and am prepared to provide you with additional
plat plans, building plans, exterior design, etc. I also mentioned
that Kraus -Anderson and Balco Builders should have the final plans
and specifications available for your review this week.
Approximately two weeks ago we did discuss this matter at the annual
Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce meeting and Mr. Herb Bloomberg from
the Frontier Center has agreed to help with the exterior design
specifications. The Chanhassen Chamber appears to be quite enthusiastic
about the bowling center development.
I would also be only happy to rearrange the meeting that we had set up
for Friday, February 25 with Russ Larson, Bill Schoell, yourself, and
State Senator John Keefe in regard to our discussion about possible
State Highway participation in future roadways. Mr. Keefe is prepared
to discuss in detail possible State participation for the east -west
collector roadway from State Highway 101 and 184th Avenue. I believe
Mr. Keefe has briefly discussed this matter with Russ Larson, the
City Attorney.
Please contact me at 938-7681 if any additional information is desired.
I do plan on attending the Zoning & Planning meeting on Wednesday,
March 9, in regard to our discussion of last week. I also hope you
realize the timing of this project is important, but also recognize
that we have been working on this project since last September and
hence are now prepared to move along as quickly as possible.
Yours sincerely,
M. B. HAGEN REALTY
Eugene Reilly
Manag' , Commercial & Industrial Sales
EFR:jbh
cc: Don Ashworth, City Manager
Russell Larson, City Attorney
Al Klingelhutz, Mayor
Bernie Schneider, Chanhassen State Bank
John B. Keefe, Attorney
Robert H. Mason
Herbert A. Mason
Donald F. Hagen
pLUTION
1776-1976
CITY OF
CHANHASSU
7610 LAREDO DRIVEOP 0 BOX 1470CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317*(612) 474-8885
February 23, 1977
Mr. -Gene Reilly
c/o M.B. Hagen Realty Company
1014 Excelsior Ave. West
Hopkins, MN 55343
Re: Rezoing Procedure
Dear Mr. Reilly:
It has been brought to my attention that you are contemplating
construction of a bowling alley in the southeast quadrant of
Dakota Lane and State Trunk Highway 5. Please be advised that
bowling alleys are not permitted in any use district in the
City of Chanhassen (Reference City Ordinance 47). For the City
of Chanhassen to consider your petition, the City Council must
first amend ordinance 47 to include bowling alleys as a permitted
or conditional use in one of the commerical use districts and,
secondly, your petition will be reviewed pursuant to the yet
undefined criteria for evaluating bowling alleys.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 474-8885.
VWruceankonin
urs,
City Planner
BP:k
cc: Mr. Russell Larson, City Attorney
Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager
21
M E M O R A N D U M
CHANHASSEN - Commercial Property at Dakota and No. 5 Feb. 19, 1977
Herb and Bob Mason came in to discuss possible road construction prob-
lems which might be faced in developing the SE corner of Dakota and Hy 5
with a bowling alley. It is about a 10-Acre tract. In the past we have
maintained that it will be necessary to construct a frontage or "service"
road eastward from Dakota when that tract is developed.
They apparently have been in contact with Ken Beiersdorf, who owns
the property immediately east and who has been interested lately in doing
something with his property.
Herb and Bob asked who would pay for such a service road and were told
that they would, as owners and benefittees of the abutting property, and
that the eastward x extension thru Beiersdorf would be paid for by him. They
*aid they would like to get the road built all the way east to future Hy.
101; this would then be a benefit to them as well as to the B property.
I told them that I thought it possible that B could get permission
for a temporary access into Hy. 5-at the old sewage plant road, but that
this should not be considered in any way permanent and it would be removed
when the eastward part of the B property was developed.
