1b. CSAH 62/TH 101: Cooperative Construction Agreement with Hennepin County.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITY OF 1b
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Charles Folch, Director of Public Works C- �!
DATE: October 9, 1996
SUBJ. Approve Cooperative Construction Agreement No. PW46 -55 -96 with Hennepin County for
Improvements to CSAH 62 at Trunk Highway 101- PW 197B
Earlier this spring the City Council approved the plans for the reconstruction and improvements on CSAH 62 at
the intersection with Trunk Highway 101. During the presentation of the project plans, Mr. Bruce Polaczyk of
Hennepin County, noted that this project would involve the acquisition of some permanent and temporary
construction easements from a few parcels within the city of Chanhassen. Mr. Polaczyk indicated that if State
funds did not pay for all of the right -of -way costs, Hennepin County would likely ask the City of Chanhassen to
pay for 50% of the associated acquisition. Mr. Polaczyk also indicated that the specific details would be
addressed in a cooperative construction agreement between the City and Hennepin County.
Attached is the cooperative construction agreement No. PW46 -55 -96 with Hennepin County for the construction
of this improvement project. The cooperative agreement details each agency's administrative and financial
responsibilities with regard to the proposed improvement project. Section V of this agreement specifically states
that the City's total and only participation in the cost of this project is related to a share of the right -of -way costs.
All other costs including construction shall be bome 100% by the County or State. Section IV estimates that the
right- of-way expenses for those parcels within the city corporate limits amounts to $10,500. Accordingly, the
City's proportionate share is one -half or $5,250. Articles VI addresses payment for the City's share of the
easement acquisition. As indicated in previous meetings, the funding for the City share is available from an
existing development district within Hennepin County. A location map is attached which shows the pertinent
easement locations for properties within the city of Chanhassen.
The city attorney has also reviewed this document and found the agreement language to be satisfactory. It is
therefore recommended that the City Council approve Cooperative Construction Agreement No. PW46 -55 -96
for Hennepin County Project No. 9423 for the reconstruction and improvements on CSAH 62 and Trunk
Highway 101, city file PW197B.
jms
Attachments: 1. Cooperative Agreement.
2. Location map.
3. Staff report dated April 2, 1996.
4. Minutes from April 8,1996 City Council meeting.
5. Resolutions dated April 8, 1996 and April 22, 1996.
c: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
Anita Benson, Project Engineer
Bruce Curtis, Hennepin County
%cft vol2laOchert cftwneondyagr;doc
Agreement No. PW 46 -55 -96
County Project No.. 9423
- County State Aid Highway No. 62
City of Chanhassen
'
County of Hennepin
CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
'
THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this day of
19 _, by and between the County of Hennepin, a body
politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota,, hereinafter'
referred to as the "County ", and the City of Chanhassen, a body politic and
corporate under the laws.of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as
'
the "City".
iiITHESSETH•
WHEREAS, The County and the City, along with the Minnesota. Department of
Transportation,,hereinafter referred to as "Mn /DOT ", and the Cities of
Minnetonka and Eden Prairie, have been negotiating to bring about the
'
improvement of that portion of County State Aid Highway No. (CSAH) 62 (a.k.a.
Townline Road) between Trunk Highway (TH) 101 and Creek View Trail, as well as
and in conjunction with that portion of TH 101 between 210 feet north of
Pleasantview Road and Creek View Trail as shown on the County Engineer's plans
for County Project No. 9423, hereinafter referred to as the Project, which
improvement contemplates and includes grading, drainage, concrete curb and
'
gutter, bituminous base, bituminous surfacing, traffic signals with emergency
vehicle pre - emption (EVP).` system, and other related improvements; and
WEREAS, A portion of the 'above described Project lies within the
'
corporate limits of the City, and
WHEREAS, It is anticipated that all construction costs for said Project,
'
estimated at $1,972,944.25, will be funded in total with Federal and State
funds through Mn /DOT and County and Municipal State' Aid ;funds from the County
and the Cities of Minnetonka and Eden Prairie, all via other agreements with
the County; and
'
WHEREAS, The City has expressed willingness to participate in the right,
of way costs of said Project; and
'
-1- d 10V
1
I
F
' Agreement No. PW 46 -55 -96
CSAH 62; C.P. 9423
' WHEREAS, It is contemplated that said work be carried out by the parties
hereto under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 1992, Section 162.17,
' Subdivision 1 and Section 471.59.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED:
'
I
Mn /DOT and the County will advertise for bids, receive and open bids for
the work and construction of the aforesaid project. Mn /DOT will enter into a
'
contract with the successful bidder at the unit prices specified in the bid of
such bidder. The contract will include the plans and specifications prepared
by the County.
'
II
The County will administer the contract and inspect the construction of
the contract work contemplated herewith. However, the City Engineer of
'
Chanhassen shall cooperate with the County Engineer and his staff at their
request to the extent necessary, but will have no responsibility for the
supervision of the work.
III
The City agrees that the County may make minor changes in the plans or in
'
the character of said contract construction which are reasonably necessary to
cause said construction to be in all things performed and completed in a
satisfactory manner. It is further agreed by the City that the County,
through Mn /DOT, may enter into any change orders or supplemental agreements
'
with the Contractor for the performance of any additional construction or
construction occasioned by any necessary, advantageous or desirable changes in
plans, within the original scope of the Project.
i
IV
The City agrees to grant right of way to the County over those lands
'
owned by the City that are a part of the required right of way for said
project. Said right of way shall be granted at no cost to the County.
