Administrative SectionADMINISTRATIVE SECTION
Memo from Bob Generous dated November 10, 1993.
Letter and enclosures from Mr. Thomas Scott dated January 4, 1994.
Letter to Mr. James F. Jessup dated January 7, 1994.
Letter from Mr. Cyril B. Ess dated January 5, 1994.
Certificate of Training presented to Scott Harr.
ISTEA Implementation Newsletter dated December 23, 1993.
Letter from Mr. William C. Griffith, Jr. dated January 11, 1994.
Memo from Nikki Dummer dated January 14, 1994.
Letter to Mr. Keith Osmonson dated January 7, 1994.
Article from Metropolitan Council.
Letter to Mr. Dale Runkle dated January 20, 1994.
Memo from Kate Aanenson dated January 20, 1994.
Letter from Sandra Scott dated January 7, 1994.
n
«IMm•
CITY
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 0 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
' FROM: Bob Generous, Planner H
' DATE: November 10, 1993
SUBJ: Industrial Performance Standards
I have completed my review of the Planning Advisory Service Report Number 444 entitled
'
"Industrial Performance Standards for a New Century," Jim Schwab, author, and compared
this with the City's Performance Standards and Industrial Office Park zoning district. It
appears as if the City's Code addresses the standards specified in the report and unless the
City wants to provide greater specificity and purchase the necessary equipment for
monitoring, as well as required training, no changes to the performance standards are merited.
SUMMARY =
The report enumerated fifteen components that are generally addressed as part of performance
standards. The following are the components and the location in the City's Code that
addresses them. Nuisances are defined as anything that annoys, injures, endangers, offends,
' interferes, obstructs, depreciates, or makes insecure in life or use of property. Section 20 -955,
Nuisances, states that "No land, existing building or proposed structure shall be used or
occupied in any manner creating dangerous, noxious or otherwise objectionable conditions
which could adversely affect the surrounding area.
NOISE
Chapter 13, Article I, Nuisances and Section 20- 951, Noise Noises shall not become
nuisances. Noise levels governed by the Minnesota State Pollution Control Agency (N[PCA)
standards. �;'
Schwab: Noise levels must be looked at in three ways: intensity, measured in
' decibels (dB); frequency, measured in hertz (Hz); and duration. The City would need
to specify levels for each of these measures that would not be allowed to be exceeded.
iQ
f
Paul Krauss, Planning Director
November 10, 1993
Page 2 '
Additionally, the City would have to have a person present at the site, with a ,
measuring instrument, at the time of a violation in order to enforce the Code.
VIBRATION I
Chapter 13, Article I. Nuisances and Section 20 -957, Vibration. Vibrations perceptible
beyond the lot line of the site are prohibited. I
Schwab: Vibration measurements specifying the amount of displacement based on
frequency would need to be established. May also establish setbacks from lot lines for I
vibration generating equipment.
AIR POLLUTION ,
Chapter 13, Article I, Nuisances and Section 20 -954, Odors and air pollution. Air pollution
standards are governed by MPCA standards. I
Schwab: This is a very complex issue and may be beyond the expertise, financial
ability or will of a local community to undertake. Would definitely require a '
professionally trained staff person or contract with outside group to enforce. Most
localities rely on state or federal agencies to enforce the standards set at the state or
federal level. However, if a local government desires to have standards stricter than or '
addressing specific substances not addressed by other levels of government, the local
government would then have the responsibility for monitoring and enforcing the
standards. ,
ODORS
'
Chapter 13, Article I, Nuisances and Section 20 -954, Od ors and air p ollution. Odor standards
are governed by MPCA standards.
Schwab: Performance standards are effective in targeting stationary sources of odors
e.g. landfills, slaughter houses, chemical reactions, etc. It is best to set specific
standards rather than subjective guidelines. However, where this problem is expected
to be infrequent, the prohibition of odors perceptible at the property line may be
sufficient. '
GLARE
Section 20 -913, Lighting and Section 20 -958, Glare or heat. Glare shall be shielded to
prevent detection at the lot line.
Paul Krauss, Planning Director -
November 10, 1993
Page 3
Schwab: Many localities specify that it shall be shielded. There is no reason to write
lenient standards for glare.
HEAT AND HUMIDITY
Section 20 -958, Glare or heat. Heat shall be shielded to prevent detection at the lot line.
Schwab: This condition does not appear to be a common problem due to modern
manufacturing processes. Some communities specify British Thermal Units (BTU)
that shall not be exceeded.
ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE
Section 20 -956, Radiation and electrical emissions. No electrical disturbance adversely
affecting the operation of any equipment other than that of the creator of the disturbance is
permitted.
Schwab: There is no need for leniency. Simply prohibit interference with normal
radio or television reception across lot lines. Many add a requirement that operators
must comply with Federal Communication Commission regulations regarding the
operation of the equipment.
RADIATION
Section 20 -956, Radiation and electrical emissions. Prohibit activity that emits dangerous
radioactivity beyond enclosed areas.
Schwab: Most ordinances require compliance with state or federal laws.
BLAST OVER- PRESSURE
Not addressed.
Schwab: Only one ordinance studied addressed this which set a standard of 0.5
pounds per square inch at the property line.
OUTDOOR STORAGE AND WASTE DISPOSAL
Chapter 13, Article I, Nuisances and Section 20 -912, Storage of garbage and trash. Prohibits
outdoor storage of garbage or trash. Must be in an enclosed building or in closed containers
within a totally screened area.
E
Paul Krauss, Planning Director `
November 10, 1993
Page 4 '
Schwab: Encourages strict performance standards to alleviate potential nuisance
,
problems.
TRAFFIC
,
Chapter 20, Article XX1V, Off - street Parking and Loading. Addressed outside of
performance standards. Require screening of loading areas. Provisions for adequate parking
'
and traffic circulation.
Schwab: Most are addressed outside of performance standards. Some ordinances
'
address screening of loading and unloading areas.
ENCLOSURE OF USES
,
Not delineated specifically.
'
Schwab: Some ordinances require every industrial use to occur within an enclosed
building. This will limit the types of industry that may locate in a community.
'
LANDSCAPING
Chapter 20, Article XXV, Landscaping and Tree Removal. Part of the City's Design
'
Standards.
Schwab: Normally a part of local design standards. Sometimes included to address
screening and buffering.
,
FIRE AND EXPLOSIVE HAZARD
Chapter 9, Fire Prevention and Protection, Chapter 13, Article I, Nuisances, and Chapter 20; '
Section 20 -911, Accessory fuel storage tanks and Section 20 -959, Explosives. Reference the
1988 Minnesota Uniform Fire Code and Uniform Fire Code standards and the 1988 National
Fire Codes recommended by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). '
Schwab: Should specify fire equipment required on site, type of structures within
which materials are stored or the types of containers used, and limits to the nature and
quantities of materials stored on site. References the use of NFPA standards.
Performance standards for fire and explosive hazards will relate in part to the types of '
industry the community wishes to attract or tolerate.
ve
1
CI
Paul Krauss, Planning Director
November 10, 1993
Page 5
TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Chapter 9, Fire Prevention and Protection and Section 20 -953, Toxic and noxious matter. See
Fire and Explosive Hazard.
Schwab: Due to the complexity of the topic and the proliferation of state and federal
laws governing this issue, local governments might question the utility of performance
standards for this subject. Relates back to Fire and Explosive Hazard. Should the
City decide to expand on this issue, a convenient starting point is the use of
Community Right -to -Know research materials.
CONCLUSION
The City's current Code appears to adequately address the performance standard issues
contained in the report. The one area that was stressed by Schwab was the need for
specificity no matter what standards are used. This creates a level playing field for all
potential developers. However, it also increases the need for training and upgrading of
equipment on the part of city staff.
One area that the City might wish to investigate changing is in the Industrial Office Park
District regulations. Currently, the City allows Light Manufacturing. The report suggests
that local government instead use the Standard Industrial Classification in determining what
types of industry shall be permitted.
' Finally, the City should strive to review and permit industrial development as part of Planned
Unit Developments. In this way, we are able to limit the kinds of industry that come into the
City as well as build in various measures of protection for surrounding uses. As part of the
' review, staff would check the proposal against the fifteen performance standard components.
cc
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. -
Attorneys at Law
Thomas J. Camplcll (612) 452 -5000 '
Roger N. Knutson Fax (612) 452 -5550
Thumas M. Scott January 4, 1994
Gary G. Fuchs
James R. Waktun
Elliott B. Knetsch ,
Eli :aheth A. Lun :er
Andrea McDowell Poehler
HAND DELIVERED
The Honorable Robert Goggins
Judge of District Court
Carver County Courthouse '
600 East Fourth Street
Chaska, MN 55318
Re: Frank Beddor, Jr., et al. '
vs. City of Chanhassen
Court File No. C9 -93 -1111
Our File No. 12668/310 '
Dear Judge Goggins:
As per your request, enclosed herein please find the ,
following:
1. Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order ,
for Judgment dismissing Plaintiffs' claims in their
entirety; and
2. Proposed Order for Partial Summary Judgment relating to '
the traffic claims.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. ,
Best regards, '
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT
& FU HS, P.A. '
By .
• Th as M. Scott
TMS:rlt
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Lawrence A. Moloney (w /enclosures, via fax and mail)
Mr. Don Ashworth (w /enclosures)
Mr. Paul Krauss (w /enclosures) RECEIVED
11199 JA't — 4 19(94
-a CITY. 07
Suite 317 • Eagandale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Cur\ • Eagan, MN •55121
� ..I ,
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF CARVER
-------------------------------
' Frank Beddor, Jr., Todd Novaczyk
and Sherry Novaczyk, and Robert L.
' Post and Sandra J. Post,
Plaintiffs,
' vs.
City of Chanhassen, its Mayor
' Don Chmiel and City Council
Members,
Defendants.
------------------------- - - - - --
DISTRICT COURT
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CASE TYPE: Other Civil
Civil No. C9 -93 -1111
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT
The above - entitled matter came on for hearing before the
' undersigned on Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the
30th day of December at the courthouse in Chaska, Minnesota.
Appearing on behalf of the Defendants was Thomas M. Scott,
Campbell, Knutson, Scott & Fuchs, P.A., 1380 Corporate Center
' Curve, Suite 317, Eagan, Minnesota 55121; appearing on behalf of
Plaintiff was Lawrence A. Moloney, Doherty, Rumble & Butler,
P.A., 3500 Fifth Street Towers, 150 South Fifth Street,
' Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402.
Based upon all the files and proceedings herein, together
with the argument of counsel, the Court hereby determines that
the following facts are undisputed:
i Procedural Background
1. On July 26, 1993, the City of Chanhassen initiated
condemnation proceedings to acquire the subject 3.5 acre parcel
11176 ''o
of land for the purpose of extending a local street, Nez Perce
Drive, approximately 800 feet across the subject property. The
proposed project also includes the construction of a 200 -foot r
length of street off of Nez Perce Drive to the edge of the ,
proposed Tower Heights subdivision to the south.
