Administrative Sectiont
ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION
County Road 621TH 101 Construction Newsletter Update dated November 6, 1996.
Letter of Resignation from John Rask, Planner I dated November 4, 1996.
Letter from Steve Berquist to Kathy Nelson at the Villager dated November 1, 1996.
Letter from Michael Christensen, MnDOT dated November 1, 1996.
Article entitled, "Towering Controversies. "
Letter to David Nyberg dated November 1, 1996.
Environmental Commission Packet.
Defendent's Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion to Affirm the City's Denial of
Plaintiffs' Application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning, John R. Fisher and
SA Land Partners vs. the City of Chanhassen.
Letter from James Denn, Commissioner, MnDOT dated October 21, 1996
Letter from Gary Fuchs dated October 23, 1996.
Letter from Robert Lindall, 212 Community Highway Association dated October 29, 1996
Letter to Douglas Hansen dated October 28, 1996.
Thank you note from Shelia Losby, CSO.
Letter from Deputy Douglas Schmidtke dated October 25, 1996.
Letter to Scott County Sheriff's Department dated October 28, 1996.
HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT
COUNTY ROAD 62 - TH 101
CONSTRUCTION NEWSLETTER
UPDATE ///aT�'
November 6, 1996
RE: County Road 62 Construction
From County 4 to TH 101
Dear Resident:
I
The long awaited opening of County Road 62 between Eden Prairie Road and TH 101
is soon to become a reality. Weather cooperating, the contractor should have the
entire roadway opened to traffic by the end of November. County Road 62 will
neck down to two lanes as it approaches Dell Road and tie into TH 101 via a
temporary connection for the winter months. Traffic control at the TH 101
intersection will remain a stop condition for Dell Road and County Road 62
traffic. This will be a temporary situation until the new intersection is
constructed in 1997. There will still be a small amount of work to complete on
the project next spring. This will include final tree planting, yard
restoration, fence installation and general cleanup work.
As many of you may have already noticed, there has been new construction activity
along TH 101 south of new County Road 62. This is the start of the intersection
reconstruction project that will provide a four legged signalized intersection
for County Road 62, Dell Road and TH 101. Valley Paving, Inc. is the contractor
who will be working on this project. The work is scheduled for completion late
next summer.
Traffic will be maintained at all times during the course of the work by way of
stage construction. The contractor is currently excavating excess material and
hauling it off the project. Some underground utility work and retaining wall
construction may also happen yet this fall with weather permitting. No roadway
construction work that disturbs traffic will be permitted until next April.
We once again ask for your patience and cooperation as this new project is
undertaken. The contract personnel are listed below in case there are any
questions about the work.
Hennepin County Construction Field Office -- N/A
Dave Feltl (Hennepin County Project Engineer) -- 930 -2616
Don Hannan (Hennepin County Project Supervisor) -- 930 -2623
Rich Carron (Valley Paving, Inc., Project Manager -- 445 -0355
Dave Hames (Valley Paving, Inc., Project Superintendent) -- N/A
Rod Rue (Ass't City Engineer, City of Eden Prairie) -- 949 -8300
Virg Herrmann (Project Engineer, City of Minnetonka) -- 939 -8200
Bill Bement (City Inspector, City of Chanhassen) -- 937 -1900, ext. 143
After Hours Emergency Number (Hennepin County) -- 930 -2559
1
t
November 4, 1996
City of Chanhassen
' Attn.: Kate Aanenson
690 Coulter Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Kate:
1
Please accept this letter as my official resignation. My last day of work will be November 15,
1996.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for all your assistance and help over the past
two years. I feel truly privileged to have had the opportunity to work with you and the rest of
the staff. From my first day on the job, I have been impressed with the level of
professionalism and the technical competence of your department. Throughout my
interviewing process, it was clear that others recognize Chanhassen as a well managed and
progressive city.
My reason for seeking other employment was to find a position requiring greater
responsibility and technical knowledge. To a lesser degree, I was seeking other employment
because I believed that the compensation I received was below what others were paying in the
public and private sectors.
I recognize and appreciate all your efforts in providing me with a variety of challenging work
assignments, and your efforts in raising my salary to more closely match my duties and quality
of work. I have no hard feelings, complaints, or doubts in the way you managed your staff
and the duties of the planning department. I have a great deal of respect for both Bob and
Sharmin, and recognize that their experience, education, and hard work must also be
rewarded. Your fairness, willingness to listen, and sincere enthusiasm made the last two years
most rewarding and enjoyable.
As you are aware, I have taken several graduate level courses during the past two years. In
accordance with the personnel policy, I will reimburse the City for these courses.
I Thanks again.
Sinc rely,
John Rask
c: Don Ashworth, City Manager
Todd Gerhardt, Assistant City Manager
10-2 6:594t1 FROt -1 HEPIT HvAC 612 474 4243
November 1. 1996
Ms . Kathy N e 1 son C- P<--.
Chanhassen Villaq8r
Re: City Hall furniture
Dear Kathy:
In this article, ymj erroneously refer to plan holders aL5 "plant
holders" as furniture iteriis wh.L purchai:. Co he delayed
1 6ori't know how you correct. this 1.-0 the pulbl).c. eye
but I would Li VOTI to trv. ',. f P Offt a c i t i z e n s
perspective. purchasing plant holders is ludicrous :--ncjT-iqh, much
less deelayinc, tl purchase (if therm We hav �r. OUCC171 1 1 r T Is t a F: s u e S
cast. Tmor CIfy government without- t!-iis sort of error orcurring to
furtheror -
.9rmine the fait.h C s ,7--n
hanha-pen cj.t-iz have in t he 7. r-
l
.Stevert P, Ist
C•uri c), I memb e r
P . I
C-
f � 't +r7
Minnesota Department of Transportation
/r z
Metropolitan Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
November 1, 1996
0d kaW ,\_
Enclosed is a copy of the Executive Summary of the Metro Division's Draft
Transportation System Plan that will be discussed at the upcoming Open Houses
scheduled throughout the eight- county metropolitan area during November. The
Executive Summary is an overview of the Draft Transportation System Plan. Please
forward copies of this Executive Summary to other interested stakeholders.
Copies of the Draft Transportation System Plan are being mailed to the enclosed list of
stakeholders for formal review and written comment. If you are not on this list but wish
to be included, please contact Don Stevens at the address below.
We are interested in responses to the Executive Summary and /or the Draft Transportation
System Plan. Comments received on or before December 31, 1996, will be considered for
the Final Transportation System Plan to be published in February 1997. Comments on
the drafts may be forwarded to:
Don Stevens
Transportation Planning
Mn/DOT Metro Division
Water's Edge
' 1500 West County Road B -2
Roseville, MN 55113
(612) 582 -1403; Fax: (612) 582 -1368
Sincerely,
i
( c 1 M. stensen, P . I .
tant Division Engineer
Transportation Planning
I An equal opportunity employer
"17`P��
; a.
Enclosed is a copy of the Executive Summary of the Metro Division's Draft
Transportation System Plan that will be discussed at the upcoming Open Houses
scheduled throughout the eight- county metropolitan area during November. The
Executive Summary is an overview of the Draft Transportation System Plan. Please
forward copies of this Executive Summary to other interested stakeholders.
Copies of the Draft Transportation System Plan are being mailed to the enclosed list of
stakeholders for formal review and written comment. If you are not on this list but wish
to be included, please contact Don Stevens at the address below.
We are interested in responses to the Executive Summary and /or the Draft Transportation
System Plan. Comments received on or before December 31, 1996, will be considered for
the Final Transportation System Plan to be published in February 1997. Comments on
the drafts may be forwarded to:
Don Stevens
Transportation Planning
Mn/DOT Metro Division
Water's Edge
' 1500 West County Road B -2
Roseville, MN 55113
(612) 582 -1403; Fax: (612) 582 -1368
Sincerely,
i
( c 1 M. stensen, P . I .
tant Division Engineer
Transportation Planning
I An equal opportunity employer
Draft Transportation System Plan - Mailing List
Legislators
Mn/DOT
Commissioner, Deputy Commissioners, Division Directors, Assistant Division Directors, District
Engineers
Mn/DOT Metro Division
Division Engineer, Division Directors, Assistant Division Directors, and Assistant Division
Engineers
Regional Agencies
FHWA -- Division Administrator
Metro Council -- Transportation Director
PCA -- Air Quality Division Manager
DNR -- Commissioner
Counties
County Engineer
Cities
City Administrator or Engineer
Public
On request
� T
_.. I -
Metro Divis.ion.Transpodation System Plan
Minnesota Depa rtment 1Transportation g
No vember
Mission Statement
of the
Metro Division
Minnesota Department of Transportation
We strive to provide a transportation system that facilitates the safe and efficient
movement of people, goods, and services in a fiscally- responsible manner, while
working to address the diverse needs of the metropolitan community
� -1
LJ
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN
The Transportation System Plan is NOT
► A list of specific projects;
► Mandated by federal or state. It is an initiative of the Metro
Division
The Transportation System Plan is:
► Implements the Metropolitan Council's policy direction;
► Identifies system and corridor needs 20 years beyond the TIP;
► Establishes system and corridor investment goals (preserve,
manage, improve, and expand);
► Identifies corridor investment levels and timing;
► Provides a "toolbox" of potential strategies by investment goal;
► Documents a vision for both a fiscally- constrained and an
unconstrained trunk highway system: and,
► Leads to corridor -level studies and project development.
The TSP Planning Process
The Transportation System Plan (TSP) was developed by evaluating existing policy
direction, system conditions and needs, and the resources of Mn /DOT's Metro
Division. As a result, the TSP is a comprehensive planning foundation upon which
system and strategy decisions can be made. Most importantly, the TSP bridges the
gap between policy planning direction and programming by translating broad state and
regional policy direction into fiscally - realistic highway program goals and strategies.
Finally, the TSP considers diverse values and goals by cultivating consent on
investment goals and strategies, and it promotes a "system preservation and
management" philosophy by emphasizing decisions to preserve and manage the
transportation system over decisions to improve and expand it.
Planning Direction
To establish the planning direction for the TSP, the Metro Division considered
transportation trends; existing federal, state, and regional transportation policy
guidance; and held dialogues with internal and external stakeholders. As a result of
this process, the Metro Division developed the following Plan Goals and Plan
Objectives.
