The URL can be used to link to this page

Administrative SectionADMINISTRATIVE SECTION Letter from Robert Owens, Metropolitan Council dated July 7, 1994. Letter from Robert Owens, Metropolitan Council dated July 6, 1994. Letter from Thomas H. Berge, Minnetonka Public Schools dated July 15, 1994. I Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition Update. Letter to Gary Boyle, Chanhassen Lions Club dated July 18, 1994. I Letter to Bill Moreno dated July 14, 1994. ' Letter to Brandi Thompson dated July 14, 1994. Letter to Jason Thompson dated July 14, 1994. ' Letter to Ray Haik, Popham, Haik & Schnobrick dated July 11, 1994. Letter from Maxine Hallberg and Marie Wortman dated June 30, 1994. Note from Helen Merchant, Chanhassen Elementary School Principal. Letter from Elliott Knetsch, City Attorney's Office dated July 8, 1994. ' Letter from Elliott Knetsch, City Attorney's Office dated July 8, 1994 including Notice of Entry Upon Land for Inspection and Other Purposes. ' Letter from Tom Scott, City Attorney's Office dated July 8, 1994 and various documents regarding the Beddor law suit. ' Letter from Conrad Fiskness, Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District dated July 7, 1994. Letter to Paul Savaryn dated July 7, 1994. Letter to Jim Paulet, DataSery dated July 7, 1994. I HRA Accounts Payable dated July 11, 1994. Letter to Jeff Tupper dated July 11, 1994. Letter to Ben Gowen dated July 8, 1994. Letter to Erick Kramer dated July 11, 1994. ' Letter to. Thomas G. Uppman dated July 7, 1994. Letter from Maxine Hallberg and Marie Wortman dated June 30, 1994. Note from Helen Merchant, Chanhassen Elementary School Principal. Letter from Elliott Knetsch, City Attorney's Office dated July 8, 1994. ' Letter from Elliott Knetsch, City Attorney's Office dated July 8, 1994 including Notice of Entry Upon Land for Inspection and Other Purposes. ' Letter from Tom Scott, City Attorney's Office dated July 8, 1994 and various documents regarding the Beddor law suit. ' Letter from Conrad Fiskness, Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District dated July 7, 1994. Letter to Paul Savaryn dated July 7, 1994. Letter to Jim Paulet, DataSery dated July 7, 1994. I HRA Accounts Payable dated July 11, 1994. Metropolitan Council Advocating regional economic, societal and environmental issues and solutions TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD ' July 7, 1994 The Honorable Donald Chmiel Mayor City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Dear Mayor Chmiel: The Transportation Advisory Board has completed its review of the project applications submitted for federal funding for_federal fiscal years 1995, 96, and 97 for the Surface Transportation Program (STP), the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program (CMAQ) and the Transportation Enhancements Program (TEP). The project(s) you submitted was approved for funding in this solicitation. Listed below are the approved projects, category and funding year. If other projects that you may have submitted are not listed below, they have not been approved and the proposer of the project will be notified in a separate letter of that fact. Category Project Description Year Enhancement Ped Underpass at TH 5 South 1996 ' This is a preliminary notice of approval. Funds cannot be obligated until the 1995 -97 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is approved through the regional, state, and federal approval process. A project must be in this program before it can receive federal funds. We will be informing you once the State TIP has received final federal approval. ' Bccause of the fiscal management of projects in the TIP, your project might be put into a later program year other than the one you indicated in your application. Therefore, if your project(s) is time sensitive, please send a letter immediately to the Transportation Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Council, attention Emil Brandt. ' Attached is a summary of the projects selected for funding in each program area. A total of 155 projects were submitted. All projects were reviewed to determine if the qualifying criteria were met. A few projects were rejected for failing to meet these criteria. The remainder were reviewed and scored by subcommittees of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Scored projects were prioritized by project category. Seventy-six (76) projects were recommended for funding, Thirty-six (36) within STP, ten (10) in CMAQ, and thirty (30) in TEP. Total federal funding is $67.1 million for STP projects, $14.0 million for CMAQ, and $10.0 million for TEP. 1 1 Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 -1634 612 291 -6359 Fax 291 -6550 TDD 291 -0904 1 L:� Recycled Pape An Equal Opportunity Employer m July 7, 1994 Page Two Through this process, federal funding for these programs is complete through 1997. The next solicitation for these project categories has not yet been determined but it will not likely occur before late 1995. Projects previously submitted and prioritized but not funded must be resubmitted in order to be considered. If you have any questions please contact Emil Brandt, Transportation Coordinator, Transportation Advisory Board or Carl Ohm, Planning Analyst, Metropolitan Council, at 291 -6347 and 291 -6507, respectively. S* rely, l 1 1 / . 1 if I ' . Robert D. Owens Acting Chair, Transportation Advisory Board Attachment cc: Charles Folen, City Engineer/Director of Public Works err rr r r rr rr rr rr r r■ r r r rr r rr rr rr" r 1994 RECOMMENDED PROJECTS FOR FEDERAL FUNDING - CMAQ revised 6 -22 -94 ID APPLICANT FEDERAL FUNDING PROJECT DESCRIPTION TOTAL FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 CM -13 MINNEAPOLIS $275,800 $275,800 DOWNTOWN TMO *CM -7 MTC $6,582,200 $3,100,000 (rest -post 1997 I -35W SERVICE EXPANSION /REORGANIZATION CM -11 MINNEAPOLIS $423,000 $423,000 PRIORITY VEHICLE CONTROL SYSTEMS - LAKE /NICOLLET CM -1 MN /DOT $800,000 $800,000 HOV RAMP METER BYPASSES CM -8 RTB $2,236,000 $1,136,000 $1,100,000 TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CM -2 MN /DOT $800,000 $800,000 HOV RAMP METER BYPASSES CM -9 MINNEAPOLIS $952,000 $952,000 COORDINATED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CM -5 ST. PAUL $680,000 $680,000 TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS CM -3 MN /DOT $800,000 $800,000 HOV RAMP METER BYPASSES CM -12 MINNEAPOLIS $451,000 $451,000 PRIORITY VEHICLE CONTROL SYSTEMS,- LYNDALE /CEDAR TOTAL $14,000,000 0 $4,266,800 $6,251,000 * FUNDED AMOUNT REDUCED FROM $8,717,592 1994 RECOMMENDED PROJECTS FOR FEDERAL FUNDING - ENHANCEMENTS rolri Marl A -22 -9a ID APPLICANT FEDERAL FUNDING PROJECT DESCRIPTION TOTAL FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 EH -16 MOUND $500,000 $500,000 LOST LAKE HISTORIC CANAL EH -1 HENNEPIN CO $312,800 $312,800 EXCELSIOR HISTORIC STREETCAR EP -19 DAKOTA CO $176,000 $176,000 BIG RIVERS REG TRAIL -PHASE II EP - 20 DAKOTA CO $396,000 $396,000 BIG RIVERS - PHASE III EH -13 MPLS. $275,000 $275,000 MINNEHAHA PK LONGFELLOW HOUSE EH -14 MINNETONKA $304,000 $304,000 CHARLES H. BURWELL PROPERTY EH -9 MPLS $488,000 $488,000 FREIGHT HEAD HOUSE EP -8 SHOREVIEW $347,200 $347,200 SNAIL LK OPEN SPACE TRAIL EP -11 RAMSEY CO $340,000 $340,000 BATTLE CREEK BIKEWA EP -7 SHOREVIEW $142,400 $142,400 RICE CREEK OPEN SPACE TRAIL EH -11 MPLS. $500,000 $500,000 MILWAUKEE DEPOT ES -6 ST PAUL $464,000 $464,000 ST. PAUL RIVER BLUFF EH -7 SUB. HENN REG $200,000 $200,000 LK MTKA REG PARK EP -5 SHAKOPEE,ET C. $500,000 $500,000 SHAKOPEE TO PRIOR LAKE EH -2 EAGAN $320,000 $320,000 MN RIVER VALLEY TRAILS m = m m = = r � 1994 RECOMMENDED PROJECTS FOR FEDERAL FUNDING - STP revised 7 -8 -94 SIP CATEGORY 10 APPLICANT FEDERAL FUNDING PROJECT DESCRIPTION TOTAL FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 RELIEVERS AR-6 BLOOMINGTON $3,776,800 $3 RECONSTRUCTION OF 79TH ST FROM BLAISDELL TO PORTLAND AR -3 BLOOMINGTON $3,588,000 (pushed out to 1998) RECONSTRUCTION OF 79TH STREET FROM CHICAGO TO CEDAR EXPANDERS AE -20 DAKOTA CO. $3,740,000 53,740,000 CR 46 - JOPLIN AV TO 1-35 AE -15 MN /DOT $96 $96,000 IN 5 - SIGNAL INTERCONNECT FROM CSAN 4 TO PRAIRIE CENTER DR. AE-T WASHINGTON CO. $1,040,000 $1,040,000 CSAH 16 - INTERLACHEN DR. TO CSAN 19 AE -13 MN /DOT $3,520,000 S3,520 IN 5 /TH 36 INTERCHANGE RECONSTRUCTION AE -5 HENNEPIN CO. $800,000 $800,000 CSAH 62/7419 - CSAN 62 AND TH 101 AE -1 HENNEPIN CO S3,120,000 $3,120,000 CSAN 1/9320 - TH 169 TO W OF CSAN 18 AE-9 ANOKA CO. $2,080,000 (pushed out to 1998) EAST RIVER RD. - RICKARD RD. TO 84TH AV AUGMENTERS AA -2 WASHINGTON $240,000 $240 RECONSTRUCTION OF CSAH 2 IN FOREST LAKE AA -3 MN /DOT S3,600,000 $3,600,000 RECONSTRUCTION OF UNIVERSITY AV (TN 47) FROM 27TH TO 37TH AV NE CONNECTORS AC-3 WASHINGTON $1,950,000 $1,950,000 IMPROVEMENTS OF CSAH 3 FROM CSAH 4 TO THE NORTH COUNTY LINE AC-8 CARVER $1.904,800 S1,904,800 RECONSTRUCTION AND RELAIGNMENT OF CSAH 11 FROM TN 5 TO CSAN 10 PRINCIPALS PA -5 MN/DOT S48 $48,000 TH 10 SIGNAL INTERCONNECT - SPRINGBROOK TO ABLE PA -15 MN/DOT S880 S880 TH 7 SIGNAL REVISIONS - IN 41 TO WILLISTON RD PA -3 MN /DOT $5,500,000 $5,500 TH 10 - 1-35W TO TH47/610 PA -8 MN/DOT $368,000 S368,000 TH 7 SIGNAL REVISIONS - 12TH AV TO TEXAS AV PA -13 MN /DOT $5,280,000 post 1997 NEW 212 - CSAH 60 TO IN 494 PA -14 MN /DOT $4,640 post 1997 TH 169 - REHABILITATION AND WIDENING OF ANOKA /CHAMPLIN BRIDGE PA -9 MN /DOT $5,500,000 $5,500,000 TH 101 /SHAKOPEE BYPASS - SP 7005-53 FROM CSAN 17 TO OLD TH 101 TRANSIT TR -19 MINNESOTA VALLEY S2,950,000 $2,950,000 BURNSVILLE TRANSIT HUB TR-1 RIB $ ARM RRA $2,000,000 E2 000 000 NORTNTONN TRANSIT HUB TR -8 MTC $3,200,000 $3,200,000 HENNEPIN /LAGOON TRANSIT HUB TR -11 MTC $200,000 $200,000 NILLCREST TRANSIT NUB TR -5 MTC $1,256,000 $1,256,000 BUS STOP SHELTERS TR -7 MTC $160,000 $160,000 ROBBINSDALE TRANSIT HUB TR-4 MTC $128,000 $128.000 1 SPEEDLITE TR -10 MTC $240,000 $240,000 HIGHLAND TRANSIT HUB Metropolitan Council 9017 ( Advocating regional economic, societal and environmental issues and solutions TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD July 6, 1994 Charles Folch City Engineer, Director of Public Works Citv of Chanhassen 69 Coulter Drive Post Office Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Folch: r - ly The Transportation Advisory Board has completed its review of the project applications submitted for federal funding for federal fiscal years 1995, 96, and 97 for the Surface Transportation Program (STP), the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program (CMAQ) and the Transportation Enhancements Program (TEP). The project(s) you submitted was not approved for funding in this solicitation. s. Attached is a summary of the projects selected for funding in each program area. A total of 155 projects were submitted. All projects were reviewed to determine if the qualifying criteria were met. A few projects were rejected for failing to meet these criteria. The remainder were reviewed and scored by subcommittees of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Scored projects were prioritized by project category. Seventy-six (76) projects were recommended for funding; Thirty-six (36) within STP, ten (10) in CMAQ, and thirty (30) in TEP. The TAB and the Metropolitan Council have concurred with these selections. Total federal funding is $67.1 million for STP projects, $14.0 million for CMAQ, and $10.0 million for TEP. Through this process, federal funding for these programs is complete through 1997. The next solicitation for these project categories has not yet been determined but it will not likely occur before late 1995. Projects previously submitted and prioritized but not funded must be resubmitted in order to be considered. If you have any questions please contact Mr. Emil Brandt, Transportation Coordinator, Transportation Advisory Board or Mr. Carl Ohm, Planning Analyst, Metropolitan Council, at 291 -6347 and 291 -6416, respectively. Sincerely, r Robert D. Owens Acting Chair, Transportation Advisory Board Attachment Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 -1634 612 291 -6359 Fax 291 -6550 TDD 291 -0904 ' An Equal Opportunity Employer ® RecycW Paper _ ■ 1994 RECOMMENDED PROJECTS FOR FEDERAL FUNDING - STP revised 7 -8 -94 STP CATEGORY to APPLICANT FEDERAL FUNDING PROJECT DESCRIPTION TOTAL FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 RELIEVERS AR -6 BLOOMINGTON $3 $3,776,800 RECONSTRUCTION OF 79TH ST FROM BLAISDELL TO PORTLAND AR -3 BLOOMINGTON $3,588,000 (pushed out to 1998) RECONSTRUCTION OF 79TH STREET FROM CHICAGO TO CEDAR EXPANDERS AE-20 DAKOTA CO. $3 S3,740 CR 46 - JOPLIN AV TO 1-35 AE-15 MN /DOT S96 $96,000 TH 5 - SIGNAL INTERCONNECT FROM CSAN 4 TO PRAIRIE CENTER DR. AE-7 WASHINGTON CO. $1.040,000 $1,040,000 CSAH 16 - INTERLACHEN DR. TO CSAH 19 AE-13 MN /DOT $3,520,000 $3,520,000 TH 5 /TH 36 INTERCHANGE RECONSTRUCTION AE-5 HENNEPIN CO. $800 $800,000 CSAH 62/7419 - CSAN 62 AND TH 101 AE -1 HENNEPIN CO $3,120,000 $3 CSAH 1/9320 - TH 169 TO W OF CSAN 18 AE-9 ANOKA CO. $2,080,000 (pushed out to 1998) EAST RIVER RD. - RICKARD RD. TO 84TH AV AUGMENTERS AA-2 WASHINGTON $240 $240,000 RECONSTRUCTION OF CSAH 2 IN FOREST LAKE AA-3 MN /DOT $3,600,000 $3,600 RECONSTRUCTION OF UNIVERSITY AV (TH 47) FROM 27TH TO 37TH AV HE CONNECTORS AC -3 WASHINGTON $1,950,000 $1 IMPROVEMENTS OF CSAN 3 FROM CSAH 4 TO THE NORTH COUNTY LINE AC -8 CARVER $1,904,800 $1,904,800 RECONSTRUCTION AND RELAIGNMENT OF CSAH 11 FROM TH 5 TO CSAN 10 PRINCIPALS PA -5 MN/DOT $48,000 $48 TH 10 SIGNAL INTERCONNECT - SPRINGBROOK TO ABLE PA -15 MN /DOT S880,000 $880,000 TH 7 SIGNAL REVISIONS - TH 41 TO WILLISTON RD PA -3 MN /DOT $5.500,000 $5,500 TN 10 - 1 -35V TO TH47/610 PA -8 MN /DOT $368,000 $368.000 TH 7 SIGNAL REVISIONS - 12TH AV TO TEXAS AV PA -13 MN/DOT $5,280 post 1997 NEW 212 - CSAH 60 TO TH 494 PA -14 MN /DOT $4,640,000 post 1997 TH 169 - REHABILITATION AND WIDENING OF ANOKA /CHAMPLIN BRIDGE PA-9 MN/DOT S5,500,000 $5 TH 101 /SHAKOPEE BYPASS - SP 7005 -53 FROM CSAN 17 TO OLD TH 101 TRANSIT TR-19 MINNESOTA VALLEY $2,950,000 $2,950,000 BURNSVILLE TRANSIT HUB TR -1 RTB & ANOKA RRA $2,000,000 $2,000,000 NORTNTOWN TRANSIT HUB TR-8 MTC $3,200 $3 HENNEPIN /LAGOON TRANSIT HUB TR-11 MTC $200,000 $200,000 NILLCREST TRANSIT HUB TR-5 MTC $1.256.000 $1,256,000 BUS STOP SHELTERS TR -7 MTC $160 $160,000 ROBBtNSDALE TRANSIT HUB TR-4 MTC $128,000 S-12-8,00-0 SPEEDLITE TR -10 MTC $240,000 $240,000 HIGHLAND TRANSIT HUB 1994 RECOMMENDED PROJECTS FOR FEDERAL FUNDING - ENHANCEMENTS revised 6 -22 -94 ID APPLICANT FEDERAL FUNDING PROJECT DESCRIPTION TOTAL FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 EH -16 I MOUND $500,000 $500,000 LOST LAKE HISTORIC CANAL EH -1 HENNEPIN CO $312,800 $312,800 EXCELSIOR HISTORIC STREETCAR EP -19 DAKOTA CO $176,000 $176,000 BIG RIVERS REG TRAIL -PHASE II EP -20 DAKOTA CO $396,000 $396,000 BIG RIVERS - PHASE III EH -13 MPLS. $275,000 $275,000 MINNEHAHA PK LONGFELLOW HOUSE EH -14 MINNETONKA $304,000 $304,000 CHARLES H. BURWELL PROPERTY EH -9 MPLS $488,000 $488,000 FREIGHT HEAD HOUSE EP -8 SHOREVIEW $347,200 $347,200 SNAIL LK OPEN SPACE TRAIL EP -11 RAMS CO $340,000 $340,000- BATTLE CREEK BIKEWAY EP -7 SHOREVIEW $142,400 $142,400 RICE CREEK OPEN SPACE TRAIL EH =11 MPLS. $500,000 $500,000 MILWAUKEE DEPOT ES -6 ST PAUL $464,000 $464,000 ST. PAUL RIVER BLUFF EH -7 SUB. HENN REG $200,000 $200,000 LK MTKA REG PARK EP -5 SHAKOPEE,ET C. $500,000 $500,000 SHAKOPEE TO PRIOR LAKE EH -2 EAGAN $320,000 $320,000 MN RIVER VALLEY TRAILS = = m m = = = = = = m = = = m = m r m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m` r 1994 RECOMMENDED PROJECTS FOR FEDERAL FUNDING - CMAQ revised 6 -22 -94 ID APPLICANT FEDERAL FUNDING PROJECT DESCRIPTION TOTAL FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 CM -13 MI NNEAPOLIS $275,800 $275,800 DOWNTOWN TMO *CM -7 MTC $6,582,200 $3,100,000 (rest -post 1997 I -35W SERVICE EXPANSION /REORGANIZATION CM -11 MINNEAPOLIS $423,000 $423,000 PRIORITY VEHICLE CONTROL SYSTEMS - LAKE /NICOLLET CM -1 MN /DOT $800,000 $800,000 HOV RAMP METER BYPASSES CM -8 RTB $2,236,000 $1,136,000 $1,100,000 TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CM -2 MN /DOT $800,000 $800,000 HOV RAMP METER BYPASSES CM -9 MINNEAPOLIS $952,000 $952,000 COORDINATED TRAFFIC_ MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CM -5 ST. PAUL $680,000 $680,000 TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS CM -3 MN /DOT $800,000 $800,000 HOV RAMP METER BYPASSES CM -12 MINNEAPOLIS $451,000 $451,000 PRIORITY VEHICLE CONTROL SYSTEMS,- LYNDALE /CEDAR TOTAL $14,000,000 0 $4,266,800 $6,251,000 * FUNDED AMOUNT REDUCED FROM $8,717,592 On behalf of the Minnetonka Public Schools Board of Education, I wish to thank you for your recent donation to Clear Springs School of a compost bin, with an estimated value of $50.00. ' The donation was accepted by the board at their June 2, 1994 meeting. Again, thank you for your donation to the district. ' Yours truly, 1 Thomas H. Berge ' Director of Business Services Thomas H. Berge, Director of Business Services rrEn Minnetonka AO Public Schools ^. . , Learning Today for Success Tomorrow ' DD recycled Paper V - , July 15, 1994 ' City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 On behalf of the Minnetonka Public Schools Board of Education, I wish to thank you for your recent donation to Clear Springs School of a compost bin, with an estimated value of $50.00. ' The donation was accepted by the board at their June 2, 1994 meeting. Again, thank you for your donation to the district. ' Yours truly, 1 Thomas H. Berge ' Director of Business Services Thomas H. Berge, Director of Business Services rrEn (612) 470 -3431 261 School Avenue, Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 Fax: (612) 470 -3432 ' DD recycled Paper SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR ' TRANSPORTATION COALITION UPDATE 1. U.S. House of Representative improves Funding for or Highway 212 The House, as part of its markup of the National Highway System (NHS), authorized $3.0 million for the Highway 212 project. The 212 funding is part of $900.0 million in authorizations for projects included in the bill, which has been passed by the House and sent to the Senate. ' Passage of the NHS bill by the Senate, however, is unlikely this year. Such issues as health care and welfare reform could force the NHS bill to be a 1995 issue. In addition, the Senate generally has concern regarding demonstration projects. ' Although the possibility of Senate p assag e is unlikely are encourag 9 P tY P 9 Y� 9 to contact Senators Durenberger and Wellstone to urge them to have the NHS bill heard ' this year. The phone numbers and addresses of the Senators are as follows: David Durenberger 1020 Plymouth Building 12 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 ' (612) 370 -3382 1- 800 - 752 -4226 Senator Paul Wellstone Room 10ON or 417 West Utchfield Avenue ' 2550 University Ave. West Willmar MN 56201 St. Paul MN 55114 (612) 231 -0001 (612) 645 -0323 1$00- 642 -6041 The authorization does not mean that the $3.0 million will be readily available for ' the project. The authorization will need to be converted into an appropriation by the House and Senate committees. The NHS legislation does allow the appropriation to be made over three federal fiscal years (FY 1995 to FY1997). ' With Minn esota D rtm nt f Transpo rtation 2. Coaliti Cooperates es � in 212 ' Funding Study The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) has provided funds to conduct a feasibility study regarding funding and funding alternatives. The study, which will be conducted by a consultant, is being administrated by the City of Chaska, a coalition member. The study will attempt to determine if a toll facility or a form of public- , private partnership is feasible. In addition, the study will suggest a range of financial and organizational structures. The study should be completed by February 1995 RECEIVED J } . 1994 CITY 017 CH,; . !HASSEN 3. Metropolitan Council Begins Development of 1995 -1997 Transportation Improvement Progr, The Metropolitan Council has released a draft 1995 -1997 TIP for the region. The draft TIP: e includes all federally funded transportation projects within the seven county metropolitan area. e is revised annually, but most of the federal funds have already been earmarked for the region and have appeared in the previous (1994 -1996) TIP. e identifies $372.0 million in projects for federal fiscal years 1995 through 1997. The projects by work type are listed below: 1995 -1997 PROJECTS BY WORK TYPE' (in millions) AM - agreements BR - bridge replacement RC - reconstruction RS resurfacing SC safety- capacity improvements SR - railroad safety projects EN - enhancements TR, CB, BT - transit subcategories BI - bridge improvement MC - major construction RD - reconditioning RX - road repair SH - safety - hazard elimination TM - traffic management IVHS - intelligent vehicle highway system 11) Source - Table 4, page 36, "1995 -1997 Transportation Improvement Program for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Areau I ! 1' I I II 11 95 96 97 TOTAL Preservation $ 16 $ 45 $ 26 $ 87/23% (RX, RD, RS, BI) Preservation 42 25 42 109/29% (RC, BR) Other 34 49 23 106/28% (AM, TM, SC, SH ,SR ,EN, TR, CB, BT, IVHS) Expansion 40 1 29 70/19% (MC) TOTAL $ 132 $ 120 $ 120 $ 372 AM - agreements BR - bridge replacement RC - reconstruction RS resurfacing SC safety- capacity improvements SR - railroad safety projects EN - enhancements TR, CB, BT - transit subcategories BI - bridge improvement MC - major construction RD - reconditioning RX - road repair SH - safety - hazard elimination TM - traffic management IVHS - intelligent vehicle highway system 11) Source - Table 4, page 36, "1995 -1997 Transportation Improvement Program for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Areau I ! 