2. On August 13, 1993, Plaintiffs Beddor, et al. commenced '
this action pursuant to the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act
(MERA), Minn. Stat. § 116B.01 et se Q ., against the City of '
Chanhassen, its Mayor and City Council members seeking
'
unspecified equitable relief relating to the proposed project.
3. On or about September 24, 1993, Plaintiffs served and
'
filed an Amended Complaint. Count One reasserts Plaintiffs' MERA
claim. Count Two alleges ,a violation of the Minnesota
Environmental Policy Act (hereinafter "MEPA"), Minn. Stat. § 116D
et in to the City's decision to
,
sea ., regard not complete an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (hereafter "EAW"). Count
'
Three generally alleges that the City acted arbitrarily and
capriciously in its decision to proceed with the proposed project
,
because it failed to expend additional time and money studying
potential environmental and safety impacts.
4. On September 27, 1993, this lawsuit and the
'
condemnation proceeding were consolidated under Court File No.
C9 -93 -1111 pursuant to stipulation of the parties.
'
Natural Features Within Street Right -of -Way
5. The proposed project extends the street from its
present terminus at a temporary cul -de -sac to Pleasant View Road,
an east -west collector street. The purpose of the project is to
11176 2 1
improve traffic circulation, improve access to the neighborhood
for emergency and public safety vehicles, and provide street
access for the new Tower Heights development.
' 6. Nez Perce Drive will be constructed over a grassy field
and berm recently constructed by Plaintiff Beddor.
7. Two apple trees will be removed from the Nez Perce
right -of -way. The remaining trees impacted by Nez Perce Drive
are
standard nursery stock planted by Beddor in 1992 and 1993.
Some were planted after the City Council authorized condemnation.
Most, if not all, of the trees that will be impacted can be moved
' with a tree spade.
8. The 200 -foot section of the access road to the Tower
Heights plat to be constructed as part of the proposed project
will result in the removal of 10 trees of the oak, spruce, maple
and basswood species.
9. No natural resource exists within the construction
limits of the project that may be considered rare, unique,
endangered, or having historical significance.
Stor Water Drainage
10. There is a storm water drainage pond on the subject
property ( "Beddor pond "). Nez Perce Drive, as extended, will not
come within approximately 100 -150 feet of the Beddor pond.
11. In 1992, the City Council approved Plaintiff Beddor's
request for a grading permit for the purpose of excavating out
and combining the then existing smaller Beddor pond on the
subject property with a pond located in Beddor's adjoining
3
11176
subdivision, Troendle Addition. City staff agreed with Beddor's
contention at that time that the Beddor pond was not a protected
wetland and therefore could be filled and altered. - Construction
of the present enlarged Beddor pond was completed in July 1993. '
In December of 1992, Beddor granted to the City a drainage,
ponding and utility easement covering the enlarged Beddor pond.
12. The grading permit granted to Plaintiff Beddor was
conditioned upon Beddor "incorporating any modifications to the '
site grading and /or storm sewer improvements as a result of the
'
approved feasibility study on the extension of Nez Perce Drive."
13. The Beddor pond is part of the City's storm water
'
drainage system. An existing storm water pipe from the Troendle
developed by in 1991,
,
Addition subdivision, Plaintiff Beddor
currently carries runoff into the pond. Existing overland
,
drainage also flows into the pond from Pleasant View Drive to the
north, the Troendle Addition subdivision to the east and Peaceful
Lane to the west.
14. Storm water flows out of the Beddor pond to the west
'
through a pipe into the Beddor pond by County Road 17, where it
'
then combines with other storm water drainage from the developed
area to the west, flows through other ponds and eventually into ,
Christmas Lake to the north.
15. There will be some increase in the amount of runoff '
into the Beddor pond and the County Road 17 pond as a result of
the construction of the proposed project.
16. As part of its preparation of the detailed plans and '
specifications for the proposed project, a hydrologic analysis of
11176 l0 4 '
runoff as it relates to volume control and water quality will be
done.
17. The City ?s approval of the Tower Heights subdivision is
' conditioned upon the Developer supplying for City engineer review
and approval detailed storm sewer and ponding calculations for
retention ponds.
18. The Beddor pond was designed in accordance with the
Natural Urban Runoff Program ("NURP") design standards when it
was excavated by Beddor in 1992 and 1993. A NURP pond is
designed to facilitate the removal of pollutants from storm water
' by causing the particles to settle to the bottom of the pond with
the cleaner water then moving on through the storm water system.
' 19. The City will make any necessary additional alterations
to the Beddor pond as part of the storm water design for both the
Nez Perce project and the Tower Heights plat so that the pond
'
continues to meet NURP standards.
20. There is no evidence that the
additional runoff from
'
the proposed project which will be going
into the Beddor pond and
subsequently into the other ponds within this drainage district
'
is any different in quality or quantity
then any other drainage
'
going into the ponds as a result of the
already- existing
development in the area.
'
21. There is no evidence that the
City will violate any
federal, state or local wetland rule or
regulation in connection
'
with the handling of the storm water from the proposed project or
the Tower Heights subdivision.
11176 5
I I
22. Plaintiffs' expert testimony evidence is that an
undefined "significant increase" in nutrient input into Christmas
Lake is "possible" as a result of the drainage from -Tower Heights
development and the Nez Perce project. '
23. An increase in nutrient levels in Christmas Lake is
"possible" as a result of any development activity which goes on '
within any watershed which drains into Christmas Lake.
24. There is no evidence that the proposed project and the ,
Tower Heights plat are any different from any other development
activity which has already gone on within this drainage area.
Traffic '
25. Nez Perce Drive is a local street. Pleasant View Road
is a collector street. The function of a collector street is to ,
receive traffic from local streets.
26. The Nez Perce street extension will be constructed to '
City safety and design standards for a local urban street. ,
27. Plaintiffs' traffic expert states that there will be an
additional 300 vehicles per day on Pleasant View Drive as a '
result of the proposed project.
28. Plaintiffs "noise pollution" expert states that an
increase of 2,000 vehicles per day would be a "clearly '
noticeable ".increase in traffic noise levels along Pleasant View
Drive. I
29. There is no evidence that the projected 300 additional
vehicles per day resulting from the Nez Perce project would even '
be noticeable to residents along Pleasant View Drive.
11176 -CAD 6
I �
30. There is no likelihood of a material adverse affect on
any protectable natural resource involving quietude which results
from Plaintiffs projected increase of 300 vehicles per day on
' Pleasant View Drive.
City's Decision Making Proc
31. The extension of.Nez Perce Drive has been planned by
the City since 1989 when Vineland Forest, an 18 -lot subdivision
to the east of the subject property was approved.
' 32. In 1989, when the Vineland Forest plat was before the
City Council, City staff examined alternative access concepts for
' serving Vineland Forest and the surrounding area. Four
alternatives were subsequently submitted to the City Council.
' The City approved the access concept plan for Vineland Forest
which proposed that Nez Perce extend and loop to the northwest
and connect with Pleasant View Road.
33. In December of 1989, the Vineland Forest plat was
approved and it was subsequently developed with Nez Perce
terminating by way of a temporary cul -de -sac at the western
property line for future extension. A temporary barricade was
erected and a notice regarding the ultimate extension of the
street was placed in the chain of title of each lot.
34. In 1990, Plaintiff Beddor purchased the 8.7 acre
' Troendle property for residential development purposes. The
property is located between the Vineland Forest plat to the east
s and the subject property
to the west.
' 11176
z 7
35. In January of 1991, the City Council approved the
Preliminary Plat for Beddor's development, called the Troendle
Addition, which has 13 residential lots.
36. Access to the Troendle Addition was obtained by
removing the temporary cul -de -sac placed on the west edge of the
Vineland Forest subdivision and extending Nez Perce Drive into
the Troendle Addition consistent with the plan to ultimately
extend the street to Pleasant View Drive. As with the Vineland
Forest plat, the present temporary barricade was erected where
Nez Perce intersected with the western edge of the Troendle
Addition. Purchasers of lots in the Troendle Addition were
placed on notice regarding the future extension of Nez Perce. As
a condition to his plat approval, Beddor was also required to
escrow $10,000.00 toward the cost of ultimately extending Nez
Perce to Pleasant View Drive.
37. In 1992, Beddor purchased the subject 3.5 acre parcel
from the previous owner's bankruptcy estate. The developer of
Tower Heights Addition, a new 13 -lot subdivision, purchased the
southern portion of the property.
38. In May of 1993, the City Council reaffirmed its
decision to extend Nez Perce to Pleasant View Road and voted to
initiate condemnation proceedings to acquire the subject
property.
39. In July and August of 1993, the Chanhassen Planning
Commission held public hearings on the Tower Heights Addition
plat.
11176 8
40. On or about July 26, 1993, the City initiated
condemnation proceedings to acquire the subject property.
41. On or about July 30, 1993, the City received a Petition
from Beddor and.his supporters requesting an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) which had been filed with the
Environmental Quality Board (hereinafter "EQB ").
42. On August 23, 1993, the City Council considered the EAW
and on August 30, 1993, it adopted its Findings of Fact and
Decision determining that an EAW was not needed and would not be
prepared.
43. On or about September 13, 1993, the City Council
approved the Preliminary Plat for the Tower Heights Addition,
subject to the condition that the City is ultimately able to
complete the extension of Nez Perce Drive.
44. The overriding reason expressed by Plaintiff Beddor and
his representatives in opposition to the Nez Perce extension at
various public hearings before the Planning Commission and City
Council, and in communications to City staff and elected
officials, has been a concern over increased traffic on Pleasant
View Road. Beddor's proposed solution is to loop the last
segment of Nez Perce Drive to Lake Lucy Road to the south.
45. Proposals to provide a second access to this area from
Lake Lucy Road to the south, rather than from Pleasant View Road
to the north, have raised concerns from residents in that area
relating to traffic.
46. Chanhassen City staff, along with its Consulting
Engineer William Engelhardt, at the direction of the City
11176 9
0
Council, have reviewed various potential redesigns of the Nez
Perce extension at different times in 1993. The Planning
Commission and City Council also spent many hours in 1993
listening to public comment on the issue.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. No genuine issue of material fact exists.
2. Plaintiffs' have failed to make a sufficient showing
that the proposed street project and the so- called extension of
Peaceful Lane into the Tower Heights subdivision constitutes
pollution, impairment or destruction of a natural resource which
would entitle them to -any remedy pursuant to Minn. Stat.
§ 116B.01 et sea
3. The Chanhassen City Council did not act arbitrarily and
capriciously in determining that an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) was not necessary in connection with the proposed
proj ect .
4. The Tower Heights subdivision is exempt from any EAW
requirement under Minnesota Rule 4410.4600, Subp. 12A(2).
5. The Chanhassen City Council did not act arbitrarily and
capriciously in connection with its decision to proceed with the
proposed project.
6. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter
of law dismissing Plaintiffs' Complaint in its entirety and
awarding Defendants their costs and disbursements.
7. Defendants are awarded judgment against Plaintiffs for
their attorney's fees incurred in defense of this matter pursuant
11176 -co 10
to Minn. Stat. § 549.21, Subd. 2, in that Plaintiffs asserted
claims that were frivolous and costly to Defendants to defend.
ORDER FOR JUDGMENT
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY AND FORTHWITH.
Dated: , 1994.
BY THE COURT:
The Honorable Robert Goggins
Judge of District Court
11176 11
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF CARVER
Frank Beddor, Jr., Todd Novaczyk
and Sherry Novaczyk, and Robert L.
Post and Sandra J. Post,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
City of Chanhassen, its Mayor
Don Chmiel and City Council
Members,
Defendants.
DISTRICT COURT
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CASE TYPE: Other Civil
Civil No. C9 -93 -1111
ORDER FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The above - entitled matter came on Defendants' motion for
summary judgment before the undersigned on the 30th day of
December, 1993 at the Carver County Courthouse in Chaska,
Minnesota. Appearing on behalf of Plaintiffs was Lawrence A.
Maloney of Doherty, Rumble & Butler, P.A., 3500 Fifth Street
Towers, 150 South Fifth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-
4235. Appearing on behalf of Defendants was Thomas M. Scott,
Campbell, Knutson, Scott & Fuchs, P.A., Suite 317, 1380 Corporate
Center Curve, Eagan, Minnesota 55121.
Based upon all the files and proceedings contained herein,
together with the argument of counsel, the Court hereby
determines that the following facts are undisputed:
1. On July 26, 1993, the City of Chanhassen initiated
condemnation proceedings to acquire the subject 3.5 acre parcel
of land for the purpose of extending a local street, Nez Perce
11198 'm
Drive, approximately 800 feet across the subject property. The
proposed project also includes the construction of a 200 -foot
length of street off of Nez Perce Drive to the edge of the
' proposed Tower Heights subdivision to the south. The proposed
project is as set forth in a Feasibility Study done for the City
' of Chanhassen dated July 8, 1992.
2. On August 13, 1993, Plaintiffs Beddor, et al. commenced
' this action pursuant to the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act
' (MERA), Minn. Stat. § 116B.01 et se ., against the City of
Chanhassen, its Mayor and City Council members seeking•
' unspecified equitable relief relating to the proposed project.
3. On or about September 24, 1993, Plaintiffs served and
filed an Amended Complaint. Count One reasserts Plaintiffs' MERA
claim. Count Two alleges a violation of the Minnesota
Environmental Policy Act (hereinafter "MEPA"), Minn. Stat. § 116D
et sea .', in regard to the City's decision not to complete an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (hereafter "EAW"). Count
' Three generally alleges that the City acted arbitrarily and
capriciously in its decision to proceed with the proposed project
because it failed to expend additional time and money studying
' potential environmental and safety impacts.
4. On September 27, 1993, this lawsuit and the
r condemnation proceeding were consolidated under Court File No.
C9 - 93 - 1111 pursuant to stipulation of the parties.
5. The proposed project extends the street from its
present terminus at a temporary cul -de -sac to Pleasant View Road,
an east-west collector street. The purpose of the project is to
y � 11198
-co 2
improve traffic circulation, improve access to the neighborhood
for emergency and public safety vehicles, and provide street
access for the new Tower Heights development.
6. Nez Perce Drive is a local street. Pleasant View Road
is a collector street. The function of a collector street is to
receive traffic from local streets.
7. The Nez Perce street extension will be constructed to
City safety and design standards for a local urban street.
S. Plaintiffs' traffic expert states that there will be an
additional 300 vehicles per day on Pleasant View Drive as a
result of the proposed project.
9. Plaintiffs "noise pollution" expert states that an
increase of 2,000 vehicles per day would be a "clearly
noticeable" increase in traffic noise levels along Pleasant View
Drive.
10. There is no evidence that the projected 300 additional
vehicles per day resulting from the Nez Perce project would even
be noticeable to residents along Pleasant View Drive.
11. There is no likelihood of a material adverse affect on
any protectable natural resource involving quietude which results
from Plaintiffs projected increase of 300 vehicles per day on
Pleasant View Drive.
ORDE
1. No genuine issue of material fact exists.
2. Plaintiffs have failed to make a sufficient showing
that the proposed project and the so- called extension of Peaceful
Lane into the Tower Heights subdivision constitutes pollution,
1119E 3
impairment or destruction.of a protectable natural resource
involving quietude.
t 3. The Chanhassen City Council did not act arbitrarily or
capriciously in.determining that there was not a potential for
' significant environmental affects from the P roposed project
' relating to any increased traffic on Pleasant View Drive.
4. The Chanhassen City Council did not act arbitrarily or
' capriciously in connection with its decision to proceed with the
proposed project by deciding not to do additional traffic studies
in connection with the proposed project.
5. The Court hereby determines pursuant to Rule.56.04,
Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, that evidence relating to
traffic cannot form a basis for any of Plaintiffs' claims herein
and such evidence shall not be admitted at trial.
Dated: , 1994.
BY THE COURT:
The Honorable Robert Goggins
Judge of District Court
11198 4
1
CITY OF �
CHANHASSEN �
January 7, 1994
Mr. James F. Jessup
7021 Galpin Lake Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 '
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
CERTIFIED '
Re: Cancellation of revocation of permit #6325 at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd, Chanhassen
Dear Mr. Jessup:
I received copy of the 12/22/93 letter extending variance 89 -1. Accordingly, the revocation of
permit #6325 is cancelled.
You may call me if you have any questions
'
Sincerely,
'
Steve A. Kirchman
,
Building Official
PC: Scott Harr, Public Safety Director
'
Paul Krauss, Planning Director
Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I
Roger Knutson, City , Attorney
Building file, 9247 Lake Riley. Blvd ..
City Council, Adnim packet
1
L
L
I B. Ess
n A. Kephart
Merrill M. Madsen
and A. Schiampp
ram J. Jaeger, Jr.
nce E. Samstad
Bruce D. MaWerson
President
Via President
Treasurer
Asst. Treasurer
Secretary
Engineer
Attorney
Mayor Donald C;
City of Chanhassan
' 690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassan, MN 55317
A 4 " �
Minnesota River Watershed District
151 WEST 126TH STREET
G BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337
January 5, 1994
1 VPn)
/
n Aej
L��
S�j
I Re: Cooperation With the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District;
Local Governmental Units Under the Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991.
I Dear Mayor Chmiel:
Cooperative Review of Applications
' As Y ou know, The Lower Minnesota River Watershed District (the "District ") has jurisdiction
over certain activities relating to water quality and quantity, over land within your City located within
' the District. Historically, the District has adopted and enforced regulations which require a permit
only for those activities within the flood plain and floodway. Also, the District has historically
declined to adopt any regulations per se as to those activities, and instead has relied upon the
cooperative efforts of the District and each City to make sure that the District had an opportunity to
review any plans affecting the water quality and quantity, specifically, any grading plans, erosion
control plans and drainaa plans other than for single farraly hones, for development on land that was
within the District. For the most part, this process has worked well and it involves generally the
following:
1. Review of those proposed plans by the planners and engineers within each City;
' 2. Referral of those plans to the District's engineer prior to any final action by the City;
3. Review and approval of the plans with or without recommendations, changes or
recommended denial of those plans by the District; then
4. Final action by the City.
1 of 3
2 of 3
We hope that this type of procedure will continue to work effectively in the future, thereby '
eliminating the need for the District to adopt regulations that actually require a specific permit from
the District. Any suggestions that you or your staff may have with regard to enhancing this
procedure would be welcomed. '
Election to be the LGU
Also, as you may know, the permanent rules under the Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991
were to have been adopted by the local unit of government ( "LGU ") on or before December 31,
1993. These rules for the most part govern the possible filling of wetlands and mitigation related '
thereto. In the event that the local unit of government does not choose to become the LGU and
adopt those permanent rules, then it is our understanding there is a moratorium on any filling of
wetlands within that City. That moratorium is lifted once there is an LGU for that area. ,
Under the Interim Rules, some of the Cities within the District chose to become the LGUs and
worked cooperatively with the District relating to the review of any plans to fill a wetland and '
mitigate the wetland. That system appears to have worked well. Although the District apparently has
the authority under State law to provide in it's 509 Plan that the District shall be the LGU, the District
believes that a better policy would be to continue with the type of cooperative effort that we have had
in the past with the local units of government and therefore not set forth any requirement in its final
509 Plan, to be adopted in the near future, that provides that the District must be the LGU. The
District believes this has also been a beneficial approach in that this District is unique in comparison to '
the other watershed districts in that it is lineal in nature, following the immediate watershed
boundaries of the Minnesota River. Therefore, in most cases, very little area of each affected City is '
actually located within the District.
The District believes that there will be less confusion for the local units of government and for '
each of the applicants for permits, if the City acts as the LGU and reviews and then submits any such
application to the District for review and comment prior to any final action by the LGU on that
application. The District, therefore, hopes that each City will choose to become the LGU, inform the '
District and the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources of that election to be the LGU, and
adopt the permanent rules. Any comments you may have related thereto would be welcomed.
Fundine for Cooperative Proiects '
The District has available to it, funds for unique cooperative projects between the District and each '
City within the District relating to water quality and quantity. The District also has the authority to
assess under certain circumstances for such projects that are petitioned for by the City. The District
would welcome the opportunity to review possible cooperative projects with you now and in the '
future. The District believes those projects should be unique, that is, they should not be projects that
are normally assessed under the local unit of government's power of special assessments, etc.
zA 1
3 of 3 , .: t
Invitation to Attend District Meeting
In order to accomplish all of the above, the District invites you, or another elected official
from your unit of government, or your planner or engineer to attend any of the upcoming meetings of
the Board of Managers of the District to discuss the above and ways in which the District can be of
more assistance to your local unit of government. If you are interested in attending a District
meeting, we ask that you call Larry Samstad, the District's engineer at 445 -7993 in order to arrange
an appropriate time to be placed on the agenda for the meeting. The District normally meets on the
' second Wednesday of each month at its office in the City of Burnsville at 7:00 p.m.
' Very truly yours,
Cyril B. Ess, President .
' BDM/sam
cc: Board of Managers
Mr. Ron Harnack, Executive Director
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
Mr. Lawrence Samstad, District Engineer
Mr. Bruce Malkerson, Attorney for the District
n
L
'CO
n
0
N
ge
OF
MINNeS
it
n
N
3
O
Z
c
presented to
SCOTT HARR
This certificate acknowledges and affirms a dedication
to emergency preparedness through professional
development and satisfactory completion of
the Emergency Planning Course (G235
[New Brighton, MN - 24 hours]
Janu 6 1994 C.