Plan Goals
The plan goals indicate the desired outcome of the planning process and set the
direction for immediate and future planning. The goals are listed in order of
importance.
10. Preservation of the existing transportation system:
No. Management of the existing transportation system to increase the
efficiency of the movement of people, goods, and services by optimizing
the safety and capacity of the system, thereby delaying the need for its
expansion;
10. Improvement and replacement of existing corridor elements; and,
100. Expansion to increase the capacity of the existing transportation system
5
i
Plan Objectives
The plan objective reflect what the Metro Division hopes to accomplish in the
long -term:
► Identify and address current and projected (2020) congestion, the
use of multiple modes, and deficiencies in safety and
infrastructure;
► Align roadway jurisdiction with functional classification; and,
► Conduct access management to provide for safe, efficient
operation of the roadway system.
System Status and Needs Analysis
After the planning direction was established, the current and the projected conditions of
the system were evaluated, and the preservation, management, improvement, and
expansion needs were determined.
Investment Goals
Once the needs for the system were determined, specific corridors were categorized
according to the appropriate investment goal: preserve, manage, improve, or expand.
Study and Investment Timing
After categorizing corridors by investment goal, the timing for studies and investments
were established.
System Investment Needs Analysis
Outlined below is the approach used to identify and develop preservation,
management, improvement, and expansion needs of the existing state trunk
highway system. The process began by establishing investment goals and principals
jointly agreed upon by Mn /DOT and the Metropolitan Council. The highest priority was
placed on investment strategies that preserve and manage the system. A high priority
was also placed on investment strategies that support the Metropolitan Council's land
use and development guidelines and on strategies which accommodate more than one
mode of travel or that address more than one system objective. An evaluation of trunk
highways followed, and established the appropriate system and corridor level of
investment necessary to preserve and manage the system. Remaining needs where
then identified and remaining funds allocated to address priority improvement and
expansion needs.
Investment Principles
Given the region's limited financial resources, it was necessary to develop a number of
investment principles to provide direction on the types and levels of investments that
should be made in each of the areas of preservation, management, improvement,
and expansion.
Investment Principle #1: Cost Effectiveness
Investment Principle #2: Multiple Objectives and Modes
Investment Principle #3: Land Use/Transportation Relationships
Investment Principle #4: Public Support
Investment Principle #5 Financial Stability
Investment Principle # 6 Improve Mobility
Investment Principle #7
Investment Principle #8
Complete Existing Projects
Provide Continuity
Preservation Investment Needs ,
To determine the investments required to preserve the existing infrastructure; bridges,
pavement, and other physical elements were evaluated. Bridge and pavement
preservation needs were determined using Mn /DOT's Bridge and Pavement
Management Systems. The preservation needs of the remaining physical elements
were based upon past expenditures.
Management Investment Needs
To determine the investments required to manage the system, the Metro Division
evaluated freeway management, TDM, TSM (ramp meters, arterial traffic control, and
minor geometric improvements), transit support (HOV ramp meter bypasses,
authorized shoulder bus use, park- and -ride lots), intelligent transportation systems,
and access management.
'
improvement and Expansion Needs
P P
' Due to limited funding, not all identified improvement and expansion needs can be
accommodated. As a result, a process was developed to prioritize improvement and
expansion needs. This process consisted of the following steps:
Step 1: Initial Screening
Roads with the following characteristics were eliminated from consideration for
improvement or expansion:
► Minor Arterials;
► Roads included in the TIP or that have had major improvements during
the last ten years;
► Roads forecasted to operate at level of service "C" or better; and,
► Roads with severe physical constraints (e.g., Lowry Tunnel).
' Step 2: Ranking Based on Strategic Issues
The remaining corridors were ranked according to the set of strategic issues that
were identified at the beginning of this planning process. These strategic issues
i include: mobility, safety, infrastructure, and modal /intermodalism. Land use was
also added as a factor to reflect the Metropolitan Council's land use policies. A
' weight was assigned to each strategic issue to reflect its relative importance to
the planning process.
Step 3: Evaluation by Subarea
The final step in this process grouped corridors by subarea and evaluated them
in terms of feasibility and projected expansion costs. In cases where parallel
candidate corridors serving the same general area existed, one corridor would
be considered for expansion, and the other for improvement to address localized
capacity or safety problems. In general, the corridor where capacity could be
' added at a relatively low cost was selected as the expansion corridor.
INVESTMENT GOALS
Preservation
Activities include preserving the existing facility (pavement, bridges, traffic control,
drainage, lighting), allowing it to remain in its current condition and serve its existing
purpose.
Program Strategies:
Pavement Resurfacing, Reconditioning, & Replacement, Bridge Repair &
Replacement; and Miscellaneous Repair
Manaqement
Activities include minor- and moderate -cost improvements to optimize safety, operation
and capacity of the existing facility or roadway.
Program Strategies:
TSM Strategy (Transportation System Management); Tranist Support; Access
Management; Jurisdictional Reassignment; TDM Strategy (Travel Demand
Management); ITS Strategy (Intelligent Transportation Systems); and Corridor
Preservation
Improvement
Activities include moderate -cost improvements to optimize safety, operation and to add
corridor capacity to an existing principal or minor arterial roadway.
Program Strategies:
Preservation and Management Strategies (described above), Reconstruction,
and Isolated Improvement
Expansion
Activities include major -cost improvements to increase the capacity of the
transportation system. Additional study (e.g., Major Investment Study) typically is
necessary to determine the actual mode and scope of work required.
Program Strategies:
Preservation, Management and Improvement Strategies (described above)
Road Expansion; Transit Expansion; and New Construction
F�
L
L
u
L�
'D
1
1 Investment Goals
' Constrained by Available Funding
Year 2001 to Year 2020 1 Tr
Preservation N
Management A
Improvement
' Expansion
R -O -W Preservation
47
10
288
ennepin
t
' 169
r
t2 L
f �
7 t d
1011
i 5 5
26 d,
12)
212 169
^J
Carver (/
13
f V 282
169 S c o tt
I2, 13
N
19
��
' - y wowr
' # M1ietropoiGtan division
1 f 3 f
Anoka
Dakota
Chisago
Washintton
ti NNeso
o , o
Ll
FUNDING
The TSP recognizes that there are fiscal constraints and limits to the Metro Division's
ability to meet the mobility needs of the metropolitan area. The Metro Division
considered these fiscal constraints when developing the recommended Trunk Highway
Funding Plan, which outlines the levels of investment for preservation, management,
improvement, and expansion of the trunk highway system.
Recommended Trunk Highway Funding Plan
Cost estimates were developed based upon anticipated strategies for all corridors.
These cost estimates were developed for each of the program elements of
preservation, management, improvement, expansion, and right -of -way. Development
of the Trunk Highway Funding Plan assumes a fully- managed and fully - preserved
system prior to addressing improvement and expansion needs. This means that cost
estimates were developed for preservation and management first. To determine the
amount of funding available for improvement and expansion, the Metro Division
subtracted the projected costs for preservation and management from the total dollars
available. The Trunk Highway Funding Plan development process ensured that there
was no cost overlap of program elements.
The Preservation costs assume pavement replacement in all improve and expand
corridors. The preservation costs also include an additional five percent on top of the
estimated pavement and bridge costs to cover miscellaneous physical elements such
as drainage, guardrail, or lighting. Management costs were developed for each
corridor based on appropriate management strategies for that corridor. Right -of -way
costs are a percentage of the construction costs, based on the physical constraints and
abutting land use existing in each corridor. Studies have been completed in some
corridors, and where appropriate, cost estimates from these studies were used.
Improvement and expansion cost estimates assume low -cost, design- exception
strategies. Estimates were developed for high priority improvement and expansion
corridors. These estimates include the cost of preserving and managing these
corridors.
The Trunk Highway Funding Plan is based on the current Metropolitan Council's
Regional Blueprint. If the Metropolitan Council's Growth Options Study results in
changes to the land use and development plans for the metropolitan area, changes to
the TSP Trunk Highway Funding Plan may be necessary.
Future Funding
From 2001 to 2006, the Metro Division expects to receive approximately $176 million
annually, or about 44 percent of the Mn /DOT statewide construction program funds for
the Metro Division Highway Construction Program. From 2007 to 2020, the Metro
Division expects to receive approximately $167 million, annually, or 44 percent of this
same fund. Over the 20 -year planning horizon, this results in approximately $3.4 billion
available for the Metro Division Highway Construction Program.
L�
f'
2001 -2020 TRUNK HIGHWAY FUNDING PLAN
(IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
NOVEMBER, 1996
PRESERVE I MANAGE IMPROVE EXPAND I R -O-W i TOTAL
PRESERVATION
BRIDGE
Repair
Replace
PAVEMENT
Repay
Replace
MISCELLANEOUS
PRESERVE MANAGE IMPROVE EXPAND i R -O-W TOTAL
1.
$27 1 S4 1 $14 S5 $50
$30 $1 1 1 $25 $6 $61
$451 S3 $561 $21 1 $125
$11 I $21 $49 S3! $65
$141 $3 $371
$11 565
S10 S3 $28
$24
1 $6
$270
$5 i $55
$311
S41
S461
$270
5203
I S41
$87
, S20 I $118
S31
$203
$23
SS
$31
$17!
$3
1 $281
$422
S52
S21
$0
1 $37
5422
Mao. m1 only
$15
Sol
$32
$9
$201
$21
$251
S5
1 $32
I $201
PRE SERVATPON TOTAL:
$1,0971
$161
S40
S3
1 1 $1,097
S91
S i
$13
SO
I
MANAGEMENT
TSM (Ramp Meters, Traffic
Control, Minor Geometric
Improvements), ITS, TDM, Transit
Support (HOV Bypass, FIR)
Access Management
1
15
SO
$0
$851
$01
$210
EXPANSION TOTAL 70.0
$238
$210
$635
$126
$1,036
INVESTMENT SUB-TOTAL:
$1,655
sseo
$230
$635
$219
$3,030
PERCENT INVESTMENT (BEFORE ALLOCATIONS)
56%
14%
SY.
23Y.