1' I I II 11 identifies fourteen major highway projects. Highway 212 is one of the 14 projects. The TIP must include a status report of the major highway projects. A copy of the report is enclosed. e recommends the following for Highway 212. Year Let Amount Description i 1995 $ 150,000 Complete left turn lane east of Walnut Street to Co. Road 17 ' 1995 2,000,000 Surcharge of Technology Drive 1996 375,000 Signal and channelization at TH 101 1997 8,000,000 New 212 ROW only. 1997 250,000 CSAH61 signal and channelization The surcharge and right -of -way projects will use federal demonstration funds. The public hearing for the TIP is scheduled for July 20, 1994. The Coalition will ' testify at the hearing. The above schedule represents a further delay in the scheduling of the TH 212 construction. You are urged to write the Chair of the Transportation Advisory Board to express your concern about the delay. Letters should be submitted a by August 1, 1994. We are concerned that Federal Demonstration Grant funds appropriated for TH 212 are being used on other projects and /or being put at risk by not being used. Furthermore, not using previously appropriated funds lessens the likelihood of Congress appropriating additional funds. Finally, it would appear that the regional prioritizing system does not recognize the statewide significance of major roads passing ' through more than one region. Letters should be addressed to: Bob Owens Acting Chair of the Transportation Advisory Board ' Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East 5th Street St. Paul MN 55101 4. 1994 legislature Provides No Transportation Funding Package. Approves oves Two Funding Studies The 1994 Minnesota legislature tried, but did not enact a comprehensive transportation funding bill. The legislature passed and the Governor signed legislation establishing two transportation funding studies. One study directs the Commissioner of Transportation to conduct a study of road pricing options. The study must include the ' option of replacing the current funding system with a system based on a charge for miles traveled. The study must be presented to the legislature by January 15, 1996. The second piece of legislation establishes a state advisory council to be a forum for education, discussion and advice to the legislature on financing major transportation projects. The council must submit its report and recommendations to the legislature by February 1, 1995. 1 5. Toll Road Seminar Reports on Household Survey in Southwest Corridor I The Minnesota Transportation Group (MTG) sponsored a seminar regarding toll roads. The seminar was held in South St. Paul on June 29. Among the topics discussed ' was a telephone survey conducted for the MTG. The telephone survey contacted four hundred households in a portion of the Southwest Corridor (Eden Prairie, Chanhassen, Chaska) and an equal number in the Wakota Bridge area (South St. Paul, Inver Grove Heights, Woodbury, Cottage Grove and Newport). The survey was conducted in October 1993. Approximately 5% of those contacted refused to take part in the 15 minute interview. The major findings of the survey as it relates to Highway 212 are as follows: • There is moderate satisfaction with current traffic flow and the state transportaion infrastructure. • More than half (52 %) of the respondents will be likely to use TH 212 if it were a toll road. • Respondents favor a toll road that would not increase taxes, would avoid congestion and decrease travel time. I • There was evidence in the comments of respondents that a "numbering , acceptance" of Highway 212 congestion had occurred during the many years of promised, but unrealized relief. 6. Annual Meeting Set for August 19 1994 Reps Minge and Ramstad to Spea ' The annual meeting of the coalition will be held on Friday, August 19, 1994, at S a.m. The meeting will be held at the Chaska Community Center. Rep. David Minge and Rep. Jim Ramstad have accepted invitations to attend and speak. An agenda and meeting notice reminder will be mailed within the next two weeks. 7. Coalition Member Met With MNDOT Staff to Review TIP coalition members including ' On Tuesday, July 6, 1994, co 9 Bob Undall and Traci Swanson met with MNDOT District Engineer Chuck Siggerud and staff. The purpose of the meeting was to review the proposed Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and , advocate for inclusion of a Highway 212 construction project in the TIP. The MNDOT staff L explained that expansion projects have a low priority and will only be funded if the project had been started, or federal funds are available. Highway 212 is scheduled for inclusion in the next TIP (1998) for federal Surface Transportation Project (STP) funding. The STP funds, however, have a $5.5 million funding cap per project. Therefore, if Highway 212 ' receives STP funding in 1998, it will be limited to $5.5 million. Additional funding will need to come from state (trunk highway) and other federal sources. 1� I pr%zw%updtsw.doc94 Chanhassen Lions Club c/o Gary Boyle 7214 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Dear Members: On behalf of the City of Chanhassen, I would like to extend our deep appreciation to the Lions organization in recognition of your recent donation of $17,000 to the Chanhassen Park and Recreation Department. This money will be placed in an escrow account for future use in completing park and recreation projects. It is understood that of the $17,000, $11,000 will be used to assist in the 'outfitting" of the new Chanhassen Recreation Center to be located adjacent to the new Chanhassen Elementary School, with the remaining $6,000 to be used on a project selected by the Chanhassen Athletic Association. The Chanhassen City Council and Park and Recreation Commission are very grateful to have been considered as recipients of this money. We are well aware that there are many other worthy causes which the Lions organization could have considered for this gift. Please be assured that the entire $17,000 will be invested in recreation equipment which will benefit all of Chanhassen, especially our youth. I would have preferred to have been present the evening the City Council accepted your contribution; however, I was out of town on Monday, July 11. Please accept my sincere apology in this regard. We look forward to the Chanhassen Lions continued involvement in the community and are excited about your upcoming contributions to the SeptemberFest celebration.. - Again, thank you very much for your generosity. 77 1 L F L H u PC: Mayor and City Council Park and Recreation Commission Jack Jensen, CAA President July 18, 1994 CITY OF CHANHASSEX 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 5 F �j' L I 11 Mr. Bill Moreno 6727 Hopi Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Moreno: On behalf of the City of Chanhassen, I would like to extend our thanks for your donation of the beautiful apple and pear trees which were recently transplanted to Lake Susan Community Park. It appears that these trees were well taken care of and nurtured while in your yard. It is our hope that they will continue to grow providing beauty and shade at one of our most widely used city parks. If you would like to see the;trees in their new location, they are located just southwest of the Lake Susan Park Picnic` Shelter. Again, thank you for seeking an alternative to cutting the trees down prior to commencing your construction project. Sincerely, Todd Hoffman Park and Recreation Director C ITY OF 1 CHANHASSEN l 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ' (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 July 14, 1994 b , GG �, P, � � r I cA t3 ,e.r, u 1 s 1 Ms. Brandi Thompson 7400 Longview Circle ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Brandi: ' Thank you for applying for a position on the District 112 Youth Commission as a Chanhassen ' representative. Unfortunately, you were not selected to represent the city in this position. The Chanhassen City Council, however, wishes to express their deep appreciation for the effort you undertook in applying for this position and in appearing before the City Council , during your interview. The council was very impressed with the quality and enthusiasm of all applicants and they encourage you to continue pursuing opportunities for involvement in your community. , For your information, the City Council selected Jason Thorinpson for the position. Again, thank you for applying and good luck in your future endeavors. ' Sincerely, T odd Hoffman - Park and Recreation Director TH:k PC: ., or and City Council ' Don Ashworth, City Manager Jeanne Straus, District 112 , CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Mr. Jason Thompson 41 Hill Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Jason: It is my pleasure to inform you that the Chanhassen City Council selected you to represent the City of Chanhassen as our youth representative to the District 112 Youth Commission. The City Council found all candidates to be highly' qualified as well as motivated in their pursuit of this position. You can be proud to have been selected from such a qualified field of applicants; all of which are your peers. I have notified Jeanne Straus, the advisor to the Youth Commission for District 112, of your appointment. She will be contacting you in the near future with additional details in regard to your new appointment. I look forward to working with you to further the efforts of the Youth Commission. Sincerely, Todd Hoffman Park and Recreation Dire TH:k ' pc: "Mayor and City C Don Ashworth, City Manager Jeanne Straus, District 112 CITY OF t CHANHASSEN 1 4 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 July 11, 1994 Mr. Raymond A. Haik, Esq. Popham, Haik & Schnobrick 3300 Piper Jaffrey Tower 222 south Ninth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Re: Bluff Creek Land - PID No. 25- 0360100 Storm Water Utility Fees File No. PW -207B Dear Mr. Haik In response to your recent letter on behalf of the Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District regarding PID No. 25- 0360100 which is proposed to be protected as an open -space corridor as a cooperative project with the City of Chanhassen, your request for a waiver to the storm water utility fees is hereby granted given that this property/project is analogous to other parkland area in the City which are exempt from storm water fees. c: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer Jean Meuwissen, Treasurer Don Ashworth, City Manager City Council Administration Packet (7/25/94) g Atnglcharles\1etters\ha&e u I I E I I I I JEFF TUPPER 314 - 644 -2582 07/11/1994 10:21:59 AM P_1 A ' JEFF TOPPER 7555 DALE AVENUE RICHMOND HEIGHTS, MISSOURI 63117 -2160 314 - 644 -2582 Mr. Todd Gerhardt July 11, 1994 ' City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Gerhardt: t Thank you for your letter of June 29th in regard to the Planner I position with the City of Chanhassen. 1 say this to acknowledge the respect shown in your contacting me as to the status of my application. More often then not that simple courtesy is ignored. I was saddened to learn that I will not be considered for the position. In talking with people I know in Bloomington and Eden Prairie, I heard many positive comments concerning the City and it's progressive ' commitment to environmental matters. I sensed an opportunity to match my passion for quality environmental programs and actions with a willing employer. My desire was to discuss how my experience and commitment to public service might have complimented the City's planning efforts, given the clear knowledge on my part that the position was at the entry level. There is also the matter of being pointed ' towards Minnesota as a place to live and work. It seems I am constantly presented with information from many sources that indicates a stay in the "land of 10,000 lakes ". ' I will follow up this letter with a phone call to you this Wednesday morning. I request fifteen minutes of your time in soliciting information about possible environmental employment opportunities in Minnesota. Thank you for considering my request. ' Respectfully. Jeff Tupper n C CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 July 8, 1994 Mr. Ben H. Gowen 6440 Hazeltine Boulevard Excelsior, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Gowen: As I believe you are aware, the City Council did map. While your property is excluded from tr seek resources for you. Juld not occur on your property, I have talked to Officer Steve Walter regarding your situation, and s with you further in an attempt to assist you with ied at 470 -9793. While I stand by my position that shooting Department of Natural Resources Conservat he said that he would be happy to discuss th the deer problem. Officer Walter can be'. Si rely, Scott Harr Public Safety Director'. SH:eb cc: Conservation Officer Steve Richard and Karen Seaberg g.'vafety'4 ftowd=rAtr the new ordinance and shooting boundary ing area, I was directed by the Mayor to C I'i L 7 Mr. Eric Kramer 1720 Louis Lane Hastings, MN 55033 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Re: Terms of Employment for Utility Operator Position - File No. PW -317A Dear Eric: Congratulations! I am pleased to offer you the Utility Operator position for the City of Chanhassen. I am sure you will find this experience rewarding and challenging and City staff a pleasure to work with. The Utility Operator position has been established at a Salary Grade III. Your starting salary will be $26,000 per year , which amounts to $1,000 per paycheck or $12.50 per hour. Your salary and performance will be reviewed in accordance with the City's standards and procedures in December following successful completion of the six -month probation period. As discussed during your interview, this position may require some overtime work for which you will be compensated at a rate of time and one -half or you can accrue compensatory time accordingly. In addition, this position will also function in the rotational "on -call" status which will involve some weekend work. Vacation and sick time accrual will be two weeks per year and one day per month, respectively. Your official start date has been established to be Monday, July 18, 1994. On that day please report to Jerry Boucher, Utility Superintendent, at the Public Works Maintenance Shop by 7:30 a.m. ' Again, please accept my congratulations and we look forward to you joining our talented staff. Sincerely, ' CITY OF CHANHASSEN Charles D. Folch, P.E. Director of Public Works /City Engineer ' CDF:ktm Enc. r c: Jean Meuwissen, City Treasurer Don Ashworth, City Manager Todd Gerhardt, Assistant City Manager Jerry Boucher, Utility Superintendent Personnel File I SAM\Che1e#Uette"9b=Cr July 11, 1994 July 7 1994 Honorable Mayor and City Council. City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: City Project 93 -32 Honorable Mayor and City Council: — Ce tow 7 /ss e"04 A /y!•'40141/ AsA A.;W 00 rej C J I recently purchased the property located at 532 Lyman Boulevard. I first learned of the above referenced project in the June 20th letter from OSM Associates, Inc. While I am not opposed to developments in the City, I am opposed to having to pay assessments for which I receive no benefit, i.e. the planned watermain and sanitary sewer. I understand my benefit from the Lyman Boulevard reconstruction, however I would like to know what portion of the proposed assessment is for the road reconstruction. The letter from OSM Associates, Inc. states, "This project is proposed to be funded with City Funds, Municipal State Aid Funds, and special assessments to benefited properties. The assessments to the individual properties depends on a number of parameters, but is related directly to the benefit the proper will realize from the improvement project Since lateral water and sewer lines to the properties north of Lyman Boulevard are not proposed in this project there is no direct benefit to be realized. I have a ; -fect well and septic system and will not benefit at all to the proposed water and sew _: Froject. I am unable to attend the July 11, 1994 council meeting so let t:.. , letter serve as my formal objection to the proposed assessments to my property, located at 532 Lyman Boulevard as delineated in the June 20th letter from OSM Associates, Inc. Respectfully submitted, --� & cm" Thomas G. Uppman 532 Lyman Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612)937 -8420 I� 0 ciT Ube_ ir,'rp� 2111 JUL ? is 1�k4 V. e e f4. k - N So: Scott Harr Public Safety Commission 5405 Glacier Place Edina. Mn 5531 June 30-1994 i� Reference: Public Safety along Chan View Street in Chanhassen Thi-c letter is to inform you of the concern I have for my aunt an= other elderly that live in apartments along the Chan Vies* Street_ H Church to the City Hall. This road has become tiers Dusy ro and many elderly walk this road to church and to the sen-or citizen center and city hall every day. My a — as well as *__ ^.e=" 'der" citizens li . gyring in the Chan View Apartments expressed concern oo m= regarding the safety of walking with traffic speedinc = talked with the Department of Public Safety as wel-I == e! the possibility of getting a walking path or by s- d_T. : L s =, :rg this =tr *_ 'G that tl± -s - -- -- ee I feel, like man- � ±he =- d ngercus git ^_ needs to be addresseaddressed . the vita - -ne:ne is hip by a car. Lightinn is a s_ - - 1 r -00'_ _'_^ ! * -his street . a for the s afet y of a =1 =' =r c=L=ve =` attv t= th =° -issue. !ors. Maxine Hat• t•be_a Ni end t, f M�'a l�ta2 "- eo,-trra,. -� 4 f'na.: View PDartmentE C Minn. 5_`3!? SPECIAL THANKS ... FROM CHANHASSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL arm �r r r G r f' 1 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. Attorney; at Law Thonna, J. C;ampl -ell Roger N. Knutson Thorn as M. Scott G:an G. Fuchs lames R. WA to Elliott B. Knetsch Eli_aheth A. Lun_cr Andrea McDowcll Rvhler Mr. Robert J. Bruno Attorney at Law 205 Burnsville Professional Plaza 1601 East Highway 13 Burnsville, MN 55337 Re: City of Chanhassen vs. Halla Nursery, Inc. Our File No. 12668/350 Dear Mr. Bruno: e17y 0= C�i; � Confirming our telephone conversation of July 7, 1994, we have agreed to meet at Chanhassen City Hall on Thursday, July 14, 1994 at 9:00 a.m. The purpose of the meeting is to attempt to come to an agreement on exactly what type of use of the building constitutes an agricultural building. Prior to the meeting, the City will furnish you a written, detailed explanation of the City's position on what constitutes an agricultural building. As we discussed, the Answer to the City's Complaint remains due on July 15, 1994. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, (6 12) 452- 5ON Fax (612) 452 -5550 July 8, 1994 RED' CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. By: Z ltv L& lliott B. (Knee )sch EBK:slcc cc: VMr. Don Ashworth Ms. Kate Aanenson Mr. Scott Harr Mr. Steve Kirchman Suite 317 • Eagandale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, NIN 55121 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. Attorneys at Law Thotmi< J. Comhhcll R ecr N. Knutson Thomas M. Scott Gory G. Fuchs lames F. \ akton Elliott B. Knetsch Eli =abcth A. Lun_cr Andrea McRmcll Pochler July 8, 1994 Mr. Robert J. Bruno Attorney at Law 205 Burnsville Professional Plaza 1601 East Highway 13 Burnsville, MN 55337 Re: City of Chanhassen vs. Halla Nursery, Inc. Our File No. 12668/350 Dear Mr. Bruno: Enclosed herewith and served upon you by U.S. Mail please find Notice of Entry upon Land for Inspection and Other Purposes relative to the above matter. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. By: Elliott B. a ch EBK:slc Enclosure cc: L /Mr• Don Ashworth Ms. Kate Aanenson Mr. Scott Harr Mr. Steve Kirchman (Enclosure) (612) 452-5� 0 Fax (612) 452.5550 7 I Suite 317 a Eagandale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Ewan, 1\1N 55121 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF CARVER -------------------------------- City of Chanhassen, VS. Plaintiff, DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE: 10 - OTHER CIVIL Court File No. C8 -94 -851 NOTICE OF ENTRY UPON LAND FOR INSPECTION AND OTHER PURPOSES Halla Nursery, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, Defendant. -------------------------- - - - - -- TO: DEFENDANT HALLA NURSERY, INC. AND THEIR ATTORNEY ROBERT J. BRUNO, 205 BURNSVILLE PROF. PLAZA, 1601 EAST HIGHWAY 13, BURNSVILLE, MN 55337. