4b. Pedestrian Bridge Approve Limited Uses AgreementCITY OF 4b
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: March 8, 1995
Action by City Administrator
Endorse W
Modified
Rejecte
Dat
Date Submitted to CommiSSW
Date �777,d to Council
3� 3 - -175
SUBJ: Approve Limited Use Permit for Pedestrian Bridge No. 10531 Over Trunk
Highway 5
Project No. 93 -25, S.P. 194-090-9A STP EN93(013)
INN
As a part of the construction of the pedestriar�ikeridge over Trunk Highway 5, the State has
' legal authority to control the use of airspa ' abovA.,a trunk highway. Therefore, the City is
required to enter into a limited use permit? vith the Mate. This limited use permit basically
contains language which requires that th City be responsible for all maintenance and costs
associated with the bridge, the City shalf' an attnual inspection of the bridge with the
State's Division Engineer and if the lardge is ever removed in the future the City shall be
responsible for all associated costs. 'j re is also a hold harmless provision for the State for use
of the bridge. This limited use aeement is for a period of 35 years which is the average life
expectancy for this type of str re. This limited use agr�ipment may be extended or modified
by written mutual consent a e City and State and the Cit , retains the right to terminate this
agreement and remove; re' bridge by serving written notice the State.
Attachment: Limited Use Permit I F
c: Todd Gerhardt, Assistant City Manager
Philip Holforty, MnDOT Right -of -Way
g Aeng\charles \cc \bridge 1
LIMITED USE PERMIT
r
THIS AGREEMENT, made as of the 21 st day of February 1995, between the STATE OF
MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (herein called "the State "), and the '
City of Chanhassen (herein called "the second party ").
WITNES SETH: '
WHEREAS, the second party, by motion adopted by City Council
on September 13. 1993 , has authorized its Engineer to retain
'
consultants, prepare construction documents, obtain necessary permits, and take bids for
construction of the Pedestrian Bridge No. 10531 , and WHEREAS, the State has designated said
'
bridge as Pedestrian Bridge No. 10531 , and WHEREAS, the second party has
commissioned the preparation of construction plans and specifications for said Bridge No. 10531 ,
and
WHEREAS, the State owns fee title to the T.H. 5 right of way land over which said
Bridge No. 10531 would pass, and
WHEREAS, said Bridge No. 10531 would be solely an overpass pedestrian bridge having no
access connections to T.H. 5 , and would have no effect on T.H. 5 access control;
NOW THEREFORE, the State and the second party agree as follows:
1. The State will permit the second party to build Pedestrian Bridge No. 10531 over T.H. 5
'
2 The bridge construction and location shall conform to the construction plans and
specifications approved by the State and included as part of this document as Exhibits "A"
and "B ".
3. The State shall incur no expense under this agreement. The second party shall obtain any
'
funding and bear all costs for construction, reconstruction, modification or maintenance of
Bridge No. 10531 .
,
4. The State will permit the bridge to occupy the airspace over T.H. 5 by authority of
Minnesota Statutes 1982, Section 161.433, "Use of Airspace Above and Subsurface
,
Below Trunk Highways ".
THE TERM OF THIS LEASE SHALL BE THIRTY -FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE
'
OF THIS AGREEMENT.
The benefit to the State of M Y Y arising Trunk Highway System rom the 15 I
g
covenants under this Lease shall be deemed an adequate consideration and fair rent to the '
State for granting this lease.
' S. No construction, reconstruction, modification, or removal work shall be started
until written approval has been given by the State's Division Engineer.
PROTECTION OF THE TRAVELING PUBLIC ON T.H. 5 IS OF THE
ESSENCE OF THIS LEASE AGREEMENT.
'
6.
The second party shall protect, defend, indemnify, and save harmless the State and
its employees from and against any and all claims, demands, and causes of action
'
of any nature whatsoever for injury to or death of persons or loss of or damage to
property in any manner growing out of or connected with said bridge construction,
'
reconstruction, modification, maintenance, or removal of said bridge, regardless of
whether such injury, death, loss, or damage is deemed to be the responsibility of
'
the State because of its failure to supervise, inspect, or control the operations of
the second party or otherwise discover or prevent actions or operations of the
'
second party giving rise to liability to any person.
7.
The bridge shall remain the property of the second party.
' S.
At least once each year the second party shall contact the State's Division Engineer
to arrange for a joint inspection of the bridge.
'
9.
The second party shall conduct its winter plowing operations in such a manner that
snow and ice will not fall from the bridge onto T.H. 5
10.