$100
$100
NAGE TOTAL*
$3101
5310
I
IMPROVEMENT
HIGHWAY FROM TO LENGTH
I -94 McKNIGHT RD TH 120 1.7
I -35W 46TH STREET W. 1 -94 5.3
I - 35W TH 36 RAMSEY CO LINE 8.0
-694 E JCT 1 -35E TH 36 5.5
H 52 CONCORD BLVD. 1.94 (LAFAYETTE) 2.8
H 61 HASTINGS BRIDGE 06
H -169 [-494 1-94 15.8
H-169 1 -94 TH 610 2.8
H -169 MISS. R. TH 10 0.9
H36 I -35E 1 -694 6.7
H-62 1-494 1.35W 8.1
H-62 35W MNTH55 3.9
H -100 INDIANA AVE BROOKLYN BLVD 1.0
H -100 GOLDEN VALLEY RD 29TH STREET 0.5
H- 100 36TH CEDAR LK RD 1.2
TH 260 COMO TH 36 2.0
ISOLATED IMPROVEMENTS (2.0%1
PRESERVE
1 MANAGE
IMPROVE EXPAND
j R -O-W
TOTAL
$6
$11
$8
$2
$17
$161
S31
7
$9 i
$55
$27
$6
$24
S63
$16
$3
$8
$3
$29
$411
SO
1 $10
1
$10
$61
$8
$0
516
Sill
535
$3
2
$1
S3
$1
$14
$41
S21
St
$01
SS
$21
$7
$81
31 1
$5 i
18
$nl
32
$16
$121
S53
$131
$1
$81
$61
$27
$11
501 $101
S3
$14
Sol
$01
$6 .
$8
S3
S0
$121
S5
$20
S41
S2
$71
S4
$17
$34
$101
S241
$01
$68
PROVEMENT TOTAL- 66.8
SZ31
533 $2301
SS3 1 $687!
EXPANSION
HIGHWAY FROM TO LENGTH
I -94 WEAVER LK RD 1-694 8.7
I -35E TH 110 TH 5 2.3
1 -35E 1 -94 1.694 56
1 -35W 66TH STREET 46TH STREET 1.4
1 -35W WASHINGTON TH36 4.2
1.494 1- 394 4-94 5.5
1-494 TH 212 1 -394 7.9
1-494 TH 61 TH 56 16
1-494 TH T7 TH 100 5.1
H 61 60 TH ST 1 -494 1.0
1-694 1 -35W W JCT 1 -35E 5.6
H -12 WAYZATA BLVD CR 6 4.3
H 36 1 -35W 1 -35E 5.3
H 610 TH 169 CR 130 3.0
H 212 CSAH 4 LYMAN BLVD 3.2
H -252 73RD AVE TH 610 2.9
H-610 TH 252 TH 10 2.4
T RANSIT EXPANSION 2 5%
PRESERVE MANAGE IMPROVE EXPAND I R -O-W TOTAL
PRESERVE MANAGE IMPROVE EXPAND i R -O-W TOTAL
1.
$27 1 S4 1 $14 S5 $50
$30 $1 1 1 $25 $6 $61
$451 S3 $561 $21 1 $125
$11 I $21 $49 S3! $65
$141 $3 $371
$11 565
S10 S3 $28
$24
1 $6
$20
$5 i $55
$311
S41
S461
$6 $87
S8
I S41
$87
, S20 I $118
S31
$0
$23
SS
$31
$17!
$3
1 $281
S52
S21
$0
1 $37
$41
S43
$15
Sol
$32
$9
SO
$21
$251
S5
1 $32
$0
$2
S22
$161
S40
S3
$0
S91
S i
$13
SO
$1
1 $13
1
15
SO
$0
$851
$01
S85
EXPANSION TOTAL 70.0
$238
$38
$635
$126
$1,036
INVESTMENT SUB-TOTAL:
$1,655
sseo
$230
$635
$219
$3,030
PERCENT INVESTMENT (BEFORE ALLOCATIONS)
56%
14%
SY.
23Y.
ALLOCATIONS
Right-of -Way Acquisition
Supplemental Agreements
Cooperative Agreements
PRESERVE MANAGE IMPROVE EXPAND I R -O-W TOTAL
$1311 $131
$160
580
GRAND TOTAL: $1,566 $380 $230 $635 $350 53,400
STUDY & INVESTMENT TIMING
The timing of highway system investments and related studies is guided by the
investment goals of preserve, manage, improve, and expand.
Corridor Study Timing
The study timing indicates when studies should begin to ensure timely completion prior
to design and construction of the proposed projects. Studies are grouped into two time
frames: short-term, from 1997 to 2000; and mid -term, from 2001 to 2005. Potential
study type include those currently underway or completed; management, in terms of
right -of -way preservation and access management; functional classification in
conjunction with local units of government and the Metropolitan Council; improvement,
in terms of categorical exclusion, corridor studies, Environmental Assessments,
Environmental Impact Statements, and specialized environmental studies; and
expansion in terms of additional Major Investment Studies.
Corridor Investment Timing
In establishing time frames for investments, the following factors were considered
► Deliverability;
► Completion of existing projects;
► Investing within the 1 -494/1 -694 ring first; and,
► Need.
Given the high cost of completing the proposed investments, most will be phased to
allow for construction over an extended period of time. To reflect this, the strategies
have been grouped into short -, mid -, and long -term.
Short-Term (1997 -2005)
These corridors need prompt action to improve an already- deficient area. In the
future, short -term strategies should be listed in the Mn /DOT Work and Studies
Program.
Mid -Term (2006 -2010)
These corridors may need immediate action, but the problems associated with
them are not as significant as those in the short -term category.
Long -Term
These corridors may have deficiencies, but the problems are such that they
should be implemented after the short- and mid -term strategies have been
completed.
I
1
STUDY AND INVESTMENT TIMING
KEY'
, MP = IMPROVEMENT
ESU = = EX
STUDY SU STUDY 1S UNDERWAY OR COMPLETE
S = STUDY BEGINS
CORRIDOR & TERMINI
STUDY TIMING
INVESTMENT TIMING
IGHWAY FROM
TO
1997 -2000
1 2001 -2005
2006 -2010
2001 -2005 2006 -2010 2011 -2020
I -35E
ITH 110
ITH 5
S
EXP
I -35E
1 -94
11-694
S
EXP
j
135W
166TH STREET
46T
'H STREET
SU
EXP
I
I -35W
146TH STREET
IW. 1 -94
SU
I IMP
1 -35W
,WASHINGTON (Minneapolis)
ITH38
I S
I
1 EXP
I - 35W
ITH 38
:RAMSEY CO LINE
S
IMP
1-94
(WEAVER LK RD
'6894
S
EXP
1
1.94
IMcKNIGHT RD
ITH 120
S
IMP
1194
iTH 56
iTH 61
SU
i
EXP
1194
iTH 100
ITH 77
SU
EXP
1194
I -394
TH 212
SU
EXP
194
1.94
6394
S
EXP
1394
i -35W
W JCT 135E
S
EXP
1
1-694
�E JCT 1 -35E
'.TH 36
1 S I
IMP
7H -12
SCR 6
'WAYZATA BLVD.
SU
EXP
TH 36
I -35W
- 1-35E
S
EXP
TH36
J -35E
;1.694
S I
IMP
TH 52
!CONCORD STREET
1.94 (LAFAYETTE BRIDGE)
S
IMP
TH 61
:60 TH ST
..1194
SU
EXP
TH 61
(HASTINGS BRIDGE
S
IMP
TH-62
'1194
:135W
S
IMP
H-62
il-35W
MNTH55
S
MP
7H-100
;GOLDEN VALLEY RD
.29TH STREET
SU
IMP
TH- 100
136TH
CEDAR LK RD
S
IMP
TH -100
INDIANA AVE
BROOKLYN BLVD
SU
IMP
TH -169
: MISS. R.
TH 10
SU I
IMP
TH -169
'1 -94
TH 610
S I
IMP
. H -169
1194
! 1-84
S
IMP
TH 212
'CSAH 4
LYMAN BLVD
SU
EXP
TH- 252
73RD AVE
TH 610
S
1 EXP
TH 280
COMO
- TH 38
SU
IMP
TH 610
.TH 169
CR 130
SU
I
EXP
TH-610
TH 252
TH 10
SU I
EXP
i
MANAGEMENT STUDIES
STUDY TIMING
H IGHWAY FROM TO
1997 -2000 2001 -2005 2006.2010
7,47 TH 101 TH 100
S
-N 10 TH 242 T)-1 101
S
T'H 12 DIVISION LIMITS CR 6
S
H 13 TH 101 I -35W
S
TH 36 1-694 MNTH 5
S
H52 CR 42 CONCORD BLVD.
S
H 55 DIVISION LIMITS 4 (OLSON MEMORIAL)
S
T}+ 55 TH 52 TH 61
S
TH 65 I -694 DIVISION LIMBS
S
7 -4101 TH 13 CR 16/TH 169
S
'H 169 DIVISION LIMITS TH 101 (SHAKOPEE BYPASS)
S
'H 212 COLOGNE TH 5
S
`?i 242 TH 10 T H 65
S
TH 315 TH 51 HASTINGS
S
-- 41 ^a 169 TH212 (NEW ALIGNMENT)
S
KEY'
, MP = IMPROVEMENT
ESU = = EX
STUDY SU STUDY 1S UNDERWAY OR COMPLETE
S = STUDY BEGINS
CORRIDOR STUDY TIMING:
-1 nn-7 nn A n
IMPROVE/ EXPAND CORRIDOR
INVESTMENT TIMING: 2001 - 2020
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The Transportation System Plan sets forth an aggressive yet achievable strategies for
addressing transportation needs through the year 2020. However, the Metro Division
must also prepare for a highway system that will meet the needs of the region and the
state beyond this 20 -year planning horizon. While the planned facilities are in balance
with available financial resources, unmet and anticipated highway system needs will
require a substantial amount of additional funds beyond those planned.
By the year 2020, travel on metropolitan highways is projected to increase by 30
percent. More households, more vehicles, and more drivers will increase the demand
for an expanded highway network to meet these capacity needs.
By anticipating these trends and travel needs, Mn /DOT's Metro Division has the
opportunity to play an active role in influencing the metropolitan community's future.
This requires that the Metro Division continue to identify and examine unresolved
issues. The TSP summarizes issues that could not be addressed during the planning
process and institutes a work program for issue resolution.