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Rule 34 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiff will enter the Defendant's land or other property in possession and control of the Defendant 10000 Great Plains Blvd. in the City of Chanhassen, County of Carver, State of Minnesota on July 20, 1994 at 9:30 a.m. for the following purposes all within the scope of Rule 26.01 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure: 1. To inspect, examine, inventory, photograph and survey the Subject Property and Subject Building for evidence of its current and /or prior use for retail sales of products; 2. To inspect, examine, inventory, photograph and survey the Subject Property and Subject Building for compliance with State Building Code requirements for B -2 occupancy; 15489 I 3. To inspect, examine, inventory, and photograph all Building. , inventory in the Subject Dated: 2 �, 1994. ' tiC CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. By: B. et ch, #168130 ' Elliott Elizabeth A. nzer, #230285 Attorneys for Plaintiff 317 Eagandale Office Center ' 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 Telephone: (612) 452 -5000 ' 15489 -2- 199w CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. Attorneys at Law ,, . Ellwir r. Kno Eh_.d-ol, l_un_,-r t Indre.� M, IV IN 1'; P, 11 i I r Mr. Don Ashworth City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Beddor v. Chanhassen Dear Don: �rl, Rix (01- July 8, 1994 Enclosed please find copies of documents which have been submitted to the Court by Mr. Beddor's attorneys as follows: 1. Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion to Amend the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Judgment or in the Alternative for a New Trial. 2. Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion. 3. Proposed Amended Findings. 4. Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion to Stay Entry of Judgment. 5. Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs Motion. 6. Proposed Order. Also enclosed please find our response documents as follows: 1. Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Findings or New Trial. 2. Proposed Order. 3. Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Entry of Judgment. Suite 317 • EaLandale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, \ 5 1 -' 1 Mr. Don Ashworth July 8, 1994 Page 2 Please note that Plaintiffs' Motions are currently set for hearing on July 14, 1994 at the Carver County Courthouse. Please call if you have any questions or comments. Best regards, CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. Thomas M. Scott TMS:slc Enclosures cc: Mr. Dave Hempel (Enclosures) 1 Defendants. -------------------------------------------- INTRODUCTION This lawsuit was commenced by five individual plaintiffs to enforce the State's ' environmental laws and to challenge as arbitrary and capricious the decision to proceed with the proposed projects in the absence of a study of the traffic and safety implications. The lawsuit ' was and is directed at the extension of Nez Perce Drive and realignment of Peaceful Lane proposed by the City of Chanhassen, and on the potential effects of such actions on the environment and the safety of the affected community. The lawsuit commenced by Plaintiffs is not about the Novacz y ks, not about the Posts, and most importantly, it is not about Frank ' Beddor, Jr. Count One of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, although a private cause of action, was brought on behalf of the State of Minnesota to enforce the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act ( "MERA "). See Minn. Stat. § 116B.03. A claim under MERA thus has noticing to do with the 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT COUNTY OF CARVER FIRST JUDICIAL -------------------------------------------- Frank Beddor, Jr., Todd Novaczyk Court File No. C9 -93 -1111 and Sherry Novaczyk, and Robert L. Post and Sandra J. Post, MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN ' Plaintiffs, SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S' MOTION TO AMEND THE VS. FINDINGS OF FACT, ' CONCLUSIONS OF LAW City of Chanhassen, its Mayor AND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT Don Chmiel and City Council OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE Members, FOR A NEW TRIAL 1 Defendants. -------------------------------------------- INTRODUCTION This lawsuit was commenced by five individual plaintiffs to enforce the State's ' environmental laws and to challenge as arbitrary and capricious the decision to proceed with the proposed projects in the absence of a study of the traffic and safety implications. The lawsuit ' was and is directed at the extension of Nez Perce Drive and realignment of Peaceful Lane proposed by the City of Chanhassen, and on the potential effects of such actions on the environment and the safety of the affected community. The lawsuit commenced by Plaintiffs is not about the Novacz y ks, not about the Posts, and most importantly, it is not about Frank ' Beddor, Jr. Count One of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, although a private cause of action, was brought on behalf of the State of Minnesota to enforce the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act ( "MERA "). See Minn. Stat. § 116B.03. A claim under MERA thus has noticing to do with the 1 individual plaintiffs bringing the lawsuit, but rather with the likelihood that the defendants' u actions will materially impact precious protected natural resources. Similarly, Count Two of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint addresses only the issue of whether the City, at the time it denied the petitioners' request for an EAW, was on notice that the proposed project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. See Minn. Rule 4410.1100, subp. 6. Count Two has nothing to do with any of the individual plaintiffs. It is solely concerned with the information known to the City of Chanhassen, and the City's subsequent decision not to prepare an EAW. Finally, Count Three of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint addresses the City's decision to officially map the street extension project in May, 1993 without adequately considering the critical issues of traffic and safety. Whether the City properly considered traffic and safety before officially mapping the proposed project is a matter of record review -- it has absolutely nothing to do with the individual plaintiffs in this lawsuit. In response to Plaintiffs' lawsuit, Defendants sought to change the nature of the action I to a challenge brought solely by Frank Beddor for non - environmental reasons. Defendants, in fact, went to great lengths at trial to focus the Court on Mr. Beddor's wealth and past real estate I developments. Frank Beddor's motives, wealth, real estate developments, and even alleged past positions regarding the City's proposed project, however, have nothing to do with this lawsuit. The only issues before the Court are whether Defendants' actions would violate Minnesota law or require preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet ( "EAW "). Frank Beddor's alleged past statements could not and did not impact these issues, and thus had no bearing on any issues before the Court. -2- ' ns of Law, and Order for Judgment, filed b the Court The Findings of Fact, Conclusions g y on June 3, 1994 (hereinafter "the Court's Order "), indicate unequivocally that Defendants were ' successful in focusing the Court on Frank Beddor, and not on the real issues involved in this litigation. The Court's Order strongly suggests that the holding was driven by a belief that ' Frank Beddor commenced this lawsuit for non - environmental reasons and, therefore, that ' Plaintiffs' claims must be denied. Setting aside the fact that the Court's belief is erroneous, this approach is simply inconsistent with the legal issues presented in this case.' In addition to the erroneous focus on Plaintiff Frank Beddor, the Court's Order is replete with factual errors, misapplications of the law, and erroneous legal conclusions that drastically impacted the outcome of the case. As discussed in great detail below, these errors necessitate ' fundamental amendments to the Court's Order, resulting in entry of judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on all three counts. In the alternative, Plaintiffs ask the Court, in light of numerous factual and legal errors, and the Court's failure to properly consider this lawsuit in terms of the legal issues P resented in each Count, to abandon its earlier ruling and order a new trial. ' STANDARD OF REVIEW ' Motions to amend the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment are governed by Rules 52.01 and 52.02 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. The purpose ' of a motion to amend is to permit the trial court an opportunity to review its own exercise of discretion. Stroh v. Stroh 383 N.W.2d 402, 407 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). The findings of fact ' It is significant That the Court has isolated Plaintiff Frank Beddor from all of the other Plaintiffs. The Court, effectively, has imputed its apparent bias against Mr. Beddor to all of the Plaintiffs in this lawsuit. While motivation for bringing an environmental lawsuit is never a proper consideration, it is, nevertheless, curious that the Court chose to ignore the majority of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, and focus exclusively on the alleged motivations of Frank Beddor. -3 must offer support to the conclusions of law and resulting judgment. Where the findings of fact do not offer such support, a motion to amend the findings and conclusions is properly granted. r See Frank v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co. 336 N.W.2d 307, 311 (Minn. 1983). ' A motion for a new trial, much like a motion to amend, serves to allow the trial court an opportunity to correct its own errors without subjecting the parties and the appellate courts , to the time, inconvenience and expense involved in an appeal. Sauter v. Wasemiller 389 , N.W.2d 200, 202 (Minn. 1986). Pursuant to Rule 59.01 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, a new trial may be granted for any of the following causes: (a) Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, referee, jury, or prevailing party, , or any order or abuse of discretion, whereby the moving party was deprived of a fair trial; (b) Misconduct of the jury or prevailing party; , (c) Accident or surprise which could not have been prevented by ordinary prudence; (d) Material evidence newly discovered, which with reasonable diligence could , not have been found and produced at trial; (e) Excessive or insufficient damages, appearing to have been given under the ' influence of passion or prejudice; (f) Errors of law occurring at the trial, and objected to at the time or, if no ' objection need have been made pursuant to Rules 46 and 51, plainly assigned in the notice of motion; (g) The verdict, decision, or report is not justified by the evidence, or is contrary to law; but, unless it be so expressly stated in the order granting a new trial, it shall not be presumed, on appeal, to have been made on the ground that the , verdict, decision, or report was not justified by the evidence. Minn. R. Civ. P. 59.01. Where one or more of the foregoing causes are shown, the moving , party may be granted a new trial. Additionally, Rule 59.01 allows the court to open the ' i L F � L� judgment, take additional testimony, amend the findings and conclusions, and direct entry of a new judgment. The following analysis, based on the applicable standard of review, compels the Court to amend its June 3rd Order, and direct judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. In the alternative, a new trial is needed to fairly resolve the true legal issues and factual disputes existing in this case. ANALYSIS I. COUNT ONE - VARIOUS ERRONEOUS FACTUAL FINDINGS AND LEGAL ERRORS REQUIRE A)«NDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A NEW TRIAL. A. The Court Has Heavily Relied On Irrelevant Evidence. Perhaps the most fundamental error in the Court's factual findings is the extraordinary relia on evidence which has no bearing whatsoever on the merits of a claim made under t h e Minnesota Environmental Rights Act ( "MERA "). Under MERA, the pertinent issues are: 1) whether a protectable natural resource is presented, and 2) whether Defendants' conduct has or is likely to cause the pollution, impairment or destruction of that resource. Inexplicably, the Court has presented page upon page of factual findings based on evidence regarding: 1) the length of time the extension of Nez Perce Road has been contemplated; 2) the alleged articulated support of the project by Mr. Beddor or Mr. Fortier; 3) the alleged motives of Mr. Beddor in bringing the suit; and 4) Mr. Beddor's involvement in prior developments such as the Vineland and Troendle Addition developments. Such evidence has no relevance as to whether a protected natural resource is likely to be impaired by the Defendants' proposed conduct, and it is evident that the Court's conclusions on the Plaintiffs' MERA claims are rooted in these irrelevancies. Plaintiffs' MERA evidence -5- presented at trial was almost exclusively based upon expert testimony and Defendants' own admissions. As shown below, this evidence has been either mischaracterized or ignored. B. Central Findings Of The Court Were Unsupported Or Otherwise Erroneous. ' 1. The Purpose and Scope of the Proposed Projects Unlike Defendants, the Court correctly described the challenged project as encompassing ' construction on both Lot 5 and the Tower Heights Addition property. However, the purpose ' of the project, as described in the Court's findings, fails to recognize that the extension of Nez Perce Road and the realignment of Peaceful Lane involved stormwater management issues, g g and well as traffic issues. The proposed projects do not simply serve as streets, but also as ' collectors of stormwater, and thus become part of the City's storm water system. See, e.g., l P , Exh. 12, p. 7. Contrary to the Court's findings, a central element n e t o f Plaintiffs' challenge was to the decision of the City to direct stormwater not just from the streets themselves, but from , both the Tower Heights Addition and Lot 5, through the proposed street projects to the two ' affected wetland /ponds, and ultimately to Christmas Lake. The fact that the challenged projects functioned as stormwater collectors was not only ' raised in the Original and Amended Complaint, but was specifically addressed during the ' consideration of the City's summary judgment motion in Mr. Osgood's Affidavit. This fact was also extensively iscussed at trial. Accordingly, there is no evident basis for the Court's ' Y _ evidentiary conclusion that only the additional runoff and phosphorous which is caused by the impervious ' surfaces of the proposed streets themselves should be taken into account. I I -6- 1 2. The Presence of Protected Natural Resources a. The Lot 5 and County Road 17 Wetland /Ponds According to this Court's own Memorandum of Law, if the Lot 5 pond or the County Road 17 pond are protected wetlands, they could not and should not be altered. The Court further recognized that Plaintiffs presented uncontroverted testimony, from wetland's expert Ronald Peterson, that the Lot 5 pond is found within a designated wetland area. Moreover, the City has isputed the wetland s Yet, somehow the Court has found "that the Beddor Lot 5 pond and the County Road 1 ' pond are not properly characterized as protected 'wetlands."' See Court's Order, p. 25. On this basis, the Court further conclude that of protected natural resources. Id. at ' . 26. Such findings are clearly P g Y erroneous. ' With respect to the Lot 5 pond, the Court apparently rely on the fact that City staff did not require a wetlands alteration permit under the City's wetland ordinance in 1992 when the Lot 5 and was reconfigured. In the first instance, the City staff's interpretation of City's P g Y wetland ordinance does not serve to rebut Mr. Peterson's uncontroverted testimony that the ' Lot 5 pond met all of the requirements for a protected wetland under federal and state law. This fact by itself renders the Court's findings erroneous. ' It must be noted, however, that even under the City's own ordinance, the fact that a pond is man -made, in whole or in part, does not imply that it is not a wetland if the pond is constructed in a area, which already has wetland characteristics. This is precisely the situation ' here. -7- r] J Similarly, the fact that the City has chosen to use the wetlands as part of its stormwater management system cannot transform what is otherwise a wetland protected under federal and state law into an unprotected natural resource. b. Christmas Lake is A Protected Natural Resource ' If there was any area of agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendants, it was. that Christmas Lake is a rare, if not unique, natural resource, perhaps the highest water - quality lake , in the metropolitan area. Moreover, the central environmental issue addressed by the parties , during the consideration of the summary judgment motion, and at trial, was the threat to Christmas Lake. The Court, however, has made no finding whatsoever as to the obvious fact that Christmas Lake is precisely the type of resource which is to be protected under MERA. C. The Pleasant View Road Neighborhood Is a Protected Area of uietude. I At trial, Plaintiffs presented unrebutted testimony from noise pollution expert Richard Van Doeren that the Pleasant View Road area, which he tested, had background noise levels at ' the same or lower levels as had been found to constitute "quietude" under MERA. Defendants ' ran no such tests of their own, and did not dispute these findings. Moreover, the Court found, as a matter of law, that Plaintiffs had met their burden in Count I when it denied the City's motion for directed verdict. ' Defendants obviously could not have carried their burden of rebutting the evidence of the , presence of the protected natural resource of quietude, given that no evidence at all was presented by the City on this issue. Yet, with no support whatsoever, the Court "notes" in its , discussion of quietude that the evidence presented by Plaintiffs has been "sufficiently rebutted I by Defendants." Court's Order, p. 30. -8- I n To the contrary, given the complete absence of any rebuttal evidence on the issue of the presence of quietude, the only conclusion supported by the evidentiary record is that the Pleasant View Road neighborhood is a protected area of quietude. It is well- established law in Minnesota that where a Plaintiff has made a prima facie case, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant. Se generally Kirseborn v. Connelly 486 N.W.2d 172, 174 -75 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). If the defendant subsequently fails to offer AX rebuttal to the plaintiffs case, the plaintiff has satisfied his burden of proof and must prevail as a matter of law. Fidelity Bank and Trust Co. v. Fitzimons 261 N.W.2d 586, 590 -91 (Minn. 1977). Because Defendants offered no rebuttal to Plaintiffs' prima facie case on the issue of the presence of quietude, Plaintiffs have proved this point as a matter of law. 3. The Likely Impairment of Natural Resources a. Impairment of the Lot 5 and Count Road 17 Wetlands At trial, plaintiffs presented substantial expert testimony from Mr. Osgood regarding the likely environmental impacts of the additional stormwater which the Court has acknowledged will enter the ponds at issue. The identified impacts were consistent with the description of the impacts of stormwater run -off contained in the City's own Draft Stormwater Management Plan. Moreover, the City's own limnologist, Mr. McComas, admitted that the additional stormwater would carry suspended, floating and dissolved contaminants which would have expected environmental impacts on the ponds in question. S_ee, gg_, McComas Cross pp. 28, 34 -37. The expected impacts include the introduction of toxic metals or pesticides in the food chain of the wetland organisms and animals, the increase in sediment which would reduce habitat for bottom dwelling organisms and animals, and the creation of excessive algae growth. The Court chose to completely ignore such evidence, apparently on the basis of its conclusion that the ponds were somehow unworthy of protection. Accordingly, the Court's summary conclusion r that "there has been no showing that the proposed project will cause or is likely to cause material ' pollution, impairment or destruction of that resource" is contrary to the evidentiary record. Court's Order, P . 