Date !r ctor
� r
Director ivision of Emergency Management
nesota Department of Public Safety
Training icer, Division of Emergency Management
Certificate of Training
Minnesota
Department of
1 The Inter•modal Surface
Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991
1
In this issue:
Mn/DOT COND ICTS F R REGIONAL ���kt
ISTEA /ATP WORKSHOPS IN NOVEMBER
WHERE WERE THE WORKSHOPS HELD? WHO ATTENDED?
A total of over two hundred poWe,.attended one of four Regional ISTEA /ATP
Workshops held ii Alexaa Wria, Grand Rapids, Owatonna, and theTwin Cities during
the month of November 1993. The participants of these workshops represented:
Regkonal Development Commissions (RDCs). Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(MPOs), the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB), local elected City and county
officials, Minnesota Department ofTransportation (Mn /DOT), other state and federal
agencies, local businesses and Interested parties.
The purpose of these workshops was to discuss a number of Issues regarding
Amawide Transportation Partnerships (ATPs) and the ISTEA implementation process
that were raised during the first Transportation Improvement Plan MP) /State
Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) development process.
The agenda of each workshop included a presentation on workshop Intenr,'ISTEA
1 * A Review of Regional Impiernentatfon'. changes and clarifications, and a number of'Breakout Sessions'.
ISTEA /ATP Workshops Tlvo break" see - skno were s h ividuat group discussions and /or panels
which reviewed ISTEA and ATP issues such as: ATP membership, project
1 Conducted in November eligiblity/priority. special programs and defining what 'targets! are and how they
by Mn /DOT, are utifzed.
Number 12 The workshops concluded with Session Reports, Identification of Consensus Items
1 and wrap -U Ouesdons.
December 23, 1993
WORKSHOP ISSUES, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
L_
The Issues discussed were divided Into four main categories. Each category was then broken down Into
individual sub- categories. A 'Mn/DOT Proposed Response' was listed for each sub - category Issue as a
vehicle for generating alternative Ideas. The total responses received from the four workshops were
compiled Into a draft summary matrix The draft summary was forwarded to the Mn/DOT District Offioes
for review and comment. Copies of the final draft matrix summary Is avalable upon request at the district
offices. During the following months, the district comments regarding wdemal Issues discussed at the
regional workshops and internal issues identified during ISTEA inter -office meetings will be utlized in the
development of new guidelines and /or procedures for the ATPs and Mn/DOT to follow in developing the
1995 -1997 TIP /STIP. A summary of these guidelines will be addressed in future ISTEA Newsletters.
The following is a rather brief summary of the results of the workshop discussions. Mn/DOT is using this
Input to Improve the STIP development process. Mn/DOT will follow the workshop advice where I Is
consistent with the overa!I precees.
ISSUES WORKSHOP DISCUSSION SUMMARY
A Does ATP have General consensus with proposed response. Membership Issue should be
right membership? resolved by each ATP. Slight consensus for broad, diverse, membership, but no
consensus on focusing more on elected officials or on technical/professional.
Focus on representation by RDCs, MPO9 and Districts.
B. What is the role Agreementto recommend priority projectsthrough improved/better use of planning.
of the ATPs? Districts. No consensus as to ATP use of sub- ailocatlon or broadness of role.
ATPs role includes coordination with other ATPL
C. Who makes de- The ATP should decide project eilgiblky /prkx ty cooperatively with statewide
cisions on project guidance or program constraints. Defined statewide projects would be the
eligibillty/priority? exception.
D. How do MPO TIPs MPO candidate projects and priorities are Input Into the ATP (the MPOs may use
fit Into the ATP their TIP as that Inw l). ATPs should respect MPO project priorities. MPOs
process? should develop /amend their TIP to reflect the resultant STIP.
Transportation
IS-TEA
1
IMPLEMENTATION
NEWSLETTER
1 The Inter•modal Surface
Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991
1
In this issue:
Mn/DOT COND ICTS F R REGIONAL ���kt
ISTEA /ATP WORKSHOPS IN NOVEMBER
WHERE WERE THE WORKSHOPS HELD? WHO ATTENDED?
A total of over two hundred poWe,.attended one of four Regional ISTEA /ATP
Workshops held ii Alexaa Wria, Grand Rapids, Owatonna, and theTwin Cities during
the month of November 1993. The participants of these workshops represented:
Regkonal Development Commissions (RDCs). Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(MPOs), the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB), local elected City and county
officials, Minnesota Department ofTransportation (Mn /DOT), other state and federal
agencies, local businesses and Interested parties.
The purpose of these workshops was to discuss a number of Issues regarding
Amawide Transportation Partnerships (ATPs) and the ISTEA implementation process
that were raised during the first Transportation Improvement Plan MP) /State
Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) development process.
The agenda of each workshop included a presentation on workshop Intenr,'ISTEA
1 * A Review of Regional Impiernentatfon'. changes and clarifications, and a number of'Breakout Sessions'.
ISTEA /ATP Workshops Tlvo break" see - skno were s h ividuat group discussions and /or panels
which reviewed ISTEA and ATP issues such as: ATP membership, project
1 Conducted in November eligiblity/priority. special programs and defining what 'targets! are and how they
by Mn /DOT, are utifzed.
Number 12 The workshops concluded with Session Reports, Identification of Consensus Items
1 and wrap -U Ouesdons.
December 23, 1993
WORKSHOP ISSUES, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
L_
The Issues discussed were divided Into four main categories. Each category was then broken down Into
individual sub- categories. A 'Mn/DOT Proposed Response' was listed for each sub - category Issue as a
vehicle for generating alternative Ideas. The total responses received from the four workshops were
compiled Into a draft summary matrix The draft summary was forwarded to the Mn/DOT District Offioes
for review and comment. Copies of the final draft matrix summary Is avalable upon request at the district
offices. During the following months, the district comments regarding wdemal Issues discussed at the
regional workshops and internal issues identified during ISTEA inter -office meetings will be utlized in the
development of new guidelines and /or procedures for the ATPs and Mn/DOT to follow in developing the
1995 -1997 TIP /STIP. A summary of these guidelines will be addressed in future ISTEA Newsletters.
The following is a rather brief summary of the results of the workshop discussions. Mn/DOT is using this
Input to Improve the STIP development process. Mn/DOT will follow the workshop advice where I Is
consistent with the overa!I precees.
ISSUES WORKSHOP DISCUSSION SUMMARY
A Does ATP have General consensus with proposed response. Membership Issue should be
right membership? resolved by each ATP. Slight consensus for broad, diverse, membership, but no
consensus on focusing more on elected officials or on technical/professional.
Focus on representation by RDCs, MPO9 and Districts.
B. What is the role Agreementto recommend priority projectsthrough improved/better use of planning.
of the ATPs? Districts. No consensus as to ATP use of sub- ailocatlon or broadness of role.
ATPs role includes coordination with other ATPL
C. Who makes de- The ATP should decide project eilgiblky /prkx ty cooperatively with statewide
cisions on project guidance or program constraints. Defined statewide projects would be the
eligibillty/priority? exception.
D. How do MPO TIPs MPO candidate projects and priorities are Input Into the ATP (the MPOs may use
fit Into the ATP their TIP as that Inw l). ATPs should respect MPO project priorities. MPOs
process? should develop /amend their TIP to reflect the resultant STIP.
E Who can- No general contseratr&
didate projects?
General consensus was that Mn/DOT should develop the targets with more
participation and communication.
F Who menages the There was some consensus that the ATPs should provide policy direction so that
program? agencies with Implementation responsibilities can manage the programs.
G. Do ATPs have General consensus was the Mn/DOT State -Aid DisMct boundaries continue to be
night Boundaries? used. Corxam for counties that don't match up with RDC /district boundaries.
2_ TARGEM
A. W�Targets? Targets are not allocations but are used to assist In planning and establishing
B. Should ATPs expect There was acceptance of the need for flmMity from year to year and area
ful Target amounts? to area Concerns were, what is Included In targets and long term equity.
C. Who develops
Targets?
D. What are they
based on?
E. What funds are
included /not included
In Targets?
F. Sub4argets
$ . EQUITY
A What is Equity?
The use of adjusted Vehicle Mies Traveled (VMT) appears to be fair. Using
other factors was suggested: needs, goals, ability to pay, growth, eta.
0
All ISTEA funds shoult. . .' alluding most of Mn/DOT construction funds. '
Inclusion of local transp . ap• .ids was resisted.
Sub-targets to programs/jurisdictions are beneficlai during first year of prooess.
Continued use of Sub targets could benefit from planning or management system
A sense of falmess and respect from a statewide, regional and nodal perspective.
B. How Is It Applied?
Suggestions included Improved and longer range planning goals, respect for
programs needs
regional priorities, ATP participation, allocations and sub- allocstiorM comparison
compete with the
among areas, and historical spending.
4. SPECIAL PROGRAMS
more aware of everything from statewide goals and objectives to small programs
A. Why aren't all
Strong consensus for all programs to be the responsibility of the ATPs, except
programs the respon-
Demos. Also strong concern, but no consensus on the entianxamients to be of the
sibiilty of the ATM
statewide. Some felt that special programs should not be included In the 'Targets.
(rall, scenic byways,
enhancements, etc.)
S. How can special
Consideration of special programs will be addressed with better use of regional
programs needs
plans, more experience, and with adequate explanations and justifications from all
compete with the
those solicited. ATPs want larger program and process guidance, so that they are
traditional high-
more aware of everything from statewide goals and objectives to small programs
way programs?
purpose, needs and justifications. Technical assistance and education are also
needed.
Questions, comments to:
Robert Lowe, Newsletter Editor
Minnesota Department of Transportation
807 Transportation Building
395 John Ireland Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55155
Tel: 612/296 -1657; Fax: 612297 -3160
J t z ilk
GL0 i Iy��
..J
�E @tcsr? `k
,
U.S. Postage
PAID
First Class
Permit No. 171
St. Paul, MN
I.
' Ms. Sharmin Al -Jaff VIA FACSIMILE
City of Chanhassen AND U.S. MAIL
P.O. Box 147
690 Coulter Drive
' Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: Response of Admiral Waste Management, Inc., Regarding Use of
Property at 10500 Great Plains Boulevard, Chanhassen, Minnesota
' Our File No: 18737 -00
' Dear Mr. Knutson and Ms. Al -Jaff:
We represent Admiral Waste Management, Inc. (Admiral Waste), the owner
of the above- referenced property in the City of Chanhassen (the
' Property). As we discussed in our meeting with you on Deeccember 14,
1993, we have reviewed the record, City Code, and applicle to
prepare a response on behalf of Admiral Waste. Based upon our review,
we are of the opinion that our client has certain property rights to
use the Property for outside storage. However, the owners of Admiral
Waste have indicated that they would like to work with the City of
Chanhassen (the City) to resolve the long -term use of the Property
' consistent with City Code. It is the experience of Admiral Waste that
under the current Business Fringe (BF) zoning of the Property,
is little or no usthbehcontinued c be put.
Therefore, a new use
'
allowed.
-co
1
e 42 PG ! '
L ARM, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, L TD.