Plan Updates
The Metro Division intends to update the TSP in conjunction with updates of the
Metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint and Transportation Development
Guide /Policy Plan, which are projected to be conducted every three years. To resolve
the remaining issues and needs, the Metro Division is committed to amending the TSP
as necessary. Developments such as the following may warrant an update to the TSP
sooner than every three years:
► If funding capabilities are not adequate to implement significant projects;
► If funding is not adequate to address needs identified through planned studies;
► If funding is not adequate to address needs identified through growth options
studies;
► If travel characteristics are not changing as anticipated. This could result in
updates of traffic forecasting assumptions and of the timing of planned
improvements;
► If changes occur in the Met Council policies on which the TSP is based.
THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN
Timeline
October 1996 Release of Draft TSP for public comment
November 1996 Open Houses to discuss Draft TSP
February 1997 Release of Final TSP
To request a copy of the Draft Transportation System Plan please contact:
Don Stevens
Metro Division Planning
Mn /DOT
Water's Edge
1500 County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
Office: (612) 582 -1403
Fax: (612) 582 -1368
Comments on the Draft Transportation System Plan should be forwarded to:
Tim Henkel
TSP Project Manager
Metro Division Planning
Mn /DOT
Water's Edge
1500 County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
Office: (612) 582 -1393
Fax: (612) 582 -1368
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
hen U.S. Cellular wanted
to build another antenna
tower in Alachua County,
Florida, a couple of years
ago, it didn't expect much
in the way of resistance. TOW
For one thing, the com-
pany already had seven
antennas in the north
Florida county. For
another, the new tower
was slated for an undevel-
oped, wooded area, just
the kind of place one
might expect to find the
occasional water tower or
radio transmitter.
To county officials,
however, the 240 -foot
tower would stick out like
a sore thumb against an unint
seemed particularly inappropriat
horse ranches planned for near y p pe
owners near the site complained that the appeal and value of
their land would drop, the county commissioners rejected the
company's application for a special -use permit. "This com-
mission has for years tried to protect our
residential neighborhoods from the incur-
sion of commercial development," says
County Commissioner Leveda Brown. "We didn't think
there was anything unusual about that."
The commission thought wrong. The company took the
board to state court, where a judge ruled that the residents'
testimony was not "competent, substantial evidence" on
which to base a decision. He ordered the county to grant
the special -use permit. The only thing stopping the com-
pany now is the paperwork for the building permit.
The situation in Alachua County is hardly typical, given
that the vast majority of antenna applications in the United
States are approved with little delay. But as the number of
applications increases and the towers start casting shadows
over residential neighborhoods, more local governments
are likely to find themselves in the same position as
Alachua County: caught between a phone company and a
group of angry homeowners.
At the same time, the courts and Congress are making it
harder for local governments to say no to antennas. The
rulings have some local of wondering if they will be
at the mercy of the phone companies' technical experts,
unable to stop or slow the proliferation of antennas in
their communities.
Rather than trying to block the antennas, some juris-
dictions are looking for ways to profit from the compa -�+
1'i[Soria Kaan illus ration
nies' use of the public rights of way —for
example, by demanding a share of the
companies' revenues. Not surprisingly,
the phone companies have asked federal
regulators to ban that kind of levy.
Today there are
roughly 20,000 transmis-
sion facilities for mobile
phones. By the year 2000,
the industry estimates,
1 R S I I S there will be 115,000.
That means close to six
antennas for every one
now standing, not count-
ing the ones that handle
paging and data- transmis-
sion services. The cellular
antennas will be replaced
by smaller ones as their
numbers grow, but many
now are 150 to 250 feet tall.
of antennas stems in part from
gi d newly authorized services. The
two cellular companies in each market soon will be joined by
half a dozen new competitors, all of them needing to install
antennas. Some of those competitors —the companies offer -
ing a more advanced form of cellular tech-
' nology known as "personal communications
services," or PCS —have already paid the
federal government close to $8 billion for their frequencies,
so the pressure to get the services up and running as
quickly as possible is formidable.
"I don't think you want to be the jurisdiction that stands
in their way," said E. Eugene Webb, assistant director of
information systems for St. Petersburg, Florida. "If you get
into a war with one of these outfits, they're going to use
atomic bombs. They're not going to start out with rifle
shots."
Industry officials say that new antennas invariably follow
the demand for portable phone service, which increased
58 percent from mid -1994 to mid -1995. Thus, the losers in
the disputes over antenna sites are not just the phone com-
panies, they say, but also the residents whose mobile
phones won't work as well without the extra antennas.
Antenna strategies vary from company to company, but
the basic needs are the same. Each service area is divided
into "cells." As the number of users increases, the cells
have to be split into smaller and smaller units, each
served by its own antenna. The antenna must be tall
enough to be seen from any point in its unit, but low
enough to be hidden from the signals in neighboring
units.
When service is just beginning, a company can usually
Some communities are trying to keep cellular
phone companies from crowding the
landscape with towering antennas. Others
are trying to get a cut of the action.
errupted skyline. It �(l �` of the ones going up
e next to the upscale � � The proliferation
b lots When ro rty - ' new technolo 'es an
get by with one or two tall towers. They
also have a lot of flexibility in placing the
towers because there usually are plenty of
technically suitable sites. As the cells are
split into smaller and smaller fragments,
however, a lot of that flexibility is lost.
Some local officials complain that
mobile -phone companies have adopted a
take- it -or- leave -it strategy. Backed by in-
house engineers and consultants, some
companies have insisted that their chosen
sites are the only ones that are technically
suitable. This kind of approach puts small
towns and rural counties without the
resources to hire their own experts in a
tough position when residents complain
about a proposed antenna.
Such -vas the case in Blairstown Town-
ship, a bedroom community of about
5,000 residents in the foothills of north-
western New Jersey. Looking to eliminate
gaps in its coverage, Pennsylvania Cellu-
lar proposed in 1994 to put a 180 -foot
antenna tower on a hill in an industrial
zone that had yet to attract any industry. A
handful of property owners in the area
argued that the antenna would drive
down the value of their homes, and the
Blairstown board of adjustment denied
the company's application for a variance.
Pennsylvania Cellular then sued in
state Superior Court, accusing the board
of acting arbitrarily. A state judge ruled in
mid -1995 that the tower was a `beneficial
use" of property, so the local board had to
allow it to be built somewhere in the
township. Despite several alternatives
offered by local officials, the company
insists that its originally proposed loca-
tion is the only suitable one.
That doesn't sit well with Elwin V.
Barker, chairman of the board of adjust-
ment. "They're asking people to make a
sacrifice for their benefit," Barker says.
"They're coming along and saying, "This is
the way it's going to be because we want it
to be that way, so we can make money." '
' ndustry officials have their own set of
complaints. While most local zoning
boards are fair and reasonable, says
industry spokesman Mike Houghton,
companies are running into an increasing
number of roadblocks stemming from
superficial or irrational objections.
In West Hollywood, California, for
example, the city council turned down
Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.'s bid
to upgrade an antenna after residents
complained about health risks. One
woman claimed that cellular antennas
38 GOVERNING February 1996
While local govern-
ments approve the vast
majority of antenna
applications, the indus-
try wants to take them
out of the picture.
had killed one of her dogs and given her
other pets headaches. Rather than going
to court, though, the company has redou-
bled its public - relations efforts in the
community as it keeps trying to build
new antennas.
To ease concerns about health and
safety, the mobile -phone companies often
mount grassroots campaigns touting the
strength of their antenna poles and the
comparatively low power of their opera-
tions. Lisa Bowersock, a spokeswoman
for US West's cellular -phone division,
says the company's typical antenna oper-
ates at roughly 100 watts —the power of a
strong light bulb.
Responding to residents' complaints
about aesthetics, many wireless compa-
nies are placing their antennas with other
companies' antennas or camouflaging
them to blend in with their surroundings.
Antennas have been made to look like tall
pine trees, church steeples or street
lights.
So far, the companies have been
largely successful in their antenna- build-
ing efforts. A survey in November 1995
by the American Planning Association
found that 92 percent of the applications
for cellular antenna towers had been
approved in 230 U.S. cities and counties.
Almost three- quarters were approved in
less than two months.
Nevertheless, the industry's trade asso-
ciation has tried in Washington to take
local governments completely out of the
picture. The association has asked the
Federal Communications Commission to
curtail local zoning power over antennas,
but the FCC is not expected to grant that
request.
The industry also lobbied Congress to
limit zoning powers as part of the massive
telecommunications - overhaul bill under
consideration last year. Lawmakers came
down largely on the side of local govern-
ments, but they did propose to prohibit
local officials from taking any action that
effectively blocks mobile communica-
tions services, imposes unreasonable
delays or discriminates unreasonably
among competitors.
T o prepare for the increase in
antenna applications, some com mu-
nities are writing ordinances to
address the most common public con-
cerns. Blairstown Township ordered
companies seeking new antennas to pro-
vide a master plan for all antenna sites in
the community. That way, the township
can factor the future antenna needs into
its land use plans and possibly avert dis-
putes down the road, says Richard T.
Coppola, the township's planning consul-
tant. But industry officials say it is hard to
predict how much the demand will grow
and where growth will be concen-
trated —two key elements in determining
the need for and placement of antennas.
St. Petersburg has taken a different
approach, trying to steer antennas onto
public property. Webb predicts that as
companies rush to build towers, cities
and counties will cut deals allowing the
towers to be built on public property in
exchange for part of the revenue.
Typically, cellular companies pay fixed
rents to lease antenna sites rather than
paying a percentage of their income.
Under an ordinance adopted in 1990, St.
Petersburg plans to charge PCS services
5 percent of their gross revenues, in addi-
tion to a $50 permit fee and a $100
annual fee for each antenna.
The phone companies argue that this
kind of regulation was outlawed by Con-
gress in the Omnibus Budget Reconcilia-
tion Act of 1993. A provision of that law
prohibits state and local governments from
regulating the rates or entry of mobile
communication services in their markets.
After Roseville, Minnesota, adopted a
series of ordinances that demanded 5
percent of the local PCS companies' rev-
enues, the companies appealed to the
Federal Communications Commission
for preemption. The commission is still
reviewing the companies' petition.
Nevertheless, Webb argues that using
public property is the best way for local
govemments to get a handle on antennas.
"You cannot attempt to manage their
technology," he says. "You have just got
to manage what you control, and that's
the rights of way and the real property
that the jurisdiction owns. Beyond that,
you're just asking for trouble. You're
going to be sued and you're going to lose.