26. b. Impairment of Christmas Lake ' At the outset, while, as previously discussed, all additional run -off from the proposed projects are pertinent to Plaintiffs' claims, the Court incorrect) ' P J P Y asserts that no evidence was presented regarding the contribution of the street surfaces themselves. This topic was directly addressed in the testimony of Mr. Fortier. See, e.g., Exh. 15. More importantly, the Court has thoroughly mischaracterized the testimony of Plaintiffs' g Y Y limnologist, Mr. Osgood. The Court finds as fact that Mr. Osgood in some fashion recanted his testimony regarding the total amount of annual phosphorous load that is introduced into Christmas Lake. To the contrary, the trial record simply reflects that in 1981, Mr. Osgood made an estimate of the annual phosphorous load to Christmas Lake using the methodologies of the day. Mr. Osgood further testified that he made a separate estimate in 1993 using the ' methodologies available some twelve years later. See Osgood Direct, pp. 32 -35; Osgood Redirect, pp. 23 -26; Osgood Re- Cross, pp. 166 -168. Most importantly, Mr. Osgood testified that using either methodology, the impact of the proposed projects was the same (i.e. an increase I of approximately four percent in the annual phosphorous load to Christmas Lake). Thus, in an "a les -to -a les" comparison, Mr. Osgood's testimony was entirely consistent, and indeed, was , PP PP largely consistent with the testimony of Defendants' expert on this issue. -10- 1 . I J 1 i I Most importantly, however, Defendants never rebutted the only water quality data collected from Christmas Lake, and the data from other metropolitan lakes which unequivocally in Christmas Lake. The Defendants did present evidence that additional development has showed that a threshold exists for phosphorous, and that this threshold is about to be reached occurred since 1985, but that evidence merely supports Mr. Osgood's conclusion that Christmas Lake, in the face of this additional development, is on the verge of crossing the critical threshold. Moreover, in relying on the very limited samples taken by the Department of Natural Resources and the Watershed District to conclude that this additional development has done no damage, the Court is overstepping what can be scientifically concluded from such data. See Osgood Re- Cross, pp. 10, 16. Finally, the Court apparently accepts wholesale testimony from Defendants' witnesses McComas and Olivier which are replete with admitted errors and contractions, or which are wholly speculative in nature. See, L.g., Olivier Cross pp. 99 -103, 118; also Plaintiffs' Post- Trial Brief, pp. 16 -24. C. Impairment of Quietude Plaintiffs have demonstrated above that quietude is a protected natural resource as a matter of which has been established to exist in the Pleasant View Road neighborhood through unrebutted testimony. Thus, the only remaining issue is whether quietude is likely to be I impaired. Both at trial, and in its Post -Trial Briefs, Plaintiffs made it crystal clear that their claim 1 was not based on the contention that the City's proposed project by itself would impact quietude. Rather, Plaintiffs presented evidence at trial that the City's proposed projects in tandem with the -11- ' 1 expansion of Townline Road, would cumulatively impact quietude. See Plaintiffs' Post -Trial Brief, . 28, and Plaintiffs' Post -Trial Reply , Brief, . 5. P P Yet, in resolving the issue of the likely impairment of quietude, the Court addressed , exclusively the noise impacts of the proposed projects alone, and wholly ignore the unrebutted evidence of cumulative P impacts which was resented by Plaintiffs at trial. P Plaintiffs' traffic expert, Mr. Benshoof, presented the only evidence regarding the projected ' cumulative impacts over time of the City's projects and the Townline Road extension. These unrebutted J ro ections indicated that traffic levels on Pleasant View Road will reach between P 3,430 and 5,030 trips per day. Mr. Van Doeren presented evidence demonstrating that these levels of traffic will cause the noise levels, at the set -back point at which homes can be built established b th Minnesota Noise regulations. This conclusion was ' which exceed the standards y e g also unrebutted by Defendants' noise expert who used precisely the same methodology as Mr. Van Doeren. In addition, the Court's finding that Mr. Benshoof did not provide evidence as to the expected additional traffic due to the proposed projects alone is both legally and factually off the ' mark. See, Exh. 266 (reflecting that the expected increase in traffic due to the extension of Nez Perce Road in 1996 is from 1930 to 3130 trips per day). In sum, the Court's findings on this issue address a paper tiger and completely fail to ' address the evidence of a cumulative impairment of quietude presented by Plaintiffs at trial. Defendants failed to meet their burden of rebutting Plaintiffs' evidence on this issue, and Plaintiffs are thus entitled to judgement ement as a matter of law. g I -12- - 1 4. The Court's Findings Regarding The Absence of A Feasible and Prudent Alternative Are Unsupported Perhaps the most surprising finding of the Court is that there is no feasible and prudent ' alternative to the proposed p rojects. City's ro sed 'ects. The absence of a feasible alternative is an ' affirmative defense to a MERA claim, and the City presented virtually no competent evidence on this issue. The City's reluctance to take this issue on was understandable. Plaintiffs' had shown both during the administrative process and at trial that the impacts ' of the proposed projects could be eliminated or mitigated simply by having traffic egress from 1 the Tower Heights Addition to the south, through Outlot A, instead of to the north, through Lot 5. The City can hardly credibly assert that this approach is not feasible given that the City ' itself had insisted on acquiring Outlot A from a developer in the 1980's for precisely this purpose. At trial, Mr. Krauss, the City's chief planner, admitted that the City had a right to build a road through Outlot A, and there were no practical impediments to such an approach. Krauss Cross, pp. 2 -5. Moreover, at trial, the City's own engineering expert, Mr. Olivier, suggested the proposal of diverting the additional stormwater from the proposed projects to either Lake Lucy ' or Lotus Lake. Directing the stormwater was both feasible from an engineering standpoint, and within precedents previously established by the City. Hempel Cross, pp. 24 -25; �ee also Plaintiffs' Post -Trial Brief, pp. 30 -34. ' Mr. Olivier's cost concerns turned out to be based on erroneous assumptions regarding P g g the economics of the Tower Heights Addition development, and a failure to consider the full range of funding alternatives available. Id., pp. 30 -31. -13- 1 In short, when the Court concludes, without discussion, that "[t]here is no feasible and prudent alternative to the street " project in q uestion, " [Finding P P J 4 � [F g No. LXIV], it flies in the face of both common sense and the factual record presented at trial. ' 11. COUNT TWO: THE COURT'S ORDER IS REPLETE WITH FACTUAL AND LEGAL ERRORS NECESSITATING AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND ' CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A NEW TRIAL. The Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are flawed . in two significant , respects, both of which drastically impacted the outcome of the case. First, the Findings of Fact are ridden with erroneous conclusions, which are either unsupported by the record, or are otherwise inappropriate in view of the applicable law. Second, the Court's memorandum, applying the Court's factual findings to the law, fails to adopt the proper legal standards for ' review of an EAW petition. A. The Findings of Fact are Erroneous and Not Supported by the Record. Paragraphs 37 through 44 of the Court's Findings of Fact address Plaintiffs' claim that the City's decision to deny the EAW petition was neither arbitrary or capricious. As discussed herein nearly ll of these factual findings are erroneous, and fail to support the Court's ultimate Y g PP legal conclusion that there was a rational basis to deny the EAW petition. ' In Paragraph 37 of the Findings of Fact, the Court describes the EAW petition as one filed b Frank Beddor, Jr. and "his su p po rters." To the contrary, the EAW petition was signed Y � PPo �Y and submitted by fifty -two separate homeowners residing in close proximity to the City's ' proposed project. See Exh. 51. Frank Beddor was only one of the fifty -two individuals who r petitioned for an EAW. There is nothing in the pet i tself, nor was there any testim or other evidence received at trial, to suggest that the signatories of the petition were "supporters" -14- 1 � 1 of Frank Beddor. Such a finding is irrelevant, erroneous, and offers absolutely no support for 1 the Court's ultimate conclusion. ' The Court's next finding, contained in Paragraph 38, is simply a direct quote from a very small portion of the EAW petition which provides a general description of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. As was true of Paragraph 37, Paragraph 38 ' offers absolutely no support for the Court's ultimate conclusion that the City had a rational basis for denying the EAW petition. Perhaps the most troubling of the Court's factual findings is that the EAW petition P g g P ' "makes no reference to environmental concerns about Christmas Lake." See Paragraph 39. The petition repeatedly discusses the additional runoff which will collect in the Vineland Lot 5 Pond as a result of the proposed project -- a pond which drains directly into Christmas Lake, as the City was well aware. The petitioners attached and incorporated by reference a complete copy ' of the Feasibility Study for Nez Perce Drive Extended. This Study shows the outlet pipe in the Vineland Lot 5 pond, and provides specific reference to the fact that the pond drains directly into . the storm sewer system and thus ultimately into Christmas Lake. All of the maps, demonstrating ' this water flow, were included with the petition for an EAW. The Court's finding that Christmas Lake was not effectively referenced is erroneous. Just as importantly, the Court's finding with regard to Christmas Lake is also erroneous in view of the legal standard governing a petition for an EAW. As discussed infra, an RGU is not bound to consider only the potential impacts to the resources delineated in the petition, but ' must also to consider evidence of tential impacts "otherwise known to the RGU." Po P See Minn. I Rule 4410.1100, subp. 6. Obviously, the City knew that the Lot 5 pond drained to Christmas -15- Lake, and was on notice of the sensitivity to phosphorus of that lake through receipt of Mr. Osgood's studies in the 1980's. ' Paragraph 40 of the Court's factual findings concludes that the EAW petition fails to raise the issue of cumulative impacts "of any related or anticipated future projects._" Such a finding is enigmatic in that a "cumulative impact" involves repeated or overlapping impacts on the same environmental resources. By submitting an EAW petition which identified the resources that ' might have had the potential to be significantly affected by the City's proposed project, petitioners did all that is required under the EAW petition process. See Minn. Rule 4410.1100. P � Pe P Whether the proposed project may have the potential for significant environmental effects is I something the Responsible Governmental Unit ( "RGU ") must determine by assessing the project. The Court's findin g that the EAW petition failed to discuss cumulative impacts, effectively shifts , the burden of environmental study and review to the petitioners -- a result entirely inconsistent with Minnesota Rule 4410.1100. If other anticipated projects may contribute to the environmental impacts, it is the RGU's responsibility to make such an assessment in evaluating ' P � P Y g � the EAW petition. Certainly, the information regarding the extension of Townline Road and the , resultant cumulative impacts was "otherwise known to the RGU" at the time the petition was fled, which is all that is required under Minnesota Rule 4410.1100, subp. 6. Paragraph 40, therefore, offers absolutely no support for the Court's ultimate conclusion. Paragraph 41 of the Court's Findings of Fact recounts the fact that the City adopted Findings of Fact which denied the petition for an EAW. As such, Paragraph 41 offers no support for the Court's ultimate conclusion. -16- 1 The next ara rah simply reiterates Paragraph 5 of the City's Findings of Fact which P g P s F Y �tera s g P Y g summarily concluded that the trees at issue were not unique in species, size, aesthetics or historical significance. See Paragraph 42. The Court does not address the fact, however, that when it denied the petition for an EAW, the City did not even address in its findings these ' 22 trees, but rather only the nursery stock on Lot 5. The Court's findings also ignore the fact that whether the trees were "unique" or "different" is the standard to be applied in a MERA analysis -- not the standard for an EAW petition. Accordingly, the findings in Paragraph 42 do not support the Court's ultimate conclusion. Paragraph 43 states only that the EAW Findings of Fact, prepared by the City of Chanhassen, address the status of the Vineland Lot 5 Pond in detail and that the proposed street project will not come within 150 feet of the pond. This finding is erroneous in two regards. 1 First, whether the proposed project comes within 150 feet of the project does not address whether the project "may" have the "potential" for significant environmental effects on the pond. Second, and even more important, is the fact that the grading work done on the and the P g g pond, ' inclusion of the pond in the storm water system, have absolutely nothing to do with whether the ' pond may be potentially impacted by the project.' It was well - established at trial that wetlands play a significant role in the City's storm water system; that they are part of the system, however, does not permit their degradation. Paragraph 43 fails to support the Court's ultimate conclusion. ' The Court, through its factual findings in Paragraph 29, appears to suggest that the reclassification of the Vineland Lot 5 Pond to a "utilized" pond in the fall of 1993 (after this lawsuit was commenced), is somehow relevant to this litigation. Because the City's reclassification did not occur until after the EAW Petition was filed, the City's reclassification offers no support for its decision to deny the EAW Petition. i -17- . i The final paragraph in the Court's factual findings, addressing the denial of Plaintiffs' Count II, is a conclusory statement that the City's Findings of Fact indicate a rational basis to deny the EAW petition. 5—ee Paragraph 44. Such a finding is untenable in view of the foregoing I discussion. The City failed to consider Christmas Lake, failed to consider the impacts on the County properly Road 17 Pond, did not address the 22 significant trees that will be destroyed, ' made no reference to air or noise pollution, cumulative or otherwise, and inadequately addressed L the impacts of additional runoff to the Vineland Lot 5 Pond. The Court's Findings of Fact only acknowledge the Vineland Lot 5 Pond and the issue of trees. There are no findings regarding g g g g the City's consideration of noise,' air quality, or the impacts on the County Road 17 Pond. Moreover, the summary dismissal of the potential impacts to Christmas bake is inconsistent with the Petition and with the IP u ose and standards for an EAW. , P The Findings of Fact fail to support the Court's ultimate conclusion that the City had a I rational basis to deny the EAW petition. This failure necessitates an amendment to the Findings ' of Fact, and entry of judgment in Plaintiffs' favor on Count II of the Amended Complaint. See g enerall y Frank v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co. 336 N.W.2d 307, 311 (Minn. 1983). At a very , minimum, the inadequacies of the Court's Findings of Fact indicate the need for a new trial so that this important issue can be fairly and fully resolved. L I I 1 ' The Court's findings with respect to Mr. Van Doeren's noise calculations and measurements have no bearing on Count II of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. Mr. Van Doeren's calculations were not available to the City when it chose to deny the EAW petition, and thus were not part of the administrative record. -18- B. The Conclusions of Law and Legal Analysis Are Inaccurate. g Y ' The Court's Memorandum of Law, pages 31 through 33, provides a limited discussion of the purported law supporting the conclusion that the City did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in deciding not to prepare an EAW. Although the Court begins its analysis by citing the correct ' legal standard for review under Minn. Rule 4410. 1100, subp. 6,` the proper standard for review ' is then abandoned and the Court appears to apply the standard for a discretionary EAW pursuant to Minn. Rule 4410.4500. In particular, the Court states: The type of project as that proposed in this case falls within the discretionary EAW category Minn. R. 4410.4500 et. eq.. and is, therefore, distinctly different from the mandatory category under Minn. R 4410.4300. Within the discretionary classification, imposition of an EAW is permissive Memorandum of Law, p. 31. The rules governing a discretionary EAW have no application in this case Neither party has ever suggested, in briefs or argument to the Court, that this case 1 involves the discretionary EAW category under the Minnesota Rules. The Court's application ' of the discretionary EAW standard, the lowest threshold under the Minnesota Rules for an EAW, is inapplicable and erroneous. On this basis alone, Plaintiffs are entitled to amended conclusions of law on Count II or in the alternative to a new trial. 1 Contrary to the Court's apparent beliefs, this case does not involve a discretionary EAW. To the contrary, Count II arises from an EAW petition signed by over fifty -two homeowners in Chanhassen, requesting preparation of an EAW pursuant to Minn. Rule 4410.1100. A 12 etition for an EAW is not governed by the standard set forth in Minn. Rule 4410.4500 as the 1 ° The Court actually cites to Minn. Rule 4410. 1000, subp. 6. Plaintiffs presume the Court intended to refer to Minn. Rule 4410.1100, subp. 6 based on the indented quotation which follows the citation. 1 -19_ Court suggests, but rather by the rigid standard contained in Minn. Rule 4410.1100, subp. 6. That provision provides that: ' The RGU shall order the preparation of an EAW if the evidence presented by the petitioners, proposers, and other persons or otherwise known to the RGU demonstrates that, because of the nature of location of the proposed protect, the project may have the Rgtential for significant environmental effects. Minn. Rule 44 10. subp. 6 (emphasis added). This broad and rigid standard mQuirgs the RGU to prepare an EAW where the evidence raised by the petitioners, together with the ' information already known by the RGU, suggests that there may be the potential for significant I environmental effects. The Court has erred in this case, and materially harmed Plaintiffs' case, by applying the wrong legal standard to the EAW petition and, more importantly, by limiting I the scope of review only to those issues raised in the petition. , Following the Court's recitation of the inappropriate legal standard, the Court notes that "Plaintiffs' P etition for an EAW did not discuss the potential impacts on Christmas Lake or cumulative effects as to Town Line Road and, as such, implications with respect to those issues ' are not relevant to the discussion herein." Memorandum of Law, p. 32. This statement, in view of the clear and unequivocal language of Minn. Rule 4410.1100, subp. 6, is nothing short ' � P of incredible, and would seriously undermine the purposes of the EAW process. The potential ' impacts on Christmas Lake are vital to the City's analysis of petitioners' EAW petition. The RGU was well aware, based on its own storm water system and the drawings submitted with the EAW petition, that the increased runoff entering the Vineland Lot 5 Pond would flow into the County Road 17 Pond and ultimately into Christmas Lakes Additionally, Richard Osgood S This flow of stormwater was unquestionably known by the City, as it was part of the ' design of the stormwater system. The Court acknowledges this fact in Paragraph 46 of its -20- testified at trial that the RGU had received copies of his 1980, 1981 and 1985 studies of Christmas Lake. See Osgood Transcript, at p. 74. As of July, 1993, when the RGU received ' the petition to prepare an EAW, it was aware that the proposed projects may have the potential to significantly impact the Vineland Lot 5 Pond, the County Road 17 Pond, and, unquestionably, ' Christmas Lake. The Court's erroneous analysis and conclusions to the contrary demand that ' the findings and conclusions be amended, and that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs on Count II. At a minimum, a new trial must be ordered in light of the Court's obvious ' misunderstanding regarding the proper legal standards and proper factual considerations. The Court next acknowledges that the City planning staff believed "an EAW was appropriate with respect to the proposed project." See Memorandum of Law, p. 32. The Court also, however, endorses the City's concern over preparation of the EAW on grounds that it was simply too costly. Id. ( "The record also supports the contention that a major concern for the city in implementing an EAW was financial in nature. "). As Plaintiffs have indicated in numerous briefs and arguments to the Court, the cost of an EAW is simply an improper criterion ' under the petition process of Minn. Rule 4410.1100. The Court's endorsement of cost as a valid consideration by the City of Chanhassen is thus contrary to Minnesota law. The Memorandum of Law also states that the City was justified in denying the EAW petition because the City "examined the necessity of an EAW for the proposed project," and P Y Y P Po P J because "the project had actually been under consideration and continually scrutinized since 1989." See Memorandum of Law, p. 32. The record before the Court, and the Court's ' Findings of Fact, however, fail to offer any support for these conclusions. There is nothin g in Findings of Fact. -21- the record, and nothing in the Findings of Fact, indicating that the City did any study or analysis of the possible impacts on the Vineland Lot 5 Pond, on the County Road 17 Pond, and, most significantly, on Christmas Lake. There is nothing in the Court's Findings of Fact, or in the , administrative record, suggesting that the City did anything to consider or address the potential noise increases from the ro sed project. In fact the only issue even remotely considered b ' P Po P J � Y Y Y the City was the issue of trees -- and on this issue, the City focused almost exclusively on the ' nursery stock and seedlings, ignoring the 22 significant trees that will be destroyed by the ro osed project. The Court's conclusions are simply unsupported b ' P P P J P Y PPo Y the record and, therefore, by its own Findings of Fact.' The final paragraph of the Court's legal analysis attempts to placate any potential challenge to its holding with a legal conclusion entirely unsupported by the record, the factual findings, or the law. The Court concludes that "petitioners failed to demonstrate that the proposed project had the potential for significant environmental impacts." See Memorandum I of Law, p. 33. The legal standard applied here appears to be something of a cross between the standard applicable in a discretionary EAW context, and the correct legal standard applicable in the petition process. The correct standard, however, is not whether petitioners have demonstrated that a project has the potential for significant environmental impacts, but whether all of the evidence before the RGU from whatever source, indicates that there may be the potential for significant environmental effects. See Minn. Rule 4410.1100, subp. 6. 