The County or its agents will acquire all additional rights of way,
permits and /or easements required for the construction of said project. The
City shall reimburse the County for fifty (50) percent of the final cost of
_2_ <
I
1
Agreement No. PW 46 -55 -96 '
CSAH 62; C.P. 9423
all additional rights of way, permits and /or easements required for the '
construction of that portion of said Project which lies within the corporate
limits of the City, plus all costs incurred by the County in acquiring said
rights of way, permits and /or easements, excluding County personnel costs. ,
The right of way costs incurred as described herein shall include all
acquisition costs including, but not limited to, any and all damages occurring '
to any person or persons, including private utilities, in relocating or
removing or adjusting main conduits or other structures located in or upon the!
land taken and within the present right of way; or damage in procuring such ,
right of way, whether such damage is caused by the County or the City in the
performance of such contract with respect to the improvement of County State
Aid Highway No. 62 as shown on the plans for County Project No. 9423.
The County will periodically, as parcels are acquired, prepare and submit '
to the City itemized accounts showing right of way and acquisition costs
incurred by the County. The City's share of said costs shall become due and '
payable within thirty (30) days after submittal.
The estimated right of way expenses described herein total $294,000.00 '
for the entire Project. The estimate right of way expenses for those parcels
within the City's corporate limits is $10,500.00. The City's proportionate
share is therefore estimated at Five Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars and No
Cents ($5,250.00). ,
V
The City's total and only participation in the cost of said Project shall '
be its payment for the aforesaid right of way costs. All other costs,
including construction costs, shall be borne one hundred (100) percent by the
other parties hereinbefore referenced.
VI
Upon the completion and acceptance of the work provided for in the
construction contract let by Mn /DOT, the County shall determine and compute '
the total amount due the County from the City as set forth herein. The County
shall apply on the payment thereof as much as may be necessary of the
aforesaid funds paid by the City. If the amount found due from the City is '
less than the amount of the funds paid by the City, then, and in that event,
- 3 - '
1
' Agreement No. PW 46 -55 -96
CSAH 62; C.P. 9423
the difference shall be returned to the City without interest. If the amount
found due from the City exceeds the total of previous payments by the City,
' the City agrees to pay within thirty (30) days of invoice by the County the
difference.
I -4- 6.V
VII
'
All payments to the County must be postmarked by the date due or a late
penalty of one (1) percent per month, or fraction thereof, on the unpaid
balance will be charged to the City. The City shall pay the amount due as
stated on the statement, notwithstanding any dispute of such amount. Should a
disputed amount be resolved in favor of the City, the County shall reimburse
the disputed amount plus daily interest thereon calculated from the date such
disputed amount was received by the County. Daily interest shall be at the
rate of one (1 %) percent per month on the disputed amount.
'
VIII
The County Engineer will prepare weekly progress reports as provided in
the specifications. A copy of these reports will be furnished to the City
upon request.
IX
All records kept by the City and the County with respect to this Project
'
shall be subject to examination by the representatives of each party hereto.
X
'
The City shall, at its own expense, remove and replace all City signs
that are within the construction limits of said Project. Removal and
replacement operations shall be coordinated with the construction activities
through the County's Project Engineer.
'
XI
Each party agrees that it will be responsible for its own acts and the
results thereof, to the extent authorized by the law, and shall not be
responsible for the acts of the other party and the results thereof. The
County's and the City's liability is governed by the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 466.
I -4- 6.V
1
i
Agreement No. PW 46 -55 -96 '
CSAH 62; C.P. 9423
The County and the City each warrant that they are able to comply with '
the foregoing indemnity requirements through an insurance or self- insurance
program. '
XII
It is further agreed that any and all employees of the City and all other
persons engaged by the City in the performance of any work or services '
required or provided for herein to be performed by the City shall not be
considered employees of the County, and that any and all claims that may or
might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act or the Unemployment '
Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while
so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence
of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any '
of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the
obligation or responsibility of the County.
Also, any and all employees of the County and all other persons engaged ,
by the County in the performance of any work or services required or provided
for herein to be performed by the County shall not be considered employees of
the City, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the ,
Workers' Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of
Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims
made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part ,
of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to
be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the
city.
XIII '
In order to coordinate the services of the County with the activities of
the City, so as to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, the Hennepin
County Engineer or his designated representative shall manage this Agreement ,
on behalf of the County and serve as liaison between the County and the City.
In order to coordinate the services of Chanhassen with the activities of ,
the County so as to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, the Chanhassen.
Director of Public Works or his designated representative shall manage this
Agreement on behalf of Chanhassen and serve as liaison between the City and '
the County.
5- L
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Agreement No. PW 46 -55 -96
CSAH 62; C.P. 9423
XIV
It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties
is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and
negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All
items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are
deemed to be part of this Agreement.
Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of
this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as
an amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties hereto.
Xv
The provisions of Minnesota Statutes 181.59 and of any applicable local
ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination and the Affirmative
Action Policy statement of Hennepin County shall be considered a part of this
Agreement as though fully set forth herein.
- 6 -
Agreement No. PW 46 -55 -96
CSAH 62; C.P. 9423
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, The parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year
first above written.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
(Seal)
And:
Manager
Date:
By:
Mayor
Date:_
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
ATTEST:
By: By:
Deputy /Clerk of the County Board Chair of its County Board
Date- Date:-
APPROY AS TO FORM:
By:
As istant County I
Date: f
APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION:
And:
Assistant /County Administrator
Date:
And:
Director, Department of Public Works
and County Engineer
Date:
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
By: By:
Assistant County Attorney Transportation Division Engineer
Date: Date:
-7-
1 13
L IJ
TT
9!
90 9t 97
66
0
it I
WOOD FENCE ........
... . --------
............... -- ........
--------------
------------
------------ ------
................
..........
- _ -- - - - -- ---- I ---------------
7 ---- i -------
r
x=
20 •---
=92 1 1 9020 !IOC \ 902
1896 (�
189.619 25'
9
S --------------
v R _D
....... ---
NCTE3 EXISTING TEWPORARY CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENT OOCLAIENT NO. $911978.
-------------------
... . ... . ...