And probably rightly so." 13
n
7
I
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Mr. David Nyberg
MSA Consulting Engineer
1326 Energy Park Drive
St. Paul, MN 55108 -
Re: City of Chanhassen Request for Proposal for 1997 Water Quality Improvements Project
File No. SWMP -120
Dear Mr. Nyberg:
Please find enclosed a Request For Proposal for the City of Chanhassen for 1997 water quality
' projects. Your firm has either expressed interest in providing these services to the City of Chanhassen
in the past or have been selected by referral as having provided these services in the past. The proposal
information is relatively basic and self explanatory; however, if you should have any questions or
comments as you are preparing your proposal, please feel free to contact me at 937 -1900, extension
105.
' Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in submitting a proposal to the City of
Chanhassen.
Sincerely,
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
e=
Phillip Elkin
Water Resource Coordinator
Enc.
c: Charles Folch, Director of Public Works
Kate Aanenson, Planning Director
City Council Administrative Packet (11/12/96)
g.' en g\ph ill i pV etters\l 997rfp.doc
November 1, 1996
Mr. John Smythe
Bonestroo & Associates
2335 West Highway 36
Roseville, MN 55113
L
r
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Re: City of Chanhassen Request for Proposal for 1997 Water Quality Improvements Project
File No. SWMP -120
Dear Mr. Smythe:
Please find enclosed a Request For Proposal for the City of Chanhassen for 1997 water quality
projects. Your firm has either expressed interest in providing these services to the City of Chanhassen
in the past or have been selected by referral as having provided these services in the past. The proposal
information is relatively basic and self explanatory; however, if you should have any questions or
comments as you are preparing your proposal, please feel free to contact me at 937 -1900, extension
105.
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in submitting a proposal to the City of
Chanhassen.
Sincerely,
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
A'�L-
Phillip Elkin
Water Resource Coordinator
Enc.
c: Charles Folch, Director of Public Works
Kate Aanenson, Planning Director
City Council Administrative Packet (11/12/96)
g.'cng\ph illipV etters \1997rfp.doc
E
1
November 1, 1996
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Mr. Mark Angelo
OSM
300 Park Place East
5775 Wayzata Boulevard
Minneapolis, MN 55416 -1228
Re: City of Chanhassen Request for Proposal for 1997 Water Quality Improvements Project
File No. SWMP -120
Dear Mr. Angelo:
Please find enclosed a Request For Proposal for the City of Chanhassen for 1997 water quality
projects. Your firm has either expressed interest in providing these services to the City of Chanhassen
in the past or have been selected by referral as having provided these services in the past. The proposal
information is relatively basic and self explanatory; however, if you should have any questions or
comments as you are preparing your proposal, please feel free to contact me at 937 -1900, extension
105.
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in submitting a proposal to the City of
Chanhassen.
Sincerely,
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
v�-
Phillip Elkin
Water Resource Coordinator
Enc.
c: Charles Folch, Director of Public Works
Kate Aanenson, Planning Director
City Council Administrative Packet (11/12/96)
g.'cng\ph it Iip\letters \1997rfp.doc
November 1, 1996
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Mr. Greg Brown
BRW
Thresher Square
700 Third Street South
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Re: City of Chanhassen Request for Proposal for 1997 Water Quality Improvements Project
File No. SWMP -120
Dear Mr. Brown:
Please find enclosed a Request For Proposal for the City of Chanhassen for 1997 water quality
projects. Your firm has either expressed interest in providing these services to the City of Chanhassen
in the past or have been selected by referral as having provided these services in the past. The proposal
information is relatively basic and self explanatory; however, if you should have any questions or
comments as you are preparing your proposal, please feel free to contact me at 937 -1900, extension
105.
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in submitting a proposal to the City of
Chanhassen.
Sincerely,
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
A J44
Phillip Elkin
Water Resource Coordinator
Enc.
c: Charles Folch, Director of Public Works
Kate Aanenson, Planning Director
City Council Administrative Packet (11/12/96)
g: \eng\phillip\1etters\1997rfp.doc
r
0
November 1, 1996
' CITY OF CHANHASSEN REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR
1997 WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Section I. Information on Proposals
' The City of Chanhassen is requesting proposals from experienced firms to provide expertise to
assist in the design and construction of water quality projects within the Lake Minnewashta
Watershed as described in the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Seven copies of the
proposal should be submitted to:
' Phillip Elkin
Water Resources Coordinator
' City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
1 Proposals must be received no later than: Tuesday, December 24, 1996.
' The Water Resource Coordinator is scheduled to make a recommendation on the preferred
proposal to the City Council on Monday, January 27, 1997.
1
Section H. Minimum Requirements for Submitting a Proposal
To be eligible to qualify as a consulting and inspecting firm, the following minimum requirements
must be met:
A. The firm must have expertise necessary to design and supervise construction of water
quality improvements.
B. The firm must demonstrate that it has the necessary trained personnel to produce plans,
surveys, and supervise construction effectively.
C. The firm must have prior experience in cities within the state of Minnesota.
J
1
Section III. Scope
The projects to be completed as part of this contract are described briefly in the City of
Chanhassen's Surface Water Management Plan in Part 2, Chapter IV- C -3. Specific projects are
first priority sediment and nutrient Traps LM -P ( 4.2, 5.2, 7.5, 7.6, 8.9 and 8.11), and all storm
sewer pipe needed for the drainage improvements.
The scope of work will include preliminary design, final design and construction services. A
feasibility study will not be required. The firm shall provide the City of Chanhassen all
engineering and surveying services required by the preliminary design, final design and
construction phases of the project.
A. Specific Services Required
1. Compile existing site information from City records and site survey as necessary.
2. Complete a hydrological study of the drainage area with flow characteristics during
multiple rainfall events for two alternative designs.
3. Conduct a neighborhood meeting to present preliminary plans of alternatives and
hydrological study for review and comments.
4. The firm shall prepare plans and specifications based upon the preliminary designs and
comments from City staff.
5. Prepare and write the necessary legal descriptions for drainage easements needed for
projects.
6. Prepare and apply for all necessary permits required for project construction.
7. Conduct pre - construction meeting, partial payments, change orders, and other services
related to construction administration.
8. Provide part-time field inspection services for the duration of construction.
9. All construction staking necessary for completion of work.
10. Coordinate all construction testing as necessary .
11. Provide City with accurate as -built drawings.
Section IV. Proposal Submittals
A. The cost of each item within the work scope as listed above shall be included in the
proposal. The cost shall be submitted on an hourly rate with an estimated number of
hours to complete the program. The firm shall also provide a maximum (not to exceed)
dollar amount to complete the program.
B. The proposals shall also include detailed narrative information as to the firm's experience
on similar projects with client references, the names and qualifications of staff who will be
assigned to the project, a brief discussion on how the program will be approached,
program timetable and estimated completion date.
C. Proposals will be received by the City until 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 24, 1996.
Section V. Evaluation of Proposals
A. The proposals received will be evaluated to determine which one best meets the objectives
of the program and the needs of the City. If necessary, the City may also choose to
conduct oral interviews to assist in making the final selection.
Key Criteria:
1. Past record of experience and performance.
2. Qualifications of staff assigned to the program.
' 3. Cost.
4. Time schedule to complete the project.
5. References.
it
1
1
Based upon review and evaluation, the Water Resources Coordinator will recommend to
the City Council the appointment of the firm judged to be the most responsive and
responsible proposal for the services requested. The final decision with respect to the
appointment will be made by the City Council. It is anticipated that the recommendation
will be submitted to the City Council for consideration on January 27, 1997.
The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, request additional information from any
and all proposers, and phase and /or adjust the size of the project so as to stay within budgetary
limitations.
I G :\eng\phillip\admin \1997SWMPRFP
�1
Environmental Commission Agenda
Thursday, November 7, 1996 at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
1. Approval of Minutes.
2. Final review of treatment of algae in wetlands ordinance.
3. Update and review of brochure on algae treatment.
4. Future plans - Events, educational outreach, seasonal issues.
5. General discussion.
6. Adjournment.
J
I
t
CHANHASSEN ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
October 3, 1996
Meeting called to order by Uli Sacchet at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Greg Havlik, Susan Morgan, Maureen Farrell, Bill Coldwell, Uli
Sacchet, Charlie Eiler, and Susan Wright
MEMBERS ABSENT: Susan Markert, Andrew Leith
STAFF PRESENT Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Coordinator, Phillip Elkin, Water
Resources Coordinator
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: There was no discussion of minutes. Sue Morgan motioned to
approve Commission minutes from September 5, 1996. Charlie Eller seconded and the minutes
were approved unanimously.
SUB- COMMITTEE UPDATE: Sue Morgan read proposed policy as created by the sub-
committee to the Commission and asked for comments.
Maureen Farrell asked what residents are allowed to put in ponds according to the policy and
suggested it read "any other form ".
Charlie Eiler stated that "biological or mechanical removal" covered just about everything.
The Commission agreed that the statement did cover all forms of control within reason.
Uli Sacchet thought the policy was well done and was pleased with the outcome,
Phil Elkin stated that the policy was what was hoped for and that it gives teeth to the preference
of no chemical treatment. He added that both storm water ponds and wetlands should be
mentioned.
Jill Sinclair wondered if neighbor notification should be included.
Mr. Eiler thought that individuals will contact their neighbors regardless.
The Commission agreed that the city should publish a notice in the Villager about the new
wetland alteration ordinance.
Ms. Farrell moved to adopt the addition of "h. proof of public notification" and "4. One time
public notification in the city newsletter is required two weeks prior to treatment."
Greg Havlik seconded the motion.
No one opposed.
Susan Wright moved to approve document.
Mr. Eiler seconded.
Ms. Morgan will write the text and city staff will produce a brochure about algae treatment for
storm water ponds.
Brochure text will be available by November meeting.
REVIEW OF ARTICLES FOR VILLAGER: Ms. Morgan's article on treatment of algae in
stormwater ponds has been printed in the Villager. She suggested that an informational sheet be
I
1
Environmental Commission Minutes
August 1, 1996
Page 2
attached to posts at public accesses similar to the information available in Chanhassen lakes
pamphlet.
Mr. Coldwell handed out materials on milfoil and read his article on the subject.
The Commission discussed different aspects of milfoil and its control. They also discovered that
curlyleaf pondweed in also a problem in the lakes. It grows and dies early and becomes a
nuisance in the beginning of the summer.
