Admin Section 1
ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION
ISTEA Implementation Newsletter dated June 21, 1993.
' Letter to Mr. Larry Anderson dated July 8, 1993.
Letter to Mr. Joel Miller dated July 12, 1993.
Letter from Roger Knutson dated July 8, 1993.
H.R.A. accounts payable dated July 12, 1993.
Thank you sent to Merit Heating and Air Conditioning.
1 Information from Jim Strudell, MPCA.
' Letter from Ms. Sally Evert dated July 9, 1993.
Letter to Mr. Roger Gustafson dated July 7, 1993.
Letter from Terry Barck dated July 13, 1993.
Letter from Don Follett dated July 12, 1993.
1 Letter from Robert Lindall dated July 13, 1993.
H.R.A. Accounts payable dated July 26, 1993.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
• . • , -- ,
a „ -
•.5, , .. -..• _ A .
i . ,
..., -
, .
' ' _ - ' • -= ', , A •• `
- .
- ,
,-, :''',-• ' '!- ,,,:-. ' ..1 ( '. ';'"'' '''' '- - ''' "::., A '-- '`"
'• _ '.. -- ',-.':' . „ ...
. . ..
y '1„.4 •
,. . • - ... A
' i. .;', . _ '''':' '''-:'' - • ' A ';
. „--
. .. .., —
.= =
. . :
„• . -, ::' '.;', : '■• iia ',.;
• ' = -, , _ ,.
..." .. ,,-, ', „' " ' , -la -,-; •.;,.. • -'..= :. A
- f.. ... -.„. ,
,
= r
' .
` - - - • -, ,.. . . , a,..... A :'' ,..,,-
. ..,
, a .
. .
•
..-.' ;
A a
a. .
• -
- _
.. . .
a , •
a a
.. ,,
-, '. v , ' ; ' -, ,,A ' :.- '—,,-. _ . A • , " • .
.„ , . ..
--- , '
' .
A .
. a.; , .... . . ...,.‘, ... , .
' . • ..-,
„ .
..,
. . . ..
, . , . . ...
.. .
., ..
..... , '-_, ..
, • .... ' , .-' '-','.
. ,
- - 1 - '' = - i •,- -".: '-',' :, ..'' ,..%
..=, ...
_ ...,
'.
,- .■ . , 3,_. -1,
•
. -
? ■
. .
.. .
' .
- r
.„.-
. ,
... . „ .
. . . . .,_ .
_. , " ■ 5 , . . i
- -
. , .
...
. ,:.
a ,. ' .
' .
. . ,
. ,
•
. ..
. , .
; -
.. . -
' -
. -
. .
• ,
_ . ••• , .,
- ...
. ., . , , • .
. ,
. ..
, . .
.„ _.
., .. . .
• ' • _ __ -1 „ r. ,
. , .
. .. .
1 _ .,.!
` .
. . ,
. - -
.... •-.
. , .
. _
' •
• . ,
. . - .."
•
„ .
. _ -, . _ . • ,.
- ,
a.- .
. , .
. . .
• :
• ;_ . ' ,,,„.' , . - . I
''' ' '•., ' ... 4 - _ .
-
.. • -
‘ t t
‘ . ,
- ,
.... ..::,„ ,
• , i. , ,
, .
. ....
- -
...
,.._
1 .,..
= , i-=---
. .
. ,
- -- ,
- ,....„
I
. - ..
- _
.- . .
... .
f . . .
- - . - '• .
• -
_ _ . -•
- .
- .
. ,
I •..
- •
_ .
-..„ • , . .. , .. • .• - . . . . . .. _
. . - „ • . .- . •.- • „
. . . .
Minnesota
• Department of Enhancement projects link transportation
Transportation to the environment, communities
111 Projects such as a bike path and scenic resources, was rec- ants Forever and the Nature
i along the shore of Lake Min- ommended by Minnesota's Conservancy, calls for linking
newaska from Starbu to Enhancement Task Force. natural areas they own near
I IMPLEMENTATION Glenwood and a bike and The task force was comprised highways. Additional right of
NEWSLETTER pedestrian trail in St. Cloud of representatives from way would be acquired to
along the Mississippi River Mn /DOT, the Department of create corridors one - quarter
1 The Intermodal Surface are among those in Minneso- Natural Resources (DNR), the mile wide; roadsides would
Transportation to recommended for funding Minnesota Historical Society, be planted with native grass -
I Efficiency Act of 1991 by the ISTEA. the State Bicycle Advisory es and flowers to connect the
The recommendation seeks Board, the Environmental natural areas in several loca
In this issue:
more than $10 million from Quality Board and state, tions throughout the state.
the Federal Highway Admin- regional, county and city According to Mn/DOT Com-
inhancement projects link istration (FHWA) to fund up planning agencies. missioner James N. Denn,
transportation to environ- to 80 percent of the proposed "The enhancement program
Mn /DOT endorsed the task
-lent, communities
ow do you reimburse feder- projects' costs. Remaining is very exciting; it affords us
c o s ts would s. paid by agen- force's recommendations and the opportunity to ensure that
forwarded them to FHWA.
al funds under ISTEA? cies receiving the federal transportation projects com-
funds. Of the 34 projects, 19 are plement the environment and
hat are the boundaries located in Greater Minnesota the community."
A total of 34 p rojects , which
eferred to in ISTEA?
and 15 in the Twin Cities
would improve mobility for area. One project, a proposal (contact Todd Swenson,
bicyclists and pedestrians or by Mn/DOT, the Department 612/296 -1606)
preserve the st ate's historic
umber 9 of Natural Resources, Pheas-
une 21, 1993
How do you from obligation to reimburse- 2. State makes payments to
reimburse ment can vary from a few contractor.
federal funds days to several years. 3. State sends vouchers to
under ISTEA? Progress payments are per - FHWA division office for
Reminder— mitted as long as the project review and approval.
The Federal - Aid Highway agreement was executed 4. An FHWA officer certifies
ITIPs due Program is a reimbursable according to federal require- the state transportation
All Area Partnership's draft program. What is appor- ments. Payments must not department's claim for pay -
1993-95 (TIPs) Transportation tioned to the states is not exceed the federal share of ment.
I mprovement Programs are cash but a line of credit the total cost incurred for
due at Mn/DOT's Office of against which they can incur work done up to the voucher 5. Certified schedules are sub -
ighway Programs by July 2 obligations. date. miffed to the Treasury Depart-
or review so a State Trans- ment.
Obligating federal funds nor - Although payments normally
nation Improvement Pro malty occurs at the same time are made to the states, reim- 6. The federal share of the
tr
am can be started. the project is authorized bursement can be made project cost is electronically
(approved) by the Federal directly to the public authori- transferred from the Treasury
Highway Administration ty if projects were initiated Department to the state's
' e'9 (FHWA) or Mn/DOT Acting on toll facilities under the bank account. at e for the FHWA. jurisdiction of a public This sequence keeps repeat -
Z C p States need to provide the authority in a state and if ing, often beginning again
= G E3 initial cash to get a project requested by the state trans- before the previous round is
rwt �y ro underway. The project does portation department. completed.
g CD Y P 1
not have to be completed The n ormal s equence of (contact Frank Van DeSteeg,
I I= s
run
L' cea before a state begins to events for reimbursement 612/296 -8482)
receive reimbursement. are:
"v C• ea
' Depending upon the type of 1. Contractor does the work.
1 project, the time elapsing �
What are the Cloud, Rochester, LaCrosse- the Transportation Improve- spending a portion of STP i
boundaries referred LaCresent. ment Plan (TIP) and use of and any minimum allocation
to in ISTEA? An urban area with 200,000 Surface Transportation Pro - funds in areas of the state
or more population is classi- gram (STP) funds for areas of outside urbanized areas with 1
The activities eligible for fied as a Transportation Man- more than 200,000 popula- an urbanized population of
funding under ISTEA are agement Area (TMA). The tion. more than 200,000. It also
more diverse than in previous state has only one TMA —the The census boundary regu- requires spending a portion '
transportation acts and are Twin Cities Metro Area. lates the 55 -mile -per -hour of the funds outside urban
frequently defined by various speed limit, outdoor advertis- areas with a population
boundaries. These bound- Urban area boundaries. ing, old urban or secondary greater than 5,000.
The Bureau of the Census
cries often overlap and are funds, and STP funds for This means the urbanized I
establishes an "urbanized
confusing. Here we will census area boundary" for all areas with less than 200,000 area boundary of the Seven
attempt to clarify them. population. County Metro Area defines
urban places. They must
Urban places. The Bureau review these boundaries and The adjusted census bound the limits for funds that must
of Census requires a popula- can adjust them to some cry defines the limit for rural be spent outside of the area
tion of 2,500 for designation extent. or urban classification and for (anywhere else in the state),
as urban (less than 2,500 is eligibility as collector roads including the rural portion of
considered as rural). Each small urban place will for STP funding. the Metro Area. Funds that
have one boundary, the cen must be spent outside urban
For transportation purposes, sus boundary or adjusted Nonattainment areas. A areas with a population of
however, a population of at census boundary. Each MPO nonattainment area is an 5,000 or greater will be based il
least 5,000 is needed to quali- or TMA will have two bound- urban area with recent air- on the definition of the urban
fy as a "small urban place," aries —the planning bound quality violations. Such areas area boundaries of all urban 1
with a population density of ary and adjusted census are viewed as special cases. and urbanized areas.
at least 100 persons per boundary. If a site is in nonattainment The urban boundaries are
square mile. This density The planning boundary status for ozone and /or car- also important in defining the I
boundary, not to be confused refers to the existing urban- bon monoxide levels, the eligibility of specific routes
with the corporate limits, is .' ized area plus the area boundary should comprise when using STP funds. Sec -
the urban boundary expected to become urban- the entire area including the tion 2007 of ISTEA specifies
Areas of population between ized within 20 years. These site. The MPO may exclude a that projects may not be ,
50,000 to 200,000 are classi- boundaries define the area portion of the nonattainment undertaken on roads func-
fied as metropolitan areas. within which metropolitan area from the planning tionally classified as local or
These areas must use a plan- planning programs must be boundary. The excluded rural minor collectors. The I
ning process carried out by a carried out. area, however, must be urban boundary defines
Metropolitan nization (MPO)aMinnesota a And the planning boundary conformity analysis g th t is which a�e urban. are rural and
is used to determine the area
required for the TIP.