- ---------
P_c•I
E— t IV)
Ea,•tt�m f'tV)
.0
11111
I�1
1 : •1�
ODIA
O;d A 1*1
•6 .
0018
oft;d S,_3:
003•
Dori, L• vr00r1,•lli
I
lobs
003A
Gary R;at da,F%
061
��i =1
105
086
Cn 1011 A. PqjIG• j
WALL 575
IST3
oat
Gerald RmAim
WALL 822
2205
Doll
O.W. Loco,
WALL all
IM
009
Jan M. wo"IrN,
943
090
&-;m G. J-1
WALL 009
969
091
Suacm veyra—rI
WALL 019
IT?
092
S. Petrooka
WALL 723
1109
093
J.L. I.aQtMMtI
094
•le.lirocier C. .0gA~,
0"
D-;•. G. Dvc"""`
095A
IL L•ii•w% A A.
'TO
096
N- Ccr%GIR, .O a Ina.
FEE 28889
Jwry A. mcoanald
WALL 1 061
1746
Will; A. Latcw
WALL S97
1072
Gary W. Wl.orm
WALL 660
1448
Jeffrey R. Still,"
WALL Is?
1311
1896 (�
189.619 25'
9
S --------------
v R _D
....... ---
NCTE3 EXISTING TEWPORARY CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENT OOCLAIENT NO. $911978.
MATCH LINE STA. 122.50
S.A.P. 27-662-55
M.S.A.P. 142-020-24
CERTIFIED By AEG. .0. DATE M •
S. A - P. 181-020-113 RIGHT OF WAY PLAN STA. 110+00 TO STA. 122+50 •
HENN. CO.
SHEET R1 OF R2 SHEET'
l !U ,
aX
"Al
.0
11111
I�1
1 : •1�
18918 B7 t
i 1
�
iv
'9904 6
_
��i =1
I� Mlle
MATCH LINE STA. 122.50
S.A.P. 27-662-55
M.S.A.P. 142-020-24
CERTIFIED By AEG. .0. DATE M •
S. A - P. 181-020-113 RIGHT OF WAY PLAN STA. 110+00 TO STA. 122+50 •
HENN. CO.
SHEET R1 OF R2 SHEET'
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN �
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 '
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM '
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Charles Folch, Director of Public Works '
DATE: April 2, 1996 '
SUBJ: Approve Plans for the CSAH 62 and Trunk Highway 101 Intersection
Reconstruction (Hennepin County Project No. 9423) - City File PW 197B ,
The proposed Hennepin County Improvement Project No. 9423 to reconstruct the intersection of
'
CSAH 62 and Trunk Highway 101 is the final stage of the overall multiple phase and year capital
improvement program to reconstruct CSAH 62 along the common border between Eden Prairie
and Minnetonka. The primary elements of this project are to realign the westerly intersection
curve between CSAH 62 and Trunk Highway 101 to a flatter degree of curvature, realign the
intersection with Townline Road/Vine Hill Road to the west, installation of concrete curb and
gutter, storm sewer, and landscaping. The official plan set is much too large to include in the City
Council packets, however, I have included a half -dozen pages from the plan set which pertain
particularly to Chanhassen. If anyone wishes to view the complete plan set, it is available in my
'
officer
Based on staffs' discussion with representatives from Hennepin'County in mid- March, the '
easement acquisition process is neanngits completion Depending on the timing needed to
receive all of the `MnDOT approvals for the project; �it ispossible that a ate- or °easy -June
letting would take place One requirement of the MnDOT review process is to have Chanhassen ,
approval of the project plans. There will be no local costs to the City,of Chanhassen associated
with the construction of this project, however, Hennepin "County 'has indicated that if State
funding does not cover the easement acquisition costs in full, they may ask the City to consider a '
cost share_ w , q �
s
Representatives from Hennepin County (Craig Twinem, Project Manager and Bruce Polaczyk, '
Design Engineer) will be at the City Council meeting to provide a presentation of this project and
answer any questions which may arise. '
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Don Ashworth
April 2, 1996
Page 2
Staff views this project as an improvement to the CSAH 62 and Trunk Highway 101 intersection
and therefore recommends that the City Council approve the plans for the CSAH 62 and Trunk
Highway 101 Intersection Reconstruction Work (Hennepin County Project No. 9423) dated
March 8, 1996, City File PW 197B.
ims
Attachments: 1. Cover Sheet and Plan Sheet Nos. 23, 27, 40, L4, T5, and R1.
2. Resolution.
3. Pages 1 through 7 of Project Memorandum.
C. Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
Bill Bement, Engineering Technician II
Mike Wegler, Street Superintendent
Bruce Polaczyk, Hennepin County
1r.)cnZ)chw1esWc cuh62.101
City Council Meeting - April 8, 1996
that the Powers Boulevard Reconstruction Project #93 -29 be awarded to Brown & Cris along with alternate, bid
alternates #1 and #2.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Charles. Any questions?
'Councilman Berquist: In the memo you mentioned that the engineer's estimate for alternate 2 was $75,000.00
but in the letter from the engineer to the county engineer, his estimate was, now where am I? Am I reading this
wrong7
Charles Folch: $90,000.00, yeah. Actually I think he revised his numbers up at the last minute but the original
amount that was presented to you at the time of final approval was $75,000.00.
Couaer7man Berquist: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? If not, is there a motion?
Councilman Mason: I'll move award of bids for Powers Boulevard reconstruction from Trunk Highway 5 south
to Lyman Boulevard, Carver County Project SAP 10- 617 -14, City Project No. 93 -29, awarded to Brown & Cris
Inc., including bid alternate 1 and bid alternate 2, is that correct Charles?
Charles Folch: That's correct.
Councilman Mason: Yes, okay.
Mayer Chmiel: Okay, is there a second?
Councilman Berquist: I'll second it.