In summary: The commission will compile educational materials to distribute for concerned
citizens. The article should include a 1996 update on milfoil. Possibly, there will be one article
now in fall and another in spring. The article needs to be in paper in as soon as possible in order
to be of interest to residents. Mr. Coldwell will fax the article to Sue Morgan, Charlie Eiler, Phil
Elkin and Uli Sacchet.
Mr. Havlik will be writing an article on deer problems and will present it at the December
meeting.
Dr. Leith will gather information on groundwater for presentation at the November meeting.
GENERAL DISCUSSION Maureen Farrell announced classes offered at the Arboretum in
the next month:
• Management of aquatic plant nuisances in Minnesota lakes. Wednesday, October 9, 10:00
a.m. - noon.
• Wetland wonders. Thursday, October 10, 10:00 a.m. - noon
Ms. Sinclair stated that the city will sponsor Commission member if they would like to attend
these classes.
Future plans for the Commission will be discussed at the next meeting.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Prepared and Submitted by Jill Sinclair
I
C
i
STATE OF MINNESOTA
' COUNTY OF CARVER
John R. Fisher and SA Land
Partners, a Minnesota general
partnership,
Plaintiffs,
1
s
I .
VS.
City of Chanhassen, a
Minnesota municipal corporation,
Defendants.
DISTRICT COURT
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CASE TYPE: OTHER CIVIL
Court File No. C4 -96 -1340
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION
TO AFFIRM THE CITY'S DENIAL OF
PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR A
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
AND REZONING
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs challenge the City's August 26, 1996 Findings of Fact and Decision
denying a request to change the designation of a portion of the subject property in the
City's Comprehensive Plan from Office Industrial to Medium Density Residential and
to rezone the property to a Planned Unit Development ( "PUD ") District allowing
residential development on the northerly 22.6 acres of the 45 acre parcel.
The City is requesting the Court to affirm the City's denial of the Application
and dismiss the Complaint based upon a review of the City's administrative record
which accompanies this Motion.
Neither Plaintiff is in fact the Applicant who was turned down by the City.
Plaintiff Fischer is the owner of the entire 45 acre parcel and Plaintiff SA Land
43200.02
Partners has a purchase contract. Town and Country Homes, Inc., which is not
challenging the City's decision, was the Applicant and developer of the Townhome
portion of the project which required the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
As part of an overall 1991 Comprehensive Plan update, Chanhassen designated
the subject parcel and other property in the City for Office Industrial use. A city's
Comprehensive Plan is the basic legislative blueprint guiding future development.
In 1995 the City Council turned down a request by another developer to change
the designation of this property from Office Industrial to Residential in order to
develop single family detached homes. Here, the Council has likewise rejected this
requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment and PUD rezoning to allow Townhome
development on 22 of the 45 acre subject parcel, choosing to keep the property
classified as Office Industrial.
There is absolutely no evidence in the record showing that this property cannot
be used for Office Industrial development. The City's decision must be affirmed.
STATEMENT OF THE RECORD
The City's administrative record, which is filed with this Motion, consists of
the following:
I
1. May 6, 1996 Application of Town & Country Homes, Inc.
2. City Staff Report dated 6/15/96; revised 6/19/96; revised 7/18/96;
revised 8/12/96, including Attachments 1 to 28. ,
3. Transcript of June 5, 1996 Channhassen Planning Commission Meeting.
4. Transcript of June 19, 1996 Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting.
43200.02
2
1
5. Transcript of August 12, 1996 Chanhassen City Council Meeting.
6. City Staff Memorandum dated August 21, 1996.
7. Findings of Fact and Decision adopted August 26, 1996.
ARGUMENT
I.
THIS COURT IS LIMITED TO A REVIEW OF THE RECORD
IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE CITY ACTED
ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY
Where the municipal proceeding was fair and the record clear and complete,
review should be based upon the city's administrative records. Swanson v. City of
Bloomington 421 N.W.2d 307 (Minn. 1988).
On August 12, 1996, the City Council considered the Application and took the
two -fold action of denying the Application and directing City staff to prepare written
Findings of Fact. The City Council's collective judgment, reflected in a unanimous
vote, was that no compelling reason existed to change the Comprehensive Plan
designation of this property from Office Industrial to Residential. (City Record
Exhibit 5, pp 54 -56).
At is next regular meeting on August 26, 1996 the City Council adopted its
Findings of Fact and Decision. (City Record Exhibit 7), a procedure specifically
approved in R.A. Putnam Associates v. City of Mendota Heights 510 N.W.2d 264
(Minn. App. 1994).
43200.02 3
The City has submitted to the Court the staff reports and all attachments
considered by the City Planning Commission and City Council (City Record Exhibit
No. 2), together with verbatim transcripts of the Planning Commission and City
Council meetings. This Court's decision is limited to its review of this record.
II.
THIS COURT CANNOT SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT
FOR THE CITY'S CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY
IN ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
1. This is a legislative decision; the City has broad discretion.
The Court's authority to interfere in the management of municipal affairs is,
and should be, limited and sparingly invoked. White Bear Docking and Storage Inc.
v. City of White Bear Lake 324 N.W.2d 174, 176 (Minn. 1982). It is the duty of
the judiciary to exercise restraint and accord appropriate deference to civil authorities
except in those rare cases in which the City's decision has no rational basis. Swanson
v. City of Bloomington 421 N.W.2d at 311.
A municipality exercises legislative power when it commences a policy of
zoning for the purpose of regulating and restricting land use and the construction of
building within a fixed area. Denny v. City of Duluth 295 Minn. 22, 27, 202
N.W.2d 892, 895 (Minn. 1972). Such action is distinct from granting or denying a
special use permit or variance, which is a quasi-judicial function involving the
application of specific standards set by a zoning ordinance to a particular individual
43200.02 4
IrJ
n
u
1
use. State by Rochester Ass'n of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester 268 N.W.2d
885 (Minn. 1978).
Where the municipality is engaged in a legislative function, a challenger of the
ordinance has the heavy burden of proving that the ordinance or amendment is
unsupported by any rational basis related to promoting the public health, safety,
morals, or general welfare, or that the legislative act amounts to a taking without just
compensation. City of Rochester 268 N.W.2d at 888. Legislative enactments, unlike
quasi-judicial decisions, are not prima facie invalid even if the governing body fails to
support its decision by written findings. Id. at 888 -889.
Regarding the wide discretion of a municipality in enacting or amending
ordinances, the court further stated in State ex rel Howard v. Village of Roseville 244
Minn. 343, 347, 70 N.W.2d 404, 407 (1955):
Insofar as zoning ordinances are concerned, it has frequently been held that
what best furthers public welfare is a matter primarily for determination of the
legislative body concerned .... Even where the reasonableness of a zoning
ordinance is debatable, or where there are conflicting opinions as to the
desirability of the restrictions it imposes .... , it is not the function of the
courts to interfere with the legislative discretion on such issues.
See also Odell v. City of Eagan 348 N.W.2d 792 (Minn. App. 1984).
In Beck v. City of St. Paul 304 Minn. 438, 448, 231 N.W.2d 919, 925 (Minn.
1975), the Court stated:
(A) municipality has a right to determine whether changing conditions or the
public interest demands an exercise of the power to amend a zoning ordinance
and to select the measures that are necessary for that purpose. Thus, the
wisdom or good policy of a zoning ordinance is for a municipality to
determine, and the court's scope of review must necessarily be narrow.
1 43200.02
R
2. Plaintiffs have not met their burden of proving that the property
cannot be reasonably used for Office Industrial development.
Plaintiffs are challenging Chanhassen 's basic, broad legislative authority to
designate this property as Office Industrial as part of its overall comprehensive I
planning process. The City's legislative discretion in this regard is virtually
untouchable by this court. There are no reported cases in Minnesota where a City's
of a property Comprehensive Plan designation p p has been overturned.
The Minnesota legislature has delegated to municipalities the power to conduct ,
and implement municipal planning, Minn. Stat. §462.351, the cornerstone of which is I
the development of a Comprehensive Municipal Plan. Minn. Stat. §462.352 subd. 5.
It is "the basic instrument of municipal land use planning." " Rathko f, The Law of ,
P P g P
Zoning and Planning, §12.02 at 12 -5; Amcon v. Cily of Eagan 348 N.W.2d 68, 74 ,
(Minn. 1984). 1
In the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, a municipality is required to have an up-
to-date Comprehensive Plan approved by the Metropolitan Council, Minn. Stat. ,
§473.175 subd. 1, and is prohibited from adopting zoning regulations which are in
conflict with the Plan. Minn. Stat. §473.858 subd. 1. In light of the City's denial of
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the City's denial of the PUD district rezoning
request to allow medium - density housing on the northerly 22.6 acres was mandated '
because the rezoning would be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. (Finding of
Fact No. 10, City Record Exhibit No. 7). ,
43200.02 6
' Plan is the "Land e Plan" w
One component of the Comprehensive L Us n loch
includes a map designating types of land uses for the entire municipality. Minn. Stat.
' § 462.352 subd. 6. The subject property was one of four areas in the City that was
designated in the City's Land Use Map for Office Industrial use as part of the City's
1991 Comprehensive Plan Update.
P P
In 1991, there was a remaining supply of 95 acres of vacant Industrial land in
Chanhassen. (Finding Fact No. 4; City Record Exhibit No. 7 and City Staff Report
pp. 5; City Record Exhibit No. 2). For the continued well being of the community
and in interest of promoting a balance of land uses, Chanhassen established a Plan that
' would accommodate a reasonable amount of Office Industrial development in the
' future. (Findings of Fact No. 4; City Record Exhibit No. 7; and City Staff Report
pp. 5; City Record Exhibit No. 2).
The result of this analysis in 1991 was to add Office Industrial land totalling
' 638 acres for a total Industrial land use area of 1,099 acres representing 8.2 percent of
' the City's total land area of 13,327 acres. Even with this increased amount of
designated Industrial land, Chanhassen's ratio of Industrial area is smaller than
comparable communities (City Staff Report pp 5 -6; City Record Exhibit No. 2).
' The subject property was designated for Office Industrial use in 1991 partially
because it was being used for non - residential and non - agricultural purposes and was
adjacent to the industrial expansion coming from the South in Chaska. In addition,
the site is adjacent to two collector roadways, providing high levels of access.