MPOs are Duluth Superior, for Section 134 Metropolitan q (contact Jon Bloom,
Fargo- Moorhead, Grand 3C Planning, development of Urban areas and funding 612/296 - 1635)
Forks -East Grand Forks. St. eligibility. ISTEA requires 1
a` O 4 Questions, comments to: U.S. Postage
I R, w PAID
Minnesota obertLowe Depa sletter of Editor sp
Tranortation First Class
807 T Building Permit Paul, 171
of St. Paul, MN
395 John Ireland Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55155 _
Tel 612/296 -1657; Fax: 612/297 -3160
Charles D.
of Cha Folch en I
City nhass Eng
69 0 Coulter Drive
C hanhas sen P •�• Box 147
Minnesota 5 5317 1
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 \ (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1 July 8, 1993
1
1 Mr. Larry Anderson
400 Cimarron Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
1 Re: Lift Station No. 2 Located South of 7500 Frontier Trail
File No. PW -055B
1 Dear Mr. Anderson:
This letter is a follow -up to your recent letter and our recent subsequent telephone
conversation concerning the sewer overflow which you have observed from time to time at
Lift Station No. 2 for a number of years now. Under normal flow conditions the sewer
1 system and lift station function with adequate capacity as designed. However, following
significant rainfall events or during spring thaw the lift station has overflowed due largely
in part to a system infiltration /inflow problem (i.e. sump pump connections to the sanitary
sewer) which undoubtedly exceed the design capacity for this system. In discussing this
matter with Utility Superintendent Jerry Boucher, he confirmed that many of the overflow
1 situations occurred following a significant rainfall event or electrical power outage.
As I mentioned during our conversation, the City has taken a number of steps in the past
1 few years to reduce potential overflow situations at all of the City's sanitary sewer lift
stations. In 1991, the City installed a radio telemetry system which monitors the operation
of all the City's lift stations. When a problem becomes imminent, i.e. high level condition
1 or power outage, etc., an alarm is set off in the system and the appropriate utility personnel
are paged accordingly. This has greatly improved our response time to system failures and
problems. This summer the City has ordered and will soon be receiving a mobile truck -
1 mounted electrical generator system which Twill be able to provide temporary electrical
power to any lift station in the event of a power failure. If a lightning strike should hit a
lift station and damage the controller and /or pumps, the use of a generator will not be
1 possible. More often than not, a power failure will be remedied with the use of this mobile
truck- mounted generator system.
1
ifs
� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
Getting back to your issue of concern, in 1992 the City installed two new 12 -horse power
pumps at Lift Station No. 2 as an additional measure to improve reliability at this lift
station. As I mentioned earlier, the overflows that you have observed immediately following
a significant rainfall event are likely the result of rainfall inflow getting into the system.
Since 1989, the City has spent an average of $300,000 per year on programs to repair leaky
pipes, manholes, etc. in the City's sanitary sewer system; however, these peak flow situations 1
immediately following a rainfall event are likely due to residential sump pump inflow into
the sanitary sewer system. These types of direct sump pump connection to the City's
sanitary sewer system is prohibited by City ordinances and State Code. In the future, the
City may consider conducting a city -wide inspection of all homes to eliminate these types
of sump pump connections.
In closing, the City has been and will continue to spend significant dollars to mitigate these
P � g
types of problems being experienced not only at Lift Station No. 2 but at all lift stations
within the City. Your concerns for protecting the environment are shared with all of us at
the City and we thank you for taking the time to write us.
Sincerely, 1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Charles D. Folch, P.E. 1
City Engineer
CDF:ktm 1
c: Don Ashworth, City Manager
Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
Jerry Boucher, Utility Superintendent
City Council Administrative Packet (7/26/93) 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
AA"
C ITYOF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
July 12, 1993
Mr. Joel Miller
Census - Commerce
Bureau of the Census
Geography Division
Washington, DC 20233
1 Dear Mr. Miller:
The enclosed materials are being sent pursuant to our discussion of July 8, 1993, regarding the
"fee paid separation for the City of Chanhassen. The parcel in question was is located in
Hennepin County, in the City of Shorewood. It continues to be located in Hennepin County but
has recently become part of Chanhassen. The parcel contains an existing home that is split by
the county line.
The annexation was approved by resolution by both cities. In accordance with Minnesota
Statutes, this was forwarded to the State Municipal Board which approved the request on June
8, 1993. A copy of the Municipal Board's Findings of Fact is included for your review. I am
1 also including several maps that will help to illustrate the parcel's location.
Since our Community Development Block Grant funding is contingent upon your action, I must
1 ask that you expedite the process. We have also been unable to ascertain with any clarity, which
city this home was placed in by the original enumeration. If you could convey this information
to me I would be grateful.
As you requested I am enclosing a $200 check to cover initial processing costs. I need to be out
of the country on family business and may not be available if you need to contact someone. In
my absence, please deal directly with Larry Blackstad, who is a planner with Hennepin County.
Larry is our CDBG Coordinator and can be reached at 612- 348 -5859.
As you will note in the attached letter I received from the local HUD office, please notify the
"CPD's Data Systems and Statistics Division" in writing of the completion of the separation
1 agreement. Please copy me on this correspondence.
t4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
Mr. Joel Miller
July 12, 1993
Page 2
1
This notice should be sent to:
John Nagoski, Director 1
Data Systems and Statistics Division
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Room 7224
451 SW 7th Street
Washington, DC 20401
Thank you for your assistance. .
Sin ely, 1
% i4.- L, -' , /A__ --- 1
aul Krauss, AICP
Director of Planning 1
PK:v
Enclosures
c: Larry Blackstad, Hennepin Co. Planning 1
Don Ashworth, City Manager
City Council
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
D-295 Shorewood/A -5126 Chanhassen
BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL BOARD
1 OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Kenneth F. Sette Chair
11 Robert J. Ferderer Vice Chair
John W. Carey Commissioner
IN THE MATTt rt OF THE DETACHMENT )
• OF CERTAIN LAND FROM THE CITY OF ) FINDINGS OF FACT
SHOREWOOD AND ANNEXATION TO THE ) CONCLUSIONS OF IAW
CITY OF CHANHA.SSEN PURSUANT TO ) AND ORDER
MINNESOTA STATUTES 414
On May 28, 1993, the Minnesota Municipal Board received resolutions
' from the City of Shorewood and the City of Chanhassen, requesting the
detachment of certain property, and annexation of the same territory
' pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414.061.
1 After review of the resolutions, the Minnesota Municipal Board hereby
makes and files the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and
Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That resolutions requesting concurrent detachment and
annexation of certain property was received from the Cities of Shorewood
and Chanhassen.
2. The resolutions contained all the information required by
statute including a description of the territory proposed for detachment
and annexation, which is as follows:
1 That part of Lot 87, Auditor's Subdivision Number 135, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the
Southeast corner of said Lot 87; thence West along the South
line thereof to the Southwest corner thereof; thence North
1
1
1
1
-2- 1
along the West line thereof, a distance of 50 feet; thence in
a straight line easterly to a point on the East line of said
lot 50 feet North of the Southeast corner thereof; thence South
along the East line thereof, to the point of beginning.
3. The front half of a single family home on the property is
situated in Chanhassen, and the rear of the home is situated in Shorewood.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Minnesota Municipal Board duly acquired and now has
jurisdiction of the within proceeding.
2. An order should be issued by the Minnesota Municipal Board 1
concurrently detaching and annexing the area described herein.
ORDER 1
1. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: That the property described in Findings
of Fact 2 be, and the same hereby is, detached from the City of Shorewood
and annexed to the City of Chanhassen, the same as if it had originally 1
been made a part thereof.
2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That the effective date of this order 1'
is June 4, 1993.
Dated this 8th day of June, 1993.
MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD
475 McColl Building
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Patricia D. Lundy
Assistant Director 1
1
1
1
1
- 1 . N. -4 If ' ' e47 -. ' ' a '. • ''.. --.1 1&) sp - - - - . +-;iP - . -",.....„,„.....,..„,.........„, ,.......
.c ;T: . . ■ . ' X - ' . . .3:: r C.1 ........110 1111., I. • -..•-".......--;- • 4 ' • •
Ila telf ir / 0 - !•:!.- ..... - ' 4 ••• I ,
. / • a r c *.• ,-" 11, - - :
_ 4S.... 0 . ..• •
a �� • t / - .
• IL . �, ' fa t > II I. *' - -! Cr' ti � v 1. V
a , r a. �� - ; , y " 1-. ,1i.
114 ..... w - r 1 _ , t F e TTT 7 44 "A = ' 11:
at fili - - - .. i ' 41 * ,f, iiiiiirir 1 : 7 null- • - + 1 . „.._ .14
• ......... k 1--” , , Ar -._ e - 1. s ii r -- - .1 4- ,
. ,... ,..., , ..... c - *; ki .•,- - eir ii.