Resolution #96 -35: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded that the contract for the Powers
Boulevard (CSAH 17) Reconstruction Project from Trunk Highway 5 south to Lyman Boulevard, Carver County
Project SAP 10- 617 -14, City Project No. 93 -29 be awarded to Brown & Cris Inc. at a total base bid of
$3,276,366.48 including Bid Alternate No. 1 at $63,583.78 and Bid Alternate No. 2 at $71,524.85. All voted in
favorand the motion carried.
`t�,, APPROVE PLANS FOR THE INTERSECTION RECONSTRUCTION WORK ON CSAH 62 AND TH 101
�L (MNNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT) - C1TY FILE NO. PW -197B.
Charles Folch: Tonight we have representatives of Hennepin County, Mr. Craig Twinem and Bruce Polaczyk
that are here tonight to advise you with a quotation of the project that's before you for consideration.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
Bruce Polaczyk: Well good evening Mr. Mayor, members of Council. My name is Bruce Polaczyk.. I'm a
design engineer with Hennepin County and our neighbors to the east, we certainly welcome this opportunity to
be here. With me tonight is Craig Twinem. He's the project design engineer for this project. My purpose
actually is to kind of give you a brief overview and then I'll turn Craig over to go through the details of the
project But I assume that with Charles and the information that he's provided in the Council packet, that you
r
1
1
, I]
15 1
I .
t
I City Council Meeting - April 8, 1996
:are aware of the background and so therefore I will not take the time to review that aspect of it. As Charles
mentioned, the project that's under consideration is an extension of the project that's currently under construction
from Trunk Highway 101 east to County Road 4. This is a Hennepin County project with a combination of
support from the cities of Eden Prairie and Minnetonka. That project that is currently under construction
includes a temporary connection at Trunk Highway 101, and it also includes a temporary signal. Well what this
project will do, and which is what Craig will walk us through, is actually to eliminate that temporary signal and
.it we'll actually put in a permanent signal along with permanent roadway on Trunk Highway 101, both east and
- west of the, perhaps north and south of the intersection of Crosstown. The major design elements of the project,
as I mentioned, will include a temporary or a permanent signal at the intersection of TH 101, Crosstown and
Dell Road. The project will also flatten the curve on Trunk Highway 101 at the west. It will include curb,
1 gutter, storm sewer, and will include a landscape element that again, Craig will go through and talk us through.
We also will realign Vine Hill Road, with the connection there at Trunk Highway 101. Insofar as the right -of-
way_ In Chanhassen there are four parcels that are affected and those parcels obviously are on the west side.
They do include primarily temporary easements. There is a permanent easement that will be necessary for the
construction of the wall and that wall will be explained by Craig when he goes through that. The project cost
actually is $2 million. The funding for the construction will come primarily from four sources. There's Federal
funds and State funds. By State funds I mean State Trunk Highway funds. And there will be municipal funds.
Now the city of Chanhassen is not being called upon to participate in any of the construction costs. However,
the right-of-way that I had mentioned and the four parcels that are included as a part of this temporary
easement, do have an estimated value associated with them about $10,000.00 for the four parcels. We will be
' entering into an agreement with the State of Minnesota to capture funds for the project an we anticipate that
those funds will include monies to cover the right -of -way costs. Now given the worst case scenario, if the State
funds do not pick up all of the right -of -way cost, we may then ask the City of Chanhassen to pay for 50% of
that right -of -way cost along that west side of the roadway, which would equate to approximately $5,000.00.
' Again, thafs an estimate. We don't have, we're just in the process of negotiating with the property owners. We 31
do have one property owner where we have a verbal agreement. The others we are working on through staffs
agreement with them. As far as the schedule. We are looking for opening bids around early June.
Construction I would assume then would start in say mid to the later part of July. Possibly later. And
construction will take us through this summer and more than likely will carry through into the following year.
And I assume that if the contractor can get as early a start as possible...
' (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Craig Tsvinem: This first drawing that I have up here shows the existing roadway. It's highlighted in orange
and you can see the severe turn, curve at Vine Hill Road as well as where Trunk Highway 101 turns to the
north at the intersection of Dell Road and existing County Road, Hennepin County Road 62. As Bruce
mentioned, the primary design feature of the revised intersection is flattening the curve. On this layout we got
the permanent construction highlighted in orange and in Chanhassen the retaining wall that Bruce is talking
about runs from this point to this point. The construction limits are the dashed line and you see the construction
Emits touch down prior to the existing wood fence along the west side of TH 101. So the construction limits do
not go— There is, although it doesn't show on this drawing, there's a proposed bituminous trail along Vine Hill
' Road and on the north side of TH 101 to this intersection here. There's also bituminous path on the, proposed
for the east side of TH 101 and on both sides of Hennepin County Road 62, as well as this side of Dell Road.
Again this intersection will have a signalized traffic signal. The other thing I wanted to show you was the
landscape features, and we've just highlighted the proposed plantings in Chanhassen and they include some
Colorado Green Spruce and some Ash trees. The existing, there's some trees along here that will be removed to
i I
16
1
City Council Meeting - April 8, 1996
construct the retaining wall, and it's part of the reasons why we proposed these plantings shown. 1 guess that's
the end of my presentation. Do you have any questions about the plan?
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Steve, do you have any questions?
Councilman Berquist: No. Not right now.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Are you going to raise the elevation? Right now it's quite a bit down from where
theyll be cutting into.
Craig Twinem: Actually the elevation at this intersection will be lowered about 6 to 7 feet and really the traffic
will be maintained at all time throughout construction. So we have a very, kind of a complicated staging plan
proposed. There will be some temporary widening and this is actually quite a challenging intersection to build.
We propose maintain traffic at all time.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well the grades, or not the grades but the elevations are different on the Vine Hill.
Are you going to cut into all of that fill? I'm not explaining myself well. Will you need to make the curve
more gradual?
Craig Twinem: Where this?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah right there. That right now is quite a bit higher than the road.