6 The Court seems to indicate that the City considered "possible traffic increases and safety , concerns." Even if this were true, it has no bearing on the environmental considerations required in order to properly deny an EAW petition. -22- Plaintiffs submit that when the proper legal standard is applied, and when the Court properly considers all of the evidence before the City of Chanhassen as required by law, there can be no question that there "may" have been the "potential" for significant environmental effects. Moreover, the limited and narrow findings of fact prepared by the City in denying the petition for an EAW, in light of the wealth of information before the City, compels the ' conclusion that the City acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying the petition for an EAW. To also have evidence that the City denied the petition on grounds of cost, as the Court found, ' only provides a greater reason for a finding that the City's decision was arbitrary and capricious. ' Upon the foregoing, the Court has no alternative but to amend its findings and conclusions, and enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on Count II of their Amended Complaint. ' The Court applied the wrong legal standard, and considered much too narrow a range of factors, in dismissing Count II. The findings and conclusions are therefore erroneous and must be amended as a matter of law. M. COUNT TBREE: THE COURT'S CONCLUSION OF LAW ON COUNT THREE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COURT LEGAL ANALYSIS. THE FINDINGS OF FACT FAIL TO SUPPORT THE COURT'S ULTIMATE CONCLUSION. The Court's handling of Count III is flawed in two significant respects. First, the Findings of Fact fail to support the Courts conclusion that City properly considered traffic and ' safety issues before it officially mapped the proposed project. The Court ignored critical testimony from the Assistant City Engineer, Mr. David Hempel, admitting under oath that the City recognized the substandard and dangerous condition of Pleasant View Road since 1989, and that n thin had been done to study or address these concerns before the project was officially I mapped. See Hempel Cross - Examination Transcript, p. 13. Moreover, the Court erroneously 1 -23- characterized the Feasibility Study prepared by William Engelhardt as inclusive of a comprehensive traffic and safety analysis of Pleasant View Road. Second, the Court has confused the applicable law by suggesting that the decision to officially map the street extension I has no basis for legal challenge. To the contrary, the Court specifically acknowledged that the City Y PPS officially ma the extension of Nez Perce Drive. For this reason, judicial review is afforded pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 462.361, subdivision 1. A. The Findings Of Fact Are Erroneous And Not Supported By The Record. There are very few factual findings in the Court's Order which, even arguably, offer support for the Court's conclusion that the City did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in officially ' mapping the extension of Nez Perce Drive through to Pleasant View Road. In Paragraph 78, the Court found that the proposed project has been under consideration since 1989. The Court 1 also found that the Feasibility Study included consideration of traffic and safety issues, that road signage changes were made in 1989 in response to concerns over traffic, and that the issues of traffic and safety were again considered in 1990 and 1991 when the City reviewed the Troendle Addition development. See Findings of Fact, Paragraphs 80, 82 and 83. Finally, the Court ' found that the City's decision to approve the Nez Perce Drive extension was made after a study of traffic and safety issues. Id. at Paragraph 85. These factual findings are contrary to the record before the Court, and contrary to the testimony offered at trial by many of the City's own ' witnesses. I First, the Feasibility Study completed by William Engelhardt on Iuly 9, 1992, is completely void of any study or analysis of the traffic and safety problems on Pleasant View Road. See Exh. 41. At the very most, the Feasibility Study makes general, conclusory -24- 1 I I I . j r L i fi statements that one alternative may be more advantageous than another alternative in terms of traffic and safety. Such conclusions have nothing to do with the overall traffic and safety concerns at issue in Count III of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. As such, Paragraph 80 offers no support for the Court's conclusion that the issues of traffic and safety were properly considered by Defendants. deficiencies of Pleasant View Road, and thus have no impact on whether the City's ultimate Second, the road signage changes in 1989 did not correct the traffic and safety decision was arbitrary and capricious. The record before the Court is replete with evidence supporting this truth. The City's Planning Director, Paul Krauss, drafted a letter on January 10, 1991, two years after the signage changes had been made, stating that he was still concerned about traffic and safety issues. See Exh. 39. This letter indicates that the problems with traffic and safety were only expected to increase over time. Id Contemporaneous City Council meeting minutes reflect that the City Council was also concerned with the traffic and safety issues after the minimal road signage changes back in 1989. See Exh. 212, p. 48. The Court's finding with respect to road signage changes thus does not support the conclusion that the official mapping was not arbitrary or capricious. Third, whether the City "revisited" the issue of traffic and safety in 1990 and 1991 is of no relevance to Count III -- the issue in Count III is whether the issues of traffic and safety were properly studied and considered such that the official mapping decision was neither arbitrary or capricious. The Court's finding in Paragraph 83 is simply that the City "revisited" the issues of traffic and safety on Pleasant View Road. Conspicuously absent from the Paragraph 83 is a finding that the City studied traffic and safety issues, and concluded that the increased traffic -25- - to Pleasant View Road did not present traffic and safety concerns. The City's "revisiting" of the issues of traffic and safety is simply evidence that the issue was raised again in 1990 and 1991, as it was raised so often between 1989 and 1993.' Regardless of what may or may not have been "revisited" by the City of Chanhassen, the record indicates that traffic and safety on Pleasant View Road was a real concern to the City Planning Department and to the City Manager. In a January 9, 1991 memorandum from Paul Krauss to Don Ashworth, Krauss , described in detail the "potentially dangerous" conditions on Pleasant View Road, and stated that all efforts to improve Pleasant View Road proved "unsuccessful." See Exh. 213. The finding that traffic and safety issues were revisited in 1990 and 1991 is thus erroneous and ineffectual as support for the Court's ultimate conclusion. Finally, n Paragraph 85 the Court summarily found that the City did not approve the ' Y� g P � Y Y PP extension of Nez Perce Drive until the issues of traffic and safety had been studied. This finding , is contrary to the entire documentary record, and to everything adduced at trial. The Assistant City Engineer, David Hempel, testified that the City had done no traffic or safety study of Pleasant View Road from 1989 to the day he testified at trial. See Hempel Cross - Examination Transcript, p. 13. Together with the numerous letters and memoranda written by Paul Krauss and others with the City Planning Department, referenced above and in Plaintiffs' Amended Post Trial Brief, the testimony of David Hempel establishes the City's failure to adequately address ' I ' In fact, Paul Krauss acknowledged in his Troendle Addition Planning Report that it may be necessary to make safety related changes and improvements to Pleasant View Road, including i "widening the pavement so that cars are able to pass one another safely, modifications to curves to improve sight distances and the ability of traffic to negotiate the area." S= Exh. 213, p. 9. Any "revisiting" done during the Troendle Addition development adduced the need for improvements to the road based on its unsafe and deteriorating condition. -26- -7 u L� h r fl i C this vital issue. The Court's conclusory finding in Paragraph 85, contrary to all of the evidence, provides no support for the ultimate conclusion that the City did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in approving the extension of Nez Perce Drive. The Findings of Fact fail to support the Court's legal conclusions with respect to Count III of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. This failure compels the Court to amend its Findings of Fact, and enter an order for judgment in Plaintiffs' favor on Count III of the Amended Complaint. See Frank 336 N.W.2d at 311. At a very minimum, the inadequacies of the Court's Findings of Fact reflect the need for a new trial so that this vital issue can be resolved with a view toward the full factual record. B. The Conclusions of Law and Legal Analysis Are Inaccurate. The Court's conclusion of law with respect to Count III of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint states simply that "[t]here is no legal basis for challenging the City's legislative planning decision relating to the proposed street project." See Court's Opinion, p. 21, 14. As Plaintiffs and Defendants have repeatedly stated to the Court, a legal basis exists for challenging . the City's planning decision if the extension of Nez Perce Drive was "officially mapped" as provided in Minnesota Statute Section 462.359. See, g.y., Plaintiffs' Amended Post Trial Brief, pp. 51 -53; Defendants' Post Trial Brief, pp. 45 -46 (acknowledging the statutory right to judicial review if there is an "official mapping "). The Court's conclusion of law, that there is no basis for judicial review, is inconsistent with Minnesota Statute Section 462.361 based on the Court's unequivocal conclusion that the City did, in fact, officially map the extension of Nez Perce Drive. See Court's Order, pp. 34 ( "[a]fter hearing all the testimony and reviewing the record, the Court does not agree that the city did not 'officially map' the proposed project "). Because -27- the City officially mapped the street extension, the decision is subject to judicial review and the Court's conclusion of law on Count III is erroneous.' I Because the official mapping of the street extension is subject to judicial review, the only , issue properly before the Court was whether the decision to map the extension of Nez . Perce Drive was arbitrary and capricious. The record and testimony at trial evince two critical facts. First, in May, 1993, when the extension of Nez Perce Drive was officially mapped, the City had no idea as to the increased number of vehicles that would result on Pleasant View Road as a result of the extension. Second the City ad taken no measures to stud the a d e quacy or safety Y Y � Y Y of Pleasant View Road to determine exactly how many additional vehicles the already substandard roadway could maintain. The first of these two facts is undisputed. Defendants maintained hat the Cit studied the project prior to the official mapping have never t y p � p pp g and determined how many additional vehicles were likely to flow onto Pleasant View Road. No , evidence was offered at trial, and no argument was made to the Court, to suggest that such analysis had taken place prior to the official mapping of the extension. The second fact is also undisputed. Defendants did not offer a single study or report at trial, dated prior to May of 1993,- indicating the capacities of Pleasant View Road. In fact, David Hempel specifically testified that since 1989 no such studies or analyses had been prepared. In view of these critical facts the City's official mapping of the extension to Nez Perce Drive is unquestionab arb itrary ' Y PP g 4 Y and capricious. There simply are no facts to support a legal conclusion that the City acted I i ' It should also be noted that under the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 462.361, a person aggrieved by a decision or ordered authorized by Minn. Stat. § 462.359 has a right to judicial ' review. Thus, even if the May 24, 1993 decision merely "authorized" the official mapping, judicial review is nevertheless afforded by statute. -28- properly in officially mapping this street extension without some study and analysis of traffic and safety considerations. For this reason, the Court's conclusions of law must be amended and ' judgment entered in favor of Plaintiffs. A final comment is needed with regard to the Court's reliance on William Engelhardt's ' October 5, 1993 report to the Chanhassen City Council. 5= Court's Order, P. 33 -34. The ' report issued by Mr. Engelhardt was released to the City Council long after the decision had ' been made to officially map the extension of Nez Perce Drive. Accordingly, the report is not part of the record before the City Council and not a proper consideration for the Court in ' assessing Count III of the Amended Complaint. The Court's inclusion of this report, ostensibly 1 as a principle basis for denying Plaintiffs' Count III, is simply contrary to the law, proffered to the Court by both Plaintiffs and Defendants, that Count III must be decided solely on the record before the City. It defies the purpose of a record review to consider a report prepared after the City acted, in determining whether the City's actions were arbitrary or capricious. Furthermore, the October, 5, 1993 report did not purport to include a study of traffic and safety issues.' Similar to Mr. Engelhardt's 1992 Feasibility Study, the later report simply makes unsubstantiated ' conclusions about the impacts of proposed project on traffic and safety on Pleasant View Road. For these reasons, reliance on the October 1993 report is improper and erroneous. Plaintiffs assert that when the Court properly reviews Count III pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 462.361, and considers all of the evidence from 1989 until May, 1993 when the street extension was officially mapped, there can be no question that the June 3, 1994 Order for ' In point of fact, Mr. Engelhardt's report is not supportive of the City's actions in any respect. Mr. Engelhardt's report identifies "Alternative A" as the recommended alternative, yet "Alternative A" is not being proposed by the City. See Fortier Direct, p. 72. -29- Judgment is erroneous. Upon the foregoing, the Court must amend its findings and conclusions, and enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on Count III of their Amended Complaint. At a very minimum, a new trial must be ordered such that this issue can be fully and fairly resolved. !ONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully move the Court for Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and an Order for Judgment in Plaintiffs' favor on Counts One, Two and Three of their Amended Complaint. In the alternative, Plaintiffs ask for a new trial on all Counts raised in their Amended Complaint. DATED: June 27, 1994 Respectfully submitted, DOHERTY, RUMBLE & BUTLER PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION v� rence A. Moloney Atty. Reg. No. 165876 Todd A. Noteboom Atty. Reg. No. 240047 3500 Fifth Street Towers 150 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 - 4235 Telephone: (612) 340 -5555 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 55748 -30- Defendants. 1 The above- entitled matter came on for trial, without a jury, before the Honorable Robert J. Goggins, Carver County Courthouse, Chaska, Minnesota, on February 28, March 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9, 1994. Plaintiffs appeared by and through their attorneys, Lawrence A. Moloney and Todd A. Noteboom. Defendants appeared by and through their attorney, Thomas M. Scott. ' On June 3, 1994, the Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order for Judgment, denying all three counts of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs filed timely post trial briefs, asking the Court to Amend its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order for Judgment and to enter judgment in Plaintiffs' favor with respect to all three counts of their g � J g P Amended Complaint. In the alternative, Plaintiffs asked the Court to order a new trial. The Court heard oral argument from both parties on July 14, 1994 pursuant to Plaintiffs' Motion, and now issues the following Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on all three counts of their Amended Complaint STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF CARVER FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT --------------------------------------------- Frank Beddor, Jr., Todd Novaczyk Court File No. C9 -93 -1111 i and Sherry Novaczyk, and Robert L. Post and Sandra J. Post, Plaintiffs, AMENDED FINDINGS ' vs. OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER City of Chanhassen, its Mayor FOR JUDGMENT Don Chmiel and City Council ' Members, Defendants. 1 The above- entitled matter came on for trial, without a jury, before the Honorable Robert J. Goggins, Carver County Courthouse, Chaska, Minnesota, on February 28, March 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9, 1994. Plaintiffs appeared by and through their attorneys, Lawrence A. Moloney and Todd A. Noteboom. Defendants appeared by and through their attorney, Thomas M. Scott. ' On June 3, 1994, the Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order for Judgment, denying all three counts of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs filed timely post trial briefs, asking the Court to Amend its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order for Judgment and to enter judgment in Plaintiffs' favor with respect to all three counts of their g � J g P Amended Complaint. In the alternative, Plaintiffs asked the Court to order a new trial. The Court heard oral argument from both parties on July 14, 1994 pursuant to Plaintiffs' Motion, and now issues the following Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on all three counts of their Amended Complaint FINDINGS OF FACT I. The Parties. 1. Frank Beddor, Jr. (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff) is the owner of a parcel of property known as "Vineland Lot 5" located in Chanhassen, Minnesota. Mr. Beddor is also a residential homeowner on Pleasant View Road, located just south of Christmas Lake in Chanhassen, Minnesota. 2. Todd Novaczyk and Sherry Novaczyk (hereinafter collectively referred to as Plaintiffs) are residential homeowners on Pleasant View Cove, also located in Chanhassen, Minnesota. 3. Robert L. Post and Sandra J. Post (hereinafter also collectively referred to as Plaintiffs) are residential homeowners on Pleasant View Road in Chanhassen, Minnesota. 4. The City of Chanhassen (hereinafter collectively referred to as Defendant) is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota and doing business at 690 Coultier Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317. II. Underlying Facts. 5. For nearly the past five years, Defendants have planned to implement a proposal .whereby Nez Perce Drive, a local 'street south of Pleasant View Road, would be extended in a northerly fashion and connect to Pleasant View Road. In connection with this project, Defendants have discussed the realignment and widening of Peaceful Lane, a cul -de -sac located at the proposed point at which Pleasant View Road and Nez Perce Drive would ultimately be connected. -2- 6. The realignment and widening of Peaceful Lane has been discussed, as of late, in conjunction with a development project known as the "Tower Heights Addition." The extended Nez Perce Drive and realigned Peaceful Lane would function as an access -way to and from the Tower Heights Addition plat, and as part of the stormwater collection system of the City. The City's proposals are thus extensively intertwined with the development of the Tower Heights Addition property 7. The extension of Nez Perce Drive north from its present terminus forces the roadway to pass across Vineland Lot 5, owned by Plaintiff Frank Beddor. Additionally, the roadway would pass by a wetland /pond area located on Vineland Lot 5. 