T .. �' - - --
"i• 1* r V
i ',4
m �4 y ; f +
. ; . . a * : ' ' 1 '7 11 -4.-'' - 4 4411f, it i - - * 0-f .10: 0 7 1•11' f., // ''' i ,•:-. i ' '-'A-10111 74. - ' •■ )
- ( 44 . ,� 7t + r te., i •- /tfr i I ,7•�� /".
- •
41 ' . ..„r ?" �" i m a w 4 ! - ' �" • d 4 • -- > � \M ji g
. • * Ix 40--,-)- . J i_ �... -. 1./ = 47.1 150 . 0
•
• C T F . - A "s t iliCr
., r . : la . is
r
ic.... ...._
.
L sue. - � � .' % .- r •
i f�17 t CS
; ; ; • r4 4.4:, 4* , _ A
. . - .: ' - ' l ilt - 'I II . - !&all'-. =lir
--- le - '- - f - •- -- 4 7, -- 4-i . -
. 1 ;ice_ a! _ ��� 110,90itt - _ - i+ -
� •
I-4 1 ` . -
1
1
1
-J M STATE BAht. OF Ct;A'�tiASSE\
048433
•
*$200.00 7 -12 -93
Two Hundred and no /100ths
P " ; Bureau of the Census
4
*IP )
u'04843 ,:09L9L458?I: 09 0LO 60 1
101 - 153 -4300 $200.00 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, PA. - /
•\ttorne\ .tr L A\ /"
Thoni.i• 1 Camrbell (012) i
Ro_er \ Knutson Fax (612) 452-5550
Thonn.t \1 Sort
C gar% G Fuchs
James R. Walston
n
Elliott B. knetsch
Michael. Rrol-ack
Renae h Steiner July 8, 1993
- lag _
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
Mike Mason, Councilmember
Richard Wing, Councilmember
Colleen Dockendorf, Councilmember
Mark Senn, Councilmember
RE: John Merz, et al. vs. City of Chanhassen, et al.
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
Enclosed is a copy of the judge's ruling upholding the
Council's approval of Trolls -Glen nonconforming beach lot permit.
Mr. Merz challenged the City's action arguing that you allowed too
many boats. It is unfortunate that such matters end up in
' litigation.
7 _- - -•ery r' yours,
CAMPBE -, KNUTSON, SCOTT
UCHS, P.A.
gy
Roger N. Knutson
RNK:srn
Enclosure
cc: Don Ashworth
Paul Krauss
Jo Ann Olsen
Kate Aanenson
Sharmin Al -Jaff
Butte ;17 • Ea Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eaean. IN 551:1
Notice Of Filing, Entry,Docketing 1
• Bradley N. Beisel STATE OF MINNESOTA
O Attorney at Law COUNTY OF CARVER II
430 Pillsbury Center
✓ 'Minneapolis, MN 55402 -1488 .NOTICE OF:
II ' " Elliott B. Knetsch x FILING
Attorney. at Law x ENTRY OF JUDGMENT.
317 Eagandale Office Center II
1380 Corporate Center Curve DOCKETING OP JUDGMENT
Eagan, MN 55121
o 1
o _
II
. COURT FILE NO. C6 92 925
IN RE: John Merz et al vs.lhe City of chanhassen, et al II
•
You are hereby notified that'in the above entitled 'matte,- II _ o 7 _ 6 _ 9 3.
a: •
F
1
indings nc „i -
_ _ s a._�, Order was - duly filed.
Order was duly =;ioe • 11
X Findings of Fact COnc1us_ons of Law and Order fo- Jud e
, ..yaw ^I was -
duly filed..
II
x Judgment was duly entered.
•
11
Judcmen t waS duly docketed in the amount of $ - at •
( time)
II
on • in favor of . and
against _
•
II
Other
Dated: 7 - - 93 GRE _Y M. ESS
• 7 ESS, Court Administrate_
Copies attached. By; ' `7 _�`� �— • ;
• IF
- Phone (612) 448 -1201.
Carver County Courthouse,. Box 4 II
•600 East 4th St.
Chaska, MN 55318 •
11
A true and correct copy of this Notice has been served by mail
t the parties herein at the last known address II
Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 77.04. o� each, pursuant to
1
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF CARVER FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
' John Merz, Mary Ann Merz, Court File No.: C6 -92 -925
Terry Johnson and Pam Johnson,
Petitioners,
' vs. FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
' The City of Chanhassen, a political ORDER AND MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT
subdivision, Don Chmiel, Mayor,
Ursela Dimler, Councilperson,
Mike Mason, Councilperson,
Richard Wing, Councilperson,
in their official capacities,
It Respondents,
Fik,ED
and
'-'< < 41 "
Trolls -Glen Homeowners' Association,
Third -Party Respondent.
The above - entitled matter came before the Honorable Philip T.
Kanning, Judge of District Court, on May 26 1993, at Carver County
Courthouse, Chaska, Minnesota. Elliott B. Knetssh appeared on
r PP
behalf of Respondents. Bradley Beisel appeared on behalf of
Petitioners.
This matter came before the Court upon the Motion of
Respondents for an Order affirming the City Council's issuance of
a nonconforming use permit to Trolls -Glen Homeowners' Association.
' Based upon the pleadings, papers on file herein and having
heard the arguments of counsel and being fully advised in the
1 premises, the Court makes the following:
11
II
FINDINGS OF FACT 11
1. In the summer of 1981 the Trolls -Glen Homeowners' 11 Association approved and erected a 64' dock with two boat lifts on
Outlot B (hereafter Trolls -Glen beachlot) of the Association's ,
property. The mooring capacity of the dock was stipulated at four
(4) boats. II
2. In March of 1982 the Chanhassen City Council (here after
City Council) adopted Ordinance 47AB regulating beachlots, and II
permitting existing beachlots which were in violation of Ordinance 1
47AB to continue as a nonconforming use if no expansion or
intensification of the use occurred.
II
3. The Trolls -Glen beachlot was in violation of Ordinance
47AB but was allowed to continue as a nonconforming use having II
existed prior to the enactment of the ordinance.
II
4. During the summer of 1981 the City Staff attempted a
physical inventory of beachlot use, but failed to do an inventory 1
of Trolls -Glen beachlot.
5. On February 24, 1992, the City Council passed Ordinance II
No. 163, which amended Chapter 20 of the City Code concerning 1
nonconforming beachlots.
6. The intent of Ordinance No. 163 is to prevent the ,
expansion,of nonconforming recreational beachlots by establishing
a baseline documenting the allowed use of each legal nonconforming I
recreational beachlot.
II
7. The Trolls -Glen beachlot is regulated under Ordinance No.
163 as a nonconforming recreational beachlot.
II
2 11
II
I
11 8. The ordinance requires that within one year after the
adoption of Ordinance No. 163, all nonconforming recreational
' beachlots must receive a nonconforming use permit or the use must
cease and desist.
9. Under Ordinance No. 163, permits shall be issued following
receipt of satisfactory proof concerning the nature and extent of
the legal nonconforming use as it existed on or before January 18,
1982.
10. The Trolls -Glen Homeowners Association applied for a
nonconforming use permit pursuant to Ordinance No. 163 requesting
one sixty -four (64) foot dock, one canoe rack, a swimming beach and
allowing four (4) boats at dock.
11. On May 6, 1992, the City Planning Commission held a
public hearing on the Trolls -Glen application and voted 4 -3 to
allow one sixty -four (64) foot dock, one canoe rack, a swimming
11 beach, and two boats docked or moored.
12. On May 18, 1992 the City Council met and considered the
Trolls -Glen Homeowners Association's application for a
nonconforming use permit.
13. The City Council made findings that there was
' satisfactory proof that the nature and extent of the use of Trolls-
Glen beachlot as it existed in the 1982 baseline was four (4)
boats.
14. The City Council voted unanimously to approve the
t
nonconforming use permit for Troll -Glen Homeowners' Association.
15. On May 18, 1992 the City of Chanhassen issued a
3
1
1
nonconforming use permit #92 -2 to the Trolls -Glen Homeowners'
association for Outlot B, permitting "one dock, 64 feet in length,
one canoe rack, a swimming beach, and 4 power boats." 1
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ,
1. The Findings of Fact are incorporated herein as the
Conclusions of Law. 1
2. The interpretation of the term "nonconforming use as it
existed" is not restricted to the actual use of the property. 1
3. The interpretation of the court distinguishes the mere ,
intent to use the beachiot from holding the use for the future in
connection with the existing dock. '
ORDER
1. The City's approval of Trolls -Glen Homeowners' '
Association's application for a nonconforming use permit shall be,
and hereby is , affirmed.
2. Petitioners' Petition is hereby dismissed with prejudice ,
on the merits.
3. Let Judgment be entered accordingly. 1
Date 1. - - Cf 3' • BY THE COURT:
Phi p T. Ka Wing, Judge. '
JUDGMENT
I hereby certify that the foregoing Order constitutes the 1
Judgment in this matter.
Dated: 7 -6 -93 GREGORY M. ESS, COURT ADM. '
Dep.
1
i
MEMORANDUM
The petitioners John and Mary Merz, and Terry and Pam Johnson,
are owners of real property on either side of the Trolls -Glen
beachlot. Respondents are the City of Chanhassen and the members
of the City Council in their official capacities, and the Trolls -
Glen Homeowners' Association of which John and Mary Merz are
members.