Craig Twinem: It's lower. There's also retaining walls proposed on the Eden Prairie side, all along this area in
here. So they can raise a large.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike.
Councilman Mason: I'm going to be kind of sorry to see that old landmark go.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I actually attach nostalgia to concrete but I know what you mean.
Councilman Mason: That's an old corner. No.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: I've got a couple. What are you going to do about the driveways that back directly out onto
TH 141 on the north side?
Craig Twinem: Off of Vine Hill?
Councilman Senn: No. Go to the east. Right in there. You've got a couple driveways that back :right into the
right -of -way there. Are those going to remain back into the right -of -way?
Craig Twinem: Yes. This one here?
17
L�
r]
H
u
�I
w
City Council Meeting - April 8, 1996
' Councilman Senn: Well there's two now. Correct?
Mayor Chmiel: Two existing but I don't think they're...
Bruce Polaczyk: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I think the one driveway that Councilmember Senn is
referring to, is one that connects to the existing Trunk Highway 101, which will with this project, be connected
in with that gooseneck, if you will. Where it comes into Vine Hill Road. So actually the one.
Councilman Senn: You're going to eliminate one and you're not going to eliminate the other?
Bruce Polaczyk: Right.
Councilman Senn: Is there anyway to eliminate that other one?
Bruce Polaczyk: We'd certainly like to but I just don't see how we could do it. You're absolutely right. On
any driveway intersection...
Councilman Senn: I drive past there every morning. That's a daycare place too so.
Bruce Polaczyk: But we have to give them access too.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. Secondly, in terms of what you have planned trail wise, is there a reason why you
aren't bringing your trails down to the south?
Bruce Polaczyk: Well the, as Craig mentioned, there is a trail on the north side of TH 101. There was not one
proposed to the south primarily because the addition of trails really is the municipal's charge and we were not
requested by the city to extend that trail further to the south. I believe the City of Eden Prairie will extend a
trail along the, correct me if I'm wrong Craig ... along Dell Road I know to the south. I don't know how far to
the south but I know they will extend one along Dell Road. I don't believe they have any plans for extending a
trail on the south side of TH 101, to extend it south.
' Councilman Senn: Now where you're constructing and going through there and building those walls, is there
going to be room for a trail to go through there even?
Bruce Polaczyk: Probably not. Probably not. In the future.
Craig Twinem: There may be on the Eden Prairie side but the trail would be right adjacent to the curb.
Charles Folch: On the Chanhassen side though Craig, there is, it appears from the cross sections that there is a
flat area between the curb and the wall on the west side that you can put a trail, future trail through. At least on
the Chanhassen side.
Craig Twinem: Yeah, there's a bigger distance between the edge of the roadway...
' Mayor Chmiel: Alright, any other questions?
Councilman Senn: No questions.
' 18
G
City Council Meeting - April 8, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a motion to approve these plans?
Councilman Senn: Before we do I guess I'd like to make a comment. I guess I am somewhat disappointed and
somewhat perplexed that there's no trail to the south. You're going to be dumping a huge amount of new traffic
onto TH 101 effectively right into Chanhassen. Our neighborhoods along there are already isolated. Very
difficult for them to get anywhere and the kids to get anywhere. And I see basically a trail system effectively
going in to serve the residents of Minnetonka and Shorewood very adequately and I see absolutely addressing of
that issue as it relates to Chanhassen, which would be a simple task of bringing a trail down and hooking it up
to Pleasant View which is effectively about as far as you're going with your improvements for now anyway. I
just, I don't know. That continues to be a real problem. That road continues to be a real problem. What you're
going to do with 62 dumping traffic onto it is going to make it an even huger problem. I think somebody ought
to lean a little bit towards solving part of the problem. At least with this type of construction, accompanying it
with some trails and stuff that at least the kids and stuff can use safely to get places. And I guess I'm really
disappointed it's not there.
Bruce Polaczyk: Well Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, the one thing I can say though is that as I
mentioned there are several sources of funds that will be used to build this project. One of those obviously is a
major fund... And in order to capture those funds there are elements that obviously would be included as a part
of this and trails would be one of those elements. The down side however is that because the project doesn't
really extend too far to the south. I mean it goes beyond the curve and then goes maybe 1,500 feet to the south,
we really don't have a logical termini in which to hook up to any kind of trail system. In order for the Feds and
for the State to allow you to use money on this project, you would have to come up with a trail system where
there would have to be some logical terminus and to terminate it at, where Craig has got his pencil, would be
not acceptable in the eyes of the State and in the eyes of the Federal government. Or as Charles bad mentioned,
there appears to be space on the west side of the roadway for maybe a trail at a future date, and it's something
maybe that I should address in that I know that my boss, Jim Grew who is the Transportation Division Engineer
with Hennepin County, I know has had meetings with the State and I believe Charles has been involved in
those. Or at least I knew of one where there have been discussions about the upgrade of Trunk Highway 101
from Trunk Highway 5 north up to County Road 62. I guess I'm here to say that Hennepin County is very
supportive of that. We are continuing efforts to establish and continue dialogue with the city of Chanhassen,
and also Carver County. And we are willing to take the lead on establishing those negotiations and come to an
agreement so that eventually, in not too distant a future, we can establish a project to reconstruct TH 101 from
TH 5 up to CR 62. Now with that construction, perhaps a trail can be included. Therefore you would have
some logical termini. TH 5 all the way up to CR 62.
Councilman Senn: Don't get me wrong. I'm glad Hennepin County is supporting this and that. I'm aware that
and I think that's really great but the turn back and the upgrade of TH 101 is several years away. You know
this is going to happen now. It seems to me this is an ideal opportunity where we're going in and we're ripping
up the landscape. We're widening the road. You're effectively coming within a few feet of Pleasant View which
is a logical terminus at this point for a trail. At least coming into something in Chanhassen and you're not
talking advantage of the opportunity. And we're going to be going back later and spending more dollars to
construct the same thing which could really be constructed now because even if that area's there, you know as
well as I do ... lot more costly in building that trail than putting it in now. All of the funding you've cited here...
very favorably upon trail systems which accommodate them and run with them and I see all of that treatment
there but I don't see any coming south there and I think it shouldn't be an oversight. I think we should really
bring it down and bring it down there.