If the State's Division Engineer determines at any time that the condition of repair
or maintenance of the bridge may create a danger to traffic on the crossing
roadway, and if, upon receiving notice, the second party does not remedy the
'
condition in a timely manner to the satisfaction of the State's Division Engineer,
then the State may make any repairs or perform any work required (as determined
'
solely by said Division Engineer). The second party agrees to reimburse the State
for any work done by the State under this Paragraph.
'
11.
The second party may terminate this Agreement at any time by giving the State's
Division Engineer written notice of intent to discontinue using the bridge, which
'
notice shall also set out a proposed time schedule for removing the bridge. In such
case, the second party shall remove the bridge down to the elevations and slope
cross sections as determined by the State's Division Engineer.
12.
The second party shall pay all costs for removal of the bridge.
'
13.
The thirty -five year term of this Lease Agreement may be extended or modified by
mutual written consent of the parties.
14. Any use permitted by this Lease Agreement shall remain subordinate to the right of
f the Minnesota Department of Transportation to use the property for highway and
transportation purposes. This Lease Agreement does not grant any interest
whatsoever in land, nor does it establish a permanent park, recreation area or
wildlife or waterfowl refuge facility that would become subject to Section 4 (0 of
the Federal -Aid Highway Act of 1968, nor does this agreement establish a Bike
Trail or Pedestrian Way which would require replacement pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes (1976) 160.264.
15. Mn/DOT grants second party the right to enter Mn/DOT right of way if entry to
the second party's (bikeway, bus shelter or pedestrian bridge) requires entry onto
Mn/DOT right of way. Second party shall be responsible for security or other
measures to protect the public and other persons using Mn/DOT right of way to
access second party's (bikeway, bus shelter or pedestrian bridge).
F ECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
y
Metro Division Engineer
,Date 2 /
OF
Date
?PROVED BY: By :_
COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION Date
'DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BLDG.
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55155
1
By:
' Director, Office of Right of Way
and Surveys
Fate
k he Commissioner of Transportation
y the execution of this permit
certifies that this permit is
,necessary in the public interest
and that the use intended is for
r ublic purposes.
1 � �
Q /
O
00 �7-
_
O O,
I II I {J
O I �Q O t"I
0 O O 0
Q O Q O rQ 0 e 'er ' O e �• !� /// o o / /i � - '° q � o �
O L
QO /'O KK 00
Ci
16 o
OD
O
ol
k- \ \ \
Pp �
S�
0 .L0 s
O /
0
0 -4 0
° , O
000 *l, \�
0 \
0
— - .
0
rr,
1
--i W
o .
' 0
o_-
cn m
m r
' m
oo
rt
O
f - Q
fD (�
l r\
' 0
f
(D �
N
cn
a (—
o D
Da
a�
l
a
cD
0
m
m
� 10 IJ
� �
CC)
�
Z
m
°
�
°
D
J
ry
o
Z
°
o
_
Q
r °.
o -
' n
m
�
N
W �I
<
C
�k
r
j
IL
N
C) , rj LL
cD
O
!ri
w
0
m
m
rn
Z
m
v
°
D
J
ry
o
Z
°
o
_
Q
r °.
o -
�
N
L-r-
<
y
r
° I \
a I
IL
N
C) , rj LL
cD
O
w
� rQ
IN,
D
m
-- o ;
ao
II n
QD
I
7�" u
II II
rr, (n
° 000�
c -nn N O
v
0
0
v
v
c
O� O-
D � O
o� o
0 0{
° o ° o
II
m
rn
ti
v
°
J
o
Z
°
o
_
Q
o -
�
N
O
y
C
° I \
a I
IL
N
C) , rj LL
cD
Cb
� rQ
ti
-- o ;
ao
II n
QD
I
7�" u
II II
rr, (n
° 000�
c -nn N O
v
0
0
v
v
c
O� O-
D � O
o� o
0 0{
° o ° o
II
W
m
rn
o
Z
°
o
_
Q
o -
n
O
y
C
N
cD
Cb
N)
r
0
°
1
W
I CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
DA'Z'E: Septo mber 111993 RESOLUTION N0 : _ 43 -90
MOTION BY: Wing SECONDED BY: ___Mason
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF TH 5 PEDESTRIAN
OVERPASS AS A COST SHARING PROJECT NygTH ISTEA FUNDS
WHEREAS, as the City of Chanhassen is biseatcd by Highway 5 which makes access into
the Central Business District difficult for residents who reside south of the highway, and
NVHtREAS, the City has embarked on an ambitious program of developing the Central
Business District to meet the commercial, institutional and community needs of our residents, and
W14SREAS, the City is undertaking an extensive Urban Design Program for the Highway
5 corridor that sets enhancing pedestrian Recess and supporting alternatives to the private
automobile .as one of its goals, and
WHEREAS, the City is striving to enhance the identity and importance of the Central
Business District and of the entire community, and
WHEREAS, the above mentioned needs and goals along with the goals articulated by the
Federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Act can be met by the construction of a high quality
pedestrian overpass over Highway 5, and
Wfi,EREAS, the City has applied for and received an ISTEA grant to cover a substantial
portion of the expenses related to said bridge.
THiREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Chanhassen City Council expresses
Its support for the construction of a pedestrian overpass over Highway 5 adjacent to the Central
Business District, as approved under the ISTEA Program,
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 13th day of September, 1993.
ATI -ST:
Don Ashworth, lerk11�4anager Donald J, Chmie ay r
Chmiol
Dookendorf
Senh
Magon
Wing
10 A1 sSENT
None None
x: x:x:Ep;p »:x»
' TO: DON CHMIEL
FROM: MICHAEL & KRISTINE PERRY 7521 WINDMILL DRIVE CHANHASSEN
DATE: 3 -5 -95
' SUBJECT: LAKE ANN HIGHLANDS PROJECT
' WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS TWIN -HOME PROJECT AND BELOW ARE THE CONCERNS
THAT WE HAVE WITH THE PROJECT AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE CITY PLANNING
OFFICE IS RECOMMENDING THE PROJECT.
A. WE HAVE ATTENDED TWO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS AND WE ARE
APPALLED AT THE FACT THAT THIS PROJECT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY
PLANNING OFFICE, EVEN THOUGH IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE HIGHWAY FIVE
' ALTERNATE WRITTEN RECORD. WE ARE VERY CONCERNED THAT KATE ATTESON BASED
HER RECOMMENDATION ON HEARSAY FROM A WORKSHOP THE CITY COUNCIL HAD
TAKEN CONCERNING THE HIGHWAY FIVE ALTERNATE, SINCE THIS WORKSHOP WAS NOT
A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD NOR WERE THERE MINUTES TAKEN AT THE WORKSHOP.
B. WE ARE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE LACK OF INFORMATION THE DEVELOPER
AND LAND OWNER ARE WILLING TO GIVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. FOR EXAMPLE,
' THE PLANNING COMMISSION ASKED TO SEE SAMPLES OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL
AND THE DEVELOPER REFUSED, SINCE THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO GIVE THIS TYPE OF
INFORMATION.
C. WE DO NOT FEEL THE CITY PLANNING STAFF HAS PUT IN ENOUGH TIME STUDYING
THE DETAILS OF THIS PROJECT. FOR EXAMPLE, THE STAFF WAS ASKED A QUESTION BY
THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON BUFFERING, SINCE THIS PROJECT IS NOT IN THE SAME
CHARACTER AS WINDMILL RUN. WE WERE DISAPPOINTED THE CITY PLANNING STAFF
COULD NOT EVEN ANSWER A BASIC QUESTION RELATIVE TO BUFFERING.
D. WE ARE AGAINST THIS PROJECT FUNDAMENTALLY SINCE MANY RESIDENTS PRIOR
TO INVESTING IN WINDMILL RUN WENT TO THE CITY PLANNING OFFICE TO OBTAIN
INVESTMENT INFORMATION ON THE PROPERTIES ADJOINING WINDMILL RUN TO MAKE
SURE FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH WINDMILL AND ROYAL
t OAK SUBDIVISIONS.
THE CITY PLANNING STAFF DID NOT GIVE A COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
RELATING TO THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES AND ACTED IN A VERY RECKLESS AND
' WILLFUL MANNER IN FAVOR OF LOTUS DEVELOPMENT BY WITHHOLDING CRITICAL
INFORMATION FROM THE FUTURE INVESTORS OF WINDMILL RUN.
t E. FURTHERMORE, WE LIVE ON WINDMILL DRIVE AND THE WAY THIS NEW PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT IS DESIGNED WINDMILL DRIVE WILL BECOME A MAJOR SHORT CUT
BETWEEN HIGHWAY FIVE ALTERNATE AND GALPIN ROAD. THIS DEVELOPMENT IS MUCH
HIGHER DENSITY THAN WINDMILL RUN OR ROYAL OAK. DUE TO THE NUMBER OF
' SMALL CHILDREN THAT LIVE ON WINDMILL DRIVE, WE FEEL THIS WOULD BE A SAFETY
PROBLEM.
' F. WE ALSO QUESTION THE GRADING OF THE PROJECT AND AFTER TWO PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETINGS WE STILL FEEL THERE WILL BE EXCESSIVE GRADING OF THE
LAND THAT WILL CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE LAND IN CHANHASSEN.
' INCONCLUSION, WE ASK THAT YOU VOTE NO ON THE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY FOR
THIS DEVELOPMENT.
r ■