IRICNAEL E. LEEARO
GREGORY E. KORSTAD
GARY A. VAN CLEVE•
AMES ►. LARKN
BERT L NOFFMAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
L
DANIEL BoWLEs
ACK F. DAL,
KENNETH LNDGREN
TODD M. VLATKOVICH
TIMOTHY J. MOMANUS
.
GERALD H. FRIEDELL
.:. .:.. : i. :.:
f
TIMOTHY J. KEANE
ALAN M. ANDERSON
ALLAN E. MULLIGAN
C . ERICKSON
1600 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER
DONNA L ROSACK
ff DRISCOLL
CIN ES
N. W
7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH
MICHAEL W. SCHLEY
USA A. GRAY
0. WLLM ER
ERT E. FOYLE
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 66431 -1194
GARY A. RENNEKE
CHRISTOPHER J. HARRISnuL
FRANK L HARVEY
CHARLES S. MODELL
` -
TELEPHONE (812) 836 -3800
- - _ MICHAEL A. ROBERTSON
BRUCE J. DOUGLAS
NRISTOPHER J. DIETZEN
FAX (812) 898.3333
SHANNON K. MOCAMBRIDGE
WILLIAM C. GRIFFITH, JR.
HN R. BEATTIE
LNDA H. FISHER
�% ! , :: i
JOIN J. STEFFE NNAGEN
THOMAS P. STOLTMAN
MICHAEL C. JACKMAN
•.,
I
DANIEL W. VOSS
MARK A. RUMK
JOIN E. DIEHL
JON S. SW IERZEW SKI
�j; : ..
JOHN R. HILL
.. - _ _ .. THOMAS J. SEYMOUR
71WMAB J. ►LYNN
JAMES P. CUM
MICHAEL J. WAIT"
VILIB R. NGE
TODD I. FREEMAN
PETER K. BECK
DWIGHT N. HOLMSO
FREDERICK K. HAUSER III
JEROME N. KAHNKE
GERALD L $ECK
MARY E. VOS
LARRY D. MARTIN
JOHN S. LUNDQUIST
DAYLE NOLAN CIUBERTO
JANE E. SREMER
MEE L TOENGES
THOMAS B. HUMPHREY, JR.
MARCY R. KROSMAN
JOHN A. COTTER'
MARIEL E. PILOLA
BEATRICE A. Ro7HWE1LER
PAUL B. P.UNKETT
ALAN L KILDOW
OF COUNSEL
WENDELL R. ANDERSON
KATHLEEN M. NEWMAN
JOSEPH G1TIS
' -ALSO
ADMITTED N WIBCON6IN
January 11, 1994
' Mr. Roger Knutson
VIA FACSIMILE
City Attorney
AND Q.S. MAIL
Campbell, Knutson,
Scott & Fuchs
' 1380 Corporate Center Curve
Eagan, Minnesota
55121
' Ms. Sharmin Al -Jaff VIA FACSIMILE
City of Chanhassen AND U.S. MAIL
P.O. Box 147
690 Coulter Drive
' Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: Response of Admiral Waste Management, Inc., Regarding Use of
Property at 10500 Great Plains Boulevard, Chanhassen, Minnesota
' Our File No: 18737 -00
' Dear Mr. Knutson and Ms. Al -Jaff:
We represent Admiral Waste Management, Inc. (Admiral Waste), the owner
of the above- referenced property in the City of Chanhassen (the
' Property). As we discussed in our meeting with you on Deeccember 14,
1993, we have reviewed the record, City Code, and applicle to
prepare a response on behalf of Admiral Waste. Based upon our review,
we are of the opinion that our client has certain property rights to
use the Property for outside storage. However, the owners of Admiral
Waste have indicated that they would like to work with the City of
Chanhassen (the City) to resolve the long -term use of the Property
' consistent with City Code. It is the experience of Admiral Waste that
under the current Business Fringe (BF) zoning of the Property,
is little or no usthbehcontinued c be put.
Therefore, a new use
'
allowed.
-co
1
LARmN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LIldDGREN, LTD. I
Mr. Roger Knutson
Ms. Sharmin Al -Jaff
'
January 11, 1994
Pacf e 2
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
'
On October 20, 1987, City Planner, Barbara Dacy, provided the
following response to the owners of Admiral Waste:
'
You asked me whether or not six empty trash
be stored on your property on
dumpsters could
a temporary basis until conclusion of the
'
conditional use permit process for a
This is to confirm that
contractor's yard.
you may store no more than six dumpsters on
following conditions are
'
your property if the
met:
1. The dumpsters shall be clean and shall
'
not contain refuse.
2. You must complete the conditional use
'
permit process prior to July 1, 1988
3. The dumpsters must be stored inside a
'
building or completely screened from view
from abutting streets (TH 101 and
TH 212) .
'
On December 28, 1987, Admiral Waste made application to the City for
of the property as a
approval of a conditional use permit for use
in the BF zoning district. in that
'
contractor's yard as then allowed
e
owner stated: We presently
20,
application the
is." City staff prepared a staff report dated January
property as
approval of a conditional use permit for
"a
'
1988, recommending
contractor's yard. The staff report described the reque st as s
for operation of a contractor's yard
conditional use permit approval
co
co
located adjacent to TH 101 and TH 212. The
13 acres of property
on msters on sie and
to store garbage t rucks
'
applicant proposes Admiral Waste
office area for dispatch pure O
have a small
have
cities in the southwest area."
'
The Chanhassen City Code defines a contractor's yard to mean:
[AIny area or use of land where vehicles, '
equipment, and /or construction materials and
supplies commonly used by building,
excavation, roadway construction, landscaping, '
and similar contractors are stored or
serviced. A contractor's yard includes both
areas of outside storage and areas confined
LAnw, HOFFMAN, DALY & LNDGREN, LTD.
Mr. Roger Knutson
Ms. Sharmin Al -Jaff
January 11, 1994
Pacre 3 -
' within a completely enclosed building used in
conjunction with a contractor's business.
' Chanhassen City Code, § 20 -1 (emphasis added).
The dumpsters located on the Property have been described as "outside
storage" by City staff and are equipment generally used by
construction contractors.
On February 8, 1988, the Chanhassen City Council approved a
' conditional use permit for a contractor's yard on 13 acres and a
wetland alteration permit to construct within 200 feet of a Class A
wetland.
On February 27, 1989, the Chanhassen City Council considered and
denied a request by Admiral Waste for an extension of the conditional
use permit for a contractor's yard. The staff report dated
February 1, 1989, notes:
The applicants have submitted a letter
' requesting a one year extension on the
conditional use permit for a contractor's yard
located at the northeast corner of TH 212 and
TH 101. This permit was issued last February,
1988. The applicants had delayed construction
of the improvements due to anticipated changes
in their operation specifically for recycling.
The minutes of the City Council meeting dated February 27, 1989, note
that staff stated that "the conditional use permit had a one year
limitation to put in the improvements and none of those improvements
have been done on the property." However, review of the conditional
use permit indicates no such restriction. (See conditional use permit
dated February 8, 1998, and filed of record as Document No. 95439, on
' April 26, 1988.)
On November 30, 1993, City Planner Sharmin Al -Jaff sent a letter to
Admiral Waste which contained the following statement:
This letter is to inform you that the outdoor
storage taking place on your property located
at 10500 Great Plains Boulevard is illegal.
All dumpsters (approximately 50) must be
removed from the site by December 17, 1993.
Also, no further dumping of compost material
shall be permitted, and any such materials
currently located on this site must be
removed. %JA
LJ
LAttxIN, HOFFMAN, DAI,Y & LINDGREN, LTD.
Mr. Roger Knutson
Ms. Sharmin Al -Jaff
January ii, 1994
Page 4
DISCUSSION ,
A. Admiral Waste's Use of the Property Is Consistent With the
Conditional Use Permit Granted on February 8. 1988
The City has no authority to terminate the conditional use permit
granted to Admiral Waste, and thus, no basis to prohibit uses allowed
under it. Section 462.3595, relating to conditional use permits, is '
part of the municipal land use planning authority found in H 462.351
to 462.365. This statute confers, in express terms, authority which,
prior to its enactment in 1982, was found to be implicit in § 462.357,
subd. 1. q&& Zvlka v. City of Crystal 167 N.W.2d 45 (Minn. 1969), '
which also discussed this kind of planning device:
Provisions such as the one contained in
defendant city's ordinance providing for
special use permits, sometimes called "special
exception permits" or "conditional use
permits," were introduced in the zoning
'
ordinances as flexibility devices. They are
designed to meet the problem which arises
where certain uses, although generally
,
compatible with the basic use classification
of a particular zone, should not be permitted•
to be located as a matter of right in every
area included within the zone because of
'
hazards inherent in the use itself or special
problems which its proposed location may
present. By this device, certain uses (e.g.
'
gasoline service stations, electric
substations, hospitals, schools, churches,
country clubs, and the like) which may be
considered essentially desirable to the
community, but which would not be authorized
generally in a particular zone because of
considerations such as current and anticipated
'
traffic congestion, population density, noise,
effect on adjoining land values, or other
considerations involving public health,
safety, or general welfare, may be permitted
upon a proposed site depending upon the facts
and circumstances of the particular case.
'
Id. at 48 -49 (footnote omitted) .
Consistent with the foregoing description of this planning device,
'
§ 462.3595 provides for the designation of certain land uses as
conditional uses which may be approved by a showing that the standards
) LAREN, HOFFMAN, DALY & L]NDGREN, LTD.
Mr. Roger Knutson
Ms. Sharmin Al -Jaff
January 11, 1994
Page 5
' and criteria stated in the ordinance will be satisfied (subdivision 1)
and, further, that a permit for such a use shall remain in effect so
long as the conditions agreed upon are observed (subdivision 3). It
seems clear that an ordinance which would allow a municipality to
terminate such a permit regardless of whether or not the conditions
agreed upon were observed would be in direct conflict with the statute
' and, as such, beyond the power of the municipality to enact or
enforce. Moreover, it would sanction a procedure tantamount to the
arbitrary denial of permits referred to in a :
1
While the administrating body, be it the
council itself or a planning commission to
which power to act is delegated, has broad
discretionary power to deny an application for
a special use permit, it cannot do so
arbitrarily. A denial would be arbitrary, for
example, if it was established that all of the
standards specified by the ordinance as a
condition to granting the permit have been
met.
Id. at 49 ( footnote omitted) .
It appears from the record of the City Council meeting of February 27,
1989 that the City Council simply changed its mind and did not want
the use to continue. For instance, Councilman Johnson stated, "I
think we made a mistake a year ago by calling this a contractor's
yard." Once a use is legally established, such as outdoor storage of
contractor's equipment, it is the essence of arbitrary action to
attempt to remove it or prohibit it. Even a nonconforming use has the
right to continue until destroyed or removed by the property owner.
Courts have rejected time limitations in the issuance of conditional
use permits. The "conditions upon which the permits may be issued are
to be tied to the 'standards and criteria' set forth in the ordinance.