19
1
1
I City Council Meeting - April 8, 1996
Bruce Polaczyk: Well Mr. Mayor, members of Council, I don't think it's an oversight. I think that again, it's
something where, as I... to reiterate the point but there has to be a logical termini and it would have to be
integrated in with the city's say master trail plan. Now the one thing that we can do and we certainly will, will
be to work with Charles on reviewing what that master plan is and seeing if there is something that can be
incorporated into the plan. If there is, then next step that we would have to do though is to consult with the
State of Minnesota and the Federal Highway Administration determine if they would accept a trail as a part of
' ibis project on say the west side. Say from that pencil line north to some maybe unknown terminus. I don't
]mow. We'd have to consult with them and check it out.
Mayor Chmiel: Probably if you could work with Charles in regard to this and come up with some kind of a
' possible solution with the concerns that we have, or at least within our particular area. We would appreciate
chat as well.
Bruce Polaczyk: Sure. And the other thing I should mention too Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, in
doing that, we certainly will do that if there's something that can unfold that would be positive, then as I
mentioned earlier where I said that there would not be a construction cost to the city, in this case if a trail
would be added, that certainly would be added to the construction cost that would have to be part of the city's
contribution. And then the other thing I did mention but I mentioned as far as ... the right -of -way costs, that
would be applied against the city for say 50 %. We then would have to enter into a construction cooperative
agreement with the city to retrieve those costs and that's something that we would put together say within the
' month or whatever... But we definitely, we'll work with Charles and see if there's anything that we can do. I
brow it's, our plans are completed and they've been submitted to the State for final approval but we will take
That one last effort to see if there's something that we can work out.
Councilman Berquist: Do you have your doubts?
Councilman Senn: This is the last hour and we're hearing the issue.
i Councilman Berquist: What you're telling us is that the plans have already been submitted to the State for
approval and you're out here for approval and that Federal funds are predicated, Federal funds that would
include any sort of a trail would also have to include a terminus, and a terminus is not regarded as any ... it has
to exist. It can't be down the road. It can't be in the future when the turn back on TH 101 takes place. And
you're also saying that the Federal funds are predicated, the Federal funds would come into play and pay for the
trail but the City of Chanhassen would be responsible for the cost.
Bruce Polaczyk: Well, no. See the Federal funds do not pay for any of the trail costs. That would be State
Aid funds. Either State Aid funds or Trunk Highway funds. See we've applied for what they call ISTEA,
you've probably heard that. Charles has probably mentioned that word before. ISTEA. We've applied for
Federal funds oh about a year, year and a half ago. We were successful in getting approval for our application
and we would have $800,000.00 with Federal funds ... but primarily those funds will be earmarked for the road
purpose. The construction of the road.
Mayor Chmiel: I understand what you're saying. I also sit on the Transportation Advisory Board of the Met
Council so I'm aware of the discussions you've been having and the format that they normally go through.
20
1
City Council Meeting - April 8, 1996
Councilman Berquist: Well I don't understand what he's saying. He's saying the Federal funds are tied in to
having a terminus and yet Federal funds have nothing to do with the project. Or what he's saying is Federal
funds have nothing to do with that side of the project.
Councilman Senn: Steve that's not true. They've got ISTEA funds on this and one of the biggest evaluation
criteria in getting ISTEA funds is multi -mode or more or less multi forms of transportation occurring within the
same area. That's why if you go down and evaluate all the new CR 62 and how it's being designed, it's
designed with all the different modes of transportation built into it. That's why they got an ISTEA. grant
because that's one of the biggest, all that stuff is there. That's what they want to see for ISTEA. A big criteria
so and you know, I'm going to go back to the beginning with my comments and I'm just, here we are getting
this now. To approve the plans and we find out in the planning stages that the issue was not even brought up.
It wasn't even addressed. It wasn't even considered. And that really bothers me. And here we're being asked to
approve some plans here tonight which are already approved by the State and everybody else so the odds of
ever getting anything changed on this I think are probably going to be slim to none.
Councilman Berquist: That's why I said...
Councilman Senn: And there's no way I'm going to vote for it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright. Any other discussion? Seeing none, I'll call a question. All those, can I have
a motion first?
Councilman Mason: Yes. I'll move approval for plans for CSAH 62 and Trunk Highway 101 Intersection
Reconstruction, Hennepin County Project No. 9423, City File PW -197B.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second? I'll move the second.
Councilman Mason moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve the plans for CSAH 62 and Trunk Highway 101
Intersection Reconstnmtion Work (Hennepin County Project No. 9423) dated March 8, 1996, City File PW197B,
as presented. Councilman Mason and Mayor Chmiel voted in favor. Councilman Berquist, Councilman Senn
and Councilwoman Dockendorf voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3.
Mayor Chmiel: 3 to 2.
Councilman Berquist: At what point do you correct short- sightedness? When it's done?
Councilman Senn: I think it's before we approve it.
Mayor Chrniel: I think basically there was some misunderstanding. In order to go through the prowess and get
the approval to where the proposal has been, that was not part of that particular project. Nor the dollar
allocations that could go into that. And I understand where you're coming from as to how it's really going to
affect us from our particular side. Under the same token, they're also saying that they can look at this side and
come up with hopefully a conclusion as to how this trail could be incorporated into this particular project. It
can't be allocated from the Fed's but it can be from State Aid. And with those State Aid dollars they could
Ma ke some changes.