They wanted to know whether any city funds were available to assist
in the construction of the service road; I said that at one time the city
had considered the use of Muni -State Aid funds for the construction of the
service road from Hy. 101 east to Dakota, mostly as an expedient to get it
built when it appeared that the Dakota Ave, crossing would be closed. Didn't
know what possibility wk there would be now for use of these funds, since
are all pledged to the construction of the new road from 78th St. north to
Carver Beach Road just ;west of the bank.
Suggested they contact Bruce -and that it might be productive to work
out something jointly with Ken B.
WDSchoell:sd
cc: ,Kon Ashworth
Bruce Pankonin
FEB1977
RECEIVED
VILLAGE OF
CHANHASSEN,
��r MINN. ^V,
8L991.
March 13, 1975
Mr. Barry Brooks, Administrator
P. 0. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Subject: Highway 5 Safety Improvements, South
Frontage Road Financing
Dear Barry:.
We have met with Chuck WeichselHaum several times, the most recent with
Pat Murphy also, in reference to getting some state contribution toward this
service drive construction between 101 and Dacotah Ave. His position:
If the state had completely closed the intersection (Dacotah) on Hy. 5,
the highway department would have to provide some other way, perhaps this
service drive, for ingress and egress of traffic. However the state has
only partially closed the intersection (or will when the improvement is
completed) and will leave the Dacotah access partially usable, so they feel
they are not legally liable to provide another access.
In placing the center divider across driveway entrances and roadways
the state's position has been upheld in court. If the MHD would contribute
any amount to placing this service drive on the basis of traffic using this
crossing, the state's position would be in jeopardy in the case of any drive-
waycoming out on a highway where the state decided to restrict traffic. By
placing a center divider on this basis, the state will not contribute any
money/to building the roadway or the purchase of R/W.
The MSA section has approved the service drive to be financed by that
fund. It will require a resolution from the council to make it feasible.
Weichselbaum said again that this service drive could be reverted to the
city and the cost of this construction deposited back into the MSA fund for
Chanhassen, to be used on some other project, less a small amount per year
for depreciation of the roadway.
Pat Murphy said that he would recommend to the County Commissioners that
they contribute 25% of the cost of signals for Dacotah Avenue. These signals
would cost between $60 and $80,000. This contribution is based on the fact
that Carver County has one, the state two and the city one leg of this inter-
section, and without the center divider, signals would be necessary for this
intersection in the future.
If Carver County's contribution were used on the whole length from Dacotah
to 101, Pat would not recommend the contribution. He reasons that this money
would be used to alleviate some cost to the owners of property in the area
where they now use Dacotah for entrance and exit. Pat also said that if the
project was carried out through MSA, he could not recommend any county parti-
cipation.
SCHOELL & MAOSON.INc_
Mr. Barry Brooks Page 2
March 13, 1975
On the basis of a cost of $80,000 for the service road job, the average
cost per foot would be $33. Within the Outlot in Chanhassen Estates the
road length is 510'. At $331' the cost of this length would be $16,830.
If the signals would cost $70,000, the county's 25% would amount to $17,500.
Receipt of this amount from the county would take all the assessment from
the property in Chanhassen Estates.
The only other property abutting this road is the Sinnen property and
the Legion property. If they would agree to pay the remaining portion of
the road cost when they subdivide and develop, if would be possible under
this financing method for the city to pay $80,000 - $16,830 = $63,170 at
the time of construction and collect this amount from these two owners
later. The problem, as we see it in this situation, is where a source of
city money to that amount could be found.
At the time when the MHD talked to the council about this service road,
their representative might have said that they would have contributed some
money toward building the service drive. However, financing since that time
has tightened up with the Highway Department and they no longer have the
money to share with the city.
Our recommendation at this time is that the city request designation of
this service drive as a MSA road, hold whatever hearings are necessary to
cause a delayed assessment for its entire cost to be placed against the
abutting property (probably only the Sinnen property), and later when the
cost is repayed, de -designate the road and deposit the money again in the
MSA fund for use elsewhere.
Very truly yours,
CITY ENGINEER
WDSchoell:sd