The time limitations do not fall within the attendant scope of the
'standards and criteria' to which the statute eludes." See, for
instance Scott v Zoning Bd. of Appeals. Etc. 451 N.Y.S.2d 499 (N.Y.
App. Div. 1982). That terminology refers, instead, to the norms laid
down by the ordinance to assure that particular uses will not be
detrimental to public health, safety or general welfare in the areas
in which they are allowed. So long as the considerations are
satisfied, the permit must, by the terms of the statute, remain in
effect and cannot be issued for limited duration. 59a -32 Op. Att'y
.Gen. 9 (1990). See 3 Anderson, A merican Law of Zoning and Planning
§ 15.31, p. 161 (a town board may not impose conditions unrelated to
the use of the land). Moreover, where the legislature has intended to
authorize the issuance of time limited use permits, it has made that
1
LARmN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
Mr. Roger Knutson
Ms. Sharmin Al -Jaff '
January 11, 1994
Page 6
intent quite clear.
uses which allows a
or occurrence. This
permit cases.
See Minn. Stat. § 462.3597 relating to interim '
temporary use of property until a particular date
conclusion is consistent with conditional use
The court in Dege v City of Maplewood 416 N.W.2d 854, 855 -56 (Minn.
Ct. App. 1987) held that a conditional use permit remains in effect
until its provisions are violated. The court in State Ex Rel
Neighbors Org Etc v. Dotty 396 N.W.2d 55, 59 (Minn. Ct. App.
1986), held likewise (a conditional use permit continues until its
provisions are violated). See also Scott County L mb v. City o
Shakopee 417 N.W.2d 721, 727 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988).
Both courts were careful to distinguish a conditional use permit from
a business license. Deere pointed out that a permit is not a personal
license, but attaches and runs with the land. DeQe 416 N.W.2d
at 856. The Dotty court held similarly (zoning imposes restrictions
on the use of the land itself which attach to and run with the land).
Dotty 396 N.W.2d at 59. This is significant because a city can use a
business license to regulate and control a company, and therefore can
choose not to renew a business license. Rose Cliff Lands ape Nursery
v. Rosemount 467 N.W.2d 641, 643 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991) . Conversely,
a city cannot legislat a business out of existence through a change
in zoning ordinances, Apple Valley Red -E Mix v City of St. Lo
Park 359 N.W.2d 313 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984), and uses existing at the
time of the adverse zoning change must be permitted to remain or be
eliminated by eminent domain. Hopper v City of St. Pau l, 353 N.W.2d
139, 140 (Minn. 1984). Thus, by analogy, if the City cannot eliminate
a business which was a conforming use prior to the adverse zone
change, it cannot eliminate a business by terminating its conditional
use permit when the conditions agreed upon are being observed.
The issue at hand is whether Admiral Waste began using the Property as
a contractor's yard consistent with the conditional use permit issued
by the City. As stated, Admiral Waste began storing empty dumpsters
on the property soon after it received permission to do so by letter
dated October 20, 1987. Its application two months later indicated
that, "[wle would presently like to use the property as is..." (i.e.,
to store empty dumpsters). The staff report, dated February 20, 1988,
states that the applicant proposes to store "garbage trucks and
dumpsters on site . ." Finally, the conditional use for a
contractor's yard includes both "areas of outdoor storage and areas
confined within a completely enclosed building ." City Code,
§ 20 -1.
It is our strong opinion, based upon review of the record and the City
Code, that Admiral Waste has been using the Property consistent with
the conditional use permit since it was issued February 8, 1988. The
Ll
1
Pi
I
L ARmN, HO FmAN, D ALY & LnmGREN, LTD.
Mr. Roger Knutson
' Ms. Sharmin Al -Jaff
January 11, 1994
Pacre
�7
found in the landmark case of Zvlka v.-City of Crustal 167 N.W.2d 45
(Minn. 1969). (5.= supra . . . although generally compatible with the
basic use classification of a particular zone, should not be permitted
to be located as a matter of right in every area included within the
zone because of hazards inherent in the use itself or special problems
which its proposed location may present. ZA.,. at 48 -49.) This
description of conditional uses necessarily implies that there will be
certain uses "permitted to be located as a matter of right" in every
zoning district. Minnesota courts have acknowledged that zoning is in
derogation of property rights and should, therefore, be strictly
construed in favor of the property owner. gp& Frank's Nurse ry Inc.
v. City of Roseville 295 N.W.2d 604 (Minn. 1980). It is a
fundamental construction of zoning law that every parcel of property
will have some use to which it can be put as a matter of right.
That is not the case in the BF zoning district. The provisions of the
BF district are "unduly restrictive" because they allow no permitted
uses, and provide only a narrow list of conditional uses.
Our client purchased the property to be used consistent with the BF
zoning district and applied for a conditional use permit in 1987.
Admiral Waste spent money on consultant fees, survey work, and time
and effort in the City approval process. Again, the next year Admiral
Waste spent time, effort, and money in attempting to obtain City
Council approval for extension of the conditional use permit, which we
now believe was unnecessary. Admiral Waste continues to pay property
taxes on the Property, and maintains the Property. The unduly
restrictive nature of the BF zoning district along with the City
Council reversal has worked an unreasonable hardship on Admiral Waste
leaving the property owners little or no reasonable use of the
Property.
CONCLUSION
Admiral Waste has made a considerable investment in the City approval
process to use its Property consistent with the City Code. It has
been using its property since 1988 consistent with the conditional use
permit issued by the City. Outdoor storage of dumpsters is within the
definition of a "contractor's yard" which is the allowed use of the
Property under the conditional use permit. Nothing contained in the
permit requires the construction of buildings on the Property or
causes the permit to expire if buildings are not constructed.
Further, the lack of permitted uses in the BF district is unduly
restrictive and works an unreasonable hardship on the Property owners
because it leaves little or no reasonable use of the Property.
Finally, as a result of the 1989 City
lost out to other companies in early
%:
Council reversal, Admiral Waste
establishment of recycling
C'
LARIaN, HoFmAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
Mr. Roger Knutson
Ms. Sharmin Al -Jaff
January 11, 1994 '
Pane 10
services. This resulted in substantial lost profits for Admiral I
Waste.
Having set out our client's legal position, we would strongly
encourage discussion with the City staff regarding the'appropriate ,
long -term use of the Property, possible rezoning, or other remedies
which would render the Property usable. Please call me so we can
begin these discussions. '
Sincerely,
William C. Griffith, Jr., for '
LARKIN, ROFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
cc: Nancy Lee ,
Patrick Blood
Don Ashworth
Paul Krauss ,
Bob Zydowski
11
WCG:CASa
a
I - I
J
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE * P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Karen Engelhardt, Office Manager
FROM: Nikki Dummer
DATE: January 14, 1994
SUBJ: Seminar Attendance
I appreciate having had the opportunity to attend the "Outstanding Customer Service" seminar.
I found this seminar informative and motivational.
The areas discussed in relation to customer service were:
* Becoming an effective communicator in dealing with people by developing an
understanding of yourself as well as others. It is important to be aware there are four
basic personality types; if you treat everyone the same, you will fail to communicate 75%
of the time.
* Dealing with angry customers, and tips on handling" e situation effectively.
* Effective listening, effective use of voice, and effective vocabulary highlighting things
you can control, phrases to avoid, and what not to do
* Pointers for a professional telephone image.
I enjoyed the content and presentation of this seminar, and look forward to applying the
information and expertise presented.
Sin;
f I A
a
1
l
iJ
W. Keith Osmonson
961 Penamint Court
Chanhassen, NIN 55317
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Re: Pond LL -P10.7
Project 93-6 -1 SWW Yuma Drive /Canterbury Circle
Dear W. Osmonson:
We received your request to excavate the pond behind the homes on Penamint Court, Redwing Lane, and Nez Pierce
Court. The City is planning to perform water quality and quantity enhancement projects in the Canterbury Circle
drainage area (see enclosed figure) with long range goals of reducing the total phosphorus load to Lotus Lake and
short range goals of upgrading the drainage patterns in the area.
Based on our water quality model and list of priorities, upgrades to the pond in your backyard would not be as
beneficial as upgrades to ponds noted as LL- P10.14, LL- P10.16, LL- P10.17, and LL P10.11 on the enclosed figure.
We are currently concentrating on completing work on these ponds as well as other ponds in other drainage areas,
and therefore, time and financial resources will not be available for.your pond at this time. In the future, we will
keep this area in mind especially noting that the residents appear to be favorable of the idea.
I hope this information is useful. Feel free to call me if there are any, questions at 937 -1900.
Sincerely,
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
n
n
V-0
1
January 7, 1994
Metropolitan Council
■
Council calls for increased parks funding
Funds to acquire land and develop cite
Twin Cities area's regional parks have
been drying up In recent years.
To respond to growing needs, the
Metropolitan Council proposes to
reinvigorate the area's park system by
Investing about $29 minion during the
1994.95 biennium. The funds are drawn
from two sources: state appropriations and
regional bonds.
State funds, the primary source of
capital fund1mg, have fallen sharpy since
1988. State bonds and grants fen from an
average of $10 million annually from 1977
to 1987 to about $3 million since 1988
(see chart).
Yet demand continues to rise. Visits
have tripled in the last 13 years, according
to estimates (see chart). The parks had
16.4 million visitors in 1992, twice the
visits to Minnesota state parks that year
(see chart). This rapid increase reflects the
importance of parks in an urban setting
and the overall quality of life.
New funds are proposed for develop -
ing two new faclides - Lake Minnetonka
Regional Park (Hennepin County) and
Buffington Norther Regional Trail
(Ramsey County); a new picnic pavilion at
Como Park; repairs to Coon Rapids Dam;
replacing a beach house at Bush Lake; replacing
worn-out facilities In Minnehaha Park and Lake
Harriet; and buying land from owners within
several parks.
in February the Council will present the
legislature with a biennium request of $14.8
million in state bond authority to continue
acquisition and development (The request
recognizes that park users also come
from outside the metro area.) The Council will
supplement that by issuing a total of
$,13.4 million in regional bonds for 1994.95.
To address wear and tear on older parks, 55
percent of the funds wig go for redevelopmenL
About 29 percent will go to develop acquired
sites and 16 percent Is for new acquisitions.
The Council can Issue the bonds because it
wig reduce its park bonding debt from $40
million (the ma:dmum allowed by state law) to
$15 million by paying off $25 million in March.
To make fug use of its parks bonding
capacity, the Council plans to issue about $6.7
million in regional bonds each year. These
short-term, fiveyear bonds wig provide a steady
source of funding for future improvements
The Council estimates that an Investment of
about $29 million in regional parks In 1994.95
would produce an economic impact of $56
million and would create 734 jobs.
The Council will hold a public hearing
Feb.10 on improvements proposed for regional
parks. (See 'Future parks projects,' page 3).