On July 15, 1992 plaintiffs filed a petition seeking a
preemptory Writ of Mandamus compelling the City of Chanhassen to
permanently refrain from the issuance of a nonconforming use permit
' which would allow the mooring or docking of more than two motorized
watercraft at the Trolls -Glen beachlot. In the alternative, had
the permit already been granted, plaintiffs sought a preemptory
II Writ of Mandamus compelling the City of Chanhassen to revoke the
permit and issue a nonconforming use permit limited to the mooring
and docking of two motorized watercraft •at the Trolls -Glen
beachlot. On December 10, 1992, the Trolls -Glen Homeowners'
Association was added as a third party respondent.
Interpretation of a zoning ordinance.is a question of law for
the Court to decide. Frank's Nursery Sales v. City of Roseville,
. 295 N.W.2d 604, 608 (Minn. 1980); Lowry v. City of Mankato, 42
N.W.2d 553, 555 (Minn. 1950). In Frank's, plaintiff claimed that
his purposed which sold lawn, garden, and plant supplies,
11 but also some craft items, was a "lawn and garden center" within
the meaning of the zoning ordinance. The Court stated that
interpretation of the zoning ordinance was the responsibility of
the court, and the Supreme Court affirmed. Id.
11 As in Frank's, the plaintiff here claims that the
interpretation of a zoning ordinance is in dispute. The plaintiff •
asks the court to determine the meaning of the term "as it existed"
taken from Ordinance No. 163(1)(b).
Generally, the plain and ordinary meaning of preexisting
nonconforming use is interpreted to be an actual use. The mere
' intent to use property for a purpose does not generally give rise
to a nonconforming use. County of Pine v. State, Dept, of Nat,
Res., 280 N.W.2d 625, 630 (Minn. 1979); Application of Cent.
Baptist Theo. Seminary, 370 .W.2d 642, 647 (Minn.App. 1985). The
Court, in County of Pine, discussed the interpretation of
"preexisting" uses, under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The
Court determined that ordinary meaning of "preexisting" under the
Act, and contrary to the lower court's determination, "must be
construed such that only preexisting actual uses are "grandfathered
in "..." Id.
In Application of Cent., the Central Baptist Theological
Seminary applied for a permit to construct a radio tower in a lake
classified as public wetlands. The Court of Appeals stated that a
nonconforming use is an actual use. (cite omitted). Prior to
' application, the seminary's only use of Jones Lake was for an
easement to Contemporary Radio for two anchor piers. The lake had
5
1
f
not actually been used for a radio tower. 1
Despite these rulings, there are exceptions to the general
construction of "preexisting" use as noted in other jurisdictions.
The Merz case is distinguished from the general rule by these
exceptions.
In Merz, the Trolls -Glen beachlot had been used for docking or
mooring boats. Prior to the enactment of Ordinance 47AB, a dock
was built to contain four (4) boats, but only two boats were
available to be moored at the dock. The remaining mooring
privileges were to be filled as the Association's needs required.
Thus, the dock use had been established and the function
documented, but there were not enough boats to employ the dock to
its capacity.
•
[S]ubstantial expenditures, work or change of position ,
relative to erection of a building or establishment of a
business, in addition to purchase of land, may entitle one to
protection against subsequent zoning.
It would seem, moreover, that a mere plan to use
• particular land for a future building, business or use is to
be distinguished ,form holding it for future use in connection
with an existing building, business or use; ... 8A E.
McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations, 46 (3d ed. 1986
& Supp. 1992).
The Trolls -Glen Homeowner's Association has provided evidence
of their City approved covenants dating to 1975, which gave mooring
rights to each of the Association's homeowners. They have provided
evidence of the 1981 Homeowners' meeting granting docking
privileges for four (4) boats. They have provided evidence of the
existence of the dock and two boats moored at the dock prior to the
1982 baseline. Thus, _as the court stated in Keller v. City of
Bellingham, 600 P2d 1276, 1280 (Wash. 1979): '
If a use is established in part but not all of a building
prior to enactment of a zoning ordinance, the right to
continue the use as "nonconforming" may not include the right
to extend into other portions of the building. (Cite
omitted.) Such extension is permissible, however, if the
"design of the structure indicates that at the time of the '
passage of the zoning restriction it was intended to dedicate
the building, in its entirety, to such use ". 3A. Rathkopf,
The Law of Zoning and Planning, ch. 60, S. 5 (4th ed. 75). '
All of the evidence presented by the Trolls -Glen Homeowners'
Association is proof that the intent was to dedicate the dock to
four (4) boats. The Homeowners' Association took clear and
convincing actions which resulted in a legal nonconformity, the use
of which is (4) boats.
Furthermore, there is evidence that four boats were docked on
the Trolls-Glen Glen beachlot. Two boats were docked at the
6 1
1
Association's dock, and two boats were docked on a neighbors dock
which was located on the Trolls -Glen beachlot. It is irrelevant
that the neighbor was a trespasser on the Trolls -Glen beachlot as
it is the manner of use of the beachlot that the City is regulating
and not the manner of ownership of the property. County of Fayette
v. Cossell, 430 A2d 1226, 1228 (Penn. 1981); Skokie v. Almendinger
126 NE2d 421, 424 (Ill. 1955).
In County of Pine and Application of Cent., the state sought
a restrictive interpretation of the terms of the ordinances. It is
not the City Council, in this case, which is fighting for a
restrictive interpretation of Ordinance No. 163. The City Council,
in Merz, seeks an interpretation of the terms "as it existed" which
would include uses both active and passive. "And those Minutes [of
the Homeowners Association meeting] stated 4 boats and it pre -dated
our ordinance so ... If it pre -dated our ordinance, then it was 4
boats whether they had 4 out there physically or not." (Exhibit
A7, at 18). As it was the City Council that drafted Ordinance No.
163, deference should be given to the Council's interpretation of
the underlying policy involved in determining a "nonconforming use
as it existed ". Impecoven v. Department of Revenue, 841 P2d 752
' (wash. 1992). This is especially true when that interpretation
.favors the property owners who are seeking the permit. (see
infra) .
The guidelines on ordinance interpretation set up by Franks
• and Lowrv's, -,support this liberal construction of Ordinance No.
163. The Courts generally strive to construe a term according to
its plain and ordinary meaning. Franks, at 608. In County of Pine,
the Court specifically referred to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
when contemplating the ordinary meaning of "preexisting ". Thus, in
' determining the "plain and ordinary meaning" of words or terms in
an ordinance, the policy and language of the specific ordinance
must be taken into account. This comports with the Frank's and
Lowry rulings on ordinance interpretation. The underlying policy,
as stated by the Chanhassen City Council, for Ordinance No. 163, is
not restricted to actual use. "Whether it's documented by aerial
photographs or memory or covenants or other..." (Exhibit A3, at
3). The Council obviously intended to take into account "covenants
or other" evidence when determining the nature of the use "as it
existed ". Thus, the plain and ordinary meaning of a nonconforming
use "as it existed ", under Ordinance No. 163, is not limited to
actual use.
Zoning ordinances should be strictly construed against the
city and in favor of the property owner. Frank's, at 608.
Petitioners claim that Ordinance No. 163 does not stipulate
for "intended" uses. In fact, Ordinance No. 163 does not stipulate
for any specific uses, except that the use be a legal
nonconformity. "We must give weight to the interpretation that,
while still within the confines of the term, is least restrictive
upon the rights of the property owner to use his land as he
' wishes." Frank's, at 608. Strictly construed against the City,
the interpretation of the use "as it existed" must be inclusive
7
1
1
rather than exclusive. As the use "as it existed" is not defined, 1
it must include all definitions which would fall within the
confines of the term "legal nonconforming use" as taken from the
language and policy of Ordinance No. 163. This inclusive
interpretation of "as it existed ", preserves the rights of the
property owners. Therefore, the City Council was free to look
beyond a physical and active use.
A zoning ordinance must always be considered in light of its
underlying policy. Lowry, at 558. In Lowry, the plaintiff sought
an injunction compelling the City to revoke a building permit. In
reversing the lower court decision against the plaintiff, the
Supreme Court looked to both the policy and language of the
ordinance.
The intent of Ordinance No. 163 "is to prevent the expansion
of nonconforming recreational beachlots by establishing a baseline
documenting the allowed use of each legal nonconforming
recreational beachlot." (Exhibit A2). The underlying policy of
the City Council goes beyond the simple statement of intent. As
taken from the transcript of the City Council Meeting of February
24, 1992, debating Ordinance No. 163:
Councilman Workman: And when we got to that point ... what we
have is a system that could become political in a sense. If
in fact we don't know what was there precisely in 1982. It
then becomes a matter of our judgment as to what was there and
what wasn't there. Whether it's documented by aerial
photographs or memory or covenants or other ... (Exhibit A3,
at 3, emphasis added).
Councilman Workman: Well I guess you know, I looked at both
1982 and the 1991 and there are an awful lot of beachlots that
are pretty much in compliance and have been and so you're
going to punish one side or the other in a sense and it is
difficult to tell the people who are in compliance that you '
know, you screwed up ... and it's going to be just as tough if
we have to tell somebody the has more than they're supposed to
have that you can't. ...
Councilman Wing: I think a key word Tom is...saying
cooperation and that's the real key issue for staff here. I
certainly intend to give the benefit of the doubt where
necessary. (Exhibit A3, at 5).
"[T]he policy as well as the letter of a statute (and that
includes an ordinance) is a guide to the construction thereof, and
the process fails of its true function if a literal reading results
in emasculation of deletion of a provision which a less literal
reading would preserve." Lowry, at 558. A strict interpretation
of the term "as it existed" would render the underlying policy of
Ordinance No. 163 impotent. It was obviously the intent of the
City Council to compromise and cooperate with the any beachlot 1
homeowners in determining the beachlot use "as it existed on or
8 1
1
before January 18, 1982 ".