21
1
it
1
1
City Council Meeting - April 8, 1996
Councilwoman Dockendorf. For me it's not even so much a matter of getting the trail built but at least have
some foresight in leaving some room for it on the westerly side.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Yeah.
Councilman Senn: Those are the plans we should approve when we have the answers to those questions. Right
now they arenl even being addressed.
Councilman Berquist: What strings do you put on it? If they approve with the stipulation that the exploration
of the trail... Should you tie your hands tight enough to make that work happen?
Bruce Polaczyk: Well you have, you certainly would have my commitment that we would evaluate and we'll
nave those discussions with city staff in determining if a trail should go in, or where it could go in. And then
we would have to take that one step further and review that with the State of Minnesota. And as I mentioned,
and you brought up the point. I mean granted, there are Federal funds in here and I think your concern is if it's
Federal funds, why isn't it paying to pave the park and trail system.
Councilman Berquist: I'm not smart enough to know.
Bruce Polaczyk: The thing is, when there's Federal funds involved in a project, I think you know Charles
obviously is aware of this, that there are certain conditions, stipulations and guidelines and hoops that you have
to jump through in order to capture those Federal funds. As an example, Craig you could just push that down a
little bit so it can show the trail on the east side of TH 101. I think it's the other one. The other one. Okay,
there. There is a trail proposed along the east side of Trunk Highway 101. Right about, move your pencil.
Stop. Go up a little bit further Craig. It was right about there that when the State was reviewing these plans,
that they thought that the trail terminated. And what they told us is that you can't do that. You either don't put
the trail in or you have to extend the trail up to that next intersecting street, which would be, and I'm not sure
what it is.
Craig Twinem: Creekview Terrace.
Bruce Polaczyk: Creekview Terrace. And so that's the point I was making about, you have to have a logical
termini. Otherwise they'd just say that it's not appropriate to put a trail system in.
Councilman Senn: Well we have trails on Pleasant View and to Pleasant View, okay. So I mean they are there.
So I mean to me that's the logical terminus as to where you should be bringing the construction of the trails.
Councilman Mason: What trails are on Pleasant View?
Councilman Senn: Right down by the park. There's trails coming up from the south.
Councilman Berquist: Even if they aren't any trails on Pleasant View, if in fact Creekside provides an effective
temninus for a trail by the State's definition, then why wouldn't Pleasant View?
Bruce Polaczyk: If it's a street...
Councilman Berquist: Well it's definitely a street.
22
City Council Meeting - April 8, 1996
Craig Twinem: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council if I could interrupt for a second. The ISTEA. funding for
this project only includes a trail along the north side of County Road 62 and the east side of TH 101. The trail
that we had talked 'about that runs along the north side of TH 101 up to Vine Hill was added per the City of
Minnetonka's request, and that is not part of the ISTEA application. One of the things that goes along with
ISTEA funding is our design criteria to meet bicycle standards and some of the difficulties that we had in these
relatively tight areas to provide the space that they say is needed. Now we did not have to meet those standards
in Minnetonka. Essentially the trail is right adjacent to the curb and gutter.
Councilman Senn: Well I mean, that may be the case we do in Chan but I mean it'd be nice if somebody...
, come talk to us about it versus just leaving it out. Maybe asking us to participate. Again, nobody's come here
to ask us anything as far as I know.
Councilman Berquist: Yeah I don't think the advocacy is for something from the Fed's or from the State.
There's no cost implications to the city. The advocacy is for foresight.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there any way that we, as a city, could somehow have considerations in that location
for a trail, even have a spot basically for it?
Bruce Polaczyk: You mean to have, Mr. Mayor, members of Council, to have space set aside for a future trail?
Councilman Senn: Or design one in so we know where it's going. Or maybe do it now.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Because that does loop up, from that particular point, which goes back with Chanhassen
being on the one side and Minnetonka being on the other, with Shorewood coming in to that particular area.
Councilman Senn: I guess my real question is, how long does it take you to go back and design a plan with a
trail? Whether it's built now or not is an issue we need to sit down and talk to the staff and this Council about.
Who pays for it and what's the participation...
Bruce Polacyzk: Yeah, and we'll certainly work with Charles on reviewing that.
Councilman Senn: But I mean how long would it take you to go back and put it in the design?
Bruce Polacyzk: Well if we had a system worked out, we could go to work on it immediately.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah Don.
Don Ashworth: If I might ask for Council consideration of one of two alternatives to get that in. You're right,
we have been working with Jim and we're looking at those turn back dollars as they would apply to
reconstruction of TH 101, which I would anticipate is, could include through this area or up to this area. So my
suggestion would be two fold. One would be, Council approve all with the condition that the letter of
understanding that currently is being drafted, that that letter of understanding would include the trail construction
or two, if City staff were able to reach agreement with the State and Hennepin County as to who and how that
part gets paid for. And just to clarify that later part. We did include as a part of that, Hennepin County tax
increment district, this strip that literally goes up to this area. And dollars are available. The cost, if they do all
23
r
1
L�
k
PJ
11
1
i
City Council Meeting - April 8, 1996
of the grading and whatever else, the cost of the trail itself I consider to be very minor. And I'm hoping or
believing that Hennepin County and the State would agree that we entered into a cooperative agreement like we
talked about, and provide the funds to actually carry out the construction itself. That that in all likelihood
would be very amenable to Hennepin County and I have no reason that Bob Brown wouldn't approve it. Maybe
'he's not the guy you have to go back to for this particular project.
Bruce Polacryk: Well either...
' Councilman Senn: I mean I would be more than happy to tail onto what Don just said, to forward a motion that
we'd be happy to approve these plans and specifications along with their redesign to include a trail and that you
sit down with city staff and work out how it's going to be paid for and what the best method of doing that is.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Motion on the floor as such with a second. And you do under what that is now?
Bruce Polacryk: Well I do understand Mr. Mayor. I understand the comment but if, am I to believe then that if
our efforts in implementing a trail are negative.