Jim Martin
■
Capita "fun Ong is
o n,
MiRlonsofDollais
State Funding ® Requested
=30'
YS
.r
211
5�: r
10?
Birgit
1A=11 11 AM
7576f> 141 2jt63d4 - 7v4e,12.,,fw,yp4w, s
•� '"';[ r,. i � .} '..
x :r ^ink MtTliotk of Dollars
Regional Funding ® Planned
975:
91
Twin Citians drive more than half way to the sun each day.
If we put all our car trips end to end, our combined daily commute is a whopping 55 million miles 'a d ay.
Each car below accounts for part of the 32 million -mile growth, as follows:
Longer pips due b wban vowds. More trips per traveler. More travelers. Choosing w delta alone
Adds 10 mWon miles. Adds 9 million miles. Adds 8 million mike. Adds S million miks.
3
Future arcs pro c'TS
Projects proposed for regional parks
and trails from 1994 through 2000 will be
the subject of a public hearing Feb. 10,
held by the Metropolitan Council's
Committee of the whole. The hearing on
the parks capital improvement program
(CIP) will be held at 4:30 p.m. in the
Council Chambers.
To obtain a copy of the CIP, can
Coundrs Data Center at 29141140, or
291-0904 (TDD). To speak please register
by caning 291-6312. Send written
comments to Ame Stefferod, Metropolitan
Council, 230 E Fifth St, 56 Paul, MN
55101. Hearing record doses Feb. 25,
4:30 p.m. For more information,
can Ame at 291 -6360.
1 1
The folou ing prbGcatbns have been published recently by the Metropolitan Court 1. To order,
wrhe the MetropoYnn Council Data Center, 230 E Fifth St, SL Pau(, MN 55101. Then publications
arse also available at major pubbe Ibrarks In the nmetropokn 11110. NOW CuNansevs must now add
sake tax so he pike of doaumenta St. Pad residents and oganlutka add 714 all of heM sex
Qwrta fr Bcanormtc trdlcalom
Third Quarter 1 »3.
No. 62043099;11.%
9006 M Building Permrd4 based lm line Twin
Odes Metropolitan Area Dnr(ng lanuarr
fepaaaba 1993. No. 62093103; (130.
Meimpolbm Cound tmM Abdiemrrtt
Aom * Fbd Year 1193 bVendlIUM and
AdIvIdes Report. No. 322-93054; no dwp.
Metropolitan Csundi 1194 Local I laamkg
Assistance tam Guideline. No . 60093101;
no charge.
Metropotfrn Ann Cernsmnnity Wntr $W*
Plan Content Guidelines. No. 591194007;
no charge
Mebopokm Camel 1"2 ninepins Evaltstlon
Report. No. 10ll -gi ; no dmge.
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 0 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
t
1
January 20, 1994
Mr. Dale Runkle
Joe Miller Homes
Suite 204
3459 Washington Drive
Eagan, MN 55122
Dear Dale:
I have forwarded your letter to our City Attorney who will be responsible for the assignment of
the development agreements. If he has not, already : .been in contact with you, please call him
directly. I am sure this change can be dealt with simply.
Z auss, AICP
Director of Planning
pc: Dave Hempel,: Asst. City Engineer
Roger Knutson, City Attorney
'CO
I�
t�M+�
os
January 6, 1994
Paul Krauss
City of Chanhassen
690 Coultier Dr
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Assignment of Development/Purchase Agreements
Dear Paul:
This letter is a follow -up to our phone conversation regarding the acquisition
of Joe Miller Homes and Argus Development by D. R. Horton Inc. In the
acquisition process we will need to assign all outstanding Development
Agreements and /or Purchase Agreements to D. R. Horton.
Our attorneys are in the process of preparing the transfer documents for
signature. Please advise us as to whom the forms should be sent to and how
long it will take to process.
If there.is any other information you %ill need, please let me know. Thank you
in advance for your cooperation in helping us make the transfer as expedient
as possible.
Sincerely,
Dale C. Runkle
�s
3459 Washington Drive, Suite 2(14
Eagan, MN 55122
4544663 -
MEMORANDUM
n
I
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: City Council
FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner
DATE: January 20, 1994
SUBJ: Centex Development Withdrawal
F'
prope south of Highway 5 and west of Galpin
Centex has terminated their interest in the rty
Boulevard. They had proposed a 232 unit, townhouse development called Galpin Boulevard
Carriage Homes. This project received conceptual 'PUD approval from the City Council on
November 22, 1993. No action by the City Council is required to terminate the review process.
Attachment
1. Letter from Daniel Herbst ,dated January 12, 1994
�:r
L
r
li
1
The Pemtom Land Company
WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
14180 HIGHWAY FIVE _
EDEN.PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
(612) 937 -0716 • 'FAX 937 -8635
January 12, 1994
Kathryn Aanenson
Planner, City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. 147
Chanhassen NIN 55317
RE: PUD Number 93 -5
Dear Kate:
Subsequent to our December 3, 1993 meeting.with Tom Boyce
and Dan Blake relative to the O *Shaughnessy Property, Centex
made a decision to terminate their interest in the property.
They determined that to have a garage ratio of 1.5, and
assuming a worst case of not being able to build on the free
standing property, that the density would be reduced a point
that the project was not economically feasible..
I am hoping, within the near future to seek another builder
to join with me on this project. I have a short time line
with the land owner, and at this point,.I can only be
hopeful that I can secure another builder.
This letter is to inform you of the above in the event you
receive inquiries from builders about the property. If you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a
call. Thank you for your continued cooperation and
understanding.
Sincerely,
HE PEMT
Daniel J.
President
t
X )4 �,_ ) 11
Greater Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce
Young Quinlan Building:
81 South Ninth Street
Suite 200
Minneapolis. Dtinnesota 55 iU' -322i
Phone: 612: 3'0.91 32
Fax: 612!; ,
January 7, 1994
1
Dear Community Leader:
Inclusiveness and communication are two hallmarks of Building Our Future: Regional Strategies '
for Economic Opportunities, an economic development initiative spearheaded by the Greater
Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce. I'm writing to you and other regional leaders in that
spirit with an update on our efforts.
Enclosed are two articles, "Heading the Warning Signs" and "Economic Strategy Is About
Opportunity," that capture the vision and outline the direction of the initiative. They were
developed as part of a broad -based communications and education effort, and have appeared
in leading print media throughout the metropolitan area. I share these articles with you in the
hope that you may better understand the initiative.
Also enclosed is an editorial from the Star Tribune responding to the strategic planning report
the initiative's steering committee issued in late December. The editorial lauds the report - -and
the effort - -as "a new and compelling case for regionalism."
But the work is not done. The past year was a time for defining issues, building consensus,
developing strategies, creating community support and making the effort truly regional. Now
the strategies must be implemented. Generating tactics to actualize Building Our Future is the
next step toward creating positive economic change in the region.
We welcome feedback from the institutions and individuals like you who can make this regional
vision a reality. I would be happy to provide a copy of the steering committee report at your
request. Feel free to contact me directly at 370 -9170.
1 look forward to future opportunities to communicate with you about Building Our Future. '
Sincerely, '
Sandra Scott '
Director, Economic Development
Enclosures I
J
� RUDING OUR FUTURE
R E G I O N AL S T R A T E G I ES FOR
E C 0 N 0 M I C 0 P P 0 R T U N I T I E S
1 This white paper produced by:
Please Route -
��
Aa .
Greater Minneapolis Heeding the Warning Signs:
Chamber of Commerce
' A Framework for our Regions Economic Success
by Connie Levi, President,
Greater Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce
Distribution made possible by
following
Imagine how much more productive some of the most complicated and
the members:
sin; " Flmdf•r.
contentious public policy debates of the day would be if there were
Minnegasco consensus
on strategies to create and sustain quality jobs.
'
held hostage by the economic insecurity
Instead, public policy debates are
indu,trc Advocates
plaguing so many Americans. The charge that an issue from trade to tax
Banking
Marquette Bancshares, Inc.
reform could result in American job losses is enough to send many policy
Commercial Real Estate
makers scrambling for political cover.
'
Opus Corporation
Communications Semites
AT &T
EmdronmentalSemiees
Meanwhile, Americans -- especially low - and middle- income households
Browning- Ferris Industries
Finonaal Semites
-- are watching their employment and ownership opportunities disappear.
Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.
for the
At a time when leaders should be investing in long -term strategies
Food Distribution/Retailing
SUPERVALU INC.
future, too many are protecting the status quo.
1
Food Processing
Pillsbury, Inc.
Legal Services
Dorsey ,& Whitney
Ironically, it is this short -term thinking that will result in long -term
Mortgage Banking
TCF Mortgage Corporation
job losses.
Printing
The Instant Web Companies
Publishing
Cowles Media Corporation
Most Minnesotans are a bit more fortunate than their fellow citizens in
Securities Brokers
Piper Jaffray Companies, Inc.
many other states. The changing economy hasn't caused the extensive job
Telecommunications
'
ADC Telecommunications, Inc.
dislocation here that it has elsewhere. We still have time to move beyond the politics of job creation to the
needed policies of building for tomorrow's economy.
Yet, Minnesota — and, in particular, the Twin Cities -- is in danger if it rests on its laurels. The warning signs
that have foretold economic troubles in other communities abound in this metropolitan area. An unsettling
increase in poverty. An anemic birth rate of new businesses. Inadequate numbers of quality jobs. A growing
gap between the available jobs and the skill - levels of workers. And competition for new jobs coming not just
from the neighboring city or state, but from such faraway places as Singapore or Taipei.
The Twin Cities of tomorrow will be unable to sustain its quality of life or continue to make the investments that
set this metropolitan area apart from others if we accept the status quo. Future success depends upon the Twin
Cities metropolitan area's ability to pursue economic growth opportunities cooperatively. Only by utilizing all
the resources of the entire region will we be able to compete globally. And, most importantly, the Twin Cities
region must commit itself to the development and implementation of strategies that will create the kind of jobs
and ownership opportunities that enable individuals to support themselves, their households and their
communities.
These qualities are at the core of a new initiative, Building Our Future: Regional Strategies for Economic
Opportunities.
Building Our Future was developed in 1992 by the Greater Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce in alliance with
the City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County and The McKnight Foundation. Several west metropolitan suburbs
have been involved in the effort from the beginning and, recently, representatives of the City of St. Paul, Ramsey
County and the St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce also have joined the effort.
In many ways, this initiative is different from economic development efforts that have gone before:
• Building Our Future consists of measurable strategies rather than reactive tactics.
zx�
1
1
k
7
U
• It brings together the public, private and non - profit sectors in a cooperative effort.
• The initiative establishes a long -term vision and a context in which important regional decisions can be
made.
• Building Our Future is integrated and regional in scope.
The initiative will not end with the publication of a "final report." The planning document published in
December will be the springboard foi the work of tactical implementation teams.