Therefore, in this case, it is the view of this Court, that .
the interpretation of the term "as it existed" does include the
intent to dock four (4) boats on the Trolls -Glen beachlot. A more
literal interpretation of "as it existed" would frustrate the
underlying policy of Ordinance No. 163 and be unduly restrictive
upon the rights of the property owners.
The standard of review in all zoning matters (legislative and
quasi- judicial) is whether the City's action was reasonable or
whether the City's action was arbitrary and capricious. Honn v.
City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 417 (Minn 1981); White Bear
Dockinct v. City of White Bear Lake, 324 N.W.2d 174, 176 (Minn.
• 1982) ; and VanLandschoot v. City of Mendota Heights, 336 N.W.2 503,
508 (Minn. 1983). We examine the City's action to see if it does
not have "the slightest validity" or bearing on the general welfare
of the immediate area, or whether the reasons given by the body
were sufficient and had a factual basis. Vanlandschoot at 508.
Given the interpretation of Ordinance No. 163 by this court, the
City Council did have satisfactory proof that the "use" of Trolls-
' Glen beachlot, "as it existed on or before January 18, 1982 ", was'
four boats. The Trolls -Glen Homeowners' Association presented
evidence that when the Trolls -Glen subdivision was approved by the
' City of Chanhassen, "the Declarations of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions, warranted that each property owner in the subdivision
had boat mooring rights." (Exhibit C1). Further, the Homeowners'
' Association provided proof that in a 1981 Homeowners' Meeting, they
stipulated the building of a dock and dock privileges "for a
maximum of 4 boat moorings ". (Exhibit C13) The Trolls -Glen
Homeowners' Association also presented evidence that a neighbor had
moored two boats on the Trolls -Glen beach lot prior to the 198'2
baseline. (Exhibit Cl, at 1). Acting upon satisfactory proof, and
their concerns for the public health and safety, the City Council
reasonably granted the nonconforming use permit for the Trolls -Glen
beachlot, for four (4) boats.
67
•
1
1
9
1
CHANHASSEN H.R.A. A C C O U N T S P A Y A B L E 07 -12 -93 PAGE 1
CHECK # A M O U N T C L A I M A N T P U R P O S E
4
048342 4,940.00 TECH. INDUS. SALES INC SPL ASSESSMENT PAYMENTS
048359 32,809.00 ROBERT'S AUTOMATIC SPL ASSESSMENT PAYMENTS
048360 37,984.00 COUNTY 17 CHANHASSEN SPL ASSESSMENT PAYMENTS
048395 1,053.37 MANKATO STATE UNIVERSITY TRAVEL & TRAINING
048400 427.32 MANKATO STATE UNIVERSITY TRAVEL & TRAINING
5 77,213.69 NECESSARY EXPENDITURES SINCE LAST COUNCIL MEETING
11111 E - - -- In r NMI 11111 MS in - - • MN r - w�
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1
CHANHASSEN H.R.A. A C C O U N T S P A Y A B L E 07 -12 -93 PAGE 2
CHECK # A M O U N T C L A I M A N T P U R P O S E
051921 28.98 CITY OF CHANHASSEN UTILITIES
051922 15.00 TODD GERHARDT TRAVEL & TRAINING
051923 3,939.79 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP FEES, SERVICE
051924 1,291.50 HOLMES & GRAVEN FEES, LEGAL
051925 100.00 NAHRO SUBSCRIPT. & MEMBERSHIPS
5 5,375.27 CHECKS WRITTEN
TOTAL OF 10 CHECKS TOTAL 82,588.96
1
,-.09;‘,..s 1
r,
6:e
. ; �/ / ,
�'
M / 1
f
"� 1
`. � i� -cam
_ - 1 / - 4._ /37.:..dt. x. �" �%" � /�
/ �� -1
Lr ;<�. a � j , ._ ` / <.- v "/"..),,c,
4 1-
1
r
e7/7; l� 49e
1
1
O ords can't express
hove much your thoughtfulness 1
is appreciated.
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
fr,
1 4 9 1 , Minnesota Pollution
%oo• Control Agency
1 Dear
We are pleased to send you the enclosed material. This
informal way of responding to your request saves us the
time and expense of preparing a formal letter. Thank
you for your interest, and please contact us if we can
help you further.
1 P /ease call me CCU 723
or 1),44 Wells (ZQ6 -6062) ( f
1 m4 Awe 4 t41es -rio f s,
r r �
i � •
4,;ra s t r- K de
1
1
1
1
1 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155
(612) 296 -6300 Toll-free 1- 800 - 652 -9747
Northwest Regional Office North Central Northeast Regional Office
Lake Avenue Plea Regional Office Duluth Government Service
714 Lake Avenue 1601 Minnesota Saes Center *704
Sults 220 Brak»rd, MN 56401 920 West Second Street
['stroll Lakes, MN 56501 (218) 628 2402 Dukrth, MN 55802
(218) 847 -1519 (218) 723 -4660
' Souhwrat Regional Oftce Southeast Regional Office South Fifth Sleet 2116 Campus Drive Southeast Marshall, MN 56258 Rochester, MN 55904
(507) 537.7146 (507) 285 -7343
Printed an recycled paper
1
1
4 Official hie �.oPf� ;
i* - ,r ct - ■ ■
fig Y - = ota Pollution Control A e nd
g
Minnesota g Y
1
RP:EcV;'
A
II
pril 12, 1993
. 1q ; <
Mr. Thomas Zwiers
II
President
Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc. II 1111 Deuce Road
Elko, Minnesota 55022
Dear Mr. Zwiers: 1
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff would like to thank Jerry
Rypkema of G & T Trucking Co. for taking the time to tour your Moon Valley
facility with Jim Strudell and Dan Wells on March 25, 1993. Based on this visit
II
and our review of your National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit application for Moon Valley submitted in January, we have determined that
an individual NPDES permit is not now required for this facility. That means
II
that the Moon Valley facility will be covered by the HPCA general industrial
storm water discharge permit. We are enclosing a copy of this general permit,
annual certification forms required by this permit, and a fact sheet to assist
II
you in understanding the permit requirements. This letter serves as an official
notification -of coverage under the enclosed general permit.
You will notice that the permit requires certain actions to be completed within
II
specific time frames. All of the time frames refer to the permit issuance date
which, for the purposes of this permit, is the date of this letter.
After reading the permit, the first question you may have is, "Where can I get II
additional information in order to develop the pollution prevention plan ?" The
enclosed fact sheet and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency publication,
"Developing Pollution Prevention Plans And Best Management Practices," may help II
to answer this question. The primary goal of the pollution prevention plan is
to eliminate and manage the contact between stored, handled, or spilled II materials and storm water. This goal can be accomplished through a variety of
best management practices.
We commend the company for the recent steps taken at Moon Valley to help
II
stabilize slopes, control erosion, and construct permeable infiltration basins
to handle mine runoff. These management practices have helped to control storm
water at the facility. The MPCA staff believes, however, that further II improvements can be made. In particular we refer you and your consulting
engineer to some of the management practices described in the 1989 MPCA
publication, "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas." Ve strongly recommend
that you consider implementing a combination of the following practices outlined II
in this publication as part of your storm water pollution prevention plan:
Temporary Sediment Traps (chapter 6.2), Riprap (ch. 6.18), Temporary and
Permanent Seeding (chs. 6.20, 6.21), Sodding (ch. 6.22), and Mulching
(ch. 6.23). II
520 Lafayette Rd ; St. Paul, MN 55155 -4194; (612) 296 -6300; Regional Offices: Duluth • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Marshall • Rochester
y Equal Opportunity Employer • Printed on Recycled Pacer
I/
1
Mr. Thomas Zwiers
Page 2
Please note that we intend to monitor the Moon Valley facility to ensure that
' storm water controls at the facility are implemented. We will probably conduct
unannounced inspections of the mine from time to time to observe storm water
control effectiveness. If conditions at the facility result in greater sediment
runoff toward Rice Lake, we may determine that an individual NPDES permit will
then be required. Also please understand that a wash water or pit dewatering
discharge toward Rice Lake would need to be authorized by an individual NPDES
1 permit from the MPCA.
If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact
Dan Wells at (612) 296 -6062, TDD (612) 297 -5353, Greater Minnesota TDD
1- 800 - 627 -3529.
Sincerely,
/ s2 W
Douglas A. Hall
Supervisor, Permits Unit
Industrial Section
Water Quality Division
DAH:ls
Enclosures
cc: Richard W. Sathre, Sathre- Bergquist, Inc.
Paul Krauss, Chanhassen Planning Director
Eden Prairie Planning Department
Carver County Environmental Services
' Carver Soil & Water Conservation District
Lower Minnesota River Watershed District
Minnesota River Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Mick Weburg, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Ceil Strauss, DNR- Waters
Roger Johnson, DNR- Wildlife
1
1
1
1
1
Page 1 of 13
Permit No: MN G610000
GENERAL PERMIT
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE STORM WATER 1
ASSOCIATED WITH INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY
UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM/ 1
STATE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT PROGRAM
This permit satisfies the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq; hereinafter, the "Act "), 40 CFR 122, 123, and 124, as II
amended, et. seq.; Minn. Stat. chs. 115 and 116, as amended, and Minn. Rules ch.
7001.
A facility engaged in industrial activity, and meeting the terms and conditions 1
of this permit, is permitted to discharge storm water to the waters of the
state.