Councilman Senn: You need to come back and talk to us.
' Bruce Polacryk: Does that mean that the City Council then will reject the plans?
Councilman Senn: Well no, you need to come back and talk to us. At least once we know the effort's been
' made and what the conclusions are, it might be a little easier for us to make a decision. I mean right now we're
saying yes, we approve your plans and specifications contingent on the trail being there. If the only reason it's
not there is vfio's paying for it, then we can be involved in that decision. If there's other reasons, then I guess
' lefs hear what they are.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
' Councilman Berquist: Does that allow you to move forward?
Bruce Polacryk: Well it allows us, yeah right. It allows us to move forward. I guess the one thing I want to
' get cleared up though is if our efforts you know fail, for whatever reason. Beyond our control, then I guess the
point blank question then is, does that mean the City Council rejects this plan? And that's something that I have
to know.
Councilman Senn: I don't, I mean I can't speak for the rest of the Council. I can only speak for myself but if
you come back here and the efforts been made and there's a darn good reason why we can't, no I'm not looking
' to stop the project. If that's the question.
Bruce Polacryk: Yeah, that is my question. That is a very important question. Not only for this project but for
the future project.
Councilman Senn: Well, this better be a very integral part of the future project too so...
24
City Council Meeting - April 8, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have a motion on the floor with a second. Any other discussion?
Resolution #96 -36: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the plans for
CSAH 62 and Trunk Highway 101 Intersection Reconstruction Wo& (Hennepin County Project No. 9423) dated
Wtan:h 8, 1996, City File PW197B contingent on the issue of a trail being designed and constructed on the west
side of TH 101 be discussed. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PRELUM NARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 0.862 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS: LOCATED ON
ORCHARD LANE, LINGUIST ADDITION.
Kate Aanenson: This subdivision was given a metes and bounds approval by the Council back in December of
1994. You approved this one large lot. Since that time the applicant is discussing to subdivide the lot into two
lots. What's involved with this, it's pretty much a straight forward subdivision. The lots meet all the
requirements of the zone. The sewer will have to be extended approximately 160 feet to provide sewer services
to both lots. In addition there will be some grading as shown on the grading plan here. In order to maintain
the existing drainage pattern, there will be a swale between the lots. There was a concern from the homeowner
here about extra water but it will continue to flow towards Highway 7 as it does now. Other than that, we
believe it's pretty straight forward and are recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any questions of Kate? If not.
Councilman Senn: I'll move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Kate Aanenson: Can I make one clarification I forgot to mention, I'm sorry. Since this is a straight forward
issue, it should have said preliminary and final plat so if you can make that as a part of your motion.
Preliminary and final plat.
Councilman Senn: Okay, move approval of preliminary and final.
Councilman Mason: Second concurs with that.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the preliminary and final plat for Linquist
Addition, Subdivision #94 -19, as shown on the plans dated March 1, 1996, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall be responsible for extending sanitary sewer service to Lots 1 and 2. The city shall be
responsible for extending water service to Lot 2. Detailed construction plans and specifications in
accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates shall be submitted to
the city engineer for review and City Council approval with final plat consideration. The applicant shall
also enter into a development contract with the City and provide the city with a financial escrow to
guarantee installation of the sewer line and street restoration.
2 Access to all lots shall be limited to Orchard Lane.
3. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the MWCC, Health Department, and PCA for
extension of the sanitary sewer line.
25
r
0
u
1
1
' CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
' DATE: Auril 8,1996 RESOLUTION NO: 96-36
MOTION BY: Senn SECONDED BY: Berquist
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS FOR THE INTERSECTION
' RECONSTRUCTION WORK ON CSAH 62 AND TH 101(HENNEPIN COUNTY
PROJECT) - CITY FILE NO. PW 197B
' WHEREAS, plans for Hennepin County Project No. 9423 showing proposed alignment,
profiles, grades, and cross sections for the construction, reconstruction, or improvement of Trunk
Highway No. 101 at Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 62 within the limits of the City as a
Federal State County Aid Project have been prepared and presented to the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chanhassen City Council hereby
approves the plans for CSAH 62 and Trunk Highway 101 Intersection Reconstruction Work
(Hennepin County Project No. 9423) dated March 8, 1996, City File PW 197B contingent on the
issue of a trail being designed and constructed on the west side of TH 101.
' BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Chanhassen agrees to provide the
enforcement for the prohibition of on- street parking on that portion of TH No. 101
constructed under said Project No. 9423 within its corporate limits.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 8th day of April, 1996.
' ATTEST:
0
z�2 a-bt�
Don Ashworth, City rk/Manager Donald J. Ch4 iel, Mayor
YES
NO
ABSENT
Chmiel
Berquist
Senn
Dockendorf
Mason
None
None
J
r
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA 1
DATE: April 22,1996 RESOLUTION NO: 96 -37
MOTION BY: Dockendorf SECONDED BY: Mason
A RESOLUTION REMOVING THE CONTINGENCY IN RESOLUTION NO. 96-36,
INTERSECTION RECONSTRUCTION WORK ON CSAH 62 AND TH 101
( HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT); CITY FILE NO. PW -197B '
WHEREAS, Bruce Polaczyk, Hennepin County Design Engineer, attended the city
council meeting on April 22, 1996 to answer any questions on the above mentioned project; '
and
WHEREAS, Mr. Polaczyk pointed out reasons it would not be in the best interest I
of the City to build a trail adjacent to a temporary roadway.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chanhassen City Council
agreed with Mr. Polaczyk and hereby removes the contingency on the issue of a trail being
designed and constructed on the west side of TH 101, included in Resolution No. 96 -36.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 22nd day of April, 1996.
ATTEST: 1
A2 CLI��-
Don Ashworth, y Clerk/Manager onald J. C el, ayor
YES NO ABSENT
'
Chmiel Senn Berquist
Dockendorf
Mason