8. On or about May 24, 1993, the Chanhassen City Council voted in favor of instituting condemnation proceedings with respect to Vineland Lot 5, for purposes of proceeding with the extension of Nez Perce Drive and the realignment of Peaceful Lane. 9. On or about May 24, 1993, the Chanhassen City Council officially made the decision to authorize the mapping of the Nez Perce Drive extension and the realignment of . Peaceful Lane. 10. On or about July 12, 1993, Plaintiffs and other concerned parties appeared before the Chanhassen City Council requesting that the City reconsider the proposed projects and condemnation proceedings. The City Council refused any such reconsideration. 11. On or about July 21, 1993, the City planning staff for the City of Chanhassen recommended that a proposed preliminary plat of the Tower Heights Addition property be approved by the Defendant. The City Council continued this hearing until August 18, 1993. -3- 1 12. On or about July 21, 1993, a petition was filed with the Environmental Quality Board (" EQB ) requesting an Environmental Assessment Worksheet ( "EAW ") for the proposed ' . projects pursuant to the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act ( "MEPA "), Minn. Stat. § 116D.01, et M. The EQB determined that the City of Chanhassen was the appropriate •• , Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) to determine the need for prep aration of an EAW. 13. On or about July 26, 1993, the City of Chanhassen initiated a condemnation , proceeding against Plaintiff Beddor to acquire the Vineland Lot 5 property for purposes of ' extending Nez Perce Drive and realigning Peaceful Lane. 14. On or about August 13, 1993, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against the Defendants , pursuant to the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 116B.01, et Leq. ' 15. On August 23, 1993, the Chanhassen City Council met to discuss the proposed EAW. At that time, the Council determined that such an EAW was too expensive, and thus instructed the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact supporting their denial of the EAW , request. The Findings of Fact were adopted on August 30, 1993. p 16. On or about September 16, 1993, the parties entered into a stipulation agreeing ■ to consolidate the City of Chanhassen's condemnation suit with the present action. Consolidation was ordered by this Court on November 27, 1993. an Amended Complaint a ainst , 17. On or about September 27, .1993, Plaintiffs filed P g Defendants adding two additional counts pursuant to the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act ■ ( "MEPA "), Minn. Stat. § 116D.01, et set, and Minn. Stat. § 462.361. ■ ■ M. Specific Findings On Count I of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. i Vineland Lot 5 is a pond/wetland area which is 18. Located near the middle of po art p of the City's storm sewer system. Adjacent to County Road 17 near the intersection of Pleasant View Road, is a second pond /wetland (the "County Road 17 Pond "). This second pond is also part of the City's storm sewer system. ' 19. Both the Vineland Lot 5 pond and the County Road 17 pond have been classified as wetlands contained on the City of Chanhassen's Wetland Classification Map. This classification map provides the City's comprehensive listing of all wetlands located within the City of Chanhassen. ' 20. Defendants made no effort to rebut the testimony of Plaintiffs' wetland expert that the County Road 17 pond is a wetland under federal and state law. 1 21. In 1990, the City Planner for Chanhassen, Jo Ann Olsen, recognized the Vineland Lot 5 pond as a wetland under the City's Wetland Classification Ordinance. At the time Ms. Olsen rendered this opinion, she was aware that the pond was a man-made pond, and had not been naturally formed. In addition, Ms. Olsen was aware that the pond had been "altered" prior to 1990. 22. In 1992, Plaintiff Frank Beddor applied for, and received, a grading permit to do certain upgrading and maintenance work to the Vineland Lot 5 pond area. After receiving the permit to do grading work on the pond, Plaintiff Beddor altered the existing conditions such that what had earlier existed as two smaller ponds, was now one single pond (the Vineland Lot 5 pond) . -5- 1 23. After the grading work was completed in 1992, the City of Chanhassen issued the 1993 Wetland Classification Map. Even after the grading work to the Vineland Lot 5 pond, the City continued to classify this area as a wetland on its Wetland Classification Map. ' 24. Ron Peterson, an environmental consultant specializing in wetland delineation, testified that he had personally tested the soil at the Vineland Lot 5 pond and that it was a wetland under federal and state law, and under Chanhassen's Wetland Ordinances. 25. The Vineland Lot 5 Pond and the County Road 17 wetlands are rare and I endangered resources. 26. The Vineland Lot 5 pond and the County Road 17 pond receive stormwater and runoff from impervious surfaces in the surrounding area. The stormwater and runoff which flow to each of these ponds, ultimately travels, by way of the City's stormwater system, through a network of ponds and ultimately into Christmas Lake. Accordingly, stormwater or runoff entering the Vineland Lot 5 pond or the County Road 17 pond, ultimately flows into Christmas Lake. 27. Christmas Lake is one of the clearest and cleanest lakes in the metropolitan area, and one of the highest quality lakes in the State of Minnesota. The lake registers at about the tenth percentile in terms of phosphorus and chlorophyll for all lakes in the metropolitan area, and has not yet entered the eutrophic stage. 28. The clarity and quality of Christmas Lake render it unique compared to other lakes in the metropolitan area. 12 t 29. Because of the unique and delicate balance of its ecosystem, Christmas Lake is particularly sensitive to changes in phosphorus levels. The lake has a unique combination of size, shape, biology and ecology which provides tremendous potential for dramatic degradation should the condition of the lake be changed or altered. 30. The proposed projects by Defendants will increase the amount of runoff entering 0 1 the Vineland Lot 5 pond and the County Road 17 pond. The additional stormwater runoff going into the wetlands would be approximately 4,900 cubic meters per year, or approximately one acre foot. As a result of the increases in flow to these two ponds, there will be a corresponding increase in the amount of runoff entering Christmas Lake on account of Defendants' projects. 31. The increase in runoff to both the Vineland Lot 5 pond and the County Road 17 pond is likely to increase the number of contaminants in these wetland areas, including suspended, floating and dissolved contaminants such as oils, potentially toxic heavy metals, lead, copper, and chromium, and nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen. 32. The increase in contaminants entering the Vineland Lot 5 pond and the County Road 17 pond is likely to create excessive growth of algae and other aquatic plants, increase the sediment and thereby destroy bottom - dwelling organisms, introduce toxic metals or pesticides barrier on the surface of the ponds which may interrupt the exchange of oxygen between the air into the food chain of the wetland organisms and animals, and temporarily create a floating and the water surface. 33. The introduction of all of these contaminants to the Vineland Lot 5 pond and the County Road 17 pond, will have an obvious effect on Christmas Lake. Evidence received at trial from Plaintiffs' Limnologist, Mr. Richard Osgood, suggests the likelihood that the IFA I phosphorus input to Christmas Lake will increase by four percent (4 %) annually. It is particularly Y, Y icularl likely, in view of the sensitivity of Christmas Lake and its unique status in the metropolitan ecosystem, that this increase in phosphorus will have dramatic effects on the lake. , 34. The extension of Nez Perce Drive and the realignment of Peaceful Lane will also r , require the removal and /or destruction of more than 22 mature trees. Approximately . o y 15 of these trees will be lost from the realignment of Peaceful Lane on the Tower Heights Addition ' property, and as many as nine more mature trees will be lost due to the extension of Nez Perce ' Drive on the Vineland Lot 5 property. 35. Because of their age, size and increasing scarcity in developing communities such , as Chanhassen, these trees, by the City's own admission, are significant natural resources requiring special protection. 36. The residential community in which all of this proposed activity would take place, is a very quiet and peaceful community. The present residual noise levels in the area range from 31 dBA to 34 dBA. The levels of residual noise in and around Pleasant View Road are lower . than those measured by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and by Plaintiffs' noise expert in any type of settings, save wilderness areas. 37. If Defendants proceed with its proposed projects, these projects will cumulatively contribute to an increase of traffic on Pleasant View Road which will exceed 1,900 vehicles per day east of Fox Path Road. At these traffic levels, it is likely that the day time residual noise levels, at the 30 -foot setback requirement, will exceed 55 dBA. Fifty -five dBA is the daytime threshold line for violation of the Minnesota Noise Standards. 19 IV. Specific Findings On Count U of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. 38. Near the end of July, 1993, Plaintiffs and others filed a petition for an EAW with the Environmental Quality Board ( "EQB "). This petition listed many possible environmental impacts which might have been caused by the extension of Nez Perce Drive and the realignment of Peaceful Lane on the Tower Heights Addition Property. 39. On July 27, 1993, the EQB wrote to Chanhassen's Planning Department advising them that the petition had been filed. 40. Also on July 27, 1993, a letter was sent to Mayor Chmiel and the Chanhassen City Council enclosing a copy of the EAW petition and explaining the nature of the petitioners' requests. 41. At the time the City Council received the petition for an EAW, it was aware that the Vineland Lot 5 pond was classified as a wetland by the City of Chanhassen. 42. Also at the time the City Council received the EAW petition, it was aware that the wetland located just to the east of County Road 17, near Pleasant View Road, was also classified as a wetland by the City of Chanhassen. ' 43. The City Council knew, or had reason to know, that the proposed road extension projects, the mapping and platting of which had been authorized on May 24, 1993, would send ' additional stormwater runoff into one or both of these wetlands. 44. At the time the City Council received the EAW petition, it knew or had reason to know, based on the City of Chanhassen's stormwater system, that any additional runoff entering e Vineland Lot 5 wetland or the Count Road 17 wetland would ultimately flow to g Y Y � 9 Christmas Lake. The City Council also knew that Christmas Lake was one of the most pure and pristine lakes in the metropolitan area. 45. At the time the petition for an EAW was filed, the City of Chanhassen had not yet completed its stormwater management plan. For this reason, the City did not have detailed information regarding the alleged filtration process of stormwater entering the wetlands and ultimately entering Christmas Lake. 46. At the time the City Council received the petition for an EAW, it was aware that the extension of Nez Perce Drive and the realignment of Peaceful Lane would cause the destruction of at least 22 mature trees, over forty inches in diameter. 47. The City Council also knew, at the time it received the petition to prepare an EAW, that the extension of Nez Perce Drive and the realignment of Peaceful Lane would increase the vehicle traffic within this residential community. 48. No detailed information was obtained by the City in terms of the additional number of vehicles that would traverse these roadways on account of the extension of Nez Perce Drive and the realignment of Peaceful Lane. No information was acquired by the City Council, and no measurements were taken, to determine the amount of additional noise which might be ' generated in this residential area on account of the increased traffic. 1 of this information or lack of information the Cit , 49. Based on al y g Director made a recommendation to the City Manager that an EAW be prepared. , 50. The City Manager passed this recommendation along to the City Council, and expressed his belief that an EAW would cost approximately $10,000.00. ,o � 1 51. After this recommendation was made, the City Council learned that preparation of an EAW would cost considerably more than $10,000.00. 52. Based solely on the cost of preparing an EAW, and without consideration for the potential environmental impacts which might have been caused by the proposed road projects, the Chanhassen City Council made the decision not to prepare an EAW. 53. The Chanhassen City Attorney advised the City Council that cost was not a factor in determining whether to do an EAW. 54. The City Council ignored the City Attorney, and based solely on cost, directed the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact denying the petition to prepare an EAW. 55. The Findings of Fact ultimately drafted by the City Attorney and signed by the Mayor on August 30, 1993, failed to discuss the potential for environmental impacts on wetlands, Christmas Lake, or on noise levels within the community. V. Specific Findings With Respect to Count III of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. 56. From as early as January, 1989, officials at the City of Chanhassen have recognized Pleasant View Road as a substandard roadway, with high volumes of traffic and significant safety problems. Paul Krauss, the Planning Director for the City of Chanhassen, in particular, considered the roadway to be "potentially dangerous" due to site - distance deficiencies, roadway width deficiencies for a collector street, and excessive vehicle use given the roadway's limited capabilities. 57. David Hempel, the Assistant City Engineer for the City of Chanhassen, has also recognized the traffic and safety problems with Pleasant View Road. Mr. Hempel has described g YP P i the roadway as substandard and one with significant traffic problems. -11- L 58. In October, 1990, the City of Chanhassen received the Eastern Carver County Comprehensive Transportation Planning Study. This study noted that Pleasant View Road was one of the worst roadways in Carver County in terms of its deficiencies and anticipated repair costs. In particular, the study designated Pleasant View Road as deficient in capacity and safety, and placed the costs of repair at $3,500,000.00. Conversely, the study concluded that Lake Lucy Road was in much better condition than Pleasant View Road, and estimated the costs of correcting any minor deficiencies on Lake Lucy Road in the range of $100,000.00 to '.•!1 111 11 59. By 1991, Defendants were aware of plans to extend the Crosstown Highway west of I -494, and to expand Townline Road into a four -lane roadway. Defendants were aware that this project was anticipated to begin in 1995, and that it would force additional traffic on to Pleasant View Road - a substandard and potentially dangerous roadway. 60. Since 1989, Defendants have failed to study, or hire an outside firm to study, the significant traffic and safety issues surrounding Pleasant View Road. 61. Although Defendants have recognized serious problems with Pleasant View Road since 1989, and acknowledged that these problems will only be exacerbated by 1995 when Townline Road is extended in a westerly fashion, Defendants propose to proceed with their roadway projects and increase traffic to Pleasant View Road without the benefit of any traffic and /or safety study. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The County Road 17 pond is a protected natural resource under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. Minn. Stat. § 116B.01. -12- 2. The Vineland Lot 5 pond is a protected natural resource under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. Minn. Stat. § 116B.01. 3. Christmas Lake is a protected natural resource under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. Minn. Stat. § 116B.01. 4. The trees located on Vineland Lot 5, and on the , Tower Heights Addition Property, are protected natural resources under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. Minn. Stat. § 116B.01. 5. The residential community located on and around Pleasant View Road, east of County Road 17, is an area of "quietude," and as such is a protected natural resource under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. Minn. Stat. § 116B.01. Defendants have failed to present any evidence rebutting Plaintiffs showing that the Pleasant View Road neighborhood constitutes a protected area of quietude. 6. The additional stormwater runoff caused by Defendants' proposed road projects is likely to cause the pollution, impairment, or destruction of both the County Road 17 wetland and the Vineland Lot 5 wetland. 7. The additional stormwater runoff caused by Defendants' proposed road projects is likely to cause the pollution, impairment, or destruction of Christmas Lake. 8. The extension of Nez Perce Drive, and the realignment of Peaceful Lane, will cause the destruction of more than 22 trees on both Vineland Lot 5 and the Tower Heights Addition property, which constitutes the pollution, impairment, or destruction of a protected natural resource under Minnesota law. -13- t View Road caused b Defendants' proposed . The increase m traffic on Pleasant y p p road projects, is likely to cause the pollution, impairment or destruction of the protected natural resource of quietude which exists in this residential community. 10. Defendants have failed to show the absence of feasible alternatives which would mitigate or eliminate the environmental impacts likely to be caused by the proposed projects. ' 11. The decision of the Chanhassen City Council not to prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, in light of all of the information it had before it in July and August, 1993, was both arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law. The Council failed to consider the possibility of numerous environmental impacts, and instead, made its decision not to prepare an , Environmental Assessment Worksheet based solely on cost. and Pleasant 12. Defendants' failure to study the traffic safety problems surrounding View Road, in light of the wide recognition by Defendants that such problems exist, and in light of the fact that an obvious safer, feasible alternative exists is arbitrary and capricious as a matter , of law. -14- ORDER FOR JUDGMENT LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS ON COUNTS I, II AND III OF THEIR AMENDED COMPLAINT. DATED: July _, 1994 BY THE COURT: The Honorable Robert J. Goggins Judge of District Court JUDGNIIENT I hereby certify that the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Judgment constitute final judgment in the above - captioned action. DATED: July _, 1994 Court Administrator Carver County District Court 56209 -15- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE a of June 1994 r I hereby certify that on the 27th day , I caused to be served true and correct copies of the foregoing documents: ' 1. Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion to Amend the Findings of Fact, , Conclusions of Law and Order for Judgment or in the Alternative for a New Trial; 2. Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Judgment or in the Alternative for a New Trial; and f 3. Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Judgment, upon all Counsel of Record by messenger service. r A � I Ai Todd A. Not boom r r - r r � 25th Anniversary 1969-1994 — ' Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre Building 230 East 5th Street St. Paul, MN 55109 A1.1 sc-J-1 ce, ACA - A�� Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District Engineering Advisor: Barr Engineering Co. 8300 Norman Center Drive Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55437 832 -2600 Legal Advisor: Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 South Ninth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 333 -4800 July 7, 1994 Re: Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District I Dear Council Members: 1 During the course of the Managers' preparation of the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District's new Management Plan, the attached letter was received from an employee of the Council. The content of the letter and its tone is of great concern to the Managers. The Managers have attended numerous meetings with city officials, including the April 20th meeting referred to in the letter which was called and chaired by Eden Prairie officials. While the immediate reaction was -to promptly respond and correct the erroneous assumptions and 1 statements :0 Mr. Guy L. Oberts, ..