This permit shall become effective on the date of issuance, and shall expire at 1
midnight, five years from the date of issuance.
1
Issuance Date: September 30, 1992 Timothy .cherkenbach
Division _ ager
Water Qua ty Division
For Charles W. Williams
Commissioner
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
1
1
1
1
1
II
Page 2 of 13
Permit No: MN G610000
II
1 Table of Contents
1 Page
PART I REQUIREMENTS
A. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 3
II B. Annual Reports 3
1 PART II STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
A. Requirements 5
B. Review 7
II C. Extension of deadlines 7
II PART III PROVISIONS
A. Applicability Criteria 8
II B. MPCA Address
8
C. Response g
D. Records - 9
E. Prohibition 9
I
F. Definitions 9
II PART IV RESPONSIBILITIES
A. Transfer Ownership or Control 11
II B. Permit Modification 11
C. Right of Entry 11
D. Civil and Criminal Liability 12
E. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability 12
II F. Liability Exemption 12
G. Minnesota Laws 12
H. Property Rights 12
I I. Severability 12
J. NPDES /SDS Rule 12
K. Other Statutes, Rules and Ordinances 13
1 L. More Stringent Rules 13
M. Agency Obligation 13
N. Permit Reapplication 13
II
1
1
II
Page 3 of 13
Permit No: MN G610000
II
PART I
REQUIREMENTS II
A. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
II
1) The Permittee shall develop, implement, and manage a storm water
pollution prevention plan as required in PART II of this permit.
II
2) The storm water pollution prevention plan must be completed within 12
months (1 year) after the issuance date of this permit unless the
Permittee is notified, in writing, by the Commissioner that a later
I
deadline is applicable.
3) The Permittee must certify completion of the storm water pollution II prevention plan development within 12 months (1 year) after the
issuance date of this permit unless the permittee is notified, in
writing, by the Commissioner that a later deadline is applicable. II 4) All non - structural type best management practices applicable to the
facility site must be implemented within 18 months (1 1/2 years) after
the issuance date of this permit unless the permittee is notified, in II writing, by the Commissioner that a later deadline is applicable.
5) All structural -type best management practices applicable to the II facility site must be implemented within 24 months (2 years) after the
issuance date of this permit unless the permittee is notified, in
writing, by the Commissioner that a later deadline is applicable.
6) The Permittee must certify implementation of the storm water pollution II
prevention plan that all non - structural and structural type best
management practices of the plan have been implemented within 24
months (2 years) after the issuance date of this permit unless the II
permittee is notified, in writing, by the Commissioner that a later
deadline is applicable.
II
7) If the storm water pollution prevention plan is not completed or
implemented, or if the Commissioner does not receive the
above - mentioned certificates, the permittee is in violation of the
II
permit.
B. ANNUAL REPORTS
II
The Permittee shall submit two annual reports to the Commissioner. The
first annual report shall be submitted within 12 months (1 year) after the
I
issuance date of this permit unless the permittee is notified, in writing,
by the Commissioner that a later deadline is applicable. The second annual
report shall be submitted within 24 months (2 years) after the issuance
date of this permit unless the permittee is notified, in writing, by the
II
Commissioner that a later deadline is applicable.
1) The First Annual Report shall consist of the following:
II
a. A brief summary of the storm water pollution prevention plan.
II
PART I
Page 4 of 13
Permit No: MN G610000
PART I.B.1 continued
b. Certification that the pollution prevention plan has been
' completed. (See Part I.A.3)
c. List any spills or known contamination of storm water from
' significant materials and corrective action taken to prevent
future spills, or contamination of storm water.
d. Description of inspections: date of inspections, findings of
1 inspections, and corrective actions taken.
2) The Second Annual Report shall consist of the following:
1 a. Certification of the implementation of all non - structural type,
and structural type best management practices at the facility
site. (See Part I.A.6)
' b. List any spills or known contamination of storm water from
significant materials and corrective action taken to prevent
1 future spills or contamination of storm water.
c. Description of inspections: date of inspections, findings of
inspections, and corrective actions taken.
d. Describe any updates, amendments, or additions to the storm water
pollution prevention plan.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Page 5 of 13
Permit No: MN G610000
PART II
STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
A. REQUIREMENTS
1) A storm water pollution prevention plan (plan) shall be developed for
the facility site covered by this permit. The plan shall remain on
site and is not to be submitted to the Agency unless specifically
requested.
2) The plan shall identify potential sources of pollutants which may
affect the quality of storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from the facility. In addition, measures designed
to control erosion shall be implemented by the Permittee, if
appropriate to the Permittee's site.
3) The plan shall describe and implement practices which reduce
pollutants in storm water discharges associated with industrial
activity at the facility.
4) The plan must certify that discharges from the site have been
evaluated for the presence of non -storm water discharges. This
certification must certify that no non -storm water discharges from the
site exist not covered by an NPDES permit.
5) The storm water pollution prevention plan shall contain, at a minimum,
the following:
a) Site map(s) - identifying the following items:
facility structures,
significant materials storage areas,
discharge outfalls,
direction of storm water run off,
identification and /or location of receiving waters,
drainage areas,
topographic and geographic characteristics,
vegetation and soil characteristics,
impervious surface area,
township range, or latitude and longitude
b) Description of potential pollutants - A list and description of
potential sources of pollution which includes significant
materials stored, handled, managed, processed, fabricated,
manufactured, transported, or transferred at the facility site.
This list shall include an inventory of exposed significant
materials with the location, description, and a description of
structural and non - structural control measures used to reduce
pollution in a storm water discharge.
r
1
PART II
Page 6 of 13
Permit No: MN G610000
' PART II.A.5 continued
c) Best Management Practices (BMP) - Identify and describe
management practices that minimize, or eliminate, the impact of
' potential pollutants in storm water. The facility shall use
structural BMPs or non - structural BMPs in the storm water
pollution prevention plan.
' The facility shall document the methodology on how specific BMPs
were selected to meet the requirements of this permit. Any BMP
' selected for implementation in the storm water pollution
prevention plan must conform to good engineering practices.
The following BMPs shall be considered for development and
' implementation in a facility's storm water pollution prevention
plan:
' 1) Source reduction - preventative maintenance, spill
prevention and response procedures, chemical substitution,
materials management practices, employee training
' 2) Containment /Diversion - segregating, separating, covering,
berming, diverting flow, dust control
3) Treatment - oil /water separator, storm water detention pond,
recycling
Specific BMPs for storm water pollution prevention shall be
designed to eliminate or reduce the amount of pollutants specific
to a particular site.
' d) Management and Response Procedures - identify personnel
responsible for managing the storm water pollution prevention
plan, implementation, and reporting requirements. Personnel
' responsible for managing the plan must be available at reasonable
times of operation. Contingencies shall be provided so that
unanticipated absences do not prevent adequate management of the
' plan.
e) Management procedures of the plan shall include
inspections at least once every six months by the Permittee.
Inspections shall be conducted by qualified personnel at the
facility site.
' The inspections shall be conducted for the purpose of determining
the maintenance of structural and non structural BMPs.
Inspections shall be conducted after a significant storm event,
and identify any necessary changes to assure adherence to the
pollution prevention plan.
f) If the Permittee discharges storm water into a municipal storm
sewer, the Permittee shall notify the operator of the municipal
storm sewer of the existence of this permit.
f
PART II
Page 7 of 13
Permit No: MN G610000
1
B. REVIEW
The storm water pollution prevention plan shall be reviewed at least once 1
annually, and revised whenever there is a change in materials or materials
management practices which may discharge pollutants in storm water. The
plan shall be revised when the Permittee determines that the plan is not
controlling the discharge of pollutants in storm water.
The Commissioner may request revisions in the storm water pollution
prevention plan. Within 90 days of initial notification by the
Commissioner, unless an alternative deadline is specified, the Permittee
shall verify that all revisions have been made.
C. EXTENSION OF DEADLINES
A Permittee may request an extension for implementation of the storm water
pollution prevention plan requirements in writing to the Commissioner
within 12 months (1 year) after the issuance date of this permit. After
review of the extension request the Commissioner may, in writing, approve
or disapprove the extension request.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
Page 8 of 13
Permit No: MN G610000
PART III
PROVISIONS
A. APPLICABILITY CRITERIA
1) This permit covers storm water discharges associated with industrial
activity in all areas of the state of Minnesota.
2) This is a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System /State
Disposal System general permit.
3) This permit is for storm water discharges associated with industrial
activity, except storm water discharges from construction activities,
' classified as industrial activity under 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(i)
through (ix) and (xi).
' 4) If the Commissioner determines that storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity, or other activities, are contributing to a
violation of a water quality standard, the Commissioner may require a
Permittee to be covered by an individual storm water discharge permit.
The Commissioner may require a Permittee to develop and implement
specific best management practices.
' 5) If the Commissioner finds that operations, emissions, activities,
discharges, or facilities of a permittee covered by a general permit
would be more appropriately controlled by an individual permit, the
' Commissioner may require the permittee to have an individual permit.
Upon issuance of an individual permit this general permit would no
longer apply.
' 6) A permit applicant, or permittee, may request an individual permit.
B. MPCA ADDRESS
' Submit all forms, correspondence, reports, etc. to the following address:
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Water Quality Division
Attn: Industrial Storm Water Coordinator
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 -4194
C. RESPONSE
' The permittee shall respond to agency requests for submittal of storm water
pollution prevention plans, certificates, reports, records, or other
' information required by this permit. Upon request, the Permittee shall
provide a copy of the storm water pollution prevention plan to the
Permittee's respective municipal storm sewer operator.