1 43200.02
h
(Finding of Fact No. 5, City Record Exhibit No. 7; City Staff Report . 6; City
'
( g tY ty P P tY
Record Exhibit No. 2). '
The 1991 classification of this property is presumed to be well - planned and
intended to be more or less permanent. Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope 300
Minn. 326, 335, 220 N.W.2d 256, 261 (Minn. 1974); Honn v. City of Coon rapids
313 N.W.2d 409, 419 (Minn. 1981). Here, there is absolutely nothing in the record '
which in anyway overcomes this presumption of validity.
Since there was no initial mistake in classifying the property Office Industrial in
1991, Plaintiffs must then show that the character of the neighborhood has changed to
such an extent that no reasonable use can be made of the property under its current I
classification. Sun Oil Co. 300 Minn. at 337, 220 N.W.2d at 261 -262; Honn 313 ,
N.W.2d at 419. Again, there is nothing in the record which shows that this property
cannot be used for Office Industrial development, an extremely advantageous zoning
classification from a real estate valuation standpoint. ,
While City Staff recommended the approval of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to allow townhome development, Staff also recognized that the City
Council must make the basic legislative decision relating to the reclassification of the ,
property. City Planner Bob Generous stated: ,
"The basic issue revolving around this project is, is it appropriate to reguide
this property and rezone it from Office Industrial to the Medium Density
Residential. And that's one of the issues that the City Council will have to
resolve. "
(August 12, 1996 Meeting Transcript p 52, City Record Exhibit 5).
43200.02
i
The City Council resolved this legislative planning issue by a 5 -0 vote, deciding to
stick with its existing Comprehensive Plan designation of the property as Office
1 Industrial.
Plaintiffs can point to the city record and say that residential development is a
viable use of this property. That, however, is not the issue. Again, to overturn the
City's basic legislative planning designation of this property, Plaintiffs must clearly
demonstrate that this property cannot be reasonably used for Office Industrial
development as it is currently designated. This is the only relevant issue. Plaintiffs
have totally failed to meet their burden of proof. The City Council's decision must be
upheld.
CONCLUSIONS
Plaintiffs have not meet their heavy burden of demonstrating that the property
cannot be used for Office Industrial development. Therefore, the City's denial of the
Development Application must be affirmed and Plaintiffs Complaint dismissed.
Dated: October ��i, 1996.
1 43200.02
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT
& FUCH , P.A.
By: I '\-- k
T omas M. Scott, ff98498
Attorneys for Defendant
317 Eagandale Office Center
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Eagan, MN 55121
Telephone: (612) 452 -5000
6
\NN�Ol,
�o d Minnesota Department of Transportation
a a
l 0_4e Transportation Building
T OF TPk 395 John Ireland Boulevard
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 -1899
October 21, 1996
The Honorable Don Chmiel
Mayor - City of Chanhassen
7100 Tecumseh Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mayor Chmiel:
4r r
In light of the toll road veto on TH 212, the State of Minnesota must re- examine its position, policy, and
approach to administration of toll_ road legislation. Under the basic assumption that toll roads remain a
viable approach to funding transportation infrastructure needs, Mn/DOT is sponsoring a day -long
workshop on November 26, 1996 at the Earl Brown Center., This workshop is designed to establish future
direction for toll road strategies to guide Mn/DOT, the Met Council, and the Legislature.
Although Eden Prairie vetoed the 212 toll project on September 3rd, the city also reaffirmed the need for
construction of a new Hwy. 212 as soon as possible. Eden Prairie's actions magnify the need for a
thorough toll road policy discussion and strategy session to set an agenda for future state action. In
addition, throughout the toll road process, at public hearings and open houses, elected officials and citizens
expressed a wide range of concerns which need to be examined. These include the following:
• Equitffunding: Within the context of the broader transportation funding issue, how should the
department manage financial /regional equity concerns amid limited resources?
• Statefvide toll policy: What kind of statewide plan for toll roads is needed? Should the state review
its current toll road policy? If the state should retain a positive policy toward toll roads, what kind
of state wide plan is needed to support that policy?
• Municipal consent: Chanhassen, Chaska, and Carver County and several communities west of the
proposed toll project voted to support the toll proposal. Despite the support, the project was
vetoed on the basis of one community's opposition. Should the State Legislature consider
changing the law regarding municipal veto authority?
• Puhlicfi'izarncial partici What level of public financial participation should the State
consider when advancing toll projects?
Since this workshop is only one day, it is impossible to cover all transportation funding issues facing the
state today. Therefore, the discussion will focus on tolls.
Your participation in this workshop is vital as we attempt to chart the future course of toll financing in
Minnesota. We will be sending a brochure outlining the agenda for the day, and providing additional
background for discussion. An invitee list is also attached. Please RSVP to Adeel Lari at 282 -6148 by
November 8.
Sincerely,
mes N. Denn
Co issioner
An erii ial nn,nnrti :-& Pmnlnwr r
�7
1
I
'I
V
Toll Road Policy Development Workshop
Invitee List
Commissioner Denn
Ed Cohoon
Pat Hughes
Gene Ofstead
Bill Schreiber
Chuck Siggerud
Bob McFarlin
Darryl Durgin
Met Council
Charlie Crichton Natalio Diaz
Curt Johnson Mary Hill Smith
Jim Solem Bob Mazanec
Julie Johanson
Le islg ators
Sen. Carol Flynn
Rep. Sharon Marko
Sen. Keith Langseth
Rep. Bernie Lieder
Sen. Edward Oliver
Rep. Dee Long
Sen. Sandy Pappas
Rep. Carol Molnau
Sen. Jane Ranum
Rep. Erik Paulsen
Sen. Roy Terwilliger
Rep. Jim Tunheim
Rep. Tom Workman
Other Government
Dr. Jean Harris, Eden Prairie Mayor
Lee Munich, U of M
' Gary DeCramer, U of M
Alan Steger, FHWA
Don Chmiel, Chanhassen Mayor
F
L
Bob Lindall, Chaska City Council
Commissioner Wayne Simoneau, Dept. Of Finance
Shef Lang, CTS
Robert Roepke, Chaska Mayor
Traci Swanson, Carver County Board
Private vector
Bob Zauner, Hughes (MTG), Toll Road Proposer
Dick Carr, Interwest, Toll Proposer
Onzanizations
Jim Miller, League of MN Cities
Lyle Wray, Citizens League
James Mulder, Assoc. of MN Counties
John Hausladen, MN Trucking Assoc
Dan Salomone, MN Taxpayers Assoc.
Fred Corrigan, MN Transportation Alliance
Charles Ferrell, Mpls. Downtown Council
Darrell Bunge, MN Petroleum Council
Jake Crandall, AAA
Roger Peterson, Assoc. of Metro. Municipalities
1 16/22/96 Rev Toll.con
F'
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCO TT & FUCHS, P.
Attorneys at Law
Thomas J. Campbell (C 12) 452 -5000 Andrea McDowell Poehler
Roger N. Knutson Fa x (612) 4525550 Matthew K. Brokl*
ax
Thomas M. Scott John F. Kelly
Gary G. Fuchs Marguerite M. McCarron
James R. Walston George T. Stephenson
Elliott B. Knetsch October 23, 1996 *Ako licen-d in Wiscon ,
Suesan Lea Pace VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
RECEIVED
Mr. Bruce G. Odlaug
Maun & Simon OCT 2 4 1,996
2000 Midwest Plaza Building Nest
801 Nicollet Mall f °! Ty Q `
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Re: City of Chanhassen vs. James A. Curry, et al.
Lake Riley /Lyman Boulevard Project
Court File No. C5 -96 -231
Dear Bruce:
This letter is to confirm the substance of our phone conversation last night
regarding the above - referenced condemnation. Based on our phone conversation, it is
my understanding that we have agreed to stipulate and present to the Commissioners
the following information:
1. Date of taking: February 1, 1996.
2. Total permanent easement area: 168,378 square feet (3.8654 acres),
3. Temporary easement areas:
a. 102,888 square feet (2.362 acres), easement expires 12/31/97;
b. 60,000 square feet (1.3774 acres), easement expires 8/31/97.
In addition, we agreed that at the conclusion of the condemnation process we
will stipulate to an amendment of the area taken such that the total permanent
easement area taken will extend to the westerly and southerly borders of the property
owned by your clients (that is to the westerly and southerly half section lines) which
will include the prescriptive roadway easement area for Highway 101 and Lyman
Boulevard.
27204
Suite 317 • Eagandale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121
L
7 !
L�
!I
1
Mr. Bruce G. Odlaug
October 23, 1996
Page 2
I trust that the above accurately sets forth our discussion yesterday. If not,
please contact me. I will prepare a stipulation regarding the areas of taking and the
date of taking to present it to the Commissioners at the hearing.
I shall await your communication regarding possible settlement.
Very truly yours,
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT
& FUCHS. P.A.
am
GGF:cjh
cc: Mr. Don Ashworth
Mr. Charles Folch
27204
Af
212 COMMUNITY HIGHWAY ASSOCIATION
470 Pillsbury Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402
337 -9300
October 29, 1996
Curt Johnson
Chair, Metropolitan Council
Mears Park Centre
230 Fifth Street E.
St. Paul, MN 55101
RE: Transportation Development Plan Revision
Dear Mr. Johnson and Members of the Metropolitan Council:
/✓ 1�
The proposed New Highway 212 has been under consideration since the early 1950s. It has been
in the Metropolitan Council's plan since the early 1970s or before. It has been in Minnesota
Department of Transportation's (MDOT) construction program since the early 1970s and was
identified by Congress as part of the National Highway System in 1995. The project has been
in comprehensive plans of the local affected communities since 1968, in the case of Eden Prairie,
and shortly thereafter, in the case of Chaska, Chanhassen and Carver County. The effect upon
the communities of not building New Highway 212 will be devastating in the long range. The
local road network of those communities was constructed in reliance upon the expectation that
New T.H.212 will be built. Based upon Metropolitan Council's draft Transportation
Development Plan and current funding sources and levels, this project will not be financed
through traditional financing methods until after 2020. These areas are incurring dramatic
employment and population growth and substantial through traffic from areas west of them. They
cannot be expected to wait 24 more years (or more) without relief from these conditions.