It has, as its central, overriding goal, the need to expand opportunities for individuals to earn incomes
sufficient to support households — strategies will support the development of workers prepared for the
future and will provide ladders of opportunity for all.
After nine months of intensive study, the 28 -member Building Our Future Steering Committee has identified
three immediate priorities.
One priority is enterprise development. An economic development strategy must sustain an environment that
nurtures the formation of new. business and compels future business growth to take place within the region.
Another priority is work force development. We must build upon one of our region's great strengths: its people.
We must ensure that people have the opportunity to develop world -class skills that match the qualifications of
current and future jobs.
' We must open opportunities to those who have been shut out from past economic successes by emphasizing
skills and help current workers to keep their
1 to develop employable P
that allow young people P
programs
educational skill levels up-to-date.
The third and most i p requires these efforts to ensure that through cooperation, our region is
competitive in both the national and global marketplaces. Simply put, we must cooperate regionally, if we are to
compete globally.
zA
E
By the year's end, the Building Our Future Steering Committee will release a planning document reflecting a
vision that is shared by representatives of business, education, government and the non -profit sectors. In 1994,
task forces will begin the process of outlining and implementing the action steps that will make this vision a
reality.
One of the most critical functions of the strategic plan is that it will provide a framework for community '
decisions. Through this strategy, future critical choices — from where our region's major airport should be
located to the settin g of education policy -- will be measured against a key economic criterion: What is the '
impact of a decision on our region's ability to create opportunities for individuals through quality jobs? I
For this effort to succeed, it must begin by instilling in all citizens a new way of thinking. Everyone -- ± ,
policymakers, advocacy groups, voters — will be asked to make decisions by looking beyond immediate
self- interests. We all must recognize that the collective best interest lies in the investments that make the Twin
Cities region more competitive in the national and global marketplaces and that provide opportunities for
individuals. But the true key to success lies in our ability to translate Building Our Future's written strategies a
into real, positive action.
When we have done so, the citizens of our region will be more likely to be successful in finding and creating
jobs that allow them to support themselves, their households, and their communities. I
it
Distribution of this article has been made possible by the Greater Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce and several of its member companies
(see list on page one) in support of Building Our Future: Regional Strategies for Economic Opportunities. Building Our Future was
launched in late 1992 by the Greater Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce with funding support provided by the City of Minneapolis, '
Hennepin County and The McKnight Foundation. 7be initiative's goal is to create a regional economic development strategy focused on job
and ownership opportunities that enable individuals to support themselves, their households and their community." This unique public/
private/non- profit alliance has grown to include not only Minneapolis, its neighborhoods and the surrounding suburbs. but also representatives
of the public and private sectors in St. Paul and Ramsey County. .1 1
For permission to reprint this article, call Pam Strums at 370 -9164.
BUILDING OUR FUM
R E G I O N A L S T R A T E G I E S FOR
E C O N O M I C O P P O R T U N I T I E S
I .
This white paper produced by:
' Greater Minneapolis
Chamber of Commerce
Distribution made possible by
the following members:
Major Funders
Ninnegasco@
IndustrN Advocates
Banking
Marquette Bancshares, Inc.
Commercial Real Estate
' Opus Corporation
Communications Services
AT &T
Environmental Services
Browning Ferris Industries
Financial Services
' Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.
Food Distribution /Retailing
SUPERVALU INC.
Food Processing
Pillsbury, Inc.
Legal Services
Dorsey & Whitney
Mortgage Banking
TCF Mortgage Corporation
Printing
' The Instant Web Companies
Publishing
Cowles Media Corporation
' Securities Brokers
Piper Jaffray Companies, Inc.
Telecommunications
AT)C Telernmmunications. Inc.
Please Route To:
Economic Strategy is About Opportunity,
Not Picking Winners and_Losers
by Connie Levi, President,
Greater Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce
When historians write their assessment of public policy making in 1993,
their epitaph may well b "The devil was in the details."
No phrase better summarizes the highs and lows of public policy debates
in 1993.
In Congress, the state legislature and city councils—an issues from job
creation to government spending, from stopping crime to reforming health
care -- citizens and their policy makers find broad, bipartisan consensus an
goals. Yet the process stumbles over the specifics.
We agree on the need for safer neighborhoods, but we disagree over early
intervention or tougher punishment. We agree on the need for health care
reform, but argue government regulation versus marketplace competition.
We agree on the need for environmental protection, but wrangle over who
will pay the cost.
These choices, difficult enough on their own, are sometimes made more
contentious by those who feel they have a stake in polarizing public
policy. They frame issues not in terms of our common interest, but in
terms of winners and losers.
The reality is that there are fewer absolutes in public policy and many
more maybes. Policy choices are more frequently shades of gray than
they are black or white.
I�
The Greater Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce and its partners are working to define and focus these shades of
gray with policy makers involved in economic development. A innovative initiative, Building Our Future:
Regional Strategies for Economic Opportunities, is creating a long-term economic development strategy for the
Twin Cities region.
Building Our Future was begun in 1992 by the Greater Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce in partnership with
the City of Minneapolis, Hennepin Canty and The McKnight Foundation. Since beginning the initiative,
Building Our Future has been joined by the cities of Bloomington, Maple Grove, Golden Valley and Saint Paul,
as well as Ramsey County. And the circle is expected to continue to expend.
Several points distinguish Building Our Future from previous economic strategies.
First, it is creating a sustainable, strategic vision. Changes won't happen overnight The effort will be sustained
by an alliance of private, public and not for - profit sectors and by the creation of measurable strategies coupled
with responsive tactics to implement them.
Second, the effort is regional. It recognizes that the Twin Cities area is one region -- sometimes with legitimate -
geographic differences, but more often with compelling regional interests.
And third, it is creating economic development strategies that have as their central, overriding goal the need to
create job and ownership opportunities for individuals —to develop workers who are prepared for the future; to
create jobs with ladders of opportunities; and to invest in strategies that will result in jobs that pay wages -
sufficient to support households.
Building Our Future isn't about choosing winners and losers in economic development Quite the contrary. The
strategies establish the means by which legitimate claims on public resources can be balanced and evaluated
When Building Our Future succeeds, it will be because it establishes a context for economic development
Decisions as diverse as locating the airport to property tax reform can be evaluated against a single goal —the
impact on job and ownership opportunities.
The 28- member Building Our Future steering committee represents a broad spectrum of community leaders from
business, government, education, labor, philanthropic, civic and non - profit organizations. This diverse group
agreed on a goal and five inter - related strategies to guide economic development.
The goal reads:
Job and ownership opportunities that enable individuals to support themselves, their households and their
community as the Twin Cities area competes as one region in the global economy.
The strategies are:
1. Make the quality of the work face the region's dominant competitive advantage.
'
2. Concentrate retention and expansion efforts on businesses in which a significant proport ion of their jobs
' pay household- supporting wages.
I Create a sustaining environment that nurtures the formation of new businesses and compels their future
growth to remain in the region.
4 Expand opportunities for all those who want to work to gain entry into the regional economy, either as
workers or entrepreneurs.
' 5. Find ways to bring Minneapolis, Saint Paul and the suburban communities together as interdependent
partners in one regional economy.
' In 1994, tactics will be developed to support implementation of the Building Our Future strategies. The process
will rely on collaboration and tap
into the knowledge, skills and resources of all sectors of the local economy m
the design and implementation of programs and policies needed to fulfill these strategies. Policy makers will help
develop and then be encouraged to adopt the strategies as they
consider the decisions that face the Twin Cities
' region, Minnesota and the country•
depend more on the public than on policy makers.
In the end, however, the success of Building Future wi h makers who make the tough
Building Our Future depends on the willin ll depe of citizens to support po
choices within an appropriate context and that are measured against worthwhile criteria.
' Only then can the consensus on policy goals survive the bedeviling details.
is Chamber of Commerce and corporate underwriters (see list an
Distribution of this article has been m ade possible by the Greater M nneapo
l
page one) in support of Building Ow Future: Regionol Strategies for Eco"O Opporwn+t+es. Building O+� Future was launched in
' support provided the City of Minneapolis. Hennepin County 1992 by the Greater Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce with funding suppo provi by focused on 'job and ownership
'fie McKnight Foundation. 'fie initiative's goal is to create a regional
econom development strateg s pu blic / vateingt�profrt alliance
opportunities that enable individuals to support themselves, their households and mun community. county an Ramsey County
has grown to include Minneapolis and its neighborhoods, St. Paul, suburban
' communities, Hennepin
For permission to reprint this article, call Sandra Scott at 370 -9170.
1
17
Starlibune
6A . Monday /January 3/1994
OUR PERSPECTIVE
Economic plan
Anew and compelling case for regionalism
Sometimes it's not just what's being
said that's important, but who's saying
it and why. Take, for example, the eco-
nomic development strategies being
proposed for the Twin Cities region by
a public- private coalition led by the
Greater Minneapolis Chamber of Corn -
inerce. Here's a case where you might
not want to believe the message, but
jou gotta believe the messenger.
Much that is said in the new chamber -
published report titled "Building our
Future, Regional Strategies for Econom-
ic Opportunities" is old stuff. "The
Twin Cities area is one economic region
'The root issues responsible for
deepening and concentrating poverty
within (various communities and geo-
graphic areas of) the region must be
arrested and reversed while still in a
manageable state .... As of now, this
community has not fashioned an effec-
tive forum that embraces both
urban and suburban communities ......
..: '
Good - government types have been say-
ing this sort of thing for a long tame. So
have central -city politicians seeking re-
lief for their constituencies. But heard
from the security of a prosperous, self -
protective, politically conservative sub-
urb, people like that are easily ignored.
But what if the. same message comes
From that supposed bastion of economic
privilege and boosterism, the Chamber
of Commerce, backed by representa-
tives of not only business but labor,
city, suburban and county government;
and philanthropies? And what if the
Message is cast this time not in terms of
altruism or theory but-in the hard,,,Vsed
context of what has to be done to com-
pete successfully in a global market-
place?
As the report says, even "in the face of
.. a changed ... world economy, the
complacent and insular nature of our
region's economic development policies
remains largely intact. Much of our eco-
nomic development focus continues to
dwell on one neighboring community
battling another for jobs and economic
activity, while the real stakes globally are
much higher and the opportunities
much more vast."
Of the five strategies in the `Building
our Future" report, only one would deal
directly with the need to bring Minne-
apolis, St. Paul and their suburbs to-
gether as "interdependent partners in
one regional economy." And some
might consider even that a distant leap
from legislative proposals to require
wealthy suburbs to accept their fair
shares of affordable housing or to give
the Metropolitan Council real clout
over regional affairs. But those ideas
and enabling the region to present a
united economic front are actually the
same thing. Without the first two, the
last can't happen.
With their sound strategies and vital
insights, the chamber and its allies have
already wde an important contribu.
lion to the regional debate. But they can
do more. Whai is needed next is to say
out loud, at legisl five hearings and in
other public forums, what they now say
in print. Theirs is a Message, and a
voice, that could prove dt isive.
e