II
PART III
Page 9 of 13
Permit No: MN G610000
II
D. RECORDS 11
The storm water pollution prevention plan shall be retained for the II
duration of the permit.
A copy of the storm water pollution prevention plan shall remain on the
permitted site at all times and be available upon request. The Permittee
shall maintain the following records for a minimum of three years:
1) Date of inspection
II
2) Findings of inspections
3) Corrective actions taken 1
4) Documentation of all changes to the storm water pollution prevention II plan
5) Methodology for determining planned and implemented best management
practices in the storm water pollution prevention plan
II
E. PROHIBITION
1) All discharges of stormwater associated with industrial activity shall II
be composed entirely of stormwater. Discharges of any material other
than stormwater are prohibited by this permit.
2) A discharge containing a hazardous substance in an amount equal to or II
in excess of the reporting quantity established under either 40 CFR
117 or 40 CFR 302 shall be reported to the Minnesota Pollution Control II
Agency.
3) This permit does not authorize the discharge of hazardous substances
or oil resulting from an on -site spill.
4) This permit does not authorize the discharge of non -storm water
discharge, through a storm sewer conveyance system, or any other
conveyance system.
F. DEFINITIONS
II
All definitions not specifically identified in this section are defined in
Minn. Stat. chs. 115 and 116, or Minn. Rules chs. 7001, 7002, 7050, or 40
CFR.
II
1) "Act" means the Clean Water Act (formerly the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act), United States Code, title 33, sections 1251 et seq., as II
amended.
2) "Agency" means the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. '
II
PART III
Page 10 of 13
Permit No: MN G610000
' Part III.F. continued
3) "Best Management Practices" (BMP) means practices to prevent or reduce
the pollution of the waters of the state, including schedules of
activities, prohibitions or practices, and other management practice,
and also includes treatment requirements, operating procedures and
practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge, or
' waste disposal or drainage from material storage, as defined in Minn.
Rules pt. 7001.1020, subp. 5.
' 4) "Commissioner" means the Commissioner, or other Agency staff as
authorized by the Commissioner, of the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency.
1 5) "Discharge" means the conveyance, channeling, runoff, snow melt, or
drainage, of storm water from a site.
' 6) "Non -storm water discharge" means any discharge not comprised entirely
of storm water except discharges pursuant to a NPDES permit.
' 7) "NPDES" means "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System" means
the program for issuing, modifying, revoking, reissuing, terminating,
monitoring and enforcing permits and imposing and enforcing
pretreatment requirements under sections 307, 318, 402, and 405 of the
CWA, United States Code, title 33, sections 1317, 1328, 1342, and
1345.
8) "Permit" means a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System /State
Disposal System permit.
' 9) "Pollutant, Toxic Pollutant, Other Wastes, Point Source, Disposal
System, Waters of the State," and other Terms for the purpose of this
permit are defined in Section 502 of the Act and Minn. Stat. § 115.01
as amended and Minn. Rules ch. 7001.
' 10) "Significant Materials" means raw materials; fuels; materials such as
solvents, detergents, and plastic pellets; finished materials such as
' metallic products; raw materials used in food processing or
production; hazardous substances designated under section 101(14) of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
' Act (CERCLA); any chemical the facility is required to report pursuant
to section 313 of title III of SARA; fertilizers; pesticides; and
waste products such as ashes, slag and sludge.
11) "Storm water" means precipitation run off, storm water run off, snow
melt runoff, and surface runoff and drainage, as defined in 40 CFR,
part 122.26 (b) (13).
12) "Storm water discharge associated with industrial activity" is defined
in CFR 40, part 122.26 (b) (14).
1
1
Page 11 of 13 II
Permit No: MN G610000
II
PART IV
II
RESPONSIBILITIES
A. TRANSFER OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL
II
No permit may be assigned or transferred by the holder without the approval
of the Commissioner. In the event of any changes in control or ownership II of the facilities, a request for Permit Transfer, signed by both parties
shall be sent to the Commissioner (Attn: Industrial Section, Water Quality
Division). Any succeeding owner or controller also shall comply with the II terms and conditions of this permit.
B. PERMIT MODIFICATION
After notice and opportunity for a hearing, this permit may be modified, II
suspended, or revoked in whole or in part during its term for cause
including, but not limited to, the following:
II
1. Violation of any terms of this permit;
2. Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose II
fully all relevant facts;
3. A change in any condition that requires either a temporary or II
permanent reduction or elimination of the authorized discharge; or
4. Minn. Rules pts. 7001.0170 and 7001.0180.
II
C. RIGHT OF ENTRY
The Permittee shall, pursuant to Section 308 of the Act and Minnesota II
Statutes 115.04, allow the Commissioner of the Agency, and authorized
representatives upon presentation of credentials:
1. To enter upon the Permittee's premises where a storm water discharge II
from an industrial facility or other portion thereof is located for
the purpose of obtaining information, examination of records, II conducting surveys or investigations;
2. To bring such equipment upon the Permittee's premises as is necessary
to conduct such surveys and investigations;
II
3. To examine and copy any books, papers, records, or memoranda
pertaining to the storm water discharge.
II
4. To sample and monitor any substances or parameters at any location.
II
II
II
II
PART IV
II Page 12 of 13
Permit No: MN G610000
II
D. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY
II Nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the Permittee from
civil or criminal penalties for non - compliance with the terms and
I conditions provided herein.
E. OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LIABILITY
I Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the installation of
any legal action or relieve the Permittee from any responsibilities,
liabilities, or penalties to which the Permittee is or may be subject to
II under Section 311 or the Act and Minn. Stat. chs. 115 and 116, as amended.
F. LIABILITY EXEMPTION
II This permit authorizes the Permittee to perform the activities described
herein within the conditions set forth. In issuing this permit, the
State /Agency assumes no responsibility for any damage to persons, property
I or the environment caused by the activities authorized or undertaken
pursuant to this permit. To the extent the state /agency may have any
liability for the activities of its employees, that liability is explicitly
II limited to that provided in the Torts Claim Act, Minn. Stat. § 3.736.
G. MINNESOTA LAWS
II Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the installation of
any legal or administrative proceedings or relieve the Permittee from any
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties for violation of effluent and
II water quality limitations not included in this permit or applicable laws or
regulations.
II H. PROPERTY RIGHTS
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in either
real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it
II authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal
rights, nor any infringement of federal, state, or local laws or
regulations.
II I. SEVERABILITY
I The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provisions of this
permit, or the application of any provision of this permit to any
circumstances, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other
circumstances, and the remainder of this permit shall not be affected
II thereby.
J. NPDES /SDS RULE
II The Permittee shall comply with the provisions of Minn. Rules pts.
7001.0150, subp. 3 and 7001.1090, subp. 1.A,B,C,H,I. This permit does not
II require the submittal of a data monitoring report.
1
PART IV
Page 13 of 13
Permit No: MN G610000
II
1
K. OTHER STATUTES, RULES AND ORDINANCES
The Agency's issuance of a permit does not release the Permittee from any II
liability, penalty or duty imposed by Minnesota or Federal statutes or
local ordinances, except the obligation to obtain the permit.
II
L. MORE STRINGENT RULES
The Agency's issuance of a permit does not prevent the future adoption by
II
the agency of pollution control rules, standards, or orders more stringent
than those now in existence and does not prevent the enforcement of these
rules, standards or orders against the Permittee. 1
M. AGENCY OBLIGATION
The Agency's issuance of a permit does not obligate the agency to enforce
II
local laws, rules or plans beyond that authorized by Minnesota Statutes.
N. PERMIT REAPPLICATION 1
This permit and its authorization shall expire at midnight, five years from
the date of issuance. In order to receive authorization to discharge storm
water beyond the expiration date, the Permittee shall reapply to the Agency
no later than 180 days prior to expiration.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
e e e„ ii
SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION COALITION /
470 Pillsbury Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337 -9300
July 9, 1993
DELIVERED BY MESSENGER
Ms. Sally Evert, Chair
and Members of the Transportation
Advisory Board
1 c/o Metropolitan Council
Mears Park Centre
230 East Fifth Street
' St. Paul, MN 55101
RE: Amendment of MN Department of Transportation
' Transportation Improvement Program ( "TIP ") to include design
of and right -of -way acquisition for New U.S. Highway 212
' Dear Ms. Evert and Members of the Transportation Advisory Board
( "TAB "):
' The purpose of this letter is to request that the TAB amend the TIP
to permit design of and right -of -way acquisition for New U.S. Trunk
Highway 212 between I -494 in Eden Prairie and Cologne. I am
advised by James Povich, Assistant Division Engineer for Planning
and Programming, Metropolitan Division, MNDot, that he and MNDot
support this amendment.
' Congress has previously appropriated $10.4 million in federal
demonstration grants for the project which arguably can only be
spent on the project if the project is in the TIP.
1 The final EIS for the project will be official within the next 30
days. The proposed final form of the EIS has been distributed and
awaits adoption of the record of decision.
A significant amount of right -of -way for this project will have
been acquired by the cities by the end of 1993.
' Amending the TIP to include the design of and right -of -way
acquisition for a new TH 212 between I -494 and Cologne will:
t - Enable $10.4 million in previously appropriated federal
demonstration grant funds to be used on a project for which
the Final EIS has been approved,
' and advance the status of a highway that will:
1
1
Ms. Sally Evert
July 9, 1993
Page 2
1
- Provide a 4 -lane and 6 -lane limited access expressway for farm
to market shipments between the rural southwestern quadrant of
Minnesota and South Dakota and the seven- county
Minneapolis -St. Paul area.