•e Lnstxad conccnt'ated an comp:otior. of tie Plan =d onl; now are responding to the letter. The Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District is celebrating its 25th year and the present and former managers are proud of many accomplishments. The District is a leader in urban watershed management and its revised Plan will ensure continuation of that role. The Managers philosophy is that working cooperatively with rather than dictating to cities produces desired results, results which are beneficial to all citizens because the programs are supported by all entities. Projects such as the Eden Prairie Chain of Lakes, the protection of an open space corridor along Purgatory Creek and the Staring Lake water quality and wetland restoration are but a few RECEIVED J UL 0 8 1994 CITY OF CHANHASSEIN Metropolitan Council July 7, 1994 , Page 2 examples of our commitment to protect the District's land and water resources. Further, these projects are examples of the success of the District's cooperative philosophy. The Managers feel that Mr. Oberts' letter is not accurate and does not enhance the prospect for further progress in the area of watershed management. We therefore request a meeting with the Members of the Council to review the District's past actions and to respond to Mr. Oberts' allegations of (1) their failure to meet obligations and (2) that their staff is operating without direction or Manager oversight. The Managers are citizen members and would prefer an evening meeting. Please respond concerning a suitable time and meeting place. Very truly yours, n Conrad Fiskness, President Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District c: Chanhassen Mayor and Council Deephaven Mayor and Council L Bloomington Mayor and Council Minnetonka Mayor and Council Eden Prairie Mayor and Council ' Shorewood Mayor and Council Pruce Sandstrom, MN Board of Water and Soil Resources Douglas Sandstad, Eden Prairie Planning Commission Diane Popovich- Lynch, Eden Prairie Parks Aileen Kulak, Nine Mile Creek WD Helen McClelland, Nine Mile Creek WD Cyril Ess, Lower Minnesota River WD Gerald Butcher, City of Maple Grove Charles Honchell, City of Bloomington David Jessup, City of Woodbury Bill Ottensmann, City of Coon Rapids David Sonnenberg, City of Minnetonka , Cliff Aichinger, Ramsey- Washington Metro Watershed District n Metropolitan Council July 7, 1994 Page 3 Tim Kelley, City of Blaine Louis Flynn, MPCA Gene Soderbeck, MPCA Larry Zdon, MPCA Ed Fick, MDNR John Stine, MDNR Steve Kernik, Dakota County Soil & Water Conservation District Tom Peterson, Dakota County Soil & Water Conservation District Terry Noonan, Ramsey County Marlene Marschall, MN Dept. of Health Mick Weburg, US Army Corps of Engineers Susan Schmidt, Legislative Water Commission + Metropolitan Council Advocating regional economic, societal and environmental icwt:s and solutions FAX tQErEIVEI) April 27, 1994 APR 2 9 RECD ENGI EERING Paul Haile Krebsbach & Haik, Ltd. 701 Fourth Ave., South Suite 500 Minneapolis, MN SS415 -1631 Dear Paul: On April 20th you made a presentation to a group of watershed district and local officials on the - Cuoperativc of the Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District and the Nine We Memorandum Creek Watershed District ". There were several points in the presentation and the document that I hc:lieve must be clarified before productive communication can occur. . was the Perhaps the most provocative component of the evening pointing of fingers at every agency that somehow coms.'s in contact with the watershed planning process. while failing to take any rr porAI ditty for not having ,prepared a watershed . plan under a 12 -year old law. Had the two Watershed Districts Prepared their plans in a timely fashion. some of the perceived interagency conflicts might not have occurred. As you are-aware, Chapter 103B requires that watershed management organizations address many of the issues you raised: spedfically;- 11038.201 charges the organization to identify and plan for the protection of surface water quality, and 1103B.231, sudb. 6 lists numerous water quality matters that the organization should attend to. Perhaps focusing on the Watershed Districts' own responsibilities first would lead to less confrontation and accusation. ' Completion and state adoption of a watershed plan under Chapter 103B is essential if the districts and the communities within them want to be eligible for assistance under many of the cost -share or , grant programs currently available. Limits -exist in the Council's Twin Cities Water Quality Initiative, in MPCA's Clean Water Partnership and likely in any new U.S. EPA grant program for nonpoint source pollution abatemeu:. The need for communication among affected parties about water quality programs also came up. The Metropolitan CouneO formed the Lower Minnesota River Technical Advisory Group (LMRTAG) in 1990 to address the water quality goal established for the river by the MPCA. Riley Purgatory - ' Bluff Creek and Nine Mile Creek Watershed District have had a joint representative on the advisory group since its inception. Additionally, several planners and engineers from communities within the district have served on the group. This group has been working cooperatively to arrive at solutions to the water quality problems on the Minnesota River that balance the interests of all affected parties. Concerns of the district or the communities over the direction of water quality programs can certainly be brought before the Advisory Group fur discussion, since all of the regulatory - agencies ' are. also represented on the group. . Mean Yule Centre 230 .fan filth Street St paid. MhK*$ IA 55I01.16:4 612 291-059 Fax 291.6550 'IUD 291.0904 ' An Equal 000flunity Employer m i",ae ore« APR 29 94 13:58 6123336959 PPra .01 2- I believe that there are inaccuracies in the BWSR program descriptions on page 2 of the memorandum, but those inaccuracies arc best addressed by BWSR. ' However, page 2 contains the Heat of many references as to how the water quality programs of various agencies affect the "sanitary' systems of cities. I am not sure what you mean by this. As you.1mow, the operation and maintenance of the sanitary system is a joint effort of the MWCC and the local community. The MWCC provides the service to the community based on realistic need, as defined in the local comprehensive plan prepared under Charter 473. Claiming that wetland rules and water quality standards in effect in a watershed have an impact on this regional system is questionable and might unjustifiably concern the community. Watershed planning to protect water quality and the provision of sanitary sewer service are separate issues that should not be combined to enhance an argument. II The claim on page 4 that municipalities will be fequired to treat stormwater before discharge into wetlands is at this point unfounded. The MPCA has adopted rules (chapter 7050) through authorities in tho fcderal Clears `Alater Act that address water quality standards for all receiving waters, including wetlands. At this point, the MPCA does not apply these rules unless some regulated or permitted activity, such as a Section 404 Cotes of Engineers' permit or an NPDBS permit, is involved. The rules in essence state that a community must maintain the wetland 10 that it supports the cadsting beneficial uses. The assertion that MPCA will travel to every wetland in a community and place its sampling bottle under every inflow and declare that a numeric water quality standard has been violated is simply incorrect. Grossly neglecting the health of wetlands by permanent alteration and inundation to the extent that the wetland's beneficial uses are eliminated will, as always, cause resource agencies to comment negatively. Application of commonly accepted 'best management practices' within the watershed should prevent the ldnd of horror story that you imply cities will have to endure- I suggest that you talk to Mark Gcracs of the MPCA (297-3362) to see how the agency will implement 7050. The memorandum on pages 5 and 7 laments the tax loss and development options that cities will have to forego because of upland treatment facilities. I cannot argue the legal basis for 'taking' versus public benefit, but know that the results of such discussions have consistently found that the public benefit always comes first. Federal and state legislation on water quality and state legislation on land use planning have similarly laid a framework that ruts public good hefore private financial benefit. Communities in the Metropolitan Area have an excellent opportunity to lay -out their development strategy through the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act. Progressive communities have been using the protection of water resources as an amenity to attract growth, rather than referring to them as lost' taxing opportunities. as you do on page 7. Should the function of a watershed management organization be to protect the water resources under its charge or maximize the taxable property of the communities within its boundaries? Page 5 of the memorandum states that the 'Metropolitan Council was first formed so that the metropolitan area would qualify for certain types of federal funding". This is -incorrect- The Council was formed to address the institutional problems that the region had in dealing with sanitary sewage treatment. Its charge was to arrange for the orderly and economic development of the region - not as you claim. Further in that paragraph, the statement is made that the 'Counetl is now Proposing to adopt target pollution loads that will apply throughout the watershed'. During our conversation at Barr Engineering on April 13th, i specifically told you that we were charged by the legislature to do the target loads and that they do not apply throughout the entire watershed. Unfortunately, you chose to ignore our discussion in a memorandum that was presented to such a large group a full week after we talked. The paragraph ends on page 6 with an unsupportml comment that the target loads APR 29 '94 13:59 6123336959 PAGE. 02 -3- may prohibit water quality uses specifically allowed by the MPCA. As I reminded you at the Eden ' Prairie meeting, the Council operates in a water quality arena defined by the MPCA. It does not go off on its own and do something as critical as developing its own set of disconnected water standards. To suggest otherwise is misleading. The fast full paragraph on page 6 refers to "» water resources already addressed in the local water management plans that will be prepared with help from the watershed districts". First, it is imposst'ble to know what will be addressed in a local plan; that is, these plans do not already ad_ dress anything. Secondly. since the watershed districts have not yet adopted their own watershed plans, how can they assist the communities? Again, the rust action the districts should take is to get their own house in order before pointing fingers. IMe second paragraph on page 6 refers to the uncoordinated water quality programs of the U.S. EPA, the MFCA rind tl&.,e lr eLropolitar, Council. I repeat a point I :made on April 20th that the Council operates within the standards set by the MPCA, which adopts state standards on behalf of the EPA. We all operate under the same program. The EPA has not imposed new numeric water quality standards as part of its urban runoff NFDES program; rather it adopted a best management practice strategy for the watersheds draining to affected receiving waters and left approval of that program to the MTCA. I have seen no indication that the EPA intends to change that approach. Pages 7 and 9 of the memorandum imply that communities will lose their ability o control zoning local land use control. State law and the planning approach practiced for over 25 years i and the Metropolitan Area assure that these decisions are indeed local. and will stay that way. The implied threat that land use controls will be lost by communities through regulation of wetlands and water quality serves no purpose but to inflame communities and create an environment fraught with confrontation- Tne watershed districts are in a position to do otherwise and should pursue another tact that shows some promise for success. In your presentation, you referred to the frivolity of collecting event samples and implied that city staff would be called out at all hours of the night to collect samples. As I stated on April 1301, w1lection of vwatcr samples for only baseline conditions yields a gross underestimation of water pollution loads. We have urged watershed organizations for at least 10 years to change or supplement their data collection to reflect events. Part of the reason that the Council was-charged with determining target watershed loads is that none of the watershed organizations can provide the required data because they simply are not collected. The state -of -the -art in water sample collection now includes the use of automatic sampling equipment that obviates the presence of city personnel during off - hours. The Council will shortly announce its intent to financially assist watershed organizations in the collection of water quality data. I APR 29 '94 14:00 6123336959 ME - 03 r I - � I 1I . I F� 0 1 -4- In summary, I was hopeful that the forum you suggested with the watershed distric the city a the to resource agencies would yield some productive output. The forum, howeVer. qui of finger pointing and scare tactic. It was accusatory and yielded little in terms of productive saint:. _ -- The Council will continue to participate in discussions with all pa ti � � pr �� management and development of the region- My hope s that these e and less inflammatory- S. ncer ly, Gary L Oberts Sr. rxmronmental Planner cc• Mary Smith, Metzo olitan Council District No, 3 Julius Smith, Metropolitan Council District No. 4 Sondra Simonson, Metropolitan CouncH District No. S Mayor Douglas B. Tenpas, Eden Prairie Douglas Sandstad, Chair, Eden Prairie Planning Commission Diane Popovich- Lynch, Chair, Eden Prairie Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Conrad Fiskness, Riley Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District Eileen Kulak, Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Cyril Ess, Lower Minnesota River Watershed District ' APR 29 '94 14:ee 6123336959 PAIGME•� Mr. Paul Savaryn 9950 North Shore Road Waconia, MN 55387 Dear Mr. Savaryn: CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 - 1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 I am writing in response to your letter sent to the Planning Commission, City Council and other members of city staff. You had a question based on a meeting with Andrew Mack back in April. The meeting you had with Mr. Mack was to review the Highway 5 Corridor Study. You had a few questions regarding the proposed Ian d use and road alternatives for your property. As a part of the Highway 5 corridor study, a site analysis was done for each parcel along the corridor. Your particular parcel is immediately east of the property owned by Mills Fleet Farm and as you are aware this property is outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary and is classed as a future study area. Until this area is brought into the service area, no municipal sewer and water are available and development will not be approved. Staff is looking at, as part of the corridor study, future land uses for the Highway 5 corridor. Two development concepts were provided for this area including your property. As you may or may not be aware, two road altematives wee i?eccum , F Wed for approval by the Highway 5 Task Force and the Planning C'rmnmission. 7bew have .been submitted in an environmental assessment document which is in the process of being approved by the'Minnesr to Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration. A public hearing on the final location of the road alignment will be held in front of bi'City Council most likely in August. Depending upon which road aligmmenf is chosen will more than likely aid in the future determination of which land uses should be recommended. Alternative A which shows the road alignment going to the north proposea hat your property be zoned for single family north of the road and south of the road be guided for office institutional. If the mad was located to the south, single family is being proposed north of the road and a possibility of low profile office institutional is being recommended. Your question is whether or not this could be down zoned for townhouses is the fact that you are adjacent to a large wetland and you have a very narrow piece of property and the question of how it could be serviced based on 1 F, I � July 7, 1994 Mr. Paul Savaryn July 7, 1994 Page 2 this is legitimate as far as parcel layout we feel it makes sense based on the integrity of this t property that single family would most likely be the best use for this area. The goals of the study include preservation of natural features, and single family would be the best use in this ' area. Lundgren Brothers has a large single family subdivision currently under construction immediately to the north of your property. ' Your letter asks if the frontage road could stay off your property and be moved to the south. The purpose of this frontage road is to add to the continuity between east and west access for the city to provide local trips running east and west without having to get onto Highway 5. Eliminating the frontage road through your property does not provide for this continuity. In addition, the proposed right -of -way you proposed with your map on the northern end of the Mills Fleet Farm property would not allow for the continuity of this frontage road as it dead ends at your property. If it was to extend, it would have to go through an expansive wetland ' as well as steep slopes and some existing tree areas. Staff feels that for the integrity of having the continuity of the road, it cannot be located at the northern location as proposed. ' We have copies of the environmental assessment document available in our office. If you would like, I would be happy to review the issues that are raised in the document or if you have more specific questions about the proposed land use recommendations on your property, I would be happy to meet with you and review those. Please feel free to contact me. I Sincerely, 11 Kathryn R. Aanenson Planning Director i � PC: City Council CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 7 Mr. Jim Paulet, Facilities Manager DataSery 12125 Technology Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 -7399 Dear Jim: I am writing in response to your letter and a follow -up of the June 27 City Council meeting. I understand you are concerned about the no parking requirement along Lake Drive East. Staff has addressed this issue by establishing two different setback zones with the Highway Corridor 1 and Highway Corridor 2 Distracts .' The . -PataSery property falls within the HC -1 district which states that the underlying zoning and setback shall take place. The only additional parking requirement that shall be placed on this property, as we have interpreted it, is that parking areas shall not be located within the required minimum front primary or secondary yard setback of any lot. Since this property is zoned IOP, the building setback is 30 feet where it abuts Lake Drive East. °Therefore, no parking shall be located within that 30 foot building setback. The HC -2 district requires a minimum of a 50 foot setback or a maximum of 70 feet. We feel that the underlying district -already allows you flexibility within the corridor and staff has taken into consideration the existing lots and that is why two districts were developed. We feel that the 30 foot setback is not punitive and the intent is that as follow along the frontage roads, there are not parking lots along the entire frontage road. A parking lot can be located in 1 t of :the building as long as it maintains the 30 foot front yard setback and is :appropriately .screem, & I hope this answers your contact me. Sincerely, , l �'�' Kathryn R. Aanenson Planning Director . ,rE PC: City Council If you have additional free to u 1 July 7, 1994 . A O O O O O O O O A > I., s s Z H vs to to v s to n �+ La S O a ON > > co O Z s a z r t 3 S W W N W 10 O t." Q o ` !n r N o a C to v to Z Z . y A y 7C S A O O s ea 3 A t A S v � � ✓� Z S x S 3 Z `'- z o ►" Z A ,.