The legislature has required that new highway expansion projects costing more than $10 million
consider alternate financing techniques. The 212 Community Highway Association has just
completed a lengthy, expensive, painful and disappointing effort to secure local approval for
financing on construction of New Highway 212 as a toll project. That project could and should
be economically feasible as proposed to the local communities. However, the project was vetoed
by the city of Eden Prairie, apparently due to a lack of a region -wide plan describing the
situations in which toll road financing will be used (i.e., to give confidence that T.H.212 will not
be the only toll road ever built in the state). Local officials did not want to approve T.H.212 as
a toll road in the belief that other projects would soon be funded in this manner only to find out
later that it will be the only such project.
It appears to be an economic fact of life that toll financing and other non traditional methods are
necessary to fund "mega" projects such as T.H.212. Please revise the TDP to include language
which will endorse toll financing as a means of providing additional lanes on existing highway
RJL111437
TH195 -1
n
1
r,
H 1 - 7
I L -1
Curt Johnson
October 29, 1996
Page 2
alignments and new highway alignments which are not inconsistent with the state -wide
transportation plan. T.H.212 is a planned highway improvement that has state -wide significance
and for which there is a current state need. A financing plan which will implement future state-
wide needs is necessary at this time. The Metro Council's Transportation Development Plan
simply allocates existing resources. It does not provide a strategy for implementing already
recognized needs. I would ask that the Metropolitan Council show leadership on this issue by
adopting the language which I am enclosing.
utiair
cc: Mary Hill Smith, Transp. Committee Chair
Julius Smith
Tracy Swanson
Roger Gustafson
Dr. Jean Harris
Don Chmiel
Robert Roepke
Fred Corrigan
Don Ashworth
Dave Pokorney
Ted Grindal
Gene Ranieri
Dick Carr
Bob Farris
RJL111437
TR195 -1
r
MET COUNCIL TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT GUIDE
CHAPTER/SYSTEM PLAN
COMMENTS:
Summary
Background Page iv; last paragraph
"The financial plan for all projects estimated to cost at least $10 million
must use good faith efforts to include alternate financing sources. The
financial plan for projects proposing view alignments shall include some
alternative financing even though additional increase in traditional
transportation revenues may be obtained (Remaining portion of paragraph
OK)
Regional Transportation Financial Plan
Strategies to Increase Available Resources Page 5 -10
The Council estimates that the cost to fully implement the Council's
Transportation Development Plan for the year 2020 is $7 billion in 1996 funds.
The Council has identified $3.3 billion in funds which it projects to be available
over the period 1996 to 2020 to implement that plan. The Council recognizes the
need for alternative (non -state or federal trust funds)sources of funding to finance
the $3.7 billion short-fall in funding necessary to o fully implement the plan through
2020. In addition, the Council recognizes that there are portions of the National
Highway System, including projects heretofore included in the Council's
Transportation Development Plan, which are not included in the Council's plan for
2020. For these reasons, the Council recognizes the importance of encouraging
and rewarding projects which include significant alternative financing sources
Therefore, the financial plan for all projects estimated to cost at least $10 million
must use good faith efforts to include alternative financing sources. The financial
plan for projects proposing new alignments shall include some alternative
financing. Priority shall be given by the Council to the funding of• (a) projects
which are being realigned from an existing alignment to a new alignment; (b)
projects which include at least 25% alternative funding; (c) projects which are
included in the National Highway System; and (d) projects which are consistent
with the Council's plan for future (post -2020) highway construction in the seven
county area_
Strategies To Increase Available Resources Page 5 -10 line five.
"toll road. Current legislation provides for a veto process for any city or county
through which the project passes. The 212 project was vetoed by one city and in
doing so members of the City Council stated that the reason for the veto was that
RJL112030
LK400 -51
F1
1
I71
u
there was not a clearly stated State policy in reszard to toll roads and alternative
financine. The Council recognizes that such a policy is required and, in addition
' it is not good public policy to permit one locale to have absolute veto authority
over the funding_ process of a state and regional highway. The Council will work
with the Legislature and MDOT to clarify this policy and process and in addition
' (pick up the next sentence that starts with The Council has called together....)
RJL112030
' LN400 -51
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
October 28, 1996
Mr. Douglas Hansen
11969 Shore Drive
Spicer, MN 56288
Dear Mr. Hansen:
It has been some months since my last correspondence. The Chanhassen Park Task Force continues to
work on a park, open space and trail referendum. If approved by the city council, the likely voting day
would be in April or May of 1997. The emphasis of this initiative continues to be threefold:
1. Acquisition of open space
2 Park development
3. Trail construction
I would like to inform you that the city council has signed an agreement with the Trust for Public Land
(TPL) to assist with these efforts. TPL will assist the city by acquiring purchase option(s) for desirable
open space. Mr. Alan Raymond, a Senior Project Manager at TPL, will be working on this project. You
can expect to be contacted by Mr. Raymond in the future.
Thank you for your continued cooperation.
Sincerely,
Todd Hoffman, CLP
Park & Recreation Director
TH:k
c: 44ayor and City Council
Park Task Force
Alan Raymond, The Trust for Public Lands
g:\park\th\referendum.e
r. Douglas Hansen
969 Shore Drive
picer, MN 56288
Mr. Dean Degler
111 Audubon Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
U r. Sever Peterson
15900 Flying Cloud Drive
If den Prairie, MN 55344
t r. Alan Raymond
he Trust for Public Land
420 N. 5` Street, Suite 865
F linneapolis, MN 55401
Mr. Marlin Edwards
8950 Audubon Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mr. Gilbert Laurent
1370 Pioneer Trail
Chaska, MN 55318
Mr. Luigi Bernardi
Aurora Investments
5151 Edina Industrial Blvd.
Edina, MN 55439
Mr. Gayle Degler
1630 Lyman Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mr. Bruce Jeurissen
1500 Pioneer Trail
Chaska, MN 55318
Mr. Frank Fox
27990 Smithtown Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Steven Berquist Frank Scott Jim Manders
7207 Frontier Trail 2730 Sandpiper Trail 6791 Chaparral Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Nancy Mancino
6620 Galpin Boulevard
Excelsior, MN 55331
Alison Blackowiak
8116 Erie Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mr. Michael Lynch
6630 Horseshoe Curve
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Ms. Cindy Whiteford
Regional Manager
The Trust for Public Lands
420 No. 5"' Street, Ste. 865
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Mr. Richard Wing
3841 Shore Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331
Todd Hoffman
Anne Graupmann
8400 West Lake Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Kenneth N. Potts
9431 Foxford Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mr. Al Raymond
Senior Project Manager
The Trust for Public Lands
420 No. 5"' Street, Ste. 865
Minneapolis, MN 55401
ffi4J (s
d"( &,da���
(fit
Li
v ,111rl �e nu k1lon)
�J
�]/ldtl �?S hir be
rrl�l��l lt�sjt c�,l -
u
IN
0
o, "(. /(/),
�11"& I L z usz
October 25, 1996 ,
Don: Chief Wing & Firefighter Anding did far more than
this kind letter indicates: This was a d.o.a. of a young woman, '
Mr. Richard Wing whose family members kept arriving at the scene, obviously
3481 Shore Drive distraught. For over two hours, Wing & Anding provided
compassion & caring during a time that nothing else would '
Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 have done. As Public Safety Director, it means a great deal
to me that first aid is not the only thing our fire department
delivers. I'm very proud of them. ,
Dear S ir,
SCOTT HARK
A note of than to you and Chic And for your help on October 23 1996 at the medical '
situation on Your profess and curtious demeanor was indeed a big help as
emotions were very lugh as expected.
It's a real pleasure to work with trained medica ersonnel life ourself. ,
P Y
I did address the issue of response time for the on -call coroner with our administration but it
appears what we have is what is best for Scott and Carver Counties.
�gain thanks for your help an support.
incerely yours,
Deputy Douglas S chmidtke #848
cc. Public Safety Director Scott Harr ,
Chanhassen Fire Chief James McNia6on
i frmat�ce.�ctiorvEquui Opportunm Cmplo�er
,Tinted on .0% Post - Consumer ReC:Cied Paper
Office of
CY — r I'I d
Allen J. Wallin
'
=
County Sheriff
Sheriff
Carver County Courthouse
600 East 4th Street, Box 9
Emergency: 911
Sheriff Admin.: (6 12) 361 -1
_
CAR
COUNTY
Chaska. Minnesota 55318 -2190
Dispatch Ivon Emzrgenc
(612) 161 -12= 1
Toll Free: 1-800-487-57'0
October 25, 1996 ,
Don: Chief Wing & Firefighter Anding did far more than
this kind letter indicates: This was a d.o.a. of a young woman, '
Mr. Richard Wing whose family members kept arriving at the scene, obviously
3481 Shore Drive distraught. For over two hours, Wing & Anding provided
compassion & caring during a time that nothing else would '
Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 have done. As Public Safety Director, it means a great deal
to me that first aid is not the only thing our fire department
delivers. I'm very proud of them. ,
Dear S ir,
SCOTT HARK
A note of than to you and Chic And for your help on October 23 1996 at the medical '
situation on Your profess and curtious demeanor was indeed a big help as
emotions were very lugh as expected.
It's a real pleasure to work with trained medica ersonnel life ourself. ,
P Y
I did address the issue of response time for the on -call coroner with our administration but it
appears what we have is what is best for Scott and Carver Counties.
�gain thanks for your help an support.
incerely yours,
Deputy Douglas S chmidtke #848
cc. Public Safety Director Scott Harr ,
Chanhassen Fire Chief James McNia6on
i frmat�ce.�ctiorvEquui Opportunm Cmplo�er
,Tinted on .0% Post - Consumer ReC:Cied Paper
0
1
October 28, 1996
CITY OF A'%�''
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Scott County Sheriff's Department
Communications/Records
Courthouse B 14
428 South Holmes Street
Shakopee, MN 55379 -1391
I Attn: Lt. Al DuBois
' Re: MDTs
Dear Lt. DuBois,
This is a long overdue THANK YOU for providing us with the opportunity to cooperate with SCSO in
supplying law enforcement personnel with MDTs in Chanhassen. Not only does this greatly benefit our
response to the needs of our community. but it has been a great way to further improve an already good
relationship between Chanhassen Public Safety and the Scott County Sheriff's Department.
You, and everyone we have dealt with at Scott County throughout this process, has remained
professional, cooperative and always willing to assist as we hav&'pursued this joint project. On behalf of
us all, thank you, Al.
' Sinc y,
Scott Harr
Public Safety Director
SH:cd
' pc: Sheriff William J. Neven, Scott County
Don Ashworth, Chanhassen City Manager
J:`safm,h \sh''dubois