- Reduce traffic loads on currently unsafe segments of existing 1
TH 212 and TH 5. Existing TH 212 currently has 32 violations
of federal aid highway standards.
Facilitate movements of people between the same area of rural
Minnesota and South Dakota and the commercial, entertainment
and shopping magnets of the Minneapolis -St. Paul area. 1
- Prevent or minimize conflict between through traffic and local
traffic.
- Reduce congestion on TH 212 and TH 5. Between 1980 and 1988,
traffic on existing TH 212 increased by 35 %.
- Increase energy efficiency by reducing traffic delays and 1
promoting use of rapid transit.
- Promote increased use of an already well- organized commuter 1
transit system.
- Promote development and increased use of an already existing 1
effort to provide transit for inner -city workers to jobs
within the Corridor ( "Reverse Commute ").
- Promote and enhance existing public - private partnerships 1
- among local units of government
- by coalitions of local public bodies and private
businesses
- between local, regional, state and federal governments
- Is consistent with regional planning and growth strategies and
policies.
- Is supported by all affected units of local government. The 1
corridor for new TH 212 was officially mapped by the cities of
Eden Prairie, Chanhassen and Chaska and Carver County in 1989.
This project has been proposed since the 1940s. It is different
from most metropolitan area highways because it is necessary to
promote and permit through movement of traffic from other regions 1
of the state. The objective of local communities in supporting
this project is not to promote economic development and population
1
1
)
1 Ms. Sally Evert
July 9, 1993
Page 3
1
growth. Indeed, the City of Chaska's mission is to be "the best
small town in Minnesota ". To the contrary, we wish to relieve our
existing highways of heavy truck and other traffic in order to
permit existing roads (existing U.S. Highway 212 and T.H. 5) to be
' less congested for local use. This project is unique because it
has a strong consensus of local support and its promoters include
people and units of government from both within and outside the
Metropolitan area. It is a farm -to market road. The Southwest
quadrant of Minnesota, from T.H. 169 to I -94, is the only area of
the state not presently served by a four lane freeway to the Twin
Cities.
Thank you for your consideration and support.
Ver tru y your
' t
Robert J. Li •- 1'
Coalition President, Chaska City Council
Member and former Transportation
1 Advisory Board Member
RJL:dh
' cc: Charles Siggerud, Division Engineer, Metropolitan District,
MNDot
James Povich
Coalition Board Members
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
07 -12 -1993 14:26 44, P.01
Cie 11, tit' - A',4 r/ 2/.:i i_, i
o emaso tc Minnesota Department of Transportation J UL
Metropolitan Division X993 1
Waters Edge Building
1500 West County Road B2
roF Tv Roseville, Minnesota 55113
1
Reply to Roseville
Telephone No. , 582 - 1303 1
July 7, 1993
Poshlt M brand fax transmittal memo 7671 riot PIM ■ A.
Mr. Roger Gustafson ► • ' " ' 1
County Engineer ig
Carver County - Courthouse - '
6 4th St. East - -
Chaska MN 55318
1
S.P. 1017.06, -07 & 2762 -08 TH 212
From: Cologne To: 1-494
In Carver and Hennepin Counties
Southwest Corridor Public Information Sessions 1
•
Dear Roger: 1
Mn /DOT will hold informal Public Information Sessions on the proposed TH 212 project 1
as per the attached schedule. Graphics showing the residential noise impacts due to
new TH 212 and proposed noise barriers will be displayed. Mn /DOT staff and our
consultant will be available to answer questions. 1
Mn /DOT will make a New Release in regard to the meetings and the County should make
any individual notices that you feel are necessary,
1
If you have any further questions, please feel free to call me.
1
Sincerely,
(9 V im/ 41.4.,---..,.
Evan R. Green
Project Manager
1
GO: C. Siggerud J. Hansen 1
R. Elasky R. Erickson
M. Splelmann 0. Lindberg
S. Klein L. Dallam - HNTB 1
Central Files
07 -12 -1993 14:27 P. 02
1 •
1
PUBLIC NOTICE OF
INFORMATION SESSIONS
ON PROPOSED NOISE ABATEMENT
FOR RESIDENCES AFFECTED BY
NEW TH 212 IN THE CITIES OF
CHASKA, CHANHASSEN & EDEN PRAIRIE
1
NOTIC5 IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Minnesota Department of Transportation will hold
informal Information sessions open to the public as follows:
Tuesday • July 20, 1993 from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm in the City Council Chambers
at the Chanhassen City Hall, for residents of Chanhassen
Wednesday • July 21, 1993 from 6:00 to 8 :00 pm in the City Council Chambers
at the Eden Prairie City Hall, for residents of Eden Prairie
Thursday - July 22, 1993 from 8:00 to 8:00 pm in the Chaska Community Center
for residents of Chaska, Chaska Township and Dahlgren Township
Graphics showing the residential noise impacts due to new TH 212 and proposed noise
1 barriers will be displayed. Mn /DOT staff will be available to answer questions.
1
1
1
1
ee fit.,// _A/
1
July 13, 1993
1
Dear Mayor, Councilpersons, City Manager and Planning Staff: '
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you on behalf of myself and the
other residents of the Lake Lucy Road neighborhood for your conduct at the 1
Council meeting of July 12, 1993. We appreciate your support for our position,
but even more importantly, for.being able to sort through the rhetoric and
address the issue of the Nez Perce extension in the broader scope of what is '
ultimately best for the community as a whole.
I realize that last night was a very difficult environment in which to work towards 1
a good solution. The most positive aspect that I observed was your ability as a
group to make a decision, stand by it, and move on. Government which can not
make decisions and carry them out serves no one.
Thank you again for holding to your convictions on this issue. Your actions were
greatly appreciated.
Sincerely, 1
Terry Barck
960 Lake Lucy Road 1
cc: Mayor Chmiel
Councilman Wing
111
Councilman Mason
Councilwoman Dockendorf
Councilman Senn
Don Ashworth
Paul Krauss
RECEIVED
JUL 14 1993 '
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
1
1 Minnegasco' - n -
A Division of Arkla, Inc. Cie P`c i
I F1.
July 12, 1993
1 9 // at/i 4)
1 7e
i S 7:4•
Mr. Donald Ashworth
Manager
City of Chanhassen
PO BOX 147
' Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. Ashworth
' Enclosed is a rebate check for $50 in keeping with Minnegasco's announced program to help
g g P g P
encourage and support attendance at last month's League of Minnesota Cities conference.
' Our thanks to ou for having a community representative stop by Minnegasco's exhibit g y p p y g s e lublt booth.
1 We had a large number of officials from our service area communities visit us.
Please call me at Minnegasco if there is any way I can help.
' Sincerely,
Don Follett
' Local Government Relations
1 1
i
i
201 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
CITYOF
1
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1
1
July 14, 1993 1
Minnegasco
Mr. Don Follett, Local Government Relations
201 South 7th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Dear Mr. Follett:
We are in re.ceipt of your rebate check for $50.00 to suport atten-
dance at the annual League of Minnesota Cities Conference. Thank
you for your contribution and for your continuing support of local
government.
Very truly yours,
Tom Chaffee/
Finance Coordinator
1
1
1
1
1
n 1
ti of PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
A' C .
SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION COALITION
470 Pillsbury Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402 14,!: - _
II (612) 337 -9300 `J p
' July 13, 1993
Southwest Corridor Coalition
Board Members
RE: New T.H. 212
Enclosed is a table prepared by Roger Gustafson, Carver County
Engineer, illustrating new rumored bid letting dates which he
' received from MNDot staff on or about July 9, 1993. You will note
that Segment One has not changed from the June 10, 1993 schedule of
which we were advised by Jim Denn, MNDot Commissioner. However,
subsequent stages are delayed by the "rumored scheduled" by one and
' one -half to three years.
Also enclosed is a copy of a letter which I submitted on
' behalf of the Coalition to Sally Evert, Transportation Advisory
Board Chair, seeking amendment of MNDot's Transportation
Improvement Program for the years 1994 through 1996.
' Very ly s,
Robert J. Lindall
' RJL:dh
1
RJL55645
LN400-51
i
SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION COALITION
470 Pillsbury Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300
July 13, 1993
1
Southwest Corridor Coalition
Board Members
RE: New T.H. 212
Enclosed is a table prepared by Roger Gustafson, Carver County
Engineer, illustrating new rumored bid letting dates which he
received from MNDot staff on or about July 9, 1993. You will note
that Segment One has not changed from the June 10, 1993 schedule of
which we were advised by Jim Denn, MNDot Commissioner. However,
subsequent stages are delayed by the "rumored scheduled" by one and
one -half to three years.
Also enclosed is a copy of a letter which I submitted on
behalf of the Coalition to Sally Evert, Transportation Advisory
Board Chair, seeking amendment of MNDot's Transportation
Improvement Program for the years 1994 through 1996.
Very i •
Robert J. Lindall
RJL:dh 1
1
1
1
1
RJL55645
L11400-51
1
r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 rr
CHANHASSEN N . R . A . A C C O U N T S P A Y A B L E 07 -26-93 PAGE 1
CHECK I A M O U N T C L A I M A N T P U R P O S E
052083 11.27 DONALD ASHWORTH TRAVEL & TRAINING
052084 57.40 FESTIVAL FOODS TRAVEL & TRAINING
AND -SALES TAX ON PURCHASES
052085 5,053.12 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP FEES, SERVICE
052086 700.00 MN REAL ESTATE JOURNAL PROMOTIONAL EXPENSE
4 5,821.79 CHECKS WRITTEN