� A ca � a a C t'A z' a A ea W o N rn a o o a a z a z z :n a > a r m �. x z x x z z M z rn a z z a V, z z n c y rr o It M N O r r w v w - V v� y W r O O O O O Z W DO a A � W CA y A > -C C M O x 3 b > m •-3 Z v A M y C M CA w — w Z _ a m > n W y V) c� A 3 o z z A s a e 3 3 ^a m z -3 r V7 z A A S s z ;a x a 7C y w [A z s a 3 o Z y A A r n > o C 3 Z > y Z Cn H 'O a -G a s r 'v C � x O � V O i y 10 b a n tv T 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 /City Engineer DATE: July 25, 1994 SUBJ: Award of Bids for Well No. 7 - Project No. 94 -3 On Friday, July 22, 1994, bids were received �d` opened for the Well No. 7 Project No. 94 -3. A total of four bids were received with the lad b>f being received from Layne, Minnesota at a total base bid of $164,996. This is approximately o below the engineer's estimate at $180,000. References have been verified on Layne, Mnnesota end are found to be favorable. At this point staff is still trying to work qt easement, along the proposed Lake Lucy Road ,fix the Gestacl Paulson are concerned about granting 'the needed utili preliminary plat approval which is ,pieduled for late It is therefore recommended that the City Council award to Layne, Minnesota at a ptal'base bid of $164,996 c *S bYs necessary easement fox the site. ktm Attachment: Letter Rosene, Anderlik & iisition for this well site to be located ulson property. However, Gestach- easement until their plat ha attained ust /early September. Nell No. 7 Project No. 94 -3 contract lent upon being able to obtain the my 25, 1994 gAeng \charles \cc \w e117.1 S onestroo otto a aori strba P.F. Howard A. Sanrord, RE, Michael P Rau, P.E. Mark D. Wallis. P.E. Robert W RoWne. RE.* a Keith A, Gordon, P.E. Agnes M. Ring, A I.C.P Peterson, RE, Miles S. Jensen, RE. L. Phillip Gravel, RE, ,IOSC ,i Joseph C. Anderlik. P.E. o Marvin L. Sorval Pk, Robert R. Pfelkrie, P.E. Thomas W. Richard W. Foster, RE Michae C. Lynch, P.E. Karin L. Wie PE And & Richard E Turner, PE. David O. Loskota, F.E. James R, Maland, PE. Gary D. Krimefisr, P.E. Glenn R. Cook, RE Associates Thomas E. Noyes, RE. Robert C. Russell. AJ.A, Jerry D. % tfeh, PE Jerry A. Dwrelon, P.E. Stott J. Argenek. P.E. Win R. Yapp. RE. Douglas J. Benoit. RE, Robert G. Schunicht, RE, Mark A. Hanson, P.E. Kenneth P. Andetson, PE, Shawn P, Gustafson, P6. Engineers 8i Archit Susan M EDerlin, C.P.A. *Senior Consultant Michael T. Rautmann, P.E. Mark R. 1 RE Ted K. rleid, RE. Mark A. Seip, RE. CeciU0 Olivier, FE. Paul G. Heuer. P.E. Thomas R. Andefscitn, A.I.A. Gary W. Morlen. PE. John P. Golder, P.E. Donald C Burgardt. P.E. Paul J, Gannon, A.I.A. Charles A. Erickson Thomas A. Syrko, RE Daniel J. Edgerton, P.E. Leo M. Pawelsky Frederic. i Stenboig. PE. A. Rick Sehr7lidt, RE Har1An M. Olson Ismael Martinet, PE, Philip J. Caswell, P.E. James F Engeiha?Vt q (t 197 Jul 25, 4 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' Re: Deep Well No. 7 City Project No, 94 -3 ' File 39322 Honorable Mayor and City Council: Bids were opened for the Deep Well No. 7 Project on Friday, July 22, 1994. Transmitted ' herewith are ten (10) copies of the bid tabulation for your information and file. The following summarizes the results of the four low bids received: ' Low Layne Minnesota Co, $164,996.00 #2 E.H. Renner & Sons, Inc. $1$$,650.00 ' #3 Keys Well Drilling $205,410,00 #4 Bergerson- Caswell, Inc, $210,350,00 The low bidder on the project was Layne Minnesota Co. with a Base Bid of $164,996.00. These bids have been reviewed and found to be in order. We are therefore r tha t e ' City award this project to Layne Minnesota CompaU. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 636 -4600. ' Yours very truly, ' BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Richard W. Foster RWF:rb:enc ' 39322,COR 1 2335 West Highway 36 « St. Paula MN 55113 • 612 -.636 -4600 ZO'd 'OSSV 2 008l62NO9 titi£ti 929 ET9 tiO:Sti b6SZ —SZ —zO E g ASSOCIATES LTD. July 20, 1994 CITY Y QF C NHUSSE . . Mr. Charles Folch, P.E. JUL 2 I694 ' City Engineer 922 Mainstreet Hopkins, Mn. 55343 (612) 933 -0972 fax: (612) 933 -1153 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' Re: City roject No. 93 -32 Lake rea utility and road improvements tY J � Riley Y Y P Dear Mr. Folch: ' As a follow up of our meeting on July, 18 at City Hall, this letter has been prepared summarizing the results of our discussions. The attempt has been to follow the discussion format and organize the position of the City and the property owner relative to the items contained in the July 15 letter ..' to you from Richard Koppy, RLK A ssociates (attached for reference). ' Proiect Design recommendations: Water Service - The City has explained that the water system designed for the project area will serve the entire area now and into the future. It has been ' designed with full development in place for each of the individually taxed parcels. The City is aware that there are several property owners who are on private water wells for domestic use that feel the well is adequate for their drinking water purposes. However, while the streets are being ' constructed, the City would like to install, all of the underground utilities. The property owner has indicated that the property has no need for additional, water service and ' that the service would not increase the value of the property. He currently has two wells that provide water that serves his domestic purposes and firefighting purposes. These wells were installed approximately 20 years ago and have not been used to their capacity during that tenure. Information on the wells was obtained from the McCarthy Well Drilling Company and is contained below: ' ♦ Two 12" wells having casings that extend -into the earth approximately 320' -with open holes for an additional 60', to a total well boring depth of 380'. into the Jordan aquifer. ♦ One of the wells has a pumping capacity of 350 gpm; the other has a capacity of 225 gpm. ' ♦ There are no water meters connected to the wells; therefore, we can give no pumping data from an operation perspective. i r .Civil Engineering .Transportation *Infrastructure Redevelopment . Landscape Architecture . Construction Management Mr. Charles Folch July 20, 1994 Lake Riley Area Project Page 2 ♦ Tim McCarthy, of the McCarthy Well Drilling Company (854 - 5333), indicates that the well system is in good operating condition. Their company maintains the wells on an ongoing basis. Every 4 to 5 years a new pump is added to the system to replace the old pump. ♦ The well system that is in operation can provide adequate water capacity, for domestic and fire fighting purposes, for the property owned by the Lakeview Hills Apartment ownership complex, including the developed and the undeveloped parcels. ♦ Complete operation of the system, including maintenance and power costs, is $15,000 for every 5 years, or approximately $3,000 per year: Sanitary Sewer -- The plan that has been prepared by the City is based upon the future growth of the area and of the City. It includes a replacement of the 8" sewer that presently serves the Lakeview Apartments with a new system including forcemains and lift stations. The property owner feels that they are presently served by an existing 8" sanitary sewer line and that it is adequate for their current and future development. To the best of their knowledge, there have been no back -ups in the sewer over the years the property owner has owned the apartments. Therefore, it is hard to imagine that a new sewer would have an impact on the value of the property: Street Design -- The City has reviewed at least two options with the street design, and has recommended the 52' width with two lanes of striping outside of the intersection areas. The street is a Municipal State Aid route and, therefore, needs to meet MSA standards to receive partial funding for the construction costs. From the Lakeview Apartments to the south, the road width has been reduced from 52' to 36'. This is based partially on lesser traffic counts, fewer intersection areas and the connection with the road segment in Eden Prairie. The property owner feels that the present roadway is adequate to handle his needs. He has not petitioned for the street project and feels it would add minimal value to the property. He questions the width that is recommended based upon the future traffic volumes. The traffic counts are relatively iow for a 52' street section. Proiect Construction phasing: The City has reviewed the entire project area as one project because of its position within the City near the boundary of Eden Prairie and the imminent residential development. Additionally, economies of scale will allow reduce unit costs for the work if the project is larger, as in this case, compared to breaking the plan into a series of smaller projects. City staff and the consultant have indicated that the project could be phased independently. For example, in the engineering feasibility study on page 15, in the last paragraph, the statement is made relative to the water system that all segments, with the exception of Segment A and Segment C -1 or C -2 (neither affect the Lakeview Apartment property), can be constructed and put in service independently of other segments. However, the economics may not be favorable for the City if specific segments are dropped until a future date. Mr. Charles Folch July 20, 1994 Lake Riley Area Project Page 3 The property owner would favor deferring construction of the segment of the project that is adjacent to the Lakeview Hills Apartment property. When the condemnation efforts ongoing with ' the State of Minnesota on the Highway #212 corridor are completed and there is more information of how development may progress, they will be in a better position to evaluate the various components of the proposed improvement project. Proiect Assessments: The City has used a standard approach for assessments that utilizes ' uniform trunk charges for water and sewer service hook -up charges. The City has acknowledged that the Lakeview Apartment owners have paid assessments for this existing 8" sewer and will not have to pay for a new line serving the existing apartments. However, the City contends that the ' vacant property of Liefschultz has never been assessed for sewer and will be assessed for the proposed project. Additionally, they have used traffic generation rates for various land use conditions to justify assessments for the road project. ' The ro ert owner does not feel an assessments are acceptable since the projects that are P P Y Y P p J proposed are not needed and have minimal benefit. However, if the project is constructed at a ' future date, revisions should be made to the assessment methodology. First, the sanitary sewer assessment for the property has been paid. When the 8" sewer was installed and paid for by the property owner, this constituted the sewer assessment for the property. No further assessments ' are due since the 8" line will satisfy all the sanitary sewer needs for the developed portion and the vacant portion of the property. Secondly, water assessments should be based on a fair cost per ' unit of development of the property at the time the development hooks up to City water.. Third, the property owner does not feel that the traffic generation method of assessment is fair, since his property represents the most dense development in the area and will pay a disproportionate share ' of the road costs per acre of development. Additionally, the generation rates that were used by the City's consultant, it appears, were not compared fairly to apartment and single family developments that are similar to the developments in this area of Chanhassen. ' One of the primary reasons that the property owner would rather have the project deferred is the Highway 212 influence. A portion of the undeveloped parcel between the Lakeview Hills ' Apartment Complex and Rice Marsh Lake will be purchased by the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the ultimate construction of Highway 212. The right of way acquisition and the determination of what will happen to the remnant land parcel has not been decided, and may ' not be for several years. Under the project assessment methodology of the City, the estimated remnant parcel has been assessed on a basis of residential development equivalent to approximately 8 to 9 units per acre. Development of this land may never occur. If the City decides to proceed with any component of the project in the Lakeview Hills Apartment area, the project assessments for that component should be deferred until the vacant property is r developed. The property owner stated to the City staff and consultant that at this time, the proposed project has very little benefit to the Lakeview Hills property. Mr. Charles Folch July 20, 1994 Lake Riley Area Project Page 4 An assessment methodology of using a combination of connection charges and an extended ' assessment payment amortization period to assess portions of the project to the property owners should be studied further. This relates specifically to the water distribution system installation and the roadway improvements. It would allow the property owner to defer the assessments until the ' future need for the hook -up is determined. Moreover, the extended payment,penod would lessen the impact of the assessments for the roadway improvements on the minimal property value increase that may be realized by the property owners. ' A final note, assuming the construction project moves ahead as suggested in the schedule contained on page 21 of the OSM Engineering Feasibility Study, the property owner requests that ' an "up front" assessment hearing be held. This would be held after the construction bids are received, but before construction contracts are awarded. The property owner could than decide ' on the merits of the project, based upon the fairness of the costs assessed to their property, whether they would support the project. In summary, the property ownership group is willing to discuss the project further with the City , assuming phasing of the project can be implemented. Hopefully, through a combination of deferment of assessments and /or the use of connection charges, we can come to an agreement on how to proceed with this public improvement project.: Additional time is needed for this analysis ' and discussion period to be concluded. We will be at the July 25 City Council meeting to support you in the request to allow the project schedule to be extended while the property owner group and City staff review the project phasing and assessments more thoroughly. , Sincerely, Steve Liefschultz, Property Owner Representative Richard Koppy, RLK Associate td ' Fax copies to: Charles Folch, City Engineer 937 -5739 Dave Mitchell, OSM 595 -5774 Len Levine 699 -4792 r Jeff Brauchle 344 -9376 John Thiel 333 -0066 Attachment, only included in the mailed copy to the City ' D n 922 Mainstreet Hopkins, Mn. RLK (612) 55343 'ASSOCIATES LTD. fax: (612) 933 - 0 11153 July 15, 1994 Mr. Charles Folch, PE City Engineer City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: City Project No. 93 -32; Lake Riley Utility Improvements and Lyman Blvd. Reconstruction Dear Mr. Folch: fl n I am working with Steve Liefschultz regarding the above referenced project to help him understand the engineering and public works aspects of the project relative to the project assessments that are proposed. As I understand, we have a 10:00 AM meeting on Monday, July 18, to discuss the project issues. From what I hear, the City Council on July 11 referred staff to review the project phasing issues with the property owner of the Lakeview Hills property. I have had an opportunity to review the OSM Feasibility Report for the Lake Riley Area Improvements, spoke with David Mitchell, the project manager, and have met with Steve Liefschultz and the project ownership group. Based upon this review and discussion, the following issues are offered for your consideration and suggested for further discussion. Project Design recommendations: - Water service, to replace well service on the Liefschultz property - Sanitary sewer replacement of the existing system - Street design standards for Lake Riley Boulevard Project Construction phasing: - Splitting of the project into multiple phases with Lake Riley Boulevard postponed until the need for reconstruction is warranted Project Assessments: - Methodology of assessment unit assessments ' - Justification of the Sanitary Sewer, Watermain and Street Assessments to the Lakeview Hills property - Deferment of assessments ' - Holding the assessment hearing prior to the award of construction contracts .Civil Engineering .Transportation .Infrastructure Redevelopment .Landscape Architecture -Construction Management Mr. Charles Folch Lake Rile Area Project July 15, 1994 Pa (ye 2 The property owners understand that the City is anxious to move into the project bidding period and subsequently award a construction contract. It is unfortunate, but understandable, that notices were sent to the Lakeview Hills Investment Company, the property owner of record. The Liefschultz group is the actual property owner, purchasing the property from the Lakeview Hills Investment Company through a contract for deed arrangement. All assessments will be paid through the Liefschultz group. Therefore, I am sure you understand the need for their participation in the decision phase of the project considering their assessment load is proposed to be nearly 25% of the project cost. We hope that the meeting on Monday will be an opportunity to share information and understand each others position on the important items outlined above. There assuredly are many items that will be shared that will help each of us understand how to intelligently proceed with the project. Thank you, RLK Associates, Ltd. 0 Richard L. Koppy, PE cc. Sent by Fax -- Steve Liefschultz Len Levine John Thiel David Mitchell Fax # 553 -0436 Fax # 699 -4792 Fax # 333 -0066 Fax # 595 -5774 r 0 I I I I J I � July 20, 1994 on Sdtelen g gp & Associates, Inc. 300 Park Place Center 5775 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55416 -1228 612 -595 -5775 1- 800 - 753 -5775 FAX 595 -5774 R25.0240100 Mr. Steven Liefschultz Lakeview Hills Investment Group 3025 Harbor Lane Suite 3315 Plymouth, MN 55447 Re: Public Hearing Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvements and Lyman Boulevard Reconstruction Chanhassen, MN City Project No. 93 -32 OSM Project No. 5183.00 Dear Mr. Liefschultz: Engineers Architects Planners Surveyors On July 11, 1994 the Chanhassen City Council continued the public hearing for City Project No. 93 -32, Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvements and Lyman Boulevard Reconstruction until July 25, 1994. This is to notify you that the Chanhassen City Council will continue hearing property owner comments at their regularly scheduled meeting on July 25, 1994 at 7:30 pm. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the project, please contact me at the above ' address or by phone at 595 -5699. If you don't reach me directly, please leave a voice mail message and I will return the call so that we can discuss your concerns. Sincerely, David D. Mitchell, P.E. Project Manager c: Charles Folch - Chanhassen City Engineer Don Ashworth - Chanhassen City Manager Mayor and City Council - City of Chanhassen H:\ 5183.00 \CIVIL \CORRES \072094.LHI Equal Opportunity Employer jr?I_1 R � M JUL 2 2 69 DI NG' DEPT. Bloomington, MN 55431 Re: Public Hearing ' Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvements and Lyman Boulevard Reconstruction Chanhassen, MN ' City Project No. 93 -32 OSM Project No. 5183.00 Dear Mr. Adelman: ' On July 11, 1994 the Chanhassen City Council continued the public hearing for City Project ' No. 93 -32, Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvements and Lyman Boulevard Reconstruction until July 25, 1994. This is to notify you that the Chanhassen City Council will continue hearing property owner comments at their regularly scheduled meeting on July ' 25, 1994 at 7:30 pm. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the project, please contact me at the above t address or by phone at 595 -5699. If you don't reach me directly, please leave a voice mail message and I will return the call so that we can discuss your concerns. Sincerely, ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON ' & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 David D. Mitchell, P.E. Project Manager ' c: Charles Folch - Chanhassen City Engineer ' Don Ashworth - Chanhassen City Manager Mayor and City Council - City of Chanhassen Ernie Peacock - Edina Realty ' H: \5183.00 \CNIL \CORRES \072094.CA Equal Opportunity Employer off SSchhelen ' Mayeron & Associates, Inc. 300 Park Place Center ti 5775 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55416 -1228 July 20, 1994 6- 800 - 753 -5775 FAX 595 -5774 1 ' Engineers Architects Planners Surveyors ' 825.0136300 Charles Adelman etal. 1411 W. 97th Street ' Bloomington, MN 55431 Re: Public Hearing ' Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvements and Lyman Boulevard Reconstruction Chanhassen, MN ' City Project No. 93 -32 OSM Project No. 5183.00 Dear Mr. Adelman: ' On July 11, 1994 the Chanhassen City Council continued the public hearing for City Project ' No. 93 -32, Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvements and Lyman Boulevard Reconstruction until July 25, 1994. This is to notify you that the Chanhassen City Council will continue hearing property owner comments at their regularly scheduled meeting on July ' 25, 1994 at 7:30 pm. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the project, please contact me at the above t address or by phone at 595 -5699. If you don't reach me directly, please leave a voice mail message and I will return the call so that we can discuss your concerns. Sincerely, ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON ' & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 David D. Mitchell, P.E. Project Manager ' c: Charles Folch - Chanhassen City Engineer ' Don Ashworth - Chanhassen City Manager Mayor and City Council - City of Chanhassen Ernie Peacock - Edina Realty ' H: \5183.00 \CNIL \CORRES \072094.CA Equal Opportunity Employer